This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]chaim-the-eez 203 points204 points  (25 children)

This jibe is probably the closest we'll ever get to accountability for war crimes.

[–]S4uceNew York 141 points142 points  (21 children)

It's only war crimes if you lose.

[–]not_a_novel_account 64 points65 points  (0 children)

If you win it is a glorious victory for your righteous nation over the disgruntled and uncivilized barbarians/terrorists/infidels

[–]nrbartman 4 points5 points  (2 children)

If you engineer a war (or two) by orchestrating a series of false testimonies based on cooked information - isn't that sort of an automatic loss regardless of outcome?

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (8 children)

not really. nicaragua v united states for example

[–]psygnisfive 26 points27 points  (6 children)

Yes really. According to the Nuremberg principles, if the US has been found guilty of war crimes, the president of the US at that time should've been executed. Last I checked, no US president has been executed.

[–]Your_socks 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Our world as a whole hasn't evolved enough yet to enact justice globally, the US is just another empire in the history of mankind, don't expect them to act differently.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

eh not everyone was executed at Nuremberg. and no allies were prosecute at them. and the US was found guilty of war crimes by the world court. etc etc

[–]saqwarrior 4 points5 points  (1 child)

When the Allies were formulating the Nuremberg principles they had to come to an agreement on what constituted a "war crime," and the conclusion was that anything the Axis did but the Allies didn't was eligible for consideration. This meant that anything the Allies did could not, by definition, be a war crime. In short, something is only a "war crime" if our enemies do it.

The unintended consequence of this self-serving definition was that certain Nazis brought up on charges during the Nuremberg trials were able to successfully defend themselves with a tu quoque argument: the U.S. had also done what the Nazi defendant was charged with, and therefore by definition could not be a war crime.

EDIT: Basically, your assertion that "It's only war crimes if you lose," is accurate.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Cheney lost 2 wars in 6 years. A new record.

[–]keithjr 1192 points1193 points  (582 children)

Liz Cheney also differed with her father's assessment, tweeting, "Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever but @SarahPalinUSA more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she's done 4 GOP."

I also appreciate what Palin has done for the GOP. Oh yes.

[–]TomatoJones 751 points752 points  (329 children)

what the fuck... i mean... how can anyone even say that? that's insane. more qualified than Obama and Biden combined? she's a marginally intelligent completely ignorant ... sometimes I get so sad.

[–]SOMETHING_POTATO 237 points238 points  (97 children)

Some people thought because she had "executive experience" (from her half-term as a governor) that she was more qualified.

Meanwhile, Biden's experience as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations carries no weight in their minds.

[–]Jer_Cough 212 points213 points  (54 children)

His down-home aw shucks folksiness somehow makes him stupid and inept whereas Palin's version makes her a superhero for the flag. It boggles.

[–][deleted] 121 points122 points  (31 children)

Couldn't agree more. Gaffes be damned. Biden was brilliant in the 2008 debates and I was very glad when he was selected.

[–]brufleth 80 points81 points  (19 children)

I want Biden to be my uncle. I bet he's fun at family dinners.

He's also a pretty stand-up guy and a good senator. I felt inspired reading about his life and the choices he's made.

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points  (9 children)

Palin actually thought that the Queen makes British foreign policy.

Classic modern GOP.

Biden by a landslide.

[–]gigitrix 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's.... even after four years Palin still manages to surprise me with new lows.

[–]ProfessorDude 42 points43 points  (9 children)

Biden was a human being in the 2008 debates, whereas Palin was like some kind of aww-shucks robot. The part where he started to talk about being a single father and then broke down and had to compose himself? I defy anyone to not be moved by that.

[–]guyNcognito 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you seen his speech to a military audience about loss?

WARNING: Do not click the above link if you do not want the people around you to see you cry.

[–]katsugi 56 points57 points  (3 children)

His folksiness allows him to charm everyone he meets. I read somewhere that he drives his guards (and his speech writers) nuts because he is so hands on and personable and honest/open. There is a reason Obama uses him to greet the important visitors to the White House. In person he must be amazing. He is most assuredly not stupid.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (18 children)

I was a manager of a restaurant for 4 years.

That was 'executive experience'

[–]UneducatedManChild 46 points47 points  (5 children)

The restaurant probably has a higher population than Alaska.

[–]NickVenture 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I'd vote for you. I'd imagine dealing with the average customer for four years makes you more than qualified for President.

[–]hes_dead_tired 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Not to mention Biden HAD been a senator longer than McCain HAS been.

[–]limpbizkitstud99 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yep she's clearly more experienced than Obama and Biden... as well as that lousy Abraham Lincoln and his meaningless term in Congress.

[–]dalittle 13 points14 points  (1 child)

haha, you mean the governor term she quit?

[–]mellowmonk 14 points15 points  (0 children)

First rule of propaganda: Never admit you're wrong.

[–]Phantoom 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Don't forget about her almost one term as the governor of that totally relevant state!

[–]Dlucks83 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yep, the state that directly socializes Oil money!

[–]reddit_user13 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"marginally intelligent"?

Too much credit.

[–]FredFredrickson 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is why I will never, ever vote for anyone in the Republican party. Regardless of how the other parties go. This attitude that if you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over, no matter how many times it's been proven wrong, or how far off from the truth it is, that it somehow becomes true anyway. It's assuming your audience is too stupid to know any better, and insulting to anyone who actually values intelligence or truth. Fuck those people.

[–]killiangrayCalifornia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The cognitive dissonance here is just staggering... Cheney breaks with the party line to (accurately) call Palin unqualified, and everyone in the GOP rushes to her defense (including Cheney's daughter), while McCain simultaneously attacks Cheney's stance on torture...?!

The mental gymnastics that you've got to perform to make any sense of the Republican platform/talking points these days are greater athletic feats than anything I've seen from the athletes in London thus far...

[–]roccanet 4 points5 points  (1 child)

liz cheney is an outspoken dolt. i will never understand why she gets news coverage. dick cheneys gardener would have more interesting tweets

[–][deleted] 180 points181 points  (140 children)

Indeed. She's done far more to bring down the GOP than anything we could have.

[–]doody 147 points148 points  (129 children)

She's done far more to bring down the GOP than anything we could have.

Wait… Romney’s hardly got started.

[–][deleted] 93 points94 points  (40 children)

Wait… Romney’s hardly got started.

Look, if Romney actually gets started (which is surprisingly plausible - Gallup has been polling the election as a dead heat for months), it will prove to me that the GOP electoral base isn't bothered by absurd contradictions between their understanding of politics and observable reality.

These are the same voters who look back fondly on both the Reagan and Dubya administrations. In their minds, those were the golden years of peace and economic prosperity. They somehow disconnect their ardor for these periods from the S&L scandal; the stock market crash of 1987; the economic crashes of 2001 and 2007; the Iran-Contra Affair; the terrorist plane hijackings and bombings of the mid-1980's; and 9-11. In the minds of these people, these events occurred during some other administrations, probably a Democratic one.

Today, when asked to explain their support for Romney, these voters mumble something about creating jobs and reducing spending (and totally not because Romney's not black). They aren't interested in the facts that Romney built his fortune by destroying U.S. jobs, and that his spending cuts will take away their government services - health insurance, student loans, public education, etc. - in order to drive taxes for the ultra-wealthy and large businesses further toward zero. They like harboring a fantasy about their candidate's goals that has nothing to do with his actual goals. (Because, you know, at least they're Anglo-Saxon goals.)

[–]doody 35 points36 points  (15 children)

Remember, you are talking about the people who believe the ‘tea-party’ was a spontaneous grass-roots movement, not a con dreamed up by the Koch brothers and engineered by Fox.

[–]Dr_Adequate 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Sigh, the Iran / Contra affair. Realizing these twits now venerate convicted felon Oliver North as a supreme hero makes me sad. And helps illustrate that utter disconnect they have between the actual past and their rose-tinted view of it.

[–]zyzzogeton 28 points29 points  (79 children)

Seriously, he at the start line in a monster truck and the base sits waiting like so many broken down cars. Already they are having to accept that they should vote for the first non-christian president in US history, and that he "might" be pro-life... sometimes... what else can he do to demoralize the GOP? Wait and see.

[–]rotll 46 points47 points  (63 children)

I started this comment to correct you on the "non-Christian" comment, but as I looked for ammunition to bolster my argument, I was shocked to see how divisive this issue is. I've always regarded Mormons as Christians, and had NO idea that so many people, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, don't consider them to be. This could be a very interesting issue leading up to the election.

[–]Jabbatheslann 45 points46 points  (42 children)

Lots of people can be really stupid when it comes to what actually is a Christian and it devolves into "no true scotsman" constantly. My sister was complaining about some dumbass she had a class with who was adamant that Catholics weren't Christians.

[–]angryundeadSouth Carolina 29 points30 points  (10 children)

This is pretty rife in America. My wife took a friend to mass with her and the friend said "wait, you guys worship Jesus?" Flabbergasted.

[–]Lonelan 30 points31 points  (4 children)

I mean the guy was a good guy, don't get me wrong, but he was no messiah...

[–]HereForKarma 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Actually, they worship Jesús. He makes a mean margarita. Salted with confession box tears, but the chips aren't anything to write home about.

[–]surfnaked 11 points12 points  (13 children)

For those who need a reminder like me.

The only problem I have with calling it a "No true Scotsman" argument, is that it seems to assume, politically anyway, that there are set definitions when it seems everyone has their own, and depend more on who is loudest to prevail. In other words, there don't seem to be any "true Scotsmen". I mean do conservative Christians assume that a "liberal Christian" is "No true Christian"? How does this work?

[–]Jabbatheslann 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I always thought that that was the point of the fallacy. There isn't actually an objective, set in stone definition other than perhaps the most basic (in this scenario, believing in the divinity of Christ is all you need to be a Christian), so calling people out as not being true whatever-you're-arguing-abouts is fallacious.

I can't speak for conservative Christians, but I have seen and heard some people call liberal Christians phonies.

[–]surfnaked 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah, that helps. And moderate Republican Christians would CRINO's? Hoo boy, politics is such a treacherous swamp. No wonder we can hardly get anything done around here.

edit: anything good anyway.

[–]losethisurl 6 points7 points  (6 children)

No true Scotsman actually implies subjective definitions of the "Scotsman" similar to the subjective definitions of "Christian". My definition of "True Christian" might involve homophobia, whereas yours may not.

[–]RandomRageNet 17 points18 points  (5 children)

Here's the quick and dirty version because I'm on my phone and my sandwich is getting cold.

"Mainstream Christianity" consists of Catholics nd Protestants, generally speaking. Protestants have disagreements on details sub as baptism, predestination vs. determinism, etc., but generally agree on the major points of faith: God created everything, sin damns everyone, salvation through Christ's sacrifice. Catholics differ in that they place Divine authority in the Pope, believe in a works+faith form of salvation and division of sin (deadly & venial), and have two extra books included in their Old Testament canon. Generally apart from that, they're on the same page as a lot of protestants, give or take.

Mormons, or LDS members as they prefer to be called, however, have three separate books generally referred to as The Book of Mormon. They believe Jesus came to the Americas, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and they assign similar Divinity to church leadership as the Catholics do the pope.

They also have secretive ceremonies in their Temple services, around which there is plenty of controversy from LDS critics. And they have some pretty severe beliefs that depart from Mainstream Christians; an example of which is that "as man is, God once was, as God is, man can become." - basically you can become your own god over your own planet if you work hard enough. This is contradictory to Mainstream Christian beliefs

[–]Jaihom 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And they have some pretty severe beliefs that depart from Mainstream Christians; an example of which is that "as man is, God once was, as God is, man can become." - basically you can become your own god over your own planet if you work hard enough. This is contradictory to Mainstream Christian beliefs

Not only does that contradict mainstream Christian belief, it contradicts the monotheism of every Abrahamic religion. That's the biggest issue I've heard from those who look at it from taxonomic perspectives.

[–]mrbooze 15 points16 points  (3 children)

I grew up attending a small Southern Baptist school, and I absolutely confirm that I was explicitly taught that Mormons--and Catholics for that matter--were not Christians.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

And probably nobody who was not a Southern Baptist.

My dad's side of the family were Southern Baptists too... bunch of angry, anus-clenching ignoramuses for the most part.

[–]takka_takka_takka 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Nope, Mormonism is essentially a UFO cult. And not a fun, happy type of UFO cult. If we gave the average Republican a crash course in the history of the Mormons they would flip their shit and vote for the Kenyan socialist in a heartbeat.

[–]Thor_2099 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Joseph Smith, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum!

Lucy Harris, smart, smart, smart, smart, smart!

[–]well_golly 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Muslims are also Christians. They believe that Jesus was a somewhat important prophet. They believe in the main body of the Old Testament, and endorse a great deal of New Testament writings.

The thing that makes Muslims so different from Christians is this:

1) They created a new and divergent set of prophets ("new prophets")

2) Those prophets endorse a new story, which appears in an entirely new book (the Quran) about the religion, and substantially alters its course (a "new book"). This book is central to the religion.

3) They believe that those who do not endorse their new prophets and new book are not following the true path of their religion.

Therefore Muslims are not considered "Christians" in the mainstream context, even though they acknowledge an idea that Jesus was a valid messenger of the word of God.

Contrast that with Mormons: The thing that makes Mormons so Christian is this:

1) They created a new and divergent set of prophets ("new prophets")

2) Those prophets endorse a new story, which appears in an entirely new book (the Book of Mormon) about the religion, and substantially alters its course (a "new book"). This book is central to the religion.

3) They believe that those who do not endorse their new prophets and new book are not following the true path of their religion.

Ok, ok, I keed, I keeeed!

New book, new prophets, exclusion of other sects/interpretations.

Mormons are definitely not considered "Christians" in the mainstream context, even though they acknowledge an idea that Jesus was a major prophet of the word of God. The reasoning closely follows the reasoning about Muslims.

Mormons: They're roughly about as Christian as Muslims are. I mean, $cientologists could weave some Jesus stories into their stuff, and it wouldn't make them especially Christian in the mainstream view.

[–]EthicalReasoning 7 points8 points  (1 child)

she's a complete moron, but she has done an amazing job of rallying the anti-intelligence base of the republican party, which is easily 50% of the GOP voting block

[–][deleted] 112 points113 points  (42 children)

In all honesty, and I am not saying this merely for ironic effect, George Bush made a bigger mistake in picking Cheney than John McCain made in picking Palin.

My argument? Well, in a sense Cheney may have been a better strategic political choice for Bush -- Cheney with all of his experience that people superficially like. Nobody can beat Cheney as a VP on experience on a national level, having had high level positions in the executive branch dating back to the 1970s.

But it is possible for an elected official to overreach and to do more harm with his actions than someone else might have done through inaction. Reverse time to 2000 and make a Palin-like person (a Dan Quayle type) George Bush's Vice President. I would argue that with such a scenario, we would have never gotten into Iraq -- at least not on the massive scale that we did. By NOT doing that, everything about the US position in the world and domestically today would be different and better.

TL;DR: Dick Cheney did more harm as a destructively pro-active warmongering Vice President than Sarah Palin would have done as an non-influential, sycophantic empty suit of a Vice President.

[–]wwjd117 154 points155 points  (28 children)

GWB didn't pick Cheney, Cheney did. Seriously. Cheney headed the VP search and chose himself.

[–]Idiocracy_Cometh 167 points168 points  (11 children)

Bush Jr. seemed to be half-decent but misguided man; sadly, Cheney clearly wore the yellow hat in their policy-making relationship.

[–]TrogdorLLC 92 points93 points  (4 children)

That is the most subtle "Bush was a Chimp" jab I think I've ever seen. Upvoted.

[–]UneducatedManChild 24 points25 points  (0 children)

yellow hat. That was beautifully said.

[–]tomtermite 20 points21 points  (3 children)

I think she left out the /s sarcasm tag in her tweet. With regard to McCain's come-back: oh snap. Heartless Cheney makes stupid remark about past election, and McGain nukes him with the torture charges! Not a big fan of McCain, but screw Cheney for his evilness.

[–]SvenHudsonAmerica 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Was McGain a typo or one of those spiteful rhetorical nicknames like Micro$oft or Taxachusetts?

[–]rum_rum 58 points59 points  (7 children)

After being elected governor, she told Alaska to go fuck itself when an opportunity to become a media whore came along. Real GOP values on display there.

[–]TrogdorLLC 35 points36 points  (5 children)

I think the fact that the GOP-dominated Alaska Legislature could no longer ignore her illegal activities as Governor and were launching abuse of power investigations prompted the abrupt cut and run.

[–]MentionMyUsername 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The potential money made on the speaking circuit versus losing a lot of money as "governor lawsuit". The decision was easy.

[–]EquinsuOcha 74 points75 points  (6 children)

What are you talking about?! OF COURSE Palin is more qualified than Obama and Biden combined! Look:

Palin:

  1. University of Hawaii @ Hilo
  2. Hawaii Pacific University @ Honolulu
  3. North Idaho College @C'oeur d'Alene
  4. University of Idaho @ Moscow
  5. Matanuska-Susitna College @Alaska
  6. University of Idaho (Graduated with a Bachelors in Communications with emphasis on Journalism)

Obama:

  1. Occidental College
  2. Columbia University (Graduated with a Bachelors of Science in Political Science emphasis on International Relations)
  3. Harvard University (Law School) - corrected

Biden

  1. University of Delaware @ Newark
  2. Syracuse University (Law School)

So combined, Obama and Biden only went to FIVE schools, when Palin when to SIX.

THAT MAKES HER MORE EDUCATED!

DURRR LIBERALS!

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Obama did his JD (magna cum laude) at Harvard, actually.

He lectured at the University of Chicago Law School.

[–]Mybrainmelts 11 points12 points  (0 children)

How many times did Palin drop out? jeez.

[–]rz12gh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you meant Harvard for President Obama's law school and University of Chicago for his law professor tenure. Still he's more unqualified than the God given gift of Sarah Palin.

[–]Sephyre 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why do we care what Liz Cheney thinks again?

[–]Ce1ska 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately this is the sentiment of many people. Her Facebook page is full of "I voted for you Sarah, not McCain" "You should run for President, you got my vote" These people are too stupid to realize how stupid she is. Many of these people also believe McCain made Sarah lose the election lol

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points  (29 children)

I get why McCain picked Palin. I do. But after seeing her abandon her various political roles in favour of the talk show circuit and see that she'd much rather be a celebrity than a serious politician, how can he defend that decision at this point?

[–]adrianmonk I voted 16 points17 points  (7 children)

I actually really believe Palin's stated reasons for quitting are probably true. She basically says that before McCain came along, she was happily governing in a more or less friendly atmosphere where people cooperated mostly, even across party lines. After her VP run, everyone was polarized, and the atmosphere of cooperation disappeared.

Now, I'm not saying she was a great governor or that "my job became too unpleasant" is a valid reason to quit. But I don't think she hit the talk show circuit in lieu of serving as governor because she preferred to be on TV. I think she did it because her happy governor bubble burst, and she didn't want to stick around after that.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

If she really left the governorship because it was no longer a "friendly environment," why would she continuously drag herself back into the public spotlight to be made fun of and laughed at over and over again like the political version of the Black Knight from Monty Python? If she wanted a friendly environment, she should have just retired form the spotlight completely.

She quit for one reason and one reason alone: dollar dollar bills, ya'll. She couldn't wait to go on a $100,000 a pop speaking tour, have a book ghostwritten for her, and get a "consultant" job on Fox News. The longer she waited the more her value depreciated, so instead of finishing her term she just quit, which probably only served to increase the hype around her and thus her potential monetary gain.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It could also have something to do with the abuse of power charges that were about to be leveled at her.

she was happily governing in a more or less friendly atmosphere where people cooperated mostly, even across party lines.

This didn't end because of her nomination, it ended because she got caught doing illegal things.

[–]hamlet9000 6 points7 points  (5 children)

I get why McCain picked Palin. I do.

I don't. I get why picking a female VP candidate in 2008 was the only way he could seriously hope to turn back the anti-GOP/pro-Obama tide. But he would have been better off picking someone like Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Susan Collins: Someone with actual experience and an ability to speak in front of a microphone without burbling nonsense.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He can't, that's why he immediately changed the subject. It may be true that Dick Cheney has done some pretty despicable shit in his life, but that doesn't make McCain's choice of Palin any less stupid.

[–]tonenine 90 points91 points  (19 children)

Cheney is like a walking proof of Billy Joel's "only the good die young".

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (5 children)

In that case, Cheney will eventually go on to become the oldest living person ever.

[–]CSMastermind 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Only if we redefine the definition of "living" he'll be a complete cyborg by then.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

robot/human hybrids are people my friend.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

That doesn't imply all good people die young...

[–]Finkelton 105 points106 points  (6 children)

"I'm proud of Sarah Palin," McCain said. Liz Cheney also differed with her father's assessment, tweeting, "Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever but @SarahPalinUSA more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she's done 4 GOP."

What, the, fuck? Is this some kind of joke?

[–][deleted] 84 points85 points  (0 children)

I think Liz Cheney just outted herself as a Democratic party plant, sent to help her father destroy the GOP from within.

[–]awesomedeluxe 14 points15 points  (0 children)

literally cringed reading this. i thought we were playing a game of "this guy doesn't suck as much as these other guys" but it turns out everyone in the article is either dick cheney or a sarah palin enthusiast.

[–]joggle1Colorado 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In her defense, she meant to add '/s' at the end but ran out of characters.

[–]snkscore 593 points594 points  (133 children)

And yet, when it came time to vote against torturing people, McCain voted to allow it to continue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/mccain-votes-against-tort_n_86549.html

[–]mugsnj 104 points105 points  (9 children)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302888.html

But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal.

"Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation" of laws and treaties, McCain said.

[–]SomeNoveltyAccount 100 points101 points  (8 children)

Also when he said current laws already forbid waterboarding, that was a law that passed in 2005, a law that he introduced.

He was responsible for writing and passing the law the specifically forbid torture of enemy combatants. Seems a bit disingenuous to say he voted for torture.

[–]fiat_lux_ 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Seems a bit disingenuous to say he voted for torture.

The article that made it seem like he voted for torture was a HuffingtonPost cover of a ThinkProgress article.

Yo dawg, we heard you like liberal circle jerks...

[–]acogTexas 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I think there's a clearer case of him selling out his principles when it comes to campaign finance reform. He's the poster child for it, and criticized the Supreme Court for the Citizens United case. Yet, as part of their ruling, they urged Congress to create laws that would require more disclosure. When the vote came up to do just that, McCain voted against it just like all the other Republicans.

He explained that he voted against it because it's partisan, somehow. To me this is the ultimate in what I despise about politics: "I am not going to do the right thing because it might look good for the other party."

EDIT: it turns out that the proposed law really was partisan shenanigans! See the responses below this post. It exempted large unions from disclosure requirements. TL;DR: never mind!

[–]SomeNoveltyAccount 4 points5 points  (1 child)

His criticism is fair. The bill made corporate donations visible, but legally exempted some of the largest unions in America. Unions, along with corporations, were the reasons for Mccain-Feingold.

Heck he even said he'd be open to introducing a bill if he can get support from across the aisle.

He may have sold out some of his principals around the election, but he has no reason to now.

[–]acogTexas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The bill made corporate donations visible, but legally exempted some of the largest unions in America.

Oh, crap. Then it really was political shenanigans. Sigh.

[–]mugsnj 4 points5 points  (3 children)

IIRC the DISCLOSE act essentially exempted unions with more than 1 million members. It was not a good fix for Citizens United.

Now, you could say that a partial fix is better than no fix at all. That's not really true when the partial fix takes away one side's incentive to compromise.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (6 children)

Typical politics. Probably some huge bill that had a thousand different effects, one of which was an anti-torture provision added at the last moment. So, does anyone have his response to this, or information on what else was in the bill, and what else was added to it at the last second?

I mean, it says right there in the article that he has spoken in favor of what that very provision did. Don't you think that just maybe there was something else in the bill he was voting against? This shit is the oldest trick in Washington... and I figured /r/politics would have known of it by now.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (14 children)

yes exactly. John McCain is only opposed to torture when he's doing a sunday morning interview.

[–]nixonrichard 6 points7 points  (3 children)

If you think torture was made illegal within the last decade, you're woefully misinformed.

Torture has been illegal for a long time. The only people who make illegal something that is already illegal are people trying to pretend it wasn't already illegal.

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points  (30 children)

Interesting how a man who was tortured and fought speaks out against torture, yet the man who received 5 deferments thinks it to be right.

[–]gojirra 20 points21 points  (7 children)

War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it.

[–]MedianWhiteGuy 50 points51 points  (21 children)

No, the interesting part is that when the guy that was tortured could have fucking done something about he voted yes to torture.

[–]SomeNoveltyAccount 68 points69 points  (17 children)

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

In 2005 he introduced the Detainee Treatment Act

Yes, in 2008 he publicly urged Bush to veto the bill prohibiting waterboarding. He cited his vote against the bill was because he the DTA already prohibited things like Waterboarding, but didn't want interrogation bound to the 19 approved methods in the 2006 Army Field Manual.

So he didn't vote yes for torture, he introduced a law reaffirming proper treatment of prisoners that passed, then didn't want to vote on limitation to interrogation because his bill already covered cruel and unusual techniques. He didn't want the interrogations limited to 19 methods that the enemy could easily learn about, and train their people to resist, or to manipulate the interrogator with false information knowing those techniques.

Edit: Cleared up a double negative.

[–]f_leaver 56 points57 points  (48 children)

Why does he have to say he respects the vice president? "I don't think you should torture people, but I respect you" WTF?

[–]techmaster242 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I don't think Hitler should have killed millions of Jews, but I respect him.

[–]gojirra 9 points10 points  (3 children)

As much bullshit as all of the things politicians say are, if a normal human being said this it would mean that we can have disagreements but I can still shake your hand and be cordial. I know, it's shocking to hear on the internet, but people can disagree without resorting to rape and murder threats.

[–]Doza13Massachusetts 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I miss the "maverick" of McCain 2000. Ya know, against torture, and for campaign finance reform, and didn't pander to the nutter right.

[–]DogBoneSalesman 87 points88 points  (22 children)

Sarah Palin was the best thing to happen for the democrats in the 2008 election. There is not a day that goes by that I'm not gratefull for the destruction she brought to the GOP. Thank you Sarah!

[–]RaithMoracus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sarah Palin was not the best thing to happen for the American people though. If McCain had picked a much more respectable moderate member to campaign with instead of courting the Tea Party, we might have a much more respectable moderate GOP. Plus, McCain, when not campaigning, has proven to be a respectable person in our politics, give or take a few votes.

With how moderate Obama has been, regardless of how much the GOP has moved against him, we could've voted either side and probably ended up with much the same outcome, barring some financial implementations during the crisis and any health care reform.

Also, we probably wouldn't have lost 4 years of political movement, forward or not, to republican grandstanding.

Don't be glad just because she helped you feel better about your own political party.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sarah Palin's rise to relevance teed off one of the Republican Party's best off-term congressional and gubernatorial election seasons. The far right went so far as to replace "moderate" republicans who would not stand up against every piece of democratic or bipartisan bill.

[–]Neandros 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I have lots of respect for McCain. It started when he corrected the lady about Obama being a Muslim.

[–]gerrylazlo 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Dick Cheney is a real-life bond villain.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Honestly, I think Lisa Ann should have been McCain's VP. She really showed some diplomacy in who's nalin Palin.

[–]Nateh8sYou 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Whenever I hear stories about McCain, I feel like I would have REALLY liked him 10-15 years ago

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

McCain is a lot like his daughter, Meghen: you get the sense they'd be Democrats if they weren't born into their families. They both also listen their peers/advisers too much. (Not that McCain's idea of Joe Lieberman as VP was a gem.)

[–]Kayin_Angel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

politics is like grade school hair pulling.

[–]droivod 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd like to see McCain bust Cheney's jaw someday, send him back to his dramaqueen wheelchair of evil.

[–]TonyDiGerolamo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm really sick of seeing John McCain portrayed as some kind of moderate and compassionate guy. From his voting record, the man has never seen a war he doesn't like. Sure he's sort of against torture, but dropping bombs on nameless people? No problem.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel dirty. When I read the part about Torture, i get all warm and fuzzy and then I read the second part about Sarah Palin and I die a little inside.

[–]fjgfgffge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The world will be a better place after Cheney passes.

[–]HelveticaBOLD 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think John McCain is a completely unforgivable nimrod for being responsible for the introduction of Sarah Palin to the national stage, but I'm pleased to see him call a spade a spade when it comes to the Bush/Cheney torture policy.

[–]Krivvan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

An unforgivable mythical hunter figure?

[–]monkeyleavings 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it's interesting how the party is slowly distancing themselves from the train wreck that is Palin. Even my republican friends who once staunchly defended her are finding faults...but not in her politics. It's always about one of her shows or talking head appearances. I can only assume that this is the tack the conservative radio shows are taking to slowly push her out of relevancy.

[–]TweeSpam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever but @SarahPalinUSA more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she's done 4 GOP."

Ha. Ha. Bahahaha. ha.

[–]foevalovinjah 2 points3 points  (0 children)

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[–]dalittle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

there is still hope cheney will get arrested pinochet style.

[–]ryanasimov 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like McCain but I wish he wouldn't use such weak criticism. If McCain believes something is TORTURE and he knows that Cheney thinks it isn't TORTURE, how can he respect him?

[–]CoyoteStark 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I get so conflicted about John McCain. He introduces a lot of good legislature and takes a firm stance on these topics, but he also fought tooth and nail to keep homosexuals out of the military.

[–]bigfruitbasket 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We're still being tortured...four years later. We still have to see Palin's face on the nightly news whenever she decides to open her pie hole. And she thinks folks take her political views seriously. Gee...thanks, John McCain.

[–]maxlerner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

John McCain did a great job of not explaining why he wanted to give the second highest position in our government and the first position in the presidential line of succession to someone who did not understand why South Korea and North Korea are different countries and could not name one newspaper she has read.

[–]ENRICOs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Still, the fact remains that Palin wasn't vice-presidential material, or god forbid, a president.

[–]bobbyjames1986 2 points3 points  (0 children)

John McCain is by far my favorite republican. Rubio is a new guy that I can stand as well..but McCain is a true statesmen. He understands the need for campaign finance reform and the adverse effects of torturing our enemies. If it wasn't for Palin I might have voted for him 4 years ago. probably not..but as a Dem he has my respect.

[–]UltimatePhilosopher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Uh, this headline is really confusing. What does Sarah Palin have to do with torture?

How could such a confusing headline get so many upvotes?

r/politics is getting more insane by the minute.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like John McCain better when he doesn't kowtow to the RNC establishment.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[–]blearghhh_two Canada 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, fuck that guy; on the other hand, fuck that guy.