-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Election 2008, United States
- Thread starter Great Sage
- Start date
Which part of McCain's background is a lie, specifically? Why don't you clarify. You aren't seriously arguing he wasn't in a POW camp, served in the Navy, etc. etc.
And I guess you missed the conversation. It was about a theoretical Civil War spawned by an Ofraud loss (cause you know, not electing the black guy means you're racist). I pointed out the obvious that the vast majority of liberal votes come from big cities and that all infrastructure between them runs through heavily Republican areas.
Hsb then suggested I forgot about foreign support, which was the thrust of my post in that it would be nonexistent due to other nation's other lack of actual military power and complete apathy towards Obama. Canada and Mexico being our only continental neighbors would be the only nations that could dispatch infantry. Which is where Canadian insurgents would come in.
Anyway, like I said the idea of a civil war on OFraud's count is stupid anyway.
Speaking of OFraud, apparently his aunt is an illegal alien in Boston, receives welfare, and has given $260 to his Campaign. Trouble is, donations from non US citizens to Presidential campaigns are illegal. Not that it matters, since $260 from hsi Aunt is chump change compared to the fraud that went on at Obama's website, with such donors as "Will Good" and "Doodad Pro."
OFrauds's newest bright idea snatched straight from Statism 101 is price fixing. Since you will not do what OFraud commands, he must use price controls to make you act in the way OFraud wants. OFraud: arrogant elitist or ignorant megalomaniac? You decide.
And Obama has voted with Reid and Pelosi 97% of the time, so his claim to bipartisanship is even more dubious. Heck, when he isn't using the "present" option he's hard left. So in other words, in instances where OFraud is not too cowardly to take a stand, he throttles left.
Moreover, its a known fact McCain and Bush hate each other's guts from the crap that went on in the 2000 primaries. He also likes to poke "the far right" in the eye repeatedly over amnesty, campaign finance reform, and global warming. The idea McCain is some kind of lockstep Bushite is ridiculous on its face.
And Furthermore, the Democratic Congress has been singularly ineffective at opposing Bush at every turn. Non-Binding Resolutions are about the only things they can pass. Even OFraud voted yes to reauthorizing FISA (domestic spying according to the hard left).
Finally, "voting with Bush" is idiotic as a meme. George W. Bush is the executive branch, he doesn't vote period. The only time voting with or against Bush comes up is if he says he will veto. If he doesn't, then basically if it passes you are either with him or he is neutral. In fact, considering the speed he passed that idiotic bailout bill, The Democrats have voted :with George Bush" on the economy.
Funny how that never enters their ads...
The fact that McCain generally votes with Bush (Bush expressed a position on every major bill and, while you are correct that the president doesn't make the laws, he uses his influence to guide the legislature) is why I could never support him. Deck Knight likes to stump the value of conservatism, but let's ask ourselves how conservative the current president Bush really is.
Foreign Policy: Oh where to begin? Let's keep it simple and focus on Iraq here. Now, we had fairly little evidence that Iraq was actually able to threaten us. Sure Sadaam was transparently evil, but that has been true for a while anyway. Now, call me old fashioned, but a conservative would assess the situation, decide that Sadaam sucks, and respond to their dissatisfaction by refusing to trade with Iraq anymore and cutting off all relations. True conservatives should definitely hate war or anything that results in foreign commitments. Under the Bush administration we've seen massive overdeployment of our military; it's the opposite of conservative for sure. Of course, liberals don't tend to like war either; I can't label Bush as a liberal here just as a radical.
Energy: Be completely honest, what has Bush done to end our foreign dependence on oil? The only thing he did that is remotely productive is moving to end bans on drilling in certain regions of the US... when it's completely obvious that that won't do terribly much to fix the problem. Even more, once we suck those places dry like we sucked Texas etc. dry, then we have nothing. Wouldn't a conservative position be one that accepted that it may be worth it for the situation to be worse in the short term so we keep our long term options open? That's basically the whole basis of the non-interventionist economic platform; why not apply it to energy policy? The smart position, and the one that any level headed conservative who hates us relying on other countries should be supporting, is that we should be trying to convert our energy structure to things we can produce here in the US and keep what oil we have left in reserve just in case things get really bad before we're ready to stop using oil. The only conservative response I see against it would be "it's not the government's job". I'm not a real conservative so I would disagree, but I can see how a conservative would think that. My response would be that the government is still responsible for managing a large amount of energy resources and should be developing such technology for the military if nothing else. There is this really old economic idea that most people have forgotten called "balance of trade". A classic conservative would have a heart attack looking at how it is today, and a small betrayal of non-interventionism would probably be reasonable to fix the situation.
Economics: Bush literally supported a bill that gave free money to everyone. He supported cutting taxes and raising spending at the same time (a fiscal conservative would put a balanced budget first and low taxes second). He accumulated a stupidly large debt all around and is supporting the government spending tons of money to intervene in the economy; is fiscal conservatism just dead these days (Ron Paul aside)?
Size of government: Bush made the Department of Homeland Security which was a pretty sizable increase in government. Wasn't that the job of the Department of Defense anyway? Oops?
Bush has a little conservative rhetoric, but as McCain likes to say, look at his record. I suppose he is great for the neo-cons who care about social issues like abortion and gay marriage more than legitimate issues like fiscal and foreign policy. My understanding of classic conservatism is that while they might not like those things they wouldn't really care very much since their platform was centered on a minimalist fiscal policy (balanced budget is priority number 1 no matter what; priority number 2 is to keep government as small as possible). Their other big position was non-involvment in foreign affairs. They support a favorable balance of trade and have a strong aversion to any political arrangement that might force them to commit troops to anything (especially war; they hate war). Bush has totally betrayed all of that, and I see no evidence that McCain will be any different. I'm not really sure that Obama is any less conservative than McCain, and that's funny because Obama is definitely a liberal.
Foreign Policy: Oh where to begin? Let's keep it simple and focus on Iraq here. Now, we had fairly little evidence that Iraq was actually able to threaten us. Sure Sadaam was transparently evil, but that has been true for a while anyway. Now, call me old fashioned, but a conservative would assess the situation, decide that Sadaam sucks, and respond to their dissatisfaction by refusing to trade with Iraq anymore and cutting off all relations. True conservatives should definitely hate war or anything that results in foreign commitments. Under the Bush administration we've seen massive overdeployment of our military; it's the opposite of conservative for sure. Of course, liberals don't tend to like war either; I can't label Bush as a liberal here just as a radical.
Energy: Be completely honest, what has Bush done to end our foreign dependence on oil? The only thing he did that is remotely productive is moving to end bans on drilling in certain regions of the US... when it's completely obvious that that won't do terribly much to fix the problem. Even more, once we suck those places dry like we sucked Texas etc. dry, then we have nothing. Wouldn't a conservative position be one that accepted that it may be worth it for the situation to be worse in the short term so we keep our long term options open? That's basically the whole basis of the non-interventionist economic platform; why not apply it to energy policy? The smart position, and the one that any level headed conservative who hates us relying on other countries should be supporting, is that we should be trying to convert our energy structure to things we can produce here in the US and keep what oil we have left in reserve just in case things get really bad before we're ready to stop using oil. The only conservative response I see against it would be "it's not the government's job". I'm not a real conservative so I would disagree, but I can see how a conservative would think that. My response would be that the government is still responsible for managing a large amount of energy resources and should be developing such technology for the military if nothing else. There is this really old economic idea that most people have forgotten called "balance of trade". A classic conservative would have a heart attack looking at how it is today, and a small betrayal of non-interventionism would probably be reasonable to fix the situation.
Economics: Bush literally supported a bill that gave free money to everyone. He supported cutting taxes and raising spending at the same time (a fiscal conservative would put a balanced budget first and low taxes second). He accumulated a stupidly large debt all around and is supporting the government spending tons of money to intervene in the economy; is fiscal conservatism just dead these days (Ron Paul aside)?
Size of government: Bush made the Department of Homeland Security which was a pretty sizable increase in government. Wasn't that the job of the Department of Defense anyway? Oops?
Bush has a little conservative rhetoric, but as McCain likes to say, look at his record. I suppose he is great for the neo-cons who care about social issues like abortion and gay marriage more than legitimate issues like fiscal and foreign policy. My understanding of classic conservatism is that while they might not like those things they wouldn't really care very much since their platform was centered on a minimalist fiscal policy (balanced budget is priority number 1 no matter what; priority number 2 is to keep government as small as possible). Their other big position was non-involvment in foreign affairs. They support a favorable balance of trade and have a strong aversion to any political arrangement that might force them to commit troops to anything (especially war; they hate war). Bush has totally betrayed all of that, and I see no evidence that McCain will be any different. I'm not really sure that Obama is any less conservative than McCain, and that's funny because Obama is definitely a liberal.
Re: Hagan
Senator Dole broke one of those commandments about false witness or something. N. Carolina being a heavily Christian state, I think Dole might be done.
Re: Rashid Khalidi
McCain has donated hundreds of thousands to Khalidi
Re: Bush 90%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc
McCain said that there's a special place in hell for the people who ran the Bush campaign in 2000. Then he hired them for his own campaign.
McCain was a cheerleader for Bush's war with Iraq and parroted Cheney by saying America would be treated as liberators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Currently has:
Electoral Vote projected:
344 Obama, 194 McCain
Winning Percentage
96.2% Obama, 3.8% McCain
Senator Dole broke one of those commandments about false witness or something. N. Carolina being a heavily Christian state, I think Dole might be done.
Re: Rashid Khalidi
McCain has donated hundreds of thousands to Khalidi
Re: Bush 90%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc
McCain said that there's a special place in hell for the people who ran the Bush campaign in 2000. Then he hired them for his own campaign.
McCain was a cheerleader for Bush's war with Iraq and parroted Cheney by saying America would be treated as liberators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto
I got different numbers here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Currently has:
Electoral Vote projected:
344 Obama, 194 McCain
Winning Percentage
96.2% Obama, 3.8% McCain
Am I the only one who is a bit iffy on opinion polls, I've never taken them too seriously.
He isn't. With the sole exception of strict constructionist judges, Bush hasn't done much for the cause of conservatism. Even then we had to smack him upside the head over Harriet Miers.
Foreign Policy: Oh where to begin? Let's keep it simple and focus on Iraq here. Now, we had fairly little evidence that Iraq was actually able to threaten us. Sure Sadaam was transparently evil, but that has been true for a while anyway. Now, call me old fashioned, but a conservative would assess the situation, decide that Sadaam sucks, and respond to their dissatisfaction by refusing to trade with Iraq anymore and cutting off all relations. True conservatives should definitely hate war or anything that results in foreign commitments. Under the Bush administration we've seen massive overdeployment of our military; it's the opposite of conservative for sure. Of course, liberals don't tend to like war either; I can't label Bush as a liberal here just as a radical.
Gas Prices here in MA are down below $2.50, down from $4+. They started declining before the economic prices. This is because future supply affects the futures markets. As far as I'm concerned, we need to keep the price of oil low to keep Iran and Venezuela declawed. In the meantime we can work on alternatives, which is McCain's plan. Obama and his energy Luddites, on the other hand, have this bright, shiny, super-duper goals about 25% electric cars. In the meantime he'll implement price controls on oil.
We already have a strategic reserve. The only reason we haven't shifted over to nuclear is energy Luddites on the AlGorian ilk. There's also all of Alaska which we have barely scatched the surface of, and enough oil shale to rival Saudi Arabia. Plus coal and all of America's other resources.
Economics: Bush literally supported a bill that gave free money to everyone. He supported cutting taxes and raising spending at the same time (a fiscal conservative would put a balanced budget first and low taxes second). He accumulated a stupidly large debt all around and is supporting the government spending tons of money to intervene in the economy; is fiscal conservatism just dead these days (Ron Paul aside)?
Size of government: Bush made the Department of Homeland Security which was a pretty sizable increase in government. Wasn't that the job of the Department of Defense anyway? Oops?
Bush has a little conservative rhetoric, but as McCain likes to say, look at his record. I suppose he is great for the neo-cons who care about social issues like abortion and gay marriage more than legitimate issues like fiscal and foreign policy. My understanding of classic conservatism is that while they might not like those things they wouldn't really care very much since their platform was centered on a minimalist fiscal policy (balanced budget is priority number 1 no matter what; priority number 2 is to keep government as small as possible). Their other big position was non-involvment in foreign affairs. They support a favorable balance of trade and have a strong aversion to any political arrangement that might force them to commit troops to anything (especially war; they hate war).
Obama believes in Hard Statism, Price controls, activist courts more interested in "fairness" than applying the law to the situation, unfettered abortion without parental notification or consent, afrocentric education, and probably a whole load of other radical things that haven't been unearthed yet. The difference between the two is night and day.
It's a Democrat vs. a Marxist.
Argh Deck Knight. Can you do shorter posts so that I can actually reply to them without needing a meal in between.
I'll say a little bit about a little bit in your post: are you saying that you are against the war? (Thank God if so). Because Mccain is for the war. I don't really care what you should label an opinion, rather what the opinion is.
I'll say a little bit about a little bit in your post: are you saying that you are against the war? (Thank God if so). Because Mccain is for the war. I don't really care what you should label an opinion, rather what the opinion is.
The War is pretty much over. We won. Iraq has their own freely elected parliament. They are working on a status of forces agreement. Saddam Hussein is probably burning in hell. Talking about supporting or opposing the war at this point is moot. The only thing that is important is judgment. Obama and Biden were consistently wrong, their strategies and positioning have consistently been for failure and weakness. Note the language they use when talking about not just Iraq but any conflict: The talk about ending the war, not winning it. They believe failure is an acceptable option as long as it scores them political points with Western Europe. Failure is unAmerican. You don't end wars, you win them. Otherwise you project weakness, and your enemies destroy you.
As far as the decision to go to war, Democrats and Republicans both agreed to do it under the same intelligence. Then when appealing to the kook Daily Kos base became more important politically, Democrats started claiming Bush lied them into the war. Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, that whole cabal of shifting sh!*heads have always blown the way the wind does. They have a versatility of convictions.
When the decision to go to Iraq was made, I was 17 years old. When 9/11 occurred I was 15. And I'm one of the older members on the board. When some 16 or 18 year old punk starts talking about "opposing the war from the start," they're talking about a decision they "made" when they were 11 or 13. You'll excuse me if I don't think calling me or McCain a warmonger because we now hold the conviction that winning what we started is idiotic.
That's the difference between modern liberals and conservatives. With liberals, failure in always acceptable no matter what the cost. Conservatives understand that in some instances, especially in large matters, failure is not an option. Harry Reid captured this perfectly in his single statement "the war is lost."
Which is why I am confident Obama will lose. He is in the party of losers, and at the end of the day, hope and change doesn't sell. The weighting on the polls this year is doctored as hell, thanks in no small part to ACORN, who pumped out hundreds of thousands of fake dem registrations, one of the poll weighting factors.
If Obama does win, it will certainly not be with EC north of 300. Polls always lean heavily Democrat. Kerry won the exist polls, if you remember. I looked at that Shaheen 98% probability and laughed.
There's nothing wrong with Deck's posts. They aren't GIANT WALLS OF TEXT. Its the content that is disagreeable.
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where are they?
Who won Vietnam?
@San Diego: I have other things to do, I really want to go over every paragraph in what Deck Knight writes, but to me that is a giant wall of text and I do not have that much time.
@Deck Knight: You say that we can't end a war rather than win it. If America invaded Australia on the basis that Kevin '07 was plotting against America, many innocent people were killed, and much of the Foreign world more than hated America, do you think that America should go and win that war, or do you think that ending it would be a better idea?
How about that, it's me, agreeing with something Deck Knight said.
I knew there were no WMDs.. Hans Blix told me so.
If you agree to a war because Colin Powell says "trust me" then you are criminally negligent. His evidence was nonsense.
I was 20ish at the time.
Have a nice day.
It is common knowledge Saddam was fond of chemical warfare. He gassed the Kurds and we found old stockpiles of his chemical weapons that mercifully were out of date. Maybe if Saddam had been more forward with the inspectors instead of playing Russian Roulette. The information ended up bad. I'm sure with SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS in control, Intelligence would never prove inaccurate, world peace would be but a stone's throw away, clairvoyance before action would be standard, and dictators would never again try to mislead everyone else about their activities.
America's enemies because we ended the war instead of winning it. Thus why until the surge the insurgents were trying to cause enough loss of life to get the Democrats to surrender early (QUAGMIRE! QUAGMIRE! THE WAR IS LOST! RETREAT! RUN!) and oust us from the region. Thankfully, the Surrendercrats failed and Iraq is in relative peace. Of course we shouldn't have gotten involved in Vietnam anyway. The fact it was the French we were bailing out should have made it obvious.
When you lose a war you project a weakness that your enemies try to exploit for decades. The lesson of Vietnam should be that you don't project weakness and you don't surrender to guerrilla thugs. Clinton's adventures in Bosnia did nothing to help America's image as a paper tiger that would retreat as soon as Democrats saw too much blood.
Actually, I suppose the lesson of Vietnam is to never vote Democrat if you predict a conflict anywhere. They have a trigger-finger on immediate surrender.
You say you've won the Iraq war when we both know full well that's a crock Deck Knight, as does everyone else here.
The only way the US was ever winning Vietnam was to wipe out the entire country (well, probably more like 60-70% of it) - don't see that as a particularly good solution somehow.
Also.. your history is off on Vietnam, the US wanted an alternative to the communists in Vietnam (to "block the red menace") despite the fact that the Vietnamese were happy to elect a communist government (see also: democracy, real democracy), the French had ceased involvement (unless you somehow count the money the US wasted trying to use them to block the communists as the US being involved sooner) by the time the US invaded. Additionally, it was Nixon who started pulling US troops from Vietnam.
What makes you think exactly the same thing won't happen in Iraq, Nixon was all about "winning the war and leaving the Vietnamese to stand on their own feet" - small problem was that he wasn't on the same side as the majority of the population, same thing is happening in Iraq right about now (mostly because you've got 3-4 groups who just plain don't get along).
Additional note: Iraq is a pseudo country anyway, the Kurds will never get fair representation in a democratic setup there, in no small part because when the British carved up that part of the world, they deliberately split religious/ethnic groups into different countries, Kurds are primarily scattered through 4 countries.
The only way the US was ever winning Vietnam was to wipe out the entire country (well, probably more like 60-70% of it) - don't see that as a particularly good solution somehow.
Also.. your history is off on Vietnam, the US wanted an alternative to the communists in Vietnam (to "block the red menace") despite the fact that the Vietnamese were happy to elect a communist government (see also: democracy, real democracy), the French had ceased involvement (unless you somehow count the money the US wasted trying to use them to block the communists as the US being involved sooner) by the time the US invaded. Additionally, it was Nixon who started pulling US troops from Vietnam.
What makes you think exactly the same thing won't happen in Iraq, Nixon was all about "winning the war and leaving the Vietnamese to stand on their own feet" - small problem was that he wasn't on the same side as the majority of the population, same thing is happening in Iraq right about now (mostly because you've got 3-4 groups who just plain don't get along).
Additional note: Iraq is a pseudo country anyway, the Kurds will never get fair representation in a democratic setup there, in no small part because when the British carved up that part of the world, they deliberately split religious/ethnic groups into different countries, Kurds are primarily scattered through 4 countries.
No, this is a giant wall of text
Which is what everyone outside of the Bush Administration and John McCain have been saying about Iraq
Canadian PM of the time, Jean Chrétien, after refusing to go follow America to Iraq, after being asked what kind of proofs Canada needed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU
priceless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU
priceless.
Except for when the actual vote came up in 2003, and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, and various other Democrat icons believed it to be the right thing to do.
Or you mean what they say now, after Daily Kos and their kooks started their failure at any cost campaign.
I don't know why Trax and the rest of you are so vested in seeing failure at every turn in Iraq. They've already had two elections ffs. They just removed the storm walls that were up in Bagdhad. Violence is at an all time low. More people were killed in Chicago than in the Iraq War this year. Chicago is clearly lost and we must surrender. It is a Quagmire and we must abandon it to fend on its own. Retreat from Chicago now, the South Side and the West Side cannot be reconciled.
EDIT: More profiles in Obama courage.
As I said before, Obama will fix prices on energy.
Also, in regards to the economy, you can call him after the election.
Obama. Statism and Cowardice you can believe in.
EDIT II: More Obama Energy Luddism/Statism:
Change you can believe in.
Because no matter which American president stops propping up Iraq, it's going to fall down like a house of cards, just like south Vietnam.
So which candidate do you think will stop funding Iran's Nuclear development programs?
I know the answer, neither. Obama and McCain are about as different as a bomb and an explosive, but both just as deadly.
EDIT: I'm voting McKinney tomorrow.
I know the answer, neither. Obama and McCain are about as different as a bomb and an explosive, but both just as deadly.
EDIT: I'm voting McKinney tomorrow.