TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- McCain's Meltdown: Analysis

McCain's Meltdown: Analysis

Before I quote the article itself, I just wanna ask this... McCain was recently asked by a reporter on his campaign trail, "Do condoms help prevent the spread of HIV?" There was a VERY long pause, after which McCain said, "You've stumped me". WTF? Is this guy a senile retard, delusional, or what? How can anyone, in our time, consider voting for a guy who answered this question like he did?!!!

Now... here's a more detailed article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1799577...ewsweek/page/3/

That's what happens when you try to balance a rational word view with obsequiousness to the Christian Right I guess. That is also why he will not (and should not) win the Republican nomination and the presidency.

Although this is a small issue in the scheme of things, it is a pretty good litmus test for his positions on much broader ideologies. If you can't recognise that the conservative wing of the GOP are living in a different reality to the rest of us - and say so explicitly when given the opportunity - then fuck you. Condoms save lives: this is empirical fact. If he wants to win the evangelical vote then he can win it at the expense of non-retard vote. The point is that he can't have it both ways: you're either a maverick, John, or your another George Bush. Pick your side of the fence and run with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's what happens when you try to balance a rational word view with obsequiousness to the Christian Right I guess. That is also why he will not (and should not) win the Republican nomination and the presidency.

Explain this to me. Most people I've talked to in America ridicule me for even suggesting that Americans take the religious bloc seriously. According to them, most Americans are normal and moderate and not some conservative fanatics.

THEN why do politicians like this asshole try to pander to them? If they were a negligible, marginal minority, nobody would try to modify the political message for them, would they?

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Explain this to me. Most people I've talked to in America ridicule me for even suggesting that Americans take the religious bloc seriously. According to them, most Americans are normal and moderate and not some conservative fanatics. THEN why do politicians like this asshole try to pander to them? If they were a negligible, marginal minority, nobody would try to modify the political message for them, would they?

have you ever been to idaho?

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag have you ever been to idaho?

Not just Idaho, most rural areas. Plus when u appeal to these religious people, you get thier priests & ministers campaigning for you.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun Not just Idaho, most rural areas. Plus when u appeal to these religious people, you get thier priests & ministers campaigning for you.

and all the insightful rightwingers on the AM dial

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag and all the insightful rightwingers on the AM dial

inciteful would be a better word

so much for the Strait Talk Express.

It's one thing to be a moderate, someone who truly wants to reach a middle ground or compromise on issues. It's another thing to be just confused...and that is what McCain is. He's trying to be someone he's not (a social-religious conservative). I see him, and a lot of politicans nowadays on both sides..as panderers. They pander to whatever group will support them and give them money.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I see him, and a lot of politicans nowadays on both sides..as panderers. They pander to whatever group will support them and give them money.

It's almost criminal really, as much as these people are 'politicians' they are to some extent community leaders which seems to be forgotten with their job description, they do need to know what helps and hurts the people that elect them.
We elect people to represent our wishes, look after our countries and people, they neither manage to be either wise or competent most of the time, which speaks volumes really for the general public's lack of judgement and ability to be swayed by crooks.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It's almost criminal really, as much as these people are 'politicians' they are to some extent community leaders which seems to be forgotten with their job description, they do need to know what helps and hurts the people that elect them. We elect people to represent our wishes, look after our countries and people, they neither manage to be either wise or competent most of the time, which speaks volumes really for the general public's lack of judgement and ability to be swayed by crooks.

It's all based on special interests, largely through lobbying. Lobbyists are so integrated into the whole D.C. culture that any kind of real lobbying reform (which was kind of a joke) is impossible unless you would completely dismantle the government and start a new. Because we don't live in a "direct democracy" where the people have greater say in what goes on, we are forced to write to our senators or representative who may read it, but not take into consideration what you are saying. Technically, in a representative democracy, they should be represenating the people, but nowadays it's lobbyists.

Like the representative in my area, Joe Knollenberg. I am sure people write to him all of the time about his support for big business, big oil, the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration, but I doubt any of that phases him. There's been countless protests outside of his office, but he doesn't care. It's the same with Bush, it's probably the same with a lot of politicans, they'd listen to special intersts rather than this constituents.

The other thing that always bothered me with most of the democratic nations was the lack of alternatives and the lack of competition as it's nearly always at a federal level, just the left and just the right.
There's no 3rd Party, just a two party system which I honestly don't feel seems to work all that well, especially when they swing very far right and very far left because you're getting into dangerous territory there with people which have very little sway with their opinions, personality and 'hard liners' tend to make me nervous. Fair enough they have their place by representing that part of the community but I do think they're over-represented in governments and way too noisy when it comes to directing party policies.

You get hard liners like the 'Neo-Conservatives' (a name I dislike) who are swung so far right they're verging on fascism and the extreme left wingers who are closer to communism than anything else.
Neither are very useful in a democratic government.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith The other thing that always bothered me with most of the democratic nations was the lack of alternatives and the lack of competition as it's nearly always at a federal level, just the left and just the right. There's no 3rd Party, just a two party system which I honestly don't feel seems to work all that well, especially when they swing very far right and very far left because you're getting into dangerous territory there with people which have very little sway with their opinions, personality and 'hard liners' tend to make me nervous. Fair enough they have their place by representing that part of the community but I do think they're over-represented in governments and way too noisy when it comes to directing party policies. You get hard liners like the 'Neo-Conservatives' (a name I dislike) who are swung so far right they're verging on fascism and the extreme left wingers who are closer to communism than anything else. Neither are very useful in a democratic government.

Actually there are third parties in many countries. Britain has three parties and the labor party has kind of become the "middle" party to the other two (Liberal Democrats and Conservatives) who swing more to left and right. The biggest problem in the states and in some other countrires like Canada, is that the third parties don't have as much say in the political process because they don't have as much money thus they don't have as much influence politically.

And the Neo-Conservatives aren't as far right as you are making them out to be. They were actually disillusioned liberals and trotskyists (a form of socialism) and libertarians (or neo-libertarians). Read up on Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss. Their ideas are a combination of economic liberalism, military conservatism (pre-emptive war, american dominance in the middle east and in the world), liberal ideas about nation building and interventionalism, and libertarian ideas about limiting government, cutting back on social spending, elimination of the welfare state.

Essentially, it's cutting back on it at home, but expanding it abroad. It's kind of like "we'll give money to other countries and for war, but cut funding for programs at home". You could think about it as reverse socialism or communism. Laisse Faire government at home (when it comes to the nation's needs, socially or economically) but a government that is still large enough to be seen as anything but conservative.

Traditional conservatism would be closer to traditional libertarianism (or classical liberalism), which would value individualism, non-interventionalism, cutting back on spending (fiscal responsibility), have a balanced budget, and not get involved in nation building or "spreading freedom or democracy" which is just a ploy to spread American influence (it's the foundation for the think tank "The Project For The New American Century").

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.