PDA

View Full Version : Is McCain Trying To Lose?




SevenEyedJeff
10-11-2008, 11:59 AM
It just seems to be one blunder after another for McCain. First he says we shouldn't bail everybody out, then he votes for the bailout bill. Of course, there was also the debacle where he tried to chicken out of the debate so he could work to save the economy, then he caved in and went to the debate anyhow. Now it comes out Sarah Palin abused power. Great choice McCain!

McCain just looks like a two-faced fool who cannot make a good decision. Like spending 100 years in Iraq, another great idea of his.

It's clear Obama is the anointed one by the powers-that-be, Obama is the one who will pose as your savior. Obama is the one who will take away the rest of your freedoms with a smile on his face and everyone will cheer, just like Senator Palpatine was cheered when he announced the first Galactic Empire.

The general public isn't going to vote third-party because they are brainwashed into the 2 party system, and I'm afraid nothing will stop this now, short of Bush calling for suspending the elections (which is highly improbable in my opinion.)

cheapseats
10-11-2008, 03:13 PM
I would preface my remarks by saying I have no wish whatever to offend Ron Paul supporters. On the contrary, I sense that Ron Paul supporters are key to reclamation of federal and state governments that have unmistakably run amok. Government Gone Wild!

Since the start of this obscenely long election season, I considered that the Republicans were intending to lose. Not WANTING to lose so much as sacrificing a bishop. I believe the current market mayhem is a little early...never underestimate the manipulation of Desire, never underestimate the power of Addiction. Fallout from the Bush Administration is liable to result in...whaddya think?...say, four years of market volatility and slow growth?

Conveniently timed with a hapless, one-term presidency. They will dust their hands off and declare, "Thank 'goodness' we're done with THAT little experiement." Be it the woman or the black man, there was gonna be hell to pay.

B-b-but it is Bush & Company's handiwork come home to roost. Are you kidding? America has the attention span of a hummingbird...fix it NOW. The buck stops here.

Neoconservatives of the ilk that I believe are responsible for the bulk and extremity of our ills are well-positioned now, either way. If it's Obama, it'll be the Democrats' fault. If it's McCain, it'll be because he's not a "real" Republican. By then, perhaps Jenna Bush's husband, who I understand is a Karl Rove protege, will be in politics.

I don't think John McCain set out to lose, however. I think he's more than able to lose while trying to win, as he has demonstrated in the past.

This whole election has had Karl Rove written stamped on the bottom. The First Woman/First Black rift went deeper than anticipated, I think, unexpectedly giving neoconservatives a shot at retaining the White House. The Democrats are so stupid, and so righteous in their stupidity that it takes the breath away.

By the time the Democratic Demolition Derby had torn the Democratic party asunder, McCain had defaulted his way to the nomination from a field of implausible candidates. The Faux Christian Family Values crowd…which is increasingly recognized as having been contributory to our woes, as one expects from Extremism…puts forth a Mormon, a preacher, an actor with a Trophy Wife, a cross-dressing cousin-marrying philanderer with a third wife and a tightly wrapped former P.O.W. who, despite the considerable privileges that befall the son of multi-generational decorated career military, graduated at the bottom of his class AND who has an heiress Trophy wife, after cheating on the wife who waited for him while he was a P.O.W. and then giving her the heave-ho once she’d been debilitated in a car accident.

In light of the unqualified debacle of the Bush Administration, which of those men was EVER going to enjoy the goodwill of popular support?

Board Members will demand, WHAT ABOUT RON PAUL? When Big Media wasn't ignoring him, they were proactively marginalizing him. By contrast, they coddled Barack Hussein Obama into the Great Non-White Hope.

I know. I bore witness.

What's the plan?

Ron Paul has been in Congress for somewhere in the vicinity of 30 years. Three decades, more than half my life. He is far too principled a man to have pulled a bunch of 180's over the years. Therefore, obviously…regrettably, but nevertheless clearly…Ron Paul's voice does not carry the day.

Why that is is relevant, but not apt to be remedied in the next three weeks.

Not only does he have a good chance of losing, even if he capitulated to running as an Independent, it would create bad blood with Republicans and Obamamaniacs if he did win. We're not going to get ANYTHING accomplished if half the population is antagonistic from the gate. Unless, of course, Congress means to go with the Steamrolling method of governance from here on out.

I believe that the combination of three things...the recent imperviousness of Congress in authorizing landmark legislation over multitudinous objection, the membership of both candidates in said body, and material changes in both candidates' positions after they prevailed in the primaries and people no longer had recourse...entitles and obliges the American People to compel the printing of new ballots that contain fresh options for the People, with "early" votes to be re-cast.

Whereas I don’t think Ron Paul can personally command the landslide that is wanted to launch a Restoration, I do think he’d have a lot of cache as the vice presidential nominee. In the event of a loss, he would retain his freshly influential Republican seat in the House.

A hybrid ticket.

It seems impossible that there wouldn’t be SOME identifiable consensus if pollsters asked people not who they prefer from amongst the declared candidates but rather, given dramatic changes in conditions on the ground, from a clean slate, who would they love to see come riding in, like the Cartwrights on Bonanza, to vanquish the Bad Guys and restore order to the town?

I like Lee Iacocca. He's been through this bailout bullshit, and he went on record early abhorring the absence of leadership in Washington. He looks pretty old, but he sounds like he's got four more years in him. If he kicks the bucket, Ron Paul it is. I cannot fathom anyone thinking that Palin is a better Plan B than Ron Paul.

They can argue Biden, but not Palin.

Biden and Paul have both been in Congress forever, it's a wash. But the president-presumed-dead will have been no-nonsense Lee Iacocca, not pie-in-the-sky Barack Obama.

That Congress countered with and passed an EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLAR earmark-riddled bailout once the SEVEN hundred billion dollar bonanza had been rejected as too outlandish, should make it clear to everyone that the Democrats mean to follow up this power grab with a funding festival.

America needs someone who knows how to spearhead the rally of a failing organization from the brink of insolvency to the flow of prosperity. I'm pretty sure that isn't McCain or Obama, and it is ridiculous to sacrifice another four years.

It's like finding out the weirdo down the street has his family locked in the basement, and resolving to keep an eye on his front door.

Alawn
10-11-2008, 04:57 PM
It's the Republicans' turn to lose. They aren't really trying. Sure they wont be mad if they happen to win. But that could never happen and they don't care that much.

heavenlyboy34
10-11-2008, 05:00 PM
The general public isn't going to vote third-party because they are brainwashed into the 2 party system, and I'm afraid nothing will stop this now, short of Bush calling for suspending the elections (which is highly improbable in my opinion.)

Do you think the coming depression might change their mind a bit (or at least cause them to think twice)?

cheapseats
10-11-2008, 06:06 PM
It's the Republicans' turn to lose. They aren't really trying. Sure they wont be mad if they happen to win. But that could never happen and they don't care that much.

There is nothing about the dastardliness to date that suggests they aren't trying SOMETHING. One theory is that, after the looting of the Treasury, they'll be on their merry way but it doesn't really hold water. If money sufficed, we'd have many fewer Assholes running around trying to control the world.

Another theory is that, with a Big Welfare president like Obama, so much of the labor force will be rendered dependent and the economy will be so screwed up, that the long-suffering People will welcome back the Players...at least they know how to make money.

There are Republicans, and there is Big Money. Big Money NEVER lays down and rolls over. Power never surrenders without a fight. Why would it?

cheapseats
10-11-2008, 07:32 PM
The general public isn't going to vote third-party because they are brainwashed into the 2 party system, and I'm afraid nothing will stop this now, short of Bush calling for suspending the elections (which is highly improbable in my opinion.)

That has historically been our stubborn position. But I hear tell the People are up for Change.



Do you think the coming depression might change their mind a bit (or at least cause them to think twice)?

Yes, absolutely.

I believe that Baby Boomers and Single People can be persuaded to vote for an alternative ticket. You don't need anyone else.

libertarian4321
10-15-2008, 03:57 AM
It just seems to be one blunder after another for McCain. First he says we shouldn't bail everybody out, then he votes for the bailout bill. Of course, there was also the debacle where he tried to chicken out of the debate so he could work to save the economy, then he caved in and went to the debate anyhow. Now it comes out Sarah Palin abused power. Great choice McCain!



McCain isn't trying to lose, he's just a slow-witted (maybe slightly senile), hot tempered, angry old man who doesn't have the stuff to be President.