• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A Question for those who plan to vote for McCain

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.
 
If McCain picks Romney, I will not consider voting for McCain. Romney's claim to fame is that he introduced a health care program in MA without raising taxes. Well what he DID do is cut infrastructure spending and education spending to such a level that there are now quite a few roads that are simply falling apart due to lack of funding.

I don't like that trade off, and he shouldn't be touting his reforms as something 'magic' when in fact it was nothing special.

Its like saying that we can end our deficit but reducing the defense budget down to 30%... but the trade off would not be good there.
 
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing. The primary difference between the two parties is how the tax money is spent. Tax cuts for the rich result in tax increases (or cost increases) for the poor and middle class.

Republican: Don't tax the rich. Spend. Go into heavy debt. Decrease social services that help the poor and middle class while increasing social services that help the rich.

Democrat: Tax the rich. Spend. Cut debt. Increase social services that help the poor and middle class while keeping most social services that help the rich at the status quo.

That isn't to say there isn't overlap or examples of opposite-party behavior (like Clinton's support of NAFTA). But, from what I've seen in recent times, this is the basic breakdown.

So can you explain to me how we the people here in New Orleans had so many people stranded after the storm?

I mean, this state has had a Democrat gov for forever and the city has been run by liberals for forever.

Why were those people let down by the government? How could they have been too poor to get out of town?

Gee I wonder......


At the end of the day you can't simply look at what one side says vs. what the other side says. You have to look at what happens when either side enacts their policies.

I can tell you the wonderful liberal utopia here has served to stop SOME people from drowning but it sure as hell doesn't have anybody swimming either.



 
well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation is one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers...
There's a difference between defending the nation and a kickbacks gravy trough.
 
New Orleans....liberals
The Katrina fiasco is a complex web of politics. One recent thing that came up is a charge that an engineering group covered up safety problems. The inept federal response to the disaster also can't be pinned on "liberalism".
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Those people are lying (those who'd say they would vote mccain if their person lost). I do not believe reality will bear out their claims to a questionnaire.
I'm dead serious when I say that I will vote for McCain if Obama is not the dem nominee.

I think very few Democrats will end up voting for McCain instead of Obama in November. There will certainly be a few, but I'm guessing that it will be 5% or less. The primary right now is heated, and people are saying things that they will come to re-assess 8 months from now.

As far as the list of neo-cons goes, that is nowhere close to inclusive. I think generally neoconservatism can be described as a foreign policy ideology that espouses the aggressive use of US military power to reshape the world in a more US favorable way, along with strong support of Israel. If you say this, then McCain is certainly a neo-con, and so is Joe Lieberman even though he's a Democrat. Giuliani and Romney would both fit in with this as well based on their campaign talk. Actually nearly every Republican candidate ran on a neoconservative platform with the exception of Ron Paul and Huckabee. (I think?)
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: bamacre
If McCain chooses as his VP a neo-conservative, would that change your mind? Would that cause you to change your vote to Obama, or Hillary (if she bamboozles her way into receiving the nomination)? I ask this mainly because some of Hillary's supporters have stated they will vote for McCain if Obama receives the nomination, but the question is certainly open to anyone who plans to vote for McCain.

As far as I'm concerned McCain himself is a neo-conservative. I am starting to consider that label for anyone on the authoritarian side of the conservative label. Much like socialist is to the liberal label.

Anyone in favor of the government before the people is stained foul in my book. He cannot pick a VP worse than himself unless he reached across the isle.

:thumbsup:

Edit: Haha, whoops, sorry Jaskalas, wrong thumb. 😛
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.

True, "...provide for the common defense.."

But don't forget "...promote the general welfare..."
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.
:roll:

Which part of defense does attacking a backwards nation with no military power fall under?
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.

True, "...provide for the common defense.."

But don't forget "...promote the general welfare..."

promote != provide

their word choice was key... 😉
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.
:roll:

Which part of defense does attacking a backwards nation with no military power fall under?

I believe that's often referred to as the "TO BE DISCUSSED IN A DIFFERENT THREAD" branch...
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.
:roll:

Which part of defense does attacking a backwards nation with no military power fall under?

It wouldn't be defense, but the original name of the dept was Dept of War, so it would make more sense if they hadn't thrown a euphemism in to screw with our heads 🙂
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: superstition
Spending a huge amount of tax money on "defense" is its own socialism. This "republicans vs. socialists" thing is pretty amusing.

well, unlike entitlement programs, the defense of our nation happens to be one of the Federal Government's responsibilities, as spelled out by our founding fathers... that is, if you even care what they had to say about it.

Defense, yes. The problem is waaaaay too much offense.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
It doesn't matter who McCain picks, and even though it will pain me, I will still choose him over either of the socialists on the other side.

That just about sums it up for me too. Lesser of three evils.
 
McCain's simple-minded militarism, his ignorance about national security, and his moronic view that the U.S. should run the world through endless wars ought to be one of the most intensely debated issues in the campaign. But it won't be because - the media has already decided that McCain is a Serious Expert in these matters and that national security is his strength, and evidence to the contrary won't be reported.

The disastrous and moronic equivalence between militarism and "toughness" should be a principal issue in the election because. But it won't be because, in Media Land, John McCain is deemed the National Security Tough Guy who keeps us safe despite espousing views on war that the vast majority of Americans reject.

McCain's lack of foreign policy expertise is more than outweighed by his media expertise. He has known for a long time that winning the media primary is far more important than winning, say, Kansas.

Want to guess what the reaction would have been if Obama called Vladimir Putin "the President of Germany"?
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Nebor
I would vote for McCain if he picked Cheney.
You'd vote for Richard Simmons if he selected DICK Cheney as VP.
Richard Simmons is hetero and an example that sexual orientation doesn't determine how masculine or feminine someone is. Most gay men are indistinguishable from heterosexuals, and some heterosexuals are mistaken for gay men. It makes dating pretty difficult.
 
Originally posted by: superstition
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Nebor
I would vote for McCain if he picked Cheney.
You'd vote for Richard Simmons if he selected DICK Cheney as VP.
Richard Simmons is hetero and an example that sexual orientation doesn't determine how masculine or feminine someone is. Most gay men are indistinguishable from heterosexuals, and some heterosexuals are mistaken for gay men. It makes dating pretty difficult.

WTF?? My comment had nothing to do with Simmons sexuality, I meant that it didn't matter to Nebor who was running if the running mate was Dick Cheney.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Those people are lying (those who'd say they would vote mccain if their person lost). I do not believe reality will bear out their claims to a questionnaire.
I'm dead serious when I say that I will vote for McCain if Obama is not the dem nominee.

I can certainly see Obama supporters voting for McCain over Hillary. I do find some truth in Skoorb's statement regarding the opposite scenario however. For one, Hillary is just plain hated, however justified that may be is irrelevant. Two, I see Hillary's stance on Iraq being the same as McCain's, if not worse.
I consider obama between mccain and hillary, though far to the left. I can imagine why somebody may vote obama over mccain but somebody who'd vote mccain over obama? Just does not make sense. I do not believe them.

BMW540I6speedmakes great points, above.

superstition I think you need to go to bed and have a long rest.

 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: bamacre
That list does not appear to be all-inclusive. Just a quick Ctrl-F doesn't see Cheney.

Maybe he got kicked out of the club? He hasn't started a war in like 5 years.

😉

Fern

:thumbsup:

Give him a little more time. Maybe he can bag Iran before his time's up. Or maybe he can get his "time" extended to get the job done:Q
 
Back
Top