Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[timay]

[wcrickards]

Here's my biggest problem, getting back on topic...

I think Sen. Barack Obama is a great orator, but his "change" rhetoric is flat-out wrong. He talks about a new tone in Washington, but he has not reached across the aisle in any sort of meaningful legislation (and stats show he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator). His foreign policies of meet-and-greet and appease is hardly a change of pace, as it is ripped straight out of the 1930s. His domestic policies are ripped from the 'Great Society' of the 1960s. By the way, both of those policies are proved to be horrible failures.

It doesn't matter anyways, McCain is going to get annihilated.

[Sean O]

Here's my biggest problem, getting back on topic...

I think Sen. Barack Obama is a great orator, but his "change" rhetoric is flat-out wrong. He talks about a new tone in Washington, but he has not reached across the aisle in any sort of meaningful legislation (and stats show he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator).

He is very liberal, that I agree with. The first part, however, is flat-out wrong. From nuclear non-proliferation to civil rights to McCain's own immigration bill, Obama has worked with Republicans a number of times since he was elected.

His foreign policies of meet-and-greet and appease is hardly a change of pace, as it is ripped straight out of the 1930s.

I am so sick of this, respectfully, ignorant position. Anyone making this argument is essentially saying that an American politician able to survive the election process is unable to negotiate with some two-bit criminal military leader in carjackistan. They also don't seem to ever provide a counter example as working in any meaningful way. Are we really going back to the appeasement of Hitler prior to WW2 as our example, something that happened almost 70 years ago?

A president with a real military (not the currently overstretched force we have in Iraq and Afghanistan) behind his words will be able to force progress far greater than any other method. I also like how we ignore the way Bush has handled North Korea.

It doesn't matter anyways, McCain is going to get annihilated.

I find it interesting that none of the republicans on this site ever says anything good that McCain will do, or any positive positions that he stands for. The closest thing I've seen is chiding Obama for saying McCain is Bush's third term, even though he voted with Bush 95% of the time.

He voted for the disastrous war and the equally disastrous surge (and, meanwhile, erroneously believes that we have fewer troops in Iraq than we did before the surge, when we have 30k more), he doesn't know the difference between sunni and shia in regards to Iran and Al Qa'eda, he admittedly doesn't understand the economy, he wants to invade Iran with some mythical force we don't have, he's intimately tied to lobbyists, he can't decide what he did or what he wants on Bush's tax cuts, etc. etc.

Nobody seems to be talking about McCain's deleterious effects on the nation, which is shocking. Just saying you're not Bush doesn't make it so.

[wcrickards]

(referencing bi-partisanship)

He is very liberal, that I agree with. The first part, however, is flat-out wrong. From nuclear non-proliferation to civil rights to McCain's own immigration bill, Obama has worked with Republicans a number of times since he was elected.

Well... McCain's immigration bill was more of an example of McCain working w/ Democrats than Obama working w/ Republicans... Largely because the Republican base despised McCain's immigration bill.

The fact is, Obama's liberal voting record indicates that he is not siding with the GOP on many issues. In 2007, he voted on the liberal side of the issue in 99 key votes a whopping 95.5% of the time. And hey, for a chunk of the country, that's a great thing -- not siding with Republicans. But when your campaign is based on a new tone in Washington... Obama isn't exactly in the Joe Lieberman "maverick" camp.

(Regarding Negotiating With Foreign Leaders)

I am so sick of this, respectfully, ignorant position. Anyone making this argument is essentially saying that an American politician able to survive the election process is unable to negotiate with some two-bit criminal military leader in carjackistan. They also don't seem to ever provide a counter example as working in any meaningful way. Are we really going back to the appeasement of Hitler prior to WW2 as our example, something that happened almost 70 years ago?

Here's the thing... If you negotiate with the leader in Carjackistan (I like that name, very clever!) what you are doing is essentially elevating that leader into a position on the international level. When you are in that position, all you can really do is capitulate to their demands. As for the WW2 appeasement... I really wouldn't ignore that. That's really a big, historical moment and we should really remember the mistakes that were made so we can avoid them in the future. (What was it those boring history teachers said about those don't learn history are doomed to repeat it)?

A president with a real military (not the currently overstretched force we have in Iraq and Afghanistan) behind his words will be able to force progress far greater than any other method. I also like how we ignore the way Bush has handled North Korea.

North Korea has been a disaster, although the way it has been handled is exactly the same way it was handled during the Clinton years ("we'll give you some kickbacks, but you have to promise not to use it to build nuclear power.") The only one sounding the alarm was John Bolten, who was NOT allowed to be in a position of international influence, thanks to the Democrats and linguini-spined Republicans.

As for the "military forcing progress", I respectfully disagree. I think the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked well against the Soviet Union, because they had something significant to lose (e.g., their status as a superpower). Regarding Iran, they've basically said that they're willing to be martyred if it means they can accomplish their ends (the destruction of Israel). I mean, these guys have said that they'd sacrifice 10 million of its citizens to get rid of 1 million Israelis. That's unacceptable, in my book. We cannot allow it to get to that point.

(regarding McCain)

I find it interesting that none of the republicans on this site ever says anything good that McCain will do, or any positive positions that he stands for. The closest thing I've seen is chiding Obama for saying McCain is Bush's third term, even though he voted with Bush 95% of the time.

He voted for the disastrous war and the equally disastrous surge (and, meanwhile, erroneously believes that we have fewer troops in Iraq than we did before the surge, when we have 30k more), he doesn't know the difference between sunni and shia in regards to Iran and Al Qa'eda, he admittedly doesn't understand the economy, he wants to invade Iran with some mythical force we don't have, he's intimately tied to lobbyists, he can't decide what he did or what he wants on Bush's tax cuts, etc. etc.

Nobody seems to be talking about McCain's deleterious effects on the nation, which is shocking. Just saying you're not Bush doesn't make it so.

Well, conservatives aren't really thrilled with McCain because he's a Democrat Lite. As for him siding with Bush 95% of the time... Bush really is a moderate, especially on spending issues. I mean, his two biggest domestic pieces of legislation (No Child Left Behind & Medicare Overhaul), he signed while Ted Kennedy applauded behind him.

The Iraq war went wrong because it was handled wrong. The surge I wouldn't really call "equally disastrous", because it has reaped favorable results (by every measure, violence is down across Iraq. The government is coming together, and they are taking responsibility for their security. Is the war at a level where we can unilaterally define it as a success? No, heavens no. But we are a heck of a lot better now than we were a year-and-a-half ago. Thank the good Lord for General Petraeus, seriously.

Will McCain do a lousy job? Well, the question is, will the other guy do a worse job? I believe that the answer is yes. I think Obama's domestic policies are bad and his foreign policy is worse than that. "Are you really willing to vote for, what you so aptly have described as the lesser of two evils?" Yes, of course.

I'll give you the last word. Thanks for the spirited discussion.

[tsooozavel]

Republicans speak about the rights of individuals but then consider that it is wrong for individuals to organize into strong labor unions and call the union's leadership union bosses. Looking at their most recent speeches, in PollClash They also decry labor union's collective bargaining contracts and promote what they call State's Right to Work Laws instead.

[duckdodger215]

Republicans speak about the rights of individuals but then consider that it is wrong for individuals to organize into strong labor unions and call the union's leadership union bosses. Looking at their most recent speeches, in PollClash They also decry labor union's collective bargaining contracts and promote what they call State's Right to Work Laws instead.

you obviously don't work with or around unions.. either that or you're actually in one and have been brainwashed by all of their anti-corporation propaganda. unions were good for workers years ago... when the likes of OSHA requirements weren't nearly as in-depth as they are today. today they go too far when it comes to negotiating and supporting everyone in the union... even when some of those individuals within the union shouldn't be allowed anywhere near machinery or the likes.

[duckdodger215]

so i was wondering if any obama fanboi would like to explain obama's answer to new energy solutions in our country. No, I did not say oil or gas prices or anything like that... I said ENERGY.

[wcrickards]

Republicans don't have a problem with unions per se, certainly everyone has the right to peaceably assemble. However, certain unions (namely, the teacher's unions) has devolved to the point of inefficacy -- yet, their political clout precludes any meaningful change.

[wcrickards]

Also, and I did not mean to intrude on the "democrat only" thread, but there was a discussion far too juicy for me ignore.

Basically, one poster juxtaposed two headlines. One said something to the effect of "McCain calls Obama "naive" and "delusional" for his approach towards terrorism". The other proclaimed the truce between Hamas and Israel. The author concluded with "hmmmm..." as if to say, "maybe mediation and negotiation actually work."

Well today, Hamas broke the truce. I posted that in the Democrat thread, and now I'm bringing it into the open for full discussion.

Of course, Hamas breaking the truce should come as no surprise to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of geopolitics. The raison d'etre of these people is the annihilation of the Jewish state, and no amount of negotiation is going to change that. It is, in the words of McCain, "naive" and "delusional" to think otherwise... and I only hope that Obama realizes this before ascending to the position of President.

[duckdodger215]

Also, and I did not mean to intrude on the "democrat only" thread, but there was a discussion far too juicy for me ignore.

Basically, one poster juxtaposed two headlines. One said something to the effect of "McCain calls Obama "naive" and "delusional" for his approach towards terrorism". The other proclaimed the truce between Hamas and Israel. The author concluded with "hmmmm..." as if to say, "maybe mediation and negotiation actually work."

Well today, Hamas broke the truce. I posted that in the Democrat thread, and now I'm bringing it into the open for full discussion.

Of course, Hamas breaking the truce should come as no surprise to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of geopolitics. The raison d'etre of these people is the annihilation of the Jewish state, and no amount of negotiation is going to change that. It is, in the words of McCain, "naive" and "delusional" to think otherwise... and I only hope that Obama realizes this before ascending to the position of President.

well, he must first get the electoral votes to become president. hopefully by the first of november, this fad will be over. there will never be peace in that area as long as one of them still exists. and, yes, i saw the image whomever that was posted. too funny, now.

still waiting on that answer to new energy solutions

[wcrickards]

Obama's energy plan is to raise taxes on everyone, thus slowing down the economy to the point where we don't need to expend as much energy. No need to waste gas driving to work when there is no work to go to, you know?

[RaptorQuiz]

..oh... yikes...

The New Yorker printed an editorial cartoon on the cover w/ Obama in Muslim attire, his wife w/ a machine gun, and the American flag burning in the fireplace, all in the oval office.

Seems...

...

...extreme?

[DeuceBlades]

I hate all three candidates, but to pick the lesser of three evils, I'll go with John McCain because of his experience and the fact that he wants to finish to job in Iraq instead of running away.

The lesser of these 2 evils, is gonna get you drafted, hope you like spending 4 years of your life in Iran buddy. Finishing the job doesnt mean spending 100 years in Iraq, and building military bases in Iraq, to get attacked by suicide bombers, and having more troops come home in bodybags, long after the war is over. I guess you didnt think, just like typical uneducated America.

(By the way, not all of America is uneducated, just the ones who refuse to see whats going on these last 8 years)

translation he is too black

Kraw you hit it right on the head. Non-Liberal America is racist America. 8 years of crap out of Washington, and the Republicans want 4 more years? I saw the light after the first 4 years, and I turned Democrat for this election. I may never go back to that hawkish left-wing BS ever again. All the Reps. do is spin everything to fit their ideals. Then they accuse Obama of being a liberal, but I have news for you, the race isnt gonna be as close as the media projects it. Obama will annihilate McCain in the debates, and show him for the fraud he truly is. Judgement and temprement? We will see McCain!!!

Here's my biggest problem, getting back on topic...

I think Sen. Barack Obama is a great orator, but his "change" rhetoric is flat-out wrong. He talks about a new tone in Washington, but he has not reached across the aisle in any sort of meaningful legislation (and stats show he has the most liberal voting record of any Senator). His foreign policies of meet-and-greet and appease is hardly a change of pace, as it is ripped straight out of the 1930s. His domestic policies are ripped from the 'Great Society' of the 1960s. By the way, both of those policies are proved to be horrible failures.

It doesn't matter anyways, McCain is going to get annihilated.

Tell this to Ronald Reagan, a great orator and former govenor, before he became president. Oh by the way, he was an actor too. He turned out to be one of our greates presidents in history.

By the way, tell me if a right-wing warmonger like McCain is any better? His bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Iran song didnt do any favors for him. Hes looking for a fight, and we cant go through another war. Our economy will crumble to nothing, and the dollar will plummet to no return averages. You think the dollar sucks now, you wait and see.

[wolfy6finger]

While my candidate didn't win the primary, I'm gonna have to go with "the lesser of two evils".

I actually hate that, both of these men are good Americans.

The question is which one is the right man for the job at this time. Who can help the economy? Who can help the mend fences abroad? The list goes on.

I tend to be an independent, who votes either way. I voted for Clinton in 96, Gore in 00 (but that was tough, I came close to Bush--good thing I didn't) and didn't vote in 04 (as both Bush/Kerry sucked).

This time, I'm going with Obama (as much as I hate to say it). We had 8 years of Bush, and can't do another 4 with "McBush"; not at this time.

To be fair, McCain is a great war hero, but the most single importnant question people are asking is about the economy. He admittedly said he doesn't know much about it.

If McCain had picked Romney as VP, I'd debate my vote more, because even though I think Romney is joke at times, he is very good when it comes to economy/balance budget (did it for "Taxachusetts")

And, people who say McCain's not gonna raise taxes. That might be kind of true, but the "Bush Tax Breaks" (which he wants to continues) favors the rich and big business, not the middle class or poor (the small guys that most of us on this site are).

Obama, might raise taxes (I don't know, he's could), but I also know he said, if he did raise them, it would be for the rich/big business, while softening reducing for the working middle-class and poor.

That's a big difference in these half-truths that I see, like "Obama is gonna raise your taxes". Thats not true when it comes to middle-class. (Although politicians do lie, doesn't matter which party you are affiliated with)

The problem with our ecomomy is the rich (about 5% of our population, owns about 90% of wealth). The middle class is shrinking to almost no existance. I see this everyday at my job, working as an accountant.

I can't even afford to by a house on my salary, that is sad.

As for Iran/Iraq, etc. Who are we not at war with? Or will be at war with, if McCain wins.

The Iraq war cost us alot for basically nothing (I know my brother was over there twice, almost killed once, when supposed violence was down). However, violence isn't down as much as people think, it's just "old news".

Normally, wars help the economy (more jobs, etc.). This time it had the opposite effect.

At this time, we need to mend fences with our allies, because we pissed enough of them off. I'm not saying become "isolationists" again, because that didn't work when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor before WW2. But we really need to stop being a bully and impose our will. Now, their are exceptions, when dealing with genocide, etc. But try peacefully first.

I do reserve the right to change my vote to McCain, but at this time I'm leaning toward Obama.

Ok, I rambled enough. Feel free to dissect, but do it in calm manner as this is a discussion. We each have our opinions on the matter and this election is critical for America.

[catzrthecoolest]

I think you've confused "left wing" with "right wing", Blades

[DeuceBlades]

My bad catz,

but of all of you republicans, which of you cant see that the Bush government is broken? Do you know anything about your candidate, other than he is a (Im getting tired of him using it as a crutch) war hero? He was with Bush 90-95% of the time these past 8 years. He even stated he was going to keep Bush's policies in play. He is gonna bring back the draft, and he is a warmonger. These are facts guys. Im not making this up. He has stated that he would bomb Iran in an instant, and talk strong against the Russians. 2 things we do not need this time around. I cant believe republicans want this again.

Im an independant now, as well. i voted republican over the years, except last election. I am now voting democrat, because the writing is on the wall, and I know I am not the only one to see it. Europe is scared of the Russians, and of us. They think we are gonna provoke Russia into war with NATO. This is fact. I have friends abroad. I visit them frequently. This is the real world, not just what you do when you get up at 6 in the morning, getting ready for work. Almost every country supports Obama, because they know he can bring everyone to the table. Not drop bombs on Iran, or spread missile defense systems all around Europe to risk a Russian response.

I just hope when it comes election time, people use their heads, and do the homework before they fill in the ballot.

and Im glad that its gonna be a majority Democrat congress, because that will act as a counter weight to McCain. Nothing will get done, and Im fine with that, if he is elected.

[catzrthecoolest]

it's arrogant, condescending comments like "I just hope when it comes election time, people use their heads" and "Non-Liberal America is racist America" that make me dislike the Left. It's not just you, i can name a handful on this forum like this.

PROTIP: if you want people to vote for you, don't insult them or their voting decisions, etc.

[HardcoreLegend]

He is not going to bring back the draft. Give me a break.

[BigRog]

I saw a video earlier that blades posting where he said he would.

[wolfy6finger]

HardcoreLegend,

He has said he will bring back the draft. Will he? Maybe, maybe not.

[el_jefe061]

Here is my perma-rebuttal to anything ever said (from the other thread):

What nobody seems to understand when voting is that everything ties into the economy. Healthcare, military spending, education, everything. It all ties in.

The problem with the argument against standardized healthcare is that we're already paying for people who don't have healthcare. People who do not have healthcare do not get turned away. Illegal immigrants who do not have healthcare do not get turned away. They do not get the benefits that those with healthcare do get, and there are many procedures not performed, but a significant number of people who don't have healthcare receive it, therefore standardizing is a legitimate response.

Republican Dwight Eisenhower's biggest accomplishments in the White House were drawing down the military and addressing the needs at home. He preached lower military spending so we can fix the problems we have in America. We can no longer afford to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. We are no longer an economy that thrives on war; we are a consumer economy. The money used in Iraq can be put towards education so in the future decades we can reap the benefits of new technologies, instead of falling behind the rest of the world. The money used in Iraq can be used for 21st century public transportation, helping us to lose our dependence on foreign oil; or the development of new fuels.

Most of all, however, the money can be given back to the middle class, the true motor of our economy. Our money shouldn't be going to the upper class, putting their money into the Cayman Islands or outsourcing new factories and jobs. As a consumer economy, our money needs to go into the middle class in order for us to move forward.

A friend of mine once said the problem with the education system is that kids are "lazy pieces of ****". While this may be true, it will take more than new tests for children to succeed. Take the Japanese, who spend longer hours in school then the rest of the world. Put money into adding an hour a day to school, giving students more instructional time. Put money into giving teachers better salaries, attracting the best and the brightest instead of the few who want to teach.

The greatest long term success of the American economy was after World War II, when hundreds of thousand of returning vets went to college for free. Two decades later, we were the first country on the moon. Put the smartest kids in college, not the richest, and we will once again accomplish great things. We are no longer the greatest producer of technologies in the world. An improvement in education will change that.

Our foreign policy does not need to be unilateral. Our best successes in foreign policy have involved the help of NATO and the rest of the world. Who paid for 74% of the original Gulf War? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar (If I'm not mistaken). "Threats" to the world and the Middle East are not just our problem, and we need to be diplomatic again.

Ask yourself these questions: Who will bring money to the middle class?

Who will enrich our transportation, public schools, and diplomatic policy? Who will put our economy at the forefront of a world economy that is moving forward without us? Who will address the issues at home, so we have the clout and ability to address the issues abroad?

To those who doubt Barack Obama's ability and readiness, I will say this: No one has surrounded himself with better advisers and staff as Barack Obama. It is my belief that he does have the knowledge and ability to run the country, but if he doesn't, he can turn to his dream team of advisers. A bi-partisan team that includes former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, former NATO Supreme Commander Wes Clark, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and former Secretary of the Treasury and Bush cabinet member, Paul O'Neill.

John McCain today is not the same John McCain he was eight years ago. He does not believe the same things he did eight years ago; he is not a maverick anymore. He has sold his soul for the nomination a group of conservatives who do not even want him. He has turned against his own immigration bill. He does not know the geography of countries that are integral to our foreign policy success. He is out of touch, and wants to continue the same failed policies of the Bush Administration.

Albert Einstein once said "the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." With the failed policies of the Bush administration, wouldn't you be insane to vote for John McCain?

As for Sarah Palin, John McCain once said "the most important criteria for picking a vice president is whether he or she could immediately step in if something happened to the president". Would you want your President to be a 1 1/2 year Governor of ALASKA, who has little to no foreign policy, legislative, and diplomatic experience? Someone who is being investigated for lying and abuse of power? A woman who would ban abortion for all circumstances? A woman who thinks global warming is a hoax?

To be blunt, and to quote Vince Vaughn:

"Don't beat yourself up over this, Mitch. It's not your fault. Dammit, Blue was old. That's what old people do. They die. "

That's what old people do. They die. God forbid anything happen to John McCain over the next 8 years of his life, but the man is 72 years old and a cancer survivor. His health can decline drastically, to the point where he can no longer run the Presidency. He can become senile, or just see declining health. Woodrow Wilson was in his 60's when he became no longer competent to be President.

So ask yourself: Do you want that person, Sarah Palin, to be one step away from being the leader of the free world?

[HardcoreLegend]

HardcoreLegend,

He has said he will bring back the draft. Will he? Maybe, maybe not.

No he didn't.

Find the quote.

[BigRog]

gaqajjVEO_I&feature=related

in the video the women mentions the draft and the need for it to be initiated to track down bin laden and he said he didn't disagree with her at all. i He didn't come out and say he will initiate it but come on 1+1 does not = 3

[HardcoreLegend]

First of all, please never trust anything Keith Olbermann says. This is the same man that broke the story (that was never true) that Albert Pujols was named in a legal documents having used HGH.

Second, he doesn't say he is bringing back the draft. If you'll notice MSNBC cleverly edited clip, they cut off what the woman was really talking about: Veteran's health benfits. McCain agreed with her that if we don't take care of our military personnel and make sure they get better care than what they are getting, there will be no one left in the military and we will have to re-enact the draft.

Here is the actual quote from the woman:

My son is an officer in the Air Force, I'm a vet., and I was raised in a military family. And I think it's a sorry state of affairs. When we have illegal aliens; having a medic-aid card that can access specialists, top physicians, the best of medical, and our vets can't even get to a doctor. And these are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don't re-enact the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of Hell.

She was clearly talking about the lack of medical care for Veteran's.

Now, McCain's response?

McCain: I'm grateful for all of our veterans. I carry with me quite often a quote from General George Washington in 1789. He said, "The willingness with which young Americans will serve their country in future wars is directly related to the treatment of those who have previously served and sacrificed in conflict." He was right in 1789 and he's right today.

All too often our veterans do not receive the care that they have earned, and the scandal of Walter Reed is a blot on the honor of the United States of America and we can never let it happen again.

Now here's what.. I'll make this as short as possible, our veterans have earned our highest priority. And yet we know that there is also routine health care needs that veterans have that in my view, they should not have to go to the VA to receive. OK?

Trust me when I tell you this, as someone with a journalism degree, MSNBC is in a serious state of affairs. They have allowed their editorial board to begin to dictate to their News Agency. This is in direct result to the power vaccum that Tim Russert's death has caused.

If Obama loses this election, there will be a serious amount of house cleaning going on at NBC News.

[BigRog]

That might be so and you are true but I doubt the average American will realize that clip was taken out of context and come to the conclusion we came to about mccann's stance on the draft