What Qualifies John McCain and Sarah Palin to be President and Vice-President of the US?

[nivesito 0]

People, you are forgeting something. You don't choose the president by their education, inteligence, standpoint on issues...No, you have to ask your self if he/she looks like somebody you would want to drink a beer with.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

No, only certain Barack Obama supporters are beyond the pail and qualify as morons. The women who would vote for Palin just because she's a woman even if they don't have a clue what she represents, much less care are clearly the salt of the earth.

i always thought they were being slopped.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

People, you are forgeting something. You don't choose the president by their education, inteligence, standpoint on issues...No, you have to ask your self if he/she looks like somebody you would want to drink a beer with.

Hmmm. So since I do not drink I can't pick a favorite????? Not fair

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't really get this idea that someone will or will not vote for a candidate based on their interpretation of what other supporters of that candidate are like - still, in the end none of that matters. On the ballot there is only one question to answer which candidate to pick. The ballot doesn't have an adendum with 'reasons for your choice' and ballots are not rejected if your reasons don't cut the mustard.

[*julez* 124]

I don't really get this idea that someone will or will not vote for a candidate based on their interpretation of what other supporters of that candidate are like - still, in the end none of that matters. On the ballot there is only one question to answer which candidate to pick. The ballot doesn't have an adendum with 'reasons for your choice' and ballots are not rejected if your reasons don't cut the mustard.

Which is really a shame, when you think about it. If we did take that approach, voters would be forced to be more educated about the candidate they support (hahahaha), or at least the votes that counted would be educated votes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't really get this idea that someone will or will not vote for a candidate based on their interpretation of what other supporters of that candidate are like - still, in the end none of that matters. On the ballot there is only one question to answer which candidate to pick. The ballot doesn't have an adendum with 'reasons for your choice' and ballots are not rejected if your reasons don't cut the mustard.

Which is really a shame, when you think about it. If we did take that approach, voters would be forced to be more educated about the candidate they support (hahahaha), or at least the votes that counted would be educated votes.

Imagine - there'd be a whole new line of work: Vote Counselling

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I don't really get this idea that someone will or will not vote for a candidate based on their interpretation of what other supporters of that candidate are like - still, in the end none of that matters. On the ballot there is only one question to answer which candidate to pick. The ballot doesn't have an adendum with 'reasons for your choice' and ballots are not rejected if your reasons don't cut the mustard.

Which is really a shame, when you think about it. If we did take that approach, voters would be forced to be more educated about the candidate they support (hahahaha), or at least the votes that counted would be educated votes.

oh shut up julez, you and your common sense

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Didn't William F. Buckley say once that he thought blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote because they didn't have the education to make informed, democratic choices?

Perhaps this reasoning should apply to everyone - to "gain" the right to vote you have to demonstrate a basic level of education, that you are gainfully employed and can successfully complete a test that shows you know what your chosen candidate about.

I joke of course

Edited October 6, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[IAMX 3,055]

(although Obama will no doubt try to tax me even more)

2 things:

Unless you're rich, Obama wouldn't tax you more under his plan that's been outlined.

Also, Obama can't arbitrarily raise taxes.

Your chances of getting taxed more, if you're a homeowner, are far more likely on the local and state level.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, but the GOP have no real argument as to why one shouldn't vote for Dems beyond the Dems stand for tax and spend - and it's a message that people believe, no matter what the evidence to the contrary is. There is this profound mistrust of taxes, it's like a phobia and the mantra of 'tax and spend' is an easy one to dispense.

Of course, if you are in the upper earnings percentile, it is in your self interest to vote for the GOP as they do try to protect those people from being 'excessively' taxed.

[HAL 9000 96]

Didn't William F. Buckley say once that he thought blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote because they didn't have the education to make informed, democratic choices?

Perhaps this reasoning should apply to everyone - to "gain" the right to vote you have to demonstrate a basic level of education, that you are gainfully employed and can successfully complete a test that shows you know what your chosen candidate about.

I joke of course

Or they should be discredited from aspiring to economic parity with the rest of the population because they are just full of attitude. Fo sho homey.

I too joke.

(although Obama will no doubt try to tax me even more)

2 things:

Unless you're rich, Obama wouldn't tax you more under his plan that's been outlined.

Also, Obama can't arbitrarily raise taxes.

Your chances of getting taxed more, if you're a homeowner, are far more likely on the local and state level.

To some folks, Obama and only Obama, will have an "Easy Tax Button" ready to hit everyone in the country.

Contrary to what is actually being proposed, of course.

[britty 1]

It just seems like Obama has more total morons rooting for him than McCain has.

What a convincing argument you put forth.

Oh you live in DC ?

No, but that makes no difference.

Just because I see tons of McCain/Palin signs in front of crappy trailer homes around here while I see no Obama/Biden signs in front of such properties wouldn't lead me to make a statement along the lines that McCain's supporters tend to live in crappy trailers more so than Obama's supporters.

And just because there were some sharp Obama supporters coming through our neighborhood last weekend to talk to residents about the Obama/Biden ticket and their platform while no such delegation from the McCain camp has ever made it through doesn't lead me to say that it just seems that there are more very sharp campaign workers hitting the street on behalf of Obama than for McCain.

Both would be generalizations that make no sense. Just as yours doesn't make any sense.

If something is a true statement then why doesn't it make sense in your world? If you make the statement that McCain has more supporters living in crappy trailers than Obama does in your town, and it is a true statement, then why wouldn't it make any sense? If there are Obama campaigners knocking on your door, and you have never been visited by a McCain campaigner, then its also a true statement that it seems there are more sharp campaign workers hitting the streets on behalf of Obama than McCain. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't make it nonsensical or a generalization. It just makes it disagreeable to you. Very different things.

[HAL 9000 96]

It makes it a generalization when your observation, limited as it may be, becomes a rule to apply to the rest of the population.

[britty 1]

Ah, but the GOP have no real argument as to why one shouldn't vote for Dems beyond the Dems stand for tax and spend - and it's a message that people believe, no matter what the evidence to the contrary is. There is this profound mistrust of taxes, it's like a phobia and the mantra of 'tax and spend' is an easy one to dispense.

Of course, if you are in the upper earnings percentile, it is in your self interest to vote for the GOP as they do try to protect those people from being 'excessively' taxed.

totally agree. I have always maintained that I will do financially better under a Republican government.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, so you are earning in excess of $500,000 per annum? Good for you.

You probably have to be earning into the millions to really see any benefit though. The GOP don't like to let the 'getting there' into their tax clubs