• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of Republican's Turn at Conventions (Palin VP - READ OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
Macam said:
Let's not get into the abortion debate for the millionth time here.
Yeah, I jumped in pretty late to the debate. Glad to see you picked me out to type that, though. BTW, I agree with Obama that both sides could meet at reducing abortions.

The abortion debate belongs to those deciding to do it. Not to politicians.

I think the pro-lifers disagree because of the implication that there's a third person involved.
 

Jak140

Member
Banning abortion would produce nearly a million more unwanted children in the US every year. Right now we are having trouble even taking care of and educating the ones we've got. I'm no fan of late term abortion, but pre-viability abortion is an absolute necessity.

If abortion is ever banned in the US, prepare for thousands of abandoned babies and back-alley abortions every year and our inevitable spiral into a third world country.

If you are anti-abortion, you must ask yourself this. What is more evil, stopping some cells from multiplying, or allowing thousands of children to be motherless and/or starving in the streets?
 

Deku

Banned
acksman said:
So, who would you like to emulate or what type of system would you like to emulate?

Communism?
Totalitarian?
Socialist?

Shall I continue? I don't get it, do you hate freedom?

The number of people who are openly hostile to democracy, praising Putin and Chavez's authoritarian streak as 'lesser of two evils' tend to reinforce the idea that though democratic values are widely accepted.

A lot of posters are equally committed to anti-democratic 'traditions' for the sake of short term expediency and apologizing for local strongmen whom they see are doing 'some' good.
 
VanMardigan said:
I personally believe life begins at conception, so you know where I stand on the abortion debate.

The reality is that even after fertilization, many fertilized eggs do not implant or if they do implant, a good percentage (one study cited by the NYT in 1988 had it around 31%) end in miscarriage.

So the question is this: if life begins at conception, should we hold women accountable for miscarriage? Should we mandate strict rules on monitoring women after fertilization to ensure that they're not consuming alcohol or caffeine or smoking since they would be endangering the pregnancy? Should we make them wear ankle bracelets to monitor whether they're running which could also endanger the pregnancy? Do we press criminal charges against women who exercise or drink coffee and miscarry?

What about couples who cannot conceive naturally? In-vitro requires the usage of several fertilized eggs (as many healthy ones as they can extract) to ensure that at least a few of them are viable. Do we outlaw this practice because destroying the fertilized eggs would be tantamount to murder? Do we prevent otherwise healthy and willing couples from conceiving because it would lead to the destruction of embryos?

The pro-choice/pro-life debate has implications well beyond the single issue of abortion. It has deep implications for women's rights (Handmaid's Tale comes to mind (see summary below)) and assisted pregnancies.

It's been a while since I myself read Handmaid's Tale, so I'm shamelessly using a summary from another site for those who never read it:

Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America. Because of dangerously low reproduction rates, Handmaids are assigned to bear children for elite couples that have trouble conceiving. Offred serves the Commander and his wife, Serena Joy, a former gospel singer and advocate for “traditional values.” Offred is not the narrator's real name—Handmaid names consist of the word “of” followed by the name of the Handmaid's Commander. Every month, when Offred is at the right point in her menstrual cycle, she must have impersonal, wordless sex with the Commander while Serena sits behind her, holding her hands. Offred's freedom, like the freedom of all women, is completely restricted. She can leave the house only on shopping trips, the door to her room cannot be completely shut, and the Eyes, Gilead's secret police force, watch her every public move.

She must visit the doctor frequently to be checked for disease and other complications, and she must endure the “Ceremony,” in which the Commander reads to the household from the Bible, then goes to the bedroom, where his Wife and Offred wait for him, and has sex with Offred

In any case, my personal feeling is that the best compromise is one of legal abortions (just because they're illegal doesn't mean that women won't get them done in the same way that just as drugs are illegal, it doesn't mean that people don't do it) and strong support systems to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This starts with sex education at the high school level with regards to understanding the menstrual cycle and protection (let's face it, kids are going to do it, even if you only teach abstinence).

Oddly, this most reasonable of approaches is also the most detested by the right. Sex ed? Not in my school. Abstinence only is completely bonkers; it's as effective as DARE is at preventing kids from doing drugs.
 
Jak140 said:
Banning abortion would produce nearly a million more unwanted children in the US every year. Right now we are having trouble even taking care of and educating the ones we've got. I'm no fan of late term abortion, but pre-viability abortion is an absolute necessity.

If abortion is ever banned in the US, prepare for thousands of abandoned babies and back-alley abortions every year and our inevitable spiral into a third world country.

If you are anti-abortion, you must ask yourself this. What is more evil, stopping some cells from multiplying, or allowing thousands of children to be motherless and/or starving in the streets?

People don't get it. Banning abortion would be just as successful as prohibition
 

mj1108

Member
Obama/Biden campaigning in Battle Creek, MI.

CNN feed without the CNN bullshit player. Put this into Windows Media Player:
mms://a1606.l3760651055.c37606.g.lm.akamaistream.net/D/1606/37606/v0001/reflector:51055
 

FightyF

Banned
VanMardigan said:
I think the pro-lifers disagree because of the implication that there's a third person involved.

3rd person as in the abortion doctor? Their involvement is only after such a debate has taken place with the women who decided to do it. Again, government doesn't need to be involved.

For abortion to become an issue at all during this election would be insanely stupid and to some extent a travesty.

Why isn't adultery an issue? I mean, it's one of the ten commandments...
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Thunder Monkey said:
Prohibition was a great success!

Until it was repealed in 1963 when all of American fell under alcohol thrall.

1963?
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
So the question is this: if life begins at conception, should we hold women accountable for miscarriage? Should we mandate strict rules on monitoring women after fertilization to ensure that they're not consuming alcohol or caffeine or smoking since they would be endangering the pregnancy? Should we make them wear ankle bracelets to monitor whether they're running which could also endanger the pregnancy? Do we press criminal charges against women who exercise or drink coffee and miscarry?

No, yes (sorta), no, no. BTW, there are several levels of pro-life proponents, including those who support early abortions for incest, rape, etc. Just like there are different levels of creationists (including those who believe in evolution). Now, I don't expect far left GAF to do anything other than continue to mock the far right folks, much less learn about the nuances so they don't sound so stupid when they cast a blanket over all believers, but I'd like to point out that absolutes look dumb, no matter whether they come from the left or right.

I think Obama, whose message (at least on abortion) asks for us to meet in the middle, is the smarter option.

3rd person as in the abortion doctor?
No

Why isn't adultery an issue? I mean, it's one of the ten commandments...
And here we are talking about abortion being difficult to regulate....:lol
 
TOLEDO, Ohio (CNN) – Joe Biden says there are obvious differences between himself and fellow vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, but they’re not just on policy. She’s good-looking.

“There’s a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent,” Biden said at an outdoor rally Sunday, getting ready to hit the GOP ticket for their economic policies.

“She’s good-looking,” he quipped.

“You are gorgeous!” a female supporter in the audience shouted out. Biden asked her to repeat it into the microphone so his wife at home would hear.

“I haven’t heard that in a long, long, long time,” Biden said as the audience laughed. “Being around this lean young-looking guy is making me feel pretty old, you know what I mean? I thought I was in pretty good shape until I hung out with this guy.”

At the rooftop rally, both Biden and Obama commented on Palin for the first time without prompting from reporters. Obama joked he’s now considering going to Palin’s home state of Alaska – the only state he says he hasn’t visited – but chose to focus his comments on her position on equal pay for women.

“John McCain’s new VP nominee seems like a very engaging person, a nice person. But I’ve got to say, she’s opposed - like John McCain is - to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella called Obama's comments a disgrace and "an absurd accusation."

Obama later made sure his running mate realizes he's good-looking as well.

“You see, she thinks you’re gorgeous too Joe,” said Obama. “Jill goes back home and look what happens!”

“This is worth the run,” responded Biden.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

No harm there but these things often start harmless/small. I hope to god the campaign goes over this with him.

Definitely some funny quotes in there though lol
 

acksman

Member
Deku said:
The number of people who are openly hostile to democracy, praising Putin and Chavez's authoritarian streak as 'lesser of two evils' tend to reinforce the idea that though democratic values are widely accepted.

A lot of posters are equally committed to anti-democratic 'traditions' for the sake of short term expediency and apologizing for local strongmen whom they see are doing 'some' good.

I don't disagree, which confuses me, since the bulk seem to be in the Obama camp. And this is what Bush (authoritarian streak) has been doing for the past 8 years!
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
VanMardigan said:
No, yes (sorta), no, no. BTW, there are several levels of pro-life proponents, including those who support early abortions for incest, rape, etc. Just like there are different levels of creationists (including those who believe in evolution). Now, I don't expect far left GAF to do anything other than continue to mock the far right folks, much less learn about the nuances so they don't sound so stupid when they cast a blanket over all believers, but I'd like to point out that absolutes look dumb, no matter whether they come from the left or right.

I think Obama, whose message (at least on abortion) asks for us to meet in the middle, is the smarter option.

The issue I have with your so called "right-wingers" is that they vote based on small issues instead of real things like the economy, schools, foreign policy, taxes, etc.

Many, far too many vote because they think the president will make for a great friend. The government is not your friend, they are your employee, and we are its employers.
 

TDG

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
People don't get it. Banning abortion would be just as successful as prohibition
This is true. The crazy leftists who want all guns banned and the crazy right-wingers who want abortion banned simply don't recognize that their 'solutions' will actually make the situations worse.

That's the problem with partisan politics in general. You've got two radical sides to each issue, and the best solution tends to rest somewhere in the middle ground.
 

Macam

Banned
VanMardigan said:
Yeah, I jumped in pretty late to the debate. Glad to see you picked me out to type that, though. BTW, I agree with Obama that both sides could meet at reducing abortions.

It wasn't intentional and wasn't solely directed at you; CharlieDigital, Caryon Shichan, jak140, and co. should follow the same advice. This is a political thread and the abortion debate is only going to derail the topic, and lead to bannings, as it inevitably always does. 'sides, with the RNC and the storm coming up, there are more interesting/relevant things to talk about.
 

Diablos

Member
Voting tests and all of that crap are just stupid. The way we vote is fine.

If you want to attack anything, go after the sensationalist msm which has no problem feeding the overworked general public a bunch of talking points that mean absolutely nothing most of the time, but does it so often that those who are not political junkies don't understand.

Quite frankly, the main problem imo is that the way everything is set up sucks. We should have Parliament. We should have more than two major parties. In partisan times (like now), the "you are either siding with the Democrats OR Republicans OR staying home" reality just plain sucks. It just goes back and forth after a lot of long years in between, making it possible for the opposing side to really fight for power and then get drunk with power as we saw with House Republicans and many Senate Republicans. If things did not have to go to extremes all the time and the pressure was kind of dissipated throughout a more diverse makeup of parties, I think it would eliminate a lot of the bullshit you see in Washington that makes this country look so very pathetic at times.

If you think about it, both the Democratic and Republican parties could be split and two. Each one could easily have a far left/right party and more centrist party.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
reilo said:
The issue I have with your so called "right-wingers" is that they vote based on small issues instead of real things like the economy, schools, foreign policy, taxes, etc.

How small or big an issue is, is a point of view. What issues are important to you and which ones you feel deserve more prominence than all others, unfortunately (for you), is not something universally shared.
 

PS2 KID

Member
Tamanon said:
You know what partisan politics really needs?

Both sides to pick a stance on tipping.

Ban Tipping. Thanking someone should be enough. Tipping lacks sincerity and only encourages employers to pay their employees substandard wages.
 
I'm watching the stump speech right now. The change in tactics is obvious: "here's what I'm going to do..."

I love this. So many people are iffy on Obama, using weak excuses along the lines of "ooh, what do we really know about Obama? What's his plan?" There should be no excuse not to know his plan - or John McCain's - considering they've been running for 18 months. But putting the facts out in front during stomp speeches makes it even easier for his plan to spread.
 
Cloudy said:
But he'll probably be soft cos he doesn't want to be seen as "bullying" her.

Feminists can't have their cake and eat it too. Either she's qualified enough to be treated like a man would or she's not and should have expectations lowered for her...

The republican candidates are pure teflon this round. McCain can't get attacked because he's a POW and Palin can't get attacked because she's a female. Wesley Clarke got smacked down after challenging McCain's qualifications for the presidency and now tv talking heads are saying that if Biden challenges her he may seen as a bully. Epic win for the McCain, shame on the media for pushing this nonsense, and a major lose for the country.
 
Diablos said:
If you want to attack anything, go after the sensationalist msm which has no problem feeding the overworked general public a bunch of talking points that mean absolutely nothing most of the time, but does it so often that those who are not political junkies don't understand.

This.

In a sad devotion to ratings and the 24 hour news cycle, any hope of "journalism" has disappeared from the MSM to act as a counterweight to the absurd bullshit that often spills from both sides. It's dumbed down and made into sound bites that anyone with a 3rd grade education can understand. Too bad we can't let 3rd graders vote.
 

agrajag

Banned
PS2 KID said:
Ban Tipping. Thanking someone should be enough. Tipping lacks sincerity and only encourages employers to pay their employees substandard wages.

I know a couple of poker dealers who make 100K a year. There's no way the casino would ever pay them that much under any imaginable circumstance.
 

Jak140

Member
Macam said:
It wasn't intentional and wasn't solely directed at you; CharlieDigital, Caryon Shichan, jak140, and co. should follow the same advice. This is a political thread and the abortion debate is only going to derail the topic, and lead to bannings, as it inevitably always does. 'sides, with the RNC and the storm coming up, there are more interesting/relevant things to talk about.
There is a vehemently pro-life VP candidate who was just announced. I don't see how the discussion isn't relevant as long as it remains civil. If a mods state otherwise, fine, but I don't see how it's your place to state what should and shouldn't be allowed discussion.
 
The current system works fine, IMO.

I really don't understand the pro-lifer's objection to allowing individuals to make choices for themselves. Please don't counter with the "what about the embryo's choice?!?!" argument because if you agree with that, then the logical conclusion to that is that women should be treated like birthing vessels once they're pregnant and stripped of their right to exercise, drink coffee, consume alcohol, smoke, travel, etc. Basically, any activity that even has a remote possibility of triggering miscarriage would be outlawed for any woman carrying a child and maybe, just maybe, the only logical end to this is that they're placed in pregnancy camps to ensure that every single possible act that could endanger the embryo's life is monitored and prevented.

Aside from that, as mentioned by others, the pro-lifer's choice also puzzles me because pro-lifers are typically associated with the Republican party, the same party that is most against comprehensive social services for the poor and impoverished. So the idea is that before a child is born, the embryo is sacred, but once the child is born, well, tough luck? How can the same people embrace the unborn but then fail to deliver (damn out right oppose) services and policy to help the children who are born into poverty and low income families?

As I mentioned earlier, the pro-lifer's stance puzzles me because they typically associate with the religious right and with the Republicans who are also against comprehensive sex-ed in schools. The single tool that could prevent the most unwanted pregnancies -- education -- scares the shit out of this group and they push for things like abstinence only programs and purity balls. It's like see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil except we all know that it doesn't work that way in the real world.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
VanMardigan said:
How small or big an issue is, is a point of view. What issues are important to you and which ones you feel deserve more prominence than all others, unfortunately (for you), is not something universally equal.

Whatsthematterwithkansas.jpg


I'll let this guy summarize:

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the laissez-faire economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (what he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hotbutton cultural issues.

The book is called "What's the matter with Kansas?" where the author, Thomas Frank, a Kansas native, dissects why the state voted 80% in favor of George W Bush despite him never delivering on the "moral issues" he ran on, and his economic policies leaving the state in flux to the brink of poverty. Basically, Kansans voted for Bush based on moral issues [abortion, gays, and anger of liberal elites], eventhough Bush's big policies [such as the economy] were in direct conflict of their best interests.
 

thekad

Banned
Jak140 said:
There is a vehemently pro-life VP candidate who was just announced. I don't see how the discussion isn't relevant as long as it remains civil. If a mods state otherwise, fine, but I don't see how it's your place to state what should and shouldn't be allowed discussion.
You must be new to PoliGAF. Wait until gay marriage is brought back up by Gaborn.
 

Tamanon

Banned
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonat...laying_politics_as_Gustav_looms.html#comments

:lol :lol

John McCain's campaign manager today accused Barack Obama of practicing politics as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf Coast.

Rick Davis, in a brief interview following a pep talk he gave to convention volunteers in St. Paul, Minn., said there was a difference between the actions of McCain and Obama.

"Look at what happened today — did Barack Obama attack John McCain or Sarah Palin?" Davis asked.

Told Obama had criticized McCain and Palin on the campaign trail over pay equity, Davis continued: "So he attacks us while there's a hurricane going on and John McCain suspends his convention basically. What bigger contrast can you have about putting your country first?"

While dismayed about the impact Gustav is sure to have on their convention, Republicans see the storm as another opportunity to paint McCain as somebody who, even to the detriment of his own campaign, is willing to sacrifice his political interests for a larger good.

"It's pretty for him to set politics behind his country," Davis stated. "He does it all the time. Believe me, it’s not the easiest way in the world to run a campaign. But this is business as usual in McCainworld."

And, Davis argued, that's not how their Democratic rival operates.

"I thought Barack Obama said the other night that everybody puts their country first," he said with a touch of sarcasm. "Really?"

While McCain sought to stay above the fray, he still held a rally near St. Louis today that included some traditional partisan fare.

Speaking before McCain, former rival Mitt Romney went after Obama, if not by name.

"And you want to make sure our next president is someone who when talk about protecting our nation and doesn’t just a let's sit down with the world’s worst actors Ahmadinejad and the Castro brothers," Romney said. "But instead says, let’s sit down with the best democracies in the world and form a league of democracies. Let’s protect America. You want to make sure the people of America understand that when it comes to strengthening our economy we’re not in favor of raising taxes and cutting off trade and drawing a line and saying no nuclear, no coal and no more drilling. Instead, you want a president who will say, I’ll get this economy going with low taxes, and more trade for our goods, and yes, we will drill for more oil."

Wait....so....Obama is not allowed to say anything bad about McCain because of Gustav, but....Romney introducing McCain is allowed to lay into him?

WTF man? And then accusing Obama of politicizing Gustav?
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Told Obama had criticized McCain and Palin on the campaign trail over pay equity, Davis continued: "So he attacks us while there's a hurricane going on and John McCain suspends his convention basically. What bigger contrast can you have about putting your country first?"

:lol :lol :lol

Fuck off, Rick Davis. At least what Obama said was true, not complete bullshit as per Mitt Romney' garbage.
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
reilo said:
The book is called "What's the matter with Kansas?" where the author, Thomas Frank, a Kansas native, dissects why the state voted 80% in favor of George W Bush despite him never delivering on the "moral issues" he ran on

That's really the issue as far as they're concerned. Not the policies, but Bush's failure to execute them. Someone here on poligaf mentioned that McCain will get support because it wasn't the policies folks disagreed with, but Bush's utter failure on coming through with them. Those folks still believe that the moral/religious issues are important and are more in line with the Republican party. They will likely point to Bush as the failure, not the policies per se. Or, they can hope that the economic/energy policies change, so long as the Republican party doesn't abandon their current position on the moral issues.

You and I know that their faith is misplaced because the current Republican party is a pandering sham, but for them, it's not a policy failure. Further, they'd rather not have to give up the moral stance of the Republican party (mostly pandering imo) than vote Democratic because those issues are "bigger" to them than economic ones.

Many of them (I hope) will see in Obama a person who shares their faith and values (minus abortion, but he's working on that) and abandon the Republican party without feeling like they're abandoning their moral compass. That's what Obama has to convince them of, and I feel like he can do that better than any other Democratic candidate in a long time.
 
tol-logo.gif


September 1, 2008
Sarah Palin hit by internet rumours over fifth child
Tim Reid in St Paul

Teams of Democratic operatives and investigative journalists descended on Alaska yesterday to delve into the private and public life of Sarah Palin, the new and little-known Republican vice-presidential nominee, as fresh questions arose over whether she had been vetted properly by the John McCain campaign.

After the stunning and show-stealing announcement by Mr McCain on Friday that he had chosen the 44-year-old Alaskan Governor as his running-mate, new information emerged over allegations that she tried to use her gubernatorial office to take revenge on her former brother-in-law, part of an ethics investigation that will be released on October 31 – five days before the general election.

If Mrs Palin, a conservative mother of five, ever doubted that landing on a national presidential ticket would open her to the harshest of spotlights and smear tactics, she also awoke yesterday to utterly unfounded internet rumours that her fifth child, born in April with Down’s Syndrome, was actually her 17-year-old daughter’s....
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...mp;attr=2015164

It's starting up the media food chain..
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
VanMardigan said:
That's really the issue as far as they're concerned. Not the policies, but Bush's failure to execute them. Someone here on poligaf mentioned that McCain will get support because it wasn't the policies folks disagreed with, but Bush's utter failure on coming through with them. Those folks still believe that the moral/religious issues are important and are more in line with the Republican party. They will likely point to Bush as the failure, not the policies per se. Or, they can hope that the economic/energy policies change, so long as the Republican party doesn't abandon their current position on the moral issues.

You and I know that their faith is misplaced because the current Republican party is a pandering sham, but for them, it's not a policy failure. Further, they'd rather not have to give up the moral stance of the Republican party (mostly pandering imo) than vote Democratic because those issues are "bigger" to them than economic ones.

Many of them (I hope) will see in Obama a person who shares their faith and values (minus abortion, but he's working on that) and abandon the Republican party without feeling like they're abandoning their moral compass. That's what Obama has to convince them of, and I feel like he can do that better than any other Democratic candidate in a long time.

To me, it feels like, that they voted for a president that, at its most basic level promised to make other people's lives worse [gays, pro-choicers, liberal elite, because denying them freedom would make America better???], but in the end his policies made their lives worse.

And here we are, at the same fucking point again, and they want to vote for a man that promises the same shit all over again.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
 

Diablos

Member
Hopefully these dumb rumors about Obama being a muslim and the Palin's daughter's baby thing will negate each other and those voters will start to look at the bigger picture.

One can only hope.

Quite frankly, Palin fans should be more concerned about October 31st and all of the other miscellaneous things that we DO know to be true and potentially harmful to her and of course McCain.
 
Slurpy said:
:lol :lol :lol

Fuck off, Rick Davis. At least what Obama said was true, not complete bullshit as per Mitt Romney' garbage.

Rick Davis is a waste of air, honestly. Someone please shut him up. I can deal with campaign back and forth but stuff like this is just insulting to anyone of intelligence.
 

FightyF

Banned
VanMardigan said:

Why not just answer the question?

Is it the husband?

Can't be God since you said, "person"...

And here we are talking about abortion being difficult to regulate....:lol

Exactly.

To make this any part of one's decision on who should run the federal government is silly at best.

Which leads me to my next point, there is a reason why a topic like that is being brought into the debates between Presidential hopefuls, it's due to the Republicans not having any real strategy or solutions to REAL PROBLEMS. Again, the abortion debate only affects a few people, namely pregnant women. And they can, on their own, come to their own conclusion.

But when it comes to issues such as War, the Economy, Education...these affect every single American in a direct fashion.

The Republicans don't have answers to any of these problems. And so they are the ones bringing up the "problems that only affect a small population in our country but let's talk about it so much so it's everyone's problem".
 

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
reilo said:
To me, it feels like, that they voted for a president that, at its most basic level promised to make other people's lives worse [gays, pro-choicers, liberal elite, because denying them freedom would make America better???], but in the end his policies made their lives worse.

Again, they don't necessarily blame the policies for the current administration, but Bush. McCain is promising better economy/energy whilst keeping the Republican stance on the moral/religious issue.

Obama's challenge is made more difficult because of how negatively (liberal) they view the Democratic party. It's not an issue of Obama, necessarily, who stated his belief on gay marriage and on his personal faith, but rather overcoming their stigma of the party. To them, and from reading this thread I concur, the far left is just as entrenched in their liberal views, and despite Obama's calls to meet in the middle, there's just a lack of trust on both sides.
 

Jak140

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:

I don't know why the whole internet chose to run with the pregnancy thing instead of the legitimate wrongful firing investigation she's under. Even if the pregnancy thing turns out to be true, it might just backfire and win McCain the election. The narrative will go something like "that poor women, she put her career at risk just to protect her daughter, what a good mother." Then boom Nov. 4th, she wins the election. Jesus Christ.
 

AniHawk

Member
Jak140 said:
I don't know why the whole internet chose to run with the pregnancy thing instead of the legitimate wrongful firing investigation she's under. Even if the pregnancy thing turns out to be true, it might just backfire and win McCain the election. The narrative will go something like "that poor women, she put her career at risk just to protect her daughter, what a good mother." Then boom Nov. 4th, she wins the election. Jesus Christ.

There was the wrongful firing, bridge to nowhere, the radio show thing, and the focus goes on, "maybe it's not hers?"

There's no way this doesn't backfire. And as Deus Ex Machina said, it closes off legit criticism because it'll be seen as targeting that poor woman again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom