Why/Why not McCain?

[marksman]

FYI: I have no idea where ontheissues,org got the notion that McCain still supports letting States decide whether to allow creationism to be taught. He floated that out in 2005, but in 2007, he specifically stated that creationism should not be taught in science classes, but might be appropriate in a philosophy or some other class.

Sadly, this bit of misinformation has been popping up a lot recently. So I have to say I'm a bit skeptical of ontheissues.org's research on McCain's other less-known positions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, he is against torture, but he is for killing people.

It that is how you want to parse it, so is Hillary, she voted for the war.

Obama then makes for a better choice.

Ron Paul hasn't run a sound enough campaign to get the nom.

So, who do you root for?

Best reason to vote for McCain: Mitt quit, Huckabee is a non starter.
Best reason to vote against: you like Hilly or Obama better
or
you support the Paul/Nader ticket for 2008.

H Hulk, you'd be better off heading to Mexico. It is more of a libertarians' paradise, if you are in the top 3% of wealthy in that so called republic.

DR

 

[Undesired Walrus]

That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Or is it possible that your theory doesn't stand up to experimentation, and that torture can indeed be effective in getting information?

You are wrong. It might serve you better to listen to less chauvinistic claims. KSM never gave up information about Al Qaeda spies in South Africa and California, despite Hambali and Dhiren Barot saying otherwise.

 

[BPSCG]

You are wrong. It might serve you better to listen to less chauvinistic claims. KSM never gave up information about Al Qaeda spies in South Africa and California, despite Hambali and Dhiren Barot saying otherwise.

Are you saying no useful information was extracted from any of the three waterboarded prisoners?

If so, please explain how you know this.

 

[Upchurch]

I find it odd that some people seem on the fence whether to vote for Hillary or McCain (assuming it comes to those two). Upchurch, whom I respect, is one.

That's fair. I should plead guilty of not having researched McCain's positions in any great detail. I mostly liked what I had heard of him before he started his ramp up for this latest presidential campaign. I've heard a number of things from McCain since he started campaigning that make me cringe. I've been kinda holding out until the national campaign (when he starts pandering to all of us, not just the conservatives) to really dig in.

Supports repealing Roe v. Wade (May 2007)

Disagree.

Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000(Jan 2008)

Dunno what "things" he's referring to. In my opinion, neither the economy or foreign policy are any better than in 2000.

Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)

Double edged sword, there. It's not my first choice, but I can live with it.

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)

Disagree. There are national standards of education for a reason and this is very definitely one of them.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

Strongly disagree.

Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)

Agree, assuming it is necessary for much longer.

Climate change is real and must be addressed. (Dec 2007)

Agree.

Preserve and help our National Parks. (Jan 2000)

Agree. (I would say this is a non-issue, but the Bush Administration has done horrible things to the National Park system. There is need for some repair work.)

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Not sure what this means. Are citizens being prosecuted for legally owning guns? How is that possible?

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people. (Nov 2007)

Strongly agree.

Refused release to hurt Vietnamese & remain loyal to POWs. (Nov 1999)

Not sure what this means.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)

Agree with the first part. Disagree with the second. (If it's part of a historical display of some kind, maybe.)

Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)

Disagree.

Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000)

Disagree.

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Strongly Disagree.

Administration is AWOL on the war on drugs. (Mar 2000)

I have no idea if they have been or not. If they have, I don't see that as a bad thing. The "war on drugs" was generally a bad idea.

Stricter penalties; stricter enforcement. (Jul 1998) [On Drugs]

Disagree.

Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)

Virtues? Whose virtues? Virtues and responsibilities of citizenship, sure. Anything else, not so much.

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

Disagree.

Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)

Don't follow. How do schools stop voluntary prayer? Or are we talking about teacher lead "voluntary" prayer?

Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)

Don't follow. I'm all for keeping the porn away from the kids, but how much filtering are we talking about, who is doing the filtering, who will be effected by the filtering, and who decides what is filtered?

The problem with health care in America is inflation. (Jan 2006) [WTF?]

Gotta agree with the "WTF?"

GOP lost 2006 due to corrupt spending, spending, spending. (Jun 2007)

Disagree.

Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)

Disagree. (I mean, I'm sure he did. I just disagree with the decision.)

Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)

Disagree.

The cause of the Iraqi war was just. (Apr 2004)

Mega-Ultra Disagree.

In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified. (May 2007)

Disagree. That's just stupid.

 

[Almo]

Agree. I don't support creationism, and it's junk science. But education has always been a local issue and should remain that way.

But seperation of church and state is NOT a local issue. Otherwise, I'd agree with you here.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The problem with McCain is that he is trying too hard to replicate the sound of a politician when he is on the podium.

Whenever you see him interviewed, on Charlie Rose for example, he sounds charming, intelligent and perhaps most importantly, is a laugh.

Then, when he is talking to a debate crowd, he appears to take on the form of a loudspeaker trying to shout out through a wet dishcloth. I understand he cannot put his hands above his head because of the torture he suffered in Vietnam, and you can see him as someone who wishes he could do this. He has no need too.

Perhaps most Americans prefer a politician who cheers single word rhetoric, but I somewhat doubt it. If he comes up against Hillary, his greatest advantage is going to be acting like the sound, intelligent bloke he is. Otherwise he is going to loose out to the shrieking plastic face he is debating with.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

No. Bad mistake. Even with modern medicine and the abortion pill, he's throwing a bone to the religious right. If he said "modifying" I might give him a break.


Very wrong, although there are similarities. At both times, we were headed toward a recession. But in 2000, we did not have our troops engaged in a hopeless, expensive pointless war that drained the economy and caused a lot more anguish than Clinton's sex life.


What's the deal with "state's rights"? Why not county rights or city rights or neighborhood rights or just total fricken anarchy? If a couple is married in Massachusetts, then they're married in Wyoming. If not, then why don't states have the right to ban interracial marriage?


Wrong in so many ways I can't count. Can the school district decide to teach Lamarkism? Why not?


Depends on what he means by "presence". Advisors? Okay. Troops? They've been there too long already.


Obviously okay, and really, non-controversial except among the most right wing of fundies.


Even Bush admits this. Again, not controversial. But it depends on what he means by "addressed". Admitting it is not addressing it.


The devil is in the details. How does he plan to do this? By selling parts of them to raise money to "preserve" the other parts? This is just a sound bite.


I'm unaware of many places that prosecute people for gun ownership. Every place I've ever seen prosecutes criminals. This is nothing but a straw man. If he has something specific in mind, maybe he'd like to detail it.


I don't know if waterboarding is or isn't torture. I'm not even sure torture isn't a legitimate technique. But I know this. If you do it to them, you'd better not complain if they do it to you.


This is not even a position. This is a brag. Maybe a justifed brag, but not anything that is an issue.

Stupid stupid stupid. If displaying the Confederate flag on government grounds is wrong (as I believe it is) then it doesn't matter if you put it in the bottom left corner of the lowermost windowpane in the guests' bathroom. And if it's not wrong, then flying it on top is really the right thing to do. If you are going to support a flag that, for whatever reason, has become a symbol of racism, then a whisper is less honest than a shout.


I would vote for McCain if there were no better candidate (like if he were running against Jesse Jackson). But there are at least two better candidates still in the race. Maybe three, if Bloomberg runs.

There's no point in going over the list again. Tricky detailed my stance pretty darn well. The only thing I would change is the stance on waterboarding. Torture is torture and we shouldn't use it.

But since I'm on the other side of the aisle as far as my political views are concerned, I wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I do have to say that of all the other Republican candidates, he's the least dangerous. I think he's a good man and a war hero, but I wouldn't vote for him.

 

[Almo]

You understand, don't you, that "anything" includes the truth?

"Includes" is exactly the problem. There's no way to verify at the time if it is in fact the truth. My stance on this issue is the same as capital punishment; if the state says we can't kill then it is hyopocrisy for them to kill and say it's justified. Torture is wrong for you, me, and the government.

 

[Lurker]

Torture is wrong for you, me, and the government.

Is it? In an extreme situation? What if you had captured a terrorist who you knew had just planted a nuclear bomb (assume you know somehow) in NYC that was set to go off in five hours.

All else fails to persuade the man to give up the location and code to disarm it. Do you resort to torture or do you allow the population of NYC to be incinerated so you can stick to your morals?

Yes, yes. I know this is a rather ridiculous scenario but I think it does illustrate that perhaps torture may be wrong but not always.

Sorry for the derail.

 

[BenBurch]

His elevator no longer goes all the way to the top. Huge negative. And expect many negative ads talking about outbursts of his and odd things he has said.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Is it? In an extreme situation? What if you had captured a terrorist who you knew had just planted a nuclear bomb (assume you know somehow) in NYC that was set to go off in five hours.

All else fails to persuade the man to give up the location and code to disarm it. Do you resort to torture or do you allow the population of NYC to be incinerated so you can stick to your morals?

Yes, yes. I know this is a rather ridiculous scenario but I think it does illustrate that perhaps torture may be wrong but not always.

Sorry for the derail.

McCain has said under this circumstance he would authorise 'whatever it takes' but then take repsonsibility for it after the threat was averted.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Again, you mustn't confuse torturing for purposes of getting a confession to a crime already committed with torture for the purpose of getting information to prevent a crime that has not yet been committed.

I haven't confused them, I simply demand to know where the line should be drawn. If it's acceptable to force confessions for a crime that hasn't happened why on earth is it unacceptable to force confession for crimes that have already happened (Bare in mind that Khalid Skeikh Mohammed was also tortured into confessing several of his crimes that had already been committed)? If the US government can extract confessions via torture then why isn't it acceptable for police to bash someone's face in until they confess where they hid twenty thousand dollars for that matter?

Or how about we go into the allegations that Mohammed's children were tortured? Six and eight year old children deprived of food and water and mentally abused by guards demanding where their father was hiding? Can you tell me exactly where this stops? If I can torture a terrorist and he won't confess than why should I stop with him? Why not bring his wife and kid in, beat the ever-loving crap out of them and maybe shoot one in the leg if he doesn't talk.

That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Because he was upper class and used to living a lavish lifestyle? Because he wasn't a foot soldier? Because he had probablly already been privy to the abuse of his children? Because he was forced to confess to crimes he had already committed? And I have doubts about some of the things he confessed to, maybe I'll have to look into the individual confessions more to see if all or most of them even panned out with government investigation or if he was simply making up future crimes so he'd have something to confess to. What do you think?

The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City
A failed "shoe bomber" operation
The October 2002 attack in Kuwait
The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia
A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks to be set in the spring or summer of 2002 after the 9/11 attacks, which includes more hijackings of commercial airlines and having them flown into various buildings in the U.S. including the Library Tower in Los Angeles , the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York
Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore
A plan to blow up the Panama Canal
Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter
A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City
A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks
Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London
A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand
A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets
A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.
Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them
The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya
The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya
Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey
Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them
A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets
The planned assassination attempt against then-U.S. President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines.
"Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II
Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
An attempt to attack a U.S. oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [U.S.] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger"
The beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl

Or is it possible that your theory doesn't stand up to experimentation, and that torture can indeed be effective in getting information?

Smugness...how I missed you.

A popular claim among anti-torture advocates is that people will say anything to stop torture. That is correct.

You understand, don't you, that "anything" includes the truth? As you point out, "he might say the wrong thing," but he knows that if he does, the torturers are going to come back to discuss his answers with him, repeatedly, until they are satisfied he's given them the truth. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad apparently understood that.

I agree to an extent, they will say anything. And anything he says is up to our intelligence to verify. A terrorist could very well give them information about an attack that would never even happen but would be confirmed as true anyways or would never even be investigated for that matter! Bare in mind our intelligence only recently found out that Iran had abandoned it's nuclear weapons program in 2002 and helped make the case for WMDs in Iraq. The price of dealing in a business where most of your informants are criminals...and what do criminals do? They lie of course!

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, yes. I know this is a rather ridiculous scenario but I think it does illustrate that perhaps torture may be wrong but not always.

And this has been my point all along. Torture should only be a last resort, when there are lives hanging in the balance and there is no other way to get the information. But it shouldn't be off the table completely.

People argue against the death penalty because it is irrevocable - if you wrongly execute someone, there is no way to make him whole again. The same holds true with a "ticking bomb" scenario; there is no way to bring murdered people back to life, and I hold that it is a greater wrong to allow people to be murdered than to torture someone to get the information that would save their lives.

 

[davefoc]

I was a little disappointed to see this thread digress into a torture discussion.

For me, this is similar to the death penalty discussions. People form an opinion about it and they try to justify their opinion with their interpretation of the facts.

In the end, though, it is just a subjective decision that can't be proved right or wrong. I favor the death penalty because I believe in retribution as a reasonable purpose of government. I would favor the death penalty even if it had no deterrent value or if it was ineffective at preventing future crimes.

Similarly, I am opposed to the organized use of torture by my government. Even if it could prevent some terrorist crimes, I would still be opposed to it. There are other reasons to be opposed to it, but in the end these all come down to a subjective balancing act between unknowable factors. I don't want my government involved in torture (and waterboarding is absolutely a form of torture) and I am going to vote against people that favor the use of it. But I also understand that no amount of discussion or analysis about this issue is going to prove me right or wrong.

The topic that I was most curious about was why do some right wing people so dislike McCain? Is this just as simple as you don't agree with me on every issue so I'm going to hate you? It doesn't seem like it could be that. The right wing is not a monolithic block. They have to be used to at lease some variation of opinion in their group. It still seems amazing to me that they could routinely overlook the foibles of Bushco and focus such hatred on McCain. What is really going on here?

 

[BPSCG]

If it's acceptable to force confessions for a crime that hasn't happened why on earth is it unacceptable to force confession for crimes that have already happened

Because you can't bring the murdered people back to life, so torturing the guy won't accomplish anything. See my last post above.

That's a lovely theory. Now please explain why it failed in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who caved after only a few seconds of waterboarding. Do you really believe the guy who masterminded the September 11 attacks didn't have "significant motivation and emotional investment" in his cause?

Because he was upper class and used to living a lavish lifestyle? Because he wasn't a foot soldier? Because he had probablly already been privy to the abuse of his children? Because he was forced to confess to crimes he had already committed?

You realize you sound like the failed claimants for the JREF million, don't you? They make their claims unchallenged, repeatedly but when cornered into making a testable prediction, they have a million excuses why it failed.

"Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!! Torture doesn't work!!!" And then when you're presented with a case where it did work, well, the auras weren't right that day or there were bad vibes from the testers, or Randi doesn't really have the money...

 

[BPSCG]

I was a little disappointed to see this thread digress into a torture discussion.

I've already apologized for one torture derail and asked the participants to take it over to the waterboarding thread in "Social Issues." I won't discuss it here any further. My apologies, again.

 

[Lurker]

The topic that I was most curious about was why do some right wing people so dislike McCain? Is this just as simple as you don't agree with me on every issue so I'm going to hate you? It doesn't seem like it could be that. The right wing is not a monolithic block. They have to be used to at lease some variation of opinion in their group. It still seems amazing to me that they could routinely overlook the foibles of Bushco and focus such hatred on McCain. What is really going on here?

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:

1. McCain-Feingold they see as against the 1st Amendment
2. McCain is against waterboarding and thus will not protect them from terrorists
3. McCain favors a form of amnesty for illegals (this is probably their big one)
4. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts

There are some other minor issues but these are the main ones that seem to get them frothing the most. It is interesting that as Bush became a lame duck they started calling him a non-conservative because of his position on illegals and amnesty. Note that they pretty much LOVED Bush before his lame duck status.

 

[BenBurch]

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:...

I have seen the same. I wonder if there will not be a schism in the GOP this turn? Ron Paul could easily jump and take most of the ultra conservatives with him. As this is about 10% of those who vote, it would essentially elect Obama. (Hillary, however, would unite the opposition and be defeated.)

 

[BPSCG]

I checked a ultra-right wing haunt tnad they list their reasons for opposing McCain:

1. McCain-Feingold they see as against the 1st Amendment
2. McCain is against waterboarding and thus will not protect them from terrorists
3. McCain favors a form of amnesty for illegals (this is probably their big one)
4. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts

There are some other minor issues but these are the main ones that seem to get them frothing the most.

Friend of mine emailed me some pretty woo CT-type stuff today, to wit:

1. McCain isn't really a war hero. He got preferential treatment from his Vietnamese captors; they even gave him nights with prostitutes in Hanoi, and kept him separate from the other U.S. POWs (makes you wonder why nobody has Swift-Boated McCain yet...)
2. He was dying in the polls several months ago and suddenly he's resurrected when the Dems have Clinton or Obama as the likely nominee; with McCain, they have a guaranteed socialist (= communist) in the White House. How the socialists who she claims really run this country engineered this feat, I don't know...
3. His preferential treatment by the Vietnamese explains why he's for amnesty for illegals. No, I have no idea what the reasoning is behind that.
4. The business about the Vietnamese prostitutes is based on a semi-anonymous Russian translator (the Soviets ran all the North Vietnamese prisons, don'tcha know) who transcribed all the interrogation sessions into Russian and has shared them with some PhD who's written a book...

My friend can be something of a nutcase.