|
|
| Author |
Message |
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: McCain claims to know nothing about economics |
 |
|
This election is rapidly coming to be about economics rather than the war since it seems America is in recession. While McCain can genuinely make claims to having military experience and the two democrats cant.
He is all over the board on his economics point of view with a history of being not so conservative. He has been (in the past) against the tax breaks for the rich, and yet now wants to keep them, and has offered no governmental solution to this foreclosure crisis. He has in fact asked publicly for suggestions rather than lead us into a better economy.
How can McCain keep his conservative core votes with an election based on economic issues?
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1390
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
fair point that is concerning to many conservatives...I think he'll make a balancing choice for VP (someone with strong economic credentials) and will trust that he'll be Reagan-like in cabinet choices...
The thing that will keep the core is that while conservative don't like McCain's stance on immigration and the economy (both issues where he's leaned "liberal") they absolutely can't stand the socialist proposals by either Mr. Hop'nChange nor Mrs. I-dodged-sniper-fire.
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Given the fact that liberals out number conservative about 55-45 so much of what wins elections is getting out the core.
Conservatives win when the liberals are divided and most importantly when the conservatives get out the vote big time.
This time the liberals are unified on the economy and mostly with the war and at this present McCain's core will be soft at best. Both sides of this election are liberal leaning leaving nowhere for true conservatives (Bloomberg wont run I'm guessing). How many times during this election cycle will the media ask McCain what his views on abortion ,gays and the economy are exposing just how non-conservative he is. We know without a doubt that both of the dems are liberal and it seems that Obama is great at getting out the core+ any crossovers from the left of center republicans.
My guess is this will be like the Johnson-Goldwater election results.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1390
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McCain will struggle with core Republicans...but he'll draw soccer moms and steelworker dads (that vast majority of voters that are actually "independent" working americans)
I think that McCain-Clinton will be similar to Bush-Gore...
McCain-Obama will look like Reagan-Carter....this racial stuff with Obama is burbling below the surface despite the media's best efforts to bury it.
Not directly related, but worth linking, This open letter to the DNC is certainly worth a read...the author is a retired Army Colonel...oh, and she's a black woman.
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6093
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | Not directly related, but worth linking, This open letter to the DNC is certainly worth a read...the author is a retired Army Colonel...oh, and she's a black woman. |
Someone doesn't know much about the history of the Democratic party beyond historical events. (Hint: before the 1900s it was pretty much the opposite of what it is today. It didn't really become "progressive" until 1896.) The Democratic party of today is completely different and in no way responsible for most of the actions listed. Why should they apologize?
| Quote: | Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans, |
It was a Democrat that added the prohibition against sex discrimination. The reason Democrats were against the act in the first place was because they knew they'd lose support in the South (and this did happen) so it's not particularly surprising that Southern Democrats voted against it.
| Quote: | | Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote, |
"Caging lists." It's been happening for a while and as far as is known are used solely by Republicans
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1390
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Someone doesn't know much about the history of the Democratic party beyond historical events. |
I'm sorry, is there some sort of "existential" understanding we're supposed to have "beyond historical events"? The Whig party died once it was no longer viable...the Republican party grew out of abolitionism...
| FFT wrote: |
It didn't really become "progressive" until 1896.) |
what do you mean by "progressive"? Socialist? that probably started around 1968.
| FFT wrote: |
The Democratic party of today is completely different and in no way responsible for most of the actions listed. Why should they apologize? |
well you clearly read the link...I think your last question is self-evident.
| FFT wrote: |
It was a Democrat that added the prohibition against sex discrimination. |
Great, so that member wasn't a sexist in addition to possibly not being a racist...we'll just assume that he (or she) was one of the 61% that voted for the act...care to make excuses for the other 39%?
| FFT wrote: |
The reason Democrats were against the act in the first place was because they knew they'd lose support in the South (and this did happen) |
I'm not sure if "and" or "so" is more appropriate...."Oh, I can't vote for this clearly morally correct position because....uh...it might fail if I vote FOR it"...you're kidding right?
| FFT wrote: |
so it's not particularly surprising that Southern Democrats voted against it. |
I agree...but for different reasons.
| FFT wrote: |
Caging lists.... It's been happening for a while and as far as is known are used solely by Republicans |
Read the link to caging lists...conceed that that's possible, although I think both sides try to a) stuff the ballot box and b) settle elections in court...
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6093
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | I'm sorry, is there some sort of "existential" understanding we're supposed to have "beyond historical events"? |
Well, uh, yeah. Historical event wise, Columbus discovered the New World, etc. Look a bit deeper and you realize that he actually thought the world was smaller than it is and so on and so forth. To look at the events related to the Democratic party while completely ignoring why they happened and how different the current Democratic party is is to completely miss the point.
| Pondering wrote: | | Great, so that member wasn't a sexist in addition to possibly not being a racist...we'll just assume that he (or she) was one of the 61% that voted for the act...care to make excuses for the other 39%? |
Already did, so to speak. They knew if they voted for the act they'd lose support in the South.
| Pondering wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | The reason Democrats were against the act in the first place was because they knew they'd lose support in the South (and this did happen) |
I'm not sure if "and" or "so" is more appropriate...."Oh, I can't vote for this clearly morally correct position because....uh...it might fail if I vote FOR it"...you're kidding right? |
I'm not entirely sure where "it might fail if I vote FOR it" was even a part of the equation. Care to explain?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1390
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
sure, I claim that the Dem party has a history of supporting segregation, repressing blacks and creating a depedent welfare class...you claim that that may be true prior to 1900, but after that, it's a completely different party (I think that's what you're saying)...
So I countered with the low # of Dems that supported Civil Rights legislation...you said that if they did, they'd loose support in the south.
I don't see how that's relavent...your claim seems to say that party unity over-ruled doing what was morally right. The historical example I gave is the Whig party...once that party became too staid in its platform and that platform didn't draw enough supporters, a new party evolved (the Republicans) and the whig party died...
The Dems could have done the same thing...but didn't. and still don't....and so they sacrifice doing what is "right" for what is politically expedient...had the "northern Democrats" voted for the Civil Rights Act, the Southern Democrats would have had 2 choices...accept the will of people or leave the party. Instead, the northern Dems (I assume) voted against the legislation....for the good of the "party"...and so, continued to support policies that carry back prior to 1900.
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pondering you made an obvious mistake when you attributed socialism to the 1968 election. What about our great depression president Roosevelt? not a socialist? Well I'll ignore that little gaff and go on to suggest that there really isn't any socialists in the current democratic party. Not real socialist in the sense of the Scandinavian countries.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6093
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | I don't see how that's relavent...your claim seems to say that party unity over-ruled doing what was morally right. |
"Politics."
| Pondering wrote: | | The Dems could have done the same thing...but didn't. and still don't....and so they sacrifice doing what is "right" for what is politically expedient...had the "northern Democrats" voted for the Civil Rights Act, the Southern Democrats would have had 2 choices...accept the will of people or leave the party. Instead, the northern Dems (I assume) voted against the legislation....for the good of the "party"...and so, continued to support policies that carry back prior to 1900. |
What? If all of the Southern Democrats voted against it, how did a majority of Democrats vote for it if Northern Democrats also didn't vote for it in any appreciable quantity?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in 1964 president Johnson had congress's cahones ( too many people in congress owed him favors) in a sling and he could get whatever he wanted. You forgot the "great society" programs (another socialist programs) he set in motion, Pondering.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2543
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Getting back to the OP:
McCain yesterday reversed his position (like how many other positions) and confessed to knowing economics better than the dems. (??????)
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6901
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think his two remarks are complimentary: he knows nothing about economics but he knows more about it than the Dem's....
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1390
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not a huge McCain fan...he talks about finding solutions to (non-existent) Global warming....he supported a basic amnesty plan...his campaign finance reform...didn't reform campaign finance....yada yada yada....
but I don't think he's a flip-flopper...the only reversal I can think of is.........amnesty. And I'm OK with that! He flipped the "right" way 
the other "correction" he's made, is he regrets not supporting making MLK Jr Day a holiday...he apologized for that yesterday, got booed...took his punishment and gave a nice speech...
I will say, I respect the heck out of the guy and am looking forward to his innaugaration next year
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7629
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | I'm not a huge McCain fan...he talks about finding solutions to (non-existent) Global warming.... |
Oh, are we back to outright denying global warming again? I thought that we'd progressed past this and now were arguing whether or not it was caused by humans...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
