Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Who do you plan to vote for: Obama or McCain?

  1. Obama

    21 vote(s)
  2. McCain

    14 vote(s)
  3. Other(please specify)

    6 vote(s)
  4. I am not/can not vote

    14 vote(s)
  1. Aug 4, 2008 #1
    and Why of course?
    Also your pick for VP of your candidate?

    I don't like either really, I think Obama is going hurt the economy by overspending with random programs and taking needed tax cuts away from business who themselves are struggling. Not to mention his want to delay the Orion program is unheard of. but I agree with a lot of his views.

    McCain on the other hand is worse. The Iraq war is pointless, even Iraq wants us out. That is a HUGE waste of money. I like the fact that he is liberal republican, but he is still too conservative

    I still pick Obama and for his VP....this is tough....Wesley Clark, incredibly qualified. His military experience outdoes McCain. This guy graduated top of his class at West Point and then went to Oxford to study PPE. He is internationally respected and has many rewards.

    I would like to write in Al Gore, but I doubt that will happen.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 4, 2008 #2
    If I vote it will be for Obama. Mainly because I can't stand McCain.
  4. Aug 4, 2008 #3
    I don't think I can vote for Obama, him being as skinny as he is.
  5. Aug 4, 2008 #4
    H. Clinton.
  6. Aug 4, 2008 #5
    McCain; Barack Obama is too socialist for me.
  7. Aug 4, 2008 #6
    Neither candidate could be classified as "socialist." Plus, McSame actually would implement a lot of the failed spending programs that Bush wants to continue, and corporate welfare, which is three times the amount of social welfare.


    Both Obama and McCain are center right, but too far right for me. I prefer Nader, but if I had to choose between those two it would be Obama.
  8. Aug 4, 2008 #7
    I definitely wouldn't classify Obama as "center-right," but I fully agree that McCain will likely continue many of the same programs as President Bush, unless he really adheres to his "crackdown on pork" theme. It just seems Barack Obama will spend even more. I believe GWB outspent every previous President on alternative energy for example, which Barack Obama wants to increase spending on, I do not think his universal health insurance program will be cheap, etc...for me, it's just choosing between two turds.

    The Republican party unfortunately was hijacked by big-spending neocons.

    See now to me, they're both too far to the Left! :D
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2008
  9. Aug 4, 2008 #8
    I'm not in the states but I much rather see Obama than McCain. Obama seems more pro-science to me and I really don't want to see another war on science by a president again.

    But if I could pick anyone, it would be Ron Paul. I'm just reading his book now, "The Revolution". He's so different from any other politician out there. Go Ron Paul!
  10. Aug 4, 2008 #9
    Obama's and Hillary's plans have been estimated by economists like Gruber to be paid for by things such as redistributing spending in the health care system and cutting back on wasteful spending, with perhaps an increase on a certain negative tax.

    Plus, these plans, esp. Obama's, simply require people to be insured. They are not overly expensive, and could easily be paid for.

    The republican party has always engaged in big spending, such as Reagan, a conservative hero, who tripled the deficit, and was engaged in illegal operations such as selling arms to the Iranians and giving it to the contras.

    Obama's right-wing policies include not wanting to end the death penalty, encouraging failed trade policies, back tracking on the environment, increased security measures, not calling for a complete withdrawl of all troops and military bases, and so on.

    The "left" supports egalitarianism and equality, systems such as anarchism, democracy, utilitarianism, and socialism, whereas the right is reactionary and supports traditional, hierarchical systems such as capitlaism and fascism.

    I don't know any political science definition that contradicts this.
  11. Aug 5, 2008 #10
    McCain, because I know where he stands, for the most part. More than I know where Obama stands. Obama says a lot that doesn't really define a position on anything. Too vague a candidate for me.
  12. Aug 5, 2008 #11
    On his head? He's flip flopped on every issue he ever stood for, to the point of voting against his own bills.
  13. Aug 5, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Time to play:Where, oh where, does McCain stand?


    Q1. Where does McCain stand on overturning Roe v. Wade?

    <<For his 2000 campaign, he was against it. Now he is for it. Where will he be tomorrow? >>

    Q2. Where does McCain stand on the influence of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the Religious Right?

    <<In his 2000 campaign, he called them "agents of intolerance". Now he says they are not and specifically sought Falwell's endorsement, spoke at his school, and hired his debate coach. McCain also sought endorsements from pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley during the primaries. After he won the Primary, however, he denounced their bigoted messages and rejected their endorsements. Where will he be tomorrow? >>

    Q3. Where does McCain stand on teaching Intelligent Design in schools?

    <<For his 2000 campaign, he was against it, opposing GWB's stance. Now he is for it. Where will he be tomorrow? >>

    Q4. Where does McCain stand on the issue of the Confederate flag (and related race issues)?

    <<During the 2000 primaries, he supported SC flying the Confederate flag, calling it a "symbol of heritage". A couple years later, he said that it "should be taken down". Over a similar time frame, he opposed a MLK holiday before he supported it. But on the issue of Affirmative Action (AA), he switched the other way. In 2000, he supported AA and rejected ballot measures to ban it. Today, he supports the Arizona ballot measure to ban AA. Where will he be tomorrow? >>

    Note: These are mostly well-known or easily Googled. If required, specific references will be provided upon request.

    Stay tuned for...

    Last edited: Aug 5, 2008
  14. Aug 5, 2008 #13
    I agree regarding McCain on the social issues, but I think he would be better for the economy and foreign policy than Obama. Like I said though, both are turds to me.
  15. Aug 5, 2008 #14
    I can easily come up with websites that document and discuss Obama's multitude of flip-flops.
  16. Aug 5, 2008 #15
    I'm voting for McCain for the simple reason that he makes more sense.

    Energy is the real problem. The economy will recover when our energy problems decline. The wars will take care of themselves, it's just a matter of time. It's energy that is our problem.

    Obama opposes drilling and nuclear power. Which is simply stupid. While neither may be the best long-term goal, we need something to get us there.

    When we have giant pools of oil, and shale in the Rocky Mountains (Which is estimated to be between 700 billions and 3 trillion barrels, more than in Saudia Arabia), it is just foolish not to drill. I'll vote for the candidate that will drill for oil, and will use nuclear power.

    Oh yea, and universal healthcare is retarded. I'm not paying for your kid's braces.
  17. Aug 5, 2008 #16
  18. Aug 5, 2008 #17
    It could be; oil prices are partially determined by oil futures. If the market thinks more drilling will start up, the price should drop instantly.

    The taxpayer is not supposed to have to pay for people's healthcare. Infrastructure, military, police, firefighter, etc...are things that are always paid for via taxes and handled by the government. We couldn't have privately-controlled militaries, and having different police companies or firefighter companies just probably wouldn't be a good idea. One maybe could try having firefighting companies that would be paid by taxpayer dollars to handle fires and chemical spills and so forth, and one could perhaps try private police companies that compete for cities/towns to pay them to patrol and do policing, but in general, it probably simplifies things to have those entites under government (local government).

    The market is supposed to handle healthcare. The problem is that the healthcare industry is so heavily regulated that it pretty much can't be considered a free-market system. But the United States government is the last entity I want controlling the healthcare system.

    Remember, economic freedom is a necessary component for political freedom and social freedom and healthcare is 16% of the U.S. GDP. While Barack Obama's plan isn't to outright nationalize healthcare at the moment, I cannot see how it would not end up being nationalized in the future. There is no way he will be able to provide good, quality healthcare to all Americans. Healthcare has to be rationed, either by prices (market), or by bureaucratic fiat (government). Right now it's kind of a combination of both.

    I do not want government eventually taking control of 16% of the economy. Saying that we can provide "universal healthcare" is like claiming that we can give everyone beachfront housing.
  19. Aug 5, 2008 #18
    Economic freedom has not been a "necessary component" for political freedom. The Nazis privatized many industries and opened up trade, there was not an increase in political freedom. Economic freedom is now booming in China, and there is not a vast amount of "freedom" there either.

    Shifting power into the hands of private tyrannies is not freedom, although this is another matter.

    As for heatlh care, the US already spends more per capita than most other industrialized nations. The profits, however, are indeed privatized, making the industry more geared towards selling drugs and other profiteering shenanigans than prevention. The US could save a lot on prevention alone.

    The "market solution" has already failed and is disaterous, so indeed I think it is time for someone else to come up with a new solution, even if it is a weird collusion between the insurance industry and the government (not true UHC).
  20. Aug 5, 2008 #19
    I suggest you go learn some history. We already had a privatized firefighter system, and it completely flopped. The firefighters would fight over who gets to put out the fire while the building burns.

    We now have a privatized healthcare system which is sucking pretty bad. Trying to make it government controlled could be beneficial. At least if we try it we'll know for sure which was better.

    What is this "supposed to" business? Where does it say that?
  21. Aug 5, 2008 #20
    More "voodoo economics." The government would not be controlling 17% of the economy, first of all, and they really would be no more involved in the health care system than they are now with this corporate system we have in place (for health care, or any other system).

    Hillary's plan, which would actually be more expensive to implement than Obama's, was estimated to cost about 110 billion to implement.

    According to health care econonomists like Jonathan Gruber at MIT, it could be paid for by rolling back Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, and the savings generated by improvements in chronic disease management, prevention, and electric record keeping. This would generate about half the income for the "UHC" plans. This is not a "tax increase" because without congressional action the cuts are set to expire in January, 2011.

    Obama, since he requires only children to be covered, would likely be even cheaper to implement, as only the poorer children's families would be getting the tax credits back.

    Another thing interesting about Hillary's plan was that she wanted to cap primiums between 5 to 10%.

    Right now, the average cost of a family policy is about 10% of the median family income of about 60,000, while some families pay as much as 16% of their median income. But, Hillary said she might require insurers to spend a heavy proportion of primium dollars on health care as opposed to overhead and profit.

    http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml [Broken]

    This is another inventive solution to the health care plan. These type of plans were deemed "realistic" by economists like Jonathan Gruber, who only disagreed with HIllary on on naot varying the premium cap according to income.

    It's important to note that governors like Schwarzenegger etc. have already talked about doing things like this, and Massachusetts already has a mandated insurance plan and they were able to manage it.

    You could also up the tax on cigarettes to help pay for an Obama plan, which, again, would be cheaper.

    So which health economist says that it is "unrealistic" and it amounts to the US controlling 16% of the economy by requiring children to be covered?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook