Why should I vote for a Republican for President?

[SFL]

McCain is a man who has clashed repeatedly with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Wonder why?

McCain said proudly, “I’ve been called a maverick. Sometimes it’s meant as a compliment and sometimes it’s not. What it really means is I understand who I work for:
“I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.”

:good: :good:

[C0|dB|00ded]

It's very simple, you vote for who makes you less nauseous.

McCain has a decent record but if he dies our country will be run by a total neophyte.

Obama wants to nationalize healthcare (which will bankrupt our country) and tax the hell out of businesses and the wealthy which could seriously stifle innovation and employment.

You can always fall back on the safety issues and ask who is willing to protect (go after terrorists or threats to the U.S.) us better. Most would surely agree that would fall in the McCain/Palin camp.

Everybody is disgusted with the current situation and Kansas is as good of a place as any to voice your disgust by casting a vote for Ron Paul. You can rest assured that Kansas will still go for McCain (if Obama's policies scare you).


T


...8)

[double dribble]

Here are a few reasons:
McCain will keep a strong military.
Barry has promised to substantially decrease funding for the military.

McCain will protect unborn babies.
Barry says that even a baby born alive from a botched abortion can be killed because it other wise puts a burden on the mothers original decision to have an abortion. (wow read that agian until it sinks in)

McCain will cut taxes.
Barry has promised to raise taxes.

McCain wants to drill for oil and create energy independence.
Barry's energy plan is to raise a capitol gains tax on oil companies. Who in turn will pass that bill on to us in the form of higher gas prices.

there ya go, 4 good reasons to vote for McCain.... ya want more? cause I have plenty.

Oh yea, if you don't vote for McCain, I will kick you square in the grapes! (that can be very painful)

[martymoose]

McCain is a man who has clashed repeatedly with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Wonder why?

McCain said proudly, “I’ve been called a maverick. Sometimes it’s meant as a compliment and sometimes it’s not. What it really means is I understand who I work for:
“I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.”

:good: :good:

Does he call himself a maverick? Was it his mom who called him a maverick? I'm curious who's been calling him a maverick and what they meant by it. I keep hearing all about how people call him a maverick, but I have yet to actually hear someone other than his supporters call him one. Once I find one of these people, I want to ask them why he's a maverick.

[ABC]

Engrshock,

Those are more than fair questions. The Republicans have shown to be for big government.



And the Democrats have shown themselves to be for bigger government.
(not all Democrats and many in Kansas, including some posters on Shockernet are not part of that group.)

Taxes have been reduced by the way, under Bush.

Spending will never, ever be cut in real terms. All we can do is hope that growth is reduced. And it hasn't under Bush and a Democrat and Republican Congress.

Regarding being in international favor. What does that mean? Ask Russia if they fear a direct confrontation with U.S.? While we shouldn't ingore international opinion, should that drive our national policy as many on the left would like?

Regarding torture: would you rather a member of al queda be tortured or a member of your family be killed by a terrorist? I know my answer.

Has the war in Iraq diminised Al Queda? ABSOLUTELY. We've killed a schmidt load of terrorists.

What energy policy do we need? Why do we need government to tell the private sector what kind of energy to produce and how much?

Your questions are more than fair. Maybe my years in politics have hardened me some.

I have learned that you take what you can get; as much as you can get.

If there was even a remotely viable 3rd party candidate I would consider it. But a vote for a 3rd party candidate means to me that you are not serious about the problems the country faces because those folks won't win of course, and will have absolutely no impact of any kind on our national debate.

It's not that they will have a small impact on our debate. That will have ZERO impact.

[SubGod22]

I really do wish a 3rd party could have more impact.

If you wait around for someone else to do it, it won't happen.

(And for the record, Ron Paul is not and will not run 3rd party or independent. His efforts have shifted back to congress and the CFL. He's committed to affecting change from within the GOP.)

My man Fred appears to be in the same boat as Paul now. His site and future is now working to spot and help elect conservatives to public office. He thinks the GOP can be saved and is willing to do what he can to help bring it back to where it once was.

And again, voting 3rd party in KS isn't going to have an impact on McCain winning or losing. Maybe in MI, OH, PA and FL as well as others it would.

[engrshock]

Engrshock,

Those are more than fair questions. The Republicans have shown to be for big government.

At what point does the big government with growing deficits have to raise revenue to pay for the expenditures. Growing debt is a large concern for me.

And the Democrats have shown themselves to be for bigger government.
(not all Democrats and many in Kansas, including some posters on Shockernet are not part of that group.)

I cannot really argue with this point but I would say that the only real reduction in welfare spending occurred during Clinton's presidency with a Republican Congress. However, my question was about the continuous Republican "promises" to reduce taxes and spending and it never occurs. How many times are we to fall for these promises. As for tax cuts there appears to be an optimum amount of taxation that maximizes tax revenue while minimizing tax rates. The problem is finding the ideal tax rate. If this were not true then tax rates could be completely minimized and revenues would go up accordingly. I would feel better if the politicians would just admit that the government needs income and will try to find the best tax rate to maximize revenue while providing the least burden on the economy.

Taxes have been reduced by the way, under Bush.

Actually tax rates may have been reduced by Bush but tax revenue has went higher than can be accounted for by inflation.

Spending will never, ever be cut in real terms. All we can do is hope that growth is reduced. And it hasn't under Bush and a Democrat and Republican Congress.

Regarding being in international favor. What does that mean? Ask Russia if they fear a direct confrontation with U.S.? While we shouldn't ingore international opinion, should that drive our national policy as many on the left would like?

As Senator McCain indicated we are in a global economy. We cannot and should not shoulder the defense of the rest of the world. Russia appears to be doing as they want to. We are not going to attack them even if we had the means to do so. Further, why is Russias doings the responsibility of the US rather than the global community? If we lead the international as a part of it rather than as the policeman on our own then it is not solely our burdern.

Regarding torture: would you rather a member of al queda be tortured or a member of your family be killed by a terrorist? I know my answer.

I would rather that the terrorist problem be dealt without losing honor by torturing prisoners. Can you prove that torturing prisoners has been effective in stopping terrorism? Did the torture of McCain in Vietnam do anything but make the Viet Cong look bad? Does the torture of US soldiers or citizens by terrorists helped them?

Has the war in Iraq diminised Al Queda? ABSOLUTELY. We've killed a schmidt load of terrorists.

I believe that it has been shown that Al Queda was primarily in Afganistan and Iran and not substantially in Iraq prior to our attacking Saddam. There were certainly "terrorists" in Iraq after our occupation. However, we did not attack Iraq because of the Al Queda terrorists there but because Saddam had WMD's and was going to use them. Your claim here is one that really irks me because I remember reading and watching all about the WMD's and the need to get Saddam out of power because he was a loose cannon and would use them. The reason we went to Afganistan was to get the terrorists.

What energy policy do we need? Why do we need government to tell the private sector what kind of energy to produce and how much?

Why do we need the NRC? Because some energy sources can really damage large areas of the environment. Other energy sources do so in different less noticeable ways. NASA and the military as a government research programs developed many technologies that have been used by industry.

Your questions are more than fair. Maybe my years in politics have hardened me some.

Ouch. I am not in nor ever plan to be in politics. My years of watching political parties promise that they have no hope in achieving have disillusioned me. I would rather hear from politicians as to what they want to do and how they will try to go about it rather than false promises.

I have learned that you take what you can get; as much as you can get.

This sounds like a pirate line. "Take what you can, give nothing back." Still it would be better to indicate what you would like to do and that you will get as much of it done as possible.

If there was even a remotely viable 3rd party candidate I would consider it. But a vote for a 3rd party candidate means to me that you are not serious about the problems the country faces because those folks won't win of course, and will have absolutely no impact of any kind on our national debate.

It's not that they will have a small impact on our debate. That will have ZERO impact.

Finally, while I do not want to pay taxes (I pay more taxes than many I suspect) I realize that it is inevitable. The real trick is for government to find the tax rates that maximize their revenues while minimizing the effect on the economy. Cutting taxes as a promise while spending and spending is not a solution. The taxes have to be balanced with the revenue needed and the effect on the economy. It also means, to me at least, that the government should not be spending a lot more than they take in. If there are going to be new programs I would like to know how they will be paid for. My best lesson on paying taxes came from my father who indicated that one time he picked up a hitchhiker in SE Kansas and was giving him a lift. He indicated that the hitchhiker started to rail on and on about the government and taxes and how he avoided paying them. After hearing this for a while my father stopped his car and told the man to get out telling him that taxes paid for the roads he was driving on and he didn't have the right to use them or criticize the government that provided them. This made me realize that taxes pay for a lot of things I (then) took for granted. I have looked at and studied the government expenditures and tax revenues over the years and found that the true golden age for the US and the development of the "middle class" occurred when there was greater government spending and taxation. Is there a correlation? Since I am not an economist I cannot say but I do know that I would much rather live in today's society than in my grandfather's time when there were poor roads and services.

[ABC]

If you have that many questions coupled with some of our answers, you should probably vote for Obama.

Good luck.

[BostonWu]

3 simple and straightforward reasons to vote Republican:

1) National security - I don't want a UN/EU appeaser commanding our troops.

2) Taxes - McCain proposes to raise the child tax credit from $3,500 to $7,000 per kid.

3) And the most important reason that no one is talking about - I don't want liberal appointments to the Supreme Court. Legislating behind the bench can turn this country upside down in a NY minute.


For these very simple reasons I could never in this day and age vote a liberal ticket. Give me a moderate democrat and I'll think about it.

[SFL]

3 simple and straightforward reasons to vote Republican:

1) National security - I don't want a UN/EU appeaser commanding our troops.

2) Taxes - McCain proposes to raise the child tax credit from $3,500 to $7,000 per kid.

3) And the most important reason that no one is talking about - I don't want liberal appointments to the Supreme Court. Legislating behind the bench can turn this country upside down in a NY minute.


For these very simple reasons I could never in this day and age vote a liberal ticket. Give me a moderate democrat and I'll think about it.

"Hear Hear!" :good: