Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 13:46:49

dajafi wrote:There's a theory, voiced by Andrew Sullivan among others, that an alternate-universe Romney--the nonideological, very smart, managerial type--would have made a good candidate and potentially a really good president. I'm not sure I totally buy it, but the fact that he had to turn into this flip-flopping caricature (McCain calling him "the candidate of change"... great line) seems to me a sad reflection on the culture of the Republican Party post-Bush/Rove.

While I don't believe McCain can win unless there is some extraordinary flub or exposure against Obama - I do think I'd be impressed if McCain picked Romney as VP, with the charge that he'd be his chief financial advisor (damn anything else, eliminating all the flip floppery and whatever his actual ideology is). Some guys that run for president might be good for specific purposes, despite not being a good candidate for the presidency itself (I'm thinking of Biden, Giuliani, Lieberman, etc).

by **Laexile** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 14:05:01

Wizlah, I may have missed something in that long article, but I couldn't find anywhere an explanation of what "extraordinary measures" McCain approves of or why he does. There's no question what Bush approves of, but not McCain. McCain needs to specify what is or isn't torture and prove that what he approves of isn't torture. I doubt this will happen before a debate or town hall, but it should be asked. If he doesn't give a worthwhile answer he deserves to lose votes. If a candidate makes an issue one of his signatures he needs to have a great reason for something that appears to contradict that. Obama didn't do that with his stance against private financing and McCain has yet to do it with torture.

dajafi, I think you're misinterpreting the poll. McCain's numbers among Republicans are so low not because Republicans are dissatisfied with Bush, but because McCain isn't conservative enough. I know the DNC is marketing the idea that McCain is the same as Bush and Democrats are buying it. McCain wishes conservatives would buy it. But they don't. Many Republicans see McCain as disloyal (gang of 14, opposition to the way Bush conducted the war, torture, campaign finance reform) and liberal (global warming, stem cell research, weak pro-life agenda). Jim Dobson basically called him anti-Christian. Of course he did the same with Obama.

I think Obama's approval among Democrats will go up as Clinton supporters calm down. McCain's Republican support likely won't go up, although these people might begrudgingly vote for the lesser of two evils.

I'm surprised that only 33% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of McCain. At least two thirds of the Democrats I've talked to have an unfavorable view.

by **Bill McNeal** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 14:05:30

The Red Tornado wrote:honestly, why do people even care about gay marriage or anything else that doesnt effect them?

by **Bucky** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 14:22:03

Caught some of that O'Reilly dude on TV last night (quite involuntarily).

They spent a good long time talking about what position Hillary would assume in an Obama regime, like it was a forgone conclusion that she would have a major role. It seems to me like they're just trying to scare the Hillary-hatin' dems into voting McC.

by **philliesphhan** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 15:34:58

Bill McNeal wrote:
The Red Tornado wrote:honestly, why do people even care about gay marriage or anything else that doesnt effect them?

by **Laexile** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 16:20:29

Bucky wrote:Caught some of that O'Reilly dude on TV last night (quite involuntarily).

They spent a good long time talking about what position Hillary would assume in an Obama regime, like it was a forgone conclusion that she would have a major role. It seems to me like they're just trying to scare the Hillary-hatin' dems into voting McC.

Clinton got 17 million votes. About half the voters supported her. Obama has to woo her supporters. They have to speculate on what Clinton's future will be. If there are Hillary-hatin' dems that weren't already Obama supporters they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 17:40:41

I listened on radio to much of the congressional sub-committee hearings with the lawyers under Ashcroft that set up the torture is ok standards. The disdain the Bush govt has for the legislative branch is unbelievable. One of the analysts pointed how these staunch Republican conservatives used the classic technqies of defense attorneys to obscure the obvious. "... well what is your definition of sex Senator..." etc etc...

unreal... then the guy gets a tenured gig at Cal Berkeley.... go to govt, dodge the consitution -- hide behind procedure and national security -- and then go and teach. Great.

by **mpmcgraw** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 17:59:10

Glad the Supreme Court upheld gun rights.

I thought Colbert last night said they didn't but apparently not.

by **steagles** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 18:16:58

i'm actually pretty liberal with regards to gun laws. i don't think you need armor piercing bullets, fully automatic rifles or tracer rounds, but when i have some disposable income, the first thing i'm going to do is get my nose, nip, and cock pierced, but the second thing will probably be to buy a handgun.

i understand both sides of the argument, and i don't strongly support either, but i do think more people carrying guns openly would lead to fewer misdemeanors, and likely more self defense killings, but overall, i think it'd be a worthwhile trade off.

by **The Red Tornado** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:00:59

The whole freedom to bear arms is about being to overthrow a government if they become despotic. While the concept is somewhat outdated, the idea that an armed public is one that is willing to defend their rights is what the whole 2nd amendment is about. In an ideal world an armed public works to insure freedoms but unfortunately it's become a world of domestic and gang violence and accidents instead. So I'm not sure how I feel about the 2nd amendment's current application.

by **mpmcgraw** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:07:32

Johnny Drug Dealer does not get his guns legally anyway so i doubt he really cares whether or not the second amendment is upheld

by **The Red Tornado** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:09:51

Your drug dealer is named Johnny too? How much does he charge you to buy your crack?

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:19:05

Laexile wrote:Wizlah, I may have missed something in that long article, but I couldn't find anywhere an explanation of what "extraordinary measures" McCain approves of or why he does. There's no question what Bush approves of, but not McCain. McCain needs to specify what is or isn't torture and prove that what he approves of isn't torture. I doubt this will happen before a debate or town hall, but it should be asked. If he doesn't give a worthwhile answer he deserves to lose votes. If a candidate makes an issue one of his signatures he needs to have a great reason for something that appears to contradict that. Obama didn't do that with his stance against private financing and McCain has yet to do it with torture.
.

When McCain has been asked about torture, he says he's against waterboarding. When asked to elaborate, he says he's against waterboarding. I'll let you figure it out.... the explanation was, errr, tortured. It was within the context of the enhanced CIA interrogation techniques listed in the report, so it seemed pretty clear was he was supporting. He recognizes that waterboarding disgusts people, so he's against that and makes nice speeches, but he supports the other stuff with his votes. He may just be doing it to pander to his base and he may never torture as a president, but he's supported measures which have allowed Bush to do his dirty work and he did it with his eyes wide open.

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:27:09

Incidentally, that Esoteric Agenda that I posted links to, is Pro gun ownership!

by **Laexile** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:51:55

You cite no sources for what McCain says on torture. He doesn't ever limit his answer to waterboarding. In fact, he hardly mentions it.

September 22, 2006
June 1, 2007
September 05, 2007
October 28, 2007
December 22, 2007
February 13, 2008
April 15, 2008 Start at 2:30

Here he is on Bill O'Reilly. If he were trying to find torture loopholes to pander to Republicans who support torture, he doesn't do it here. Even though O'Reilly lectures him on torture.
June 21, 2008

Please show me somewhere that McCain gives an explanation that contradicts these eight interviews.

This isn't torture, but here O'Reilly tries to get him to flip flop on immigration. McCain won't. Instead he thumbs his nose at the American people conceding that "America wants the border secure first."

by **The Red Tornado** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:53:20

wait, youre a hollywood writer- youre supposed to be liburl

by **Laexile** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 19:58:09

I don't think the election is going to come down to Iraq, healthcare, the economy, or who flip flopped on what. What it's going to come down to is which candidate independents feel reaches across the aisle and is post-partisan. To this point the Democrats have successfully positioned Obama as post-partisan and McCain as a far right Republican. People used to think of McCain as a guy who worked with Democrats like Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Claire McCaskill to achieve compromises that passed bills. Now people believe that Obama does that and McCain doesn't. If that continues Obama wins. The McCain campaign is finally responding. Thus far they've been unsuccessful on communicating McCain's positions or record and the Democrats have filled the gap.

by **Laexile** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 20:01:31

The Red Tornado wrote:wait, youre a hollywood writer- youre supposed to be liburl

Ssshhh. Don't tell anyone. I'll never work again. Actually I am a liberal on the issues that relate to Hollywood like filmmaker censorship, Hollywood's impact on violence, among other issues. I recognize that these days people are supposed to tow the party line on either side and that I'm anachronistic.

by **The Dude** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 20:29:43

I agree that you won't work again

by **kimbatiste** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 21:48:08

mpmcgraw wrote:Johnny Drug Dealer does not get his guns legally anyway so i doubt he really cares whether or not the second amendment is upheld

Of course he does. Guns stolen during home burglaries certainly does not help the problem.

I think the NRA reading of the 2nd Amendment is obviously not what was intended by the Framers. I think the minority made a nice point of this by pointing out that the Second Amendment enumerates its own purpose and rational and that self-defense is not listed.

I can understand, somewhat, those who want to own guns. But those who it is so important to them that they hold rallys and signs about their guns and say "you'll get my gun over my dead body" strike me as juvenile.

Archived

Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread