What? No VP debate thread?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I didn't watch that video, just commenting on your comment, but being a "flip flopper" is not a bad thing. Intelligent people change their minds when given new information.

I agree, I think being able to admit you're wrong about something is a good quality. But you should watch the video however.. Basically he votes yes for the bail out, and less than 24 hours later he commented that bush should veto it. If he truely had a change of heart that fast, that means he made an ill informed decision to begin with.

Its alomst like the republicans wanted the bill to pass, but also wanted to pin it on the democrats at the same time.

-EDIT-

Strangler's post wasn't there when I typed this one. Watch the wholeinterview that he has, but just keep in mind Mccain voted yes for the bill. I think he's admitting he followed his party even though he disagreed with it? Some Mavrick.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Strangler's post wasn't there when I typed this one. Watch the wholeinterview that he has, but just keep in mind Mccain voted yes for the bill. I think he's admitting he followed his party even though he disagreed with it? Some Mavrick.

I know he voted yes, and he explains (or mis-explains, quite honestly) why he voted yes, but is against pork overall. Watch the whole thing in context, and his views are clear. His stance on this issue is nuanced based on the dire need for this particular bill to pass, but having always been against pork and consistently so. If he were to rail against all the pork on the bill, it would be weeks before anything passed, and the fear is our economy could collapse by then. he has also fought for financial reform for years, going back to 2005-06 when he tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but democrats like Barney Frank shot the bill down. Honestly, how the McCain camp hasn't made a national ad about that yet blows my mind.

Also, keep in mind that John McCain has NEVER asked for or benefitted from pork in any bill in almost 30 years, and has called for a line-item veto to ELIMINATE pork for years. If anything states that a politician is honest and has integrity, its refusal to accept pork, because pork is literally a bribing/purchasing of votes.

A single vote in a very unique situation does not negate a lifetime of reform when it comes to cutting fat from legislation.

[TheGame]

I agree strangler, and I agree that it may be a special circumstance. But I also think its very bad timing. I wouldn't have been mad at him for voting no for political reasons in this case. In the middle of an election where you're preaching one thing, you can't sit there and vote another way. If he'd have voted no and it passed, he'd have a good angle to pin Obama/Washington with.

But I think that's the bigest problem with the bail out in general, most guys wanted to vote no for political reasons, but wanted it to pass at the same time.
Mostly because they know this bail out won't fix the current problem, it'll just catch an economy that's falling, and not nessicarily lift it. I can understand why one would have mixed feelings on it.



Anyway, on the subject of the debate itself, I think Palin did have a good strategy of changing the subject and making her own off topic points. Its better then her trying to answer things directly and fumbling like in interviews. And her off topic ramling actually made sence, they cleaned her up nice for the debate.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I agree strangler, and I agree that it may be a special circumstance. But I also think its very bad timing. I wouldn't have been mad at him for voting no for political reasons in this case. In the middle of an election where you're preaching one thing, you can't sit there and vote another way. If he'd have voted no and it passed, he'd have a good angle to pin Obama/Washington with.

But I think that's the bigest problem with the bail out in general, most guys wanted to vote no for political reasons, but wanted it to pass at the same time.
Mostly because they know this bail out won't fix the current problem, it'll just catch an economy that's falling, and not nessicarily lift it. I can understand why one would have mixed feelings on it.

Well then, by your own explanation, McCain voted based on what he thought was right in this instance, and not for the sake of his campaign because the vote creates the appearance on contradiction on a superficial level.

I'll vote for that person every time.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well then, by your own explanation, McCain voted based on what he thought was right in this instance, and not for the sake of his campaign because the vote creates the appearance on contradiction on a superficial level.

I'll vote for that person every time.

I think its hippocritical though. I think he could have pushed for his own ideals more, maybe a very different version of the bailout could have passsed with more time. If he thought it was right, he shouldn't have acted like it wasn't after the fact. If he thought it was wrong, he shouldn't have voted yes for it. No matter how you write it up, there's a contradiction there.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well then, by your own explanation, McCain voted based on what he thought was right in this instance, and not for the sake of his campaign because the vote creates the appearance on contradiction on a superficial level.

I'll vote for that person every time.

Because he caved to his party? We have individuals in office for a reason, to vote for what they believe is the best course.

What you're arguing makes absolutely no sense.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

Because he caved to his party? We have individuals in office for a reason, to vote for what they believe is the best course.

What you're arguing makes absolutely no sense.

When did I talk about caving into a party, and how do you see any evidence of that? He voted for what he thought was right in this instance, and against his party. Look at the numbers. More Republicans voted AGAINST both versions of the bill than Democrats, and McCain voted FOR the bill.

How is going against a party's majority vote translate to caving in to it? In fact, you could credit McCain for leading his party in the direction of voting for the second version of the bill.

I'm not the one making no sense...