Obama vs. McCain

[Hustler]

Let's hear it.

[rhinosaur]

McCain because he's a Republican, duh. :rolleyes:

[Works]

Obama because I'm hooked on the koolaid.

[Anonymous]

Let's hear it.

I know you don't vote, but what do you think?

I'm voting for Obama, myself. For one, he has a far greater voting score (http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-vs-mccain-environment-opening-bell) on environmental issues, and while that's no guarantee that he will continue to vote that way, at least it's something. I'm also guessing that he will be less likely to play into the hands of special interest groups. He will no doubt, I'm sure they all do, but he does seem to have more standards than McCain, but that's just speculation.

To be honest, I don't really like either Obama or McCain, but I'm hoping that Obama will be less likely continue Bush's track record.

[starla]

Right now, my vote is Obama's to lose. I voted Hilary in the primaries, so I'm not as excited about him as I could be, but he's got some good qualities. Plus, McCain is so old he'll probably be dead by the time November rolls around. I'm not picking an option in the poll just yet. It's a long ways to election day.

[Noses]

Obama, just to piss Dad off.

Although, Generally, I've discovered that Obama and I agree on things far more often than me and McCain. Obama can still lose me to McCain, if he's not careful.

[Ptah]

Ron Paul.

[Oso Mocoso]

I haven't made up my mind yet. I am tempted to vote McCain more because the thought of the House, Senate, and White House all in the hands of one party scares the crap out of me. Whenever either party has their hands on that kind of power it's always an orgy of stupid spending and corruption. And right now the country really can't afford that.

On the other hand, I think McCain is a really weak candidate. He's inarticulate (okay, maybe not in comparison to Bush), and he isn't at all charismatic. He just doesn't exude "strong leader". And he's too old.

[rawr]

Ron Paul.

:happpy:

[Limey]

McCain is a fucking cracka ass cracka.

[rawr]

Cracker ass crackers are better than communists. I could do without the war mongering, but at least he's talking about a tight fiscal policy. Even though he really can't tell the Fed to do anything, it's nice to know that he might actually have sound economic advisers rather than socialists.

[Ptah]

... must ... not ... get ... started.

[rawr]

I just vote for who holds the most libertarian values. Sadly, this round it happens to be Juan Mckennedy.

[Ptah]

I just vote for who holds the most libertarian values. Sadly, this round it happens to be Juan Mckennedy.

Although libertarians are just like objectivists gone retarded, I would be minded to do the same ... if I bothered to vote whatsoever. Setting aside what else can be said of Ron Paul, I almost almost registered to vote this year on his account.

But then, an election won't change anything as much as a good old reformat and rebuild would. Sometimes, the system's just too pooched.

[Zephyrus055]

McCain. Because despite the poor foreign policy and religious attitudes, he's better than a socialist.

[Ptah]

McCain. Because despite the poor foreign policy and religious attitudes, he's better than a socialist.

And what's better than a statist/nigh-fascist?

[M.L.Fay]

Obama, he'll provide better entertainment than McCain. Also, I like the funny sound when illusion crashes into reality.

[nozflubber]

Obama on the sole premise that the presidency needs a new face in the international arena other than another old, grey haired white guy. Racist, maybe, but he would open up many more diplomatic possibilities that McCain could and would not indulge. I hate superficiality, but the truth is image matters.

[Meliora]

My view is a combo of M.L.Fay and nozfubber.:gm:

[garak]

And what's better than a statist/nigh-fascist?

Yeah I really have no idea how anyone with any reasoning ability could even consider voting for McCain over Obama.

The guy is for torture, he's against habeas corpus, he called his wife a trollop (whore) and a cunt in front of other people in 92, he said in 2000 that he will hate "the gooks" for as long as he lives, he votes overwhelmingly in line with what Dubya is for, he's an economic ignoramus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo), he justifies staying in Iraq with emotional pandering garbage about "honor" when the reality is that people are dying horribly for this retarded "honor" that only he seems to be so excited about, he sells out vets on their benefits (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080602/beutler), he cheated on his crippled wife for a year with a hot young bimbo and then finally got a divorce, his bimbo wife ran a charity as a front for the purpose of embezzling pain killers to feed her addiction while raising her young children, she plagiarized a Hershey's cookie recipe, he completely fabricated stories about how one could walk around in Baghdad as an American without any protection which was absurdly false, and damn he's old.

And as for this tired, simplistic, cliche "left" vs "right" crap about Obama being a socialist -- America is already somewhat socialist and that's not going to go away under either of these guys. The difference is that with Obama, the regular person might actually benefit from the socialist programs. With McCain it's more likely to be socialism for the megacorps and "free market" exploitation for the suckers working 40 hours.

He's also made a lot of little fuckups that paint a picture of declining memory and/or cognitive functions. Here's a good one to illustrate the point: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/



Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

[dubbeltop]

Obama vs. McCain

Obama, the first black kennedy in a long time.....

[Madrigal]

I must say Obama is hotter :drool:, but where's the "they're both imperialist bourgeois @$%&#!" option?

[Madrigal]

Cracker ass crackers are better than communists. I could do without the war mongering, but at least he's talking about a tight fiscal policy. Even though he really can't tell the Fed to do anything, it's nice to know that he might actually have sound economic advisers rather than socialists.

Joke of the day brought to you by rawr

[eggs]

I'm going to vote for myself.

[C.J.Woolf]

I wonder if any of the racists who still adore Bush realize that their man made Obama's candidacy possible. The irony is delicious.


Cracker ass crackers are better than communists.
That statement might be relevant if either one of those was running.

[Ivy]

garak = the man

totally agree with every word except the ones McCain said.

[iksikaksi]

Eventhough I don?t vote because Im Colombian I would preferr McCain so that our trade relations would continue as before. Obama is unwilling to create a free trade agreement with Colombia due to the democrats policy of protecting American jobs. Yet at the same time free trade is essential for the future development of my country we need to export other goods besides cocaine. Not to mention that we are surrounded by leftist governments and crazy maniacs by the names of Hugo Chavez and Correa. I have my fingers crossed for McCain.
Viva Uribe!

[MacGuffin]

Posts Moved to here (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=29823).

[Domino]

I'm voting for Obama. (Wanted Hillary, but oh well).

I have too strong an urge to throw myself protectively over John McCain after everything he's been through. If I survived the Hanoi Hilton, no way would I run for an office almost guaranteed to give me more exhaustion and mental stress.

[Zephyrus055]

And what's better than a statist/nigh-fascist?
Someone for minimal government and minimal government involvement in the economy. Obama is about further expansion of government control in the economy, and raping the upper middle class/lower rich. He said that "rich people" are households than earn $90,000. WTF? That means he's for eliminating competition for the upper class and therefore allowing for implicit or explicit cartels to increase. He's also for social control because he alludes to policies that will increase our dependency on the state, and our obligations to it. For example, he wants desperate college students to commit to community service or the peace corps in exchange for more government aid! If you ask me, Obama is the Fascist/Statist.

I don't mean to say that McCain isn't for the upper class, but at least he won't rape the upper middle class. Imo, a strong upper middle class is imperative for checking the power of the upper class and minimizing plutocracy. Obama's policies will increase plutocracy.


Yeah I really have no idea how anyone with any reasoning ability could even consider voting for McCain over Obama.

The guy is for torture, he's against habeas corpus, he called his wife a trollop (whore) and a cunt in front of other people in 92, he said in 2000 that he will hate "the gooks" for as long as he lives, he votes overwhelmingly in line with what Dubya is for, he's an economic ignoramus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo), he justifies staying in Iraq with emotional pandering garbage about "honor" when the reality is that people are dying horribly for this retarded "honor" that only he seems to be so excited about, he sells out vets on their benefits (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080602/beutler), he cheated on his crippled wife for a year with a hot young bimbo and then finally got a divorce, his bimbo wife ran a charity as a front for the purpose of embezzling pain killers to feed her addiction while raising her young children, she plagiarized a Hershey's cookie recipe, he completely fabricated stories about how one could walk around in Baghdad as an American without any protection which was absurdly false, and damn he's old.

And as for this tired, simplistic, cliche "left" vs "right" crap about Obama being a socialist -- America is already somewhat socialist and that's not going to go away under either of these guys. The difference is that with Obama, the regular person might actually benefit from the socialist programs. With McCain it's more likely to be socialism for the megacorps and "free market" exploitation for the suckers working 40 hours.

He's also made a lot of little fuckups that paint a picture of declining memory and/or cognitive functions. Here's a good one to illustrate the point: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...iv-prevention/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/)
Yes, McCain is a nasty guy. But if you understand my understanding of Obama, you will see why I think McCain is the lesser evil.

[Madrigal]

Eventhough I don?t vote because Im Colombian I would preferr McCain so that our trade relations would continue as before. Obama is unwilling to create a free trade agreement with Colombia due to the democrats policy of protecting American jobs. Yet at the same time free trade is essential for the future development of my country we need to export other goods besides cocaine. Not to mention that we are surrounded by leftist governments and crazy maniacs by the names of Hugo Chavez and Correa. I have my fingers crossed for McCain.
Viva Uribe!
I would like to repeat my initial post, dunno why it was removed (are we getting excessively anal or am I hallucinating?), that stated that "free trade" between a third world country and an imperialist one means that the third world country gets fucked. Look up the effects of NAFTA on Mexico for information on the matter. PS: And also I hope Uribe drops dead.

[C.J.Woolf]

Obama's policies will increase plutocracy.
Reagan and G.W. Bush have increased plutocracy. Their policies redistributed wealth upward, mostly to the top 1%. McCain says he wants to continue those policies. So pardon me if I don't believe you.

[MacGuffin]

I would like to repeat my initial post, dunno why it was removed (are we getting excessively anal or am I hallucinating
Blame demagogic_schizoid.

His essay tipped it and I moved all related posts.

[Oso Mocoso]

Yes, McCain is a nasty guy. But if you understand my understanding of Obama, you will see why I think McCain is the lesser evil.

Yeah, a lot of people only focus on the candidates as people. "Do you think this candidate is a good guy?" is a very different question than "What effect do you think this candidate's policies will have on the country?" Obama seems likely to tear down the already weakened U.S. middle class.

[C.J.Woolf]

Obama seems likely to tear down the already weakened U.S. middle class.
Broken record time. The Republicans are tearing down the middle class right now! If you're against the New Deal and unions then you're against the US middle class, because the New Deal and unions made the mass middle class possible. Please explain how Obama could do worse than the GOP.

[Madrigal]

Blame demagogic_schizoid.

His essay tipped it and I moved all related posts.
Well, I didn't have time to read his post but I think that it's pertinent to discuss the relationship between a future US government and Latin America - that is the way I relate to this thread topic best. I do think threads are better split when the new topic takes over the thread and not when it's just a harmless deviation, though. Also, the Uribe thing is a bit of a slap in the face considering his violation of human and territorial rights, and may deserve its own thread - but I can't pretend I didn't read the comment either, you understand...

Columbia is a country with extreme US intervention, almost comparable to Israel, so I don't think it's terribly irrelevant to discuss its fate in the context of the US presidential elections.

;P

[MacGuffin]

Rambling tirades go in their own threads!

P.S. Obama

[rawr]

Someone for minimal government and minimal government involvement in the economy. Obama is about further expansion of government control in the economy, and raping the upper middle class/lower rich. He said that "rich people" are households than earn $90,000. WTF? That means he's for eliminating competition for the upper class and therefore allowing for implicit or explicit cartels to increase. He's also for social control because he alludes to policies that will increase our dependency on the state, and our obligations to it. For example, he wants desperate college students to commit to community service or the peace corps in exchange for more government aid! If you ask me, Obama is the Fascist/Statist.

I don't mean to say that McCain isn't for the upper class, but at least he won't rape the upper middle class. Imo, a strong upper middle class is imperative for checking the power of the upper class and minimizing plutocracy. Obama's policies will increase plutocracy.


Yes, McCain is a nasty guy. But if you understand my understanding of Obama, you will see why I think McCain is the lesser evil.

:highfive:

I'm glad someone else understands how rights are forfitted when you ask the government to take care of things for you.

This election really seems like a complete setup to me. Mccain was the weakest candidate out of any of the republican debates. It seems to me as if he were hand picked to be a lame duck so even the most staunch conservatives would vote for Obama as a means to "solve" the problem. I don't think he's going to solve anything and is only going to create more FDRish, new deal socialist programs that will further strengthen the federal government and put a damper on anyone with ambition who can make this country a better place to live in.

[Madrigal]

Rambling tirades go in their own threads!


Hmm, that just doesn't have the MacGuffin je ne sais quoi without Vadar in your avatar.

[Domino]

Hmm, that just doesn't have the MacGuffin je ne sais quoi without Vadar in your avatar.

He's in Victorian Angst mode, less Space Angst.

[Madrigal]

He's in Victorian Angst mode, less Space Angst.

Hmm I dunno which is gayer, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Kidding Mac I love your new avatar. :smooch:

Meanwhile, the more I hang out here, the more tempted I get to actually vote for Obama. And that's not good. [This post will self-destruct.]

[Anonymous]

Hmm I dunno which is gayer, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Kidding Mac I love your new avatar. :smooch:

Meanwhile, the more I hang out here, the more tempted I get to actually vote for Obama. And that's not good. [This post will self-destruct.]

I dunno, if we allowed the citizens of other nations to vote in our elections, maybe we'd have better outcomes. :ph34r:

[C.J.Woolf]

Meanwhile, the more I hang out here, the more tempted I get to actually vote for Obama. And that's not good.
I guess it depends on whether you prefer incremental, albeit agonizingly slow, change for the better, or you want everything to go to hell so a revolution can happen.

Progressives save capitalism from itself. They're about to do it again -- I hope.


[This post will self-destruct.]
Ha! Too late!

[Ptah]

I guess it depends on whether you prefer incremental, albeit agonizingly slow, change for the better, or you want everything to go to hell so a revolution can happen.

One vote for everything going to hell and a revolution, pronto.

Edit: perhaps then I should vote McCain, so the war continues/gets worse, we get bombed into the stone age, and then...

[Oso Mocoso]

Broken record time. The Republicans are tearing down the middle class right now! If you're against the New Deal and unions then you're against the US middle class, because the New Deal and unions made the mass middle class possible. Please explain how Obama could do worse than the GOP.

Actually, the economic fallout of World War 2 was what made the U.S. middle class as we knew it possible.

But don't get me wrong. The Republicans have massively fucked the U.S. middle class. They've fucked them like a jailed bodybuilding gay rapist with an accountant for a cellmate. But if the accountant gets a new cellmate that doesn't mean he's not going to get raped some more.

Bush built up a massive debt. Whoever follows him is going to be left to clean that up, and the only real solution is going to be to increase taxes without giving people anything to show for it. All the money is just going to be paying back debt plus interest. I'm not saying I'd prefer the Republicans to the Democrats, but I'd definitely prefer a government scenario where both parties have to agree on something in order to throw money at it. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, and if they can walk all over their opposition party they'll probably blow the treasury on pork barrels.

[meanlittlechimp]

I could do without the war mongering, but at least he's talking about a tight fiscal policy. Even though he really can't tell the Fed to do anything, it's nice to know that he might actually have sound economic advisers rather than socialists.

Tight fiscal policy? His support of this idiotic war has incurred huge debt (with the estimated costs in the trillions of dollars); which is the OPPOSITE of tight fiscal policy. Just the interest rate on this debt will dwarf almost every other government expenditure including education, social services etc. Also, the fed has nothing to do with fiscal policy - that's monetary policy.

As for the candidates, it clearly has to be Obama. McCain is a daft superstitious old coot.

He keeps on his person a lucky compass, a lucky feather, a lucky penny and, at times, a lucky rock. He assigns Weaver to carry his lucky pen--a Zebra Jimnie Gel Rollerball (medium, blue)--at all times. For added luck, he wears his magical L.L. Bean rubber-soled dress shoes.

"I'm wearing my lucky shoes from today till Sunday," McCain says from his bus on Wednesday. At the moment, his pockets contain the compass, feather (from a tribal leader) and penny (flattened, in his wallet). When McCain once misplaced his feather, there was momentary panic in the campaign, until his wife found it in one of his suits. When the compass went missing once, McCain assigned his political director to hunt it down. Weaver found it, and it remains safe, knock wood.

Primary day requires additional rituals. By the time you read this, Steve Dart, McCain's lucky friend, should have arrived in South Carolina from California. He has been present with McCain for every Election Day since McCain first won a seat in Congress. McCain must sleep on a certain side of the bed, particularly before an election (and he never puts a hat on a bed--bad luck). Rain is good for Election Day, as are motion pictures. McCain requires himself to view a movie before the vote is counted. He fell asleep in his hotel room in New Hampshire before he watched a movie on primary day, but his staff didn't panic. "We have superstition fire walls," says Todd Harris, a spokesman.

That's for sure. Even some foods carry special powers. McCain insists that he and his staff eat barbecue--"our lucky food," says Cindy McCain, the candidate's wife--before each debate, sending Wiles out to find ribs or pulled pork even in New Hampshire or Michigan.

"McCain himself, when flying during Vietnam, insisted that his visor be cleaned by his parachute rigger immediately before each flight. "A lot of guys are superstitious who are aviators," the candidate says. "It's either a pilot thing or a stupid thing."

Don't tell Jim Merrill it's a stupid thing. Merrill, McCain's South Carolina director, blends secular rituals with the sacred. "I try to hit confession prior to the election--I don't want anything to be blamed on me," he says. Yes, and then what? "I hit one bucket of golf balls in the morning." Merrill didn't observe this superstition during his last race, a gubernatorial campaign, and his candidate lost, needless to say.

Even those who never entertained superstition in their lives succumb to the voodoo. "I've started wood knocking," says John Raidt, McCain's policy guy. "You see everybody else doing it." McCain staff meetings must sound like a game of knock rummy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/19/067r-021900-idx.html

[Zephyrus055]

Reagan and G.W. Bush have increased plutocracy. Their policies redistributed wealth upward, mostly to the top 1%. McCain says he wants to continue those policies. So pardon me if I don't believe you.
Only because there is less strain on income strategies other than trading hours for dollars. Sadly, this is the only way people know how to make money. So there is more income inequality, yes, but it has also allowed for a fluid upper class consisting of individuals who merit their wealth. It's not like we have a static upper class (a nobility) and the Republicans let them get richer. It is that we have a fluid upper class unlike ever before, and the tax benefits for investing or owning your own business give people unprecedented opportunity. This means that the smartest people in business have opportunities to get rich and keep their income. Among the elite, new members come in and old members leave all the time. This fluidity is also at an extent unlike ever before. If you want to be rich, it's much easier if you know how to do it.

So income inequality is not something I am concerned about, except for maybe the people who only know how to trade hours for dollars. It is fluidity. Under the Republicans we may have had a worsened plutocracy because of income inequality, but under the Democrats we will have a static upper class because of diminished opportunities (like taxes that rape the upper middle class) that eliminate the wonderful fluidity among the upper class. A plutocracy of the Republican idea is way better than a plutocracy of the Democratic idea. With the Republicans, the meritorious get mega rich and powerful, while with the Democrats the non-meritorious stay rich and powerful because they have less competition and can afford more mistakes.

As for the middle class getting raped, first of all we shouldn't call the middle class the middle class. Call them the upper working class or something. $35,000 of personal income just shouldn't be called middle class. A middle class income is a personal income of around $60,000 or more, or a household income of $100,000 or more. In other words, working professionals, typically with university degrees or small business owners. Now we call them the upper middle class, but historically they were the middle class. And this is the middle class I'm referring to. The democrats want to rape this class at the expense of the upper class, they always do. If you rape this class, you also decrease the possibility of people moving up the economic chain. Moreover, you help create cartels in the market and stabilizing power by doing so.


Yeah, a lot of people only focus on the candidates as people. "Do you think this candidate is a good guy?" is a very different question than "What effect do you think this candidate's policies will have on the country?" Obama seems likely to tear down the already weakened U.S. middle class.


:highfive:

I'm glad someone else understands how rights are forfitted when you ask the government to take care of things for you.

This election really seems like a complete setup to me. Mccain was the weakest candidate out of any of the republican debates. It seems to me as if he were hand picked to be a lame duck so even the most staunch conservatives would vote for Obama as a means to "solve" the problem. I don't think he's going to solve anything and is only going to create more FDRish, new deal socialist programs that will further strengthen the federal government and put a damper on anyone with ambition who can make this country a better place to live in.
Exactly :).

[rawr]

Tight fiscal policy? His support of this idiotic war has incurred huge debt (with the estimated costs in the trillions of dollars); which is the OPPOSITE of tight fiscal policy. Just the interest rate on this debt will dwarf almost every other government expenditure including education, social services etc. Also, the fed has nothing to do with fiscal policy - that's monetary policy.



Ok, you caught me on my loose word choice. I'm specifically referring to pressuring the fed into selling bonds and raising the discount rate to a respectable level.

[bonsai]

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/Obama%20Button0001.JPG

[Ferrus]

Progressives save capitalism from itself. They're about to do it again -- I hope.
What actually seems to happen is this:

a) Capitalism starts to fail - social collapse inevitable (1930s)

b) Quickly to Keynesianism to give the poor enough scraps so they don't revolt, regulation, dirigisme (WW2-1970's - - and also the pre-capitalist guide/village system on a smaller scale)

c) This controls cause problems in themselves, stop-go economy, inflation, the new larger middle class wants to be free! Votes for abolishing regulation, Thatcherism, Reaganomics etc. (1980s and also arguably the early 19th century)

d) The gap between rich and poor becomes greater, social meltdown, the insufficient government control leads to firms becoming monopolies - Keynesian regulation has to be brought back in! (Now)

The quadrille of modern capitalism.

One of the great lies is that Thatcher and Reagan lead to the last 25 or so years of (relative) economic stability - which I suggest is largely nonesense. It has a lot more to do with a working class quiescence not seen since the 19th century, which has meant that the measurements the plutocracy seek for economic health are doing fine if not everyone else and dirt cheap oil.

[rawr]

What actually happens is

1) Central bank allows for the creation of too many checking accounts in hopes that the added capital will create more progress.

2) Extra money in the economy brings a short term artificial boost.

3) Phillips curve catches up, people begin to recognize inflation.

4) Central bank now has an opportunity to do it's job, but refuses to do so because it's working off of faulty market projections rather than reality.

5) Economy goes to hell

6) Progressives (cute term for socialists/communists) blame capitalism and assume that all the rich people are stealing their money while they're poor and jobless :'( . Although, what actually happens is they sign away their rights to their money and the money of other people that they have not earned (stealing anyone?) by allowing the government to tax the shit out of the people who have the potential to make their community a better place to live in. The people who have the power and desire to create jobs and fund local organizations. The irony of this is they're calling on the government to control the means of production and wealth distribution when the whole source of the problem comes from the government not being able to efficiently and responsibly respond to the market.

7) The new added social programs allow for a rapid, artificial distribution of wealth that look good on the short term, but have really hurt the economy in the long term. The damage comes from stripping capital and incentive from the people who had ambition to get ahead in life.

8) That god damn Long Term Phillips curve catches up with the economy again, now everyone is broke.

9) Federal government now has more control over the system and will not be repaired until a "progressive" like Jimmy Carter completely fucks up the system and Americans realize they need another Reagan.

[zaazusmiles]

:joft: <-- Vote!
Kidding aside, may the best man win !

one more thing, vote wisely this coming elections day. :ph34r:

And an early Happy 4th of July to everyone!

[TorrentMama]

I can't decide.. I don't like either one. I would have given the office to Huckabee or Hillary. Yea, I realize their differences. Fuck, I wish I could vote for bill clinton.

I'm scared that an inexperienced obama may get in and go crazy with a dem house and it'll be run-away liberal legislation all the way. Plus I sense that he's disingenuious. Does anyone else pick up on that or is it just my slanted view?

that being said, Bush murdered my fiance in Iraq and I'm not fully resolved that McFuckBag isn't Bush 2.

[meanlittlechimp]

What actually happens is

3) Phillips curve catches up, people begin to recognize inflation.

6) Progressives (cute term for socialists/communists) blame capitalism and assume that all the rich people are stealing their money while they're poor and jobless

The Phillips curve was disproved some time ago. The mere existence of stagflation shows the relationship between inflation and unemployment doesn't necessarily have to be inversely correlated. Progressives are really socialists/communists? They don't blame capitalism, they just blame dumb right wingers, who don't have a clue about economics.

It bugs the hell out of the right, that tax monies are wasted on social programs, but it's perfectly fine to blow tax monies bombing foreigners who aren't a threat to the US. They talk about fiscal conservatism, but waste FAR money on jails, and bombs, than the left ever did on social programs. Clinton balanced the budget, and Bush unbalanced it and put us in massive debt.

I'm against most welfare programs, but it's a pittance compared to the rampant spending on the Vietnam War, the Drug War and the Iraq war. The right gets caught up in the pennies spent on social programs, while they blow millions attacking other sovereign nations. Fiscal Conservative my ass.

Reagan? Yeah we need more second rate actors who went to fifth rate schools, who's only work experience before becoming governor of CA, was being the leader of a Union (SAG). You guys love presidents who PRETEND to be cowboys, and shun books as a conspiracy of the left. He also left us with a huge debt in the trillions. Lowering taxes on the rich, while you increase arms expenditures (to attack dangerous nations like Grenada), tend to do that. Why is it that Republicans always talk about small government and fiscal conservatism but they always leave us the most debt, that some "liberal" has to clean up afterwards. What a joke.

[Thevenin]

I'm scared that an inexperienced obama may get in and go crazy with a dem house and it'll be run-away liberal legislation all the way. Plus I sense that he's disingenuious. Does anyone else pick up on that or is it just my slanted view?

Experience is overrated. Look what all the experience of Bush, Cheney, and their toadies has brought us--a black hole filled with dead bodies and $3 Trillion. Give me intelligence any day and, at least, a modicum of intuition. I'll take a brilliant, self-made editor of the Harvard Law Review (Obama) any day over an unqualified, unimaginative dolt of a student at Daddy's alma mater (Yale). Or, his geriatric third term would-be successor. Apparently Dubbya (in fact, way more privileged and elite than Obama) used to have a Connecticut accent like his Dad, but took on a West Texas twang so he could fit in with his oil buddies. Sounds disingenuous to me. Besides, show me a politician who claims to be sincere, and I'll show you a liar.

[C.J.Woolf]

...I'm not fully resolved that McFuckBag isn't Bush 2.
I am, and he is.

[Limey]

Right, McCain obviously doesn't have as big a douche as Rove as his political advisor, otherwise they'd be quick to sell him differently.
Selling him as a sequel has to be a very poor winning strategy and I'm happy to see that it isn't just Democrats that keep fucking up their strategerie.

[Zephyrus055]

Right, McCain obviously doesn't have as big a douche as Rove as his political advisor, otherwise they'd be quick to sell him differently.
Selling him as a sequel has to be a very poor winning strategy and I'm happy to see that it isn't just Democrats that keep fucking up their strategerie.
Eh, Rove's favorite book is The Prince, and he seems to be very gifted in outmaneuvering his opponents. So what if he plays cheap and ruthless? That's what good Machiavellians do.

[Limey]

Eh, Rove's favorite book is The Prince, and he seems to be very gifted in outmaneuvering his opponents. So what if he plays cheap and ruthless? That's what good Machiavellians do.

Right, he's an INTJ, I just see it unfortunate that he isn't a lawfully good INTJ, though that may be an oxymoron.

[C.J.Woolf]

Regarding Rove:

On the one hand, he's a bad strategist because his strategy of pushing the most extreme agenda that a 50&#37;+1 majority would permit left him no slack. Any slippage in his support meant losing his majority. On the other hand, if you assume (as I do) that he knew his agenda was unpopular, then he was correct to ram through as much as possible before the Republican government turned into a pumpkin, and hope Republican minority obstructionism could protect it. It just might work, unless the agenda proves to be so unpopular that larger majorities of Democrats get elected to reverse it.

[Ada_Lovelace]

Obama.

Although truthfully, I am a little wary of his extreme leftist leaning, but I am fed up with the right wing politics to the point that I'm willing to swing the pendulum as far in the other direction as possible. No doubt Obama's leanings will be somewhat tempered by mainstream politics - that's already happening.

I also like the idea of a Obama as a role model for my four children, they are all bi-racial. In fact, my husband keeps asking me if I am sure Obama isn't our son's real daddy, because our son looks like a 9-year-old version of Obama!

[Denzien]

I can't stand the Democratic Party, although I'm a political moderate. I only hate the Repubs a little less. They actually sound like they make sense some of the time. I would vote for Ron Paul (already mentioned), but I might as well not vote as vote for him.

[Andantino]

As of now, Obama. But again, November's a ways away.

[Ada_Lovelace]

McCain just seems rather sleazy to me...

The Wife McCain Callously Left Behind (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html)

[manza]

Is in inappropriate to say that I think McCain is a tremendous douchebag?

Didn't he admit to intentionally misrepresenting himself to win liberal votes back in 2000?

[Zephyrus055]

Is in inappropriate to say that I think McCain is a tremendous douchebag?

Didn't he admit to intentionally misrepresenting himself to win liberal votes back in 2000?
At least he was honest.

[Oso Mocoso]

Is in inappropriate to say that I think McCain is a tremendous douchebag?

Yes. Tremendously inappropriate. Shame on you. You forgot to mention how ridiculously old he is.

[Zephyrus055]

McCain just seems rather sleazy to me...

The Wife McCain Callously Left Behind (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html)
Honestly, I don't care if that's what he did. I am apathetic about a politician's marriage and divorce choices. What I care about is their prospective effectiveness as a leader. I don't care if the guy is a womanizer and disowned his kids or something, as long as his political history demonstrates that he can rule effectively. In fact, I would vote for the lowest of the low, even an exotic dancer and former drug user, if she/he could prove their political skill.

[zago]

Obama, but felt like cringing voting for either one.

[manza]

This amuses and offends me on so many levels.

http://dieselsweeties.com/lj/hopeisthenewblack.gif

[Oso Mocoso]

I don't care if the guy is a womanizer and disowned his kids or something, as long as his political history demonstrates that he can rule effectively. In fact, I would vote for the lowest of the low, even an exotic dancer and former drug user, if she/he could prove their political skill.

Yeah, for reals. The modern media would crucify guys like Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill. Was Churchill a foul-mouthed alcoholic? Yeah, probably. An effective leader? You betcha. Electable in 2008? Hell no.

[Hustler]

In fact, I would vote for the lowest of the low, even an exotic dancer and former drug user, if she/he could prove their political skill.

How are exotic dancers and former drug users the lowest of the low? What about a sociopathic meth-head who just happens to also have tremendous political skill? It seems that would be lower.

[Dr. Haight]

What about a sociopathic meth-head who just happens to also have tremendous political skill? It seems that would be lower.Seriously. . . do you have to make fun of me in every thread!?

[Night]

In fact, I would vote for the lowest of the low, even a former drug user, if she/he could prove their political skill.

Haha.

One of my favorite posts yet.

[nobarcode]

I'm biased toward rationals.

[Architectonic]

Let's hear it.

Where is the 'I'm so glad voting is voluntary, so I don't have to take part in this sham'* option?

*Assuming I was a US citizen

[colormegone]

I'm biased toward rationals.
Obama seems more like an NF than an NT...especially if you read his autobiography. The guy's a sap very sensitive.

[NightCrawler]

Obama seems more like an NF than an NT...especially if you read his autobiography. The guy's a sap very sensitive.

I agree he's an NF, but what if he didn't write it? DUN DUN DUN. Not an autobiography then! kerpow! INFJ supporter's propaganda!!!1111

[nobarcode]

Obama seems more like an NF than an NT...especially if you read his autobiography. The guy's a sap very sensitive.

I didn't read it. He does sound like an NF sometimes in his speeches. I figured that was campaign managers speaking: you need to say it this way Obama. I could be wrong.

Normally, I don't vote because I don't understand all of the issues [fully] and so it's hard to make a 'correct' decision. There was a good thread on here about the 2004 election in that regard -too lazy to look it up.

I will vote this time, however, because I figure it will be a decent experiment.

I don't think if McCain wins; there won't be a change in 'consciousness' of any sort.

[Maniac]

What's really disturbing are some of the absolutely frivolous reasons people chose to vote for candidates to begin with. Some girl I was talking to said "I'm voting for Obama because he looks good!" Now I'm not going to even go there and start talking about what he does/doesn't look like. But that's what you're basing your vote on?! Or even the quote up above about McCain leaving some wife behind (sorry didn't read it). At least try to educate yourself about the issues people. Not to mention that fact that somewhere we have failed to realize that it's not so much the candidate that's being elected, but the party.

Which leads to another can of worms, which I'll leave open, and that is how much power does the President really have? I read a good quote recently, which expressed my intentions exactly, saying something to the effect of that, "Presidents get far too much credit/hatred for short term issues and not enough scrutiny for how they effect longer term trends."

Zephyrus and rawr, your views are a refreshing and sane take on current events. Economic issues are the most important in an election, at least that's my take. That's probably why I read the journal every morning while many of the die-hard leftists here read the Times. But let's not get into any name-calling shall we? ;)

[Lateralus]

It's another lose-lose election. I think the problems McCain will bring (more military spending, etc) will be easier to fix than the problems Obama (more social programs) will bring. Looking at it from the perspective of long-term damage control, I favor McCain, though I probably won't bother to go to the polls.

[Limey]

I think Obama is actually closer to the middle and McCain is further to the right tho.


http://bp2.blogger.com/_sBLxX3sph8M/SG0QnEL7JlI/AAAAAAAADL4/TeQaEtguueI/s400/dinsey+bear.jpg

[Cachao]

:rofl: A wee bit one-sided, eh?

[stewie3128]

Obama, because we're fucked either way, so I'm going with the fun one.

[Ellipsis]

Although I know Obama is planning to take over the world at least he is doing it very carefully and being smart about it.

[msg_v2]

Why the fuck is there no third party option?

[NateDawg655]

Since Obama is so much like JFK and is black, do you think he'll get assassinated????

[Limey]

Since Obama is so much like JFK and is black, do you think he'll get assassinated????

Someone should consult negrodamus.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c344/weto27/untitled.jpg

[nittanylion302]

rawr and Zephyrus

Obama may come off as a socialist, but his (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Liebman) Economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) Advisors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cutler) are actually classical Economists from places like Harvard and UChicago. Don't be fooled.


McCain isn't really libertarian at all. He's a big government statist wants to have a giant military and spend spend spend increasing our deficit and pretending we can just do whatever we want.

Economists For Obama (http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/dear-economists-for-mccain.html)!

[NightCrawler]

Bush built up a massive debt. Whoever follows him is going to be left to clean that up, and the only real solution is going to be to increase taxes without giving people anything to show for it. All the money is just going to be paying back debt plus interest. I'm not saying I'd prefer the Republicans to the Democrats, but I'd definitely prefer a government scenario where both parties have to agree on something in order to throw money at it. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, and if they can walk all over their opposition party they'll probably blow the treasury on pork barrels.
While I agree with everything else, the bold I disagree with. You could cut spending.

What is the purpose of the government? I think it is trying to do too much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism -- pretty cool article.


It's another lose-lose election. I think the problems McCain will bring (more military spending, etc) will be easier to fix than the problems Obama (more social programs) will bring. Looking at it from the perspective of long-term damage control, I favor McCain, though I probably won't bother to go to the polls.

Don't vote on someone you don't support. Founding fathers were angry that they weren't being represented but were being taxed; you're being taxed, don't you want to be represented? [yes, I know that this is a democracy in a republic]


Why the fuck is there no third party option?
Because this is how most voters will be thinking anyway.


rawr and Zephyrus

Obama may come off as a socialist, but his (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Liebman) Economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) Advisors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cutler) are actually classical Economists from places like Harvard and UChicago. Don't be fooled.


McCain isn't really libertarian at all. He's a big government statist wants to have a giant military and spend spend spend increasing our deficit and pretending we can just do whatever we want.

Economists For Obama (http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/dear-economists-for-mccain.html)!
Hold up. You're saying Obama is closer to Libertarian than McCain? I am wondering how either can be charted with Libertarians. That's like saying Mao was more capitalist than Marx.

[Zephyrus055]

rawr and Zephyrus

Obama may come off as a socialist, but his (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Liebman) Economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) Advisors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cutler) are actually classical Economists from places like Harvard and UChicago. Don't be fooled.
But what matters is what policies will be implemented, not the policies that his advisers may hold in contradiction of Obama.



McCain isn't really libertarian at all. He's a big government statist wants to have a giant military and spend spend spend increasing our deficit and pretending we can just do whatever we want.

Economists For Obama (http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/dear-economists-for-mccain.html)!
Yeah that part makes Obama more appealing, I agree. He has a more sound foreign policy. However, I am still not convinced of voting for a socialist who will fuck the country up from within, and who will rape the upper middle class.

[Teonanacatl]

Even though I'm not American, I'm aware that this should not only concern the U.S. but the entire world.

Obviously, I see things differently as you guys over there. I'm more concerned about how is all this going to affect us down here. After giving it a look for quite a while now, if I had to choose between the two, my vote would go to Obama. McCain just seems to go for the same bullshit Bush is all for, and that's not working for anyone except for the American elite. Surprisingly, I found very little in both of these guys' websites about Mexico, considering that Mexico not only shares its entire Southern border, but is one of the largest trading partners thanks to the NAFTA.

Btw, where do you guys stand on the whole immigration issue?? Probably a question worthy of its own thread.

[Oso Mocoso]

Btw, where do you guys stand on the whole immigration issue?? Probably a question worthy of its own thread.

Okay, so I spent a lot of my youth in Costa Rica and to a lesser extent in Mexico City and Cozumel, but as an American citizen I'll field this one. As far as I'm concerned, pour the flood gates open. Are you a Mexican who wants to come here? Fine. If you're not a terrorist or a criminal, come on in. Maybe I'm an exception, but most Mexicans I've known have been pretty good people. I don't see a reason to keep hard-working people out of the US. Really, the country could use more people. Plenty of the Flyover is underpopulated.

[NightCrawler]

Okay, so I spent a lot of my youth in Costa Rica and to a lesser extent in Mexico City and Cozumel, but as an American citizen I'll field this one. As far as I'm concerned, pour the flood gates open. Are you a Mexican who wants to come here? Fine. If you're not a terrorist or a criminal, come on in. Maybe I'm an exception, but most Mexicans I've known have been pretty good people. I don't see a reason to keep hard-working people out of the US. Really, the country could use more people. Plenty of the Flyover is underpopulated.

I don't see why we must make it so hard to become citizens. Meanwhile, I don't see why we should let people in our workforce if they recieve the benefits of taxation (protection from the police, etc.), but don't pay taxes.

Immigrants from Mexico should become citizens if they want in the workforce. I don't see a problem with this at all. Why are there so many hoops? Does it cost a lot of money? Antithetical to what is written on the Statue of Liberty.

[fripping]

Obama, because we're fucked either way, so I'm going with the fun one.
this represents my thoughts on the matter exactly.

[Gracchus]

How did the mob become so seduced by the office of the Presidency? The executive branch continues to become more bloated, no thanks to the expectations the populace has heaped upon the Presidency, no thanks to George Bush and the War on Terror,and no thanks to the legions of Obama worshipers hailing him as their savior to rescue our republic in Augustus Caesar fashion. I suppose the horrors of Kings, Tyrants, and Monarchies have traveled too far from their feeble minds. Who cares about who is the stupid ass President? I vote we take a break from the Federal government for four years.

[shadow1986]

well. McCain is supposed to be INTP. just so u guys know.

I really like Obama, but like someone said, illusion crashing into reality. And we really could use a non-white president in the US. He's a real charmer Obama. I really likec him, and still do. Obama is an ENFJ with natural charm and people skills. It's clearly showing.

Then I found out McCain was INTP too, and started researching into him. He's simliar to me in a few regards, and i see he says a lot of stupid shit stemming from outbursts or just sheer stupidity. WHen I ignore his stupid charachter flaws and slips in his speaches i realise i really like his policies and how he doesn't have a "political position". He just does what he thinks is rational and right at the time.

One example of this is the war in Iraq. I dont support. He does, but he kind of hints that rumsfield ruined it. Now I realise that it was not so mcuh the war, but the ridiculous execution of rumsfliekd that ruined it. Bush's poor leadership also played a part, and he clearly wasn't listening to all the members of the party and scrutinizing their positions properly (hence people liek Powell resigning). McCain also happens to not like Bush :D.

As for comments like "i will hate the gooks as long as I live", well he wasin hanoi for a while as a POW (brutallyl tortured and almost died on several occasions), and i wouldn't put it past an INTp to have an emotional outburst like that. After further research into this, I realised he was one of the pinoeers in establishing strong US - Vietnam relations and has done a lot for Vietnam and the people...

anyways, more to come from me. I really like Obama, he's an ENFJ, if he was a girl maybe him and McCain could Hook up. Nevertheless, I ask everyone to atleast take a good look into him and give him a chance.

[shadow1986]

How did the mob become so seduced by the office of the Presidency? The executive branch continues to become more bloated, no thanks to the expectations the populace has heaped upon the Presidency, no thanks to George Bush and the War on Terror,and no thanks to the legions of Obama worshipers hailing him as their savior to rescue our republic in Augustus Caesar fashion. I suppose the horrors of Kings, Tyrants, and Monarchies have traveled too far from their feeble minds. Who cares about who is the stupid ass President? I vote we take a break from the Federal government for four years.

Exactly. It's the people that advice the guy that are the real strings of the whole project. The president ofcourse needs to be a powerful decision maker and leader to co-ordinate these people and do the best for the country after listening to them.

[MacGuffin]

well. McCain is supposed to be INTP. just so u guys know.
Wuh?

[shadow1986]

Wuh?
YAHRLY!

And after reading into him and researching a bit, i can actually see a some of the traits, though i won't say this with 100&#37; certainty and conviction.

http://www.typelogic.com/ <---- McCain as INTP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Also. Please realise that although McCain is considered by many to be "conservatie", he is not "a conservative". THis means that his mentality isn't that of a conseravtive ideology. It just means he's slightly skewed on his decisions towards conservatism, but is very much open to a liberal standpoint. He's constantly battled as a maveick against many sources of authority in his own life (including the republicans), as the wiki link would show. He has very much been an underachiever, like i feel many INTPs are. Sometimes I hazard a guess that perhaps he is actually a natural ENTP who's been conditioned into INTP after his time in Hannoi (he jokes he spent more time in the POW camp than any other place in his life) ---> note that he did this to verbally totally cut up someone jibbing him, simlar to an INTP with the Fe core highly surpressed .

I'm starting to feel that people getting caught up in the OBAMA fervour are no better than some of the evangicals and hillbillies that easily got swept up in thee Bush Fervour. Unfortunately it wasn't logic or policies that won it for Bush, it was his charm and ability to "sway" the emotions of the population into an irrational fervour.

[Xenophon]

Then I found out McCain was INTP too, and started researching into him. He's simliar to me in a few regards, and i see he says a lot of stupid shit stemming from outbursts or just sheer stupidity. WHen I ignore his stupid charachter flaws and slips in his speaches i realise i really like his policies and how he doesn't have a "political position". He just does what he thinks is rational and right at the time.

I think that McCain is a funny guy, but honestly I have the completely opposite feeling from him. It seems like he doesn't really know what he is talking about in most situations. I could forgive his character flaws if I thought he was a smart guy, but I honestly don't think he has the mental capacity or interest to understand what his advisors will be telling him, and thus he will be completely at their mercy.

Obama has his character flaws as well, but he shows a real understanding of the issues that he talks about. McCain may be a T and Obama may be an F, but I can tell you that Obama is FAR smarter than McCain is.

[meanlittlechimp]

YAHRLY!

And after reading into him and researching a bit, i can actually see a some of the traits, though i won't say this with 100&#37; certainty and conviction.
http://www.typelogic.com/ <---- McCain as INTP


Typelogic is crap at typing people.

Obama is definitely a P. He admits on record, he's not organized, is more about delegation and isn't very good at details. He stated in an interview once, "My desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial; I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we run not only a good campaign but a good U.S. Senate office."

This doesn't necessarily make him a P, but there are plenty of other indicators beyond his messy desk.

McCain on the other hand is a J, and probably an EXTJ. He's very into his silly routines and superstitions. He has so many moronic superstitions, it makes you question his intelligence. He's also known for his temper when dealing with subordinates (which is a very common ENTJ trait). He's not exactly an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination and nothing about him reminds me of an INTP whatsoever.

As for his conservatism. He's more left than some republicans when it comes to some issues but as for foreign policy, he's just as much of a hawk as any neo-con. His only concept of diplomacy is saber rattling and carpet bombing. There is a reason, almost everyone in Europe and the Middle East want Obama. They know Mccain would continue Bush's disastrous foreign policy for another 4 years.

[nonrandian]

Obama. While we remain predominantly bipartisan it will always be the case of choosing the lesser of two evils. This tends to be the liberals in most cases, i think.

The biggest (not the only) problems i see with McCains policies:

1) Let the market remain 'free' and fix itself. Yeah..., we've seen how well that worked within the last year. Also, take a look at the great depression. If it weren't for the Democrates New Deal who knows how things would've ended up in those days. All i know is that inaction is neither a typical nor trusted method for solving most any type of problem.

2) He wants to stay in Iraq. This is a very complex issue, so i can't cover every aspect here...., but let me take a quick look...

a) Staying in the war means continuing to take out loans with China and other countries to pay for it. Wonder why the Euro is worth so much more than our dollar? There are a lot of reasons, but the fact that everyone knows we are sinking into a huge international debt certainly doesn't help. This causes prices within our own economy to rise, which is on top of the fact most Republicans (esp. McCain) refuse to do anything to control national markets and prices.

b) No we're not stealing Oil from Iraq, if we were, gas would be much cheaper! However, look at it this way. Iraq is the world's #3 producer of oil; a big one! Without them contributing to the global market of oil... it increases the demand for all other oil producers. We're using the same amount of oil, but there is less of it being produced! This skyrockets prices; it also allows the "big boys" in the oil market to better monopolize the prices with less competition... though they undoubtedly already do so to some extent through OPEC anyway.

c) No matter how long we stay in Iraq it will not solve the problems between the Sunis and the Shi'ite; which we did not start by entering Iraq... it has been going on for MILLENIA. They hate eachother, always have, and probably always will. They will undoubtedly fight eachother no matter when we exit Iraq, so why should we continue to indebt ourselves in the mean time? Just because we broke up the Saddam centralized rule? Be serious...

[shadow1986]

Typelogic is crap at typing people.

Obama is definitely a P. He admits on record, he's not organized, is more about delegation and isn't very good at details. He stated in an interview once, "My desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff. And that's not trivial; I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we run not only a good campaign but a good U.S. Senate office."

This doesn't necessarily make him a P, but there are plenty of other indicators beyond his messy desk.

McCain on the other hand is a J, and probably an EXTJ. He's very into his silly routines and superstitions. He has so many moronic superstitions, it makes you question his intelligence. He's also known for his temper when dealing with subordinates (which is a very common ENTJ trait). He's not exactly an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination and nothing about him reminds me of an INTP whatsoever.

As for his conservatism. He's more left than some republicans when it comes to some issues but as for foreign policy, he's just as much of a hawk as any neo-con. His only concept of diplomacy is saber rattling and carpet bombing. There is a reason, almost everyone in Europe and the Middle East want Obama. They know Mccain would continue Bush's disastrous foreign policy for another 4 years.

Hmm... interesting. From what I read in the wikipedia link about McCain there's a lot in there to me which hinted he may be INTP.

EDIT (after more research): You know i'm pretty convinced by this stage that typelogic.com got it right with both candidates, and i stand by this until further research or stronger arguements are put forward. I think people are way too quick to associate McCain with bush, when after some reading and analysis there are definately differences in the two personas as well as past quabbles between the two. As fr moronic superstitions, well that's not necessarily a type thing. It's more likely to be a psychological thing. Type doesn't explain everything and for ex-POWs who undergo high levels of pscyhological trauma, an outcome of silly illogical reliance on superstition for emotional support makes sense.

Going by this conclusion, I'm pretty dissapointed with the way the INTPs have responded here, and for me it's exposed a lot of flaws and weaknesses in out types. It' somewhat an epiphany for me, becuase i can sort of "see the other side".

The only thing that excuses us, for me personally, is that most of the guys here are going by the Ne function, as opposed to actual research into both candidates.

I dont want to give you guys the impression that I'm a McCain nut. I'm in Australia, and I think Obama is great too. I just think that there's a unthought-out fervour for obama accross the globe, and i can't personally see how it's any better than the one that occured (predominantly in the US) for bush. It just pleases different parties and different segments of society. I just think people need to sit dow and do their homework on both candidates from reliable neutral sources. Unfortunately for McCain, going by logic and strong policies does not win elections.

[Xenophon]

EDIT (after more research): You know i'm pretty convinced by this stage that typelogic.com got it right with both candidates, and i stand by this until further research or stronger arguements are put forward. I think people are way too quick to associate McCain with bush, when after some reading and analysis there are definately differences in the two personas as well as past quabbles between the two. As fr moronic superstitions, well that's not necessarily a type thing. It's more likely to be a psychological thing. Type doesn't explain everything and for ex-POWs who undergo high levels of pscyhological trauma, an outcome of silly illogical reliance on superstition for emotional support makes sense.

Going by this conclusion, I'm pretty dissapointed with the way the INTPs have responded here, and for me it's exposed a lot of flaws and weaknesses in out types. It' somewhat an epiphany for me, becuase i can sort of "see the other side".
I don't really see how you can not think that "high levels of psychological trauma", "silly illogical reliance on superstition for emotional support", and "he says a lot of stupid shit stemming from outbursts or just sheer stupidity" would be bad characteristics for arguably the most powerful person in the world.


The only thing that excuses us, for me personally, is that most of the guys here are going by the Ne function, as opposed to actual research into both candidates.
As long as we are going to psychoanalyze the people we are arguing with. I think there is a classic case of projection going on here.

I'm tired of people telling me that I support Obama because of his "cult-like" status. That has nothing to do with it. I don't want to run down the all the specific issues here, and there are a few that I disagree with Obama about, but his positions clearly are closer to mine than McCain's.

[Ellipsis]

Spams the thread with the following:

http://listen.grooveshark.com/song/Someday_Soon/162059

[meanlittlechimp]

b) No we're not stealing Oil from Iraq, if we were, gas would be much cheaper! However, look at it this way. Iraq is the world's #3 producer of oil; a big one! Without them contributing to the global market of oil... it increases the demand for all other oil producers. We're using the same amount of oil, but there is less of it being produced! This skyrockets prices; it also allows the "big boys" in the oil market to better monopolize the prices with less competition... though they undoubtedly already do so to some extent through OPEC anyway.


It's always been about the oil. The Neo-cons have had several policy papers stating we needed to take the oil back in 1992. It's the reason we toppled the the Qassim government in the early 60's (and helped install the Baathists). Qassim wanted to nationalize the oil industry (it makes sense not to have foreigners own all the rights to your oil). Once Saddam and the Baathists did decades later (we were looking for any pretense to invade).

It's not a coincidence that the same companies that were there before nationalization - Shell, BP, Texaco, Chevron - are now receiving NO-BID contracts. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html It's also no coincidence every nation was against the invasion, except the ones who previously had oil companies there (UK and US) and would benefit after the invasion.

The neo-cons accurately predicted, in the Wolfowitz papers in '92, that the Chinese economy would grow at almost 10&#37; a year (which turned out to be correct) and would put incredible strain on oil prices. The high prices have to do with ever increasing demand as well as speculators accurately predicting the price to rise even higher. Which only makes sense since demand is skyrocketing while the fixed finite supply is dwindling.

If anyone actually thinks we went into Iraq for WMDs, fight terrorists or help the Iraqi people with democracy building is simply unaware of history, or have any clue about foreign policy motives of state planners. Oil is the reason we overthrow Mossadegh (a progressive constitutional democracy), and installed the Shah (a repressive monarchy). Oil is the reason we overthrew Qassim and installed the Baathists.

What's shocking is that a former secretary of state, admitted what we did on camera. I've never seen this happen before. http://youtube.com/watch?v=KVg2t31c3Ts