Is there any reason to vote for John McCain?

[RedRalph]

I was being deliberately sarcastic, McCain didn't really say bomb Iran either. The point is, when each decide to indulge in whatever military escapades they see fit, only one of them actually knows what that means to the rank and file.

He didnt say it but he did sing it... all jokes aside, what was the quote about Pakistan?

 

[Halcyon]

Seriously, how many of these copycat threads do we have to go through?

I've not been reading these forums much, lately. My apologies if this is too much of a rehash, but I'm genuinely curious as to what people see in the guy. It admittedly doesn't help that he and I have pretty different ideologies.

As to the OP's question...

1.) Far superior energy policy in every respect.
2.) Superior health care plan, and more importantly accomplishable.
3.) When McCain says "Bomb Iran" and Obama says "Invade Pakistan," one of them knows what that actually entails for people like me.
4.) I think he will actually reduce wasteful spending.

1 - Okay. What's better, though?

2 - His health care plan seemed pretty weak to me, being mostly a subsidy for private health insurance, and useless to anyone 'high risk' who'd be denied coverage/have very high premiums/is already sick. Perhaps I don't fully understand it. I'll concede that installing an NHS-style system would be an enormous challenge, but it seems like it would be far better were it to work.

3 - Both of them came across as pretty hawkish in that debate, and it's not a comforting thing to see. Wandering guns blazing into Waziristan would be pretty reprehensible. There is no justification for invading a sovereign state - and an ally, at that - without cause.

By extension, outright invading Iran without casus belli or good intention would be abominable and utterly unjustifiable. War is the worst of things at the best of times. That someone was once a soldier does not give them license to start a war without reason. That he once suffered does not give him the right to send others to suffer, or to bring suffering upon those who do not deserve it. That requires a cause, and there isn't one.

4 - I'm not sure I believe that. It seems to be Reagan's legacy that the Republicans no longer know what fiscal responsibility in government actually means. It'd be nice, though, on that I'm with you. I just don't think it will happen so long as the 'small government' party is run by the people who run ti now.

Basically, one must assume that ~95% of what he's said in the last few months will be reneged upon as soon as he achieves office.

Yeah. It just seems too much to hope for.

 

[Mowque]

well alot of people, tens of millions WILL vote for him. there MUST be a reason other then 'i'm smarter then all of them'.

 

[Narz]

1.) Far superior energy policy in every respect.

Drill baby drill! We're saved!

 

[Patroklos]

I've not been reading these forums much, lately. My apologies if this is too much of a rehash, but I'm genuinely curious as to what people see in the guy. It admittedly doesn't help that he and I have pretty different ideologies.

I don't know if there is one of this flavor specifically, but at a cursory glance there are five "McCain Sucks" threads on the front page alone.

2 - His health care plan seemed pretty weak to me, being mostly a subsidy for private health insurance, and useless to anyone 'high risk' who'd be denied coverage/have very high premiums/is already sick. Perhaps I don't fully understand it. I'll concede that installing an NHS-style system would be an enormous challenge, but it seems like it would be far better were it to work.

There is nothing wrong with private health insurance other than it is not affordable to a select few (people willfully not buying it is not the same as not being able to afford it). There are systemic reasons for this that are solvable, its just that those hell bent on nationalization of the industry at any cost use the existance of those problems to push their agenda. Reform of the current system is what is needed, not building another abomination in its place for the hell of it.

Under McCain's plan virtually anyone who wants health insurance can get it.

3 - Both of them came across as pretty hawkish in that debate, and it's not a comforting thing to see. Wandering guns blazing into Waziristan would be pretty reprehensible. There is no justification for invading a sovereign state - and an ally, at that - without cause.

I am not actually against the odd surgical strike into Pakistan. The fact that Obama would or would do that is besides the point. The point is that if he does he has ZERO understanding of what that means to the people who will actually carry out that action or stay around in the area afterward. Obama's understanding of military action and military hardship is no better than any of the joystick generals on this site, probably worse actually.

That goes for Bush too. Now, I am not saying that is and of itself a no go criteria, there are plenty of things non-military related that a president does, but it is certainly a weakness within an overall candidacy.

By extension, outright invading Iran without casus belli or good intention would be abominable and utterly unjustifiable. War is the worst of things at the best of times. That someone was once a soldier does not give them license to start a war without reason. That he once suffered does not give him the right to send others to suffer, or to bring suffering upon those who do not deserve it. That requires a cause, and there isn't one.

1.) Don't be ridiculous, Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable on multiple levels and would indeed be a casus belli. Amongst other things that actually already give us a casus belli.

2,) And it has nothing to do with a "license," but rather having someone who fully understands the implications of what he is ordering. McCain knows exactly what I am going through every time I pull away from the pier, Obama has no clue.

4 - I'm not sure I believe that. It seems to be Reagan's legacy that the Republicans no longer know what fiscal responsibility in government actually means. It'd be nice, though, on that I'm with you. I just don't think it will happen so long as the 'small government' party is run by the people who run ti now.

At least they pay lip service, the Dems don't even pretend. McCain's record is clear as far as cutting wasteful spending.

Drill baby drill! We're saved!

Which is exactly the point, a well rounded plan utilizing all the options available. Obama's plan amounts to nothing other than "lets all wait around for a super awesome breakthrough in alternative fuels!" McCain's plan includes alternative development as well, but also lists expansion of domestic oil output and nuclear energy NOW in the meantime.

Obama supports ethanol, need I say more?

 

[Murky]

He doesn't look like chimp.

 

[Cutlass]

I prefer his economics to the wealth spreader

You prefer there to be less total wealth in society than for there to be a bigger pie with slightly fairer shares?

 

[Patroklos]

What about Obama's plan even remotely hints at increasing the size of the pie. His gutting of investment incentives alone refutes this.

 

[Narz]

Which is exactly the point, a well rounded plan utilizing all the options available. Obama's plan amounts to nothing other than "lets all wait around for a super awesome breakthrough in alternative fuels!"

"well rounded" & "nothing other than" are in the eye of the beholder, you've explained nothing.

McCain's plan includes alternative development as well, but also lists expansion of domestic oil output and nuclear energy NOW in the meantime.

Even Obama supoorts offshore drilling but realizes it's not a viable long term solution to oil dependency.

Obama supports ethanol, need I say more?

Ethanol in itself isn't a bad idea (though it's a bad idea to think we can get completely "energy independent" via it) but getting it from corn is.

I'm not picking on McCain in particular here (his winning the election is a non-threat) but AFAI'veNoticed him & Palin have bandied around the whole "energy independence" catchphrase more often than Obama. The phrase itself is a complete joke & the idea that a few new offshore rigs & nuke plants (which are hardly sustainable or local, shoot the Indians are going to the friggin' moon for Uranium) is even more of a joke.

 

[Patroklos]

"well rounded" & "nothing other than" are in the eye of the beholder, you've explained nothing.

It was just explained to you, I can't help your willful ignorance.

Even Obama supoorts offshore drilling but realizes it's not a viable long term solution to oil dependency.

Obama doesn't support it, he was forced into conceeding to it when the rest of the country disagreed with him. And when did McCain say offshore drilling was a viable long term solution to oil dependancy? The good thing about having a multi faceted approach like McCain is that you are not reliant on any one to solve the problem alone.

Ethanol in itself isn't a bad idea (though it's a bad idea to think we can get completely "energy independent" via it) but getting it from corn is.

Unless you are insinuating we are capable of growing suger cane across this great nation of ours, domestic ethanal which Obama enthusiastcally supports, is one of the worst ideas ever inflicted on American energy policy (and food policy).

I'm not picking on McCain in particular here (his winning the election is a non-threat) but AFAI'veNoticed him & Palin have bandied around the whole "energy independence" catchphrase more often than Obama. The phrase itself is a complete joke & the idea that a few new offshore rigs & nuke plants (which are hardly sustainable or local, shoot the Indians are going to the friggin' moon for Uranium) is even more of a joke.

There are things we can do now, and there are things we can't. Expanding domestic oil production and nuclear energy can be done now, using non existant alternative fuels can't. It is that simple.

 

[Halcyon]

1.) Don't be ridiculous, Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable on multiple levels and would indeed be a casus belli. Amongst other things that actually already give us a casus belli.

I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea, either. I'm equally uncomfortable with everyone else having nukes, if I'm honest. Consider the list - the US, Russia, China, Israel, arch-enemies Pakistan and India, North Korea of all places. I don't really get why Iran's nuclear ambitions are casus belli when North Korea's are not, given that NK is probably crazy enough to drop one on Seoul, while Iran is not stupid enough to take out Tel Aviv even if they genuinely wanted to, which I doubt.

Can I ask what the 'other things' are, though? Israel, I presume? It's been a while since Iran attacked anyone, if I recall, although their support for Hezbollah is pretty indefensible. That said, the US has supported worse causes - installing/supporting dictators, terrorists, extremist guerillas, the Shah, etc - so there's a pot-kettle thing going on here.

2,) And it has nothing to do with a "license," but rather having someone who fully understands the implications of what he is ordering. McCain knows exactly what I am going through every time I pull away from the pier, Obama has no clue.

I can empathise with that. It's his seeming willingness to start a fight that bothers me. War is not something that should be taken lightly. I suppose it's just that I don't see why attacking Iran would be necessary. For one, the only reason any nation even wants nuclear weapons is to prevent people from invading them, so threatening to invade people for developing nukes seems rather counterproductive in the long run. For two, they're in no way a threat to the US, and they're not stupid enough to mess with Israel (again, if they even wanted to). For three, I'd worry that invading the place would set back the inevitable collapse of the current oppressive and deeply unpopular regime.

Which is exactly the point, a well rounded plan utilizing all the options available. Obama's plan amounts to nothing other than "lets all wait around for a super awesome breakthrough in alternative fuels!" McCain's plan includes alternative development as well, but also lists expansion of domestic oil output and nuclear energy NOW in the meantime.

Obama supports ethanol, need I say more?

Yeah. Bear in mind that new oil exploitation isn't actually going to solve anything, though. All the output that could be gotten from drilling offshore/the ANWR/etc is not going to significantly increase world output, will take a decade to get there, and all goes on the world market in any case - so the direct benefit to US citizens is minimal at best. Nuclear plants are a decent (if far from perfect) idea, provided they're sensibly engineered modern breeder-type ones and a proper waste storage system is built. Essentially, though, development of wind and solar power is the only long-term solution.

I'm with you on the ethanol, though. It kinda works with sugarcane if you've the right climate, and cellulosic ethanol might not be a complete waste of time if it ever gets developed, but maize ethanol is so absurdly useless that the only reason anyone takes it seriously is to suck up to Iowa farmers and various sadly influential rich mega-farm companies.

 

[fugazi]

Independence through nuclear energy is a dream. You'd have to import the uranium needed to fuel all those new plants - hello new dependency. Also the off-shore drilling is a farce - it will take 10-20 years before their 1% impact on your oil dependency becomes real. The health care plan doesn't make much sense either. Where's the money coming from when you're gonna reduce taxes? You guys got an enormous debt and it ain't gonna pay for itself.

.. and while I'm not an Obama-fan, I'd rather die than vote for Palin. The USA surely ain't need her! A hypocritical Christian nutter who does all the things she so disapprove of.

Though I guess, if you're damn rich McCain is your man.

 

[Narz]

Crap, I've been calling you EcoFarm, my bad. The av messed me up.

Anyway...

It was just explained to you, I can't help your willful ignorance.

Catch phrases are not detailed explinations (though evidently good enough for many Americans).

Obama doesn't support it, he was forced into conceeding to it when the rest of the country disagreed with him. And when did McCain say offshore drilling was a viable long term solution to oil dependancy? The good thing about having a multi faceted approach like McCain is that you are not reliant on any one to solve the problem alone.

It's basically worthless to drill. That oil won't come online in any force during his entire reign (hypothetically). And at best it will make a few pennies of difference. We need to rework the entire system to get off oil altogether.

Unless you are insinuating we are capable of growing suger cane across this great nation of ours, domestic ethanal which Obama enthusiastcally supports, is one of the worst ideas ever inflicted on American energy policy (and food policy).

It's not a viable long-term solution but ethanol from switchgrass (thanks ElMac) would still be better than more drilling.

There are things we can do now, and there are things we can't. Expanding domestic oil production and nuclear energy can be done now, using non existant alternative fuels can't. It is that simple.

It's not that simple. If you understood our predicament you'd see how nonsenical & flat wrong your argument is.

New drilling begun now won't yield results for 5 years or more (and the results will be minimal).

Alternative technology (along with changing our way of life) is the only solution to avoid mass decrease in quality of life of Americans. It also isn't available right now but with R&D it could be in a few years.

So, there's not magical way of getting more energy "right now". That's the mental trap you've fooled yourself with (wittingly or not). Every "solution" will take time. The only question worth asking is what plan is sustainable (i.e. : won't run dry leaving us in the same predicament as we are now plus more pollution). And of the course the fact that even ripping up every wilderness area in our nation (funny, I considered the amount of land we honored as National Parks was one of the great things about America, setting us apart from most nations in Europe for example) looking for more oil and it still would make only a few cents difference at the pump.

 

[Murky]

To play at devil's advocate a bit, they did make one fairly descent argument for expanding domestic oil production. That basic argument is that when we drill, we try to make every effort to do it an environmentally friendly way. Nations we import from can do it without as many rules for protecting the environment. The Earth is one biosphere and we're just promoting less environmental protections outside the country by importing oil.

 

[Narz]

That's actually a fairly good argument. I still think renewable technology is a better use of our capital though.

 

[RedRalph]

To play at devil's advocate a bit, they did make one fairly descent argument for expanding domestic oil production. That basic argument is that when we drill, we try to make every effort to do it an environmentally friendly way. Nations we import from can do it without as many rules for protecting the environment. The Earth is one biosphere and we're just promoting less environmental protections outside the country by importing oil.

Is the US a world leader when it comes to environmental protection regarding oil drilling?

 

[JollyRoger]

McCain didn't really say bomb Iran either.

He sang it.

I would vote for McCain if this was 2000 and he was running against Gore, but see no reason to vote for him today. John McCain is not ready to be President anymore.

 

[Murky]

Is the US a world leader when it comes to environmental protection regarding oil drilling?

That's what McCain and Palin are claiming. I'd guess that Saudi Arabia is doing everything they can to protect their cash cow. They're likely doing just about as much as we are. There are other countries that we import from that don't.

I seem to recall reading about some major environmental catastrophe in Iraq post-invasion, involving polluting the one of the major water sources.

 

[Patroklos]

I can't say I'm comfortable with the idea, either. I'm equally uncomfortable with everyone else having nukes, if I'm honest. Consider the list - the US, Russia, China, Israel, arch-enemies Pakistan and India, North Korea of all places. I don't really get why Iran's nuclear ambitions are casus belli when North Korea's are not, given that NK is probably crazy enough to drop one on Seoul, while Iran is not stupid enough to take out Tel Aviv even if they genuinely wanted to, which I doubt.

There are other things to consider when comparing when comparing North Korea and Iran. Specifically, the immediate consequences of conventional war with NK may well be worse than one or two low yield nuke explosions. Also, as realpolitic as it is, NK is in no position to dominate the life blood of the world economy.

Can I ask what the 'other things' are, though? Israel, I presume? It's been a while since Iran attacked anyone, if I recall, although their support for Hezbollah is pretty indefensible. That said, the US has supported worse causes - installing/supporting dictators, terrorists, extremist guerillas, the Shah, etc - so there's a pot-kettle thing going on here.

Their overt support of Iraqi insurgents, leading directly to the deaths of US soldiers. It would help if they put a leash on the IRCGN in the Gulf/SoH as well.

I can empathise with that. It's his seeming willingness to start a fight that bothers me. War is not something that should be taken lightly.

And McCain agrees with you. There is only one candidate who has all but garaunteed we will attack another nation, and it isn't McCain. In fact there is nothing that indicates McCain would be more hawkish than Obama, but rather several that suggest less hawkish.

I suppose it's just that I don't see why attacking Iran would be necessary. For one, the only reason any nation even wants nuclear weapons is to prevent people from invading them, so threatening to invade people for developing nukes seems rather counterproductive in the long run.

You are correct. It would keep us from invading them if they say...closed the SoH. It would prevent us from invading them if they say...overthrew the democratic government in Iraq. It would prevent us from invading them if they say...openly supported Hezzbolah.

Nukes are not just for benign deterence, they are also fore detering legitimate responses to your conventinal offensive actions.

For two, they're in no way a threat to the US, and they're not stupid enough to mess with Israel (again, if they even wanted to). For three, I'd worry that invading the place would set back the inevitable collapse of the current oppressive and deeply unpopular regime.

You need to abandon this notion that Iran has to physically attack us in order to be a threat. If Iran closed th SoH for instance, the US gets very little physical oil from there but the worldwide price for everyone still skyrockets. If they destabilize the Kurdish regions it won't physically affect the US, but it will affect our military ally Turkey. There are all sorts of things states can do to severly hurt US interests without directly attacking us.

Yeah. Bear in mind that new oil exploitation isn't actually going to solve anything, though. All the output that could be gotten from drilling offshore/the ANWR/etc is not going to significantly increase world output, will take a decade to get there, and all goes on the world market in any case - so the direct benefit to US citizens is minimal at best.

Yes, the oil will still be priced at worldwide market levels, but that money will be going into the pockets of domestic firms vice the ME and while it will only make up 1% of the world supply, it will make up a far larger portion of US physical supply.

There are two birds to kill here.

1.) Our dependance on foriegn oil.
2.) Our dependance on oil period.

Nuclear plants are a decent (if far from perfect) idea, provided they're sensibly engineered modern breeder-type ones and a proper waste storage system is built. Essentially, though, development of wind and solar power is the only long-term solution.

Solar and wind are not the answer and never will be. They have their roles on the perephery of energy production but will never be a prime mover. Nuclear energy has the ability to fill the primary source role, supplemented where it makes sense by wind/solar/geo/tidal.

Independence through nuclear energy is a dream. You'd have to import the uranium needed to fuel all those new plants - hello new dependency.

I don't particularly mind being dependant on Canada. Nice blokes.

Crap, I've been calling you EcoFarm, my bad. The av messed me up.

I knew what you meant, np.

Catch phrases are not detailed explinations (though evidently good enough for many Americans).

An explanation was provided. McCain = alternative investment, domestic oil expansion, dramatic nuclear expansion. Obama = alnertative investment.

It's basically worthless to drill. That oil won't come online in any force during his entire reign (hypothetically). And at best it will make a few pennies of difference. We need to rework the entire system to get off oil altogether.

1.) Isn't that exactly what they said in the 90s, which is why we don't have that oil now? The sooner we start, the sooner it happens. Hell, lets just use the same damn arguement about alternative energies, they are 10-20 years out, why bother.

2.) Again, there are two birds to kill here; being less dependant on foreign oil, and being less dependant on oil period. There is no reason why we can't work on both, as they are mutually complimentary.

New drilling begun now won't yield results for 5 years or more (and the results will be minimal).

But they are results, which will help. Simple math wins again. And your time frame arguement is absurd, as every single alternative as a similar or far greater lead time.

Alternative technology (along with changing our way of life) is the only solution to avoid mass decrease in quality of life of Americans. It also isn't available right now but with R&D it could be in a few years.

Few years?

It is all experimental. Assuming that they had a breakthrough right now, it would be decades before anything other than a token portion of our transport fleet would be utilizing the tech. But there isn't a breakthrough right now, no matter how much you and Obama wish for it. Life style change? Sure, but in conjuction with domestic oil discover and nuclear power. If we increase domestic oil prodution to cover 5% of our demand that would be awesome. If we reduce our our usave by 5% by lifestyle changes that would be awesome. Put both of those together and do the math and that is AWESOME!

So, there's not magical way of getting more energy "right now". That's the mental trap you've fooled yourself with (wittingly or not).

We can start drilling and nuke power plant constuction right now. Again, your timeline fallacy is bordering on ******ed. Alternative fuels don't exist, nuke power and drilling tech do. Are you really oblivious to the implication of those facts?

And of the course the fact that even ripping up every wilderness area in our nation (funny, I considered the amount of land we honored as National Parks was one of the great things about America, setting us apart from most nations in Europe for example) looking for more oil and it still would make only a few cents difference at the pump.

Yes, we have already established that you and Obama plan on praying for a solution to fall from the sky instead of pursuing every avenue available.

 

[RedRalph]

And McCain agrees with you. There is only one candidate who has all but garaunteed we will attack another nation, and it isn't McCain. In fact there is nothing that indicates McCain would be more hawkish than Obama, but rather several that suggest less hawkish.

Patroklos can you please explain this?