NationStates Jolt Archive

Tuesday night on John Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” Democrat Senator from Delaware Joe Biden says is “seeking the nomination” for the Democrats in 2008.

He praised Senator John McCain and said he “would be proud to run with him or against him.” Biden said he strongly urged McCain to run as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004.

Would you vote for a Biden/McCain ticket? And what do you think of a D/R ticket?

Run with him? Kerry tried it in 2004, and it didn't work. McCain simply won't do it. Seriously the dems need someone who is more moderate... like Wesley Clarke.

Didn't McCain say he wouldn't leave the Repubs?

I think a McCain/Pataki or McCain/Gulliani would be great, preferably the latter. Gulliani was a great mayor in New York and is a moderate Republican, as is McCain.

McCain has done some great things for Arizona and I highly respect the man. He has actually been to war and has experienced the worst of it, and after Karl Rove's little dirty stunts he's played on McCain, I don't think he's too fond of the Bush Administration either. Even if he is Republican, I respect the man and would vote for him in 2008 if the Dems can't dish up someone really good.

WTF! For some reason I thought the McCain/Biden would be the Republican ticket. Well, whatever.

I don't think McCain or Biden are viable candidates. (notice i didn't say that they shouldn't be. Either one would probably be pretty good.) Biden has sought the nomination before, and failed twice, I believe. He'd also have to get a running mate form a large state, to make up for Delaware's 3 electoral votes. McCain is, unfortuantely, seen by many as too much a maverick. Guiliani may have a very good chance at the GOP nomination.

Oh God. If McCain is the on the Republican ticket I'm not voting. The socially conservative movement in America is the least represented of all the political spectrum, and Bush's administration has been proof enough of that. :( Don't get me started on Biden. He's just John Kerry redux.

I think more important than who is running is the mixing of parties. Do you think it is a good thing?

Oh God. If McCain is the on the Republican ticket I'm not voting. The socially conservative movement in America is the least represented of all the political spectrum, and Bush's administration has been proof enough of that. :( Don't get me started on Biden. He's just John Kerry redux.

I love it when conservatives eat their own.

Democrats continue to errode my ability to defend myself and my family--so no way there.

McCain is decidedly anti-gun--I think the Hanoi Hilton addled his brains--he doesn't want the citizenry to be able to defend themselves either.

I don't think McCain or Biden are viable candidates. (notice i didn't say that they shouldn't be. Either one would probably be pretty good.) Biden has sought the nomination before, and failed twice, I believe. He'd also have to get a running mate form a large state, to make up for Delaware's 3 electoral votes. McCain is, unfortuantely, seen by many as too much a maverick. Guiliani may have a very good chance at the GOP nomination.
Biden got torped because of his...ah...plagerism. He might make it, if no one else shows up in the field, considering he's one of the most senior (experience wise) democrats out there.


That said, I'd rather have Senator Carper run for president then Biden.

Didn't McCain say he wouldn't leave the Repubs?

He said is was not considering it, but the truth is he burned all his bridges on that side of the fence, so, if he wants to stay in politics he might just as well. He's the democrats best chance at actually getting someone elected in 08, but even that is a very long shot considering the massive losses in support over the past few weeks.

I don't think McCain or Biden are viable candidates. (notice i didn't say that they shouldn't be. Either one would probably be pretty good.) Biden has sought the nomination before, and failed twice, I believe. He'd also have to get a running mate form a large state, to make up for Delaware's 3 electoral votes. McCain is, unfortuantely, seen by many as too much a maverick. Guiliani may have a very good chance at the GOP nomination.

Guiliani has no chance of a nominiation from the GOP. As far as democrats go, anyone from California or the North East will be rejected flat out, but its good to see them still trying.

I think more important than who is running is the mixing of parties. Do you think it is a good thing?

I don't see it as mixing of the parties. It is more like the seperation of parties. McCain is a liberal democrat and always has been. He just couldn't get elected in his state if he said what he really was. Since Regan was president and democrats started losing their grip several of their numbers have switched sides. Clinton sent many over the edge himself. Some of these people are now being isolated for what they really are and will have no choice but to come back if they wish to stay in politics. Unfortunately without official, "Party Support" most politicians have little chance of being elected because that is where all the money is.

This is a fasinating thread, far more than I expected it to be, especially with the righties charging that McCain is a leftie, and with one person seemingly charging that McCain is anti-gun. Wow--talk about an Orwellian thread.

And no--I wouldn't vote for a Biden/McCain ticket. A split ticket? Depends on who's on it.

Democrats continue to errode my ability to defend myself and my family--so no way there.

McCain is decidedly anti-gun--I think the Hanoi Hilton addled his brains--he doesn't want the citizenry to be able to defend themselves either.


So you're a single issue type, huh?

Liverbreath']I don't see it as mixing of the parties. It is more like the seperation of parties. McCain is a liberal democrat and always has been. He just couldn't get elected in his state if he said what he really was.


Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? :rolleyes:

McCain has repeatedly said that he won't switch over, and said that he wants to actually get shit done while in the Senate than decide on running in '08 or not.

Considering some of Arizona's gun laws, I highly doubt McCain is anti-gun rights, coming from an NRA-supporter, I personally like him a lot. A conservative Congress and McCain as President strike me as a good mix, McCain compromises, that doesn't make him a traitor to the GOP. Indeed he's been rather supportive in foreign affairs and has the ability to actually be more of a unifying than polarizing figure such as Bush.

Liverbreath']I don't see it as mixing of the parties. It is more like the seperation of parties. McCain is a liberal democrat and always has been. He just couldn't get elected in his state if he said what he really was.
An openly gay Republican has been repeatedly elected Congressman some seven or eight times. After pleasing Republicans and Democrats alike year after year, McCain saying he was a liberal Democrat, even if it were true, wouldn't lose him any elections. Arizona has elected a Democratic Governor for gods sake! McCain is a moderate Republican and what's frightening is you think he's a liberal Democrat. Being from Arizona, I think I know my own state's politicians.

Sheesh, we're already bad off enough with him as a senator than we would be with him as a president/vice president.

Democrats continue to errode my ability to defend myself and my family--so no way there.

McCain is decidedly anti-gun--I think the Hanoi Hilton addled his brains--he doesn't want the citizenry to be able to defend themselves either.

Let's assume that gun control (or so-called "anti-gun") activists had their way. First, whom would you be defending your family against if fewer people have guns? Second, if we allow more people access to guns, we're merely creating a cycle. A person feels that they need to defend him/herself, so he/she pushes for relaxed gun control. This allows potential criminals access to guns. The first person sees that there is an increase in criminal activity and decides that there should be more guns to defend against the criminals. And the cycle repeats.

I'm hoping for Mark Warner (VA's soon to be former governor, and a moderate southern Dem.) or for a Condi Rice/McCain ticket. I'm not associated with either party. I voted for Badnarik in the last election.

But I lean Republican now, because of Hillary's bitching about GTA lately and the decidedly anti-gun stance and Republicans don't seem to want to ban my movies and video games.

Darn Democrat populists.

Let's assume that gun control (or so-called "anti-gun") activists had their way. First, whom would you be defending your family against if fewer people have guns? Second, if we allow more people access to guns, we're merely creating a cycle. A person feels that they need to defend him/herself, so he/she pushes for relaxed gun control. This allows potential criminals access to guns. The first person sees that there is an increase in criminal activity and decides that there should be more guns to defend against the criminals. And the cycle repeats.



He would defend himself from the criminal who still has a weapon, with the weapon he himself doesn't have.

I voted yes, but I wouldnt go for it in the primaries.

He would defend himself from the criminal who still has a weapon, with the weapon he himself doesn't have.

So do you think there is no correlation between our relaxed gun laws and the amount of crimes with guns involved or the number of people killed by guns each year?

I don't know if I would vote for Biden, but it'd be interesting to finally have a President or even a Vice President from my home state, Delaware.

So do you think there is no correlation between our relaxed gun laws and the amount of crimes with guns involved or the number of people killed by guns each year?

There is no corrolation, because gun ownership greatly rose while crime(with and without guns) decreased. Tens of millions(maybe over 100m) of guns were purchased through this period, so there were more guns, and less crime. There is no real corrolation.

So you're a single issue type, huh?

Heh, just wanted to point out that McCain is a Republican that wants to restrict everything in some fashion.

Let's assume that gun control (or so-called "anti-gun") activists had their way. First, whom would you be defending your family against if fewer people have guns?


Ah, there's the trap. Only fewer law abiding citizens would have guns. The criminals would still have them. And a gun is a great equalizer, if the assailant has a knife (yes, there are starting range issues that need to be addressed). Let's say that you somehow magically lowered the number of guns in the hands of criminals--What would I be defending against? Someone who was faster or stronger than me--who had a different weapon. Guns that stop crimes are rarely fired. You have 13,000 murders with guns in the US annually. You have over 2 million crimes halted due to the presence of a gun, with the vast majority unfired (the criminal saw the gun and ran or surrendered).


Second, if we allow more people access to guns, we're merely creating a cycle. A person feels that they need to defend him/herself, so he/she pushes for relaxed gun control. This allows potential criminals access to guns.


That's a myth--the criminals will have guns regardless. Until you can remove crime from humanity, I will always have a need to be prepared. And the guns per capita example doesn't work--Canada and Switzerland both have more guns per capita than the US.


The first person sees that there is an increase in criminal activity and decides that there should be more guns to defend against the criminals. And the cycle repeats.

No cycle--you're creating one. Criminals will always be there. They will always have illegal weapons--you'll never stop it. There is no cycle. So, if that is the case, why stop someone who obeys the law from being able to defend themselves?

Now can we go back to why the "unholy" :rolleyes: union of Democrat and Republican should not be further enabled? :D Though, with today's two major parties in the US the way they are--there's not much difference: they both want all the money, and they want to spend it on shit that will just buy more votes to stay in office.

There is no corrolation, because gun ownership greatly rose while crime(with and without guns) decreased. Tens of millions(maybe over 100m) of guns were purchased through this period, so there were more guns, and less crime. There is no real corrolation.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm

They need to run Wesley Clark - in fact, they should have run him last time rather than Kerry.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm

All that does is use a few counties as proof(other than the hundreds of county experiments that show gun ownership and lower crime going hand in hand, showing no corrolation either way), and say that cops taking away illegal guns helps prevent crime. Making more guns illegal has nothing to do with taking away already illegal guns.

And that does nothing to contest the biggest point in correlation. Gun ownership nation wide rose greatly, and crime greatly lowered. Im not even arguing that gun ownership nessecairaly lowers crime, Im saying there is no real corrolation.

EDIT: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

It makes more sense than having Hillary run

I would vote for a split ticket out of freaking principle. It would be a small chip at the two-party dictatorship.

I don't like McCain but if he were VP I wouldn't mind. A VP is more ceremony than much else anyway.

I would prefer a split ticket between a democrat and a third party or an independent. The only way the third parties are going to have any chance is if they get someone, anyone into politics, and being a VP is a good launching board for other stuff.

But I'd still vote for a Biden/McCain ticket, if it were offered.

I would vote for a split ticket out of freaking principle. It would be a small chip at the two-party dictatorship.

I don't like McCain but if he were VP I wouldn't mind. A VP is more ceremony than much else anyway.

I would prefer a split ticket between a democrat and a third party or an independent. The only way the third parties are going to have any chance is if they get someone, anyone into politics, and being a VP is a good launching board for other stuff.

But I'd still vote for a Biden/McCain ticket, if it were offered.I'd vote for that combo in the general election, but I'd work like hell to make sure Biden wasn't at the top of any Democratic ticket---he's so in the bag for credit card companies that his title ought to be Sen. Joseph Biden D-MBNA.

But a split ticket with a VP from the Green or Libertarian parties--that I could really get behind. I know it pisses Libertarians off when Democrats say this, but of the two major parties, they really have way more in common with Democrats than Republicans right now. That could change, if the Republican party regains its soul from the Dobsonites, but for now, it's the truth.

No. Then again, there are very few Democrats I would vote for, and no Republicans.

I'd consider a split ticket, but it's already hard enough finding one person I would vote for, how could I pick one from each party?

Maybe a Jeb Bush/Joe Liberman ticket? Two moderates.

I'd consider a split ticket, but it's already hard enough finding one person I would vote for, how could I pick one from each party?

Maybe a Jeb Bush/Joe Liberman ticket? Two moderates.
If you want a moderate, you don't want Jeb! on your ticket--he's a full-on neo-conservative and a signatory member of the PNAC.

And while Lieberman has a rep as a moderate, it's largely talk--his voting record is pretty progressive, even if he is a moralistic douchebag.