Why would you vote for mccain?

[Ahyoka]

I don't understand how people can be angry at candidates for trying to be as persuasive as possible. If candidates promoted their campaign by only saying what is actually possible and didn't "taint" the image of it's opponents it would be boring and most of the people would find the candidates incompetent. Some countries have civil wars when there's a shift in power. I think "mudslinging" is a cheap price to pay for such light political battles.

I see what your saying, and some of it makes sense. But I just can't agree with it because that logic just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught and how I was raised.

It may just be my stubborn, old fashioned country upbringing talking but I do get angry, I was taught that a man is always taken at his word and not to promise something he can't deliver. That I need to be careful to never betray the trust a person puts in what I say, that if I say I'm going to do something I'm going to do it...I still hold people to that standard. That trust should be valued more than money and is alot like a reputation, it's something you earn..not something that you demanded, expect or buy but is earned and not to be treated lightly. That you simply don't "promise" a person something you can't deliver to get what you want because it's deceptive. If I couldn't get their vote as an honest man then how could I want it or live with it if I got it as a dishonest man?

That's why I can't STAND when candidates promise things they can't do, I mean some things I know they can't solve. If McCain or Obama promised me to magically heal the economy or solve world hunger in their term I would call BS because there is a limit to what one person can do. But some things they promise to "change" or "reform" when they are elected but never will is what bothers me. It's one thing to talk of the things you will TRY and change, but it just disturbs me when they promise things they will never be able to do or maybe don't even want to fix.


And while your right about a little mudslinging being a small price to pay for not having a civil war it just bothers me to think that candidates would sell their souls to get elected, or how candidates think that using mudslinging is the only way to get elected. Obviously it's important to point out things about the other candidate and hole people to a standard but to me only things that can very easily be backed up and proved. To me if something is taken out of context accidentally then that's one thing, but to create or so exaggerate facts to prove a point? I think that is horrible and I wonder how a person can even sleep doing that. I'm just of the opinion if a candidate can't get elected by their own merits then maybe they just aren't right for the country.

It may just be me but I would personally prefer two "boring", honest candidates who will only promise me what they can deliver, no more, no less. Candidates who truly love their country more than themselves and can put aside partisan, regional or personal politics and believe that whether we are Northerners or Southerners, Democrat, Republican or Independent that we all bleed the same, that at the end of the day all that matters is we're still Americans. I want candidates who can believe in their opponents, not preach hate speech of if their opponent is elected, I want someone who in defeat can rise above petty jealousy and know that even though they lost, they can respect their opponent enough to know that he will do everything in his (or her) power to leave America better then when they found it.

May just be me, but I would much prefer that kind of race over the media whoring contest I see on TV now.

 

[muz]

I see what your saying, and some of it makes sense. But I just can't agree with it because that logic just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught and how I was raised.

It may just be my stubborn, old fashioned upbringing talking but I do get angry, I was taught that a man is always taken at his word. And to be careful to never betray the trust a person puts in what I say, I still hold people to that. That you simply don't "promise" a person something you can't deliver to get what you want because it's deceptive. That if I couldn't get their vote as an honest man then how could I want it or live with it if I got it as a dishonest man?

That's why I can't STAND when candidates promise things they can't do, I mean some things I know they can't solve. If McCain or Obama promised me to magically heal the economy or solve world hunger in their term I would call BS because there is a limit to what one person can do. But some things they promise to "change" or "reform" when they are elected but never will is what bothers me. It's one thing to talk of the things you will TRY and change, but it just disturbs me when they promise things they will never be able to do or maybe don't even want to fix.


And while your right about a little mudslinging being a small price to pay for not having a civil war it just bothers me that candidates use mudslinging as much as they do. Obviously it's important to point out things about the other candidate, but to me only things that can very easily be backed up and proved. To me if something is taken out of context accidentally then that's one thing, but to create or so exaggerate facts to prove a point? I think that is horrible and I wonder how a person can even sleep doing that. I'm just of the opinion if a candidate can't get elected by their own merits then maybe they just aren't right for the country.

It may just be me but I would personally prefer two "boring", honest candidates who will only promise me what they can deliver, no more, no less. Candidates who truly love their country more than themselves and can put aside partisan, regional or personal politics and believe that whether we are Northerners or Southerners, Democrat, Republican or Independent that we all bleed the same, that at the end of the day all that matters is we're still Americans. I want candidates who can believe in their opponents, not preach hate speech of if their opponent is elected, I want someone who in defeat can rise above petty jealousy and know that even though they lost, they can respect their opponent enough to know that he will do everything in his (or her) power to leave America better then when they found it.

May just be me, but I would much prefer that kind of race over the media whoring contest I see on TV now.

i agree completely all i ever see is politicians making promises that actually they might not be able to deliver , for instance over there in your case a lot of the things your presidential candidates are promising arent soley decisions made by then they are decisions made by congress
however i think if the candidates didnt promise things nobody would vote for them because it would be like you can offer us anything its stupid i know cos the candidates cant promise most of the things they are promising anyway

i would much rather have candidates who canw rok with one another that a big criticism i have of the UK government and the conservative party in this credit crisis your american presidentioal candidates and other sneior politicians worked to gether to find a soloution whereas all our respective parties where doing was holding party conferences and slagging each other off i would much prefer to have all of the politicians working together than against each other in situations like this
i often ignore the tv campaigns in the lead up to elections because im just sick of seeing parties slagging each other off rather than trying to discredit each other work on your own elections campaigns

 

[Rubber314Chicken]

i agree completely all i ever see is politicians making promises that actually they might not be able to deliver

Polk for president!


Oh wait, he is dead.

 

[JogaBonito1502]

Politics is too complicated for my brain. Personally, I try to stay out, but on this election I gave it another chance. It's a very shaded area. There are multiple ways of campaigning, multiple ways of achieving things, it's just ridiculous to think that the simple idea of organized society could lead to such a complicated practice.

 

[borat_sagdiyev]

Since it's such factual information, I'm sure there are more sources you can show us.

Obama can't take away our rights. The President doesn't have the power to do that. He'd have to try to get an amendment to the Constitution passed, which would need to be ratified by Congress and the states.

In fact, the major thing people should pay attention to is foreign policy. The President can't actually by himself pass laws on health care, the economy, etc. All this is done by Congress. Sure, the President can veto things, but if it's really a good idea then he can be overriden.

actually the president can enact martial law, which takes away your rights...

 

[crappybob]

This thread scares me.

Name one thing that Obama has ever done, besides getting elected.

If elected, he would be the least qualified person to become president of the U.S.

Obabma is a full blown socialist and dosen't even really try to hide it, and its a sad day in America when it appears that the majority of the people don't even understand why thats bad.

 

[drumthrasher]

This thread scares me.

Name one thing that Obama has ever done, besides getting elected.

If elected, he would be the least qualified person to become president of the U.S.

Obabma is a full blown socialist and dosen't even really try to hide it, and its a sad day in America when it appears that the majority of the people don't even understand why thats bad.

Dude...I love you.

 

[borat_sagdiyev]

This thread scares me.

Name one thing that Obama has ever done, besides getting elected.

If elected, he would be the least qualified person to become president of the U.S.

Obabma is a full blown socialist and dosen't even really try to hide it, and its a sad day in America when it appears that the majority of the people don't even understand why thats bad.

whats wrong with being a socialist?

 

[Fisher]

actually the president can enact martial law, which takes away your rights...

wouldnt suprise me if that did actually happen. does anyone know how martial law would personally affect you? and by that i dont just mean you have alot of your rights taken away from you but would there be a kurfew, would peoples assests/money be frozen/taken away? also when can a president enact martial law. i know that if the plane on 911 had hit the white house then they could of enacted martial law then due to the head of government having a direct attack on them but what about if the current financial situation got so bad, could bush enact martial law then?

 

[DJ-CHRIS1]

wouldnt suprise me if that did actually happen. does anyone know how martial law would personally affect you? and by that i dont just mean you have alot of your rights taken away from you but would there be a kurfew, would peoples assests/money be frozen/taken away? also when can a president enact martial law. i know that if the plane on 911 had hit the white house then they could of enacted martial law then due to the head of government having a direct attack on them but what about if the current financial situation got so bad, could bush enact martial law then?

If Martial law was enacted here, I'd have ultimate power muhaha!