Utopia Temple Forums

Utopia Temple Forums (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/index.php)
-   Polls Heaven (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Would you vote for Palin? (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthread.php?t=76647)

DHoffryn 16-Sep-2008 13:03

Would you vote for Palin?
 
Just had a talk with a few people and it got me wondering.If something happens to McCain before the election would you vote for Palin?

Spectre19 16-Sep-2008 13:35

If mccain karked it BEFORE the election, I doubt Palin would become the presidential nominee

Caelis666 16-Sep-2008 14:35

McCain is dead already. They're just trying to keep up the facade so they have a chance at the elections.

Also, I would never vote for Palin. I'm fine with religious nutcases, as long as they don't get involved in politics. People who think the earth was created 6000 years ago need to go back to school, not to the White House.

Nimon 16-Sep-2008 21:04

Palin would be much more dangerous in the White House than McCain. McCain is a reasonably sane person; most of his panderings to the far right are just that, attempts to secure their votes. Palin, though, she's plain mental. She's almost as anti-science as they come. I'd vote Ron Paul before I voted Palin.

Roxtin 16-Sep-2008 21:21

I'm glad the "other" option is available.

I don't vote in the presidential elections. I live in a "red state" so I already know that regardless of how I might vote, the electoral candidates for my state are going to all vote republican.

(I'm a staunch believer that the electoral college and an archaic, out-dated system that needs to be completely abolished.)

Bernel 16-Sep-2008 22:10

Re: Would you vote for Palin?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxtin (Post 1651150)
I don't vote in the presidential elections. I live in a "red state" so I already know that regardless of how I might vote, the electoral candidates for my state are going to all vote republican.

Don't underestimate the psychological effect of a candidate winning by much less than expected. That may start people thinking and can make the election after that an open affair.
Quote:

(I'm a staunch believer that the electoral college and an archaic, out-dated system that needs to be completely abolished.)
An alternative is to allocate electors in proportion to the number of votes as a couple of states do.

Royal Assassin3 16-Sep-2008 22:23

Re: Would you vote for Palin?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre19 (Post 1651110)
If mccain karked it BEFORE the election, I doubt Palin would become the presidential nominee

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if she won. Like Obama, she'd add some old fart with gravitas as a running mate. As is they're running 50/50 and the sympathy vote would push her over the top.

Invictus2001 17-Sep-2008 03:40

Re: Would you vote for Palin?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernel (Post 1651156)
An alternative is to allocate electors in proportion to the number of votes as a couple of states do.

well now the # of electors each state has is now based on population

One Eyed Oscar 17-Sep-2008 03:43

you all will not vote for them because you must not be eligible.

she has all the inspirational speaking qualities and every bit of experience as obama

Spectre19 17-Sep-2008 06:26

Quote:

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if she won. Like Obama, she'd add some old fart with gravitas as a running mate. As is they're running 50/50 and the sympathy vote would push her over the top.
Palin would not beat Obama. She may have the same amount of "experience" and age, but she appears to be incompetent to most, and has extremely conservative views (I refuse to call it right-wing... doing so is an abomination of what the right is supposed to represent).

Michael1 17-Sep-2008 18:33

It would certainly depend on her running mate. If she got Bobby Jindal or Newt Gingrich or Jeb Bush to run with her I'd be there in a heartbeat ... Of course, of those three only Jindal doesn't carry 'baggage'.

Perhaps we should create a 'if Barack Obama were shot tomorrow, would you vote for Joe Biden' poll :lol

Royal Assassin3 17-Sep-2008 22:52

Re: Would you vote for Palin?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre19 (Post 1651227)
Palin would not beat Obama. She may have the same amount of "experience" and age, but she appears to be incompetent to most, and has extremely conservative views (I refuse to call it right-wing... doing so is an abomination of what the right is supposed to represent).

Well, Obama's an extremist leftist and look where he's running. Palin would energize the right wing base in the same way Obama has energized the far left and we'd be right back where we started. Perhaps a little more in Palin's favor since America is a center right nation. At the very least her funding would skyrocket allowing her to better combat Obama's machine.

Speaking of which, if McCain were to die (or switch ticket positions) would Palin be bound by the public funds restriction McCain is handcuffed by? I would think it would only apply to the person who agreed to take federal funds.

Spectre19 18-Sep-2008 03:37

Quote:

Well, Obama's an extremist leftist and look where he's running. Palin would energize the right wing base in the same way Obama has energized the far left and we'd be right back where we started. Perhaps a little more in Palin's favor since America is a center right nation. At the very least her funding would skyrocket allowing her to better combat Obama's machine.
But Obama is not far left. You only say that because he is a Democrat, and talks about "hope" and "change". From this you go "omg idealist" and by extension "omg hardcore socialist".

Reverting tax cuts on the rich is not left-wing. It's not even right wing. It's jsut what ought to be done. The tax-cuts in the first place aren't even ideologically driven, it's just bullshit cronyism. "these rich guys helped us to power, so now we gotta give them money". Economically, Obama is not left wing. The only thing I have seen about his economic policies that is left-wing is more government funding to the health system. This even stops short of nationalising healthcare altogether which is normal.

He may be socially left-wing (in the common terminology which is of course bullshit - social freedom is part of libertarianism => right-wing), but that means that only hardcore christian fundamentalists will drop him and support Palin, Miss I-don't-know-what-the-Bush-Doctrine-is.

Royal Assassin3 18-Sep-2008 04:36

Re: Would you vote for Palin?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre19 (Post 1651322)
But Obama is not far left. You only say that because he is a Democrat, and talks about "hope" and "change". From this you go "omg idealist" and by extension "omg hardcore socialist".

Not really. What makes him far left isn't his moderate rhetoric. It's several factors. Like the fact that he was the single most liberal (which to you europeans means leftist) senator by voting record in the senate in 2007. Or that he supports killing even babies who are born alive if their mother doesn't want them. Or that he wants to tax the rich so he can buy votes from the poor. Or that he said he would raise taxes on the rich even if it didn't raise more government revenues because he thinks it would be "fair". Or that his primary backers are move-on.org and hollywood. Or that he supports a national healthcare plan. Or that his friends include marxist terrorists and black liberation preachers. Or that his wife was proud of america for the first time because Obama was ahead in the polls. Or that his wife's writings in undergraduate were radical socialist.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Particularly when contrasted to McCain who is the 59th most conservative member of the senate by voting record. (right smack in the middle and actually a little left) Back in the day McCain would have been a main stream democrat, and indeed at one point he even considered switching parties. However, the democrat party has gone off the deep end. So much so that even former Clinton supporters are flocking to McCain in droves:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...SsK5wD938ODG80

Quote:

Reverting tax cuts on the rich is not left-wing. It's not even right wing. It's jsut what ought to be done. The tax-cuts in the first place aren't even ideologically driven, it's just bullshit cronyism. "these rich guys helped us to power, so now we gotta give them money".
Ha! What Cronyism? McCain isn't getting any money from "the rich". Quite the opposite. McCain is relying on public financing while Obama on the other hand fills his coffers with generous donations from hollywood millionaires and finance billionaires like Soros.

The idea behind tax cuts (for everyone) is that it rewards productive behavior. If your time spent working becomes more valuable, you spend more time working. If you are a business owner being able to keep more of your money means you can expand your business faster and make even more money.

Obama derides tax cuts for "the rich" but quite frankly when taxes are so progressive that the bottom 50% pay almost no taxes, there's no other way to cut taxes in a meaningful way without cutting taxes for the rich. (Although Bush managed to find a way by "refunding" taxes to the poor even when the poor paid no taxes).

Quote:

Miss I-don't-know-what-the-Bush-Doctrine-is.
So now you are going to fault her for not knowing what some made up leftist buzz word was specifically referring to?

Spectre19 18-Sep-2008 06:17

Quote:

Like the fact that he was the single most liberal (which to you europeans means leftist) senator by voting record in the senate in 2007.
OH GOD NOT LIBERALISM THE WHOLE IDEOLOGY UPON WHICH AMERICA WAS FOUNDED

Quote:

Or that he supports killing even babies who are born alive if their mother doesn't want them.
They are not born alive... the fact that you buy that bullshit worries me. Even if you still disagree with it, portraying it that way is so grossly intellectually dishonest it's not funny.

Quote:

Or that he wants to tax the rich so he can buy votes from the poor.
Of course he wants to tax the rich... it wouldn't be very useful if it was only the poor paying the taxes :rolleyes: AFAIK all he wants to do is remove the Bush tax cuts, which from what I know are highly unequitable

Quote:

Or that he said he would raise taxes on the rich even if it didn't raise more government revenues because he thinks it would be "fair".
Are you trying to twist a quote supporting progressive taxes? Because that's what it sounds like. What's the original quote?

Quote:

Or that his primary backers are move-on.org and hollywood.
Ah, so he is supported by some site that is extremely left wing because you say so, and all those movie stars who are SO hell bent on turning the world into a Communist love-fest... well I guess that confirms it >_>

Quote:

Or that he supports a national healthcare plan.
That is NORMAL. Even fucking Australia has national healthcare, and next to America we are probably the most conservative developed nation there is! Lack of national healthcare ranks right up there with use of the Imperial system and the fahrenheit scale in terms of utter backwardness...

Quote:

Or that his friends include marxist terrorists and black liberation preachers.
lol... how about we stick to his own position on issues instead of scare-tactic bullshit that sucks anybody in who cringes at any mention of the word "Marxist"

That is too easy... I could run for US President, all I would have to do is constantly refer to my opponent as Kommunist Karl :rolleyes:

Quote:

Or that his wife was proud of america for the first time because Obama was ahead in the polls. Or that his wife's writings in undergraduate were radical socialist.
Sounds like more bullshit. Got a source?

Quote:

Ha! What Cronyism? McCain isn't getting any money from "the rich".
I don't believe that for a minute. Source?

Besides, they were Bush's tax cuts to begin with, and if you try to tell me Bush didn't have a vested interest in doing so I might as well regard anything you ever say as a complete work of fiction.

Quote:

The idea behind tax cuts (for everyone) is that it rewards productive behavior. If your time spent working becomes more valuable, you spend more time working. If you are a business owner being able to keep more of your money means you can expand your business faster and make even more money.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise tax cuts were a universal good, especially when targetted at those people who make so much money they've probably forgotten what money actually is and pursue it as an end in itself. I guess we should just eliminate taxes altogether, right? What good do you think that will do to society? I've read figures that say 10% of Americans are under the poverty line. How are you going to fix that without taxing the rich? Oh, I guess they are too lazy, that's why they are poor right? Right, RA3, 10% of America is too lazy to get a job... I guess we should tax THEM to fix their own poverty problem. :rolleyes:

Besides, the US government is up to its nuclear blue-balls in debt. How are tax cuts going to fix that problem?

As for the bold part: so the tax cuts are designed so that rich people who sponsor the GOP can get even richer? Dude, I could've told you that.

---------------

Obama's policies may not pander to your brand of uber-capitalism, but I'd rather have a hot poker shoved my eye than have my intelligence molested again by you or anybody trying to brand him as a Marxist who poses a colossal threat to the free-market system. He just isn't. No matter whether you identify with him ideologically or not, you simply cannot say that something like national healthcare is going to destroy capitalism. You simply cannot say that taxing rich people actually poses any significant barrier to economic growth, and you simply cannot say that supporting a woman's right to abort has ANYTHING to do with being left-wing. Obama is at worst a social democrat. If you don't know what that means other than having it used on you as some scare-tactic synonym for "Stalinist/Maoist Communism Child Rape", it is basically a belief in Capitalism but only insofar as there is no person who contributes to society without having at least a minimum comfortable standard of living. I understand that you don't believe in this, and that you believe if someone's parents aren't rich enough to send them to business school they should say "you want fries with that?" for a hundred hours a week, and go home to a ramshackle old apartment in the Bronx waiting to be raped and killed, but trying to portray social democracy as anything further than left-of-centre is an unimaginably gross molestation of the political spectrum.

Obama is left-of-centre. After 8 years of utter bullshit, he is what America needs and most Americans seem to know it, and fuck knows it would be a nice break for the rest of the poor bastards around the world who are affected by America's crap without even being allowed to vote. If he doesn't win this election I will eat my own face.

Invictus2001 18-Sep-2008 06:31

Re: Would you vote for Palin?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre19 (Post 1651322)
But Obama is not far left. You only say that because he is a Democrat, and talks about "hope" and "change". From this you go "omg idealist" and by extension "omg hardcore socialist".

Actually he is the most left in the senate.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Quote:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings.
But dont let facts stop the Kool Aid


The national journal is a well respected publication

Spectre19 18-Sep-2008 08:09

wow invictus, thanks for bringing up something I already addressed...

I'll elaborate though... first of all, liberalism vs. conservatism is quite possibly the most ill-defined measure of political position ever conceived... apparently believers in the free market are "conservatives", despite the free market being a liberal ideology

And apart from "conservatives" being all about economic freedom, they also apparently have to about social theocracy. How the fuck do you justify putting a belief in economic freedom and social totalitarianism on the same side of a political spectrum?

Second of all, liberalism is meant to be a term for a right-wing ideology. Ever heard of the Cold War? You know, that war between Communism and democracy? More specifically LIBERAL democracy? The liberal ideology is all about free market capitalism, and free trade between states. It is also about social freedom, and libertarianism, as well as social justice (which, while going slightly against Capitalism, is by no means mutually exclusive with it). So if you think a liberal in the White House is going to start collectivising the nation, take a reality check.

Third, I highly question the possibility of "calculating" a voting record and putting a label on ot based on that. In fact, I can't think of a shittier idea. EDIT: Just by looking at how the scores fluctuate between years is indicative of how completely useless this thing is.

Fourth, even if he is the most left-wing in the Senate (which isn't the same as being liberal) - that doesn't make him an extremist. Being a right-wing nation, I highly doubt any state in the US would vote in an extreme left-wing politican to the Senate, so just by virtue of the fact that he is in the US Senate, I am close to certain that he is not extreme-left.

Fifth:

Quote:

The national journal is a well respected publication
:eek That must mean they're right!

The problem is the "respect" that this publication has has no bearing on a matter that can not be described to have any objectivity. Defining liberalism vs. conservatism, and THEN putting mathematical values on it? Wow... I can't think of anything more subjective.

The quality of a publication is a testament to their unbiased reporting of facts, not unbiased reporting of opinions.

Mandraque 18-Sep-2008 14:54

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Not really. What makes him far left isn't his moderate rhetoric. It's several factors. Like the fact that he was the single most liberal (which to you europeans means leftist) senator by voting record in the senate in 2007. Or that he supports killing even babies who are born alive if their mother doesn't want them. Or that he wants to tax the rich so he can buy votes from the poor. Or that he said he would raise taxes on the rich even if it didn't raise more government revenues because he thinks it would be "fair". Or that his primary backers are move-on.org and hollywood. Or that he supports a national healthcare plan. Or that his friends include marxist terrorists and black liberation preachers. Or that his wife was proud of america for the first time because Obama was ahead in the polls. Or that his wife's writings in undergraduate were radical socialist.
This pretty much sums up why we are having am economic crisis right now, because of people you that believe in the fairy fucking god mother and all the other bullshit you make your self believe to hold onto your points of view. Here i give you an interesting summary.

VaX 23-Sep-2008 20:53

I would never vote for her. She has accomplished little worth putting her in the white house. I don't think she should be running for vp, but honestly McCain's accomplishment list is a lot sadder and disappointing then anyone who supports him will ever admit (although if he wins after a few years the country will turn on him like his successful current republican president :lol )

Lunor 13-Oct-2008 00:56

No, I sure wouldn't. She doesn't seem qualified, from my limited experience with her from the news and the vice presidential debates.
She also seems like a bit of a loose cannon, in a bad way.

Then again, I wouldn't vote for McCain either unless he kept close to the line between republicans and democrats like he was early in the early days of running for president. If he had stayed there I would have been much more interested in him. Of course, Obama/Biden would still be preferable for me, so I suppose it was a good idea of him to go more rightwing to tie up those votes.


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:13.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.