Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Flasch186]

oh crap, she says 'Nucular' too!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

So what do conservatives think can help alleviate or help those less fortunate?

The US is a capitalist society. Those that are on top have made their money by providing a good or service to a large amount of people. This applies from McDonald's to Walmart, actors to drug dealers. The point is that if the bottom economic rungs of society do better, the top will do better.

Do conservative see that?

Define less fortunate first.

However:

1) The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.

[Flasch186]

Theyre really going after the Hillary vote.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Theyre really going after the Hillary vote.

I kind of wonder how Hillary is feeling right now. I wonder if she is pissed as hell.

[SFL Cat]

Having traveled a bit, our view of poverty in this country is rather jaded.

[timmynausea]

I thought they were going for the Tina Fey vote when I saw that banner.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I really think the Dems attacking a VP pick (last time I checked, the president runs the country, not the VP) over inexperience would really do them no good. They would just be asking for an aggressive attack that highlights Obama's inexperience.

Palin need to take her glasses off.

I don't know, if done correctly they can corner McCain into a difficult position. If he says that Palin is qualified to be President, then it's going to be awfully hard to criticize Obama's inexperience.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

oh crap, she says 'Nucular' too!

Yeah, that was hilarious.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I kind of wonder how Hillary is feeling right now. I wonder if she is pissed as hell.

I'm sure she's at least a tiny bit conflicted.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't know, if done correctly they can corner McCain into a difficult position. If he says that Palin is qualified to be President, then it's going to be awfully hard to criticize Obama's inexperience.

That can kind of work both ways, ie - How can Obama's campaign criticize her inexperience? However, Obama has been in the public eye for so much longer that I think there is the illusion of much more experience than her. I think it was a mistake to put someone in the race with less experience than Obama. It undoes their strongest Obama attack to some degree.

[Noop]

I think she looks alright. I wonder if she spits or swallows though...

[Flasch186]

well apparently she's great for the religious right so that's great for the McCain camp.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

That can kind of work both ways, ie - How can Obama's campaign criticize her inexperience? However, Obama has been in the public eye for so much longer that I think there is the illusion of much more experience than her. I think it was a mistake to put someone in the race with less experience than Obama. It undoes their strongest Obama attack to some degree.

She's a governor. Bill Clinton used that on his political resume too. Obama has ZERO executive experience, so if his people try to play the inexperience card on her...blammo it comes back to bite them big time.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

That can kind of work both ways, ie - How can Obama's campaign criticize her inexperience? However, Obama has been in the public eye for so much longer that I think there is the illusion of much more experience than her. I think it was a mistake to put someone in the race with less experience than Obama. It undoes their strongest Obama attack to some degree.

But do you see the jobs of the Presidency and Vice Presidency different? I guess it depends on how one will see these roles.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Having traveled a bit, our view of poverty in this country is rather jaded.

I hate that logic.

"There are people who shit stinks worse, so be happy."

None of those people live in America, you can't make that comparison.

[molson]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

That can kind of work both ways, ie - How can Obama's campaign criticize her inexperience? However, Obama has been in the public eye for so much longer that I think there is the illusion of much more experience than her. I think it was a mistake to put someone in the race with less experience than Obama. It undoes their strongest Obama attack to some degree.

Ya, I think Obama ultamitely wins that back and forth because he's more experienced than her.

Still, it's funny to think that just a few pages back, people were arguging over whether experience mattered at all, and now everyone has to backtrack and sort out their opinions on that based on these developments.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But do you see the jobs of the Presidency and Vice Presidency different? I guess it depends on how one will see these roles.

They are, but the Obama camp will make much of the fact that she's a "heartbeat away from the presidency".

She has enough experience to be VP

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

She's a governor. Bill Clinton used that on his political resume too. Obama has ZERO executive experience, so if his people try to play the inexperience card on her...blammo it comes back to bite them big time.

Again, so did Bush. Experience is overrated. Its all about good decision making.

[Kodos]

McCain's skin cancer issues certainly make her experience an issue to consider.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I think Obama ultamitely wins that back and forth because he's more experienced than her.

the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks. Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

[timmynausea]

I do think one's evaluation of the roles could be a factor, but I'm talking more about public perception than the practical meaning. I think some people are going to go from "What do we really know about Obama?" who has been nationally known for 4 years to "Who the hell is this woman?" She has no experience and they didn't even know who she was at all. I just think it undermines that doubt they had created about Obama. It shifts the unknown to her, at least to some degree.

I think going with a ticket of total experience would've reinforced McCain's strength. Just my opinion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks. Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

That's true, she's actually the only one on either ticket with executive experience.

Not sure whether that matters in a practical sense, or whether people will even pick up on that distinction.

[Flasch186]

LOL, The Republican talking head said Palin wont be the 'attack dog' because this elections isnt about attacks....um, have you seen the ads thus far, not taking into account who's responsible for the ad? That was as disingenuous a statement as Ive heard all week from either side.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I hate that logic.

"There are people who shit stinks worse, so be happy."

None of those people live in America, you can't make that comparison.

I can when a lot of the people I speak of would absolutely LOVE to trade places with an American "poor" person because, for them, it would be a major step up in their standard of living.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks. Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

Isn't the point of the VP to pick someone who is qualified to be president in the event that something happens to the president?

Therefore to be qualified to be vice-president, you have be qualified to be president, right?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I think Obama ultamitely wins that back and forth because he's more experienced than her.

Still, it's funny to think that just a few pages back, people were arguging over whether experience mattered at all, and now everyone has to backtrack and sort out their opinions on that based on these developments.

The point is that the VP choice can potentially take away one of McCain's best attacks. That doesn't mean someone's opinion of whether or not experience matters has changed.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I can when a lot of the people I speak of would absolutely LOVE to trade places with an American "poor" person because, for them, it would be a major step up in their standard of living.

What does domestic economic policy have to do with how people live in 3rd world countries?

[MikeVic]

Tiny Fey lol.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

What does domestic economic policy have to do with how people live in 3rd world countries?

As I posted a post a page ago, how do you define "poor"?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Isn't the point of the VP to pick someone who is qualified to be president in the event that something happens to the president?

Therefore to be qualified to be vice-president, you have be qualified to be president, right?

I guess you could say a lot of people are looking at Obama the same way, yeah the guy makes pretty speeches...but what has he done? If it weren't a major concern, I don't think the race would be as close as it is.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I think Obama ultamitely wins that back and forth because he's more experienced than her.

I normally agree with most of your posts...which is why I usually dont feel overly compelled to post the same comment...but I actually disagree with this for the following reasons.

Obama/Biden can try that tact, but in reality, this is a woman with more executive experience than the other 3 candidates combined.

Couple that with (whether valid or otherwise) having less (or nearly zero) baggage issues to defend and I think it's a road that Dems would be better served to stay away from.

But I would agree that Dems would be well served to argue that if Palin is capable of being President, then so is Obama. But really...is that a compelling outcome to even bother broaching the subject over? IMHO, nope.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

As I posted a post a page ago, how do you define "poor"?

Why would I use economic conditions outside of the US as a reference point?

[SFL Cat]

Why wouldn't you?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks. Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

Take it easy, dude. You're not her press secretary.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I guess you could say a lot of people are looking at Obama the same way, yeah the guy makes pretty speeches...but what has he done? If it weren't a major concern, I don't think the race would be as close as it is.

The point is that either they are both qualified to be president or neither are qualified to be president. If they are both qualified to be president then why vote for McCain or anybody else with "Washington experience?"

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Isn't the point of the VP to pick someone who is qualified to be president in the event that something happens to the president?

Therefore to be qualified to be vice-president, you have be qualified to be president, right?

I can see that. However, say some president dies two years into a term. With two years of of being the vice president, I think one certainly has enough experience to step into the presidency role.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Why wouldn't you?

If you're at the bottom of the barrel in the United States, or if you're facing injustices here, that's where you are, that's what you're fighting against.

A pre-civil rights African American was still better off than a lot of African blacks. So he should just shut up and accept the injustices because there's someone worse off somewhere?

Should we care less about poverty because our poor people are relatively well off?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Why would I use economic conditions outside of the US as a reference point?

I'm not the one who did, SFL Cat did. However, that wasn't my question. My question was how do you define poor?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I guess you could say a lot of people are looking at Obama the same way, yeah the guy makes pretty speeches...but what has he done? If it weren't a major concern, I don't think the race would be as close as it is.

+1

I'd also argue that Palin, in her first & only speech as VP nominee, has already complimented her Presidential nominee in more ways than Biden has all week.

At least if you draw a distinction between saying "Obama is about change and will right that wrong" vs. "McCain has demonstrated his willingness to put his country first".

These are, of course, simplified versions...but it is the ultimate message that I come away with.

[Vegas Vic]

In the end, the vice presidential nominees do not have that much impact on the general election.

In 1988, everyone thought that GHWB blew the election when he picked Dan Quayle. Ultimately, the Democratic VP, Lloyd Bentsen, ended up casting a shadow over Michael Dukakis because Bentsen was perceived as being more qualified than Dukakis.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm not the one who did, SFL Cat did. However, that wasn't my question. My question was how do you define poor?

I guess if I had to quantify it would be 2 parent/2 kid household:

700-rent/mortgage
300-food
800-car
200-medical
300-utilities
200 gas
--------------
2500-month
x 12
---------------
30000--aprox.
---------------
anything less than 35,000/yr-40000 would probably be poor.

Go ahead and attack. I know when I'm being set up.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I can see that. However, say some president dies two years into a term. With two years of of being the vice president, I think one certainly has enough experience to step into the presidency role.

On the job training.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by molson

If you're at the bottom of the barrel in the United States, or if you're facing injustices here, that's where you are, that's what you're fighting against.

A pre-civil rights African American was still better off than a lot of African blacks. So he should just shut up and accept the injustices because there's someone worse off somewhere?

Should we care less about poverty because our poor people are relatively well off?

If a person doesn't get the necessities to continue to stay alive, then that person would be my first priority, regardless of nationality.

And, I'll admit I do get a little riled when I go to the Supermarket late at night and the lady in front of me in line is paying for her groceries with food stamps while talking on a cell phone that costs $150 more than the one I use.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Dole/Ferraro 2008

Good call. If I remember correctly, Ferraro didn't have a lot of experience, and had policy views that spoke to the Democratic base as Palin's do to the GOP's base.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If a person doesn't get the necessities to continue to stay alive, then that person would be my first priority, regardless of nationality.

this doesnt vibe with other facets in your party's platform...

nor your leader's voting records in regards to what I would consider to fall under the umbrella in your quote above.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Since when did the American presidency become about "experience" though?

It's funny that with the Palin pick, the two major avenues the McCain has been attacking Obama on for the past quarter ("experience" and "celebrity") are basically totally neutered right now. I wonder what their major themes will now be during the run-up.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I guess if I had to quantify it would be 2 parent/2 kid household:

700-rent/mortgage
300-food
800-car
200-medical
300-utilities
200 gas
--------------
2500-month
x 12
---------------
30000--aprox.
---------------
anything less than 35,000/yr-40000 would probably be poor.

Go ahead and attack. I know when I'm being set up.

Not sure what part of the country you live in, but the car seems a bit high and rent seems way low. I doubt a poor 2 person family would have 2 car payments, so probably closer to $200-$400 a month. But rent, I haven't seen below $1000 a month for a small apartment since I moved from the South a long time ago. So I guess it all balances out!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, I hear there's millions of Republicans turned Democrat. I also hear there's millions of Clintonites voting for McCain. I'll believe both when I see it in November.

Even with Palin on the ticket, I wonder how many PUMAs are going to go with McCain, especially with that now established as the anti-Choice ticket very solidly. Are so many Clinton supporters really going to vote against their own issues? I'm trying to remember if that's really happened before. Bucc?

[Galaril]

First off smart choise by the Repubs. As for attracting Hilary's voters I say not likely for one big reason. She is a huge antiabortionist so I doubt that will atract them and expect the Dems to remind people of this often. I think Hilary should feel like she has fucked herself by subtley getting her base to turn on Obama before which really is why the Repubs choose a woman IMHO. now if McCain wins in four years you got a guaranteed VP weho will kill Hilary. So she pretty much can kiss her chance asd Pres. 20012 goodbye baby..............Oh, despite the fact the mom is hot the older daughter has some serious guns already but not sure how old she is.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I guess if I had to quantify it would be 2 parent/2 kid household:

700-rent/mortgage
300-food
800-car
200-medical
300-utilities
200 gas
--------------
2500-month
x 12
---------------
30000--aprox.
---------------
anything less than 35,000/yr-40000 would probably be poor.

Go ahead and attack. I know when I'm being set up.

Why have two kids when your making $30,000 in combined salary? What does $800 in car mean? Is that car payments?

Anyways, as I posted in a previous post:

1) The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.