Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

McCain's Running Mate

Now of course you will all know that McCain has picked the female govenor of Alaska for his running mate. And I assume that many of you will also know that she is anti-abortion and pro-guns.

But, her views go just a little further than that, she is believes in the literal creation story from the bible, the world is according to her 6,000 years old, climate change is not man made, and abortion is wrong even in cases of incest or rape.

Does this change anyones mind about supporting McMcain?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7596418.stm
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well that's it. I'm definitely not voting for them now.

    She's a fucking idiot. Get her in a debate with any half-intelligent person and watch he hang her political career. Or maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on having the intelligence of a grown-up in American politics?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's scary isn't it? Her evangelical views are arguably as extreme as the Islamic extremists will do doubt bang on about during their campaign. I wouldn't want her anywhere near the White House. What really concerns me is the idea of a woman being against abortion even in a case of rape. That’s terrifying.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My god, you lot are getting desperate. You'll use virtually anything in order to attack someone who doesn't agree with you, won't you Budda? So she believes that the world is 6000 years old. So fucking what? It may well be nonsense, but it doesn't do anyone any harm. If Barack Obama believed that the Earth was 6000 years old, you wouldn't mention a peep about it. I can't help but wonder why. I also notice the rest of the disgusting rumours that Palin has had to face in the last few days - claims that she is not the mother of her own baby, for example. Nice to see the Left resorting to its traditional weapons of slander and abuse towards someone they don't like. Do you really associate yourself with people like this, Budda?

    I happen to believe she's a brilliant choice. If I was an American, I would definitely be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin. At least I know what they stand for, which is far more than I can say about Barack Obama. Never mind flowery, meaningless speeches about "change", presumably made by Barack Obama in order to hide the largely unelectable drivel which Democrats believe in. Shut up and tell us what you'd actually do if you get into the White House - but then again, don't bother, as you won't win regardless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote: »
    It's scary isn't it? Her evangelical views are arguably as extreme as the Islamic extremists will do doubt bang on about during their campaign. I wouldn't want her anywhere near the White House. What really concerns me is the idea of a woman being against abortion even in a case of rape. That’s terrifying.

    And with McCain being 72 its not all that far fetched to imagine him having a heart attack and her taking over the office. If she does come into office I think we will look back on Bush as a seasoned diplomat when it comes to Islam vs. Christianity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    My god, you lot are getting desperate. You'll use virtually anything in order to attack someone who doesn't agree with you, won't you Budda? So she believes that the world is 6000 years old. So fucking what? It may well be nonsense, but it doesn't do anyone any harm. If Barack Obama believed that the Earth was 6000 years old, you wouldn't mention a peep about it. I can't help but wonder why.

    I happen to believe she's a brilliant choice. If I was an American, I would definitely be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin. At least I know what they stand for, which is far more than I can say about Barack Obama. Never mind flowery, meaningless speeches about "change", presumably made by Barack Obama in order to hide the largely unelectable drivel which Democrats believe in. Shut up and tell us what you'd actually do if you get into the White House - but then again, don't bother, as you won't win regardless.

    So its fine for someone who could quite easily become President of the US to disagree with virtually every scientist on earth?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    My god, you lot are getting desperate. You'll use virtually anything in order to attack someone who doesn't agree with you, won't you Budda? So she believes that the world is 6000 years old. So fucking what? It may well be nonsense, but it doesn't do anyone any harm. If Barack Obama believed that the Earth was 6000 years old, you wouldn't mention a peep about it. I can't help but wonder why. I also notice the rest of the disgusting rumours that Palin has had to face in the last few days - claims that she is not the mother of her own baby, for example. Nice to see the Left resorting to its traditional weapons of slander and abuse towards someone they don't like. Do you really associate yourself with people like this, Budda?

    I happen to believe she's a brilliant choice. If I was an American, I would definitely be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin. At least I know what they stand for, which is far more than I can say about Barack Obama. Never mind flowery, meaningless speeches about "change", presumably made by Barack Obama in order to hide the largely unelectable drivel which Democrats believe in. Shut up and tell us what you'd actually do if you get into the White House - but then again, don't bother, as you won't win regardless.

    If she could have her way, abortion would be illegal. Still feel comfortable voting for her?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    So its fine for someone who could quite easily become President of the US to disagree with virtually every scientist on earth?
    I have no problem with it. I happen to disagree with scientists on a number of issues. For example, I believe that climate change is deliberately exaggerated by politicians and large conglomerates with an agenda. The first wants to screw us over with "green taxes", the other wants to screw us over by making us buy loads of shit you probably don't need anyway. Does my being suspicious of climate change disqualify me from holding public office? If so, that means millions of potential candidates being ruled out.
    Renzo wrote: »
    If she could have her way, abortion would be illegal. Still feel comfortable voting for her?
    Renzo! How nice to see you once more on the boards. :) You need not worry about a thing. The chances of abortion suddenly becoming illegal in the USA are zero, no matter what evangelical nutters think. They don't hold anywhere near as much influence over the USA as they like to believe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I have no problem with it. I happen to disagree with scientists on a number of issues. For example, I believe that climate change is deliberately exaggerated by politicians and large conglomerates with an agenda. The first wants to screw us over with "green taxes", the other wants to screw us over by making us buy loads of shit you probably don't need anyway. Does my being suspicious of climate change disqualify me from holding public office? If so, that means millions of potential candidates being ruled out.

    You are completely missing the point;

    A) She is not suspicious of man made climate change, she completely denies we have anything to do with it which puts her very far out on the fringe of the issue.

    B) More importantly she believes the world is only 6000 years old, does it not concern you at all that a possible President is so willing to ignore so much scientific evidence?

    Oh, and on the abortion issue, yes as President she could make it to all intents and purposes illegal for poor women to have abortions within the law as it stands.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "no matter what evangelical nutters think. They don't hold anywhere near as much influence over the USA as they like to believe..."

    Except one of them running for vice president, of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except one of them running for vice president, of course.
    Doesn't mean anything. One person doesn't run the entire government. Using your theory, one could claim that blacks are highly influential in the USA because one of them is running for the presidency.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Nice to see the Left resorting to its traditional weapons of slander and abuse towards someone they don't like. Do you really associate yourself with people like this, Budda?

    Sorry to pull the thread back a bit, but I only just noticed this barbed comment from you SG.

    First of all please please please try not to use terms like Left without actually stating what on earth you mean.

    Secondly, I have not in any way what so ever slandered or abused this woman.

    And thirdly and most importantly who the hell are you talking about? Who are these mysterious people on 'the left' who are always against you?

    Can you not see why we are concerned that someone might become President of the worlds most powerful country who thinks the world is only 6000 years old?

    Do you understand that people have view points other than your own?

    Oh, and finally I am not part of 'The Left' whatever that is, I am a liberal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Doesn't mean anything. One person doesn't run the entire government. Using your theory, one could claim that blacks are highly influential in the USA because one of them is running for the presidency.

    The president can use executive orders to pass laws without congressional approval and a vice president has a chance of being the actual president. Especially in this case where Mcain is in his 70s and may have a term of 8 years.

    Black people are highly influential in the USA. But that's a ridiculous comparison, someones skin colour does not have the same influence on their political, moral and social ideology that religious 'extremism' does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An executive order is a directive that must be legally followed by other members of the executive, ususally concerning national defence policy. A president can't issue one that becomes law without congress approving.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well it doesn't really matter, the office of Vice-Presidency exerts next to no political power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    An executive order is a directive that must be legally followed by other members of the executive, ususally concerning national defence policy. A president can't issue one that becomes law without congress approving.

    But he can veto congress unless there's a 2/3 majority to override the veto.

    Traditionally the President has had very little power but Roosevelt decided to change all that when the Great Depression happened, every President since Roosevelt has constantly sought to grab more executive power with arguably Eisenhower being an exception.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    An executive order is a directive that must be legally followed by other members of the executive, ususally concerning national defence policy. A president can't issue one that becomes law without congress approving.

    An executive order carries the same weight as a law, they are in essence laws and they do not require congressional approval to take effect.

    Remember the Yugoslavia/Albania war in the late 90's? Clinton declared war by executive order in that instance. Congress did not authorise any action at the time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Worth bearing in mind that the right to abortion is not as strong in the US as people might think.

    Roe vs Wade was the legal decision that made abortion legal - essentially it says the government has no right to control what a woman does with her body, including abortion, until the feteus is viable. So essentially it means that the state can define a time based limit on abortion, as does the UK, but cannot ban it.

    However if Roe vs Wade was ever overturned, and it is challenged constantly by the christian right then nothing would make abortion automatically legal in the US.

    To put that in some context Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota all have trigger laws in place that will ban abortion the instant Roe vs Wade was overturned. (Though worth noting that California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington have trigger laws in place to immediately make it legal in those states).

    Still, why is this relevant to the President? One of the fundamental powers the president has is to appoint the Supreme Court Justices - for life terms. They cannot be removed with stepping down. The decision does have to be ratified but that's still a massive amount of power to have over the future of civil and personal rights in the the United States - much longer than an 8 year term.

    So does seem pretty relevant to look at persons ethical and religious position when they may be President. Slander isn't the same thing as just posting what someone's religion is
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An executive order carries the same weight as a law, they are in essence laws and they do not require congressional approval to take effect.

    Remember the Yugoslavia/Albania war in the late 90's? Clinton declared war by executive order in that instance. Congress did not authorise any action at the time.

    Interesting one this, America hasn't actually declared war since the second world war - by using either executive orders or through extending congressional measures instead.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An executive order carries the same weight as a law, they are in essence laws and they do not require congressional approval to take effect.

    Remember the Yugoslavia/Albania war in the late 90's? Clinton declared war by executive order in that instance. Congress did not authorise any action at the time.

    Executive orders have power over federal agencies only to make directives over procedures, responsibilities etc and those agencies cannot violate the constitution. A president is commander in chief so can basically do as he pleases with the armed forces but it would be impossible for an executive order to violate Roe vs Wade. This is why McCain wants that ruling overturned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Remember the Yugoslavia/Albania war in the late 90's? Clinton declared war by executive order in that instance. Congress did not authorise any action at the time.

    Actually, a President isn't allowed to send troops anywhere without the approval of Congress since the Vietnam war but it hasn't stopped them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Worth bearing in mind that the right to abortion is not as strong in the US as people might think.

    Roe vs Wade was the legal decision that made abortion legal - essentially it says the government has no right to control what a woman does with her body, including abortion, until the feteus is viable. So essentially it means that the state can define a time based limit on abortion, as does the UK, but cannot ban it.

    And even without touching Roe v. Wade she (if President) could make it incredibly difficult for any woman to actually get an abortion. There is one state (sorry I forget which) which at the moment demands both parents consent before it is allowed for example.

    And if she is as literal in her interpretation of the bible as it seems one could imagine her taking Revelations more seriously than we would like, which would put a dangerous spin on the conflict with Iran.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    Executive orders have power over federal agencies only to make directives over procedures, responsibilities etc and those agencies cannot violate the constitution. A president is commander in chief so can basically do as he pleases with the armed forces but it would be impossible for an executive order to violate Roe vs Wade. This is why McCain wants that ruling overturned.

    I'm not talking specifically about abortion, I was pointing out that it could be dangerous to have someone relatively irrational as president as they do have considerable powers as a single person that can be exercised without congressional approval.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not talking specifically about abortion, I was pointing out that it could be dangerous to have someone relatively irrational as president as they do have considerable powers as a single person that can be exercised without congressional approval.

    Yeh but we're talking about Palin here not McCain. The Vice-President has fuck all power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Yeh but we're talking about Palin here not McCain. The Vice-President has fuck all power.

    He is 72 and does have quite a few health problems. Plus, I wouldnt say that the current VP has just been standing about doing nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Plus, I wouldnt say that the current VP has just been standing about doing nothing.

    That all depends on how much influence they are allowed to exert by the President. The VP has no executive powers and is basically a side show. Yes, if the President dies then they become important but other than that they're pretty useless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Yeh but we're talking about Palin here not McCain. The Vice-President has fuck all power.

    I know...
    The president can use executive orders to pass laws without congressional approval and a vice president has a chance of being the actual president. Especially in this case where Mcain is in his 70s and may have a term of 8 years.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, the abstinence-only sex ed has worked out brilliantly for her daughter, Bristol (not that I'm making any judgements about teen pregnancy, more about how the mother is treating her daughter), I just wonder how much choice Bristol had in the decision making when it came down to her pregnancy and upcoming sho... I mean, wedding.

    Note to McCain, I don't think women will automatically vote for someone who has a vagina. Oh, this hurts my lady-brain!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    So she believes that the world is 6000 years old. So fucking what? It may well be nonsense, but it doesn't do anyone any harm. If Barack Obama believed that the Earth was 6000 years old, you wouldn't mention a peep about it.

    If he believed that, he would be as much of an idiot as anyone else who did. Why is it dangerous? Because it proves without a doubt that she is utterly incapable of objectively looking at evidence and coming to the conclusion that the evidence points to. It also proves that she will reject out of hand any evidence that proves her literal interpretation of the bible wrong. There are literally hundreds of implications for this in fields as wide-ranging as research into medicine, foreign policy, education policy, the freedoms of people when it comes to things like abortion, media, or literature (she has attempted to get certain books banned from libraries), and pretty much every aspect of politics. If you got out of your little simplistic left/right bubble for a second, you might realise how such a person is not only dangerous to put into power, but also goes fundamentally against the libetarian principles that America was founded upon, which I was under the impression American conservatives were suppose to represent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »

    B) More importantly she believes the world is only 6000 years old, does it not concern you at all that a possible President is so willing to ignore so much scientific evidence?

    I don't reckon that her religious beliefs here are the problem, its how she acts or wants to act upon them which is worrying.
    For all I know she can believe that sealions are a superior species, controlling the universe.

    And yeah, I actually feel sorry for McCain. Apparently he has only met her once before declaring her his running partner. And she wasn't even his first choice. Liberman was apparently an option early on. But due to the gridlock politics within the Republican party he had to choose her as Lieberman for example is not vocally anti-abortionist and that wouldn't fall well with the Republican backbone. How good would it have been if he had an independent as Vice President? Someone who was running for Vice with Gore back in the day. That if anything would change my mind about current American politics, and earn it some respect. But yeah, unfortunately that was not the case.
    Personally, now that Condoleeza didn't run for president I reckon she would have made an awesome Vice-President. But McCain is trying to distance himself from the Bush regime, and has managed to dig a hole deep enough to reach the other side of the planet if you ask me. Go talk about Obama being inexperienced when you choose an absolutely nobody.

    About Palin, I don't think I need to specify why her politics are despicable. Oh and read somewhere that she was a member of the Alaskan Independence party in the 90s...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can understand (although disagree) with her religious viewpoints on abortion - or even creation theory. It's her faith.

    What I can't understand is why somone who is such a commited 'Christian', enjoys hunting for sport and supports gun ownership. If Jesus Christ is meant to be the example of how Christians live their lives, how can they ever imagine Jesus shooting animals for fun - let alone carrying weapons of any kind?
Sign In or Register to comment.