• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

McCain desperate?

Richard Masters

Illuminator
Richard Masters
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
3,031
Does McCain have any redeeming qualities?

I may be able to agree with some (a few) of his politics, but overall, it's as though he has no clue. Granted, public speaking is recorded for eternity, so a little gaffe gets magnified and played over and over, even if the candidate misspoke.

Can anyone explain why they support McCain's platform, independent of the public gaffes and contradictions?
 
BenBurch said:
Obama is for nuclear power.



EDIT: And - http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2034620420080620
Click to expand...
"Worth investigating" and "seriously consider" means he's for it? Sounds like he's blowing it off to me. What's his plan to wean us off foreign oil? Fuel economy standards? Come on.

McCain, on the other hand, has called for 45 new nuclear plants in the US by 2030.

Obama cannot champion nuclear power because he needs the environmentalist vote, and they are irrationally opposed to nuclear.
 
mortimer said:
Obama cannot champion nuclear power because he needs the environmentalist vote, and they are irrationally opposed to nuclear.
Click to expand...

I agree that opposition to nuclear power is mostly irrational compared to the problems we are facing.

That said, you mean to tell me that environmentalists are going to sit home on election day if Obama talks about nuclear? Or even vote for McCain who is also talking about nuclear himself?

Please.

:rolleyes:

I know that large number of the voting public will fall for any old sound bite (for evidence see Sarah Palin supporters) but most environmentalists are not like fundie Christians as Rush Limbaugh would have you believe. Most environmentalists have many political hot button issues and Obama covers most of them.

"Environmentalists" are pretty low on Obama's worry list.
 
not_so_new said:
I agree that opposition to nuclear power is mostly irrational compared to the problems we are facing.

That said, you mean to tell me that environmentalists are going to sit home on election day if Obama talks about nuclear? Or even vote for McCain who is also talking about nuclear himself?

Please.

:rolleyes:

I know that large number of the voting public will fall for any old sound bite (for evidence see Sarah Palin supporters) but most environmentalists are not like fundie Christians as Rush Limbaugh would have you believe. Most environmentalists have many political hot button issues and Obama covers most of them.

"Environmentalists" are pretty low on Obama's worry list.
Click to expand...
Then why his reluctance towards nuclear? He says it's costly. Yeah, so is foreign oil.
 
Richard Masters said:
Does McCain have any redeeming qualities?

I may be able to agree with some (a few) of his politics, but overall, it's as though he has no clue. Granted, public speaking is recorded for eternity, so a little gaffe gets magnified and played over and over, even if the candidate misspoke.

Can anyone explain why they support McCain's platform, independent of the public gaffes and contradictions?
Click to expand...

I love Stephen!

I saw that clip on the show and yes, it is pretty amazing what bat-◊◊◊◊ crazy stuff McCain does.
 
mortimer said:
Then why his reluctance towards nuclear? He says it's costly. Yeah, so is foreign oil.
Click to expand...

Hummmm.. I don't know.... let me think, let me think.... OH... maybe there is more to it than cost?

Look, I am for nuclear power. I think we have to go this route in a degree but nothing in this world is 100% black or white.

Spent fuel IS dangerous to transport and store. It's not just them there wacky environmentalists that don't want rail-cars full of spent new-kelar fuel rolling through smalltown America.

And many people would say nuclear power is fine until the government tries to build one in their area.

The legal knots that would be created trying to build then ship spent fuel would be a pretty big deal and that is on top of the valid safety concerns.

Obama is making a pretty sensible argument that we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket... *hint like we did with fossil fuels* He said that nuclear is worth investigation but "it is not a panacea"

It only makes sense that we should look into many different sources for energy independence.. doesn't it?
 
McCain:
Pro-Energy
Pro-Growth
Free Trade

Obama:
Anti-Energy
High Regulation
Protectionist

Its a pretty stark difference. Basically, where Obama trumps McCain is the weakest category for a president. Social Issues.
 
corplinx said:
McCain:
Pro-Energy
Pro-Growth
Free Trade

Obama:
Anti-Energy
High Regulation
Protectionist

Its a pretty stark difference. Basically, where Obama trumps McCain is the weakest category for a president. Social Issues.
Click to expand...

Corplinx, good contrast.

However, why are Social Issues the weakest category for a president? It seems like the chief executive is in a unique position to wield social policy influence.

Have there been any presidents who have made social issues a primary presidential category, or area of performance? LBJ, maybe?
 
corplinx said:
McCain:
Pro-Energy
Pro-Growth
Free Trade

Obama:
Anti-Energy
High Regulation
Protectionist
Click to expand...
lol - you actually believe that don't you.

If you define "energy" as oil, you may be on to something
Tell me about how McCain and Obama differ on the recent U.S. bail outs and let's see if you can represent McCains position without using the word regulation.

It's hard for me to believe someone, on this forum, can apply those words to those two people and think they are honestly reflecting reality. Sure you can cherry pick policies, but I expect more from a "skeptic".
 
corplinx said:
McCain:
Pro-Energy
Pro-Growth
Free Trade

Obama:
Anti-Energy
High Regulation
Protectionist

Its a pretty stark difference. Basically, where Obama trumps McCain is the weakest category for a president. Social Issues.
Click to expand...
Well, that was amusing.

And you believe that, do you?
 
corplinx said:
McCain:
Pro-Energy
Pro-Growth
Free Trade

Obama:
Anti-Energy
High Regulation
Protectionist

Its a pretty stark difference. Basically, where Obama trumps McCain is the weakest category for a president. Social Issues.
Click to expand...

Isn't a lack of needed regulation what's causing the current financial apocaylpse? Regulation can be good or bad. Right now, the Federal goventment is preparing a massive rescue of the nation's banks.
The plan involves using hundreds of billions of dollars in government funding to buy bad loans,
Click to expand...
Sure you don't want any regulation?

And, the economy has grown more under democratic presidents than republicans. Link
Which, I believe, makes Obama pro-growth.

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don'tAnd the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008, at 1:49 PM ET

If you're wondering why a formerly honorable man like John McCain would build his presidential campaign around issues that are simultaneously beside-the-point, trivial, and dishonest (sex education for kindergartners, lipstick on pigs), the numbers presented here may help to solve that mystery. Since the conventions ended, McCain has mired the presidential race in dishonest trivia because he doesn't want it to focus on what voters say is the most important issue this year: the economy.
Click to expand...
Since 1959, GDP has grown by an average of over 4%/year under democratic presidents, but less that 3%/year under republicans.
 
Obama also mentioned developing solar power. There is a lot of talk about wind power as well, and I recall hearing him speaking favorably of the idea. He is being cautious about nuclear and for bloody good reason. So we have the fuel to haul corn from Kansas to Seattle to sell around the world, but if it glows in the dark, who wants it?
 
corplinx said:
McCain:
Pro-Energy
Pro-Growth
Free Trade

Obama:
Anti-Energy
High Regulation
Protectionist

Its a pretty stark difference. Basically, where Obama trumps McCain is the weakest category for a president. Social Issues.
Click to expand...

lol, wut?

Obama's plan is to spend over 150 billion on developing alternative energies. McCain's plan involves nothing like that.

And didn't you hear McCain a few days ago, he's flipped around a lot on regulation. And, of course, right now I expect people will be calling for more.

And yay for biased labels that only exist for people with the same ideology as you!

Here, let me try:

McCain:
Pro-tax cuts for oil giants, drilling for more oil, and using nuclear (just not in his backyard, and without figuring out how to deal with the waste=)
Pro-Bush unrestricted free market
Pro-sweatshop, exploitation, and dodging environmental standards

Obama:
Pro-developing alternative energy
Anti-Bush unrestricted free market
Pro-fair trade, environmental and labor standards

Truth is irrelevant when it comes to ideological labels.
 
McCain seems to be more pro-nuclear than Obama in the sense that he wants to fast-track licensing for new plants, although Obama is not anti-nuclear.

However, nuclear is just a piece of the energy problem. In terms of the most prominent energy solution put forward by both campaigns, McCain wants to drill, baby drill, which is a USELESS PANDER to people who foolishly think that offshore drilling will be a pipe directly into their gas tanks (the house debate on the energy bill was a sad spectacle on CSPAN last Tuesday). Obama wants to support development of alliterative energy while using a windfall tax to help lower gas prices.

Long term energy sustainability = thriving economy + national security + cleaner environment.

Advantage: Obama
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom