›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

John McCain

Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
edited June 2008 in Politics
Spin-off from the Barack Obama thread!
Talking Points:
  • He is too old.
  • He is out of touch.
  • He is a hypocrite.
Discuss.
NOTE: The talking points thing was just an interesting first post, in my opinion. You do not need to stick to those points!
«134567…34

Comments

  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    I think all of those talking points seem true.
    Also, as a non-American, I hope for the sake of the world that he doesn't get elected.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited June 2008
    Too old is enough reason for me. Read Sanctuary.

    McCain = Isaoka
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Too old - May be an asset depending on who he chooses as a VP. If it looks like he will not live through his term some may vote for him expecting the VP to take over at some point.

    He is out of touch - All politicians are out of touch to one degree or another. At least he does not try to hide that he is out of touch. Recognizing you have a problem is the first step in fixing it.

    He is a hypocrite - Like all politicians, he has taken both sides of some issues. Those who support him will say his views evolved while those who do not will call him a hypocrite. The odds on finding a politician who does not have a voting record with contradictions is between slim and none.

    * I'm not a McCain supporter, I'll be protesting by not voting for President this year.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    I do not take his candidacy seriously, so it would be difficult for me to discuss it seriously, but I will certainly try.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited June 2008
    * I'm not a McCain supporter, I'll be protesting by not voting for President this year.
    That's exactly the type of highly intelligent thing that I've come to expect from you.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KieyKiey
    I used to really like McCain. He was always great on the Daily Show as a guest, and he really used to talk straight (as it were.) But now it seems like he is just completely pandering, and its really rubbing me the wrong way. When I hear him talk now he doesn't sound like the old McCain at all.

    Although its not that I would have voted for the old McCain over Obama, but I think it certainly would have been a far better election season.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    Even if I don't agree:

    image
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited June 2008
    The rational behind not voting at all rather than voting for McCain is that if shit goes wrong I'd rather the entire government be in Democrat hands so they get the blame. Further we might see a new Newt arise with another Contract with America.

    Soon after the Republicans got the majority they became big government Republicans. I'd rather see the Republican party fall into chaos and emerge anew than see it continue as it is now.

    Also if the final vote totals show Obama doing just as well as Kerry did last time but McCain doing only half as well as Bush than it will show that it was not a tidal wave of Obama support that won him the presidency as much as a tidal wave of anti-McCain feelings among Republicans that cost him the election.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    So, with that attitude, why not vote for Obama?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited June 2008
    John McCain: Building a Bridge to the Nineteenth Century.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • LintonLinton
    Indeed your position doesn't stand up at all unless you vote for Obama. Obviously it seems hypocritical but elections realistically are about choosing which side you would prefer to be elected, because if you don't vote ''out of protest'' then it's more likely the party you would want to win...loses, obviously. I think it's foolish not to vote just because none of the sides truly ''represent you'' or something.

    Case in point: all these Clinton supporters threatening to vote McCain are retarded.
  • RymRym
    I think it's foolish not to vote just because none of the sides truly ''represent you'' or something.
    At the same time, voting for the lesser of two distasteful options lends legitimacy to the results. Were there no candidates in whom I believed, you can bet that I wouldn't be voting either.

    If my choices are Hitler or Stalin, I'm probably not going to vote for either of them.
  • RailithRailith
    I voted for Kodos.
  • AprecheApreche
    Even if you don't want to vote for one of the two with a chance of winning, you should still go to vote for the other elected positions. Just because you go into the voting booth, doesn't mean you have to pick someone in every column. Also, make sure there are no third parties that you might want to vote for. Sure, the chance of a third party candidate winning the US presidency is effectively nil, but voting for a third party you like can actually help them out a lot.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I will be voting in the non-Presidential columns. I thought this discussion was just about the Presidential race.
  • LintonLinton
    If my choices are Hitler or Stalin, I'm probably not going to vote for either of them.
    Taking the idea to the extreme, do you still not vote if you're a jew?
  • ZakoSoldierZakoSoldier
    If you don't like either of the two major parties you should at least look to see if there is a third party that you agree with. It's more than likely there is. It makes a political statement to some degree about how you feel about the state of government and politics.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    If my choices are Hitler or Stalin, I'm probably not going to vote for either of them.
    When has the U.S. ever had a choice as bad as this? More than a bit of hyperbole being used there. I have never known of a national campaign in which a voter couldn't back any of the candidates on a decent number of major issues unless that voter had extreme and unrealistic views. Have I ever seen an ideal candidate? No (not even Obama). But if you are waiting for an ideal candidate, you might as well be waiting for the rapture. Voting for the "best fit" is vastly different from "voting for the lesser of two evils".
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited June 2008
    What if the best fit choice is a choice between having your arm cut off at the shoulder or the elbow? Either way you still lose your hand. To me, a "best fit" candidate must match up with at least 75% of my ideas.

    I would much rather not vote for McCain or Obama (I could vote third party) to send the message that I can not support either of them.

    Picture this, it's the day after election night and all the results are in. Obama gets 100% of the votes Kerry got while McCain gets 50% of the votes Bush got. What does this tell you? It tells me that Obama won the election because McCain lost it. It also sends the message to the Republican party that their members are not happy.

    The media will spin it as a mandate for Obama because he would have gotten 66% of the vote to McCain's 34% but it is a false mandate.

    Now, let's say all those angry Republicans vote for Obama as a protest vote. Now Obama gets 125% of the vote Kerry got and McCain still gets the same 25%. Now it becomes a case of Obama having a clear mandate and McCain just being a loser.

    So no, I will not vote for the lesser of two evils.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    What if the best fit choice is a choice between having your arm cut off at the shoulder or the elbow? Either way you still lose your hand. To me, a "best fit" candidate must match up with at least 75% of my ideas.

    I would much rather not vote for McCain or Obama (I could vote third party) to send the message that I can not support either of them.

    Picture this, it's the day after election night and all the results are in. Obama gets 100% of the votes Kerry got while McCain gets 50% of the votes Bush got. What does this tell you? It tells me that Obama won the election because McCain lost it. It also sends the message to the Republican party that their members are not happy.

    The media will spin it as a mandate for Obama because he would have gotten 75% of the vote to McCain's 25% but it is a false mandate.

    Now, let's say all those angry Republicans vote for Obama as a protest vote. Now Obama gets 125% of the vote Kerry got and McCain still gets the same 25%. Now it becomes a case of Obama having a clear mandate and McCain just being a loser.

    So no, I will not vote for the lesser of two evils.
    Fewer people to negate Obama votes is fine with me. Also, I cannot believe that Romney fit 75% of your stances on issues. If so.... wow... just fucking wow.....
  • kumarhkkumarhk
    The first point is a minor one, really. He's in fine health.

    It's the next two that really bother me. Especially the third one. John McCain is the definition of hypocrite.

    If I hear the words "President McCain" in November, I shall lose all faith in the US.
  • ErwinErwin
    The only old enough to be awesome is The Phoenix
    Also:

    If you are offended, is the internetz!
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    McCain officially loses the geek vote.
  • N15PCAN15PCA
    * I'm not a McCain supporter, I'll be protesting by not voting for President this year.
    Would it matter to you if he pick a VP that better suited you on the issues.
  • TaselTasel
    It would have to be one hell of a VP to get my vote for McCain. However, I'm in sorta the same boat as HMTKSteve. I can't vote for the psudo-republican McCain (he was going to switch parties to be Kerry's VP for pete's sake), nor do I want to vote for Obama. I very well might end up not voting, or better yet, vote with a write in for "None of the Above" or something similar...
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    * I'm not a McCain supporter, I'll be protesting by not voting for President this year.
    Would it matter to you if he pick a VP that better suited you on the issues.
    Maybe.
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    The rational behind not voting at all rather than voting for McCain is that if shit goes wrong I'd rather the entire government be in Democrat hands so they get the blame.
    This is funny, since the neo-con republicans have had control for the last eight years and you seem to think that they somehow haven't screwed everything up.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The rational behind not voting at all rather than voting for McCain is that if shit goes wrong I'd rather the entire government be in Democrat hands so they get the blame.
    This is funny, since the neo-con republicans have had control for the last eight years and you seem to think that they somehow haven't screwed everything up.
    So Nancy Pelosi is a Neo-Con?
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited June 2008
    The rational behind not voting at all rather than voting for McCain is that if shit goes wrong I'd rather the entire government be in Democrat hands so they get the blame.
    This is funny, since the neo-con republicans have had control for the last eight years and you seem to think that they somehow haven't screwed everything up.
    So Nancy Pelosi is a Neo-Con?
    In defense of Mr. MacRoss, the democratic majority in the Senate has only existed for two years and their hands have been tied on many issues due to the upcoming presidential election, and the flux-state of the democratic party as a whole.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The rational behind not voting at all rather than voting for McCain is that if shit goes wrong I'd rather the entire government be in Democrat hands so they get the blame.
    This is funny, since the neo-con republicans have had control for the last eight years and you seem to think that they somehow haven't screwed everything up.
    So Nancy Pelosi is a Neo-Con?
    In defense of Mr. MacRoss, the democratic majority in the Senate has only existed for two years and their hands have been tied on many issues due to the upcoming presidential election, and the flux-state of the democratic party as a whole.
    That was the point I was trying to make.

    Neo-cons have screwed up many things. They have become big government pork barrel politicians. I am waiting for the next Newt Gingrich to appear in the Republican party.
Sign In or Register to comment.