Codytalks.com: Wondering if people can "SELL" their candidate without even mentioning the other???

Wondering if people can "SELL" their candidate without even mentioning the other???

Posted by Cody Heitschmidt --Went Live: Wednesday, July 16, 2008

I started a presidential candidate debate here.

I just had this thought of asking people to convince us to vote for their choice and not mention the other one. I am not saying this is the best way to do this, just something I wanted to try.

Once a person person mentions aselling point for their candidate it can be refuted but no negative stuff.

Anybody wanna play?

3 comments to read/post yours:

MitchellJul 16, 2008 08:22 PM
I think I'll sit this one out, but I'll be interested to see what people say. Seems like nowadays more people feel they have to take a "lesser of two evils" view of the presidential elections.

They're all full of crap in one way or another.
ReplyDelete
Patsy TerrellJul 16, 2008 09:32 PM
I'll play.

I'm voting for Obama. I am a democrat, but I don't always vote for the democrats. I vote for the person I think is the best for any particular race - be it president, state legislature or city council.

I'm voting for Obama because his platform is more in line with what I want for our nation.

My major concerns, in no particular order:
1. Health Care
2. Alternate Energy
3. An end to the war as expediently as possible/logical
4. Poverty
5. Education

When I read Obama's "The Blueprint for Change" it resonates with me as what I want for our country. His approach to governance is one I can get behind.

I think it's difficult for any politician to achieve everything they want to do. But I vote for the politician who's wishes/concerns/desires are most in alignment with my own. For me in this election that is Barack Obama.
ReplyDelete
JoleneJul 18, 2008 09:00 AM
I've always been an independent voter and I honestly haven't decided. But since the majority of the discussion has been about Barack Obama, I'll go the opposite way and post pro-John McCain.

Energy has emerged as the #1 issue in this campaign. It's an issue that effects every American in many ways.

Specifically:

1. Personal travel
2. Travel for work, school, groceries (necessities).
3. Industrial capabilities and therefore job prospects (i.e. the economy)
4. World stability (i.e. corn-based ethanol's effect on world-wide food prices and world hunger).
5. Transit costs for foods as well as production and growing costs for food. All of which leads to a higher cost of living just to feed your family.
6. Vulnerability to our entire way of life because of our dependence on foreign energy.
7. War, war, war and more war because of our dependency on foreign oil.
8. $700 billion dollars a year flowing out of country each and every year because we depend on foreign oil. The greatest outpouring of wealth in history. And we do it voluntarily and act is if it gives us superiority to do so and that there are no long term consequences of doing so.

When I said "energy" was the #1 issue in this campaign and facing the American people now, I sincerely meant it. It affects all that we know and call American.

So let's turn to John McCain's policy positions.

1. Nuclear energy. We need nuclear. It's clean, it's cheap (after being built), it's a constant source of energy (unlike wind and solar which I also like but we need a steady supply of energy). McCain is the candidate pushing for nuclear energy.

2. McCain has a multi-faceted outlet for energy. We need that. It's great to say solar, wind, etc. but if you look at the specifics of them, large scale they won't be enough. Even the much touted "you can't drill your way out of this" needs to be heard louder than it's being heard and less selectively than many of those touting it mean for it to be heard. Of course we can't drill our way out of this BUT and this is a huge BUT, there is NO one soluton to help us forward. We need many solutions and we need them put on the table. Let's quit disqualifying all the most ideological ideas and throwing them out. It's what we've done since the 1970's when we knew the US had reached "peak oil" and nearly 4 decades later, the ideologues are still saying the same things. It's why we're at the place we're at and it's got to change. No more "tomorrow" - we need "today". And we need a lot of "today".

3. In the here and now, it's a basic fact that we have oil based automobiles on the road in vast numbers. We also now have hydrogen cars on the road, manufactured by several different auto manufacturers. Recently we had fuel for hydrogen cars added at a commercial gas station (I think it was a Shell) in California. This is a major step forward and has been GWB's vision for the past 7 years. Federal funding has helped making hydrogen cars a reality. Hydrogen cars are powered by natural gas (which we have so much of) and have a byproduct of water. Completely clean. About 300 mles to a tank.

IMHO, hydrogen cars are the future. In 5 years for more common distribution. In 10 years for massive distribution. In 15 years for most people. This is based on studies that most people trade in their cars every ten years. Stretch that out for 5 more years for the poor and those who want to make it last because there won't be any trade in value and realistically, 15 years to hydrogen in a real way.

In the meantime we have cars on the road that need fuel. That run on oil. We could transition them to ethanol but we've already seen the results of growing corn for ethanol - world hunger and instability, higher food prices, less food. Corn also strips the soil so we're talking more fertilizer which also takes energy to produce. I've been against it all along. I think it's a bad solution to promote and I think it was put into play by political lobby rather than common sense. If you expand it, those problems get bigger until it collapses. Not to mention that corn crops are dependent on weather. Enter flooding in the Midwest or drought. No fuel, tons of cars on the road ready to run on that fuel. Allegations of people eating the world food supply. It doesn't bode well.

IMHO, we need to skip all of that. Which takes us back to oil with a brief detour for CTL (Coal to Liquid) diesel. China is ramping up their producton of CTL. John McCain is for green CTL. CTL is proven technology. Coal provides jobs in the U.S. that can't be outsourced. It adds to energy independence. It boosts our economy in major ways. We (the U.S.) "are" the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Full circle back to oil until the full scale advent of hydrogen cars.

John McCain is for oil drilling in the U.S. Just recently the same environmental group in California that led to banning offshore drilling decades ago has now endorsed off-shore drilling for California. Updates in technology have changed the dynamics. Environmental groups are getting on board with drilling.

Make no mistake about it. If we don't drill off the coast of Florida, Cuba will. Plans are in place for Cuba, financially supported by China to drill 50 miles off the Florida keys. We might as well have the wealth of that same oil and put it to good use. I say earmark it to pay down the national debt or stabilize social security. Oil drilling in the U.S. is a massive, massive money maker. The State of Texas has no state income tax because of oil revenues. Do we really want to throw away an income source for the U.S. treasury of massive proportions and let Cuba and China drill that same oil for their profit?

I know the debate. The whole "the oil companies get the wealth" and "corporate America" is evil theology. ONLY if you let it be that way.

Take the example of the Iraqi's and the development of their oil fields. No oil company is getting rights to their oil. An incredibly intelligent thing to do. They are paying "cash" to oil companies to develop and put into place the infrastructure for their oil rather than "profits".

There's no reason the U.S. government can't do the same thing. Pay "cash" for development and infrastructure and keep the profits for the U.S. treasury.

This has gotten long and there's a lot more to energy but let me just choose one more because it's an issue in the news regarding the campaigns.

The relationship of energy dependence and war. I state the simple and obvious. If we become energy indepdent, we win the War on Terrorism. Point blank. Simple and straight forward

The whole we went into Iraq to steal their oil is bogus and has always been so. But the reality is it's our dependence on foreign oil that makes us vulnerable. Remove that dependence, as quickly as possible and there's no money or impetus for Middle Eastern grown terrorism against the U.S.

It's oil wealth in the Middle East that gives them world power. World power doesn't have to come from there though - not if we change the dynamics of being energy independent. It's the key to peace. It's the key to saving the lives of our military members.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is missing a key component in the debate. I want our military members home long term. I want long-term peace. I don't care how many discussions you have about this country or that country in the Middle East the key is being economically free of the stranglehold they have on energy. A stranglehold we've embraced without change for decades in the name of environmentalism.

McCain promotes and has policies of environmentalism and energy independence. He believes in a multi-faceted approach and his policy of allowing drilling would make for a much better and more secure transition period to hydrogen than any other plans I've read.
ReplyDelete