It's pretty obvious who Joe the Plumber is voting for
 

Oh, come on! It's pretty f'ing obvious who "Joe the Plumber" is voting for...

:rolleyes:

I speak about the same way, but won't tip my hand as to who or what I vote for. You may believe something that I'm saying along those lines, but ultimately who I vote for is between me and me alone, not my wife, mother, father, pastor, etc.

Maybe he should be renamed Joe the Attention Whore.

BTW, last night during the debate, I found it exasperating to have both McCain and Obama, each in turn, speaking into the camera, to Joe. Talk about whoring!

(Yes, I'm saying my candidate of choice was whoring, last night, if only just a little. And here I thought he had stalwart integrity, e.g. not caving in to wear that silly flag pin. But I'm still voting for him. Because IMHO he's still the far better candidate.)

I could have sworn that I read that Joe wasn't registered to vote on Reddit this morning. He's a troll and should be temp banned from America.

jesus.
soon we'll be getting treated to infotainment about how betty crocker is to vote.
and maybe something about how the quaker oats guy is leaning as well.

Joe is actually his middle name. I saw that too, but they since corrected it;

He's a Quaker, so I already know how that guy is leaning.

:thumbsup:

Ah, thanks.

Natural Law Party? Why would he support McCain? Natural Law is very much anti-war.

but betty crocker, eternal donna reed/soccer mom...i kinda suprised that the republicans haven't hired a stand-in for her that palin can use to talk about "the average person"....

Why do some people take voting to be so personal?
Who I vote for and why I'm voting for them and yes/no on issues is part of the process, to me.
Sometimes I'm just genuinely curious about someone else's reasoning for their votes, sometimes my experience and knowledge on topics helps those with less time to dedicate to getting the whole picture, and sometimes I want someone else's knowledge or we might be trying to sway the other.
But I never see my political opinions as personal or something that should be kept to myself, unless I'm about to discuss my points of view with someone who can't handle the conversation and will either get mad or belligerent; but that's case by case, not a general maxim of mine.

Because people have the abilty to demean someone's choices whatever they may be, this isn't limited to politics or religion. You may wish to wear it on your sleeve. I don't and don't wish to have to defend or decry someone else's position or viewpoints.

I'm always curious on why people vote for a person also. I'll ask them.. I don't belittle their beliefs usually, I just ask them why they don't like the other candidate and then point out where they are wrong and try to show them proof of it. I think that approach is always better and certainly brings about a more informed process.

too bad everyone can't do this, especially when it's a vote of historic nature as this one is.

Well the plumber did say that Obama talks like Sammy Davis Junior. I'm not sure if Obama considers that a complement or not but it might help him with the rat pack vote.:)

And that I'm willing to engage in a discussion, but to actually tell you who I'm pulling or pulled the switch for. I won't tell you or discuss that.

I see a huge range of behaviors between wearing something on my sleeve and never discussing something.
I listed three ways I discuss politics with others that I don't see as wearing my viewpoint on my sleeve. That phrase means to me that someone would know by looking at me or making a nuisance out of my beliefs.

I never really saw my votes as a call to defend the viewpoint of another person. In the case of a politician, I would just say I didn't agree with that aspect if I didn't, I don't feel the need to agree with everything someone else believes in. And in the case of a ballot measure I wouldn't vote in support of something I didn't agree with.

But I also don't discuss things with people who demean me, politics or otherwise. If I was surrounded by pricks, I'd probably just end up keeping all my opinions to myself. I just grew up hearing to never discuss politics and religion with strangers but I also do and I'm usually ending up with some sort of profitable conversation and sometimes even relationships from it.

I think you've hit a key point smooth. Many people are told to never discuss politics and religion. Even if the person is of the opposite belief set or political map you are, it should be talked about. I think talking about it always helps people see things better. It may not change your mind, but hopefully, the person can say they learned something new and may take a better look at all parties involved.

If more people talked about it openly and honestly, perhaps we would see a shift in the way voters behaved ... they would make an informed decision on the candidates (all parties) instead of just quoting partisan rhetoric and taking it as fact.

If you are part of an organization or group of people who tend to vote in a bloc and you wish to vote independently from that group, notifying people who you are voting for can create tension and issues with the relationships within that group.

This is why it isn't any business to my employer, my pastor (when I was a practicing catholic), congregation, school, etc.

I'm happy to discuss issues and have conversation, but asking who I'm going to vote for I will not disclose.

If I didn't have the choice to have secret balloting, no assocation of my ballot to my name, no curtain to providve privacy as I pull the lever or puch the ballot, then maybe it would be a difference for me.

I live in a very democratic neighborhood, I'm not interested in voting for the rolls that are expected in my neighborhood. It also doesn't mean that since I'm a registered republican, that you can guarantee that I will vote party lines and vote republican or conservative.

Cyn, I don't take issue with people not disclosing who they are voting for. I just take issue with people (unlike you obviously) who simply vote for what I call a stupid reason or for the sake of partisan lines. I cannot stand the rhetoric from either big party side and hate how people just eat up everything a candidate says and takes it for truth.

This is funny!

1) He isn't a licensed plumber
2) He registered to vote for the first time earlier this year and he voted in the Republican Primary
3) He owes back taxes!
4) He lied about the business he was going to buy and admits that he is just thinking about some day in the future.

He is definitely not undecided and lied about it in order to try and stump Obama. I think Obama did a great job handling him.

5) he's related to Charles Keating

I forgot to mention that one!

gucci, but your comment and the subsequent 2 posters create a situation where people who are already uncomfortable discussing such things not wish to do so.

People are not going to get my analogy and probably make some other snide comment, but it creates a hostile environment in the same manner that sexual comments and behaviors do for someone who feels sexually harassed.

Haven't been following this much, but I did hear about this guy. Pure gold! Especially point 3.

Yesterday morning he was all about talking to the press and then people started digging into his background and all of the sudden he clammed up and refused to give interviews.

I wonder if he had downplayed the whole thing and not talked to the press how much digging into his past would have been done or at least made the news... It just goes how the media can tear down anyone, a week ago he was Joe "six-pack nobody" now everyone knows his business..

Er, guys, I'd do the same thing. I don't want the press digging up my past (not that I have much if any to hide) because I made a comment to a political candidate.

So the guy's not perfect? Who cares! It's as if we all need some ego buildup from relegating the man's opinions to irrelevant because he doesn't conform to our image of the perfect, informed voter.

Obviously this makes just as much sense as a conservative using Joe the Plumber as a national icon.

The Left Declares War on Joe the Plumber by Michelle Malkin on National Review Online

wow, that is some serious hatchery in that article....

I think it's just funny how joe came to the spotlight and yes, he seemed like a plant in the first place...

also..failure to pay back taxes...innnnnteresting...

the other issue: he's already given more press interviews than palin...

what..the..fark.

i believe the noun we are groping for here is "shill."
just saying.

Am I supposed to take anything Michelle "The US was right to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps" Malkin says seriously?

He has now admitted that he gets a bigger tax cut under Obama (he makes about $40,000 a year). He is not even close to buying the business (which grosses about $100,000 a year, not $250,000 as he claimed). Also if the GOP were to get their way he would be illegible to vote because his name is miss-spelled in the voter roles.
-----Added 17/10/2008 at 01 : 05 : 54-----
From the horses mouth:

Liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz walks off Fox and Friends when challenged over "Joe the Plumber" and the Obama $250k threshold, "spread the wealth", and claims of Marxism.



I really like Schultz, but he's today's whipping boy for the anti-Obama media (notice I didn't say pro-McCain... there is a difference). The perception will be that he couldn't answer the challenge on a specific point in a favorable light to Obama, pretended to be offended, then walked off. He should have stood his ground regardless of how he thinks he was treated. He's been in the business long enough to know that move was a bad one... for him and Obama. (imagine the call he surely got from the Obama team afterwards :paranoid:)

I didnt see the whole exchange so I dont know that he "pretented to be offended"

Fox can be offensive with liberal guest....asking questions, but not allowing them to respond.

But who gives a fuck about Schultz walking off the "fair and balanced" network? I think its a mistake for any liberal pundit to even appear on Fox.

I find it sad that people have to focus so much on an ordinary guy who spoke his mind.

Let's destroy him. Let's destroy his life. Let's burn him in effigy in every Obama rally.

That'll teach anyone to go against the messiah..... speak his mind and have passion.

I find it shows something pathetic about someone who has such a lead that he and his supporters are focusing on destroying 1 man for speaking his mind.

Even IF he was a plant, Obama and his supporters would be wise and show class to just ignore him, maybe address his concerns and just let it go. If he were a plant, it would make those far more desperate and trying harder to get Obama to screw up.... thus helping Obama. But giving them what they want a show of anger, destruction politics just shows a pathetic display of "same old same old" which Obama says he isn't.

And es, I know that I will be ripped because I have been extremely vocal about my dislike over Obama...... again, attack those who speak out, attack with hate and prejudice and destroy those who have opinion. To propagate your own opinion.

Lets keep emotions out of it and look at what really happened?

McCain brought him up in the debate to use him as a prop and the media fact checked the guy's story.

And that should be the end of it...and yet, McCain and Palin are still using him in a misleading way in stump speeches to suggest that Obama's tax cuts would hurt small businessmen like Joe.

Does this count as a "rip" or an "attack with hate and prejudice"?

pan:

he's not an "ordinary guy"--the he's a shill for the mc-cain camp.
it's transparent.
the idea of using him as a shill is to elicit exactly the kind of reaction that you had.
but to have that reaction, you have to leave out the fact that he's a shill.
and i don't see how you can manage that one.

there is a bigger and more complicated question of which party best represents what's left of the american working class, but it's not a discussion worth having in the context of a thread about a bit of campaign theater.

..

Look, if he's a shill, he's a shill. The people are not as dumb as you want to believe.

Perhaps, just perhaps he started out truly asking a question he believed. He got all kinds of attention for it, attention he did not expect. Then he starts talking and people see he spoke on emotion and may not be all that informed. But instead of letting McCain roll with it and looking a fool bringing him up.... you have to destroy this guy.

Why?

You're way ahead in the polls, I seriously doubt what he says will change many votes.... it's not exactly a Willie Horton/Swift Boat/Donna Rice issue that will hurt or even dent Obama's campaign..... unless he continues to rip this guy.

My feeling is most people can see what Joe the Plumber has become.... however, they still maybe able to somehow identify with him {which is what the GOP want} and by ripping him, destroying him.... you end up hurting yourself.... if you acknowledge his original question and answer it and let your answer be all the acknowledgment that he gets..... you pretty much end the whole Joe the Plumber issue and it goes away.

And Smooth I am sorry about an slight if you can link where I did not respond to you, I'dbe more than happy to.

Pan you are wrong here. His story should be checked out.

Let's reverse the rolls. If a young lady came up to McCain and said "John, 3 weeks ago I was raped and have since found out that I'm pregnant. Would you try to stop me from getting an abortion?"

Then Obama brings up her name at a debate.

Do you think the freepers and redstaters wouldn't jump all over this woman?

Now let's say they find out she wasn't raped and isn't pregnant and it was a lie the whole time.

What would happen with this story?

pan....so you want the media and the Obama supporters to continue to let McCain and Palin perpetuate bullshit about the guy and Obama's tax plan rather than present the FACTS to the American people.

Nope..I dont believe in perpetuating ignorance.