1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama, Hillary or McCain ... does it even matter?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by jps, May 2, 2008.

  1. jps

    jps Active Member

    Honest question ... just wondering if any of these three do the job? I have misgivings about all of them and think each will screw up the country in his/her own special way ...

    (Should have been anything goes here .... sorry, mods.)
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    No difference. Same old bullshit. There is no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats other than in rhetoric. The only time you get something different is when you get a total doofus (Jimmy Carter, outsider who doesn't kiss the ass of the establishment to make bargains; George Bush, insider who says "fuck you" to the establishment and tries to steamroll what he wants). So if you see that personality in McCain or Clinton or Obama, yeah, there is a difference. I don't. So I actually see little difference between McCain and Clinton and Obama. They all take money from the same lobbyists, and do things to advance the ones who have given them the most money. They all say or do whatever is politically expedient to seduce people into voting or them (including contradicting themselves from month to month). So McCain will say "Republican" like things to seduce the Republicans who don't understand there is no difference, and Obama will say "Democrat" like things to seduce the Democrats who don't understand there is no difference. And in a general election, they will soften the rhetoric and try to say things that appeal to the broadest number of people. And it's all bullshit. Because when they get in office, the government you get from each will be exactly the same -- favors to those who took care of them and can continue to take care of them. And regardless of the political parties, those are essentially the same groups of people. It's corrupt by its very nature.
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    See the next two Supreme Court noms after next January, and try to tell us about "no difference".

    Sam Brownback and John Kyl would essentially vet McCain's Supreme Court noms, and there no f'n way I want to see that happen. And I'm hardly alone.
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    What Ben said. The two parties have distinctly different agendas. Choose between the parties.
  5. Grimace

    Grimace Guest

    If it wasn't for the war, I could see the cynical point of view that there's not much difference. See it, not believe it.

    To me, the war is the No. 1 issue. One guy (party) says it must, should and will go on, the other side says differently.
  6. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    It does matter.

    If you want to see the end of having our young die halfway around the world, it matters. You've got a better chance of seeing that happen with the two Dems than McCain.

    In fact, it probably matters more than in a long time. When you consider things like gas prices, food prices, the cost of healthcare, the health of government and non-government retirement funding, this country is on the brink of what could be a catastrophic economic disaster, which could carry some sobering non-economic side effects. The next person in office better be the one who can deal with tremendous adversity and help formulate and deliver a plan that can get things back in the right direction.

    It's also important to consider which party is in control in Congress. It's becoming very difficult for a President of one party to deal with a Congress of the other party and get a lot accomplished. If both are controlled by the same party, the likelihood of change happening, whether you agree with it or not, is exponentially higher.
  7. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    I'm biased (see my sig), but I think there's a huge difference between Obama and both Clinton and McCain. When Obama rejects the gas holiday joke that the other two endorsed to help curb high prices, it confirms to me that they're more prone to go with the same old quick fixes (see: Stimulus Package) as opposed to seeking practical, longterm solutions like Obama wants to.
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    And that in a nutshell is a good chunk of what is wrong with the country. The Supreme Court isn't a legislative body. Yet, because it acts like one--and has taken over this duty from the actual legislature--this is more important to people than electing actual LEGISLATORS who will legislate the way they want. Instead there are people like you reduced to electing legistators (and an executive) who they believe will appoint judges who will legislate the way they want...

    If judges were being judges and not actually making the laws, this wouldn't be a problem.

    I find it absolutely ridiculous that the Constitution has a defined set of principles in it. Yet, because we have totally gone bonkers and lost sight of what the Supreme Court's role IS, those principles mean little; they can just make up new laws and bullshit their way through it to give it constitutional meaning that isn't there. We can have 9 justices who at any given point make up a new law and give it the weight of the highest court in the land... and people will elect a new president based on the fact that if he gets to appoint new justices, they are afraid those new justices will overrule what that older court did and change everything.

    The constitution is the constitution, though. NOTHING about the constitution has changed. The only thing that has changed is how the new judges are going to "legislate" -- which isn't what judges should be doing! Justices are no longer judges, they are legislators--but ones who were never elected by us and have more power than the actual legislators to make laws.

    It's a perversion of what was intended to be a check and balance.
  9. jagtrader

    jagtrader Active Member

    I wouldn't trust Clinton to pick out my wardrobe for today, let alone pick the next Supreme Court justice.
  10. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

  11. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    I'm simply interested in having a SCOTUS that's not interested in meddling into your business, or mine . . . or plumping for each and every big-business-first position they're able to contort themselves into.
  12. Claws for Concern

    Claws for Concern Active Member

    Brewster says None of the Above!
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page