Thread: Hillary or McCain?

If I absolutely have to choose between Hillary and McCain, I will pick McCain. That doesn't mean I agree with his views though. It's more like the lesser of the 2 evils. And we know Hillary is evil...

I don't know what the facination with Obama is. He's just another liberal socialist, except he's a real African American and he speaks better English.

Originally Posted by gunnut

If I absolutely have to choose between Hillary and McCain, I will pick McCain. That doesn't mean I agree with his views though. It's more like the lesser of the 2 evils. And we know Hillary is evil...

I don't know what the facination with Obama is. He's just another liberal socialist, except he's a real African American and he speaks better English.

Wasn't McCain the person who proposed nuking Makkah?

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

Wasn't McCain the person who proposed nuking Makkah?

No, you're thinking of Congressman Tom Tancredo. Senator McCain is the dingleberry responsible for placing high elected office out of the reach of the non-rich, and responsible for the neutering of the "up or down vote" traditions for judicial candidates in front of the U.S. Senate.

If I have to vote for McCain over the Lefty Harpie I will be quite unhappy.

-dale

If it's between Hitlery and McCain, it's no contest.

McCain's intentions were okay, he just didn't see the 527's coming...Every race from the Senate on is all about $$$ anyway.

But he's a little too spineless to be a President, imo.

you right i's all about the $$. i'll vote for whoever nra "approves".

If it's between THOSE two, the terrorists have already won.

No, I meant that seriously.

I want some more - some BETTER - choices.

I say Obama. Haven't you guys had enough of the Clinton/Bush era?

Hillary and McCain are just repeat options, IMO. Obama would eat into Hillary's strongest base, the Afro American community.

They both represent two new options, Either a woman president or an African American President!

Hillary ran the most expensive elections campaign this time round, we can expect the same for the Presidential race. But she's yet to announce her candidacy. I'm guessing it would happen only in Jan.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

If it's between THOSE two, the terrorists have already won.

No, I meant that seriously.

I want some more - some BETTER - choices.

Lol you will get some more choices (better or not, can't say) later on. Dunno why all the candidates seem to be pussyfooting around the idea in declaring "Yeah I want to be President!"

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

I say Obama. Haven't you guys had enough of the Clinton/Bush era?

I wish for another Reagan. If I don't get another christmas present for the rest of my life, please let there be another Reagan.

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

Hillary and McCain are just repeat options, IMO. Obama would eat into Hillary's strongest base, the Afro American community.

Black voters account for 10% of the electorate. You can't give up 40% of the votes and go for the 10%.

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

They both represent two new options, Either a woman president or an African American President!

We had those already. "Slick Willy" Bill Clinton was both.

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

Hillary ran the most expensive elections campaign this time round, we can expect the same for the Presidential race. But she's yet to announce her candidacy. I'm guessing it would happen only in Jan.

I think Obama forced her hand. She had declared the intention to form an exploratory committee to investigate a potential run for the presidency. So she's a definite "maybe."

How about none of the above?

Okay, I won't vote Republican, plain and simple. But I won't vote Hillary either because the country is not ready for a woman president and as such, she's a bad voting risk before even out of the gate. That leaves Obama but he's not such a great risk either. Why? Because he's a senator and the last senator to get elected president was JFK. Senator's don't get elected president; governors, VP's, generals do.

None of the above.
--------------------------------------
("What are you gonna vote?"--Brewster
"[in unison] None of the above!"--Crowd, (wtte), "Brewster's Millions")

But I won't vote Hillary either because the country is not ready for a woman president

What exactly does it mean that the country is not "ready"? As well, by saying you would not vote for a woman, don't you mean that you are not ready? I am not saying Hillary is a good choice, but I think that is a pretty crappy reason to not support her.

That leaves Obama but he's not such a great risk either. Why? Because he's a senator and the last senator to get elected president was JFK. Senator's don't get elected president; governors, VP's, generals do.

But that doesn't explain why you would not vote for him. Obama would be my favourite of those four. Favourite as in preference, not likelihood of winning.

I would vote for John McCain... I could never find myself voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Barack Obama is socialist. I don't consider myself a conservative -- I have libertarian views, but am not the "stereotypical" libertarian. I support a more limited role for government than it is has been under Republican or Democratic administrations in the last few decades. I voted for the Minnesota Independence Party in the last election.

If I had a choice as to whom I would select to run for president in 2008, I would nominate Colin Powell for the office. He's received flak and was badmouthed over some of what he's said, but I believe he would pursue at least as well as the current administration has, while not involving the US in costly, unnecessary military engagements.

I am fully aware of his stance on military tribunals -- but I believe he would pursue detainment and imprisonment of those involved in terrorism as firmly as the Bush administration, and it would be unfair to characterize him as someone who would open up the gates and let them go free. I believe his disagreement with the Bush administration's policy on the detention of terrorism suspects is more procedural and semanitcal than anything.

He does support "reasonable" gun control -- this probably includes things such as automatic weapons, howitzers, etc. He also does not oppose the practice of abortion -- something I myself do not think should be outlawed, but don't really concern myself with. He also believes in more inclusiveness for minorities -- not affirmative action for unqualified people, but rather those who have the demonstrated potential, abilities, and ambition as he has. When I look at Powell, I don't see a black man, I see a man.

Overall, he seems to have libertarian views when it comes to social issues, which I am as well.

He's been described as a "reluctant warrior" -- in much the same way as any military man here on the forum who has seen war. I fully agree with the Powell Doctrine on almost every point, with the exception of point 8, which I feel more than a bit ambivalent about. If all other seven criteria are satisfied, but we're running into opposition from states that clearly oppose our actions out of their own self-interests, I don't think this requirement needs to be satisfied.

As I'm sure most of you are aware, this is my opinion and you are free to agree or disagree with it. As in other threads, don't hold back on expressing your opinions because of the yellow user name. I think somebody in the "What makes a Muslim radical thread" asked if there was anything in retrospect they should not have said after I weighed in, which I thought was funny. Your opinion is yours and I am not one to strong-arm you into conforming to my views.

Feel free to cite any stances Powell has that I am unaware of and may disagree with, and please don't misjudge me if there's anything I've overlooked.

His credibility has been enhanced (on top of his already impressive record as a career officer) as I believe most of his views have been borne out be mostly dead-on, I have moderate libertarian views on social issues as does he, and I agree with most of his foreign policy views, but think he goes a bit overboard on the internationalism aspect. I'm not aware of any of his views on the economy, business, labor, etc... I don't think he has well-formed views on these and would need a running mate or cabinet to balance him to make sure his administration would have what is considered to be a conservative policy on issues related to the economy.

Matt

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

What exactly does it mean that the country is not "ready"? As well, by saying you would not vote for a woman, don't you mean that you are not ready? I am not saying Hillary is a good choice, but I think that is a pretty crappy reason to not support her.

The way things have gone in the past few elections, it often comes down to finding someone to keep the other guy out of office. Kerry was wishy-washy as heck ......... but I voted for him on the reason to vote the other guy out of office.

I don't a Republican as president. Plain and simple. To accomplish that purpose, I want to back the best horse possible ....... which is often not much of a choice at all. Favourite these days is trying to get the best option and using the best tactics one can get. Idealism is really quite dangerous in these reactionary times.
------------------------------------------------
("Have him disown all your money before the wedding. That way, people won't get the wrong notion the way I did, that he married you for your money."--Andrew the shyster
"That's not a bad idea. Have all my accounts shared with Henry right now. That way, he'll already have my money so no one will think he married me for my money."--Henrietta
"You idiot! That's no solution at all!", (w,stte), "A New Leaf")

I don't a Republican as president. Plain and simple. To accomplish that purpose, I want to back the best horse possible ....... which is often not much of a choice at all. Favourite these days is trying to get the best option and using the best tactics one can get. Idealism is really quite dangerous in these reactionary times.

Okay, but I think the question is who would you want to win the election, not the leadership of the Democratic Party. In other words, think in terms of what you want, not what you think is most electable.