McCain belittles gubernatorial and mayoral experience...

#76
#76
666 said:
That's your own personal assumption. He could have completely solidified the democratic base, which was heavily split between the two, with a nomination of Hillary. So why didn't he act like a cookie cutter candidate and get the secure VP like McCain did?
Click to expand...
because he let the personalities dictate his thinking and picked the worst possible running mate for his agenda.

It was petty freaking politics that made this a tossup election again.

He picks Hillary, it's over. He didn't, it's up for grabs again and he has trampled all over his Washington outsider and change politics lie with Biden. It could not have been a better choice for Republicans.
 
#77
#77
rjd970 said:
Actually, according to the actuarial tables, there is a 15% McCain will not survive his first term and a 1 in 3 chance he will not survive a second.

This, of course, does not factor in the fact that he has had skin cancer and the stress and hours the job of POTUS would include. I think the choice of VP is especially poignant in his case.
Click to expand...

Counter that with the quality care he'll receive and the prior health issues are a wash.

The actuarial tables also suggest his life expectacy is 12 more years. Those tables show a 3% chance he won't make it through 1 year, a 5% he won't make it through 2, etc. Still very small likelihoods that he doesn't survive. Even if he were to croak in office, the longer he lasts, the more experience she would gain and the shorter her duration as POTUS. To me, this "heartbeat away" is a red herring.
 
#78
#78
666 said:
Bull. If he was pandering to his party like McCain was he would have swooped up Hillary for the VP without a second thought.
Click to expand...

Wrong, he was looking out for number 1 with the Biden pick. HC would have sealed the deal but lost him the control of the presidency - he made a "what's in his best interests" choice just like McCain did.

He took a chance he could win with a guy that won't get in his way - not based on what was "best for the country".
 
#79
#79
volinbham said:
Wrong, he was looking out for number 1 with the Biden pick. HC would have sealed the deal but lost him the control of the presidency - he made a "what's in his best interests" choice just like McCain did.
Click to expand...
Obama's choice regarded his own interests and integrity in the white house. He choose a candidate that fit with his agenda. McCain's choice regarded locking up the hardcore neocons that strongly opposed his middle learning policies and was the exact opposite of his "experience" ticket that he was touting.
 
#80
#80
666 said:
Obama's choice regarded his own interests and integrity in the white house. He choose a candidate that fit with his agenda. McCain's choice regarded locking up the hardcore neocons that strongly opposed his middle learning policies and was the exact opposite of his "experience" ticket that he was touting.
Click to expand...

If by that you mean partisan politics as usual then you would be correct, Biden and Obama have been exemplary in the area.
 
#81
#81
666 said:
Obama's choice regarded his own interests and integrity in the white house. He choose a candidate that fit with his agenda. McCain's choice regarded locking up the hardcore neocons that strongly opposed his middle learning policies and was the exact opposite of his "experience" ticket that he was touting.
Click to expand...
How on earth does Biden fit with Obama's change and new politics agenda?
 
#82
#82
666 said:
Obama's choice regarded his own interests and integrity in the white house. He choose a candidate that fit with his agenda. McCain's choice regarded locking up the hardcore neocons that strongly opposed his middle learning policies and was the exact opposite of his "experience" ticket that he was touting.
Click to expand...


Have a fun time in fantasy land!
 
#83
#83
Obama's change referes to how the White House has been ran the last eight years, not democratic values.
 
#85
#85
666 said:
Obama's change referes to how the White House has been ran the last eight years, not democratic values.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's more about internal change to WH procedure than anything meaningful for the electorate.

That makes tons of sense. Now, I finally understand why everyone keeps quoting his change mantra. The tablecloths and schedules will be different inside the White House.
 
#86
#86
I think we'll start less futile wars based on false pretenses under an Obama white house. :)
 
#87
#87
666 said:
Obama's change referes to how the White House has been ran the last eight years, not democratic values.
Click to expand...

So you mean to tell me the "change" refers to republican partisan politics, only to be replaced with partisan politics from the left? I can assure you that is not what the vast majority consider change.
 
#88
#88
666 said:
I think we'll start less futile wars based on false pretenses under an Obama white house. :)
Click to expand...
we'll see less of a lot of things, but my guess about futility is that the idea of earning more money will become so.
 
#90
#90
volinbham said:
666 smells what Barack is cookin' !
Click to expand...
You can calm down. I'm not a democrat. I honestly don't believe Barak in office will have an effect on policies that disagree with. It wouldn't matter if I voted regardless because McCain has a 16% lead here in TN.
 
#91
#91
666 said:
You can calm down. I'm not a democrat. I honestly don't believe Barak in office will have an effect on policies that disagree with. It wouldn't matter if I voted regardless because McCain has a 16% lead here in TN.
Click to expand...

Your posts indicate a near blind acceptance of what's he's selling - that's all I'm saying. Personally, both these guys are doing/saying whatever it takes to get to the WH. The list is long for both where words don't match actions.

BTW, you should vote regardless of the state's outcome.
 
#94
#94
volinbham said:
Your posts indicate a near blind acceptance of what's he's selling - that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
That's not the position I'm trying to paint myself in. I lean towards the decomcrats on social issues, but more towards republicans on economic (though I believe the Bush administration has done nothing to represent these "values"). It honestly seems from an outside perspective that Palin was a shallow pick used only to gather in more votes and has nothing to do with McCain's ticket.
 
#95
#95
allvol123 said:
No need to change any topic, just wanted to point out this one sided anger you seem to have. I love you guys.

Why does it matter if Palin is more qualified than Romney or Guliani? One, she is running for VP. Two, she is at the LEAST, as qualified as Obama. Three, she is a better thinker than Obama.

So...Romney, Guliani, and Palin are all better choices than Obama.
Click to expand...

At the least???????????? You are out of your mind. Therein lies the problem with most of the republicans on these message boards....you actually believe this to be true and you are totally wrong.

The correct statement would be Obama is at least as qualified as Palin...but intelligence will tell us he is much more qualified. Since when did graduating at the top of your class at Harvard Law not make you more qualified than someone attaining a degree from Idaho???

Whether you like it or not, graduating from an Ivy League university makes you more qualified than if you graduated from most state universities...from an education standpoint.
 
Last edited:
#96
#96
666 said:
That's not the position I'm trying to paint myself in. I lean towards the decomcrats on social issues, but more towards republicans on economic (though I believe the Bush administration has done nothing to represent these "values"). It honestly seems from an outside perspective that Palin was a shallow pick used only to gather in more votes and has nothing to do with McCain's ticket.
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree - her basic views on role of government, taxation and spending is consistent with those of McCain. He chose her in large part because of this shared philosophy - that and her outsider traits and being female. Among other female candidates he considered, none matched his governing philosophy like Palin did.

I wasn't a cynical, reckless pick - it was a pick based on both politics and political views.
 
#97
#97
truefan said:
At the least???????????? You are out of your mind. Therein lies the problem with most of the republicans on these message boards....you actually believe this to be true and you are totally wrong.

The correct statement would be Obama is at least as qualified as Palin...but intelligence will tell us he is much more qualified. Since when did graduating at the top of your class at Harvard Law not make you more qualified than someone attaining a degree from Idaho???
Click to expand...

If you are talking about entry level jobs at a firm you may be correct. What you fail to take into account is relevant experience for the highest job of the land, of which Obama and Palin have little. the deciding factor here is that Palin has executive experience and Obama has zero!

Quit treating the the position of POTUS as an entry level job at some consulting firm. You know that argument is ridiculous (and if you honestly don't I just feel sorry for you!).
 
#98
#98
truefan said:
Whether you like it or not, graduating from an Ivy League university makes you more qualified than if you graduated from most state universities...from an education standpoint.
Click to expand...

Qualified for what? A look at CEOs reveals that grades in college are a very poor predictor of leadership success.

Put another way - A & B students work for C students.
 
#99
#99
volinbham said:
Qualified for what? A look at CEOs reveals that grades in college are a very poor predictor of leadership success.

Put another way - A & B students work for C students.
Click to expand...
There is no set formula, but I can tell you that MacArthur had an enormous GPA, while Ike was middlin' and Patton got booted from USMA once for failing math as a plebe.

Civil War is similar. Guys like JEB Stuart and Stonewall were no scholars by any stretch, but were definitely loved and capable leaders. Lee, on the other hand, was the academic beast.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top