My quick 25,000 foot overveiw on the debate.

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Jarv, Oct 16, 2008.

  1. Jarv

    Jarv Loud pipes saves lives.

    7,969 Messages
    869 Likes Received
    Obama is for big government and McCain is for big business.

    Both are corrupt in my opinion, but business is more efficient. That is why I'm voting for McCain, who was not my first choice (Huckabee).

  2. iceberg

    iceberg well at least we're not the browns Zone Supporter

    30,976 Messages
    3,683 Likes Received
    i didn't care for mccain's juvenille antics he did far too often. he made some very good points but in the end he just came off as the class smartarse.

    obama, more professional in appearance but i did understand what mccain said - "pretty words, saying nothing".

    at almost every turn obama kept saying the government should come in and fix the problem. to me the government caused many of the problems we in now so how can they help fix education, say, when they can't even fix their own "house"?

    obama wants the government to control things and that scares me greatly. mccain, while not all that professional in his demenaor, wants to let the businesses decide.

    i'm more for working for your living, not letting the government dictate those terms, so i see what mccain is saying. but obama time after time after time - "the governemnt needs to come in and fix that" tells me all about him.

    almost a "control freak" so to speak.

    just a bad year for candidates, i suppose.
  3. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,162 Messages
    11,461 Likes Received
    I think they are both full of it.

    To me you can argue one won it or the other but at this point I don't think it was enough to help McCain much or hurt Obama much. One looked like a petulant child the other looked like a calm guy, one could argue too calm.

    I don't care for either of these guys health care plans.

    One wants to say you will get the same health care plan that the senators and congressmen get and I say bull. You are not going to get the same quality of care that they get even if you get the same insurance as they get. Plus I think if he wins he will wind up putting it on the back burner because other problems out there will be worked on first and the money will be too tied up for it.

    The other wants to take away employee insurance from the employer (or tax it heavily) and give a $5000 tax credit for insurance for the employee (that is if you have kids...if you don't it will be $2500 instead). I don't know about you but that does not even make the average family or single annual health care premium rates in my state.

    On top of that what will happen under his plan is that insurance programs will set up in states that have less regulation so although they might be a tad cheaper and might fall under the amount he is saying...they will also be subpar insurance programs because they will not be required to do things that other states require out on an insurance system.

    So in the end I don't like either guys plans on health care.

    Concerning taxes.

    I find it hard for one guy to be up there talking about cutting taxes, reforming government, controlling earmarks and so on when he just voted for an $800+billion dollar bail out that will probably wind up being a trillion before it is all said and done. A bail out that was full of "goodies" / pork.

    Also saying he will veto every thing that comes his way concerning spending, pork or earmarks. Well that is nice to say but if we have a Dem controlled government it is nothing more than a talking point because the veto can get overturned.

    I never care for one party controlling the presidency, the congress and the senate because what that party wants it what that party gets and it always leads to corruption. However at the same time I don't know what a president can do other than a moral self victory with a veto if the other party controls both congress and senate.

    I don't think either one of these guys can come close to balancing the budget in one term but the only one I have heard claim he can is McCain. I would like to have some of his multivitamins he is taking because I want to get them tested.:D

    The energy plan issues of these guys.

    Notice both say wind, solar, hydro and stuff. Both are now saying to drill off shore. Drilling off shore is nice but it is not even close to the answer right now. We consume more oil per year than we can ever get from domestic drilling. So some years down the line that might help but it is NOT going to get us dependent from Foreign oil because we just consume too much. Furthermore I don't trust the oil companies from selling the oil they drill to other countries because they may feel they can make a few more dollars that way.
    Nukes are a good idea but I wonder how McCain proposes that it get done. With the current market crisis who out there has the money to make 45 new plants in his first term or for some time? Is the government going to give some money towards that and if so is that not again giving away government money?

    Even if we do find a way to get these plants made in a short exactly is that going to help us reduce our trouble with oil in autos.
    Does that mean we are all going to be driving electric cars powered by electric provided by nukes?

    Could we get the same amount of energy for a comparable price if we set up some windmills in rural areas. I know there is no way the government would not let me or a group of private citizens put up our own nukes in our neighborhood or an individual on their own property.
    But we could do that with windmills. We also don't have to worry about waste and I would imagine the long and short term maitanence on them would be much cheaper. Same with solar energy.

    And if anything terrible would happen with a nuke, whether it just be an accident, an act of nature, a terrorist attack or anything of that nature than not only is the plant ruined but you would have damage for miles that could last for years.

    If a field of windmills gets damaged by the same possibilities as I mentioned for nukes, the worse that happens is that you have to fix them, replace them and some people would be out of power. No dangers for miles or for years. Same with Solar.

    The problem I see is are we really going to finally put the time, effort, legislation, money into these alternate energies we have been promising since carter or are we going to use the bulk of the money and legislation filling politicians own pockets by continuing to back big oil and drilling while letting the other areas fall by the wasteside?

    I am not sure I trust either in that area. Maybe I have heard it since Carter that we need to get off the oil and yet here we are in yet another election talking about the same crap again with no real end in sight.

    So these debates are fun to watch and argue about. But in the end they keep the repub base voting for McCain they keep the dems voting for Obama.
    I personally found them resolving my plan of not voting for either.

    However this race falls to the undecideds...and at this point it seems they lean more towards obama from what I have seen on the CNN, CBS, MSNBC polls and the focus groups for both CNN and FOX indicate that the undecideds are leaning that way as well.

    This thing is not over yet, anything can happen in the last 20 days. However unless something dramatic happens it appears that obama has the lead and I don't know if McCain can do enough to catch and pass him. But like I said, it is not over yet because anything can happen.
  4. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods Zone Supporter

    5,887 Messages
    1,039 Likes Received
    Ultimately, I think the moderator failed. Here we are in the middle of an unprecedented financial crisis and not one question about how the bailout will work, alternative schemes for stimulating the economy, or plans should the $700 billion fail to stabilize the situation.

    As much as people lament "socialism" on this board, I've watched political debates on state run media outlets in foreign "socialist" countries and they were far more substantive in content and included more than just the representatives of the two major parties.
  5. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,162 Messages
    11,461 Likes Received
    Someone brought up a point in one of the post debate shows.

    Isn't it odd that during the republican primaries one of the biggest issues among the candidates was not the economy...but immigration.

    Yet I don't think we have had one question or answer concerning immigration in the three presidential debates or the VP debates.

    Just funny how things were so important at one time yet have barely, if at all, been brought up in the debates or major talking points in the rallies.

Share This Page