Having difficulty figuring out who to vote for: McCain or Obama - Page 2 - Political Forum

wes445 · 03-19-2008, 04:44 PM

Yes we do need to leave a peaceful Iraq. We are ass deep in it and turkey fighting the Kurds in the northern portion dosen't help. We must start a slow pull out now, get the Iraq people to fill the gaps. Ease the heavy lifting on to their shoulders. Mine only beef with the war is the time line. I want a mark reduction in troops over three years. Leaving only 5,000 military advisors. This prolong seige mentally of McCain and his party can't be allow to run this country. Iraq is a war that must end and afghanistan reengaged. If we going to have a long term stay it will be there. We can't afford both. Countries has gone bust fighting on one front, let alone two fronts. All of this as our President dances in the White House. A mad man glee.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-19-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdallen22

Well, if we stay in Iraq, aren't many more American soldiers going to die in a war they should have never been in to begin with? Like many others, I have lost three family members in this war.

I'm sorry to hear that. However, more people will die if we leave than if we stay. We'll have a lot of Iraqi's dying if we leave (thousands). We'll have hundreds of Americans dying if we stay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdallen22

Furthermore, I don't see any liberalism when it comes to the genocide that is happening right now in Darfur. And there definitely wasn't any concern coming from our government when the same thing happened in Rwanda.

This is a dishonest strawman argument you are attempting here. No one said that there was anything liberal about Darfur. The fact that liberals are inconsistent in Iraq has nothing to do with Darfur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdallen22

Barak Obama (D-IL) stated the following remarks at the Condoleezza Rice nomination hearing on January 18, 2005 :

• "I guess what I'm trying to figure out here -- and this is particular to military action and military incursions -- do we have a well thought through doctrine that we can present to the world that explains when we feel that military action is justified and when it is not? Apparently, it's not justified in Sudan, where there's a genocide taking place. It wasn't justified in Rwanda, despite, I think, a unanimity that that was one of the greatest tragedies that occurred in my lifetime. There are a number of circumstances in which we have felt that such incursions or nation-building are not appropriate, despite the evidence of great tyranny, and yet in Iraq and perhaps in Iran and perhaps in other circumstances we think it is."

Your basic argument is that because George W. Bush did not follow liberalism, that therefore liberals should not follow liberalism. That makes a lot of sense.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-19-2008, 07:59 PM

I've decided to vote for Obama, barring any unforseen events.

Months ago, before this controversy broke out, I talked to a poor guy in Maine and several other people and maybe persuaded them to vote for Obama. I've already cast my lot in with them. If I changed my vote now, then I would have mislead those people. I owe it to them to vote for Obama.

So, if nothing really huge happens, I'm voting Obama.

Mooboy · 03-19-2008, 08:10 PM

"The two main issues are this:

The right economic policy (Obama's)

or

The right foreign policy (McCain's)

I am not sure which I should prioritize."

I know you hate her, but you could just... you know... support Hillary.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-19-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooboy

I know you hate her, but you could just... you know... support Hillary.

I'll think about it. How about you support McCain?

Mooboy · 03-19-2008, 08:41 PM

"Your basic argument is that because George W. Bush did not follow liberalism, that therefore liberals should not follow liberalism."

Rwanda occurred when Clinton was president and problems in Sudan have happened during both presidencies. His basic argument is that there's lots of humanitarian crisis that occur in the world and we don't spend money and resources on most of them. Deciding which ones to invest in seems to have been pretty arbitrary, although conservatives have been predictable. Conservatives are interested in those that pull at their nationalistic heartstrings and opposed to those that don't.

"However, more people will die if we leave than if we stay. We'll have a lot of Iraqi's dying if we leave (thousands). We'll have hundreds of Americans dying if we stay."

Our staying might just be postponing the inevitable. Or it might create lasting results. No conservative can convince me unless they start talking about Iraq in a way that makes sense: no more talking about being tough, defeating Al Queda, Saddam being evil, Iran being evil, and no more appealing to nationalism.

Mooboy · 03-19-2008, 08:45 PM

"I'll think about it. How about you support McCain?"

That's rather ironic. I actually voted for him. Thing is, it was an anti Romney vote. Of the four candidates, the only one i really couldn't stand was Romney. And of the four major candidates in 2000, the only one i really couldn't stand was Bush. If i had been 18 during that election, i would have voted for McCain then as well.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-19-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooboy

Rwanda occurred when Clinton was president and problems in Sudan have happened during both presidencies. His basic argument is that there's lots of humanitarian crisis that occur in the world and we don't spend money and resources on most of them. Deciding which ones to invest in seems to have been pretty arbitrary, although conservatives have been predictable. Conservatives are interested in those that pull at their nationalistic heartstrings and opposed to those that don't.

Yeah, that was a failure on Clinton's part. Let us remember though that his failure at Rwanda did follow the tremendous unpopularity of his attempt to stabilize Somalia. At least, it's my impression that public pressure forced him out of Somalia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooboy

Our staying might just be postponing the inevitable. Or it might create lasting results. No conservative can convince me unless they start talking about Iraq in a way that makes sense: no more talking about being tough, defeating Al Queda, Saddam being evil, Iran being evil, and no more appealing to nationalism.

Well I would not seek to convince you, since I guess I'm not interested in convincing people of anything right now. However, I will just point to another thread where I'm debating this:

McCain says Iraq would pose a grave threat to the world if we left

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooboy

That's rather ironic. I actually voted for him. Thing is, it was an anti Romney vote. Of the four candidates, the only one i really couldn't stand was Romney. And of the four major candidates in 2000, the only one i really couldn't stand was Bush. If i had been 18 during that election, i would have voted for McCain then as well.

I couldn't stand Romney either. Total douchebag. Who are you supporting if its Obama vs McCain? I'm guessing Obama.

WEB

Troianii · 03-19-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I used to be a hardcore Obama supporter. Obama was like a knight in shining armor to me. Everything I respect in a politician: intelligent, eloquent, a uniter, also given that I am multiracial and so is he, I saw myself in Obama. His inexperience is a drawback, but that seemed be outweighed by other factors.

The recent Rev. Wright split has taken the shine off of Obama's armor in my view, and I've been in favor of staying in Iraq for a while now. I'm now trying to decide who I should support based upon policy.

The two main issues are this:

The right economic policy (Obama's)

or

The right foreign policy (McCain's)

I am not sure which I should prioritize. The poor and working class of our country need healthcare, but the people in Iraq need us to stay. I am not sure which one is more morally correct to prioritize. I think most people on this forum do not support staying in Iraq, but I'll just throw this out there anyway. Which issue is more important: making sure we get it right in Iraq, or getting the poor of the US healthcare?

WEB

Getting the poor of the US healthcare, in all due respect, shouldn't really be a priority. Those who don't have it and actually want it are a negligible amount. It's like setting a priority in government policy for getting disabled wheelchairs. It's noble, but not a priority.

Looking at just the two things you mentioned first, economy and foreign policy, you favor Obama's economic policies. I think that's pretty clear cut, Obama has very far left economic plans. Talking about foreign policy, and not just Iraq, I'd say you're as good with either of them. They are both tough, no f-ing BS candidates. They're not going to see America take crap, they're both going to have tough economic policies, but try to work with people. The only difference is that Obama is willing to talk to "bad people" before they change.

So I'd say that, on your views, you're still an Obama kind of guy, but McCain wouldn't be a bad choice in general.

TeaSea · 03-19-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I used to be a hardcore Obama supporter. Obama was like a knight in shining armor to me. Everything I respect in a politician: intelligent, eloquent, a uniter, also given that I am multiracial and so is he, I saw myself in Obama. His inexperience is a drawback, but that seemed be outweighed by other factors.

The recent Rev. Wright split has taken the shine off of Obama's armor in my view, and I've been in favor of staying in Iraq for a while now. I'm now trying to decide who I should support based upon policy.

The two main issues are this:

The right economic policy (Obama's)

or

The right foreign policy (McCain's)

I am not sure which I should prioritize. The poor and working class of our country need healthcare, but the people in Iraq need us to stay. I am not sure which one is more morally correct to prioritize. I think most people on this forum do not support staying in Iraq, but I'll just throw this out there anyway. Which issue is more important: making sure we get it right in Iraq, or getting the poor of the US healthcare?

WEB

You know, your reason for staying in Iraq is the only good one I've ever been able to think of. We created that mess, we are obligated to fix it, if possible. That is a big if.
Anyway, don't ask me why, but I suspect that Obama has just as well-developed a sense of moral obligation as we do - and he will not just precipitously pull out. The humanitarian cost would be too great.

As for healthcare, that is a very important issue to me, but what is even more important is education. Due to funding cuts, the 4th and 5th grades of the public elementary school my granddaughter attends will be combined next year into one classroom of 40 students. And this is Oregon, a state with a public education system envied by most other states.
Along with education, the other issue I would place above Iraq is alternative energy research and development.

Obama's pastor doesn't bother me, although I know he has been damaging. I don't think he has ever been a significant factor in Obama's life or opinions. Obama had long been an adult when their paths first crossed. And he's been a very busy man since then. Also, the media has, of course, picked the very worst examples it could find of remarks that pastor has made. I would guess that neither he (the pastor) nor his church are fairly depicted by those remarks.

Obama is going to be here, at the coliseum, on Friday. Tickets went on sale this morning and were all sold out long before I got home from work. Wish I could go, but I gotta work.