The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

floorpotato

You're right. Much of what we say on this forum is conjecture, so let me restate a simple opinion without bringing Obama into this: A person of the high moral character that one would expect from a president would stand by a disabled spouse. The average person might cheat discreetly on a disabled spouse but remain loyal to his marriage vows. McCain stooped below those standards and dumped his disabled spouse for a younger, prettier woman. This won't help him with voters, especially women. Just an opinion.

Norton

Add to this Carol McCain waited five and half years for McCain to be released from the Hanoi Hilton only to be dumped for a younger rich woman. Not exactly the act of an "honorable" person. Some may say as his ex wife did this was just a mid life crisis thing and some may say it was the calculated act of a man who wanted to launch a political career and needed the money and the status a marriage to Cindy would bring. We'll see what the voters say.

__________________
Eat right, exercise daily, live clean, die anyway.

ceburat

The five and a half years John McCain spent as a POW is a long time for a beautiful, healthy woman to live without her husband. We assume that she was true and faithfull, but we don't know for sure. There is always two sides to every story. Hundreds of returning servicemen if not more face break-up of their marriage when they return home because of the time spent apart and many other reasons. Only they, the men and women, know the truth of each situation. For this reason we should not be down on John McCain-we don't really know. And, as Carol has said, he is the best man for president.

sabang

He pays her medical bills. Or is that Cindy?
Strange we haven't heard more about this from the vocal Religious Right. Perhaps, when push comes to shove, they are more Right than Religious. Hypocrites.

raycarey

in the recent yahoo/politico Q & A session, mccain admitted he doesn't know how to use a computer.

why don't we just make this easier.....

how about if he lists the things he DOES know how to do....besides getting shot down and taken prisoner.

i'd like to take credit for that line, but i can't.

Milkman

He's changing again. I cannot keep track of his real views, if they were ever real.

Link: FT.com / In depth - McCain attacks Guantánamo ruling

sabang

I don't blame Mccain for the fact he is fighting this election carrying the baggage of the Bush administration.

Apparently however, he (or more accurately his tacticians) are responding to this by being flimflam merchants, offering inducements such as the gas tax exemption that make no sense, and backflipping on issues such as the Guantanamo ruling above, to play on popular fears.

The way it looks to me, Obama appeals to the 'thinking mans' vote, McCain is appealing to the great unwashed and the greedy affluent, who only ever want to pay less tax. It remains to be seen which is the majority, but it certainly leaves Mccains original message as a man of integrity and an individualist in tatters.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

raycarey

don't forget torture...he also flip-flopped on that issue.

he's a totally different candidate from 2000, and the members of the media know it. his biggest asset back then was that the media found his 'straight talk' refreshing and they played up that aspect in their reporting, and it really helped his campaign.

however, over the last two years (and particularly the last few months) they've watched the 2000 mccain disintegrate into the 2008 mccain, and once we get into august/sept. they're going to start pointing out that he's a shadow of his former self.

chinthee

I can't get it why the angst over this old man? He's toast and will be defeated by this young, black, sexy, tall nextgen leader.

Get over McCain.

sabang

I think Obama will get it, but it's fairly close in the Polling at this stage.

Milkman

The polling is tight, and the only polling I've seen is at the national level.

State polling will be crucial as the election nears. It's too far away now.

The Obama campaign recently stated it is planning a strategy on winning without Florida and Ohio. Hard to do, but possible.

I am assuming that the midwest will be red - solid for McCain and we'll see blue in the Northeast and West Coast.

Will we see another popular vote winner lose the electoral college in the 270 electoral votes needed?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

Norton

Obama's approach for now is to make sure he wins in Michigan.

"Just about every map to victory appears to include keeping Michigan and its 17 electoral votes in the Democratic camp."

Obama's path to presidency goes through Michigan - CNN.com

Bugs

I wonder why McCain didn't add Venezuela to his trip next month?

Jonathan Martin's Blog: McCain to Mexico - Politico.com


Uh, no I don't:
Chavez says U.S. relations could worsen with McCain | International | Reuters

Jet Gorgon

^ I reckon that's coz McC won't do kissyface with him. Obama has already sent out vibes that he'll talk to anyone. Let's be friends and please don't do naughty things anymore, which is really gonna work.

Milkman

Obama said he'll talk with those the US has issues with.

The rest of your post is not true. He's never said "let's be friends." Never said for them "not to be naughty anymore."

Where did you read this?

What countries/leaders are being "naughty" in your opinion?

sabang

According to the neo-con world view, the UN itself is naughty. Might be easier to make a lists of the nations that are not naughty.

Not many of them-
Australia (lap dogs, for security)
Poland (lap dogs, for money)
Israel (rather highly rewarded)
Turkey (Money)

The UK has probably dropped out now that they've ferked off out of Iraq, over US objections.

Jet Gorgon

^^ True, MM, I was conjecturing. But, what will Obama do with recalitrants like Chavez, Il Jong, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Than Shwe, et al? Lots of worse than "naughty" acts done by leaders like these.

Milkman

Chavez?

Who cares? (Oh, he does have oil.)

Ahmadindjad? He is not the leader of Iran, and doesn't even control the military.

Kim John Il? This is South Korea's problem (and Japan's to a lessor extent.)

Mugabe? It's a zimbabwe and African issue.

Than Schwe? I don't know.


My point: the above leaders I don't like. They are odd. But they are not a threat to the USA. The "threat" has been manufactured for several reasons, especially with Iran and North Korea.

Who cares?

Bugs

I don't really agree with either candidate on this particular issue. A little closer to Obama now that he has started to refine his message a bit and it kind of backing out of his earlier comments in regard to meeting with no pre -conditions with some word play.

I got no truck with an administration having some level of talks with any of these guys (might be pushing it for a direct meeting with the POTUS). This is not to say that I think the US President should have meeting with them, nor that meeting with them should be very high on the to-do-list either.

On the flip side I don't have a big problem with completely ignoring them either. If the US goes down the ignore them path then we need to completely ignore them - not antagonize them in the press. Sometimes Bush and Hugo sound like a couple of school kids calling each other names.

As for the UN, I would not call them naughty, but the UN is certainly broken in that it is nearly useless when it comes to addressing the big issues. Hell if Russia had not buggered off for a bit in protest over who/how China was represented at the UN, then I'd say in 1950 things might have gotten so bogged down in the security counsel that little kim would probably be the dear leader of the entire peninisula. And there is like 100 security council resolutions in regard to Israel and lot of good that all that "deploring" and "condemning" has done anyone. On the plus side the NY economy benifits from the UN being located there.

__________________
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg