McCain-Palin

Paul1355

All Star
Any thoughts on this move? since everyone on this forum besides me is a Democrat. I know it's late making this thread but I wanted the answers from Democrats and any republicans hiding in this forum.
 

jpz17

Starter
im sick of you guys, you don't get America, wake up and smell the coffee, your in the real world
 

rady

Administrator
Staff member
Let's keep the talk civilized. Post only if you have something relevant to add.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Let's keep the talk civilized. Post only if you have something relevant to add.

Being that JPZ attacked me right out for my views and didn't even talk about the Republican ticket which was the topic, he is the only one to blame.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
McCain pulled a dumb move, by picking Sarah Palin. She has very minimal experience, and what she does have in experience took place in the state of Alaska, where there are only about 1 million people.

He could've picked Olympia Snowe, big time moderate, reformer, a woman, known for reaching across the aisle and tons of experience. I was actually hoping he'd pick her, if he was looking for a female running mate. Now, you might be saying, "well, Snowe is from a small state, too: Maine." That's true, but she's spent many years in DC, at the national level, outside of Maine. Palin, in fact, has only left the country once.

Bottom line, she's a glorified city councilwoman, lacks experience, had trouble speaking, when McCain introduced her as part of the ticket, and has not had to deal with serious social, or economic, issues in one of the smallest, insofar as population, and richest, states in the union.

Look for Biden to tear her a new one. This pick could have made McCain a real contender. Right now, I'm expecting another Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton type of race. Obama will easily win, which is good: lesser of two evils.
 

Paul1355

All Star
I feel Palin was a solid pick

McCain pulled a dumb move, by picking Sarah Palin. She has very minimal experience, and what she does have in experience took place in the state of Alaska, where there are only about 1 million people.

He could've picked Olympia Snowe, big time moderate, reformer, a woman, known for reaching across the aisle and tons of experience. I was actually hoping he'd pick her, if he was looking for a female running mate. Now, you might be saying, "well, Snowe is from a small state, too: Maine." That's true, but she's spent many years in DC, at the national level, outside of Maine. Palin, in fact, has only left the country once.

Bottom line, she's a glorified city councilwoman, lacks experience, had trouble speaking, when McCain introduced her as part of the ticket, and has not had to deal with serious social, or economic, issues in one of the smallest, insofar as population, and richest, states in the union.

Look for Biden to tear her a new one. This pick could have made McCain a real contender. Right now, I'm expecting another Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton type of race. Obama will easily win, which is good: lesser of two evils.

Maybe Snowe would have been a better pick but Palin brings more to the table than everyone thinks. I personally thought the opposite,I thought this was McCain's best choice. Out of Romney, Pawlenty and her of course.

First off McCain tackles some weaknesses he had with certain people like strong conservtives who felt MCCain was too much like a democrat. Now with Palin on his side who is a blue collar far right Conservative, he has most of that vote. She is also a women which may not seem to make a difference BUT IT DOES. Women cling to other women and seeing a women possibly in the Whitehouse brings hope to women to see a person of their gender lead a country. I saw her speech, I didn't think she was confused on what she was saying. She talked like a Maverick and a re-former which is what she is known for, like John McCain. People take her experience as if it will kill the Republicans, well she has more executive experience than Barack Obama and actually lead a town, city, then a state and made many decisions. People don't realize the difference between a Governor and a Senator. A Senator doesn't make choices every day that can affect him, a Governor makes choices frequetly and if they are bad, they get the blame. I see that as experience over Obama. Plus while Obama boasts about accomplishments, what has he accomplished? A community leader? Help some people in Illinois with jobs? Or how about the first women and youngest person ever to be Governor of a state full of corruption that was brought down by a women with the firings of many high officials. She went from the bottom to the top through fighting for she thought was right. And she has almost an 80% approval rating from all the people of Alaska. She fought Republicans! I didn't ever hear of a time Barack Obama fighting Democrats so his state could be better. This can also influence democrats to vote for McCain. Because he has some Democratic views, he is suported by former Democrat Joe Lieberman and he can influence Hillary Clinton voters, conservatives, middle class women, etc from Palin.

After all of that McCain is no sloutch when it comes to answering questions. I watched the Political Forum in California, McCain talks quick and aggressive and actually has a good sense of humor. This guy has been to Hell and back with his 5 years of torture. Now just like Fred Thompson said "Him being a POW doesn't qualify him to be President, but it does show his amazing character." McCain tackles big issues and says how he wants them done. barack Obama promises no taxing...OKAY? What democrat has not taxed America, please Democrats I am eager to know this. They are known to tax Americans and that's what I see in Obama, flat out lies. How is he going to lower taxes for 95% of America??? That seems almost impossible. And he didn't even say HOW he was going to do it. Were McCain gives a plan and says what has to be done and why. I think Barack has alot of question marks.

For all you Obama supporters, take his speeches with an open mind and really listen to his words. They are repeats of every Democratic nominee. He wants change but what really is that? We all know the Surge worked and the proof is when we gave back the former Al-Queda town to Iraq, I forget the name but it happened recently, look it up. Troops by the thousands are coming back home and we don't need Barack Obama for that. We are putting the goverment and security back to the Iraq's who have a trained police force by the thousands trained by our soldiers. If we just left like Obama said, they would be a country without rules and would go back to radical goverment that was around when Saddam was leading.

Just take Obama's speeches more seriously and really look into what "Change" means. His a great speaker but don't let that fool you, listen to his words and how they can help America in the long run.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
I'm not a democrat, independent, republican, christian, etc., etc. But, when a man says that he wants to stay, militarily, in a country for 100 years and has loaded his campaign with crazy neo-cons, I can't vote for him and must urge others not to.

We've slaughtered about 1 million Iraqis, mostly civilians. The world doesn't need another loon as president of the United States. If McCain wins, or steals the election, like Bush did twice, the US will continue to alienate the world community. With a fresh, young, idealistic president, I think the world will start to embrace us again. We can start to feel better about America.

As for Obama's speeches, I don't buy them, just like I don't buy McCain's, but, with Obama, there's a lot of deep thought, more so than in McCain's. Obama lost that California Q&A because it was in front of evangelicals, conducted by a man who was clearly an evangelical right-winger: he brought up merit pay for teachers, pro-life, gay marriage, and other issues important to that particular wing of the GOP. In a neutral, political forum, and in a face to face debate, McCain would fail miserably to respond to Obama's logic.

Taxes or no taxes, I don't want anymore war, for the world's sake, much more than for ours; and I don't want anymore cronyism in the White house, with halliburton and company burning our money and Bush friends getting no-bid contracts. We also need health care for the 30 million Americans that are going with out, as well as those of us going broke to keep our families covered. Republicans had a GOP house, Senate and White House, and they still failed. Time for someone else to be president. Again, lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately, my favorite president, James Carter: the most honest and idealistic president in history, isn't running.
 

pat

Starter
I have trouble believing in McCain's mental stability when he said Putin was the president of Germany.

That was very funny indeed. I hope he doesn't want to invade Germany as a terrorist country for attacking Georgia.

@ Paul: There is a section on the supposedly successful surge in this video as well. McCain: "General Petraeus goes out there every week..."

 

Paul1355

All Star
That was very funny indeed. I hope he doesn't want to invade Germany as a terrorist country for attacking Georgia.

@ Paul: There is a section on the supposedly successful surge in this video as well. McCain: "General Petraeus goes out there every week..."


Pat, the surged worked while guys like Joe Biden thought there was no hope and that we already lost the war, and he did say that along with most demorats. Once again proven wrong.
 

pat

Starter
Pat, the surged worked while guys like Joe Biden thought there was no hope and that we already lost the war, and he did say that along with most demorats. Once again proven wrong.

How can you tell? Because you saw it on FOX news? Or have you been there? How would you define "victory"? Is it a victory if the infrastructure and domestic security in Iraq is back to a pre-war level? Or does it mean that they finally find some weapons of mass destruction? Or -- even better -- is it already a victory that Saddam Hussein is dead? Well, then the US-Army could have gone home some time ago. And another one: does it mean that Al-Qaeda are no longer to be found in Iraq? This means that the military have a) to stay there for a very long time or b) never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Or -- and this is the last one --is it a victory to establish a democratic government? Democracy is a great aim, but for whom? Is it just to force a Western concept onto a non-Western society? And for how long do you think a democratic surface will work if it isn't based on indigenous concepts? What the USA are about to witness is exactly what happened to Britain and France after the Second World War: losing a "colonial Empire". And just like we still have to live with the consequences of colonialism (e.g. Mugabe in Zimbabwe --> no African tradition of government), there will be short- and long-term aftermaths of the Middle East politics of the Bush administrations.

Furthermore, victory is a very fluent concept and since Vietnam no war was ever won. They just end at some point in time and people are happy to forget about them.
 

TunerAddict

Starter
The surge is a no-brainer. Obviously putting more soldiers into a hostile area will make it more stable. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that. The real question is whethere Iraq is worth a single American life. OH wait, it isn't.
 

Paul1355

All Star
How can you tell? Because you saw it on FOX news? Or have you been there? How would you define "victory"? Is it a victory if the infrastructure and domestic security in Iraq is back to a pre-war level? Or does it mean that they finally find some weapons of mass destruction? Or -- even better -- is it already a victory that Saddam Hussein is dead? Well, then the US-Army could have gone home some time ago. And another one: does it mean that Al-Qaeda are no longer to be found in Iraq? This means that the military have a) to stay there for a very long time or b) never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Or -- and this is the last one --is it a victory to establish a democratic government? Democracy is a great aim, but for whom? Is it just to force a Western concept onto a non-Western society? And for how long do you think a democratic surface will work if it isn't based on indigenous concepts? What the USA are about to witness is exactly what happened to Britain and France after the Second World War: losing a "colonial Empire". And just like we still have to live with the consequences of colonialism (e.g. Mugabe in Zimbabwe --> no African tradition of government), there will be short- and long-term aftermaths of the Middle East politics of the Bush administrations.

Furthermore, victory is a very fluent concept and since Vietnam no war was ever won. They just end at some point in time and people are happy to forget about them.

First off Joe Biden did vote against the Surge and said that this war was lost just like most Democrats said at one time. Look it up.

Ask any soldier and watch the news man, stop watching MSNBC and maybe you wouldn't get some false news that Bill O'reilly, whos not democrat or republican wrote a paper on. The fact is that the surge worked, I saw on TV were the former AL-Queda's stronghold use to be, i forget the name if you could find it that would help. But anyway we gave it back to the Iraqi goverment which is as of right now democratic with a police force being trained and increasing everday. And these men are trained by our soldiers so if your worried that the goverment won't last then your doubting the ability of our soliders, Pat. Was it worth it? Yes, because we got rid of a terrorist group that attacked us and wasn't going to stop for the hell of it. Could it have worked better? Of course, every victory could have worked out better, but if you win in the end, then you have nothing to say against it, because we are winning.
I love how Democrats who have never even spoken to someone that has been to Iraq think that their opinion on the War is greater than any soldier or person that has visited the Middle East. John McCain has been there 8 times. Obama? oh wait, he canceled his visit to see the troops. Shows some good character. And talking about how Vietnam was the last war we won, you are giving us doubt from the start that we cn't win a war. Did anyone think we'd win WW1 and WW2? If people thought like you, Obama, and Biden, then no one would have helped back home in WW2 to building ships and weapons.
Your party is divided. Even Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden said Barack Obama isn't experienced enough to be President, so I'd like to see you dodge that.
 

Paul1355

All Star
The surge is a no-brainer. Obviously putting more soldiers into a hostile area will make it more stable. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that. The real question is whethere Iraq is worth a single American life. OH wait, it isn't.

If it's a no brainer why did Joe Biden vote against it? And then after said that we already lost?
 

TunerAddict

Starter
If it's a no brainer why did Joe Biden vote against it? And then after said that we already lost?

Its a philosophical decision. Its not worth the lives of those soldiers. And we have lost. Its quite apparent. You can't fight ideas and that is the main opponent in this. As much as you'd like to believe some magical land is going to arise out of war torn Iraq, it isn't.

No reason for us to be there, no reason for our men and women to die.
 
Top