US Elections 2008

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by mg1942

My opinion: About 25 years in the military, and over 25 years in politics, makes him more qualified overall on every issue.
He's far from my first choice out of other possible candidates, but i see him light years ahead of obama.

In the presidency, it requires more than experience. All you have to do is look up in history and you find out why it is. McCain record isn't really that great, even for experience, it is why he done nothing as a senator of true importance. Military knowledge would help, but most if not all republican truly are numb about the purpose it should be used. In any case, little or no experience is utterly equivalent to a person with. It is like new jobs, you should truly take every job, for each provide different insight, rather than one. As for distance, maybe it could or it can be other wise. I think you lost a variable of "Contradictions" in both roles. Don't let that knowledge blind you from the real qualification for president. For there is never a perfect one, only better or worse.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by mg1942

I agree with that statement, and it's true of anyone in a position of power such as POTUS. They all rely on advisers to give them guidance. But for me, factoring in my own understanding and preferences, would rather that McCain be the one with those advisers. Again, that's my own judgment call on behalf of the single vote I get to cast.

Well said. While we might disagree on candidates (and their records), I think we can both agree that what makes a great leader is not only personal abilities, but also the ability to choose the best staff possible. Some Presidents have failed in this respect, trusting either their own misunderstood opinion, or hiring the wrong advisor (Bush Jr. is the immediate example that springs to mind), while some Presidents have succeeded greatly by hiring the right people (Nixon hiring Kissinger, for example).

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by james0246

Well said. While we might disagree on candidates (and their records), I think we can both agree that what makes a great leader is not only personal abilities, but also the ability to choose the best staff possible. Some Presidents have failed in this respect, trusting either their own misunderstood opinion, or hiring the wrong advisor (Bush Jr. is the immediate example that springs to mind), while some Presidents have succeeded greatly by hiring the right people (Nixon hiring Kissinger, for example).

You must not forget how they view the presidency. Reagan great way of exaggeration, when president as a movie star. Nixon is a person very planned out with concrete objects.

Staff would be very important. I think the staff or the single adviser makes more of a difference. The adviser is more influential than the mere staff the president employs. Prioritize I think is the real key as well as proper morale action if possible. Right know, I would have Obama. True that McCain may have some better, but those people have not proven there capability of handling such duties.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Well we have to be careful of who the President chooses to surround himself with so we don't get any Grant administrations.

It doesn't have to be that bad, just miserable to the point where it is unbearable. Both Bushes have demonstrated just that, although the economy during the first Bush improved a little. McCain staff or adviser I think may be no better, even with Kissinger.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Dynames/ Virtue

It doesn't have to be that bad, just miserable to the point where it is unbearable. Both Bushes have demonstrated just that, although the economy during the first Bush improved a little. McCain staff or adviser I think may be no better, even with Kissinger.

Good point. We need only look at who (on their staff, etc.) they surround themselves with now, to see the possible agendas either candidate may have.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by james0246

Good point. We need only look at who (on their staff, etc.) they surround themselves with now, to see the possible agendas either candidate may have.

The current situation with the US is a high wire act. For the president, never should foreign above domestic, unless it is interwoven. Any change wouldn't help us or the world. Everything now is a must, not a possibly, if it is that way, nothing will ever get solve.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by james0246

Good point. We need only look at who (on their staff, etc.) they surround themselves with now, to see the possible agendas either candidate may have.

So, based on Obama's choice's of association and advice so far (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and a host of others), you would agree that John McCain is the better one at association?

[mg1942]

McCain vs. Obama = Eisenhower vs. Montgomery.

In North Africa Montgomery came in after the Germans had used up their supplies and strung out their supply line. His predissesor had badly misused the British troops, but in the process had forced the germans to use up their resources. He was flamboyant, articulate and well loved by the common man. Obama could have stepped in and won the battle with advisors. Montogery showed his true lack of ability in Holland 2 years later and threw away his and our forces. He fell into obscurity after that.

Eisenhower mentored under MacArthur and was picked as the youngest theater Supreme commander in U.S. history. His leadership brought the allies to victory over Germany. Then he became a 2 term Republican president of the United States over seeing almost a decade of growth and prosperity.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by james0246

Good point. We need only look at who (on their staff, etc.) they surround themselves with now, to see the possible agendas either candidate may have.

How do you include yourslef in this "WE"....sounds like a Liberal politician getting buyin from the rubes.

"WE" don't always have a say so in that matter.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by mg1942

So, based on Obama's choice's of association and advice so far (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and a host of others), you would agree that John McCain is the better one at association?

I never knew that Ayers and Wright were seen as sources of important advice for Obama. Where did you hear that?

And if anyone wants to say that "Wright was the priest for Obama's church - that means he was an important source of advice!" then I'd have to remark that you've likely never attended church services regularly, yourself. If you did and your priest was a huge source of guidance for you, I believe (based off of my own experiences and what I've heard from others) that you're in the slim minority.

Originally Posted by mg1942

Eisenhower mentored under MacArthur and was picked as the youngest theater Supreme commander in U.S. history. His leadership brought the allies to victory over Germany. Then he became a 2 term Republican president of the United States over seeing almost a decade of growth and prosperity.

If you're trying to prove a point with that one, don't. There are a lot of factors that go into things like victory in large-scale battles and a nation's growth and prosperity. A single man can't direct all of that - many factors are outside of their control. Don't wrongly attribute "luck" (being in the right place at the right time) with experience or skill.

[mg1942]

Explain the Victory at Midway... without luck.

[solomon]

I won't get into the Midway debacle, but seriously man people have GOT to stop this flimsy Ayers, Wright argument.

I listened to the extended Wright interview and that really put everything into context, his words (they were extreme yes) were parceled and soundbited to death.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by mg1942

So, based on Obama's choice's of association and advice so far (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and a host of others), you would agree that John McCain is the better one at association?

Bill Ayers and a great deal of the other, so-called, "associates" and "friends" that various media organizations have placed him with, are non-issues to such an extreme extent that anyone that brings up Bill Ayers, especially, is trying to delibrately mislead any actual discussion (considering the fact that Obama had nothing to do with Bill Ayers outside of a partial connection in the early 1990s).

That being said, Rev. Wright was a large blow (even though Wright was not an advisor, nor was he sought for to help construct policies, so it is largely inconsequential what Wright said or did), and while I commend Obama for his loyalty to a man he has known for 15-20 years, I do feel that Obama would have been better suited to "fire" Wright instead of simply denouncing his oppositional idealogy, but in the end, Obama clearly and succinctly divorced Wright's policies from his own, and Obama can not be held accountable for anything Wright said or did (for instance, one of my ancestors was a slave-owner, does that mean I should be held accountable for thier disgusting act? or, more recently, one of my grandparents was a soldier in the German army (as nothing more than a front line soldier) during World War I, does that mean, since I knew and supported them (while they lived the rest of their life in England), I can be held accountable for their actions? The answer to all of these questions is "No".)

Added to that, events occuring 10-20+ years ago are non-issues and have no effect on the current candidate, whether Obama or McCain. Do you hear me (or the media on a regular basis) talking about the fact that McCain broke his, as some would say, "Holy" vows to his first wife by seeking a divorce, or that he was cheating on his first wife, etc. No, that is unimportant to the current discussion. I would also not talk about Obama/Clinton/Bush/etc taking drugs in college (or McCain in Vietnam) or a variety of other inconsequential material from that long ago. All that matters is their records in regards to helping or hindering the American public, and their current plans and associations.

That being said, the majority of McCain's immediate "inner-circle" staff are far more questionable than Obama's staff. And let us not forget Palin. I mentioned earlier that hiring the right people for the job was important, and that it speaks well of a leader/boss when they hire compotent employees. So, what can we call McCain's hiring of Palin? "Failure" and "obvious political agenda" immediatly spring to mind as well as a variety of other phrases and words that do not speak well of McCain or Palin (this was, honestly, the point that drove me right out of McCain's camp (though the possibilty that he might be able to appoint several new Supreme Court Justices was a bit scary, as well).)

---

I am shocked you would compare McCain to Eisenhower and Obama to Montgomery. A more complete analogy would be McCain vs. Obama = Montgomery vs. Slim, with McCain clearly being Montgomery and Obama being Slim.

Montgomery was conceited, boastful, and often went against the majority. He was a "maverick" that always thought he knew best, and never accepted any of his failings. I could go farther, but, quite literally, almost every personal detail of Montgomery's personality matches up to the personality that McCain is desperatly trying to sell to the American audience (not to mention sometimes rash decisions based on preconceived notions, etc).

[Vexx]

I can simplify this somewhat:
Do you (non-specific you) *want* the Republicans to retain control of the Executive Branch for 4 more years? That would mean pretty much the same appointees who have been running the government agencies for the last eight years will give 4 more years of similar results. That would mean that 3-4 Chief Justices are chosen who are of the same mold as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts. That would mean the same lobbyists and power brokers would have the same influence.

If you're okay with that - then vote for McCain.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by mg1942

How do you include yourslef in this "WE"....sounds like a Liberal politician getting buyin from the rubes.

"WE" don't always have a say so in that matter.

The use of this "we", was actually a comment to Dynames/ Virtue, the person I was talking to, and agreeing with. So WE, would be the appropriate pronoun to use (if I was making a post that was not a response, you might be correct, but since I was responding to a specific person, we is grammatically appropriate for the occasion (as long as we are in agreement over the issue in discussion, if not Dynames/ Virtue can address me, and ask not to be included, in which case, I would be wrong in my assertion of the use of the pronoun "we")).

btw, what does "...gettin buyin from the rubes." mean. I understand what a rube is, but I am unfamilar with the specific phrase.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Explain the Victory at Midway... without luck.

You're challenging my statement with a single counter-example? You're going to need quite a few more than that if you want to prove a point.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I can simplify this somewhat:
Do you (non-specific you) *want* the Republicans to retain control of the Executive Branch for 4 more years? That would mean pretty much the same appointees who have been running the government agencies for the last eight years will give 4 more years of similar results. That would mean that 3-4 Chief Justices are chosen who are of the same mold as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts. That would mean the same lobbyists and power brokers would have the same influence.

If you're okay with that - then vote for McCain.

Ioono, Vexx isn't that harsh of a statement? I mean just cause McCain is a Republican doesn't mean he will keep on the same failed policies and corrupt Republican cohorts does it?

[Sassarai]

Repubs are sooo good at fear mongering. Not sure if this has been posted already. Now you know how Bush got re -elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c


As for McCain being Bush's 3rd term its highly possible. I mean the Neo Cons did get him to pick Palin even though he didn't want to. Palin is even scarier if she somehow becomes the president because she's like an empty suit.

lol McCain cursing during debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

Repubs are sooo good at fear mongering. Not sure if this has been posted already. Now you know how Bush got re -elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c


As for McCain being Bush's 3rd term its highly possible. I mean the Neo Cons did get him to pick Palin even though he didn't want to. Palin is even scarier if she somehow becomes the president because she's like an empty suit.

Republican were always known for those underhanded tactics.

Neo Conservative really just got notice for the fact they seem better at the time. There are no better regular republicans, but a bit more extreme is different category. It is like comparing democrats to libertarians, or some left wing side.

As for Palin, it is even worse than a pathetic excuse from a student giving exaggerated "stories" to a teacher.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by solomon

Ioono, Vexx isn't that harsh of a statement? I mean just cause McCain is a Republican doesn't mean he will keep on the same failed policies and corrupt Republican cohorts does it?

I dunno... personally I don't think its worth the risk. He hasn't exactly lined his campaign staff and advisors with players not involved in those policies and schemes. I have very specific opinions about Phil Gramm at the least and they aren't kind

Originally Posted by Dynames/Virtue

Republican were always known for those underhanded tactics.

I don't know how old you are... but no, that hasn't always been the case nor is it always the case. However, it was Lee Atwater who really pioneered the present day tactics that Karl Rove and others have really slimed the field with. And no, Democrats have historically been capable of a lot of nonsense themselves over the years.