Who will you vote for and why? [Allopathic version]

[Trismegistus4]

All I'm going to say is that if McCain/Palin win, it will be the worst thing that could happen for the US and it will be the end of the US as we know it.

Guess now we can just sit back and wait until Tuesday.

The very fact that there are Americans who can say things like this shows how America has already jumped the shark. McCain/Palin are horrible, but if anything could spell the end of the US as we know it, it's the election of Barack Hussein Obama--the most left-wing candidate in history, a man who has spent his entire life in an aliented, anti-American, left-wing bubble, a man who wants to turn the USA into an unfree, pseudo-socialist, EU-style state and will have the backing of both houses of Congress in doing so.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WellWornLad]

The very fact that there are Americans who can say things like this shows how America has already jumped the shark. McCain/Palin are horrible, but if anything could spell the end of the US as we know it, it's the election of Barack Hussein Obama--the most left-wing candidate in history, a man who has spent his entire life in an aliented, anti-American, left-wing bubble, a man who wants to turn the USA into an unfree, pseudo-socialist, EU-style state and will have the backing of both houses of Congress in doing so.

Perhaps you could explain what "anti-Americanism" means, exactly - unless, of course, it means "non-conservative," in which case I think I understand you perfectly.

What I find scary is your perverse use of nationalistic symbolism to frame your hyperbolic diatribe. Guess what: if Obama wins it'll be because more people voted for him. If Congress is controlled by the democrats, it will be because they were voted in. That is as American as it gets, so quit acting like the communists are rolling tanks through the capitol.

 

[rachmoninov3]

Serious question, please reply:

What's so evil about McCain/Palin? Why will the US go to pot if they are elected?

the case for Palin:

Based off of what I've read on this board, if Palin is such a socialist, and taxed the oil companies to give to the citizens of Alaska...doesn't that give her the qualities people like about Obama?
Her inexperience: The same inexperience applies to Obama as well. Should she obtain the presidency, she will do what many do: get good advisors. Chances are, these advisors may even suggest what those who 'claim not to like millitary action' would want.

I still would have liked Leiberman or Guliani as VP, but by far I still think that McCain is a better choice based on character, experience, and voting record.

 

[WellWornLad]

Serious question, please reply:

What's so evil about McCain/Palin? Why will the US go to pot if they are elected?

I can tell you what I don't like about Palin (in no particular order):

1) has a penchant for cronyism (put her high school friends in government positions for which they were not qualified)

2) seems to have only the most superficial grasp of both the role of VP and foreign policy, and cannot coherently explain the basis for many of her positions (e.g., when asked what sources of information she used, Palin answered "all of them.")

3) instituted a policy of charging rape victims for forensic kits

4) openly, even proudly, divisive, nationalist, and jingoistic; I was especially underwhelmed with her sarcastic, disrespectful convention speech

5) her governmental style to date has been characterized as insular and opaque (e.g., systematic use of personal e-mail accounts for government business that could not be subpoenaed)

6) I'm not confident in her ability to separate religious views from governmental decisions

7) I disagree with her stance on abortion rights, especially as they pertain to cases of rape, incest, and where health of the mother may be in danger

That's off the top of my head. McCain I like, or at least did like pre-2006. He's changed so much that I don't know if the real McCain is still under there somewhere. One of my biggest concerns is not who the president will be, but who will the president put in office and surround himself with. While McCain had a shot at my vote last spring, the Palin pick and the neo-cons he has surrounded himself with during his campaign (Randy Scheunemann, William Kristol, Robert Kagan) have not impressed me.

 

[Steiner]

I can tell you what I don't like about Palin (in no particular order):

1) has a penchant for cronyism (put her high school friends in government positions for which they were not qualified)

2) seems to have only the most superficial grasp of both the role of VP and foreign policy, and cannot coherently explain the basis for many of her positions (e.g., when asked what sources of information she used, Palin answered "all of them.")

3) instituted a policy of charging rape victims for forensic kits

4) openly, even proudly, divisive, nationalist, and jingoistic; I was especially underwhelmed with her sarcastic, disrespectful convention speech

5) her governmental style to date has been characterized as insular and opaque (e.g., systematic use of personal e-mail accounts for government business that could not be subpoenaed)

6) I'm not confident in her ability to separate religious views from governmental decisions

7) I disagree with her stance on abortion rights, especially as they pertain to cases of rape, incest, and where health of the mother may be in danger

That's off the top of my head. McCain I like, or at least did like pre-2006. He's changed so much that I don't know if the real McCain is still under there somewhere. One of my biggest concerns is not who the president will be, but who will the president put in office and surround himself with. While McCain had a shot at my vote last spring, the Palin pick and the neo-cons he has surrounded himself with during his campaign (Randy Scheunemann, William Kristol, Robert Kagan) have not impressed me.

I like your big words, but #3 is false (look it up) and #6 is not illegal. Although you make think so, there is no separation of church and state component to the constitution (look it up too).

 

[mjl1717]

I like your big words, but #3 is false (look it up) and #6 is not illegal. Although you make think so, there is no separation of church and state component to the constitution (look it up too).

I hear you..But I think MORE then ANYONE else Palin scares people !!!!

(perhaps she is too emotional-eg. By Golly, Gosh darnit...[also those eastern countries and even over here they wont go for a woman in charge like her]

Why else would they goof on her excessively on Saturday night live??
They attempt to goof on Hillary, but Hillary is not goofy..

 

[WellWornLad]

I like your big words

I doubt it.

but #3 is false (look it up)

Well well, my bad. I don't think very highly of her silence on the issue while mayor, but I guess there's not enough evidence on that point. Withdrawn.

Plenty more where that came from, however.

and #6 is not illegal. Although you make think so, there is no separation of church and state component to the constitution (look it up too).

It's not a question of being illegal, it's a question of judgement and temperament. I'm pretty sure cronyism isn't illegal either, it's just awful governing.

The Constitution does make some noise about the freedom of religion, however, and very smart people (starting with Thomas Jefferson and continuing through several permutations of the Supreme Court) have concluded that such freedom is indeed impinged when the government favors one religion over another. If they had to spell out every scenario and every coined phrase in the Constitution, they'd still be working on it.

 

[Taurus]

Let me be the first to say,

Congrats, President Obama!

 

[scotties123]

i demand a recount. and taurus, u used the wrong color buddy.

 

[obiwan]

Let me be the first to say,

Congrats, President Obama!

dang, beat me to it

 

[Booner]

If they had to spell out every scenario and every coined phrase in the Constitution, they'd still be working on it.

Which is why they should have left it at the enumeration of powers and not added the Bill of Rights. That way, we'd still have all the rights secured in the Bill of Rights, but everything the government wanted to do would have to measure up to the powers given to it. As is no one thinks about what powers the government was explicitly given and figures that as long as it doesn't impinge on the Bill of Rights it must be alright for the government to do. For the past 13 years an Arizona representative (Shadegg) has presented a bill requiring all bills to include a paragraph regarding how the bill fits within the enumeration of powers. Of course it has failed all 13 years because that would mean congress would actually have to justify what they want to do and make sure it is in accordance with the powers given to them in the Constitution. I just find it amazing how the enumeration of powers is constantly ignored and/or completely unknown by so many people, especially those in office.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Let me be the first to say,

Congrats, President Obama!

Best words ever!

 

[Member 870]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr Cookie Pants]

Do none of you people want to be able to pay your loans?

 

[FutureInternist]

As Homer would say......"Woo-Hoo"

I really liked John McCain's speech at the end.
Obama's was OK.

 

[Taliesinrk]

Mistype

 

[Taliesinrk]

Let me be the first to say,

Congrats, President Obama!

I believe you mean:
Congrats, President Sortero!

 

[njbmd]

It's over and now this thread is closed.