Presidential Debate Round 2
With the debate starting in just over 30 minutes, anything you guys expect to hear/see out of it? Currently McCain has to pull something out of his ass with a plan for the economy or else I don't not for-see him being the next president, not that I want him to be the next one anyways. Always been a fan of the democrats myself.
Replies
LOL... Not white enough for ya?
LOL, what?
Seriously though, did you see the way he glared at Obama and said, "We don't have time for on the job training"?
Edit: The last question "What don't you know and how will you learn it?" Awesome question. Both of them dodged it though.
a good word for a drinking game would be "fundamental"
A: Tom, to answer this question, we need to understand our fundamental differences on taxes. My opponent will raise taxes and spend 500 billion. My plan will give my fellow Americans a 90% tax cut to spend on health care, but the real problem regarding health care is the lobbyists and special interests groups. I have fought countlessly against these, where as my opponent has supported them. I have talked to General Patreaus and he assures me that if we pull out of Iraq early, we will bring our troops home in defeat. I will bring our troops home in victory and honour. Thank you.
hehe i don't even think the republican party knows what "true republican" means anymore i think they forgot.
Sounds like i should be glad i missed this debate. I really wish that both party's would say what all they are going to do to fix the broken mortgage system. I would really love to see McCain explain his actions with Charles Keating in the 90's; being as the implications of it are part of whats killing the economy now.
fixed
"I voted for this good stuff and my opponent voted for this bad stuff!"
"No I actually voted for this good stuff and MY opponent voted for this bad stuff!"
Over and over and OVER AD NAUSEAUM. As long as they memorized the main points of their stance on each issue they can't really fail.
Boiling down major complex issues like the war in Iraq, the economy crisis, healthcare, eduction, etc into two minute talking points while talking yourself up and berating your opponent is ridiculous. Why even bother watching? Usually debates like in high school at least focus on covering one issue rather than flying through topics like a kid with ADHD.
Yeah, it seems like there was only about 2 minutes of new content (real minutes that is) and 88 minutes from the first debate in mississippi.
Hahaha yeah, my GF was just about to snap every time she heard "my friends".
Hmmmmm
That really worries me honestly. I don't want another 50/50 election.
Can't say much about this recent debate. McCain was an ass, and a liar, manipulating Obama's words. The talk of fines, attacks, and an overhead projector. And time was wasted with Obama having to repeat himself.
I honestly wish Republicans would stop saying "smokeless coal" in any discussion about environmental effects. Smokeless Coal is NOT SMOKELESS. It's simply a method to have coal burn cleaner and with LESS SMOKE than traditional methods of burning coal directly. This was a major talking point with Bush on the debates 4 years ago...and of course, nothing was done about it.
Smokeless Coal:
-is still coal
-is not renewable
-still produces carbon-monoxide
-is a tactic used to mislead the public before an election, and then isn't spoken about for 4 years
Wow. The man doesn't even have the common courtesy to shake his opponent's hand. Less charater than an sad 7th grade soccer team after a big loss.
As much as I cant stand Palin, at least she attempts to be respectful at a basic human level.
I've actually been worried about that. Even though i support McCain, His recent anger out burst in this debate has me worried that if he looses, will he pitch an AL Gore "recount" Tantrum.
I hope that does not happen.
I'm forced to quote WOSAT:
"Miss Belair, if you feel compelled to grab part of my body and shake it before you can even be friendly, you've got far worse problems than you think I have"
omg that page rocks
[ame]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us[/ame]
The bast part is these are the same people that ensure that the world see's the US as a bunch of fat redneck bigots that know nothing of the world and don't want to.
I think the term fear mongering is a great way to describe the people in that video.
In the end, if you don't want a fundamentalist non-politician to lead your country, you're automatically forced to vote left?
That's a shame, but what's worse is that anyone who wants a fundamentalist non-politician to run the country, conveniently has their choice made for them, as there's only one party that currently fits that bill!
edit: ooh err, I'm all rambly again. If anything I said doesn't make sense, I blame it on the sleepiness.
Shameful for the Obama supporters because they where whipping up a bunch of confused old people who spend 99% of their day puttering around the house and being a nice neighbor.
And shameful for the GOP'ers because... well you saw it.
That BEE-RAWK OBOMBER he's one of them terrorist!
Just laying that out there, good to know what you are voting for.
In case anyone is wondering, THIS is why we still have an electoral college
Yet still, given the choices, I'd pick Bush over Gore and Kerry any day of the week. So once again with this election, it's the lesser of two evils. :poly132:
One more thing to clarify, I as well as many other conservatives (socially speaking) would vote for a politically-liberal politician if their social values were conservative (i.e.-things related to abortion, marriage issues, etc.), as a social conservative values morals of a country over political views (viz.-morals > politics). I think what I said in another thread was misunderstood, so hopefully this clarifies it a little more.
Either way, goodnight fellow PolyCrunchers.
That's the whole point.
That's the whole point.
You know the saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? You and people who think similar have been fooled since Goldwater, yeesh. When are you going to wake up and see the blindingly obvious reality that none of these people have any desire to actually do what you want them to, as long as you keep voting for their promises to do what you want them to!
I'd actually like to see any politician be who they say they are and do what they say.
On its way. Thanks Kevin.
Jonathan: You've made it clear, and continue to make it clear, what your deciding factors are. Just like Ephesians. You watch FOX News. You vote for a guy, and he does wrong. Enormous wrong. Wrong by you. You continue to vote for him. You justify it because his "morals" were "right". He tackles the important issues of...marriage. Election year comes up. You have a chance to prevent the next in line from continuing the wrong. But you won't. All you need for a candidate to say to win your vote is "I HATE gay people" and "We must defeat Terror with bombs".
Anyone desperate to be President can easily exploit the bible thumpers too, perhaps. Tell bible stories, visit churches, start telling people you're from good ol' Texas (even if you're from Connecticut with a fake southern accent). Promise to keep things the way they've always been...so no one has to worry about their teenagers getting pregnant or doing drugs. Tell the people you'll invest in the education of youth to set us ahead for the next 25 years (even tho you plan to use the funding for war tactics that will take us back 50 years). Whatever it takes to get the vote from the simple folk who still believe the Earth is flat. And you'll be right there. Because you, and FOX News know what really matters to this world.
I don't mean this as a personal aattck, but I find this line of thinking just completely the wrong approach.
I'm Catholic, and I'm personally opposed to abortion. And not in a philosophical way - a friend of mine had one when she was 19, and it just wrecked her life. Nothing is making that guilt go away. If I could banish the mere idea of abortion from the planet, I'd do it without blinking an eye.
That said... I don't see any sense in basing my presidential vote on that kind of topic. The president is merely one branch of federal power - he can appoint supreme court justices and veto legislation, but he can't control what cases are brought before those justices or what legislation reaches his desk. To abolish abortion in America, one of two things has to happen:
1) a new court case would have to be brought through the entire federal system, appealed up to the Supreme Court and the justices would have to overturn their own prior Roe v. Wade ruling.
2) a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in congress.
Neither of these paths go through the presidency, as he can't generate court cases or push through legislation.
Some will argue that a president can at least create circumstances favorable to one of the two paths, via various appointments or policies, etc. Sounds great, except we have decades of evidence to the contrary. Roe v. Wade was ruled in 1973, during the second Nixon term. Since that day, we've had twice as many Republic presidents as democrats. In fact, of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade, only 12 years have been under a Democrat president.
That's 23 years with a Republican in the White House. How close have we moved to outlawing abortion?
Not one bit, not at all. We have no evidence that a conservative president can do anything at all to outlaw abortion.
Please, please, please don't let your moral code do your critical thinking. Would I be happier if abortions didn't happen? Absolutely. Will I vote for a presidential candidate who ruins the economy or wastes lives in pointless wars just because he's opposed to abortion? Absolutely not.
If nothing else, always consider the George W. Bush example. We still have abortions in America, and gay marriage is gaining more traction rather than less - Bush, a prototypical evangelical, was powerless to do anything about either. He's been a failure in Christian causes just as much as in secular ones. It's simply not something a president can control; if it was, Ford, Reagan or Bush I would have done it already.
I ask anyone to seriously look at what a president can actually accomplish - the things within a presidents power to truly determine - and vote your preference on that. If you look at the practical issues and decide McCain is your man, have at it. Just please don't base your vote on some mythical hope that a president will somehow influence American morality. That hope is why we've had to endure a shitty president for the last eight years. Believing in Christ and following his Word doesn't make you a great leader of men.
Secondly, this notion that "all I do" is watch Fox news or any other channel is complete ignorant nonsense. When I do watch TV, it's usually the news, and as of late, it's been mainly CNBC due to stock market related things. However, I also enjoy Fox news, but the views I had both socially and politically were already established well before I ever had even seen Fox news, knew who Rush Limbaugh was, or any other somewhat-conservative/conservative media outlet.
I guess "to be fair and balanced" I should accuse some of you of following Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Katie Kuric, eh?
Either way, voting for Obama/Biden would go against about every facet of my beliefs, whereas voting for McCain/Palin would go against far fewer.
I fail to see how voting for an extreme liberal like Obama would "help" social conservatives.
Mike Huckabee for President in 2012.
And on the topic of abortions. Say the President DID have some major influence, and abortion is outlawed. Right? How? When a woman gets an abortion, does she go to prison? She broke the law. Or maybe the Doctor. Now, no doctors will perform abortions. I guess that means there's no possible way a woman can have an abortion. Or, she could die trying.
So two outcomes from the important topic of abortion.
1. Mommy and/or doctor in a crowded prison with the rapist. Baby destined to live wonderful life.
2. Dead mommy and baby.
So where do morals come into play here? Are opinions more important that answers and reasoning? The only thing close to an answer from conservatives is "counseling". Counseling doesn't solve or prevent problems, it deals with ones that already exist.
Jonathan: wouldn't an EXTREME liberal candidate be a satan-worshipping lesbian? or are you using the term in the context of extremist? as in...TERRORIST!
I fail to see how killing an innocent person (a child) helps solve the issue.
Life begins at conception, not at a "magical" moment during labor.
Asherr: I would rather have Ron Paul debating Obama. Though, I'd probably still vote for Obama. Like I've said, I've liked Obama for many years. And he hasn't flipped his opinions like that other one. Also, the Ron Paul Revolution supporters now scare me.
abortion is fucked up and people should be encouraged to take on the responsibility, at least tough out the birht and adopt. i think abortion should remain to be legal. if the parent unwillingly became pregnant and had no desire to birth and care for the child, they should abort the child before it fully matures into a living breathing human. i think it's well understood birth hurts and being preggers sucks. they'd eventually stuff the kid in a dumpster anyway.
ultimately, people need to be more responsible with their sexual organs.