All in all, good video, but I think that you missed the point of the PUMA type folks. The interesting thing is that they are voting for McCain/Palin not because they agree with them, rather because they are protesting the Democratic party being non-Democratic.
I have talked to a couple of PUMAs and they told me the same story, that they are convinced that the party itself is even more corrupt than they believe the Republican party is. They cite the states that did not count in the primaries (both of which went Clinton) and the whole elitist super-delegate concept which is the very antithesis of not just the Democratic party, but of Democracy.
Those states. The whole party decided, before the primaries, that those states wouldn't be counted for breaking the rules. Clinton kept her name on the ballot while Obama had his removed, so of course those states 'went to' Clinton. I have no doubt that a ballot with my name on it and not yours, KT, would go to me as winner.
I agree, I think that Clinton was somewhat undermining the whole process by keeping her name in play. However, there are those (such as Clinton) that feel that their cause is more important than following the rules. The ends justify the means.
I think that both parties are filled with corruption at this point, neither is interested in true democratic elections, they simply want elections that give them the advantage. The republicans defending the somewhat erratic voting machines, and the democrats wanting people to be able to vote with out any proof of citizenship are examples of this.
One thing that I thought was downright scary, I registered to vote when I moved a couple of years ago, I filled out a form, handed it in, I did not show any ID at all, and I get my ballot in the mail every year, if that is not bad enough, every election I get people knocking at my door offering to fill out my ballot and mail it in for me. The worst part, is that if people did not let them actually do this, effectively stealing their vote, they would not be out there.
I also said that both were examples of the problem, not that one was better or worse than the other. The voting machines in question are not 100% faulty, or tampered with or whatever, they give somewhat erratic results, and not having to prove your eligibility does not meant that everyone who does not have an ID should not vote, but it does allow some to vote that should not (Illegal immigrants, etc.)
I know you likely assume that I am a right winger since I am a Christian, however I stand by my statement that neither the Democrats, nor Republicans are interested in truly cleaning up the system anyone who really thinks that Obama or McCain is truly going to change anything is deluding themselves. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
I am not left or right, I am simply me. On some issues I tend to agree with the conservative ideal such as keeping the government out of business as much as possible, reducing taxes, and keeping a strong military. However I also agree with the liberals on ideas like having a viable safety net, improving education, and anti-discrimination. On some issues I agree with neither, such as Gay marriage, regulation/deregulation, and abortion.
I think that you do not give believers enough credit. Just as it is the political extremes that we tend to see in McCain and Obama, it is the theological extremes that we tend to see in atheists, and theists. There are some things that I disagree with both Obama and McCain about and while I do not run in fear over the prospects of either candidate winning, I do think that if you look at the core of what they claim to stand for, McCains stance is a bit more realistic than Obamas.
From the beginning, and long before this election McCain has fought primarily about out of control spending, while Obamas primary argument is about fundamentally changing the way that we do things in D.C. I agree with both of these ideas, but cutting spending is a lot more plausible than convincing the majority of senators and representatives to cut off the very system that has made them rich and powerful.
I wrote on the PUMA website that if they were real liberals who could not vote for Obama, they could vote for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Ralph Nader. I suspect most of these women aren't democrat at all.
Obama has socialist plans. It's true. If you want...feel free to defend socialism, but don't deny he's a socialist.
And if Obama is going to keep all the businesses here and claims he is giving tax cuts to business that stay here - where is the money coming from to pay for the middle class tax cuts and fund his increased spending?
2) regarding al qaeda...they're comment is more spiteful than anything else. "Good stay here then...deplete your resources..bwahah.." It's not an ethusiastic endorsement.
You don't have to be a fortune teller to know that Al Qaeda will be much happier if the U.S. is out of the region and they are free to do whatever they want. You think Al Qaeda will be upset with a president Obama who doesn't give a crap about Israel?
Have you thought through "Obama's tax breaks to the middle class"? Tax cuts are great - BUT NOT at the expense of others.
Do you think taxing companies will stimulate the economy - encourage more corporation development and new jobs?? So great..I have a tax cut, but no job.
He's also giving handouts - since those who do not pay income tax will get money.
Spreading the wealth is not the answer. He is attempting to buy your vote.
Do you think continuing to throw money at the big corporations and oil companies is going to stimulate the economy? They get more money, they go overseas and hire cheap labor, and they get even more money.
Obama is going to give incentives to businesses that keep their jobs in America.
You both make some interesting points, I have not endorsed either candidate yet for a few reasons,
Shonster, you are correct that Obama has socialist leanings (I would not call him a socialist but he definitely wants a more socialist economy) he also does believe in the old line of sticking it to the rich which most people find emotionally satisfying since most of us are not rich. I also question Obama about some of his past relations.
McCain however is not a whole lot different, he also believes in a more socialist economy, as his vote for the bailout and his lack of support of a flat tax demonstrates, he is just not as far as Obama in that regard and Morsec0de is right that the political right has caused damage to the economy, however that does not mean that the left will fair much better, and the currant fiscal and foreign policy crisis is bigger than a political party.
In 1996 the democrats wanted to attack Iraq, in 2002-3 Sen. Clinton was a strong supporter of attacking Iraq, I dare say that the war would have happed if Al Gore were president. It was not until the failed strategy became apparent that most democrats jumped ship on that one. The mortgage situation has been brewing for a very long time, democrats wanted sub prime loans to help the poor get into houses, while the republicans wanted them to keep the banking industry strong, both were wrong.
You guys actually demonstrate the problem very clearly, you are both more worried about blame than solutions (based on your statements above) just as the democrats and republicans are more interested in demonizing each other to keep power then to actually solve the problems facing all of us.
Look up "Hillary" and "Bush" or "Hillary" and "no change"...see what kind of videos you get. Organize them by date and you will find lots of Obama supporters who had the opinion that Hillary was the same as Bush.
This is sort of off-topic but I have a very loose idea about why conspiracy theories appeal to a lot of smarter people and why people think of them in the first place. Smart people see stupid people doing stupid shit and can't understand why so they try and rationalize in their heads why someone would be doing something that is for them ridiculous, and it just sort of evolves from there.
Major oversimplification. Does this mean that for the past 200 years white males have voted because the candidates were white males? People can vote for those who are similar to themselves and still have valid justifications.
I really can't come up with any other explanations, other than a slightly lesser form of sexism. It's possible they liked the idea of Hilary more than Hilary herself. I recall many people in the primaries that wanted Barack to win would only say "change" instead of listing any actual policies. It could be the same thing. It wouldn't be that they say "I'm voting because I want a woman to lead" but subconsciously they are very attracted to the idea of a woman leading, and therefore perfer Palin.
You're absolutely right. We have to be about policy . . . about the issues. I'd like to see how many Hil supporters actually are going to vote for McCain. I hope it's lower than I think.
cool, you have a flag of germany in your room.
timsr 2 years ago
Hey Morsec0de,
All in all, good video, but I think that you missed the point of the PUMA type folks. The interesting thing is that they are voting for McCain/Palin not because they agree with them, rather because they are protesting the Democratic party being non-Democratic.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I have talked to a couple of PUMAs and they told me the same story, that they are convinced that the party itself is even more corrupt than they believe the Republican party is. They cite the states that did not count in the primaries (both of which went Clinton) and the whole elitist super-delegate concept which is the very antithesis of not just the Democratic party, but of Democracy.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I am not saying I agree with their reasoning, I feel one should only vote issues, but this does seam to be their motive.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
It just strikes me as a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not you, but the PUMAs.
Obama made us mad, so let's punish the country!
morsec0de 3 years ago
*sigh*
Those states. The whole party decided, before the primaries, that those states wouldn't be counted for breaking the rules. Clinton kept her name on the ballot while Obama had his removed, so of course those states 'went to' Clinton. I have no doubt that a ballot with my name on it and not yours, KT, would go to me as winner.
morsec0de 3 years ago
I agree, I think that Clinton was somewhat undermining the whole process by keeping her name in play. However, there are those (such as Clinton) that feel that their cause is more important than following the rules. The ends justify the means.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I think that both parties are filled with corruption at this point, neither is interested in true democratic elections, they simply want elections that give them the advantage. The republicans defending the somewhat erratic voting machines, and the democrats wanting people to be able to vote with out any proof of citizenship are examples of this.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
One thing that I thought was downright scary, I registered to vote when I moved a couple of years ago, I filled out a form, handed it in, I did not show any ID at all, and I get my ballot in the mail every year, if that is not bad enough, every election I get people knocking at my door offering to fill out my ballot and mail it in for me. The worst part, is that if people did not let them actually do this, effectively stealing their vote, they would not be out there.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I like how you worded that KT. The voting machines are "somewhat erratic" and the Democrats want "people to be able to vote with out ANY proof".
Biased, much?
morsec0de 3 years ago
I also said that both were examples of the problem, not that one was better or worse than the other. The voting machines in question are not 100% faulty, or tampered with or whatever, they give somewhat erratic results, and not having to prove your eligibility does not meant that everyone who does not have an ID should not vote, but it does allow some to vote that should not (Illegal immigrants, etc.)
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I know you likely assume that I am a right winger since I am a Christian, however I stand by my statement that neither the Democrats, nor Republicans are interested in truly cleaning up the system anyone who really thinks that Obama or McCain is truly going to change anything is deluding themselves. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I said no such thing. I said you were biased. We're ALL biased. Yours just happened to pop out at me.
You're a Christian. It's almost by default that your bias is to the right.
morsec0de 3 years ago
I am not left or right, I am simply me. On some issues I tend to agree with the conservative ideal such as keeping the government out of business as much as possible, reducing taxes, and keeping a strong military. However I also agree with the liberals on ideas like having a viable safety net, improving education, and anti-discrimination. On some issues I agree with neither, such as Gay marriage, regulation/deregulation, and abortion.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I think that you do not give believers enough credit. Just as it is the political extremes that we tend to see in McCain and Obama, it is the theological extremes that we tend to see in atheists, and theists. There are some things that I disagree with both Obama and McCain about and while I do not run in fear over the prospects of either candidate winning, I do think that if you look at the core of what they claim to stand for, McCains stance is a bit more realistic than Obamas.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
From the beginning, and long before this election McCain has fought primarily about out of control spending, while Obamas primary argument is about fundamentally changing the way that we do things in D.C. I agree with both of these ideas, but cutting spending is a lot more plausible than convincing the majority of senators and representatives to cut off the very system that has made them rich and powerful.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I wrote on the PUMA website that if they were real liberals who could not vote for Obama, they could vote for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party or Ralph Nader. I suspect most of these women aren't democrat at all.
duhduh666 3 years ago
And to add....four reasons why Clinton supporters would switch to McCain.
1) No overtaxation of the economy
2) Tough clear stance on national security
3) Do not want a far left takeover of the country
4) Are not Democrats traditionally, but think Hillary would be a good leader and handle a 3 am call well
shonester 3 years ago
1) What overtaxation? You mean giving tax breaks to the middle class instead of just the upper class?
2) Notice how al Qaeda have said they want McCain as president, because they know he'll keep the wars going rather than promote peace.
3) First of all, Obama isn't 'far left'. But it's about time the left take over. The right has caused too much damage.
4) Hillary would be a good leader. But so would Obama, as he's shown by being cool and collected while McCain has been erratic and desperate.
morsec0de 3 years ago
2) Al Qaeda can't wait for Obama to be president. Who do you think they are more likely to f**k with? Obama or McCain?
3) Obama is far left. His associations are far left. The culture he represents is far left.
4) That is a matter of opinion. I think Obama has shown he is naive and talks his way out of anything by going on a tangent about Bush.
shonester 3 years ago
2) Strange...because they said they want McCain to be present. Nice to know you think you can read their minds, though.
3) You have yet to show how the far left is somehow bad?
4) As opposed to "He's a terrorist...he's a socialist...you betcha...Joe the Plumber!" Yeah, I know who I'm voting for.
morsec0de 3 years ago
Obama has socialist plans. It's true. If you want...feel free to defend socialism, but don't deny he's a socialist.
And if Obama is going to keep all the businesses here and claims he is giving tax cuts to business that stay here - where is the money coming from to pay for the middle class tax cuts and fund his increased spending?
shonester 3 years ago
2) regarding al qaeda...they're comment is more spiteful than anything else. "Good stay here then...deplete your resources..bwahah.." It's not an ethusiastic endorsement.
You don't have to be a fortune teller to know that Al Qaeda will be much happier if the U.S. is out of the region and they are free to do whatever they want. You think Al Qaeda will be upset with a president Obama who doesn't give a crap about Israel?
shonester 3 years ago
Have you thought through "Obama's tax breaks to the middle class"? Tax cuts are great - BUT NOT at the expense of others.
Do you think taxing companies will stimulate the economy - encourage more corporation development and new jobs?? So great..I have a tax cut, but no job.
He's also giving handouts - since those who do not pay income tax will get money.
Spreading the wealth is not the answer. He is attempting to buy your vote.
shonester 3 years ago
Do you think continuing to throw money at the big corporations and oil companies is going to stimulate the economy? They get more money, they go overseas and hire cheap labor, and they get even more money.
Obama is going to give incentives to businesses that keep their jobs in America.
morsec0de 3 years ago
You both make some interesting points, I have not endorsed either candidate yet for a few reasons,
Shonster, you are correct that Obama has socialist leanings (I would not call him a socialist but he definitely wants a more socialist economy) he also does believe in the old line of sticking it to the rich which most people find emotionally satisfying since most of us are not rich. I also question Obama about some of his past relations.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
McCain however is not a whole lot different, he also believes in a more socialist economy, as his vote for the bailout and his lack of support of a flat tax demonstrates, he is just not as far as Obama in that regard and Morsec0de is right that the political right has caused damage to the economy, however that does not mean that the left will fair much better, and the currant fiscal and foreign policy crisis is bigger than a political party.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
In 1996 the democrats wanted to attack Iraq, in 2002-3 Sen. Clinton was a strong supporter of attacking Iraq, I dare say that the war would have happed if Al Gore were president. It was not until the failed strategy became apparent that most democrats jumped ship on that one. The mortgage situation has been brewing for a very long time, democrats wanted sub prime loans to help the poor get into houses, while the republicans wanted them to keep the banking industry strong, both were wrong.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
You guys actually demonstrate the problem very clearly, you are both more worried about blame than solutions (based on your statements above) just as the democrats and republicans are more interested in demonizing each other to keep power then to actually solve the problems facing all of us.
KingTheist23 3 years ago
I find it interesting that there are Obama supporters who question how Hillary supporters can vote McCain.
If I RECALL correctly Obama supporters where the ones calling Hillary just like Bush and no change.
shonester 3 years ago
Could you give some actual examples? I don't recall anyone ever saying that, but I don't want to use my limited knowledge to speak in absolutes.
morsec0de 3 years ago
Look up "Hillary" and "Bush" or "Hillary" and "no change"...see what kind of videos you get. Organize them by date and you will find lots of Obama supporters who had the opinion that Hillary was the same as Bush.
shonester 3 years ago
I don't take myself seriously, I should take those youtubers seriously?
morsec0de 3 years ago
This is sort of off-topic but I have a very loose idea about why conspiracy theories appeal to a lot of smarter people and why people think of them in the first place. Smart people see stupid people doing stupid shit and can't understand why so they try and rationalize in their heads why someone would be doing something that is for them ridiculous, and it just sort of evolves from there.
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago
Identity politics.
Women voting for women.
Blacks voting for blacks.
It's ignorant but it happens.
justintempler 3 years ago
Major oversimplification. Does this mean that for the past 200 years white males have voted because the candidates were white males? People can vote for those who are similar to themselves and still have valid justifications.
osiris2669 3 years ago
I'm not trying to explain the last 200 years and I'm not explaining the way most intelligent people make decisions.
There thankfully a small minority that does make decisions based on identity politics.
watch?v=iM2xHggg7Uk
justintempler 3 years ago
"I want to have respect... I want to have respect-- I want to have respect for people"
Hit the nail on the head...
jfredett 3 years ago
I really can't come up with any other explanations, other than a slightly lesser form of sexism. It's possible they liked the idea of Hilary more than Hilary herself. I recall many people in the primaries that wanted Barack to win would only say "change" instead of listing any actual policies. It could be the same thing. It wouldn't be that they say "I'm voting because I want a woman to lead" but subconsciously they are very attracted to the idea of a woman leading, and therefore perfer Palin.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
You're absolutely right. We have to be about policy . . . about the issues. I'd like to see how many Hil supporters actually are going to vote for McCain. I hope it's lower than I think.
HonestDiscussioner 3 years ago
The bee is for the buzz. Or do you mean the letter B?
EtherealAntichrist 3 years ago
I know, but I don't get 'buzz'.
morsec0de 3 years ago
Like.. bzzzz... A buzzing bee. Cuz bee's are said to make buzzing noises. Plus it's.. the Buzz (Or news) about Hillary (Or was I suppose).
EtherealAntichrist 3 years ago
Ah. It was the Buzz/News thing I wasn't getting.
morsec0de 3 years ago