McCain supporters - Why?

Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
Can a McCain supporter tell me why he's your guy (without mentioning his opponent, directly or indirectly)?

Comments

  • misspammisspam Posts: 5,318Registered Users
    I believe everyone ought to vote in every election because it's our civic duty. I classify myself as a conservative who tends to vote Republican, so McCain is the only choice I have at this point. He is far from being conservative, and he most certainly wasn't in my top 3 of the Republican candidates, but I will vote for him in November.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    I'm a conservative with Libertarian leanings and McCain is what I have to choose from. It is also going to depend on his choice for VP.

    But I like his plan on taxes, I think reducing coporate taxes AND reducing their subsidies (is that the right word?) is a good idea. The big agribusiness and oil companies can do without it.

    I don't necessarily care for his stand on immigration, but since Chuck Norris is the only one who's stand I DO like...that's an issue for another day. I like that he took a look at the economy today and decided that offshore drilling is a good idea. And it's not like it is offshore drilling within sight of shore...we're talking 100-200 miles out.

    I trust him to keep my family safe...and that is one of the biggest factors as far as I am concerned. He can make sure that my government protects me and leave me alone to do provide for my family.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • AngularScienceAngularScience Posts: 844Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I'm an independent voter, but I lean more along the lines of a fiscal conservative and a libertarian platform than a liberal one, though socially I'm a liberal.

    From the news sources I've read, McCain doesn't support a healthcare plan like ClintonCare, which to me is borderline communist and has a number of factors that would be impossible to implement in a country of this size. He also is pro-choice in terms of education, supporting vouchers, etc. for schools. He has experiences in campaign finance reform and is concerned over pork barrel spending. He has had a great deal of experience in the Senate, and being in the army shows leadership skills. Although he supports the war, it's for a good reason: you cannot pull the troops out until a good foundation is in place.

    I'm not a fan of his religiously conservative views on gay marriage and abortion, but honestly, those issues do not affect me in the least, and if that's the reason I'm not voting for someone, I'm being ridiculous. I also don't agree with offshore drilling. The reason I believe it is bad is because the initial excavation of the areas will require human intervention where there was none, and that will upset the ecosystems there. I have read numerous articles about alternative energy, and I know that there are ways to get alternative fuels, but by conspiracy and inadequate funding and copyright protection laws, these techniques have not been implemented.

    I want to know more about what his plans are for funding scientific research, as well as his education plans for higher education, both of which will affect my future.

    Unless Obama or another candidate can improve upon these criteria, I'm voting for McCain.
  • ShrekLoverShrekLover Posts: 2,551Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    susancnw wrote: »
    I'm a conservative with Libertarian leanings and McCain is what I have to choose from. It is also going to depend on his choice for VP.

    But I like his plan on taxes, I think reducing coporate taxes AND reducing their subsidies (is that the right word?) is a good idea. The big agribusiness and oil companies can do without it.

    I don't necessarily care for his stand on immigration, but since Chuck Norris is the only one who's stand I DO like...that's an issue for another day. I like that he took a look at the economy today and decided that offshore drilling is a good idea. And it's not like it is offshore drilling within sight of shore...we're talking 100-200 miles out.

    I trust him to keep my family safe...and that is one of the biggest factors as far as I am concerned. He can make sure that my government protects me and leave me alone to do provide for my family.

    I agree with 99% of this and especially the bolded.
  • CurlyMireyaCurlyMireya Banned Posts: 956Banned Users
    Do people think Republicans are stronger on national security because we haven't had any attacks in the States since 9/11? I'm just curious. Do you believe that 9/11 is the last terrorist attack that we'll have on U.S. soil? I've read that Al Quaeda is now at its strongest point since 2001. I firmly believe that if anyone really wants to attack us, they will, regardless of who is in office. Al Quaeda has ample resources and capabilities for a large scale attack. It's only a matter of time. I know we've gotten comfortable post 9-11, but we shouldn't have a false sense of security. We should be preparing for the next attack and strengthening our homeland security, which is very, very weak. I don't say that to scare anyone or be pessimistic - I'm just trying to be realistic.

    I don't think we should depend on elected officials to protect us from terrorists, particularly Republicans. Our airports and waterways are more vulnerable than ever - this has been proven repeatedly through security tests. It doesn't help that our troops are stretched and many military personnel who worked in homeland security positions here at home are now in Iraq. I fail to understand why Republican politicians are seen as security powerhouses. We were attacked during a Republican administration after all.
    "I'm half Hispanic, half white, and look like an Indian." - Bill Richardson
  • EllaElla Posts: 392Registered Users
    While there are certainly things that Senator McCain has done that I strongly disagree with, I find his views and votes in congress to be more in line with my beliefs than anyone else at this point. I like his ideas about lowering corporate taxes (although I'd like to see something more in line with what was done in Ireland!) The main reason I will vote for him, however, is I trust his judgement on national security, I will feel safer with him in the White House. I think he has a more personal knowlege of the realities and costs of war and I think he is the type of person who is willing to make decisions based on what he thinks is right, not what is easy or expedient. On a personal note, I also happen to like and admire him, I like that he is feisty and has a [email protected]@ sense of humor. Finally, I am in awe of how he was willing to stay with his men in the POW camp when he could have used his connections to leave and get to safety. To me, that shows a level of self-sacrifice and honor that few of us, whether in the public or private sector, have been called upon to display.
    Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

    There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress. – Mark Twain
  • ShrekLoverShrekLover Posts: 2,551Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Do people think Republicans are stronger on national security because we haven't had any attacks in the States since 9/11? I'm just curious. Do you believe that 9/11 is the last terrorist attack that we'll have on U.S. soil? I've read that Al Quaeda is now at its strongest point since 2001. I firmly believe that if anyone really wants to attack us, they will, regardless of who is in office. Al Quaeda has ample resources and capabilities for a large scale attack. It's only a matter of time. I know we've gotten comfortable post 9-11, but we shouldn't have a false sense of security. We should be preparing for the next attack and strengthening our homeland security, which is very, very weak. I don't say that to scare anyone or be pessimistic - I'm just trying to be realistic.

    I don't think we should depend on elected officials to protect us from terrorists, particularly Republicans. Our airports and waterways are more vulnerable than ever - this has been proven repeatedly through security tests. It doesn't help that our troops are stretched and many military personnel who worked in homeland security positions here at home are now in Iraq. I fail to understand why Republican politicians are seen as security powerhouses. We were attacked during a Republican administration after all.

    1. Not Republicans so much as I credit Bush for this. I believe we would not have been attacked at the WTC a SECOND time if Clinton had been stronger on security.

    2. I've read the exact opposite that A Queda is at its weakest point since 9/11. 9/11 is probably not our last attack, but the longer we go without one the better and I believe that is McCain's biggest strength.

    3. Security is too weak, on that I agree. It is probably much better than it was before 9/11 though. I can't understand what would make you think it we are not strengthening security. It will never be foolproof.

    4. Who else would we depend on for that?
  • CurlyMireyaCurlyMireya Banned Posts: 956Banned Users
    4. Who else would we depend on for that?

    NO ONE. That's the point. Again, if they really want to attack, they'll attack. I can't believe anyone would depend on the U.S. government to protect us. Where was Bush when the Twin Towers were blown away? It may take time for the next attack, but it will inevitably happen. It's also really amusing that some people think that if we get a Democratic President, we'll be more likely to be attacked. McCain is itching to go to war with Iran which means even less resources and more vulnerablitity here at home if he gets elected. One can make the argument that we're less safe with a Republican administration, but I won't because I believe an attack is going to happen regardless of who's in office.

    2. I've read the exact opposite that A Queda is at its weakest point since 9/11. 9/11 is probably not our last attack, but the longer we go without one the better and I believe that is McCain's biggest strength.

    I can't find anything to substantiate that. Granted, some of these articles are from a year ago, but I can't find anything that asserts that Al Qaeda has weakened in strength since then - in fact, if you read the most current articles, Al Qaeda is growing through new technology.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html

    http://infotech.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3159578.cms

    http://wcbstv.com/national/al.qaeda.threat.2.733356.html

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3366118&page=1
    "I'm half Hispanic, half white, and look like an Indian." - Bill Richardson
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    sdc wrote: »
    Do people think Republicans are stronger on national security because we haven't had any attacks in the States since 9/11? I'm just curious. Do you believe that 9/11 is the last terrorist attack that we'll have on U.S. soil? I've read that Al Quaeda is now at its strongest point since 2001. I firmly believe that if anyone really wants to attack us, they will, regardless of who is in office. Al Quaeda has ample resources and capabilities for a large scale attack. It's only a matter of time. I know we've gotten comfortable post 9-11, but we shouldn't have a false sense of security. We should be preparing for the next attack and strengthening our homeland security, which is very, very weak. I don't say that to scare anyone or be pessimistic - I'm just trying to be realistic.

    Who has a false sense of security? Security is one of the biggest reasons that I am taking this election so seriously. First responders and our federal, state and local governments are taking it seriously. I won't say anything other than there is a reason you don't tell the enemy your game plan...something the NYT seems incapable of understanding. It's rather hard to prepare against a fringe lunatic crowd that think death is a great idea for themselves and that their god will honor it and reward them more. Good luck with that.

    I don't think we should depend on elected officials to protect us from terrorists, particularly Republicans. Our airports and waterways are more vulnerable than ever - this has been proven repeatedly through security tests. It doesn't help that our troops are stretched and many military personnel who worked in homeland security positions here at home are now in Iraq. I fail to understand why Republican politicians are seen as security powerhouses. We were attacked during a Republican administration after all.

    Dear God, that one again. It was 8 months into a Republican administration..after an 8 YEAR period where the idiots figured terrorism was a legal issue and went through the courts. Yeah, that worked well. I can't count the times that I have given thanks that Gore was not the president.

    1. Not Republicans so much as I credit Bush for this. I believe we would not have been attacked at the WTC a SECOND time if Clinton had been stronger on security.

    Agree completely.

    2. I've read the exact opposite that A Queda is at its weakest point since 9/11. 9/11 is probably not our last attack, but the longer we go without one the better and I believe that is McCain's biggest strength.

    3. Security is too weak, on that I agree. It is probably much better than it was before 9/11 though. I can't understand what would make you think it we are not strengthening security. It will never be foolproof.

    4. Who else would we depend on for that?

    And if you go back and read the Constitution (back to that again), one of the primary purposes of the federal government is to ENSURE the safety of its citizens. If we think it is incapable of doing so, then we get rid of them and vote in others. And I am also relying on myself.

    I'll have to find the link, but we have turned back several attacks on US soil...can't think of the word I want to use (I need some gingko), but they have captured training camps in Miami, NYC, upstate NY, CA, etc.

    CM, these links are all from the past few months.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276323.ece

    http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/colonel-enemy-neutralized-in-east-anbar.html

    Things are getting better. German media will report it.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,563471,00.html




    And this is why we will win, and Iraq will win.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAy8For_k

    And this:
    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20970&Itemid=109

    I suspect from the description, this little boy has the same condition that my middle son has, or something similar.

    Or this

    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20945&Itemid=109

    I have a son over there and he gets stuff for the kids in each package I send him...toy cars, bubbles...apparently sidewalk chalk is not a good idea. My understanding is that whatever Gordon doesn't give to the kids, he gives to the Marines ;D
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • Ms KittyMs Kitty Posts: 556Registered Users
    Not a Gaffe: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Iraq

    John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror." If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about. But anyway, what happened.

    On Katie Couric tonight McCain says:

    Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

    McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as -- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

    One problem. The surge wasn't even announced until a few months after the Anbar Awakening. Via Spencer Ackerman, here is Colonel MacFarland explaining the Anbar Awakening to Pam Hass of UPI, on September 29, 2006. That would be almost four months before the President even announced the surge. Petraeus wasn't even in Iraq yet.

    With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

    This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.

    And here is the NY Times talking about the Anbar Awakening back in March 2007.

    The formation of the group in September shocked many Sunni Arabs. It was the most public stand anyone in Anbar had taken against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which was founded by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

    And here is Colin Kahl in Foreign Affairs:


    The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three "occupiers" as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats.

    This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander and Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that according to McCain's inaccurate version of history, military force came first and solved all of our problems. If that is the lesson he takes from the Anbar Awakening, I am afraid it is the lesson he will apply to every other crisis he faces including, for example, Iran.

    This is just incredibly disturbing. I have no choice but to conclude that John McCain has simply no idea what is actually happened and happening in Iraq



    This is your candidate and you really are going to vote for this guy. I wouldn't want him for President of my fan club.:thumbdown:
    My favorites
    Qhemets AHOC,OHHB
    Yemen Henna
    HHC
    AOHR Deep Conditioner
    Coconut,Jojoba and JBC oils
    Rosemary Oil/w horsetail,coltsfoot and Nettle leaves.
    My own homemade mixtures
    BlackStrap Molasses

    http://public.fotki.com/mj11051
  • RheannaRheanna Posts: 2,614Registered Users
    I'm voting for him because he's the only choice I have.
    While he isn't actually conservative, he is more conservative, and therefore more in line with my beliefs.
    I don't like either choice. Again.
    DPTFm5.png
  • AmandacurlsAmandacurls Posts: 6,252Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't this thread supposed to be about why people are supporting McCain, not why they're not. Or long diatribes trying to change people's minds. I'm voting for McCain because he's more in line with my beliefs, point blank. I don't think I need to justify it beyond that.
  • Ms KittyMs Kitty Posts: 556Registered Users
    No one is trying to change your mind. I was just giving you some info on your candidate. McCain is NOT presidental material and I feel you should know that. And remember you get what you vote for.
    My favorites
    Qhemets AHOC,OHHB
    Yemen Henna
    HHC
    AOHR Deep Conditioner
    Coconut,Jojoba and JBC oils
    Rosemary Oil/w horsetail,coltsfoot and Nettle leaves.
    My own homemade mixtures
    BlackStrap Molasses

    http://public.fotki.com/mj11051
  • CurlyMireyaCurlyMireya Banned Posts: 956Banned Users
    Susan, those articles are about individual victories; they don't give a general outlook on Al Qaeda. Everything currently I've seen, even from conservative news outlets, says that Al Qaeda is stronger than almost ever before. I had a whole long post typed out about my thoughts on homeland security versus overseas wars but I somehow managed to delete it (SOB computers!). Suffice to say I'm more worried about terrorists here at home, in my own state that are plotting against us, moreso than terrorists in deserts thousands of miles away. Case in point the Al Quaeda terrorist living in Columbus Ohio that plotted to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and Ohio shopping malls. It was a neighbor that happened to overhear something that exposed him, not national security. I don't credit Bush/the government for thwarting him.

    I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind since I haven't completely made up my mind on this election myself. I just fail to see how McCain would be stronger on terrorism than Obama, esp. since McCain wants a second war in the Middle East which means more vulnerability at home, more reliance on China for $$$ because we're BROKE (Republicans seem to be indpendent-minded, which makes letting another country almost completely fund our wars seem very out of character for them), and more focus on the ME which we can't afford right now. McCain flubbed and admitted himself that it's all about oil - that a war with Iran would reduce our dependency on terrorists for oil. From the horse's mouth there. Obama is more in line with my way of thinking - that terrorism is a global war. There are said to be more terrorists camps in Spain than in anywhere else in the world. I don't know if that's true, though it seems smart to build their base there since all of our attention is in the ME. The enemy has to keep moving, and unfortunately, we don't seem to be following. All in all, I think neither party will make any strides in stopping terrorism. Even if magically the troops come home and the attention is focused here, if someone wants to attack us so much that they put it above his or her own life, I believe they'll do it and eventually be successful. I don't see how national security is really an issue in this election, and am interested in hearing why others think it is. I do respect other's views and guess I can kind of see why McCain is thought to be stronger on terrorism than Obama. But, I'm not so sure the old school war methods are the best way of dealing with today's global terrorists. It does make me feel better that McCain isn't discussing Iran lately (at least not from what I've seen, though we're not seeing much of McCain with Obama in the spotlight).
    "I'm half Hispanic, half white, and look like an Indian." - Bill Richardson

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file