?

Log in

No account? Create an account
McCain's Choice - Wise Tits — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Wise Tits

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

McCain's Choice [Aug. 30th, 2008|12:28 am]
Wise Tits
wise_tits
[d_h_belmont]
John McCain's pick for VP, if you haven't heard, is Alaskan Senator Sarah Palin.

Seeing as McCain and the GOP are really REALLY trying to get the idea across that Barack Obama is inexperienced, McCain's choice seems extremely hyprocritical as both of them haven't spent a lot of time in "the game". Obama is a first term senator, and Palin is a first term governor of Alaska. Both Obama and Palin are about the same age. Not only does it seem hypocritical to me, it seems to be blatant pandering to frustrated voters who REALLY REALLY wanted Hillary to get the nod. It also seems a way to go "Well, if you vote for me, we can make history too as she'd be the first woman vice president!". It doesn't seem to be a choice based on what's best for the nation, who would be the most qualified for the job, but instead, solely, what could capture the most votes.

Someone on a Star Trek discussion forum gave McCain "props" for "thinking for himself and not just going along with what his advisors and consultants say". Independent thinking is good, but... I wish I was drinking coffee at that moment so I could spit it all over the computer I was using. Are we really going to give someone props for disregarding advice given to him who obviously know enough of what they are talking about to get hired in the first place? Is this "go it alone" policy really a GOOD thing? Oh yeah, this advice is sounds and logical, but I am going to do whatever I want because I am the guy running for office. Everyone else can screw themselves.

Republicans acting Hypocritical? Tell me something new.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: jesuismeursault
2008-08-31 08:04 pm (UTC)
i think he is clearly playing the novelty card. now he has a woman on the ticket, so that's just as good as having a black guy, right? right? yeah, no. a politician lacking integrity is nothing new, but i just can't stand the desperate grasping at straws.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: d_h_belmont
2008-08-31 09:33 pm (UTC)
I'd find McCain's actions incredibly hilarious if not for the fact it might dupe some voters to pick him.

But it's the hypocrisy, and the fact most people are oblivious to it, that REALLY bothers me.

Oh, I love your display pics, by the way. Especially the Hannibal Lector one.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jesuismeursault
2008-09-01 07:10 am (UTC)
thanks! i love having pics for any occasion. it's a sickness.

i agree that mccain is being quite hypocritical. and, regardless, he has no executive experience himself, so it's hard for him to accuse obama of lacking experience, when neither of them have that particular brand of experience. but picking the all american motherly type as your running mate in a desperate attempt to grab at the swing voters and those who wanted to see a woman in office is going too far, especially given the accusations he's tossing obama's way. politics sickens me as a general rule, but it seems it can always get worse. is it ever going to get better?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: d_h_belmont
2008-09-01 07:48 pm (UTC)
Nope.

I think the only way Politics will get better is if the general public gets a brain and has the capacity to recognize political tactics and spin and when one's argument is full of logical fallacies. These ads they run during election time are meant for the lowest common denominator, and it's frustrating to see something negative on TV and I think "You're taking this out of context to the point of lying" or "That's not even relevant to the election", or something else like "That's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy (fun to say!)...

I'll be glad when it's all over.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
From: d_h_belmont
2008-09-02 08:27 am (UTC)
To most, it's a popularity content. To others, they simply vote one way because they belong to a party and their parents and grandparents belonged to that party, too, and others still vote a certain way because their pastor tells them how to vote.

What people need to realize is that the Founding Fathers didn't want the American people to vote for a President, and if I remember correctly, Senators used to be selected by the House. The reason for this was because the general public is ignorant and wouldn't know what to do with that level of democratic freedom. That's one reason we had an Electoral College; we voted for people who would in turn, vote for the President. It's still technically that way, but no one seems to realize that. I'd be in favor of returning to the old ways. At the very least, we wouldn't have to hear candidates talk about abortion and God and health care for seniors anymore. Maybe then, they could build a platform based on what the role of President calls for. I'm not saying the public should be removed from politics entirely, but I think it would be nice if politicians could focus more on what needs to be done and not on how to get reelected.

But since that doesn't happen, I think we need to find a way to show people that sound bites mean nothing without hearing everything a candidate says. People need to learn early on what arguments are logical and which would be considered flawed, and just because he seems like he could be your friend, does not mean he could lead a nation into war or rally us together in times of crisis or tragedy.

I disagree with you on the part about how we'd still be British subjects. Mind you, most people who eventually supported the war during those times were getting upset about something people still get pissed about today: TAXES. I believe the old line was "No taxation without representation!", and I think that's the mentality people have today, only they don't care whether they get represented or not, they just don't like ANY form of taxes. Wanna smear a candidate? Tell everyone about how many times he voted in favor of a tax hike REGARDLESS of the nature of the tax. It was all about taxes back then seeing as England wasn't really taking away their freedoms... except when it came to encroaching on Indian territory; in response to the attacks, the King said to leave them alone and stay out of their territory. We could get into the minutiae of King George III, but let's save it for later. It was taxes then and it's taxes today with the whole idea of "freedom" stapled onto it somehow.

Polly ticks.... hmmph!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)