McCain Vs. Obama.

[ForeverNight]

First let me say I agree with Truman's call. The U.S. would not use nukes against other countries, because we are the good guys? Does that mean the U.S. was the bad guys in WWII when we did use nukes? What other country in the world has used nukes against another country besides the U.S.?

 

Never meant it to sound like I disagreed with Truman's decision, nor to make it sound like we were the bad guys during WWII... But in this day and age, the Nukes are seen as the tools of the bad guys, not stuff that the good guy would lower himself to use.

 

As for the last question, the only answer available is nobody, since we're the only ones to have used them in war.

 

It was just poor execution on my part.

 

Edit, extra responses:

Besides, the Republicans are the ones who actually expand government, despite their empty rhetoric of lower taxes and smaller government. Republicans just use different means to expand government... such as by claiming that their expansions are vital to "national security," which is the authoritarian way to power.[/Quote]

 

I'll agree that we have expanded government too much over the past eight years. However, look at every president who was in office prior to Bush and after Ike.

 

If I recall correctly -God, I wish I had a history text book with me right now- every one expanded Government, and there are a lot more people with "D's" after their names than "R's". The most notable one that comes to mind is Jimmy Carter and the Department of Education. I don't know about you, but the Education is something that should have a lower bar, and then let the states work with it -at least as I see it- but a whole new Department?

 

So, saying that Republicans are the ones that actually increase Government's size is a fallacy. Do they, heck yeah! But are they the only ones, nope. Should they edit their rhetoric, yeah, that or start following it.

 

I would like to see Obama's slogan change to say "Higher Taxes" along with what he says though, E.G. Change for more taxing! Tax hikes you can believe in! Et cetera

[mur'phon]

ForeverNight: You seem to think of Iran as a dangerous irational country (a madman with a gun in your face), but look at what they do, not what they say. Tell me, what mad (as in irrational) actions have they taken on the international stage? I don't worry about Iran nuking anyone, I'm more concerned about it triggring an arms race in the middle-east.

 

Besides, I'm very curious about how you intend to prevent Iran from getting nukes without negotiating. Before you answer bomb them, remember that Iran has done a damn good job of keeping its facilities hidden, so bombing those known sites won't stop the nukes.

 

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.

 

Wrong, both of you have different goals and priorities, so you can easily end up with a deal that both benefit from.

 

But, the main difference in the situation that you're describing and the one I can see is that they don't have the gun, yet, however they are in the process of acquiring one, and have at least given off every appearance of wanting to use it right away on some live targets. That and they couldn't bomb us flat, we could probably blast the country to heck, but not them us.

 

But they can turn Iraq/Afghanistan into a firestorm of death, disrupt oil prices, sink warships with missiles, commit terrorist attacks in the U.S etc.

Sure, the U.S would end up on top, but at what cost?

 

Russia, yeah they dislike us and they have nukes. However, how many of them are in working condition?

 

More than enough to wipe out every major U.S city...

 

I don't know about you, but Putin seems to be a reasonable person.

 

If you mean as in doing what is best for himself and to a lesser extent Russia, sure, I'll still hate to call him my president when I move there.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like that, I know that the people aren't war mongers, but the Government at least gives the impression of being such.

Almost every government does that.

 

Yeah, over a dick waving contest. However, when a crazy guy (I'm talking at least with the M'Naughten Rule: Cannot tell the difference between Right and Wrong) does the same, that changes it. A crazy man by definition does not know the difference between right and wrong, and may decide to pull that trigger because it looks like fun, not because he hates you. That's what has me worried in that situation.

Metaphor aside, I'm fairly sure the government of Iran is at least legally sane. In the case of crazy gun-toting man, I'm not confident in my ability to dodge a bullet point-blank, so I'll go with the choice that ends with the greatest possibility of surviving.

 

Yeah, wimpy compromise, but if what I've heard about SALT is true, and I honestly haven't done as much research into it as I should have -with summer I'll be able to remedy that- the Soviets didn't really abide by it, did they? So, yeah, that's what those looked like.

Iran is quite a bit weaker than the Soviet Union.

 

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.

So... who are you saying has the advantage. Personally, I think the most powerful country on earth has it.

 

Yeah, if somebody has to 'police the world' I sure as H*** don't want it to be the UN! And, as the world's sole superpower, currently, who else is going to do the job? The EU? They like appeasement. China? Sorry, don't want the communists doing it. So, that leaves us.

I can't tell if you're joking. And no I'm not joking by saying this.

 

Also, I wouldn't want to fight fair and give the other guy a chance of living through it if I were the Sheriff that needs to clear out [Random Bandits] who have been terrorizing the town for x [Random Period of Time]. Nope, not happening, we want them gone, and we don't want them able to start again.

So the Sheriff brings himself down to their level, gets innocent people killed, kills potential allies, and makes way for new bandits. Fun! And when we switch back to reality, we've not only cleared the way for some other group to raise hell, but we've also stirred up support for them. Double fun!

 

Could some of them conceivably become deputies in the next year? Yeah, sure, but what's going to happen in that space of a year?

Negotiating with them and convincing them to become deputies?

[Rev7]

If I could vote, out of the two choices, I would pick McCain.

[Arcesious]

If you mean as in doing what is best for himself and to a lesser extent Russia, sure, I'll still hate to call him my president when I move there.

 

Turns out that he's prime minister. Also, look at this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

 

In international affairs, Putin has been publicly increasingly critical of the foreign policies of the US and other Western countries. In February 2007, at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, he criticised what he calls the United States' monopolistic dominance in global relations, and pointed out that the United States displayed an "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations". He said the result of it is that "no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race."

 

Explains a good reason for Russia to be 'hostile' huh?

 

I don't know much about Dmitry Medvedev though... Still, Prime Minister is a strong position.

[Pho3nix]

I don't know much about Dmitry Medvedev though... Still, Prime Minister is a strong position.

Medvedev isn't the one pulling the strings, as prime minister Putin still has a lot of influence and power. Calling Russia a democracy is laughable.

[HdVaderII]

As for democracy in Russia, read this. Doesn't sound quite that democratic to me.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/world/europe/03russia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Vladimir%20Putin&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[Web Rider]

Russia, yeah they dislike us and they have nukes. However, how many of them are in working condition? Do I think they are a problem, yes, but do I think that they are the most pressing problem? Nope.

They're currently building a new generation of nuclear submarine that will be the largest to date and still ICBM capable. It wont be armed with nukes, but it has the capability to be. So lets try this again, is Russia can afford to build the next generation of nuclear subs, they're not going to be letting their nuclear stockpile go to waste. In addition, it doesn't take very many nukes, and Russia has many thousands, if only 400 work, that's enough.

 

So, flat out saying that is worse than the "I don't like it..."? Wow... I would rather start with something like you said, but to each their own. However, if I were to start with that, I wouldn't yell it, I would try to say it in a calmer voice, and drop the sanctions bit, just the 'we're gonna bomb you to H***' bit.

Yes, it's my general approach to start off nicely, and work from there. If your first motion when entering a room is to flip the other guy the bird, their reaction is not going to be one of wanting to shake your hand. They'll either do likewise or up the ante, like punching you in the face.

 

By we're I'm assuming to mean that you mean they're.

sorry, I'm not practiced in debating with non-Americans about American issues.

 

So its okay for them to wave the gun, but not us? But, the main difference in the situation that you're describing and the one I can see is that they don't have the gun, yet, however they are in the process of acquiring one, and have at least given off every appearance of wanting to use it right away on some live targets. That and they couldn't bomb us flat, we could probably blast the country to heck, but not them us.

Question: why is the US allowed to have "guns" and not them? Because they're the badguys? From their perspective, the US is the badguy.

 

Is this really off-topic or is this just me?

yeah, it is.

[EnderWiggin]

I'm not going to say much, if only because everyone else here is doing an excellent job of demolishing you. I do need to get my left hook in, though.

However, when a crazy guy (I'm talking at least with the M'Naughten Rule: Cannot tell the difference between Right and Wrong) does the same, that changes it. A crazy man by definition does not know the difference between right and wrong, and may decide to pull that trigger because it looks like fun, not because he hates you. That's what has me worried in that situation.

 

This is the most ridiculous metaphor I've ever heard. The Iranian government is not insane. They're not going to do anything unless they're ready to accept the consequences. And if I remember cold war politics right, that means mutually assured destruction.

 

So... no.

 

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.

 

What advantage are you insinuating here? The Iranians have no advantage.

 

Yeah, if somebody has to 'police the world' I sure as H*** don't want it to be the UN! And, as the world's sole superpower, currently, who else is going to do the job? The EU? They like appeasement. China? Sorry, don't want the communists doing it. So, that leaves us.

 

I can't tell if you're joking. And no I'm not joking by saying this.

 

If you're not joking here, then you're ridiculously arrogant. I can't believe that you actually are arguing these points. And what's your problem with the UN?

 

That's all.

 

_EW_

[*Don*]

Getting back on track, if I could vote, I'd wholeheartedly vote for Obama.

Even though the whole Rev Wright fiasco shook me up a bit, I still support him.

[mimartin]

Never meant it to sound like I disagreed with Truman's decision, nor to make it sound like we were the bad guys during WWII... But in this day and age, the Nukes are seen as the tools of the bad guys, not stuff that the good guy would lower himself to use.

Forgive me, but the Truman remark was due to a debate in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right? thread were I defended Truman’s decision. I just wanted to make it clear that Ray Jones had not changed my mind.

 

IMPO It is not the weapon that defines the bad guys or the good guys, it is the use of the weapon that defines the bad guy and the good guy. That is why I will vote for Obama. I believe he has the self-control not to use the American Military to flex our national strength, but has the intelligence to use it if it is truly needed. Besides, I look better in a white hat over the black one I’ve been wearing the last eight years.

[Arcesious]

When talking about Russia, let's not use a double standard about military forces. We build just as many WMD's as they do...

 

But, now, I'll get back on topic.

 

I think it will matter quite a bit who is the VP candidate for each candidate. As theorized on CNN, if Obama doesn't have Clinton as his running mate, he's more likely to lose. But if he does, he's more likely to win. How Mccaine's runnign mate will effect the election, I don't know. But it seems that without Clinton, Mccaine will get more electoral votes... I honestly loathe this uneven electoral college system...

 

What strategy do you think Mccaine should use? How about Obama?

[EnderWiggin]

Mccaine's

Mccaine

Mccaine should use?

 

For god's sake.

 

It's McCain.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Considering that McCain gave up his nice, reasonable, level-headed ideas that he's held for years to tote party line, yeah, it is.

I'm hoping McCain selling out will cost him enough votes for Obama to win. Him not supporting the GI bill and being essentially a really old version of Bush now can't make a lot of people happy, and I'm hoping they're ticked enough to vote for Obama.

QFT

 

Mainly because I don't think negotiating with Iran is such a good idea, sure, one can pull out the Soviet Union and point out that we negotiated with them, but the Soviet Union was a real threat at the time as compared to Iran. In Iran they're working on a nuclear weapons program -so I've seen reported by the Media- but they don't have nukes... yet.

The National Intelligence Estimate that was most recently published indiciated that Iran abandoned their nuclear weapon program years ago.

 

They say that they're trying to develop nuclear energy options. Bush is insisting that they're developing weapons. And because no one is talking to one another, both sides are basically succeeding in doing nothing but escalating tensions.

 

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!

What alternative to open talks do you suggest?

 

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?

Except we don't know that they have a gun. If some guy walks up to you, points a gun at your head, and start insisting that you give up your gun, yet you don't have one, is he honestly protecting himself or just simply insane?

 

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.

Indeed but what are you suggesting we do? And how do we justify the stance that we can have nukes but they can't (assuming that they do)?

 

So, because of that... and the fact that I disagree with most every policy I've seen Obama put forward on his running platform, I'd vote McCain if I could...

If you don't mind me asking, which of his positions do you disagree with him on?

 

Thanks for your post.

 

I'm confused...what is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another one?

Sorry...that shouldn't be funny...but

[MdKnightR]

I think it will matter quite a bit who is the VP candidate for each candidate. As theorized on CNN, if Obama doesn't have Clinton as his running mate, he's more likely to lose. But if he does, he's more likely to win.

 

Lots a folks around these parts are theorizing that Obama may ask Sam Nunn to be his running mate. I think that would be an excellent choice. Sam has a really good track record in Washington and may be able to temper the "change" with wisdom......but that still doesn't mean I'll vote for him.

 

 

While I'm not a liberal (I voted for Ron Paul in my state's primary), I will be voting for Obama in 2008.

 

 

I'll still be voting for Ron Paul providing that he stays in the race. If not, I'll have to do some research on Bob Barr. I am a Libertarian, but I still like to do research before casting my vote.....a trait that I wish most Americans would share.

[Arcesious]

It's McCain.

 

Thanks for the correction EnderWiggen.

I also have noticed that I tend to spell Clinton's name on accident alot, (I kept spelling it with one L one accident, when intending two L's) so I started referring to her by her last name...

[HdVaderII]

Hey, If anybody didn't know this already was going to happen

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin

Clinton leaves Race and will Endorse Obama.

No word on the VP spot, but they might be talking.

[mimartin]

Lots a folks around these parts are theorizing that Obama may ask Sam Nunn to be his running mate. I think that would be an excellent choice. Sam has a really good track record in Washington and may be able to temper the "change" with wisdom......but that still doesn't mean I'll vote for him.

Yes, and the same could be said for Ron Paul. Ron Paul could get Earl Campbell (my childhood hero) to be his running mate and I still would not vote for Ron Paul for President. Heck, he could bring back John Adams, John F Kennedy, John Wayne or he could have the first triple VPs of Crockett, Bowie and Travis, and I still would not vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is my congressional representative and I know his voting record. He is not someone that will cut pork on principle. Ron Paul is against everything. Fine for a congressman, not for a President.

[Corinthian]

Ron Paul is irrelevant anyway. His odds of winning this race were about as good as the odds of me ascending to Godhood and they haven't improved any since.

[mur'phon]

Corint: Paul might be irelevant, but the number of people voting for him long after McCain has the nomination in his pocket means Barr can become a nasty stumbling block.

 

Arc: Sorry, I should have said "dear leader" or "furer", it dosen't matter, Med isn't press untill he tells Putin to plow himself. Prime minister isn't really a strong possition (yet), so hopefully Med will get a spine as his influence increases.

[Arcesious]

I thought I'd bring this topic back up again, because I have a large opinion about all of this that I would like to bring forth. I don't want Obama or Mccain, and I'll explain why. (I made this thread because I don't want to necro the old ones.)

 

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

 

Okay, my points against Obama:

 

No Nuclear Power (Nuclear power isn't harmful to the enviroment, but, somehow, he thinks it is.)

 

Use of Biofuel (Biofuels require use of foods such as corn, which can drive up food prices. The problem is, I haven't heard of a very efficient way to mass produce it. What it sounds like from the debates we've had before is that the Ethanol biofuels level out in cost, and don't make much of difference in lowering costs. IMHO, biofuels do not benefit us in the longrun.)

 

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

 

His plan to raise taxes on the rich and the corporations- it sounds like it will work, but this plan not only effects rich buisness owners, but also poor ones.

 

His economic plan does seem to balance out though.

 

I agree with him on most all of the other issues, but I'm not entirely sure about his foreign policies.

 

Equal rights for all and whatnot is great, but it makes me question his plans for that, especially due to the wiretapping bill he voted for.

 

His whole plan is different than Bush's & Mccain's, but just because it's different doesn't mean that it will work.

 

Now, about Mccain...

 

http://www.johnmccain.com/

 

I don't agree with his plan to utilize fossil fuels on such a large scale. I do agree with his plan for use of nuclear power.

 

His Energy plan isn't sound. It's too slow of a plan to implement. Same for Obama.

 

John Mccain wants all kinds of tax cuts. That's a really stupid thing to do, when you plan to have a very expensive plan.

 

Iraq- it's ruining our economy to keep fighting there. There are good reasons to stay in Iraq, but I think that it would be smarter to focus on homeland defense and security of our country specifically.

 

The US government needs lots of money to fulfill its promises. That means that it needs taxes. Tax cuts will make it harder to fund projects and programs it has.

 

The whole problem with Mccain is that his plans sound just like Bush's policies, which are not working. I do kind of like the overall idea of his economy plan, minus the fossil fuel overusage though.

 

---------------------

 

Raising taxes on the rich will bring in more money. I don't care how much the rich people complain about their taxes- they've got way mroe money than the middle class. The trickle-down-theory does not work. We have oil available offshore. We can drill for it, but getting all of it can take many years. The cost of oil production depends on how deep the oil is, or how hard it is to refine it. Canada's oil sands have lots of oil, but it's pretty expensive overall to refine it and remove it from the sand. Also, the cost of oil depends on taxes, demand, supply, and costs of transportation of oil.

 

Nuclear power is extremely powerful and efficient, and lasts a long time. It does not harm the enviroment, because all 'radiation' and whatnot is well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology.

 

Creating oil, coal, and natural gas refineries, whether it be 'clean' or unclean, still hurts the enviroment, because refineries require clearing out all life in the entire area where the refinery is built. I guess it's the same way with nuclear power, but nuclear power plants take up much less space, and they are more energy-productive. Wind power is clean and non-harmful to the enviroment. Problem is, it doesn't make that much energy. Same with solar power. But solar power does have better potential as microwave power.

 

Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.

 

The economies of all countries would work better if all of the middle class were equal and dominant. However, balancing the economy lowers competition, and competition is needs to keep big corporations bringing in money, so that they can get richer, and also pay their workers. The economy needs soem elements of instability in order to thrive and grow. Balancing everything would end up creating some sort of wierd capitalist-communist economy system.

 

The American economy needs a boost in supply, and I think I see the perfect solution for awhile- Africa. However, China's already tapping into Africa's potential. In the end, I think it's all going to lead up to a huge economic competition between the US and China.

 

I'm open to refutation and critiquing/criticism of this... That's just my current opinion of all of this. And I bet I've missed a lot of issues. Neither candidate sounds better than the other to me.

 

My question- Who's the better of two evils? Or is there none? Because I can't decide. (Yeah, it's not a very solid rant, I admit, but I just wanted to throw my veiws out there, which I've found that they seem to be leveling off without a definite economic conclusion.)

[mur'phon]

No Nuclear Power (Nuclear power isn't harmful to the enviroment, but, somehow, he thinks it is.)

 

Nuclear power is less harmfull than many other alternatives, uranium dosen't pop up ready for use at your command however, it needs to be messily aquired and transported. That and we still have thespent fuel problem. Still, I'm in favour of nyclear power.

 

Use of Biofuel (Biofuels require use of foods such as corn, which can drive up food prices. The problem is, I haven't heard of a very efficient way to mass produce it. What it sounds like from the debates we've had before is that the Ethanol biofuels level out in cost, and don't make much of difference in lowering costs. IMHO, biofuels do not benefit us in the longrun.)

 

While the common way of making biofuels in the west is a waste, don't write off biofuel yet, look to Brazils sugar cane ethanol, which is competetive with oil. Besides GMOs are about to enter the scene, which could make biofuels a viable alternative.

 

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

 

Trust me, it can, Norway essentially lives of it's ofshore oil, making us top of the polution list. Besides it wrecks marine life quite bad. Finaly, the simplest way to "go green" is to make oil epensive, the more costly it gets, the more green technology becomes competetive.

 

His economic plan does seem to balance out though.

 

No suprise there, I don't think any candidate have ever had a plan that can be turned into a balanced budget.

 

I agree with him on most all of the other issues, but I'm not entirely sure about his foreign policies.

 

Which ones?

 

is hopefully well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology, at least we think so

 

Fixed:D

 

Wind power is clean and non-harmful to the enviroment. Problem is, it doesn't make that much energy.

 

Oh, but it can do that, heck it's allready competetive in many places, as the oil price rises, you'll see just how much we can get out of wind.

 

Same with solar power. Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.

 

Hydroelectric power is damn cheap, while the total amount of energy is limited by geography, as a bonus you can use the dams as a "battery for solar/wind power.

[MdKnightR]

At this point, since Ron Paul dropped out of the race, I don't know who I'll vote for. Maybe Bob Barr.

[Arcesious]

Which ones?

 

Oh, negotiating with terrorist governments. I think it's smart to try to negotiate to avoid conflict, but a lot of times it just doesn't work that well. Iran is starting to get so hateful of isreal that I don't think negotiation will work there in the long run.

 

you'll see just how much we can get out of wind.

 

I just re-researched on that. It looks like you're right.

[jawathehutt]

I prefer Obama, because like most democrats, he understands that when you cut taxes, money doesnt begin to magically fall out of the sky like most republicans seem to believe. that being said, there's a fair share of things I dont like about him also that Im not going to mention for now since I have things to do.