• NAXJA is having its 18th annual March Membership Drive!!!
    Everyone who joins or renews during March will be entered into a drawing!
    More Information - Join/Renew
  • Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

McCain

ZomBrady

Chubby Chaser Extraordinaire
NAXJA Member
Location
Albuquerque
Hey, I wanted to hear what you guys(and gals) think of McCain since it's a pretty sure thing that he will get the Republican nomination.

So, what have you heard? His platform? Etc. . . .






































I'll probably still vote for Ron Paul. :D
 
SBrad001 said:
I'll probably still vote for Ron Paul to split the vote and allow Hillary to take the White House

Fixed it for you.

The U.S. has not had a viable 3rd party candidate since 1980. It's a battle between the two big machines with the middle class as the losers. The 3rd party candidates are noting more than election tossers, drawing votes away from one side or the other. Vote McCain and call it good. He is the only one of the top three that believes in America.

Tom
 
I figure the race is between:

The grudge, she will spend her first two years getting even.

The Golden tongue, who actual knows where he stands on anything?

Substance, you may not agree with him, but he is fairly up front.

And if you have to throw Paul in there, wishful thinking.

I'd sure like to know who McCains VP is going to be, you see a lot of Presidents age quickly in the White House. McCain may be an iron man, then again he might just not make it.
 
Boatwrench said:
Fixed it for you.

The U.S. has not had a viable 3rd party candidate since 1980. It's a battle between the two big machines with the middle class as the losers. The 3rd party candidates are noting more than election tossers, drawing votes away from one side or the other. Vote McCain and call it good. He is the only one of the top three that believes in America.

Tom

Are you serious?!

When EITHER party gives me a candidate that I actually want in the White House, I'll vote for that candidate. If my vote for Ron Paul splits the Republican vote and gives the presidency to Billary, then it is the fault of the Republican Party for not putting forth a candidate I want to vote for. It's my duty, my civic responsibility to vote for the individual I think will run the country best and nothing less.
 
The 3rd party candidates seem to have one or two good policies that everyone loves (economy, border fence, etc) but the rest of their stances border on lunacy. And most of them have no experience in the most important area - Homeland Security. The only current candidate who has ANY qualifications to be leading the military is McCain. Personally, I think any Presidential candidate should be required to have military experience/service.

I want to hear Obama give a speech without using the word "change". That would be the end of his campaign. I've never seen such an empty candidate. And I've lost faith in the intelligence of our population. I cant believe how many mindless sheep are following this man based on his ability to get an A in speech class.
 
GOD, THEY ALL SUCK, I think mutt was a plant to draw votes away from obama and even that didnt work. Hillary is a southern carpet bagger, I just can't imagine the deals that were made in the whitehouse to get her that senate election, that scared me that they could do that and get her in there.
I like huck, he seems normal and can carry on a conversation, the hour he was on Glenn Beck impressed me, plain spoken, up front, no dancing around questions and a good sense of humor. Does not think of himself as 'god' like the rest of these asshats.
 
SBrad001 said:
Are you serious?!

When EITHER party gives me a candidate that I actually want in the White House, I'll vote for that candidate. If my vote for Ron Paul splits the Republican vote and gives the presidency to Billary, then it is the fault of the Republican Party for not putting forth a candidate I want to vote for. It's my duty, my civic responsibility to vote for the individual I think will run the country best and nothing less.

AMEN! :clap::clap::clap:
 
JNickel101 said:
, I think any Presidential candidate should be required to have military experience/service.

No, should not be a requirement and The Constitution was specifically crafted and designed to not be a requirement. Some of our greatest Presidents did not have military service...President Lincoln, President Jefferson, President Addams and I believe Presidnet Reagan did not have service either.

I understand the logic, a warrior will be hesitatnt to send young folks off on a whim and a folly, but I would also be concenred about a country whose leadership is military based and is not tempered by an educated civilian populace. Now if the US had a policy that stated all young folks do a minimum amount of time in service, either military, peace corp or VISTA that would be a different story.
 
DrMoab said:
Obama is going to take the Democratic nomination.

Ryan, I disagree. Hillary Clinton is part of a large machine. The "super delegates" will be the deciding factor. The sad part of elections in this country are these "special" ways folks get office. Super delegates, electoral college, etc...Why not One Man, one vote and just use the popular vote to elect someone.
 
Boatwrench said:
No, should not be a requirement and The Constitution was specifically crafted and designed to not be a requirement. Some of our greatest Presidents did not have military service...President Lincoln, President Jefferson, President Addams and I believe Presidnet Reagan did not have service either.

I understand the logic, a warrior will be hesitatnt to send young folks off on a whim and a folly, but I would also be concenred about a country whose leadership is military based and is not tempered by an educated civilian populace.

I agree 100%, as it is it's big politics in the officer corps once you get above O4/O5, I could see good presidential candidates being passed over and even shunned by the powers that be for not toeing the line.
I do however take it as a plus when it comes down to two candidates, 90% if the time I'll pick the vet the same way I only tend to hire vets. Pretty much the same way I view officers who are mustangers as being much better officers over direct commission officers or service academy graduates.
 
You didnt mention a president who served in the past 100 years, some, in over 200....

Reagan did have military service. Sure he never actually fought, but at least he has military understanding (similar to Bush). If you cant even do 4 years in the National Guard, you should not be leading the most powerful military in the world.

If you take everything the Constitution says literally, well, I dont know what to say. This country was also founded by Christians...but look what's happened to us now.

excerpt from US Constitution:

"Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states..."

I dont see Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard in there....and I dont believe we have militias under Federal control anymore...

you cant take the Constitution literally, just like you cant take the Bible literally. Times change.

In an era of increased importance of Homeland Security, it is MY OPINION that the president should have military experience/service. I wouldnt feel comfortable with Obama leading a group of girl scouts.
 
I agree that the President should have Military experience, but at the same time I thought the best one this election was Huckabee. I don't want to be sent into some crazy country again for no reason, it's not fun and people die for no reason. Granted we signed up to do what the Pres. says but it doesn't mean we have to agree with it. I think a former military especially one during Vietnam will understand a lot more of what it actually means to send people into harms way and will weigh the option a lot more heavily. Personaly I'm a Democrat in my opinions but not this election. I don't think the Democratic party had any worthy candidates and that is why I personaly I'm going to vote Republican this time. Of course just my 2cents.

Tyler
 
POSJ said:
I agree that the President should have Military experience, but at the same time I thought the best one this election was Huckabee. I don't want to be sent into some crazy country again for no reason, it's not fun and people die for no reason. Granted we signed up to do what the Pres. says but it doesn't mean we have to agree with it. I think a former military especially one during Vietnam will understand a lot more of what it actually means to send people into harms way and will weigh the option a lot more heavily. Personaly I'm a Democrat in my opinions but not this election. I don't think the Democratic party had any worthy candidates and that is why I personaly I'm going to vote Republican this time. Of course just my 2cents.

Tyler

I agree, but with this election it's like choosing your method of execution, they all suck...
 
JNickel101 said:
You didnt mention a president who served in the past 100 years, some, in over 200....

Granted. However the last half of the last century, less than 25% of this country's existance included the WWII vets. President Clinton was the 1st to have not served (beyond an ROTC capacity?) since WWII. Also, WWII saw more Americans in the military than anytime prior and anytime since. So that's a jaded, if not weak arguement.

Reagan did have military service. Sure he never actually fought, but at least he has military understanding (similar to Bush).

Reagan served in the AUS reserve calvary in the 1930's and then in WWII with the war film office, he was assigned limited duty due to poor eyesight

If you cant even do 4 years in the National Guard, you should not be leading the most powerful military in the world.

Yeah, but look what "The Corporal" did for Germany. I disagree, President Franklin Roosevelt led the most powerful military machine of it's time with no military experience other than the civilian cabinet post of Assistant Secrtetary of the Navy

If you take everything the Constitution says literally, well, I dont know what to say. This country was also founded by Christians.

and Jews (name escapes me now, have the reference at home, but one of the NY delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress) and Aetheists (Jefferson or was he agnostic?)
..but look what's happened to us now.

excerpt from US Constitution:

"Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states..."

I dont see Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard..

Air Force, wasn't thought of and it is a spin off from the US Army, Marines are part of the Dept of the Navy, the CG was formed in 1790 after The Constitution was ratified, but becomes part of the Dept of the Navy during times of (declared) war

in there....and I dont believe we have militias under Federal control anymore...

Militias are the old term for National Guard, and they get Federalized all the time

you cant take the Constitution literally, Why not?
just like you cant take the Bible literally. Times change. hence the problem with gun control and regulated militia wording

In an era of increased importance of Homeland Security, it is MY OPINION that the president should have military experience/service. I wouldnt feel comfortable with Obama leading a group of girl scouts.

I understood it was your opinion and our opinions just differ, not right not wrong, just different, and that is what makes America great, we can have differences of opinion and still have a common cause.

Tom
 
Last edited:
:) exactly :)

still got that skid?
 
3 weeks and I'll be back!
 
Back
Top