What finally scuppered John McCain?

JohnMc1

He did vote present when he could to avoid any scrutiny. His associations brought himself enough scrutiny.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I must have hit a nerve with all the Obama supporter talk. They're digging for reasons to justify their support of a guy who had no business being a nominee.

I was referring to

They'll be crying in a few months when they realize they won't be getting any more handouts and won't be able to freeload off the system.

There are actual Obama supporters who actually think that just becasue he won they will no longer have to pay mortgages and never pay for gas again

I asked for a source for this one....which you've so far failed to provide

Plus all the local TV networks [The ones you don't need cable to watch] with the exception of Fox were all cheerleading for Obama from day 1

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She definately came across that way. Apparently the media doesn't like people of high moral character [She's happily married, encouraged her teen daughter to have the baby instead of having an abortion,etc] That kind of message doesn't go over well anymore in a "intelligent, enlightened, aetheistic, secular and borderline Communistic" society

Communistic? Please, more empty rhetoric. I noticed that when Blue_Lagoon quoted figures on voting present you didn't try to defend your position, but you are still harping on about this non issue. You can't prove any of what you are saying with facts or sources, its all bull.

JohnMc1

There are some Obama supporters who do think that way. Tough luck if you can't/won't accept it. And the major networks with the exception of Fox were cheerleading for Obama. Some even admitted it after the election.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

He did vote present when he could to avoid any scrutiny. His associations brought himself enough scrutiny.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Again - you stated

He did nothing but vote "present" when he actually showed up at the Senate.

From Blue lagoons post wrote:

"Question: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator? Palin kept saying he voted 'present' 123 times, or something like that. Can you please fact-check this?

Answer: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes."

Source:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...e_present.html

"THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted 'present' 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those 'presents' amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career."

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...present_votes/

You're clearly wrong literally, with regards to his votes, and by implication with regard to his attendance.

ilkhanid

"people of high moral character" Palin? Let's see..likes shooting animals,likes censoring books, likes creationism,likes crazy fundamentalist churches. If that is "high moral character" the Americans are welcome to it.:eek:

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There are some Obama supporters who do think that way. .

A rough figure from a reputable source or research group please.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

. And the major networks with the exception of Fox were cheerleading for Obama. Some even admitted it after the election.

You were referring to local stations.

However, could we have a few sources to the admissions by the Major networks as well, now that you've brought it up...

JohnMc1

ilkhanid wrote: »

"people of high moral character" Palin? Let's see..likes shooting animals,likes censoring books, likes creationism,likes crazy fundamentalist churches. If that is "high moral character" the Americans are welcome to it.:eek:

The nerve of her going to church every Sunday. Everything else is a bunch of BS.

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The nerve of her going to church every Sunday. Everything else is a bunch of BS.

Everything?

JohnMc1

Nodin wrote: »

Everything?

Yes. but you'll believe what you want to believe regardless.

thebman

I think Obama attracted young people by actually you know talking to them.

Its amazing how many politicians ignore young people because they don't turn up to vote on the day. Well Obama got a lot of them to turn up. Primarily because he actually talked to them the way they want to be talked to.

He also promised change which young people are more inclined to go for.

That's just one of the factors but I think he kind of showed if you keep ignoring young people and telling them they don't vote then they probably won't turn up as if you tell a group that their group doesn't turn up then they think nobody else there age does it and are more likely to go with the crowd.

JohnMc1

brim4brim wrote: »

I think Obama attracted young people by actually you know talking to them.

Its amazing how many politicians ignore young people because they don't turn up to vote on the day. Well Obama got a lot of them to turn up. Primarily because he actually talked to them the way they want to be talked to.

He also promised change which young people are more inclined to go for.

That's just one of the factors but I think he kind of showed if you keep ignoring young people and telling them they don't vote then they probably won't turn up as if you tell a group that their group doesn't turn up then they think nobody else there age does it and are more likely to go with the crowd.

Agreed. That was an issue that came up after the election. Even when I registered years ago the Republicans had the image of being the party for the old-timers. They need to get the message out to 18-35 that you can be proud to be Catholic and go to Church, spell Christmas the right way and be proud of your country and not feel guilty for incidents that happened before your ancestors even arrived in the country.

randylonghorn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks but now people want Bertie back. Its like they want to believe he had nothing to do with current economic meltdown. That buy stepped down very quickly for a reason and it wasn't the bribery investigation.

Agreed.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The Democratic majority might work against him because he and the rest of the Democrats are exposed now. Anything they do wrong now is on their heads. They are practically filibuster proof [No matter how many Reps and Indys vote no the Dems will be able to pass a bill because they will all surely vote yes for their own bills] so anything that the American people don't like they will be to blame. No putting the blame on Pres. Bush and the Reps anymore.

You may have a point, given the fickleness of public opinion, and what passes for political analysis among most voters.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

That kind of message doesn't go over well anymore in a "intelligent, enlightened, aetheistic, secular and borderline Communistic" society

Sorry, but that made me laugh!

Even "the left" in America is centre right by international standards.

Something which has become increasingly true in Ireland over the last couple of decades too ...

JohnMc1

randylonghorn wrote: »

Agreed.

You may have a point, given the fickleness of public opinion, and what passes for political analysis among most voters.

Sorry, but that made me laugh!

Even "the left" in America is centre right by international standards.

Something which has become increasingly true in Ireland over the last couple of decades too ...

Thanks. I've heard that for the longest time that the European liberal make the US liberals look like conservatives. The Dems have been bordering Socialists for a long time so my statement does have some merit .As liberal as the Dems are I hope they never get as bad as their European counterparts.

randylonghorn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks. I've heard that for the longest time that the European liberal make the US liberals look like conservatives. The Dems have been bordering Socialists for a long time so my statement does have some merit .As liberal as the Dems are I hope they never get as bad as their European counterparts.

"Bad" is a subjective perspective.

Personally, I wouldn't see seeking a more egalitarian and just society as bad. Not so sure that fanatical Socialism gets it right about the way to achieve that, though. History wouldn't suggest that it does ... but it certainly wouldn't suggest that a fanatical blind adherence to capitalism does either.

Intelligent people keep their minds open to what is valuable in any theoretical approach, rather than blindsiding themselves by a knee-jerk reaction to a name, or adhering blindly to any one school of thought and ignoring or dismissing any evidence which doesn't fit their pet scenario.

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks. I've heard that for the longest time that the European liberal make the US liberals look like conservatives. The Dems have been bordering Socialists for a long time so my statement does have some merit .As liberal as the Dems are I hope they never get as bad as their European counterparts.

How have the dems been bordering socialists? How many socialist party politicians have crossed over? More than dems crossing over to the republican party?

Ruskie4Rent

Nodin wrote: »

I asked for a source for this one....which you've so far failed to provide

I'd give up looking for references. It seems JohnMc1 is following the philosophy of Stephen "I can't prove it, but I can say it" Colbert.

Anyone that can say this 'She is smart. Her "gaffes" were from nerves more than anything else. Stick a video camera in the face of anybody on this thread knowing the media and the world's population is going to pick apart every word you say and there will be some blunders from them too.' after actually seeing Palin's interviews, and yet still accuse people of blind partisanship, is clearly a hypocrite.

You cannot argue against someone that is so sure of something, yet unable to say why. You just can't win.

Truthiness is the reality that is intuitively known without regard to liberal ideals such as reason and logic.

-Stephen Colbert

Manic Moran

dave2pvd wrote: »

So how would you compare his resume to, say, Reagan's when he was campaigning for the presidency?

You're comparing a junior Senator to a two-term Governor of the US's largest State by population?

NTM

dave2pvd

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're comparing a junior Senator to a two-term Governor of the US's largest State by population?

NTM

I'm asking Mc1 to compare - 3 terms Illinois Senator, Junior US Senator, yes.

Perhaps while he's at it, he can explain how the Democrats have a supermajority?

Mc1: not too worry if you're too lazy to look up factual references to back up your arguments. Facts get in the way of a good story, afterall.

It always amazes me when the blowhards defend Palin. Most of my friends here (I live in Georgia) usually vote Republican. Very few were happy about Palin. Now that we are post-election, they really don't want to discuss her and what she did to the campaign. The usual sentiment is 'well at least now there will be a comprehensive rebuilding of the party'. The only ones I hear of hoping she returns in 2012 are the fundamentalists and anti-intellectualism types (one and the same usually).

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're comparing a junior Senator to a two-term Governor of the US's largest State by population?

NTM

Getting into judging governors by the size of their state's population may not be the wisest course ... :pac:

Black Swan

Ludo wrote: »

This thread is going in circles...like watching a car crash...over and over.

Indeed! Or being stuck in a coin operated self-laundry watching the clothes go round and round in the dryer.

The same old unfounded accusations will be made about a political candidate, and when you confront them with the facts, including links for support, they either attack you personally, and/or ignore their error and continue with the same old campaign rhetoric that did not work during the election, as if they can breathe new life into a failing message. In this way, "This thread is going in circles" like you say.

I'll say one thing for McCain. When he could see the presidential loss coming, he gave a concession speech that was professional, dignified, and diplomatic.

Manic Moran

dave2pvd wrote: »

I'm asking Mc1 to compare - 3 terms Illinois Senator, Junior US Senator, yes.

I don't think Obama's going to come the better out of that deal, frankly. (Especially considering how much of both the IL and US Senator time was spent campaigning for the next position). The one gives a lot more executive experience than the other.

If you want to go beyond political office to try to find other advantages in the resume, Obama doesn't seem to have any. Head of professional organisation? Check for both. Organiser? Check for both. Cavalry mustang? Check for Reagan.

Perhaps while he's at it, he can explain how the Democrats have a supermajority?

Unless I've missed something, they don't. They'd need to win against both Chambless and Coleman to do it. You're in Georgia, this should be somewhere in the news.

Getting into judging governors by the size of their state's population may not be the wisest course ...

Frankly, I'd put Governor of Wyoming up against US Senator in terms of experience per year, but I take your point.

NTM

Ludo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that. You wanted an unknown as President with questionable associations only because he made nice speeches. He must have reminded you of Bertie.

Seriously dude wtf are you on? I can only assume you are deliberately trolling at this stage with your repeated assertions about Bertie.
I even agreed with you earlier about voting FF and now you yet again throw Bertie back into the argument.
This is a US politics forum...what has Bertie to do with anything?

Nodin

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yes. but you'll believe what you want to believe regardless.

So you're saying shes not pro-hunting, for instance?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They need to get the message out to 18-35 that you can be proud to be Catholic and go to Church, spell Christmas the right way and be proud of your country and not feel guilty for incidents that happened before your ancestors even arrived in the country..

Was that post intended for this particular thread....?

And I take it you aren't going to supply any sources for your wilder claims....

CPT. SURF

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They need to get the message out to 18-35 that you can be proud to be Catholic and go to Church, spell Christmas the right way and be proud of your country and not feel guilty for incidents that happened before your ancestors even arrived in the country.

In a beautifully ironic twist, this actually describes most of my friends who voted for Obama. Where does that leave your logic?

JohnMc1

CPT. SURF wrote: »

In a beautifully ironic twist, this actually describes most of my friends who voted for Obama. Where does that leave your logic?

I am actually surprised. The Dems have outwardly atleast want to make America a secular society. Look at Hilary's "Christmas" message last year. It was so staged it was horrible.

brianthebard

When did the US stop being a secular country?

JohnMc1

Its always used to be Christian leaning or atleast pro-religious. Atleast until the political correctness age hit.

brianthebard

Freedom of religion is a secular tenet. Or it was until the fundamentalist envangelist age hit.

JohnMc1

It seems like we've had an evangelical age more than a secular age. When there is even a problem with say the Pledge of Allegance in school is a problem the country has hit the skids.