• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If elected, which John McCain will become president?

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
I've seen more flip-flops out of McCain this electoral season that I've seen in any other politician. From Katrina to torture to housing to taxes to religious fanatics. Is he doing all this for political expediency or is this the real McCain? I find it hard to believe that a man who built his career on principals would fold so quickly when in the limelight. Is this the new McCain or this the same guy Republicans have liked from a distance?
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
100
106
Hmm, sounds like he might be a politician. Are you suggesting the candidate you support is above that?
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,079
186
106
To the OP, Arn't you smart enough to figure this shit out for yourself?

Wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's gonna be a Bush Repeat with about 10-15% change for his own idiotic idea's nothing too radical or out of line with the McSame bush policy.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I somewhat disagree that he will be a complete Bush repeat. In many ways it will depend on the set of advisers McCain would choose if elected. On one had the semi sane set of advisers from the GHB years are now largely too old and the younger set that came in GWB are pretty used to the GWB policies, but if McCain sends the neo cons packing out of Washington, that can be huge. Nor can we forget that McCain was a member of the gang of 14 that stopped the GOP voting the Filibuster out.

But still, I think the question is academic because I doubt McCain will win in November.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
he's going to have a democratic congress to keep him in line, and he's shown a willingness over his long career to suck it up and compromise to get things done, something Bush was never able to do.

Bush and Obama both kinda seem like "my way or the highway" guys, while McCain and Hillary are more ambivalent towards political reality.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
he's going to have a democratic congress to keep him in line, and he's shown a willingness over his long career to suck it up and compromise to get things done, something Bush was never able to do.

Bush and Obama both kinda seem like "my way or the highway" guys, while McCain and Hillary are more ambivalent towards political reality.
Are you lying to us or just ignorant of reality? If neither, care to provide proof?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,891
4,846
126
That is a key question for me. McCain was the "change" guy in the "more of the same" 2000 election, but he is the "more of the same" guy in a "change" 2008 election.
He can't have it both ways. He is either going to be a maverick who appealed to independents like me in 2000 and pissed off conservatives, or he is going to be the typical GOP guy spewing same old failed Republican policies that not only failed, but that he himself rightfully and courageously opposed, Bush tax cuts being the prime example. There will be no sitting of the fence for Johnny Boy. He will have to pick between pushing the GOP party line and doing what is right for this country.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: loki8481
he's going to have a democratic congress to keep him in line, and he's shown a willingness over his long career to suck it up and compromise to get things done, something Bush was never able to do.

Bush and Obama both kinda seem like "my way or the highway" guys, while McCain and Hillary are more ambivalent towards political reality.
Are you lying to us or just ignorant of reality? If neither, care to provide proof?
maybe I'm ignorant.

the closest I've seen to Obama compromising is winning people over to his original position.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,103
8,537
126
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
Yup, and the aggression toward Iran will continue as well.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,103
8,537
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Enough fuss over McCain. He has always been conservative and has always been a member of the Republican party. Is that good or bad? Who knows, voters will decide.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,103
8,537
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!
Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,435
84
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!
Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?
Yes, Iraq is not Germany... but McCain still did not say he wanted 100 years of war.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!
Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?
just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so... the only people I know who are convinced to their core of the fact are liberal hacks.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,103
8,537
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!
Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?
just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so... the only people I know who are convinced to their core of the fact are liberal hacks.
:roll:

Has McCain called for ANY reduction in troop strength in Iraq? Or for ANY reduction in hostilities there?

Hmm... let's check his website:

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.
Whoa, looks it must have been "hacked" by liberals...
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,514
140
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Vic
The McSame who wants 100 years of war is the one who would become President.
where did McCain say that he wants 100 years of war?
In the town hall at Derry, NH on January 3, 2008.
100 years of troops not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed is war?

shit, I guess we've been at war with Germany for almost 70 years.

NO BLOOD FOR LEDERHOSEN!
Because we've been "mission accomplished" in Iraq for 5 years and no troops have been "injured or harmed or wounded or killed," right? And we don't call it "war"?

Of course they have and of course we do. McCain's qualifiers on those comments were ridiculously disingenuous, and everyone knows it. Iraq is not Japan, Germany, or SK.

edit to your edit: that's one of the stupidest comments I've seen here yet. Since April 1945, the leading cause of death among US soldiers in Germany has been accident. Can we say the same since "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq?
just because you say it's disingenuous doesn't make it so... the only people I know who are convinced to their core of the fact are liberal hacks.
:roll:

Has McCain called for ANY reduction in troop strength in Iraq? Or for ANY reduction in hostilities there?

Hmm... let's check his website:

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.
Whoa, looks it must have been "hacked" by liberals...
But that does not say he wants 100 more years of war. His comments were incorrectly attributed and obviously continue to be.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,103
8,537
126
I'm sure that has something to do with the fact that situation in Iraq is not similar to that in Japan, Germany, or SK.

So, it's not that McCain's comments were incorrectly attributed, but that he was being intentionally misleading in his use of analogy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY