The Shrine

I've heard a lot of people talk about "I like this guy, but not this guy" or "I don't like either one", but I haveh't really seen any specifics. What exactly do you like about both of the picks for president? Is it personality or issues or what? What specifically do you like that would cause you to vote for him?

not to entirely derail your thread...

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have the option 'none of the above' for elections?

Anarky wrote:not to entirely derail your thread...

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have the option 'none of the above' for elections?

I've been begging for this for a decade. To me it's the only way to truly tell someone "you have no excuse not to vote"

SineSwiper wrote:I've heard a lot of people talk about "I like this guy, but not this guy" or "I don't like either one", but I haveh't really seen any specifics. What exactly do you like about both of the picks for president? Is it personality or issues or what? What specifically do you like that would cause you to vote for him?

McCain: he has to prove he's not a normal Republican politician. What I mean by that is that his actions need to not hurt the public while helping his rich friends. Basically, he can't be Reagan or the Bush's.

Obama: all style but little substance so far. Prove to me you ain't Clinton 2: The Return. His entire campaign is "I'm different therefore you want me". But I ain't so convinced it ain't nothing but a great marketing ploy to get him into office

It's as much the distrust with the parties as it is with them. Right now it's just all talk and their records as Senators mean squat IMO. Remember, Dubya is a pretty good orator.

But we Canadians got our own election to worry about in 3 weeks. We've got 4 shitpiles to eat from. Sure it's better to have more selection and some of the piles don't smell quite as putrid, but it still ain't gonna be pleasant.

South Park put it best...



What we've ALWAYS needed (and wasn't it Jefferson who warned of this on his death bed?) is more parties in the system. 2 parties isn't enough, especially now where it's just two sides of the same god damn coin. You look at pretty much every other democratic country and you've got at least 4-6+ parties, all playing an active role with seats in each branch. It's sad, and it won't change... but it needs to.

McCain scares the shit out of me... he appears to be an almost stupider version of Bush. This man doesn't know how to use EMAIL or a computer/internet when they are such a HUGE part of this country's day to day lives. His campaign team is made up of lobbyists, both former and current... and he did have the man responsible for this damned mess on his team not too long ago. McCain WILL be 4 more years of Bush politics and we just can't take more of that, regardless of the alternative.

Now the alternative scares me too, but not as much. Some topics he wants to go after like gun control and universal health care is very dangerous ground. Obama is known for his gun control stance and that whole mess is becoming worse than the war on drugs. Although we can complain about Obama's socialistic agendas, yet now thanks to Bush we have nationalized the largest insurance company in the country. That's MUCH more socialistic than anything else, yet nobody's complaining why?


In the end we've got a guy you KNOW will fuck things up worse, and a guy who MIGHT do just as bad a job, or worse or better. At this point I'll roll the dice on Obama and see what happens rather than pick McCain simply because I'm afraid of what Obama might do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll1oABGd ... re=related

A bit long, but some good stuff in there.

You know, I'm kinda hearing that you guys don't like the parties. You're not electing a party. You're electing two people: a P and a VP.

Also, it's a two party system. Nothing will change that. Bitching about the system isn't going to fix it, and not voting definitely isn't going to fix it.

I don't like Obama's stance on gun control, but I like every other issue he has stood for. I don't think universal health care is a bad thing, either. We certainly aren't going to promote a single government company for health care (too many billions of dollars from the health care industry), just a way to get the private companies to lower their prices, encourage competition, and protect the poor, unemployed, and small businesses from being unprotected from health care.

Zeus wrote:

Anarky wrote:not to entirely derail your thread...

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have the option 'none of the above' for elections?

I've been begging for this for a decade. To me it's the only way to truly tell someone "you have no excuse not to vote"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG-w8ZmysnY

Not the best quality, but makes the point.

Zeus wrote:Prove to me you ain't Clinton 2: The Return.

Clinton delivered a surplus of 560 billion dollars. The USA could do with Clinton 2: The Return.

Agreed. I don't get the hatred for Clinton.

Anarky wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Anarky wrote:not to entirely derail your thread...

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have the option 'none of the above' for elections?

I've been begging for this for a decade. To me it's the only way to truly tell someone "you have no excuse not to vote"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG-w8ZmysnY

Not the best quality, but makes the point.

OK, you got me. I've been hiding the fact but I can't hold out much longer: I am Jesse Ventura. This whole "I'm an accountant, I'm married, I have two kids on the way" was just a cover. You saw it right there, me saying the EXACT same things I've been bitching about on this board for years right on national TV. Sorry to trick you guys I thought this would be a good way to get in touch with "the people" on a very granular level.

Zeus wrote:

Anarky wrote:

Zeus wrote: I've been begging for this for a decade. To me it's the only way to truly tell someone "you have no excuse not to vote"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG-w8ZmysnY

Not the best quality, but makes the point.

OK, you got me. I've been hiding the fact but I can't hold out much longer: I am Jesse Ventura. This whole "I'm an accountant, I'm married, I have two kids on the way" was just a cover. You saw it right there, me saying the EXACT same things I've been bitching about on this board for years right on national TV. Sorry to trick you guys I thought this would be a good way to get in touch with "the people" on a very granular level.

Ha, I wasn't saying that. I just think Jesse actually makes some good points

I really like Jesse, but again, he's blaming the both parties for the problems in the White House. Your electing 2 people, not the entire party.

Canada is different. The leaders of our parties have a huge amount of power within the party system (it works that way because there is a very high concentration of power centred on the prime minister). In Canada the leader pretty much is the party.

You elect more than just two people. You elect an administration. I think it's valid to consider the kind of administration an individual will create. And that administration will be pulled from their party.

Individuals also aren't immune to the pressures they feel from their party - I think it's that kind of pressure that lead McCain to choose Palin.

Kupek wrote:Individuals also aren't immune to the pressures they feel from their party - I think it's that kind of pressure that lead McCain to choose Palin.

I think it was a different kind of "pressure" that lead McCain to choose Palin.

Anarky wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Anarky wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG-w8ZmysnY

Not the best quality, but makes the point.

OK, you got me. I've been hiding the fact but I can't hold out much longer: I am Jesse Ventura. This whole "I'm an accountant, I'm married, I have two kids on the way" was just a cover. You saw it right there, me saying the EXACT same things I've been bitching about on this board for years right on national TV. Sorry to trick you guys I thought this would be a good way to get in touch with "the people" on a very granular level.

Ha, I wasn't saying that. I just think Jesse actually makes some good points

And I was saying he basically said exactly what I've been saying for the last 10 years, including on this board with respect to the problems of the party system and the whole "none of the above" issue. I feel exactly the same way as he does about it. It may as well have been me answering those questions I would have given the exact same answers word for word.

SineSwiper wrote:

Kupek wrote:Individuals also aren't immune to the pressures they feel from their party - I think it's that kind of pressure that lead McCain to choose Palin.

I think it was a different kind of "pressure" that lead McCain to choose Palin.

They're the heads of their parties. Even though each party has differing opinions within it, they still have to follow the party line and get their support from their parties. They do have to answer to them

In the end the people a president appoint into his administration are much more important than the president himself... and since all those people are chosen from their respective party then yes-- you are electing a person to appoint an administration full of his closest party members. This is why I don't get the argument that (was it Zeus made?) Clinton wasn't a good president, he just surrounded himself with good people. That's the best we can hope for-- a president that will appoint the right people to his administration and not appoint their buddy who ran horse shows for a few years to be the head of FEMA.

Tessian wrote:In the end the people a president appoint into his administration are much more important than the president himself... and since all those people are chosen from their respective party then yes-- you are electing a person to appoint an administration full of his closest party members. This is why I don't get the argument that (was it Zeus made?) Clinton wasn't a good president, he just surrounded himself with good people. That's the best we can hope for-- a president that will appoint the right people to his administration and not appoint their buddy who ran horse shows for a few years to be the head of FEMA.

Nope, wasn't me. I said Clinton was the epitome of what you don't want in a politician and that he was successful and/or popular basically because the economy was kicking ass and taking names during his entire reign. That entire administration did zero, they just put their surfboard on the cusp of that wave and rode it all the way to shore.

The Republican presidential campaign's choice of Palin as VP was just fucking despicable. That choice alone just speaks to where the Republican party's head is at. If McCain and Palin get in I think I will lose all hope for the USA.

Zeus wrote:That entire administration did zero, they just put their surfboard on the cusp of that wave and rode it all the way to shore.

The Iraq war has cost about 700 billion dollars so far, and could cost trillions. Under Clinton's administration the Iraq war almost certainly would not have happened. If Clinton's administration had in fact done nothing — a claim I think is bullshit, but let's indulge it for the moment — that nothing would have been preferable to the current adminstration's many disastrous somethings.

It's not that Palin <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/2 ... tml">knows fuck-all about, well, any fucking thing</a>! It's that, according to McCain and Palin, muckrakers like Katie Couric are practising <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RywhPtebuM">gotcha journalism</a>!

What a pair of <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCai ... op-looking cunts</a>.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:The Republican presidential campaign's choice of Palin as VP was just fucking despicable. That choice alone just speaks to where the Republican party's head is at. If McCain and Palin get in I think I will lose all hope for the USA.

Zeus wrote:That entire administration did zero, they just put their surfboard on the cusp of that wave and rode it all the way to shore.

The Iraq war has cost about 700 billion dollars so far, and could cost trillions. Under Clinton's administration the Iraq war almost certainly would not have happened. If Clinton's administration had in fact done nothing — a claim I think is bullshit, but let's indulge it for the moment — that nothing would have been preferable to the current adminstration's many disastrous somethings.

Hey, I never said Bush is better. Clinton just wasn't good

I moved that Clinton thread outside of this one. Shoo!

Also, going back to Palin, Jack Cafferty's response to Palin, after she danced around a simple question about the economy bill. She says everything except ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION! Jack's response is awesome.

Zeus wrote:They're the heads of their parties. Even though each party has differing opinions within it, they still have to follow the party line and get their support from their parties. They do have to answer to them

If it was up to the party, they would have never bothered with this lady.

SineSwiper wrote:I If it was up to the party, they would have never bothered with this lady.

I don't think so. I think she's popular with the Republican base. Back during the primaries, there were conservative pundits who said they'd never vote for McCain (Limbaugh, Coulter). According to stories I read, his other top picks were his close friend Lieberman and Romney. A former Democrat Jew and a Mormon wouldn't go over well with the Evangelicals that have taken over the party. I think choosing Palin was McCain giving into party pressure.

Republicans will always vote Republican. Democrats will always vote Democrat. The Republicans who hate McCain won't be swayed by his VP choice.

It's the independents that you have to worry about, and a lady that doesn't know national interests from a hole in her head isn't going to attract very many of those.

SineSwiper wrote:Republicans will always vote Republican. Democrats will always vote Democrat.

No, they won't. You're taking it as a given that they'll vote. If someone who identifies as a Republican feels "meh" about the Republican candidates, they might not bother.

Kupek wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Republicans will always vote Republican. Democrats will always vote Democrat.

No, they won't. You're taking it as a given that they'll vote. If someone who identifies as a Republican feels "meh" about the Republican candidates, they might not bother.

The perception I have is the conservatives generally DO vote, much more often than liberals. And they tend to stick to their candidates rather than shifting to another one. Is that true?

Sixty-four percent of US citizens voted in the 2004 elections. So 36% of the voting population did not vote. Even if a smaller number of these non-voters are self-identified Republicans who just went "meh", that would have been enough to turn the slim margins we had in 2000 and 2004.

Keep in mind I don't know if your perception is true. What I'm trying to say is that even if it is, you can still lose an election even if the vast majority of your constituency does vote. Since our margins are so slim right now, the importance of the details gets inflated.

I was looking at it from a slightly different point of view.

If you have national polls of people eligible voters and the results are quite tight, as they have been the last couple of elections, then if a greater percentage of conservatives vote than liberals, wouldn't that turn the tide into the favour of the conservative candidate? Add to the mix that there's another liberal candidate who gets a small percentage of the votes and a tight race is tilted even further towards the conservative candidate. Or is this completely off base?

I don't see anything wrong with your reasoning if you assume the conservatives are enthusiastic about their candidates. My point was that it's not just a matter of wooing swing voters. You also have to inspire people who are ostensibly on your side.

In other terms, there's not just a danger in losing voters to the other side, there's also the danger of losing people who would have voted for you, but didn't bother because you didn't make them care enough. McCain's choice of Palin was terrible, but it also may win him the election for this reason.

Kupek wrote:Sixty-four percent of US citizens voted in the 2004 elections. So 36% of the voting population did not vote. Even if a smaller number of these non-voters are self-identified Republicans who just went "meh", that would have been enough to turn the slim margins we had in 2000 and 2004.

Keep in mind I don't know if your perception is true. What I'm trying to say is that even if it is, you can still lose an election even if the vast majority of your constituency does vote. Since our margins are so slim right now, the importance of the details gets inflated.

Well, only 15% of the American public actually cares about politics to do any research. Most Americans are like "well, that done McCain's got a pretty wife, so I'll vote for her", or the slightly more intelligent "I don't like Obama because he's a Muslim terrorist." Hell, 13% of the public believe that Obama is a Muslim. Thirteen fucking percent! Six percent of Americans won't vote for Obama because he's black. And 19% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain because he has a woman VP.

This is what the voting public believes in. Stupid little soundbites and half-truths. Nobody actually wants to research what they think about their candidate or you know, the issues. What about the issues? Why should I care what one guy looks like over another? Just don't bother showing me what either of them look like and just give me a list of issues, what they support, and past history of voting records and career choices.

Kupek wrote:I don't see anything wrong with your reasoning if you assume the conservatives are enthusiastic about their candidates. My point was that it's not just a matter of wooing swing voters. You also have to inspire people who are ostensibly on your side.

In other terms, there's not just a danger in losing voters to the other side, there's also the danger of losing people who would have voted for you, but didn't bother because you didn't make them care enough. McCain's choice of Palin was terrible, but it also may win him the election for this reason.

Yeah, I can't disagree with that. I've just always had the impression that it ain't too hard for the conservatives to get their people to come out to vote. And they basically only have one candidate or party to vote for. It's a lot harder than the liberal minded people.

If Bush can win on the religious angle maybe McCain can use the female angle to win over the minority one Barack has going? Sounds ridiculous but there are SHITLOADS of people who vote on such superficial things.

My God. McCain was savaged thoroughly by two people in this most recent debate: Obama, and himself. "That one!" What the fuck.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:My God. McCain was savaged thoroughly by two people in this most recent debate: Obama, and himself. "That one!" What the fuck.

I thought Obama fumbled a number of times. It wasn't a Biden-Palin discrepancy by any means