Why McCain will be the Next President of the United States

[Arrian]

This has to be one of the laziest troll threads I've ever seen.

-Arrian

[rah]

Yes, the laziest.

Especially if you look at the qualifications of both candidates without looking at party affiliation, race, age, etc, McCain would be the obvious choice.

The only reason Obama is even a candidate is because he's black and charismatic. It's pretty sad if that is all that qualifies you as a candidate for the Presidency.

[Arrian]

That's slightly less lazy, rah. But only slightly, and not worth a response.

Try harder.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

You're right, it took no effort because basically the opening statement is true.

America has had Bush for 8 years - Stupid box checked

McCain represents more of the same - Stupid box already full to overflowing, racism box checked.

[rah]

The democrats just want you to think that McCain is the same because it the only thing their limited minds can come up with. According to their definition any republican is Bush. The silly thing is they believe people are actually stupid enough to believe this. They must be right though based on what's being posted at Poly.

I guess all democrats are the same too. See how stupid that sounds.

When McCain ran against Bush in the primary in the past, they were considered totally different. But now that Bush is hated, Dems want you to think they're twins. Just plain silly. But go ahead and keep spouting the same stupidity, since only Democrats are stupid enough to believe it. And non-americans, of course.

[Asher]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Republicsm is good, as long as you're not being an ******* and a dumbass. i.e. Bush

Next in line, McCain; Bush's mini-me.

WTF is Republicsm?

[Ramo]

When McCain ran against Bush in the primary in the past, they were considered totally different.

But then he found out that means you lose, so ran on a completely different platform this year. On the major issues of the day, McCain's running for Bush's third term. He basically cribbed Bush's health care proposal. Like Bush, his support for a cap and trade system is essentially rhetorical (he opposed the very moderate Lieberman-Warner legislation that previously bore his name). He's pushing for huge, regressive tax cuts. And Bush has even embraced a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq before McCain.

The people who insist that McCain is pushing a completely different platform from Bush aren't paying any attention to the policy that he has put out. Regardless of what he stood for between 1999 and 2003, he has been an orthodox conservative before and afterwards.

[rah]

And Obama has changed his platform from what it was in the primary. They're both politicians which will say anything to get elected. Both parties hope their candidate will be true to what they said before, not what they're saying now.

[Harovan]

Obama is a smug idiot.
McCain is an *******.

Having the choice between idiot and *******, the Americans have a record to choose the latter.

Yes, McCain will be president.

[Ramo]

And Obama has changed his platform from what it was in the primary.

Not substantially. The constitutionality of the handgun ban, the FISA Amendment, and multilaterality vs. unilaterality of initiatiating a renegotiating of NAFTA are pretty much it. He ran as a center-left Dem, and still is a center-left Dem.

Both parties hope their candidate will be true to what they said before, not what they're saying now.

I don't know why you believe that the years 1999-2003 are intrinsic to McCain while every other year in his long career is not...

McCain has been an orthodox conservative for the past 4 years. The belief that he's suddenly going to turn around on that is pretty naive...

[rah]

Actually I'll be voting for McCain because he is right of Obama by whatever definition you want to use. Just because Obama is farther left then I like my candidates doesn't make me a slobering idiot. And people that claim that I am because I will vote for McCain are the actual slobering idiots. At least RAMO actually discusses things, unlike the normal moronic ranters.

[ramseya]

Oerdin:

That's my point. Eisenhower was one of our best Presidents ever because he tilted things towards common people and increased the power of government to deal with monopolies (remember how he wanted to break up GM? GM had 70% of the US auto market) but today his populist message would make him unwanted in the Republican big business establishment.

I really like how liberals always want to take credit for great Republican presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower... makes me think in 20 more years, Reagan is going to be "not the same as Republicans today cause the party changed since then. He's another one who better fits in with the modern Democratic platform then the Republican one." Hell, it's already started with Nixon what with price controls, the creation of SSI, school integration in the South, creation of OSHA and the EPA. I'm starting to think Nixon was a Democrat already!

I posted in another thread a political cartoon created by Democrats against Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. The charges against him in the cartoon were used against Bush in 2004.

I don't think the parties really have changed very much. Their geographic bases have changed and their stances on specific issues have but the general philosophies remain the same.

The Democratic party from the days of Andrew Jackson on has always been the party which feels an obligation to help and support the little guy. It has always been the party of the common man and has always been hostile to big business. Its members are those people who, for whatever reason stemming from their early childhood development, believe in helping others and that we should all take responsibility for the community. That, sir, has not changed in 180 years.

The Republican party from the days of Lincoln on has always had a different philosophy, caring more about individual enterprise and individual responsibility. Again, we have a different personality type that leads to a different set of assumptions which colors the GOP stance on issues. The early Republican party was made up of abolitionists, temperance-ists, and business interests. Abolitionism is obviously not an issue anymore but the business interests and the moral righteousness behind the temperance movement still remain in the GOP today.

I've heard it a million times but I just don't see the parties today being radically different from their predecessors. And, like I said, I look at the Teddy Roosevelt political cartoon and it only makes me think that nothing ever changes.

[GePap]

And you would be wrong:

Just look at how South, which went from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican, while the Northeast went from generally Republican to Democrat.

If liberals claim Eisenhower and Teddy, it is because those men were closer to the center and certainly to the left of the modern conservative movement. I rarely hear any Republicans speaking about any ex-President BUT Reagan. People like Lincoln and Eisenhower are irrelevant to the modern Republican Party and its supposed hostility to everything "governmental."

[ramseya]

GePap:

McCain has said repeatedly that he is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Asher


WTF is Republicsm?

Republicanism is too long and sounds funny, and who needs the i anyway, what a waste, it's time to start saving energy by typing less letters. We don't need vowels anymore, some guy worked it out, s lts strt svng th plnt!