[mulletman]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

A half-hour of primetime television should be enough to tell you enough scary things to make Huckabee's popularity superfluous.

Hmm, not really. Stupid and misinformed, yes. As scary as someone who has lived in this nation for the last eight years and still spews his rhetoric while on the brink of a presidential nomination? No.

[smhatahy]

Originally Posted by nbfan

You want the parties to implode?

HELL YEA!

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Obviously you've forgotten everything about the American political system while away in the UK.

It's called 'blissful impotence.'

What happens is that if the parties oscillate between two candidates in primaries three consecutive times then most of the world will spontaneously combust. The only thing left will be Dubai, because there is a protective bubble of taxlessness that protects it from the onslaught of the US parties. And there are a lot of hot babes there. And an indoor ski slope.

The Queen Elizabeth 2 is sailing to Dubai, which is nice, cuz' it's a big boat with stuff on it. It's also sold out at £4,995 (starting price), so obviously, the bourgeouise have escaped their doom on the oppressed and broken backs of the proletariate.

Again.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

McCain's major plank is war. He has plenty of war experience and is committing to fighting all the wars he deems necessary to end any terrorist threat.

Huckabee is somewhat ambivalent, saying that he wants to try to heal the blue/red dichotomy but also consistently using rhetoric like "God told me..." and "We're fighting in God's army," putting God on his side and therefore obviously extending a blue/red dichotomy. Wants to reduce taxes, and wants to use government power for many domestic and foreign programs, such as education, war, etc.

The reasons why I won't vote for them. In fact, I think the only mainstream candidate I WOULD vote for is Ron Paul. We'll see who the Democrats put up (Obama makes me a little more comfortable than Clinton), but at the moment it's looking like third party.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by Mattlock

McCain likes war. A lot. That's the only thing I got out the 4 things he sent my family telling us to vote for him.

And unfortunately, if he's nominated Republican, he gets my parents votes. To quote my father: "There's a lot of things I don't like about Mike Huckabee, but if he gets the Republican nomination, he gets my vote. Same goes for Ron Paul and McCain and Giuliani."

No one in my family will be voting democrat; things like socialist health care and larger government aren't things they support. Watch the Republican and the Democrat debates. The Republicans talk issues, while the Democrats just bicker with another about 'change'.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

No one in my family will be voting democrat; things like socialist health care and larger government aren't things they support.

But your last candidate made a larger government and spent on socialism in Iraq.

Watch the Republican and the Democrat debates. The Republicans talk issues, while the Democrats just bicker with another about 'change'.

You mean like when the republicans were discussing who had more illegal immagrants working for them in their mansions, or when Hillary was discussing the ongoing work to get an exit strategy from the Pentagon?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But your last candidate made a larger government and spent on socialism in Iraq.

Which is why I am seriously considering voting Democrat this election. I do not think Ron Paul, who ideologically is closer to me than any other candidate, will get the Republican nomination. As a result, I am stuck with two parties who will do things in ways I don't approve. But I'd rather have the Democratic vision than the Republican vision, because less people will die with Democrats in charge, one hopes. If anything, Republicans need to show their party that they've ****ed up greatly and need to work to receive our trust again.

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

No one in my family will be voting democrat; things like socialist health care and larger government aren't things they support. Watch the Republican and the Democrat debates. The Republicans talk issues, while the Democrats just bicker with another about 'change'.

I just don't think this is the case. While there is much sloganeering among the Dems, the Republican candidates by and large are waffling on their previous positions and are not talking the issues by and large. They're also not showing us that they've identified errors from the Bush administration, save for Mr. Paul.

[Chrysostom]

Jeffrey, do you think that voting Democrat is the right way to go about that? I agree -- screw the Republicans except for Ron Paul. But if all sorts of folks jump over to the Democrats won't this just tell them to move closer to the Democrats? Because I can promise you that they're not going to start by adopting any of the good stances of the Democrats; it'll just be disgustingly higher taxes plus empire instead of moderately higher taxes plus empire.

[tht00]

Since this is a thread about McCain, I figured this would be a decent spot for this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palbo-ilalU

This is the anti-war McCain from 1994 talking about withdrawal from Haiti.

Strange, isn't it?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Jeffrey, do you think that voting Democrat is the right way to go about that? I agree -- screw the Republicans except for Ron Paul. But if all sorts of folks jump over to the Democrats won't this just tell them to move closer to the Democrats? Because I can promise you that they're not going to start by adopting any of the good stances of the Democrats; it'll just be disgustingly higher taxes plus empire instead of moderately higher taxes plus empire.

What makes you assured that the Democratic candidate if elected will pursue the status quo? This is an attitude I've had that recently I'm worried is self-defeating.

The other option is vote Ron Paul as a write-in, but I'm worried that if enough conservatives do that, a Republican will win and the party will assume, yet again, that they have a mandate to do what they want because they were elected. I think if a Republican is elected, they will have no motivation to reevaluate their relationship to their constituency. But if a Democrat is elected, they may have to look at how they lost. Part of that may lead them to examine how candidates like Ron Paul galvanized a significant subset of Republicans.

Also, if their response is to move further toward the liberal/moderate angle of the Democrats, this will further highlight their distance from traditional conservative values (which, admittedly, will lead to gay marriage and a lack of government breaks for religious groups, which scares many values voters) and will perhaps lead to the emergence of a new party.

I think if we elect a Republican who doesn't have a drastically different way of thinking than this current administration, the world will receive the message that Americans have resigned themselves to the status quo. I think electing Ron Paul, or Clinton or Obama, will send a message that Americans are seeing the need for change. Do I think Clinton or Obama will be major agent of change? No, but but they'll be more of one than the Republican frontrunners (as much as this might get me shouted down, I'd take Clinton over Obama, but that's another thread).

Electing a Republican is not merely electing an individual, it's giving validation to the party. The party hasn't stood for conservative values in a long, long time, and needs to reevaluate itself.

Also, despite my concerns that they won't follow through, a Democrat is more likely to get us out of Iraq than a Republican (save Mr. Paul), and that's important to me.

Asking me to pay higher taxes as a trade for hopefully atoning for recent American injustices overseas, well - it's not a trade-off that bothers me. We're talking lesser of several evils here, not just two. How much do the lives of others matter to me in relationship to my taxes and finances?

Obviously, Dems have proven cowardly in many ways in recent years in regards to taking stands and standing up to the administration. They make me nervous. But if given power, they're more likely to dismantle the Patriot Act, the torture, the War in Iraq, etc. than McCain or Huckabee.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But your last candidate made a larger government and spent on socialism in Iraq.

That doesn't mean I should vote for a party that promises to do the same.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Electing a Republican is not merely electing an individual, it's giving validation to the party. The party hasn't stood for conservative values in a long, long time, and needs to reevaluate itself.

Maybe the party at large, but Huckabee sure talks about them a lot.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

As a result, I am stuck with two parties who will do things in ways I don't approve. But I'd rather have the Democratic vision than the Republican vision, because less people will die with Democrats in charge, one hopes. If anything, Republicans need to show their party that they've ****ed up greatly and need to work to receive our trust again.

Isn't that an odd reason to vote for someone? Less death? The Democrats just promise some more diplomacy and leaving 75,000 people in Iraq. That doesn't guarantee less death. Who's to say that less troops couldn't cause more death, seeing as how the surge has gone? What is the Democrat vision opposite the Republican vision that you like?

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

Isn't that an odd reason to vote for someone? Less death?

No, I guess it's best to try to find the person who will cause the most death, and vote for him.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

That doesn't mean I should vote for a party that promises to do the same.

Can you cite? I must have missed that promise.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

Who's to say that less troops couldn't cause more death, seeing as how the surge has gone?

2007 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. If more troops are in combat then more soldiers are at risk of death.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

They won't implode. There's something called a National Convention, and that's when they actually nominate. It'd be a change from the week-long political ad for either party.

I know what the National Convention is, by implode I meant that they won't have a clear answer from the public on whom they should nominate.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

But I'd rather have the Democratic vision than the Republican vision, because less people will die with Democrats in charge, one hopes.

What you mean is that less people will die in Iraq. There is no guarantee that less Americans will die under a Democratic president than they will under a Republican one.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Can you cite? I must have missed that promise.

By making any sort of promise for universal health care they are making a promise for larger government.