^Uh oh, cue kkent to storm in guns-a-blazin… I’m actually starting to rethink this. The country is screwed under either major candidate anyway, but if one party controls both Congress and the White House, that sets the stage for even more government expansion. I might vote for McCain, considering the Dems are going to gain a ton of seats in Congress this fall, and hope that they have the cajones to stand up against his ridiculous foreign policy, ie, take back CONGRESSIONAL authority to declare war. As a libertarian, the prospect of legislative gridlock seems like it’s about the best choice available. Nah, I think I’ll just not vote so I can be absolved of responsibility as the country goes down in flames…
While Dems do cater to union base (hence “anti-capitalist” retoric), if you remember Clinton years, not much anti-capitalism there. Democrats keep losing because they don’t cater to crazy gun-totting, god-stomping, gay-hating, xenophobic demo that is quite prevalent here. Republican economic policy, while having a more free market feel to it, works out to be politically motivated hogwash. Awarding no bid contracts to Haliburton for the war where you spend trillions is not free market capitalism.
Here is the conclusion I have reached: People vote for people who look, talk and think like them. There isn’t anything more to it. Someone said a great line on this forum that sovereign patriotism is a sham. The ignorant do cling on to their guns and religion and will vote accordingly. God, I just read yesterday that Mike Huckabee doesn’t believe in gravity. And he has quite the following!
Bill Clinton is socially democrat/progress and fiscally, he is very conservative. That’s why he’s a free trader, a disciplined budget balancer and social security repairer. I don’t see such a good balance in Bush, Obama, or McCain… But If I have to choose between Obama or McCain, I will bet my money on the McCain/Palin ticket all day long. By the way, does anyone notice that Obama has disportionally smaller hands??
ca-cbv-cfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel your pain psn0706…she is a joke. Anyone > who needs 6 years and attendance at 4 different > educational institutes including an Idaho > community college to get a 4 year journalism > degree and who spews garbage about god having a > plan for an oil pipeline through Canada is not > worthy of the paper her name is written on. She > should go back to shooting wolves from planes and > eating moose stew. +1
ca-cbv-cfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel your pain psn0706…she is a joke. Anyone > who needs 6 years and attendance at 4 different > educational institutes including an Idaho > community college to get a 4 year journalism > degree. This is what I don’t get. If you asked any sane person whether they’d want their portfolio managed by a PM who graduated after attending five schools in six years, the answer would be “oh hell no.” Ask this same otherwise sane person whether they’d want a vice president with this educational background, and they’ll say, “Sure, she’s my kind of woman.” My mom is the sane person in question. Sigh.
A guy in my office who hates politics and politicians in general came in the day after the Palin announcement and said he just wrote a check to the McCain campaign and was going to vote, where before he was going to do nothing. Pretty amazing, particularly coming from him. The VP choice has been a grand slam for the GOP party.
I guess it shows the nature of GOP supporters, when creationist global-warming denier (in Alaska, which of all places, is most directly affected) with nothing to show for, who belongs to a religious cult that believes world is coming to an end due to a messiah imminently returning … their grand slam? That explains all the crazy stuff that was going on lately - I do not think you can even rationally argue with these people.
lol you crack me up CFAchief…you forgot to mention the fact that GOP supporters are hypocrites. They went nuts over Obama’s church and theres nothing over having the Jews for Jesus founder speaking at Palins church, when she was in attendance, saying violence against Israel was because of a refusal to accept Jesus…
CFAchief, I share your concerns over her religious beliefs, specifically with respect to middle-eastern foreign policy, and as I have stated many times regard both parties as equally worthless. I have to wonder though - what is the nature of many Obama supporters, who regard him as a messiah-type figure? Have you already forgotten the throngs of weeping supporters (cult members?) at the Dem convention? Again, I have no love for either candidate, just want to be consistent. Also, there are many intelligent scientists who do not completely ascribe to the global warming dogma. They are of course immediately smeared as being on the payroll of “evil corporations”, whereas gov’t-funded scientists are treated as completely independent. Let’s face it - global warming scaremongering has become a huge special interest attracting many scientists to its richly flowing teat.
Of course they’re hypocrites. They bash Hillary for 16 years with their sexist BS and then they cry foul when Obama uses the colloquial phrase “lipstick on a pig.” I didn’t know that the Republicans trademarked the word “lipstick” after Palin’s used it in her convention recital.
Can we just hire Bill again, he was totally the man. Smokin’ cigs, gettin’ BJ, eatin’ burgs, just a cool dood, no small-weenie complex.
The media has been praising Obama as a gifted orator in recent US history. That’s b%$* s?#&. Every time he speaks, there are full of “'uh”, “um”. He guys just talks about the big thing and dodges taking a tough stance. Speaking of oratory, how can Obama even compare to Bill Clinton…?
CFAchief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess it shows the nature of GOP supporters, > when creationist global-warming denier (in Alaska, > which of all places, is most directly affected) > with nothing to show for, who belongs to a > religious cult that believes world is coming to an > end due to a messiah imminently returning … > their grand slam? > > That explains all the crazy stuff that was going > on lately - I do not think you can even rationally > argue with these people. Your first sentence makes no sense to me, I can’t understand what is written. It was a grand slam strategically, because it gave JM a big boost in the polls and has taken over the news cycle from BO.
It’s interesting to me how “republicans” believe they are the only ones who are qualified to run our economy. Has anyone else noticed that most people in the financial industry almost “expect” you to be a Republican just because you work in finance. The "good ol’ boys mentality is strikingly similar to the “good ol’ republicans” mentality. I’m not going to lie, I sometimes pretend to be a Republican just to get by. Anybody else do the same? Yet, some of the most brilliant financial minds who have proven their ability to consistently understand the bigger picture are democrats (ex: Buffet and Soros). Maybe they’re actually onto something… Check out this graph: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html More importantly check out these stats: http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm Thoughts???
Ok, but Soros’ former partner and brilliant investor, Jim Rogers, is a libertarian. So is Peter Thiel of Paypal fame; he also runs a successful global macro fund. Warren Buffet’s father was a Republican congressman of the Old Right (practically libertarian). Nassim Taleb also has some libertarian tendancies, although he doesn’t go into the subject much. Why does one have to be a member of a “major” party to be successful in finance? EDIT: forgot to mention Marc Faber.
The states with all the brains tend to vote democrat. It’s sad but true. Like you said, Warren Buffett is a big supporter of both Obama and Clinton.
virginCFAhooker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The states with all the brains tend to vote > democrat. It’s sad but true. > > Like you said, Warren Buffett is a big supporter > of both Obama and Clinton. This type of attitude is why liberals lose national elections. You all don’t understand the values held by the average American. Rather you insult them by questioning their intelligence and claiming that they “cling to their guns and religion.” The typical elitist self image and “better than you” attitude help by most liberals is an affront to most average Americans. It is not helpful to assume that people who have differing political views than you are stupid. A majority of Americans disagree with the liberal “sacraments” of high taxes, abortion, and more government influence/control. This is why liberals don’t win national elections. BTW - I’m not an advocate for the Republican Party. In many ways they are as bad as Democrats. I’m just taking this opportunity to educate my fellow AF’ers. You are welcome. GoVols
Actually, liberals lose elections, despite getting more votes, because there are more conservatives in backwater states like Alaska.
aldford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Dems keep losing because they keep pushing > anti-capitalistic BS on the country. If they > would drop their ridiculous economic stances and > focus on everything else, they would be fine. > Americans aren’t into wealth redistribution and > huge government. this is a remarkably insightful post. like spierce said in another forum, social liberal + fiscal conservative is the magic formula. there aren’t enough evangelical/pentecostal twits in america to beat that message.