GameTavern Votes: Presidential Election 2008

[The Germanator]

You've probably known this for a long time, but Obama/Biden...I've already absentee voted in PA.

[Jason1]

John Mcain is 72 years old, he would be 73 when he takes office if he is elected. The average life expectancy of a man in the United States is 75 years old. Imagine if McCain dies in office. President Palin?

And you thought Mcain would be bad...

[Professor S]

McCain/Palin, obviously. I live in PA.

And Bond, I would love to hear your reasoning for changing your vote. Considering your fiscallly conservative ways, I have a hard time understanding the switch.

And Jason, the only person in this forum who is hateful when it comes to politics is you. I never talekd politics with anyone who is filled with so much anger and hate.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Jason, the only person in this forum who is hateful when it comes to politics is you. I never talekd politics with anyone who is filled with so much anger and hate.

I have to agree with that. What is your deal, Jason?

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by manasecret

I have to agree with that. What is your deal, Jason?

McCain killed his Sensei?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

And Bond, I would love to hear your reasoning for changing your vote. Considering your fiscallly conservative ways, I have a hard time understanding the switch.

This is my basic reasoning:

1. Bush. Bush has moved the Republican party into neoconservatism and evangelicalism, neither of which I agree with in theory or practice. McCain has certainly tried to move the party back to the center and fiscal conservatism, but that is questionable when he nominated Mrs. Palin as his vice president.

I firmly believe Bush has alienated an entire generation of would-be conservatives/Republicans. It is true Bush was not even a conservative himself, but many people will view him as the example of conservatism of their era, and a horrible example at that.

2. Time has passed McCain by. McCain's time to be nominated was in 2000, against Bush in the primaries. This is not McCain's time. He is seventy-two-years-old. He is from our parent's and grandparent's generation. They have had their time. They have done some good, and some bad. It is now our time to make our mark and bear the burden of responsibility.

3. Palin is dangerous. This is an honest question: does anyone believe a word Palin says? Does anyone believe she truly knows what she is talking about? Does she understand foreign policy implications? Does she understand free-trade versus protectionism? I don't believe she does.

Palin is also an evangelical, and I'm not so sure how I feel about evangelicals being in office anymore. I am not trying to say one shouldn't vote for someone because of their religion, but when one's religion encompasses their entire being and absolves them of wrong-doings because they are being driven "by God," then I worry.

4. This is Obama's time. If you look back at our greatest presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, they all share the fact that they were the right men for the right time. It's entirely possible that if they were elected at a different time they would have been miserable presidents. I believe Obama can heal the wounds that Bush has caused.

5. Obama is an intellectual. Our world is not one of black and white or absolutes. This is a shades of gray world, and I believe Obama understands that. His answers aren't always simple, or cut-and-dry, but it's obvious he has put tremendous thought into his answers, and that's what counts in my mind. He thinks. He reflects. He comes to difficult conclusions and admits they're difficult.

6. Greater focus on domestic issues. We can't afford our empire, our foreign intervention, and this living outside our means. We have to return to the principles that our country was founded upon, and that means a return to greater focus on domestic issues. Obama has spoken the most about helping our country, and not intervening in sovereign, foreign countries.

7. No more foreign wars, return to moral superiority. I believe Obama is less likely to get us into another Iraq than McCain is... we need to return to our moral superiority that worked so well for us for decades. It is our greatest strength, not our military superiority, but our moral superiority.

8. A Clinton-esque balanced budget. I'm not convinced either candidate will balance the budget as Clinton did, but I believe Obama has the best chance.

All that being said, it is true that I agree with very little of Obama's policies, and that I agree with more of McCain's, but for our country and for our time, I believe Obama is the right choice. Is it possible Obama could be more like Carter than Clinton or Kennedy? Yes. But I'm willing to take that risk. I believe Obama is the right man for the right time.

I understand this could very well appear as a giant contradiction, but I still think it's the right thing to do.

[TheGame]

Nicely put Bond. I'm also voting for Obama, obviously. Prof S, I know you said your dream ticket would be Powell and Mccain, and I'm pretty sure you heard how Powell feels about this election.

At this point, even though Mccain has more experience, he seems to have very bad jugement. His campaign has been extremely dirty and unstable.

[Professor S]

You bring up an excellent example, Game. Like Powell, I think Bond has made the wrong decision for the right reasons. The biggest probem I have with cnservatives who support Obama is that Obama is the anti-conservative.



Bush is not running for President. I know Obama thinks he is, but McCain is not Bush, and I'm surprised that Bond has fallen for this kind of propoganda. I don;t even think McCain likes Bush, but feels he needs to play politics.

Bond's assertion that Obama would be ANYTHING like Clinton when it comes to spending is absurd, even according to Obama's budget. Obama wants to increase spending by 1 trillion and has no real plans to pay for it. Worse yet, Congressional leadership want to increase spending by three times that amount, and they are the ones who will send the bills to Obama. So the question is, do you think Obama will veto a spending bill from the leadership of his own party? Do you really think ANYONE is getting a tax cut under Obama or a democrat led Congress? Mark my words: If Obama wins, you will hear the following in an address: "America, these times are far too tasking and our deficit is far to large for us to have tax cuts at this time. But, I will send out some checks to those that are truly struggling (read: those that don't pay taxes in the first place) and together we will get through these tough times." Mark my words.

I'll agree that Palin wasn't the best choice, but lets be real: She'll be the Vice President for essentially a one term President, and I see no chance of her even winning her own primary in four years a real candidate decides to run for the Republican ticket.

"This is Obama's time". That sounds like it came stright from an Obama ad. How do you think he'll heal woulnds when he is the most liberal Senator in the country? How has he ever shown he has been anything but lock step behind his party?

We're talking about someone who has stated they want to redistribute wealth, or "share your success"... this is a tenant of socialisma and one of the planks of communism. Obama may not be a socialist, but he sure sounds like one.

Obama says a lot of nice things, but the sad fact is little of what he says relates to any of his brief experience in public service. Bond, it blows my mind that with the supreme court in jeopardy, a congress led by idiots, yes IDIOTS like Pelosi and Reed and a time with so much at stake you would ignore all of your poltiical principles and vote based on feeling ("It's Obama's time" has nothing to do wiuth issues or facts) rather than rational thought. Thats not what intellectual Republicans do.

Another seemingly rational republican falls under the cult of Obama's personality.

[Dylflon]

I knew that the Professor couldn't go two pages in this thread with out being condescending towards someone else.

[TheGame]

Prof, I agree with you on a lot of what you said, and I do think Bond probably should have left the part about it being his time out.. or at least elaborated on it more. But even with that said, I still agree with Bond on it.

(If I had 2 weeks to make this post it'd sound better, since I'm a tad emotional on the subject. But I'ma make it quickly now.)

You almost have to look at the bigger picture. The reason to go for Obama is a lot more then his stance on certain issues, the very fact that he's about to be elected stands for a LOT more then just that.

My first point, throwing race completly out the window for this one... is the fact that you have a guy who is running one of the cleanest campaigns for president in recent history. I'm not gonna toss down the flag and say Obama has won, but lets look at it like this. If Mccain wins, what does it prove about politics? If Obama wins, what does it prove about them?

If Mccain wins, it proves that using fear and pointless off subject attacks actually plays over well with the american people. If Mccain wins, it proves that politics will be going in the same direction, straight to hell... And by him pulling it off it'll leave an impression on future people running for president that if you go low enough, even as far as trying to imply the person you're running against is a terrorist, it can help you "win".

If Obama wins, it proves that you can run a clean respectful election and win. If Obama wins, it proves to politians that the American people know how to look past low blow attacks, look past an unfortunate name, and look past race and judge people based more off of the content of their character.

Granted, I'll be the first to admit his race gives him advantages among certan crowds, as does Mccain's. But I think the implications made by electing a black president that will do our country good, It proves what america stands for, that we're truely a place that accepts change, and that accepts everyone. I think other countries would give us some credit for this.

Beyond that, what has made all the great presidents great wasn't just their stance on a few good issues, not everyone in the country agreed with them or voted for them. This includes John F. Kennedy, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson, and even Washington.... What made them stand out in history (besides the fact that some of them were killed), is the fact that they had this presence to them that inspired people in their country to grow and be better.

No matter what Obama does, may he make mistakes or not, he will reignite the base of America in my opinion. That's why I'd call it his time. He is an inspirational speaker, he is a good person, and I think he loves his family, and loves his country. (And its sad I can't say that without questioning it about most recent times presidents)

Of course, as President Bush has proven, you don't know what they'll do until they get into power. But, would you rather trust someone who is running the most negitive campaign in history, and who has made extremely bad political feuled decisions just to get extra votes? Or would you rather truth the guy who is running a clean campaign, who is very inspirational... Who actually has the power to tell the american people something they don't want to hear, but they could still support it because he's respectful about it?

Are you rally looking for a positive change? Or are you looking for more of the same, and more of these elections to be trashy and unprofessional?

I'ma cut it off here, I could have probably written a lot more about it. But that's why I think its his time, and that's why I'm voting for Obama. Maybe 4-8 years from now a person who shares my more conservative views will come along and play the cards right. At this point, I feel like voting for Mccain would be a bad decision and it will not fare good for the country in the long term.

[Xantar]

What's gotten into you, Strangler? Now, apparently, a conservative can't support Obama because he thinks Obama would make a better president (or because he thinks McCain would make a worse one). To do so must mean that they have been blinded by Obama's cult of personality and lost their claim to being "rational" and "intellectual." At least according to you, and you apparently are the final arbiter of what constitutes rationality.

And I'm supposed to be the arrogant one on this forum?

Is there no room in your intellect to contemplate the idea that other people might think just as long and hard about a subject as you and then come to a different conclusion? Do you honestly believe that Chuck Hagel, Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell (to name a few) have so profoundly dislocated their reasoning that they've managed to make the wrong decision for the right reasons?

I'm no admirer of Bond or TheGame, as you well know. Hell, I used to call TheGame willfully blind and ignorant to his face, and I tend to think Bond's decision to vote Obama sort of gives the lie to his stated support for split government (which I never believed anyway, but that's another post). Believe me, I'm not stepping in here because those two are suddenly my best buddies. I'm posting this because of what I see as a disturbing tendency for you to turn everything into a ranting, personally-insulting tirade against everyone who disagrees with you.

Do you not understand how this contributes to the polarization of this forum? Why should anyone bother debating anything with you when they can be sure that at some point, you will probably belittle their intelligence, call them a coward/fool/socialist and probably imply that they just aren't thinking right? What kind of discourse do you believe this promotes? Why should anyone consider your ideas when they know that you're going to browbeat them until they see it your way, which you also seem to believe is the only objectively true and rational way?

Frankly, you sound like you're deathly afraid of something. What that might be I don't know, but it seems to me that you could benefit from Obama's example in one way if nothing else: the way to persuade people to your point of view is to listen to them seriously, acknowledge them and then try to find some common ground. Ok, you'll probably say that Obama hasn't lived up to that principle, but that doesn't make it any less valid an idea. If nothing else, even if you don't convince the person you're talking to, you'll have an impact on other people who are just watching from the sidelines.

Or you can just carry on the way you're doing. You may have noticed that you're now alone in a forum where several people used to fundamentally agree with you. Continue to alienate them and you'll quickly become the lonely man ranting in a corner whom everyone ignores. And frankly, that would be pretty sad. You're better than that.

[Angrist]

Who are you, to be so mean to one of our regulars?!?! Shoo! Crawl back into your dust bin!

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I knew that the Professor couldn't go two pages in this thread with out being condescending towards someone else.

Nothing in my post responding to Bond's comments were condescending, or were at least not intended to be. More exasperated than condescending, and I will admit to being a bit put-off by Bond's reasoning considering his political alignments, and that showed in my post. For that I apologize if it came off insulting. The questions were intended to be honest questions to someone who is philispohically conservative yet voting for Obama, who is now exposed to be a REAL socialist after this bomb-shell:



The man wants to flip the consitution on it's head. If the democrat running was Bill Clinton or even John Kerry, I would kind of understand where Bond was coming from, but its not. The democrat running is Barack Obama, and all the EVIDENCE points to the fact that Barack is the farthest left of any major candidate in recent years, if not ever. Notice I say evidence, and not Obama's rhetoric, which is very reasonable. But when you compare Obama's rhetoric to his actions as a public figure, they don't match up in the least.

And Xantar, this conversation has nothing to do with your view on politics, but is intended to be a conversation between two fiscally conservative people about why they would vote for Obama, since it goes against everything that a fiscal conservative stands for, and when Bond did not address his core values in that area that he's shown over the years in his reasoning, it shocks me. And your obvious baiting is a little tiresome, especially when you reference threads from a month or more ago, but its nice to know I've gotten to you. And with that I will no longer read any of your responses. See how annoying that is?

[Bond]

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I am always open to changing my mind and my political viewpoints, and I don't view this as a a sign of weakness or "flip-flopping." It's honest introspection.

Originally Posted by Professor S

Bush is not running for President. I know Obama thinks he is, but McCain is not Bush, and I'm surprised that Bond has fallen for this kind of propoganda. I don;t even think McCain likes Bush, but feels he needs to play politics.

I agree. McCain is definitely not Bush. But as I said before, I believe 2000 was McCain's year, not 2008. McCain has definitely drifted away from several of his more moderate viewpoints to the right to appease the Republican party's base. Just as I would agree with you that McCain doesn't particularly like Bush, do you think McCain particularly likes Palin? McCain is no Bush, and Palin is no McCain.

I like McCain, but I don't like him in this election cycle.

Bond's assertion that Obama would be ANYTHING like Clinton when it comes to spending is absurd, even according to Obama's budget. Obama wants to increase spending by 1 trillion and has no real plans to pay for it. Worse yet, Congressional leadership want to increase spending by three times that amount, and they are the ones who will send the bills to Obama. So the question is, do you think Obama will veto a spending bill from the leadership of his own party? Do you really think ANYONE is getting a tax cut under Obama or a democrat led Congress? Mark my words: If Obama wins, you will hear the following in an address: "America, these times are far too tasking and our deficit is far to large for us to have tax cuts at this time. But, I will send out some checks to those that are truly struggling (read: those that don't pay taxes in the first place) and together we will get through these tough times." Mark my words.

Well, I thought Bush would continue Clinton's balanced budget, and I was very mistaken about that, so I could be wrong here again. But, if Obama does raise taxes on the top 5%, stops foreign intervention, and even decreases military spending, I do believe there is some hope for a balanced budget. Of course, if he increases spending dramatically in the medicare, medicaid, and social security spectrum (the welfare spectrum), then there is no hope.

I do favor McCain's tax policy over Obama's. I don't like the idea of income tax on principle, but sometimes one has to air on the side of pragmatism over principle. But let's go back to Bush again for one moment. Decreasing taxes in a time of war? Obama's tax policy isn't the worst thing in light of Bush's mishandling of the economy.

Look, I am (my family) is not going to benefit at all from Obama's tax plan. If anything, we'll most likely have our taxes raised. But sometimes you have to put country first, and not always vote in one's own self interest.

"This is Obama's time". That sounds like it came stright from an Obama ad. How do you think he'll heal woulnds when he is the most liberal Senator in the country? How has he ever shown he has been anything but lock step behind his party?

Was not the Cold War Reagan's time? Was not the Civil War Lincoln's time? Was not the beginning of our country Washington's time? In light of history, I think this argument is quite rational and strong, but I don't have time to expand upon it.

We're talking about someone who has stated they want to redistribute wealth, or "share your success"... this is a tenant of socialisma and one of the planks of communism. Obama may not be a socialist, but he sure sounds like one.

I don't disagree, but let's end corporate welfare just as soon as we end the redistribution of wealth.

Obama says a lot of nice things, but the sad fact is little of what he says relates to any of his brief experience in public service. Bond, it blows my mind that with the supreme court in jeopardy, a congress led by idiots, yes IDIOTS like Pelosi and Reed and a time with so much at stake you would ignore all of your poltiical principles and vote based on feeling ("It's Obama's time" has nothing to do wiuth issues or facts) rather than rational thought. Thats not what intellectual Republicans do.

I again don't disagree. I would much rather have different parties control the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

And where are these intellectual Republicans? As far as I'm concerned, they're gone.

Originally Posted by Xantar

I'm no admirer of Bond or TheGame, as you well know. Hell, I used to call TheGame willfully blind and ignorant to his face, and I tend to think Bond's decision to vote Obama sort of gives the lie to his stated support for split government (which I never believed anyway, but that's another post). Believe me, I'm not stepping in here because those two are suddenly my best buddies. I'm posting this because of what I see as a disturbing tendency for you to turn everything into a ranting, personally-insulting tirade against everyone who disagrees with you.

I believe that one should stand by one's theoretical political principles, but, in the end, govern in a centrist fashion (aka. compromise), as I view centrism as the best hope for our country. I find the assertion that you think I'm "lying" rather insulting, but I digress.

[Professor S]

Bond, I just fear that you're throwing the baby our with the bath water over ideas that, IMO, are small when you look at the big picture. To me, the big picture is giving the current congress that might have a filibuster proof majority a socialist (or shudder the thought, marxist) President. We could feel the effects of a such a disastrous election for 30-50 years, especially in the supreme court where Obama's choices will affect at least two generations of Americans in very important areas(property rights, consitutional issues, states rights, etc.). What did you think of the embed in my last post? Did it move you at all (hopefully)?

Amd the intellectual Republicans I mention are those like Noonan, Will, Brooks and Powell, all of whom have had serious issues with the social republican far right wing of the party and Palin in particular. Trust me, I sympathize. I've often wanted to see a push towards a third party of Pragmatic Conservatives who push for reasonable social and economic freedoms, regulated through currency management and cattle shute regulation, but not the punitive actions of FDR's regime, inspired by the progressive movement of the early 20th century.

My fear is that sometimes we can be so impassioned about how social conservatoives, or as I refer to them "useful idiots", are getting in the way of real progress that we put the idea of the perfect in the way of the good. In these cases, we vote for someone like Obama, more out of disgust for some of the pandering of our own party than in agreement with theirs. I think this is more destructive than helpful to democracy in general.