Candidate Match Game II - Page 2

icKx · 09-04-2008, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

Funny same here although I thought the questions were bullshit and pointed. I'm advocating McCain though unless he fucks up tonight. That thing is just proof of just how fail our electorate is since if you're going to vote, you should know both the parties and the candidate without some cheat sheet with asinine questions.

I don't get it. So you agree with Obama on the issues, but you're tentatively supporting McCain unless he fucks up on his party's infomercial slot speech?

Imo that's what's wrong with the electorate. People put way too much stock into this bullshit dog and pony show stuff like the candidates physical appearance, who mispronounced a word, personal attacks and stump speeches instead of just voting based on which candidate's policies best fit ones own ideals.

Miroh · 09-04-2008, 08:19 PM

This is one reason I hate politics...

Deson · 09-04-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icKx

I don't get it. So you agree with Obama on the issues, but you're tentatively supporting McCain unless he fucks up on his party's infomercial slot speech?

Imo that's what's wrong with the electorate. People put way too much stock into this bullshit dog and pony show stuff like the candidates physical appearance, who mispronounced a word, personal attacks and stump speeches instead of just voting based on which candidate's policies best fit ones own ideals.

And you agree with Obama/ Dems but are willing to risk swinging it for McCain by casting a "protest" vote. Careful where you throw those stones.

Were this a parliament or were party more important than the individual, you'd be right but as you well know, the Presidency is much much more about the person and circumstance than it is any single issue or even set of issues. The reality is there will be a Democratic congress, a Dem congress hungry to do what they feel they've been denied over 30 years with a Dem president who has not demonstrated either consistency,or adherence to his own words. The same charges can apply to McCain but he has a record of doing things I can agree with, of doing things I don't agree with but understand and respect and of following things through and even apologizing when he fucks up. My choices then are 4-8 years that play out like a Dem version of the Bush years that could take the country to the brink, or healthy conflict between the Dems and a man I have seen do everything Obama claims to. As said, I'm a realist and reality says to me that McCain, besides the shit pandering, is a far better choice for the time and circumstance.

With a Dem congress, how bad can McCain possibly be? Now ask yourself the same of Obama. You may disagree with my conclusion and that's fine but seriously ask yourself the question. I'm looking at a Dem party that has learned all the wrong lessons from the the last 14 years of Repubs.Fuck that, to quote Obama,"8 is enough," and I just not willing to replace it with another bad 8 and call it fair or any semblance of balance.

Otis · 09-04-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

With a Dem congress, how bad can McCain possibly be? Now ask yourself the same of Obama. You may disagree with my conclusion and that's fine but seriously ask yourself the question. I'm looking at a Dem party that has learned all the wrong lessons from the the last 14 years of Repubs.Fuck that, to quote Obama,"8 is enough," and I just not willing to replace it with another bad 8 and call it fair or any semblance of balance.

This is very dangerous reasoning indeed, and does not take into account at least one area the president controls that congress has no true oversight, and that's foreign policy.

And despite whatever exposure to it his 35 years in congress has given him, his ideas and opinions on the subject are about as lacking as I can imagine. And as bad as the last 8 years have been, it is my belief that another four to eight years with McCain at the helm is a disaster waiting to happen.

Obama's foreign policy positions are all proving correct, and demonstrate a man with sound, reasonable decision making capabilities.

Sign me up for some of that...for a change

Deson · 09-04-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

This is very dangerous reasoning indeed, and does not take into account at least one area the president controls that congress has no true oversight, and that's foreign policy.

And despite whatever exposure to it his 35 years in congress has given him, his ideas and opinions on the subject are about as lacking as I can imagine. And as bad as the last 8 years have been, it is my belief that another four to eight years with McCain at the helm is a disaster waiting to happen.

Obama's foreign policy positions are all proving correct, and demonstrate a man with sound, reasonable decision making capabilities.

Sign me up for some of that...for a change

26, 35+ is Biden. And really? Besides Iraq, name something Obama's stayed consistent on? Iran? Jerusalem? Recently Georgia? As I've said, I tend to like his first answers. Problem is he doesn't seem to. Look at who he has advising him now, the same people he called out on the old Hillary team. I don't call that change, I call it flim flam and bullshit.

Don't believe the hype.

icKx · 09-04-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

And you agree with Obama/ Dems but are willing to risk swinging it for McCain by casting a "protest" vote. Careful where you throw those stones.

I only agree with Obama and the Dems according to the USA Today Match Game.

I mean according to that game and the way it ranks your opinion Obama and McCain's Iraq withdrawal plans are complete 180-degree opposites when really they are more alike than not.

Otis · 09-04-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

Besides Iraq, name something Obama's stayed consistent on?

Besides Iraq? Is that like scratching Bill Clinton because it's too good to be fair? You like to do that, eh?

He's been right on Iraq in a number of ways, from going in in the first place, to strategy along the way, including the political arm of the over-arching surge strategy, to time tables for withdrawl that put the onus on the Iraqi government, instead of the American taxpayer.

There's also focusing on Afghanistan, incursions into Pakistan (in case you haven't read the news today), talking to Iran. And that's all off the top of my head.

Deson · 09-04-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Besides Iraq? Is that like scratching Bill Clinton because it's too good to be fair? You like to do that, eh?

He's been right on Iraq in a number of ways, from going in in the first place, to strategy along the way, including the political arm of the over-arching surge strategy, to time tables for withdrawl that put the onus on the Iraqi government, instead of the American taxpayer.

There's also focusing on Afghanistan, incursions into Pakistan (in case you haven't read the news today), talking to Iran. And that's all off the top of my head.

No, I excluded Iraq because he hasn't actually been as consistent but I didn't want to get into that argument. I still say going wasn't a bad idea in and of itself. He was partially right on the political part of the surge but then the planners have always said it was a gamble-- and one that seems to be paying off as the national government seems to have gained confidence with the help of some American troops clearing the way. Even he has said, with his typical hedging, that the surge cleared the way for his plan. Putting the onus on the Iraqis? fair enough but then, the Repubs haven't exactly been silent on the issue and there has only recently--thanks to the surge-- been enough political progress with the central government for them to even begin to consider spending that money properly. He said there would be a civil war and the surge could make things worse, so far so good. You want right from the start? Accpeting our disagreement on the war itself, who before McCain in the Senate was loudly saying they needed more troops and the plan was fucked up? Who was saying it when the Dems were playing bitch?

Focus on Afghanistan? McCain agreed too. I'm not even going to entertain inaccurate and out of context quotes but his focus post invasion was based on the fact we made Iraq a prime training and kill spot and created a problem we needed to fix. Afghanistan has always been a priority, just not as high as Iraq post invasion. Besides, if our allies in the area weren't pussies and were willing to commit more to the war they supported, the issue may not have gotten as bad.

Pakistan incursions? There was so much double talk on that I'm not touching it. Talking to Iran? You mean first no preconditions now suddenly pre-conditions? How about when he said it was"tiny" and "not a threat" then 48 hours later claimed it was a "grave threat".

The man has no balls and while his judgment may be sound, he has no confidence in it when challenged and that's been his theme the whole election.

Otis · 09-04-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

No, I excluded Iraq because he hasn't actually been as consistent but I didn't want to get into that argument. I still say going wasn't a bad idea in and of itself. He was partially right on the political part of the surge but then the planners have always said it was a gamble-- and one that seems to be paying off as the national government seems to have gained confidence with the help of some American troops clearing the way. Even he has said, with his typical hedging, that the surge cleared the way for his plan. Putting the onus on the Iraqis? fair enough but then, the Repubs haven't exactly been silent on the issue and there has only recently--thanks to the surge-- been enough political progress with the central government for them to even begin to consider spending that money properly. He said there would be a civil war and the surge could make things worse, so far so good. You want right from the start? Accpeting our disagreement on the war itself, who before McCain in the Senate was loudly saying they needed more troops and the plan was fucked up? Who was saying it when the Dems were playing bitch?

Focus on Afghanistan? McCain agreed too. I'm not even going to entertain inaccurate and out of context quotes but his focus post invasion was based on the fact we made Iraq a prime training and kill spot and created a problem we needed to fix. Afghanistan has always been a priority, just not as high as Iraq post invasion. Besides, if our allies in the area weren't pussies and were willing to commit more to the war they supported, the issue may not have gotten as bad.

Pakistan incursions? There was so much double talk on that I'm not touching it. Talking to Iran? You mean first no preconditions now suddenly pre-conditions? How about when he said it was"tiny" and "not a threat" then 48 hours later claimed it was a "grave threat".

The man has no balls and while his judgment may be sound, he has no confidence in it when challenged and that's been his theme the whole election.

I'm sorry, but the facts just aren't on McCain's side. His best example at getting something right is "moer troop gud".

No thanks.

Deson · 09-04-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

I'm sorry, but the facts just aren't on McCain's side. His best example at getting something right is "moer troop gud".

No thanks.

It wasn't more troops good, it was," Commit to the endeavor you cheap bastards!"

So if McCain has always been wrong, I take it you disagree with our Kosovo intervention? And that we should have stayed in Somalia?Or Beirut for that matter?