bascule Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/76270/ Michael Moore sez: "I'm morally prohibited from voting for Hillary" Why? Her votes, and stance on the Iraq war. Can Hillary gain traction with the anti-war crowd? Is resentment of the Iraq War responsible for her waning popularity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If it wasn't for Obama would you be saying that? Or would you be talking about how Democrats need to come together to avoid "eight more years"? If you're gonna be partisan, guy, be partisan. Don't hide it in the eggnog. Anyway, the anti-war vote isn't nearly as relevent as it was before the successful surge, and the single-issue vote never was. In this week's ABC News poll only 30% of DEMOCRATS felt that Iraq was the main issue in the election. They're too busy focusing on the economy now. Guess you progressives shouldn't have screamed "LOOK, LOOK! OVER HERE!", huh? Also, Michael Moore is precisely as relevent as Rush Limbaugh. They're both acting like spoiled brats, thinking that their idolizers actually equate to real power. I'm glad people are ignoring them. But just relax. People are voting for Obama in spite of his growing support from the left wing. He's increasingly viewed as a moderate, mainstream, coalition-building, sensible guy. You know, the things you always complained were missing from Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 If it wasn't for Obama would you be saying that? Or would you be talking about how Democrats need to come together to avoid "eight more years"? If you're gonna be partisan, guy, be partisan. I guess you don't remember it, but about a year ago I was endorsing McCain over Hillary. My signature was something to the effect of: "If the 2008 presidential race comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I am so voting Republican". Here's a thread referencing it, from last March: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25222 More Hillary bashing, from last June: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27170 Yet more Hillary bashing, from last July: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27333 I don't think it should come as any surprise that I'm perpetuating the trend now. It's not that Obama doesn't have anything to do with it... he does. But it's not as if my opinions have changed as of late. Anyway, the anti-war vote isn't nearly as relevent as it was before the successful surge, and the single-issue vote never was. In this week's ABC News poll only 30% of DEMOCRATS felt that Iraq was the main issue in the election. They're too busy focusing on the economy now. I'm failing to see how the two aren't related. Massive budget shortfalls resulting in rampant foreign borrowing, largely to finance the Iraq War, has destroyed the dollar in the international marketplace, driving up the cost of all those foreign goods Americans are addicted to, and compounding the problems of the mortgage crisis. Bush has just proposed a $3 trillion budget, with a $400 billion budget deficit. The national debt has reached $9.2 trillion, up 61%, or $3.5 trillion, from when Clinton left office (it was $5.7 trillion then). Nearly one third of that $3.5 trillion has gone to Iraq. By the time Bush leaves office it will be nearing the $10 trillion mark. It's for this reason that I think someone like Ron Paul, who advocates massive cutbacks in government spending of all kinds (the most obvious of which is ending the Iraq War) would be the most viable candidate for restoring the US economy. But just relax. People are voting for Obama in spite of his growing support from the left wing. He's increasingly viewed as a moderate, mainstream, coalition-building, sensible guy. You know, the things you always complained were missing from Bush? That's all quite awesome, and if you check the above links from my past post, those are the reasons I've continually endorsed Obama over Hillary. Hillary is not only politically backwards by my standards, but also a more divisive candidate who is more likely to alienate moderates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well it's nice of you to admit your bias, but it doesn't change the fact that you posted a Michael Moore statement and expected people to identify with it. Who cares what Michael Moore thinks? He is precisely as relevent as Rush Limbaugh. People are ignoring him, as they should be. Hurray for the American voter, for once. It ain't a perfect situation, but it could be worse -- they could be listening to the kind of people you want them listening to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well it's nice of you to admit your bias, but it doesn't change the fact that you posted a Michael Moore statement and expected people to identify with it. Perhaps I was mistaken in my assumption that "iconoclast" carries pejorative overtones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If your issue is ending the war, then your chances are much better with Clinton than with McCain, who is and has always been an unapologetic hawk. Clinton says voting for the war was a mistake. Why would you be voting for McCain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well, she dances around the word mistake, but she at least would change her vote in retrospect, McCain won't even do that. This is the issue that will probably keep me from voting for McCain. If Iraq is not in decent shape come election time, I can't vote for McCain. McCain will be more stubborn than Bush in regards to the war effort. He wasn't playing politics in support for the surge, he thinks the military must win. I really respect McCain and wanted him as Pres in 2000. He has served his country for many years and has earned respect. Contrast that with Obama who does some nice speeches and gets all this emo support. Voting for Obama is a roll of the dice, but he is getting support from some very qualified people, so maybe he will be successful. At the very least, it will be interesting to see how long the media love fest lasts for an African American president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "I remember this one time when I was holed up in this bamboo cage in one of the camps of the Viet Cong ..." I've always thought that McCain probably has too many unresolved emotional issues to effectively govern. Bush stormed Iraq just because Saddam threatened his father's life. McCain is likely to start WWIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "I remember this one time when I was holed up in this bamboo cage in one of the camps of the Viet Cong ..." I've always thought that McCain probably has too many unresolved emotional issues to effectively govern. Bush stormed Iraq just because Saddam threatened his father's life. McCain is likely to start WWIII. "I remember this one time when I couldn't catch a taxi, because I was black..." YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/76270/ Michael Moore sez: "I'm morally prohibited from voting for Hillary" Why? Her votes, and stance on the Iraq war. Can Hillary gain traction with the anti-war crowd? Is resentment of the Iraq War responsible for her waning popularity? I know Moore was passively supporting, though not endorsing Edwards before he dropped. I guess his favorite candidate was Kucinich, though. I don't know if he'd support Obama either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Bush stormed Iraq just because Saddam threatened his father's life. McCain is likely to start WWIII. John5746 has a point -- all the candidates spew emotional stuff, and you're way out in the hinterlands in drawing a conclusion like that. If you want I can get you Oliver Stone's phone number and you guys can go make a movie about it. Congrats to John for getting away with an allusion that, had I made, would have caused at least three members to go Mount-Saint-Helens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/76270/ Michael Moore sez: "I'm morally prohibited from voting for Hillary" Why? Her votes, and stance on the Iraq war. Can Hillary gain traction with the anti-war crowd? Is resentment of the Iraq War responsible for her waning popularity? It was probably Bill's idea for her to vote for. He probably talked her into it and then like most females would have, went ballistic when things went sour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 If your issue is ending the war, then your chances are much better with Clinton than with McCain, who is and has always been an unapologetic hawk. Clinton says voting for the war was a mistake. Why would you be voting for McCain? Well, the point's moot now. I don't support either of them. While I think McCain would be worse, Clinton certainly seems all for the status quo in Iraq. Sadly, I'm starting to hear clamors of "stay the course" again, as violence in Iraq approaches levels similar to what they were circa the 2004 election... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Vowing to begin withdrawl in 60 days regardless of the situation equates to "seems all for the status quo in Iraq"? I guess if that's what you need it to mean..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 9, 2008 Author Share Posted February 9, 2008 Vowing to begin withdrawl in 60 days regardless of the situation equates to "seems all for the status quo in Iraq"? She's suggested she'll have a withdrawal plan within 60 days of her taking office, not that we'll withdraw our forces in 60 days. So, in other words, we have no idea what her withdrawal plan will be until 2 months after she takes office. Before that she said that our tactics in Iraq are working, and that we should increase the size of US military by 80,000 troops. Are you curious why I don't think she'll stick with a withdrawal plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Sure, I am always interested in your opinion, even when I disagree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 It was probably Bill's idea for her to vote for. He probably talked her into it and then like most females would have, went ballistic when things went sour. Oh dear Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 She's suggested she'll have a withdrawal plan within 60 days of her taking office, not that we'll withdraw our forces in 60 days. So, in other words, we have no idea what her withdrawal plan will be until 2 months after she takes office. From what I've seen, this is not the case. She is actually suggesting that she will begin withdrawal of troops within 60 days of taking office, at a rate of approximately 2 brigades per month. See link below (of the January 31, 2008 democratic debate in California): [This is part 9 or 10, and her comments are at the very beginning. At the end of part 8 of 10, she was discussing how the republicans are attacking them by saying they are "letting the terrorists" win for saying... This:] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqcxsZMwjqQ On late addition with Wolf Blitzer, either yesterday or this morning, General Colin Powell made a very insightful comment curious where she's coming up with these numbers, who is advising her, and how can she make such precise statements with these seemingly arbitrary time frames. Sounds more like one of those "campaign promises" than a strong conviction with supporting data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now