The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Jet Gorgon

Jimmy Carter tried that, didn't he?

Milkman

I never thought he did, Jet.

What do you mean?

Can you provide some examples of him doing this, or not doing this?

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

Bugs

Been away from the board for awhile - busy with travel and work. Have not even tried to read back thru to see what I missed.

In any case I think the election is all but wrapped up for Obama. The events surrounding the "bank bail-out bill" and the economic turmoil that has become the top topic since late last month has shifted the tide. I was not sure at the time if it would be enough (or if it was close enough to the election to keep the lead for Obama), and I think there is still a small chance for McCain (if something major happens in say Iran, North Korea, or another Georia type of event - within days of the election - then McCain will win).

I was generally disapointed in the campaigns run by both candidates (more so in McCain) due to the general negative direction. And something needs to be done to the debate formats - IMHO neither candidate did much to benifit themselves in the debates, both parties were talking more towards the supporters they already have as opposed to those they need to win over.

McCain still has my vote, and like I said there is still a chance for him - but slim.

__________________
"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

panama hat

Hahaha, this is Jet you are asking? her reply will be to Google it or something similarly vapid. It would be refreshing, however, to see what her answer would be.

Then I have a question, Bugs. having said the things so far about McCain and the Reps. . . why would you still vore for him? IS it a matter of party loyalty or tradition?

Jet Gorgon

MM, Carter tried it with the Palestinians, didn't he? What did he do with the gas crisis or even the embassy attack? Sympathetic words and no action.

panama hat

Why attempt an answer with questions? How about answering the questions with relevance.

I'd be interested . . . no tit for tat on this one.

Milkman

I don't know what you're talking about. What would Carter have had to do with the Palestinians?

The Camp David Accords were between Egypt and Israel.

Jet, the gas crisis was in 1973. Carter was not President, then.


What embassy? Where?

Do you mean the US embassy in Tehran? It was not attacked. It was over-run. With live hostages you cannot take military action. It would mean a sure death for them.

The Iranian hostage crises was "blowback." The CIA claims this. Go back to 1953 with the CIA coup in Iran.


Lots of generalities but no details nor any specifics.

Bugs

Not sure what you mean by "things". The negatives about McCain and his campaign so far is that they have been too negative in the approach. But as a fundamental base I like far more of what McCain proposes than what Obama proposes.

In any case as with most elections there is no one candidate that I agree with 100%, but I agree far more the McCain platform, than I do for the Obama platform.

I am very much against nationalism of health care, I do not want to raise taxes on anyone (at various times during this campaign Obama has talked about raising payroll taxes, raising income taxes, raising capitol gains taxes, raising business taxes, and even the inheritance tax - too much talk of raising taxes for me - regardless of if I am the one paying more tax or not), I don't think the Obama energy program is as good as McCains (no nuclear and much more opposed to expanded drilling in the Obama plan - though with the ever declining oil prices I just hope who ever gets elected has the balls to stick with what they have said in the campaign and really do something to make alternatives a larger part of the US energy picture), I don't care for either of them when it comes to immigration (but like McCain more on this issue), on the international scene I think Obama would be better off-thebat for the US, but worse long term (just because of the change issue) - on the vast majority of international issues I am much more in-line with McCain - especially as this relates to Iraq (we started that mess, and I think we have an obligation to finish it regardless of how much it cost us Americans), about the only issue I can think of that I like what Obama says more than McCain is education and I don't think education is a national issue - to me education is a state issue and the feds should stay out of ALL issues related to education (so I like what Obama says about issues related to education but think they should be done on a local not a national level).

And I trust McCain more on the following items as well: Judicial selection (McCain favors judges that have shown they fall into the judicial restraint category rather than the judicial activism category - I am a strong supporter of the balance of power and I think judicial restraint is a key to the balance), protecting my second amendment right to personally keep and bare arms, as well as taking a more aggressive approach to ethical issues in politics.

On top of all that I like much of the plan McCain has been talking about recently in regard to having the feds buy up individual mortgages (even though this is against my fundamental belief in small government). I actually favor the government buying up individual mortgages much more than any of the other federal bail-out plans that focus on business rather then the home-owner.

That is why I will vote for McCain next month (well actually I be casting my ballot this month).

panama hat

Seriously, you were expecting details or specifics?



Agreed, but how is Obama in the camp of judicial activism?


We'll disagree on that one as I find it one of the basic wrongs of US society . . . more damage than a 'right' is worth.

Isn't this what Obama is advocating as well?

To be honest I can't really see this working. In effect the state will own private real estate, doesn't make sense.


I also think Obama will win, but it will be one term only and then the other side will get in again . . . there is just no way that one term will suffice to make the ship sail again, the painful measures that are needed will not be taken as it is tantamount to self-destruction in a democracy.

And that answers the question. McCain was by far the best of the lot of contenders and the fears were quite real that he could gather many right-wing democrats . . . he messed it all up with Palin, however, and his ugly tactics now certainly won't endear him to the middle-of-the-road voter either.

McCain/Lieberman - that would have been a shoe-in.

Milkman

McCain wanted Lieberman. He flew a trial balloon and the Christian right was adamantly opposed. They were very loud about it.

Therefore....Palin.

It goes to show not only the influence of the Xtian Right, but their negative influence on the GOP.

Bugs

I have not hear Obama talk about this subject in any detail - and that in and of itself is worring to me. Additionally IMHO it tends to be the more liberal lot of judges that go down the judicial activism route - (in recent times there are more than a few conservative leaning folks doing this as well).


This is one of the few rights that can really swing things for me - as the saying goes - pry it from my cold dead hands.....

I am not saying there are no problems with guns in the US - there are. But IMO the problem is lack of enforcement of existing laws. Along those lines I would not fight stricter/stronger gun laws (depending on the law). For example I am all in favor of increased penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and I am not opposed to some forms of waiting lists, and back-ground checks. That being said I am against banning most guns - even assault rifles.

Yes, but I trust McCain more than Obama (longer history on the matter) to actually try and do something about it.

I don't want the federal government to own the houses long-long term. But I would rather see any bail-out funds going directly to keeping people in their homes over keeping big business from loosing too much or going under. Banks and such should go under based upon what they were doing - but we won't run out of banks or people that want to get into banking. There is a real risk that people who loose their homes in this mess will never be home owners again.

I think the government should negotiate new morgage payments, with the understanding that any discount that is offered on the front end (ie droping the monthly payments) gets taken care of on the back end (ie if the home eventually is sold the government is the first one to get a cut of any increase in value - up to the original value of the mortgage). This will allow companies to get out of any/all home mortgages they are involved in (at a discount), it will allow people to keep their homes, and it should allow the government to minimize the cost by giving direct assistant to homeowners.

I would not allow folks that have investment properties to take part in this program. Only one house per person/couple and it would have to be the primary residence.

This would be similar to (but not the same as) the Home Owners' Loan Corp - started in 1933, stopped giving loans in 1935, and liquidated in '51 - and made a small profit in the process.
This might be the case - but I think another factor in a possible one term for Obama is that it is likely that the blue team will also have a greater control of congress, thus there will really only be one party to accept the blame or pats on the back for what is to come - at least over the next two years, and probably four. There will be no place to hide for the inaction of government that has been a plague on the US for nearly twenty plus years.

I would have been much more in favor of a McCain/Lieberman ticket (over the McCain/Palin ticket), but I do think McCain was running a major risk of turning off the far right and many of them staying home on election day.

Milkman

Scott McClellan is voting for Obama. Many GOPers are voting for Obama. I've seen the list and it's very long. From financial folks to Goldwater's grandaughter, etc.

Momentum.

Link & Entire: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Former Bush aide voting for Obama « - Blogs from CNN.com

Jet Gorgon

^ Scott's a turncoat and just trying to trump himself up again. Lost all cred when he published his kiss and tell book, IMO.

ChiangMai noon

gained my respect.

sabang

In the same way as George Washington maybe. In the same way as General Benedict Arnold was a Patriot, presumably.

Jet Gorgon

^ Add Churchill in there. However, none publicised confidential info like Scott did. Even the libbie media dumped him when the page turned quickly on his book news. Now he's making the rounds to re-energise himself with a Powellesque support button for BO.

ChiangMai noon

I don't look forward to George Bush and Dick Cheney endorsing Obama.

might be Mcain's only hope.

attaboy

He's trying to pump up sales of his book. His publisher or agent probably came up with the idea. He needs to make money. No Republican active in politics would give him a job. He must now rely on the kindness of strangers.

Jet Gorgon

^ Won't be any kind strangers if BO gets in.

Bugs

Here are some well informed Obama supporters:
Breitbart.tv » ‘Howard Stern Show’ Quizzes Obama Supporters in Harlem on Candidate Policies

Synapses of the vid for those will slow connections:

Stern: What don’t you like about McCain?
Obama supporter #1: McCain seems to not really know what he is doing right now?
Stern: Are you more for Obama’s policy because he’s pro-life? Or because he thinks our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war?
OS #1: I think because our troop should stay in Iraq and finish this war. I’m really for him with that, defiantly.
Stern: Now how about as far as him being pro-life, do you support Obama in that case?
OS#1: Yea, I do. I support him in that case.
Sterm: And if he (Obama) wins, would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being vice-president?
OS#1: No, I wouldn’t, not at all.
Stern: You think he made the right choice in that?
OS#1: I defiantly do.

Stern: And why not McCain?
Obama supporter #2: Well I just don’t agree with some of his, you know, policies.
Stern: Now Obama says he is anti-stem-cell research. How do you feel about that?
OS #2: I, I, I believe that, I won’t do that either. I’m anti-stem cell, yea, yea.
Stern: Now, if Obama wins do you mind Sarah Palin being vice president?
OS #2: No, no I don’t.

Stern: Now, why not McCain? What don’t you like about him?
Obama supporter #3: Umm, he sorta doesn’t sound like he has enough, like he doesn’t, he’s not, he’s uneducated. Because when he had the uhmm, they had both the presidents speaking. Uhmm, he didn’t sound like he knew what he was talking about to much. Whereas, Obama had facts and information when he was speaking.
Stern: Do you support Obama more because he is pro-life, or because he says our troops should stay in Iraq and finish the war?
OS #3: Uhmm, I guess both.
Stern: Now if Obama wins do you have any problems with Sarah Palin being his vice president?
OB #3: Uhmm, nope. Not at all.
Stern: Do you think she’ll do a good job?
OB #3: I think she’ll do a good job.
Stern: Are you glad he elected her to be the VP if he wins?
OB#3: Yup.

In every likelihood there are errors in my transcript above as compared to the vid - but I did not bother taking too much time to make the transcript so tough.

(I am sure there are some McCain supporters that are equally well informed out there).