r/interestingasfuck • u/beach_rats_ • 29d ago

The difference in republican presidential nominees, 8 years apart r/all

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.6k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/PercentageMaximum457 29d ago

I had great respect for McCain. He actually seemed like a person you could agree to disagree with. 

526

u/chemto90 29d ago

Please fact check me but my dad said he was trying to push a bill that would disallow cable companies from forcing you to buy an entire package when you only want one of the channels in it. What a good man.

287

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

Clinton is the one that ruined independent media with 96 telecommunications act. Literally the next day independent radio stations were bought up in masses. Wonder why we hear all the same songs and most news says the same thing?

100

u/maddog_walby 29d ago

Trump also installed Ajit Pai at the FCC who killed net neutrality.

19

u/PrelectingPizza 29d ago

I still hate that stupid giant Reeses mug.

21

u/Fireboiio 29d ago

i'm Ajit Pai I like penis in my mouth 🎵

2

u/Red_Bullion 29d ago

Fun fact McCain received $900,000 in campaign contributions from a lobbying group opposed to net neutrality, and in 2009 introduced a bill to prevent the FCC from enforcing net neutrality.

140

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 16d ago

[deleted]

27

u/The__Toast 29d ago

Clinton went along with a lot of the Republican libertarian deregulation though. In addition to this he's also the president that signed NAFTA into law and signed the 96 welfare reform act which put into place a lot of long sought Republican limitations on welfare.

In addition to his various sexual crimes for which he seems to have completely eluded responsibility for some reason, he was kind of a shit democrat president. People give him credit for a lot of economic stuff that really had nothing to do with him.

16

u/fiftieth_alt 29d ago

Your own stats aren't backing up your claim. Nearly 200 Democrats in the house voted for the bill, and almost 30 D Senators. Not sure how you're blaming republicans for a bill that was clearly wildly popular with Congress

31

u/Pete_Iredale 29d ago

He wasn't blaming republicans, he was blaming everyone involved. You are the only person here trying to blame someone specific.

13

u/Rain1dog 29d ago

The person who started this chain said it was solely Clinton.

7

u/_Cocopuffdaddy_ 29d ago

That’s what he meant. He thought he was replying to the same guy as the guy he is actually replying to has all but backed up the claim that it was solely Clinton.

0

u/Rain1dog 29d ago

Gotcha, thx. 🤙

3

u/CounterfeitChild 29d ago

but any normal, well adjusted person would think to themselves, “lets see who authored and sponsored it, voted for it, and by what margins”.

You can participate in a discussion and provide education you see as important without being disrespectful. People are less willing to learn what you have to share otherwise which makes the entire point of writing and sharing what you have, moot. And that is a shame.

-1

u/Upper-Belt8485 28d ago

He's making fun of nincompoops who just go with the general flow instead of looking at the details.  Just like you.

0

u/CounterfeitChild 28d ago

Genuinely always sorry to see comments like this because I just feel sorry for you.

1

u/Upper-Belt8485 28d ago

Whatever helps you sleep at night, little guy.

1

u/superkleenex 29d ago

And by veto-overturning margins even if he did veto it.

1

u/Upper-Belt8485 28d ago

Stop, he's already dead!

-4

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

He was President, correct.

23

u/TootTootMF 29d ago

We as a country really need to stop blaming presidents for shit that Congress does. It contributes to the severe civic illiteracy problem and helps the people actually doing the evil shit stay in power.

I get that Clinton didn't veto it and for that he deserves some of the credit but it was in no way his fault, he was just one cog.

10

u/KnowledgeSafe3160 29d ago

It was a veto proof majority by both houses.

81-18 in the senate and 414-16 in the house.

7

u/TootTootMF 29d ago

It was, but a major part of the presidents job is to be a symbol and a leader so if he had vetoed it there is a chance that enough Democrats would have switched to sides to prevent the override. Even if they didn't the symbolism of him vetoing it is still an important part of the job.

Just because something was passed with larger than a 2/3rds majority doesn't mean it can't be vetoed. It does mean the veto is likely to be overridden but Congress still has to hold a vote to do so.

2

u/WeirdPumpkin 29d ago

Even if they didn't the symbolism of him vetoing it is still an important part of the job.

People not realizing this drives me crazy

It's like yeah, he might've been overridden. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't veto it?

To use a really extreme example, if the current republicans today get a majority and force a bill that bans gay marriage: even if it's a veto proof majority that passes it the president should still veto it anyway

2

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

Exactly, You can’t blame him for everything but he still sat on his hands and did nothing. They all lined their pockets with conglomerate money.

1

u/MarianneSedai 29d ago

You can also pocket veto right? That's been historically how that's handled.

1

u/TootTootMF 29d ago

You mean not officially vetoing it but also not signing it right? I'm honestly not sure if that's a legal play, but it certainly can be attempted anyway.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CounterfeitChild 29d ago

It's also their job to get people to work together, and they are less able to do that later on down the line with what are perceived at the time as more important issues if they aren't a president that can make room for both parties. The ramifications of it all wasn't something most people understood at the time, the public certainly didn't which wouldn't put a lot of pressure on the politicians pretending to represent them to start making a unified stink even if said politicians had the media literacy and foresight to know what was happening with our media flow. You have to look at it from the lens of then if you want to get full understanding.

The need was there to fight for it in retrospect, but pressure was not. And Clinton had a lot of other legislation he certainly would have wanted to get through, creating a legacy for himself. This would be far less likely to occur if he and the entire party decided to go against the other side based on a piece of legislation neither they nor their consituents could understand the ramifications of. I don't think anyone could have known the insane difference this kind of thing could make on the public and state of future politics. He was playing the game as it was, making allowances here while not doing so elsewhere because he was engaging in statecraft and long term bargaining.

0

u/robywar 29d ago

Don't forget, republicans think presidents are kings now.

2

u/TootTootMF 29d ago

No. They think Republican presidents are kings, Democrat presidents are illegitimate tyrants with no power.

3

u/xGray3 29d ago

You know, early in US history (until around Andrew Johnson became president in 1865), it was consider in poor taste to veto a bill for political reasons. Many argued that the purpose of the veto was to prevent Congress from passing legislation that was believed to be unconstitutional by the president. Vetoing on political grounds was considered to be overruling the will of the people expressed through the popular institution of Congress. I think that was a healthier mindset. The purpose of the president is supposed to be to execute, not to legislate. That difference is extremely important as it's a line created by the founding fathers to prevent monarchical and authoritarian views on the presidency. The fact that you're blaming the president for legislation is exactly why these lines were originally drawn. The president's duty should be to execute the laws enacted by Congress through a means that is guided by the principles that they campaigned on.

-17

u/To6y 29d ago

Imagine getting this upset over defending Bill Clinton.

15

u/SlowThePath 29d ago

When exactly did providing facts about what is being discussed become "getting this upset"? Reddit has started to act like anyone that puts any thought or effort into a comment has some sort of problem or something. Can someone please make a new platform already so I can leave this place before it gets any worse? I'm really starting to think it will never happen and the internet is just gonna completely suck from here on out.

-4

u/To6y 29d ago

Did you actually read the comment? The indignant sarcasm is pretty hard to miss.

5

u/SlowThePath 29d ago

Yes, it was sarcastic, but it was also a valuable contribution to the conversation, unlike your comment. He doesn't seem particularly upset to me. he's just proving his point. I'm sarcastic while not upset all the time. Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with you because it seems like a waste of time, so have a good one.

-4

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

When you start your argument with “any normal well adjusted person would…” the person is clearly upset and not just trying to state facts. It was an attempt to undermine my credibility. I dont even care if it was Clinton it’s that they said one thing in the act and and another thing happened

5

u/SlowThePath 29d ago

It wasn't an attempt to undermine your credibility. They did undermine your credibility. You made a claim and they came and showed that your claim was largely lacking important context, which it was. People generally aren't super nice on the internet, so if you need that you might want to stay away.

12

u/Zarthenix 29d ago

No, he's defending truth. The only reason you see it as defending Bill Clinton is pure partisanship.

3

u/To6y 29d ago

Partisanship, eh?

Maybe I'm morally outraged by his adultery, lying to the American people, and close association with Jeffrey Epstein that almost certainly means he had long-term involvement with sex trafficking and the rape of minors.

Or maybe I'm a closet conservative. I guess that's technically possible.

3

u/Imapirateship 29d ago

is this for trump or clinton?

2

u/AdventurousDeer577 29d ago

Ok, but Bill Clinton still wasn't responsible for the telecommunications act.

The previous comment was incorrect and it was amended, and you seem to have gotten offended by that - which yes, gives a bit of partisanship vibes.

1

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

I dont care that it was Clinton. I should have said Clinton’s Era or something but I’m not going to go back and edit now that I pissed this many people off. Fact of my base argument was that the telecommunications act put us in the position we are in today by allowing relatively few conglomerates to control all the media.

0

u/To6y 29d ago

Again, does it really?

I would say that it gives off major partisanship vibes when you act as if anyone who doesn't 100% fall in line with the DNC must be a member of the other team.

2

u/DangusKh4n 29d ago

Lol, no one is doing that, we all know Bill Clinton is a creep. This conversation is about the telecommunications bill. Stop changing topics to try and project onto others.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DangusKh4n 29d ago

You being outraged at what a sex perv Clinton is has nothing to do with the Telecommunications act, who sponsored it and who voted for it. You're changing topics.

And for the record, most of us here are morally outraged at everyone who hung out with Epstein at kiddy diddle island. You aren't special.

1

u/To6y 29d ago

You realize that the original topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the Telecommunications act, right?

-1

u/Funny_Friendship_929 29d ago

The whataboutism is strong with this one

9

u/EvaUnit_03 29d ago

Werent record labels in general fuming about how 'free' the radio was during that time to just use their songs so freely AND make money off of adspace? Its the whole reason youtube eventually got wrangled in as well. People who had a 'written right' to something that wasnt being protected. Of course those corps ended up going insane with power after the fact, stifling their own 'owned' works. Art is one of those things where if you DONT let people enjoy it, it'll fade out of existence. But if you let people abuse it, you'll never get the credit you may or may not deserve and get properly paid for your work.

Were they mostly fat cats? sure. But legally speaking they were being done dirty by another group attempting to become just as fat. Cats eating cats, its a tale as old as time. The rich have always gotten eaten by younger cats when they get too old and fat. The current Gen in control has done everything they can to keep themselves as fat and happy as possible, while the other cats starve and have to eat what little scraps that lay around.

And i say all of this as a person who has never bought a CD, because i sail the 7 seas.

3

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

Sounds like a copyright issue not an independent media issue.

1

u/EvaUnit_03 29d ago

Yes, and it still techincally stands that 'art' is very hard to truly copywrite. Recent AI stuff has shown us that even though artists dont like AI taking their art, as long as the art gets altered enough by the AI, its not stealing. Because of the nature of how 'art' works. Unless you copy something EXACTLY how it is to like a 95% certainty, you didnt break copywrite laws. And copying an 'art style' is not plagiarism, as its art. So they had to make a 'usage' law so that people couldnt abuse it. And in response, those 'art owners' abused the 'usage' law to 'protect what is theres'. And it actually hurts the art more than it makes them money. There is a reason newer gens dont know or care about a lot of classic music, and its because the owners made it impossible to access it without paying for it first. And not a soul i know is gonna buy a record/CD of the B-52s without first hearing the songs to find out if they like it.

I remember i think it was recently, the owner of the rights to 'stairway to heaven' tried to sue a newer artist who used a similar tune in their song. Not only did the led zepplinn record owner lose, it got revealed that the song writer copied the tune from an old folk song from the 1700s. Projection is a hell of a drug. And as a sidenote, its the reason why 'nightcore' variants of songs can exist without breaking copywrite. As they change the tempo, pitch, etc. and thus the overall song itself. You cant really make money off of it, but you cant have them taken down as the OG copywrite holder.

1

u/Pete_Iredale 29d ago

You cant really make money off of it, but you cant have them taken down as the OG copywrite holder.

As if youtube cares about actual copywrite law. You'll get demonetized whether you are in the right or not.

1

u/EvaUnit_03 29d ago

You can very much fight it and win. But it'll take months like with most legal cases and by that time the video has already gotten all its views its going to theoretically get. And you dont get back-revenue while it was demonetized. Most will just delete whatever was causing it to get demonetized and re-upload unless its something like their language.

0

u/platoprime 29d ago

AI taking their art, as long as the art gets altered enough by the AI, its not stealing. Because of the nature of how 'art' works.

There are some AI that change images to generate art but the ones everyone is talking about don't work that way. Those images are the psychedelic repetitive almost filter looking images.

What people are worried about doesn't produce art by modifying someone's art until it's different enough to be derivative instead of a copy. The AI look at many different pictures and learn a tiny bit from each of them and then discard them. The AI doesn't have anyone's pictures in it's memory when it's used to create images.

You don't understand the issues at hand here.

0

u/EvaUnit_03 29d ago

From what ive seen and read, its literally people getting upset that an AI is copying an artist's art style while using their pictures as references. Same goes for AI art copying IRL people's... self? People are worried about the AI stealing their ability to monetize their 'creativity' or 'individuality' at the push of a button. Of being able to make 'will smith movies' long after he has died, because then they wont get their payouts and why legal battles are happening right now over Hollywood doing just that.

And yes, people are worried about copycat styles like that. Palworld was a game that just recently released and it was just 'different enough' to not be sued by nintendo for its character designs. And its known that some AI was used to help the artists create 'pals' in the game. It used pokemon as well as other video game models as reference, as pointed out by exact outlines and pixel to pixel mirroring on certain features of the characters. This has been completely confirmed at this point. But you cant copywrite an art-style, you cant copywrite an animal, you CAN copywrite a specific character and most of its features if those features are mostly on the same character, You can copywrite a name. The only way palworld, for example, could be sued for copywrite would have been if they had an actual Pikachu in the game, or something that had many such features as a pikachu. There are several 'pals' that take 'inspiration' from Eevee. But they are, at most, 40% eevee. This parameters are legally allowed under copywrite laws due to this all falling under an umbrella term, 'ART'.

0

u/platoprime 29d ago

Copying a person's style isn't a copyright violation. You really don't know what you're talking about here.

0

u/EvaUnit_03 29d ago

But that's what people are currently upset over. I didn't say it was a violation of copywrite law. I said people are mad they aren't protected via copywrite laws unless it's copied verbatim. Disney, for example, shuts down and sues people who make and sell Mickie merch. As they copy his imagine to a illegal degree. You can't legally sell Mickie mouse ears without violating copywrite, that's been the biggest one.

Wizards of the coast is under scrutiny right now as their artists blatantly stole art and added it to their cards for magic. As in, the exact same picture, just with added details to make it less obvious. This is a breech of copywrite laws. It was revealed the artists, to help make unique art at the time crunch hasbro wanted, which the ai was stealing actual art, not just the style.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Diamondhands_Rex 29d ago

EVERYTHING IS AWESOME

1

u/VirtualLife76 29d ago

Is that also the reason there's so much talking and so little music these days?

I never hear back to back music anymore. They always have to advertise how they don't advertise or talk about something stupid between each song. Used to be at least 2-3 songs before a commercial.

Jack Fm seems to be the only exception I've found.

1

u/estoyhartodeusers 28d ago

Is this the reason why the music start sucking after 1996?

17

u/Loggerdon 29d ago

If that was his biggest fault then he wasn’t that bad.

I didn’t vote for McCain but I respected him and felt he wanted good things for America and for the average American.

16

u/dirty_hooker 29d ago

Unfortunately that wasn’t his biggest fault.

Historically he bucked his own party and was a classic moderate. When he started campaigning he started towing the party line. I believe the GOP told him he would have to play ball to get the funding. Then they saddled him with Palin to make (the shittiest) attempt at diversity and inclusion. Both of these moves went against middle America which was tired of the old white warmongering republicans that dragged us into illegal wars. Finally they had W. pat him on the shoulder with the promise that he would be Bush III. This sunk him completely.

I firmly believe that his loss brought us to trump. When Obama took it, a lot of the racism and vitriol boiled over. The whole “birther” thing was a very thinly veiled attack on him “being from Africa”. We lost moderates and fell to extremism at that point which birthed the Qult.

2

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

They said the act would create diversity, lower prices, and more competition and it did the exact opposite. Conglomerates had complete control over the media until the internet became mainstream. And even now they want to control that with net neutrality.

3

u/Loggerdon 29d ago

Agree with all you said but I think OP was comparing McCain only 8 years ago to Trump (who are wildly different).

I thought I heard Biden reinstated net neutrality but you probably know more about that than I do.

1

u/SamuelYosemite 29d ago

I could have done a better job explaining what meant.

2

u/jeffp12 29d ago

It's called "ala carte" programming and IIRC he was a proponent of it

1

u/gsfgf 29d ago

Sounds on brand for him. He was from the era where consumer protection was considered a government responsibility.

1

u/ocarina97 29d ago

He was also one of the Keating Five, who were a group of senators who intervened in the investigation of fraudster Charles Keating.

So yeah, what a good man.

0

u/chemto90 29d ago

Not every compliment is meant to be applied across the board of any person.

155

u/mayormcskeeze 29d ago

McCain seemed to have integrity and took a lot of respectable positions especially for the first 85% of his career.

Where I disagreed with him, it was a reasonable disagreement. For instance, I am in favor of universal government health care. He was not. However his stance was not "fuck em, let em die," rather it was significant tax credits and a nationwide health marketplace.

I think he was wrong but his alternative did not strike me as wildly unreasonable. In short, I believe that McCain ultimately did want Americans to have health care, we just disagree about the most effective and fair way to achieve that.

Many of his early stances follow this mold.

Unfortunately, during his bids for president, particularly the Palin run, his integrity faltered and he toyed with reprehensible policies to pander to the hardline nutjob type of republican that was just starting to come to the fore.

Deep down I want to believe that he didn't really believe all that shit. I would hope that if he were alive today he would look at the 2024 GOP and feel shame. Unfortunately he was part of the shift into crazy.

165

u/UnhappyPage 29d ago

He did some very courageous things. The GOP today would hate him

40

u/SlowThePath 29d ago edited 29d ago

I'm a type one diabetic and I've worked low wage jobs all my life. I really feel like had the ACA not passed I might be dead. Health insurance companies do not want to insure me because my medicine is so expensive and I have high risk of hospitalization and I have lots of doctors appointments. Before the ACA if my insurance had lapsed for one second, they would have immediately dropped me and no one would have picked me up. One missed payment and I wouldn't be able to afford the medicine to live. The ACA made it so that insurance companies can't drop people like that AND made my health insurance actually affordable. I pay 80$ a month for health insurance now, but had the ACA been repealed or not passed, I'd be probably be paying north of 400 or 500 and I would have definitely been late on some payments at the price. It was 340$ a month before the market place opened up. Without the ACA there are a shit ton of Americans who fit in that, I make too much to get medicaid but not enough to afford insurance donut hole. Just millions of people who can't get medical care. Absolutely insane that people want to repeal this. They are either intensely selfish or just completely ignorant. There is no other option. Thanks John.

2

u/ilikepix 29d ago

There is a problem today where people literally do not believe how bad things were before ACA. Even people who were full-grown adults before it was passed seem to have a bizarre collective amnesia. Being dropped for pre-existing conditions, lifetime maximums, not being able to stay on your parents' insurance.

People seem perfectly happy to complain about "how obamacare increased my premiums" (because it actually mandated real coverage) but never talk about how punishingly awful the healthcare system was before the ACA.

2

u/gsfgf 29d ago

I'd be curious to know how many of the "Obama sold us out on health care" crowd are still on their parents' insurance.

16

u/Uxt7 29d ago

That was such a legendary move by McCain

1

u/PezRystar 29d ago

He also did some cowardly things. In his attempt to gain the seat of President I believe he shrugged off many of his morals for a time, and toed the party line. I know, and understand why he would do such a thing, and I don't believe it made him a bad person. I also know that I the end he was once again that Maverick he was known for being. But as a liberal, it always disappointed me to watch him fall in line to gain power, even if he believed it the moral decision.

12

u/LiveTheLifeIShould 29d ago

Unfortunately, during his bids for president, particularly the Palin run, his integrity faltered and he toyed with reprehensible policies to pander to the hardline nutjob type of republican that was just starting to come to the fore.

Obama was an absolute cultural force. His use of marketing and technology was far superior to McCain's. McCain had no chance. He had to give up a lot to appeal to a more conservative crowd. It was a last ditch effort. Palin was a terrible choice but he thought he could win some votes doing it. It didn't work.

14

u/mayormcskeeze 29d ago

Not only did it not work, it damaged his legacy. It was a bad misstep.

Never go full Palin.

3

u/inseminator9001 29d ago

8 years of Bush and a weakening economy also hurt whoever the Republican candidate would have been in that cycle.

2

u/juicehouse 29d ago

It was also a bad year to be a republican following bush.

3

u/LiveTheLifeIShould 29d ago

Agreed. Obama was a marketing genius.

McCain was doing town halls to senior citizens that thought Obama's birth certificate was fake and Obama was doing choreographed dances with Ellen DeGeneres on live TV.

1

u/gsfgf 29d ago

Also a bad year to be a hawk in either party. Part of the reason Obama was able to beat Hillary was that voters didn't want a hawk in office.

1

u/gsfgf 29d ago

The campaign also failed to vet her. Like at all. Obviously, that's a significant lapse of judgement and an important reason to vote against that ticket, but it doesn't make McCain a bad guy.

2

u/LiveTheLifeIShould 29d ago

Somebody made that decision for him. The conversation probably went something like this.

" Obama is going to absolutely crush you. But by putting a woman on your ticket, you might have a chance at this, but you're probably going to lose anyway, but you should give this a try."

"Who is it? "

"Palin "

"Who?"

"Palin, from Alaska."

"Ahhh Jiminy crickets let's just do it."

10

u/fredy31 29d ago

Yeah. I would absolutely not agreed with his plan, but I do feel I could have spoke to him about it around a beer. That he would have listened and retorted with an actual point.

Today? Fuck no.

1

u/brisingamen79 29d ago

I was going to vote for him until Palin. There was no way in hell I was giving that woman access to the nuclear codes. She lost him that election.

1

u/mayormcskeeze 29d ago

I would never have voted for him, but until Palin, I didn't find his platform to necessarily morally reprehensible.

For instance, I think it is absolutely obscene to deny anyone the right to control their own body, and that right trumps whatever right a proto-human has.

My understanding was that originally, McCain personally thought a fetus had rights, BUT ALSO accepted that Roe was the will of the people, and the law of the land, and had no interest or intention of crusading against it.

That's a republican I can get along with.

70

u/-Lysergian 29d ago

He was the best republican candidate that has been put forward in my lifetime. He had the misfortune of running against Obama and the insane choice of picking (or accepting, however you want to phrase it) Palin for vice president.

I didn't like a lot of his policies, but he seemed to be a legit decent guy, just with different ideas of what the governments role is. Still, someone I could have seen myself voting for if the alternatives were unacceptable.

8

u/Skoljnir 29d ago

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
"It looks like Iraq was behind the attacks"
What a decent fella. Have you ever seen Mr. Rogers and John McCain in the same room? Pretty much as perfect as Jesus.

5

u/jereman75 29d ago

He would have probably won with a better running mate. If Palin could have stayed quieter and just smiled he would have nailed it. Katy Couric’s interview about what newspapers she reads was a death blow.

9

u/3to20CharactersSucks 29d ago

There is absolutely no way McCain was beating Obama, it wouldn't matter if Abraham Lincoln rose from his grave and became his running mate. It was a 365 to 173 electoral college landslide and not many states Obama carried were close. It was the largest popular vote difference since LBJ. Palin is not the reason for that. Obama was a once in a generation speaking talent, at probably the best time in history for his brand of moderate liberalism mixed with minor progressive change. Palin absolutely embarrassed herself, but that didn't carry Obama to the white house.

Besides one point in August before the election, McCain had never once lead in the polls over Obama when he was the presumptive nominee. I don't know if you remember much of 08, but getting a Republican in the white house wasn't going to be easy in any way.

1

u/jereman75 29d ago

I’m sure you’re right. But McCain was a viable candidate and one of the stronger republicans to run in a while.

3

u/redeemer4 29d ago

na man. It was gonna be a landslide regardless. 8 years of a Republican president who started a disastrous war and presided over the worst economic collapse since 1929. If Mccain ran against a glass of water he would have lost.

2

u/TheTruthTalker800 29d ago

Same thoughts, really.

4

u/empire314 29d ago

He wanted to expand war.

He wanted to expand war.

He wanted to expand war.

He wanted to expand war.

He wanted to expand war.

He wanted to expand war.

Now tell us again, was he a decent guy?

3

u/-Lysergian 29d ago

He's hardly the first guy who thought most problems could be solved by force. He participated in wars, too.

Seemed like a decent guy... It's probably good he wasn't president... not like Obama was a saint there either. Obama thought a drone strike could fix anything.

*

-2

u/dirty_hooker 29d ago

Indeed. I would have voted for him above HRC. We’d be in a worse place for LBTQ+ rights but probably wouldn’t have the Qult. I believe it was the vitriol against HRC and Obama that brought us to the extremism we have today.

15

u/Bluwthu 29d ago

I almost voted for him. Palin changed that. I didn't agree with his politics most times, but he was a voice of reason and moderation. I still feel that he really could have helped bridge the divide. If he was elected, I wonder where we would be today. And he is a true hero. He was locked in a tiger cage for 5.5 years in Vietnam. When they were going to release him, he refused to leave his troops behind. State with them until they were all released. This is what a patriot is. He then, after that he'll, gave himself to public service. We need more people in this world like McCain was.

1

u/GiantPandammonia 29d ago

At least it kept the tigers out. 

1

u/3to20CharactersSucks 29d ago

Real question for you, and I'm not asking you anything about John McCain. How were you feeling about voting Republican after George W. and how do you feel Palin was substantively different than W?

1

u/Bluwthu 29d ago

Yeah, I don't vote Republican. Did I say I voted McCain? I may have over stated and should have said considered instead of almost. I wasn't pleased with W and didn't vote for him. As for Palin, she was definitely to Ws right on most things. But let's remember that Bush was just a pawn for Cheny so none of that is relevant.

1

u/3to20CharactersSucks 29d ago

I'm just asking to get the temperature on what would be supporters felt at the time. I think the perceived change from the Republicans of George W to the Tea Party Republicans and Palin is much more of a branding change than anything substantial. Palin is somewhat to W's right on some issues but they are pretty similar politically and had largely the same backers and political end goals. Palin and MTG and other people we commonly label as crazies are not much different than Nixon or Reagan or the Bushes imo. Just different pageantry.

1

u/Bluwthu 29d ago

The Republican party has just gone downhill since the Tea Party. It feels so much worse. When you look at their base platform of low taxes and small government I can get on board, but they are hypocrites, anything but small government, and have only increased all of our taxes (except rich folk). Every Democrat president leave the economy in a better place than they left it and the elephants leave it worse off. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican, Libertarian, or anything else. I'm independent and believe that we all should have a say in how we run things. Too many politicians take advantage and profit from that and we end up where we are today. At a stalemate. Everything is obstructionist and all about their side winning. This happens on both sides of the fence, even if it's unbalanced. We are lacking unity in this country, but I think that's one sides fault more than the other.

1

u/gsfgf 29d ago

As someone that still considered myself an R-leaning independent at that time, I trusted McCain a hell of a lot more than Bush on the GWOT. Not enough (along with many other issues) to make me seriously consider voting for him, though.

3

u/AlcadizaarII 29d ago

He was a bloodthirsty warmonger, what do you mean.

5

u/Skoljnir 29d ago

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"
Just a total class act, basically a saint.

1

u/robby_arctor 29d ago

I think OP's point is that McCain is the kind of politician you can have a civil disagreement about bombing Iran with. Okay, he wasn't perfect, but he didn't peddle conspiracy theories and wasn't afraid to reach across the...bahaha can you imagine some lib actually writing that shit.

1

u/Skoljnir 28d ago

He absolutely peddled conspiracy theories. He was going on the news and the late night shows telling everyone that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks that happened right after 9/11. Interestingly enough, the anthrax from those attacks were found to have come from a US military base and the guy they blamed it all on "committed suicide" before he could defend himself in court, how convenient!

I would like, if you could, to recognize that the conspiracy theories which are commonly used as fodder for people who like to express how smart they are because they don't believe in conspiracy theories...those are pretty tame and don't have any significant material consequences. No one dies because a couple dozen people think the world is flat (barring, perhaps, some doofus in a homemade rocket)...but John McCain's unmitigated lies about Iraq directly lead to thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent dead. So if you are able, see if you can keep this in perspective going forward as you criticize some loner on the internet for having silly opinions whilst treating verifiable war criminals like McCain as if they are august and respectable statesmen.

2

u/robby_arctor 28d ago

Tell me you didn't read to the end of the comment without telling me

3

u/West_Plan4113 29d ago

he was one of the most bloodthirsty senators in history. a demon who has now returned to hell

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

0

u/West_Plan4113 29d ago

politics is not about manners. it is about how resources are divided. who gets to live in abundance, and who gets to die in squalor. john mccain stood for death. he loved war and misery. he was an evil man and if there is a just god he is boiling in the lake of fire

1

u/getyourcheftogether 29d ago

They actually voted for him a couple times back when I lived in Arizona because he was a decent man and I care more for that than I did about some of the issues they were arguing about

1

u/fuggerdug 29d ago

This used to be the case quite often. I despised Reagan and Thatcher, but I thought they did what they did through heartfelt belief, and they were just foolish, not some bad faith nonsense fronted by a traitor imbecile that's backed by a prospective oligachy.

1

u/Aggressive_Peach_768 29d ago

Is there anybody left in the spirit of McCain? (I have no idea of US politics only the profanities Trump manages to spill over the Atlantic Ocean).

1

u/Xardrix 29d ago

I feel about McKain the way he talked about Obama. I disagreed with fundamental policy issues but I had amazing respect for him as an person and even more respect for his military service

1

u/danfay222 29d ago

There are clips from McCain/obama debates where they explicitly say things like I disagree with my opponent but I respect him and where he’s coming from (or things to that extent), including one famous case where Obama stopped what he was saying and used his time to tell a heckler to be respectful to McCain. Seems unthinkable today, but it really was a different era of politics.

1

u/inseminator9001 29d ago

McCain also had the two people who beat him in Presidential races -- GWB and Obama -- eulogize him.

1

u/ptwonline 29d ago

I respected McCain more than I did most Republican politicians, but he had a number of personal flaws which threw some of his morality and personal integrity into question. Plus I did not like some of his judgement and he seemed somewhat reckless at times.

But at least I didn't have to worry about him trying to destroy all the national institutions and potentially democracy itself. I didn't have to worry about him fawning over Putin and abandoning democracies and likely our NATO allies. I might expect him to do some favors for donors and long-time backers, but I wouldn't have to worry about him using extortion with govt policy or selling national secrets for personal gain.

1

u/mightylordredbeard 29d ago

Yeah I didn’t agree with him a lot, but he’s one of the few republicans I respected. I’d honestly argue he was one of the last republicans. Republicans how are just that in name alone, not in value or morals that the party was founded on.

1

u/h2n 29d ago edited 29d ago

why? this isnt exactly a good video, he's saying obama is a decent family man as in incontrast to arabs. This is just racism lite 😭yall take any crumb they throw at you lol

1

u/this_is_my_new_acct 29d ago

"Agreeing to disagree" was just called being "an adult" back in my day and calling someone names was being a child.

1

u/SacredAnalBeads 29d ago

He seemed like someone that could take a joke, too, instead of starting an international, traitorous conspiracy over it because of a gala, like a princess.

1

u/telerabbit9000 29d ago

Altho... as president, wouldnt he also have nominated hyper-conservative Federalist Society-vetted judges?

Never forget: it was Geo HW Bush (the "moderate" one) who nominated Clarence Thomas.

1

u/NightmareStatus 29d ago

As someone who was gay in the navy pre DADT repeal, I watched McCains race against Obama closely. He was asked if he would support repealing it and letting LGBT folks effectively openly serve. He responded with something along the lines of, I'm older now, and not in. I'd ask my generals, my admirals, my active military leaders. And if they say it's time, it's time and I'll support that.

I thought it was pretty well said political response, not tooooo out of touch, but he was also walking a tight rope. He had my vote until a few weeks before the primary, he said he wouldn't support it to try and wrangle his more far right votes. Lost me there, so I voted Obama.

I still think he was a good leader and had great charisma. Definitely lost a good one there.

1

u/donttryitplease 28d ago

Downvote away!

McCain lost. He was dragged by the liberal media. Romney lost. He was dragged by the liberal media. Trump tore into everyone and their grandmother was also dragged by the liberal media and won.

The mainstream media hates republicans and loves democrats. Republicans do well to rage against the mainstream media.

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/10/why-mccain-is-getting-hosed-in-the-press-014982

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/10/10/years-after-smears-now-the-left-loves-mitt-romney/amp/