Who should be president?

[some spykie ship]

I decided to set up a poll to see who would want which candidate to be elected President of the United States this year. I'm fixing it so the voters will remain anonymous. You don't have to be planning to vote or be registered to vote, you can just recall what you've gathered from current events.

[EndersWrath]

I voted for neither .... I want me some Al Gore!

Plus, if he was president... the slide shows would be THAT more epic. It'd be great.

[NileQT87]

i'm a registered republican... and yup, i am going to vote mccain!

[KingofCretins]

I'm a semi-conservative libertarian who has been watching what appears to be two socialists and a democrat running for President; I too will, however, be voting for Sen. McCain.

[Nina]

I'm Dutch, so I can't vote. But our journalists follow the election very closely and almost every day we hear the latest news ...

I hope that it will be Obama. My first choice was Edwards, but it's Obama now. His charisma and manners is what I like the most about him.

[tangent]

I too cannot vote in the election not being American. The trouble for me though with the limited coverage that i've seen is that I don't really know what any of these people stand for.

A lot of the coverage i've seen focuses on the personalities of the candidates but not what they're actually going to do when they get into office.

I'm a semi-conservative libertarian

That seems to be a contradiction in terms to me. Splainy?

[Veverka]

I'm Australian, so can't vote. But frankly, I don't get it... Hilary and Barak fight to the death but then it turns out they're on the same team... sorry American friends, but that's nuts!!!

So, I'm biased and all, having grown up with the Australian system where you vote for a team (team/political party, whatever!) regardless of the leader. Not to say the leader isn't influential, that's why he's the leader, and all, but the leader isn't what you're voting for, so there's no pre election campaign of doom... Doom that goes on for a year before the actual election?

Sorry, again, to ramble, etc.

[NileQT87]

my favorite humor moment from mccain so far was his comment about how hillary was doing some sort of woodstock museum... and that he wouldn't know anything about that because he was locked up at the time (at the hanoi hilton).

granted, there are issues where i'm definitely more conservative than mccain on (the border, the non-existent global warming, etc...)... but obama just scares the bejesus out of me--him and his various friends, preachers, wife, etc... and i doubt pennsylvanians are very endeared to him right now. speaking in san francisco to like-minded individuals--stuff you couldn't get away with saying in any other city in america... well, that speaks for itself.

and i'm damn proud of my country--enough to wear a tricorner hat i bought in williamsburg ("stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni") and wave a flag around, much less a flag pin! i'm proud my ancestors (which have been in this wonderful country since 1634) have fought in the american revolution, the civil war (union army) and i even had a great uncle who died in the battle of the bulge during wwII. my dad also flew cargo during the vietnam war. I LOVE AMERICA!

mark my words--mccain will be the next president. i love it that there are some genuine hillary supporters who are so pissed at obama, michelle and friends (wright, ayres, rezko & pfleger), that they're now rooting for mccain. it's hysterical to me that these left-wing feminist types are that mad at obama. and obama's mishaps are not going over well. hillary's supporters aren't all going for obama either. and meeting with insane dictators (ahmadinejad) that want to wipe america and israel off the map? worst. idea. ever. terrorists with conviction can't be reasoned with.

has ahmadinejad said enough things that even pisses off the far-left yet? obama might as well be robert byrd... another upstanding member of the far-left. one was a kkk member who recently attended a holocaust deniers event and the other has some pretty freakish ties to racist black separatists. is this what you want on the left? no wonder hillary supporters (and hardly a centrist, herself) are running scared from obama.

and the #1 issue for me is the war on terror. and in that i completely trust mccain. now *that* is an amazing record. he's a legitimate hero.

[KingofCretins]

Glad to. Means I'm pretty much for anything that a libertarian might be except for economic and political isolationism and legalization of... everything. On these subjects I'm much more in line with bona fide American conservatism. Purpose of government, the only purpose of government to me, is to protect the rights (a word thrown around too easily, by the way, i.e. state-provided healthcare or retirement -- natural rights of mankind? Really?) of the citizens from being overruled by external threat, disaster, or lawlessness. The private sector is better at literally everything else (science, education, healthcare, etc).

Really these views don't leave me with a candidate in our election, either from the actual nominees or really anybody that ran. But, a choice between a Reagan Democrat-ish McCain or someone who comes over as a more or less avowed socialist in Obama, I'll take the Reagan Democrat everytime.

EDIT: Don't even get me started on Fr. Pfleger.

SECOND EDIT: I feel much more comfortable expressing my disparate political views with the excellent lead-block provided by Nile

[Amber]

I don't have time to go into it right now, but you should educate yourself on Ron Paul. The only sane person left in politics.

[KingofCretins]

I loved Rep. Paul. He's a credit to the House and could have been a great President. But, again, the isolationism. I think that, fair or foul, the US' status as the geopolitical unipole does a big part of ensuring our overall security and posterity. I felt that Rep. Paul's foreign policy would have turned us into a geopolitical brigadoon and basically handed off the role of global economic/political unipole to China. I did love his proposal of a flat tax as a fixed rate of 0.0%, though.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

I'm Australian, so can't vote. But frankly, I don't get it... Hilary and Barak fight to the death but then it turns out they're on the same team... sorry American friends, but that's nuts!!!

Yes, it is something that baffles me. It's like...I don't know much about current football teams, but let's say it's like the striker and the midfielder from the same team having a punch up over who gets the ball while the other team ends up getting the ball while they're kicking the crap out of each other.

Can anyone splain how this system developed like that?

We have the same as Oz I think - party leadership elections are separate from general elections. In the latter you vote for the party (well, you vote for your own member of parliament actually, but most people vote along party lines...unless they're voting in a protest-y way, or...actually, maybe that's not true, some people do vote for the MP they think will do the best job in their area, not trusting the broader government.). Only people in the party can vote for the leader (I'm not sure if all card carrying labour or whatever members can actually...I really should know that).

Mind you, even though our system is not set up to pit one leader against another in the big elections, leadership elections can still get pretty nasty... and if they happen close to a general election, you kinda get something like the same effect. Plus, plenty of parties are on self destruct courses a lot of the time (cf the Tories in the 90s).

Anyway, I'm glad the eye gouging is over between the two dems. I kind of liked Hilary but to be honest I always thought Obama had a better chance against the republicans as republicans probably hate him less ergo would be less motivated to go out and vote! But also, he's captured the mood of change well so people like all that, don't they? As far as I can tell, a generalised desire for change seems to be the biggest motivating factor in changing governments... not specific stuff you don't like, more like...people just want something else. Various people said that re voting for Boris in the mayoral election.

I can't see any major policy differences between Obama and Clinton, so...well, it's mootsville now. If I could vote in the US, it would be Obama. To be honest, all the parties in the US are to the right of where I stand on most issues (civil partnerships/gay marriage and universal healthcare now plz?). But then, so are the parties here (especially on civil liberties questions...the 42 days issue, where even Egypt is asking us to be less draconian! And the whole tuition fees thing at the end of the 90s).

[KingofCretins]

Yes, it is something that baffles me. It's like...I don't know much about current football teams, but let's say it's like the striker and the midfielder from the same team having a punch up over who gets the ball while the other team ends up getting the ball while they're kicking the crap out of each other.

Can anyone splain how this system developed like that?

Gonna assume it's not rhetorical. Basically it's a byproduct of having a more divided, compartmentalized system of government. It's easier to do these things in the UK because the nominal head of state is selected from and by the membership of the legislature. Not so in the US, so individual ambition drives the choice to run and the nomination process.

Anyway, I'm glad the eye gouging is over between the two dems. I kind of liked Hilary but to be honest I always thought Obama had a better chance against the republicans as republicans probably hate him less ergo would be less motivated to go out and vote! But also, he's captured the mood of change well so people like all that, don't they? As far as I can tell, a generalised desire for change seems to be the biggest motivating factor in changing governments... not specific stuff you don't like, more like...people just want something else. Various people said that re voting for Boris in the mayoral election.

Oh, I disagree that he has a better chance, actually. Some primary results were pretty astounding. Out of just democrat voters, polls showed in many critical states that democrats *must* carry to win, like KY and WV, that fewer than half of democratic voters thought he is was honest and trustworthy, and as many as a third said they'd vote for McCain if he was the nominee.

I can't see any major policy differences between Obama and Clinton, so...well, it's mootsville now. If I could vote in the US, it would be Obama. To be honest, all the parties in the US are to the right of where I stand on most issues (civil partnerships/gay marriage and universal healthcare now plz?). But then, so are the parties here (especially on civil liberties questions...the 42 days issue, where even Egypt is asking us to be less draconian! And the whole tuition fees thing at the end of the 90s).

Not a single meaningful difference between them, no. As for universal healthcare, on behalf of this poor girl, I certainly hope not. How the frickin' hell can it take 13 weeks to get something as simple and routine as an MRI? Speaking of draconian...

[Wolfie Gilmore]

Glad to. Means I'm pretty much for anything that a libertarian might be except for economic and political isolationism and legalization of... everything.

Curious?Why not re the legalisation of stuff (I assume you mean drugs/prostitution?)? Since:

Purpose of government, the only purpose of government to me, is to protect the rights of the citizens from being overruled by external threat, disaster, or lawlessness.

Why would legalising drugs be a legitimate action of government under this definition?

The private sector is better at literally everything else (science, education, healthcare, etc).

I wouldn't agree that (privatisation of trains = disaster in the UK, and some state education is excellent?my six form college rocked) necessarily, but I think the quality of the service isn't the main point for me ? I'd rather everyone had a slightly worse service than someone people weren't able to access the services at all, especially things like healthcare.

(a word thrown around too easily, by the way, i.e. state-provided healthcare or retirement -- natural rights of mankind? Really?)

I think the trouble comes when you talk about natural rights. How can you tell what a natural right is? I'd rather thing about what promotes human dignity, moves away from suffering, allows people to live their lives, giving people opportunities who wouldn't otherwise have them. Probably my summary of government would be ? come on guys, let's help each other out a bit. Which makes me sound like Tony Blair, oh dear!

[Wolfie Gilmore]

Gonna assume it's not rhetorical. Basically it's a byproduct of having a more divided, compartmentalized system of government. It's easier to do these things in the UK because the nominal head of state is selected from and by the membership of the legislature. Not so in the US, so individual ambition drives the choice to run and the nomination process.

Not rhetorical, thanks for the explanation

Oh, I disagree that he has a better chance, actually. Some primary results were pretty astounding. Out of just democrat voters, polls showed in many critical states that democrats *must* carry to win, like KY and WV, that fewer than half of democratic voters thought he is was honest and trustworthy, and as many as a third said they'd vote for McCain if he was the nominee.

Oh dear! That's bad.

Not a single meaningful difference between them, no. As for universal healthcare, on behalf of this poor girl, I certainly hope not. How the frickin' hell can it take 13 weeks to get something as simple and routine as an MRI? Speaking of draconian...

Ok, A) daily mail = evil tory rag, so I wouldn't take it as gospel. But B) of course every system has flaws, mistakes, things that don't work. But people who can afford it are perfectly free to get private healthcare in the UK - which is probably better on the whole. The thing is, if you can't afford it, it is so so much better to have something than nothing! It's not a choice between good privarte healthcare and bad NHS care (which, by the way, is not on the whole bad, it's just patchy - some areas are better than others). For people who couldn't afford insurance (or people who couldn't afford insurance that would cover the operation they need), they wouldn't have a choice to get private care, so if there's no public healthcare, what do they do? Sure, there's some aid at the lowest bracket, but you can be not in the lowest bracket and still not able to get the right insurance.

Universal healthcare is an ideal. It's not reality. But the belief in it is something I see as important for politicians I would vote for.

[KingofCretins]

Curious?Why not re the legalisation of stuff (I assume you mean drugs/prostitution?)? Since:



Why would legalising drugs be a legitimate action of government under this definition?

I don't see the tension in those statements... ? I don't support the official LP position on drugs, prostitution and so on, because I do think these things are things with enough corrosive force on the community's wellbeing that they justify being controlled by law.

I wouldn't agree that (privatisation of trains = disaster in the UK, and some state education is excellent?my six form college rocked) necessarily, but I think the quality of the service isn't the main point for me ? I'd rather everyone had a slightly worse service than someone people weren't able to access the services at all, especially things like healthcare.

See, I'm quite the opposite. There's no reason to screw anyone over just for the sake of everything being equally screwed. That reasoning would have required that [i]Titanic[i] not lower *any* of her lifeboats, wouldn't it?

(spoilered for possible boredom inducing content about state education)

Spoiler:

I went to a state university -- state universities are in competition for students, though, so naturally they do better than lower level K-12 schools that don't have to do so. Here's a truly frightening quote about the purpose of state education in the US, though. The Rockefeller Education Board funded a great number of of our public schools, and part of their vision was expressed in this quote --

In our dreams... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions (intellectual and character education) fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is simple... we will organize children... and them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

Think about that -- that's the mindset that guided the founding of most of America's public education. That's the government's view of educating, at least in our country.

I think the trouble comes when you talk about natural rights. How can you tell what a natural right is? I'd rather thing about what promotes human dignity, moves away from suffering, allows people to live their lives, giving people opportunities who wouldn't otherwise have them. Probably my summary of government would be ? come on guys, let's help each other out a bit. Which makes me sound like Tony Blair, oh dear!

Easy -- would someone who'd lived in a cave their whole life and then was thrust into society be able to intuitively understand them? Their right to exist? Their right to the things which are *theirs*, their property? Their right to be let alone by others? That's the model for discerning natural rights, IMO, or at least a convenient tool. What that person would not intuit is a "right" to have someone else take care of their well-being for them.

Not rhetorical, thanks for the explanation

I love our system, warts and all. What's really funny is that the two party system has institutionalized itself and it's nominating process (i.e. primaries -- these are basically private organizations voting on their elected positions, and because they have control of the government pursestrings, the taxpayers pay for this) so completely that it becomes a parody of itself, with people on both sides routinely cross-registering to selectively attack an opposing party's candidate rather than vote for one of their own.

Oh dear! That's bad.

O RLY? I certainly hope those numbers play out in the general election.

Ok, A) daily mail = evil tory rag, so I wouldn't take it as gospel. But B) of course every system has flaws, mistakes, things that don't work. But people who can afford it are perfectly free to get private healthcare in the UK - which is probably better on the whole. The thing is, if you can't afford it, it is so so much better to have something than nothing! It's not a choice between good privarte healthcare and bad NHS care (which, by the way, is not on the whole bad, it's just patchy - some areas are better than others). For people who couldn't afford insurance (or people who couldn't afford insurance that would cover the operation they need), they wouldn't have a choice to get private care, so if there's no public healthcare, what do they do? Sure, there's some aid at the lowest bracket, but you can be not in the lowest bracket and still not able to get the right insurance.

Universal healthcare is an ideal. It's not reality. But the belief in it is something I see as important for politicians I would vote for.

I could have just as easily linked it from the Baltimore Reporter or something called Wikio -- the story is what it is. I just think it's tragic.

(similarly spoilered for possibly boring content about healthcare)

Spoiler:

Look, we could go back and forth on healthcare for days. But here's something I can say that comforts me -- every day in my car I hear a dozen or more radio advertisements for area hospitals. All out there telling you that they have the latest equipment and the best trained doctors. That this is who you, as a *consumer* of health services, should trust with your care. That this is where you'll have the *fastest* quality treatment (the Detroit Medical Center guarantees facetime with a doctor in the Emergency Room in 29 minutes or less). And if you don't trust the medical advice you've gotten, you can *walk in* to another doctor and likely be seen right away or in a couple days after setting an appointment. And you can damn sure know that if you have need for an MRI that is *any* type of "urgent", you will be able to schedule one much closer to 13 hours in advance than 13 weeks.

We have a lot of people in our country uninsured, that's true. But the actual quality of healthcare we provide is matchless, and your ability to pay *can not legally prevent you from obtaining it*. It's settling the tab that's the problem. If government must interfere, let it *not* take out the competitive drive that makes our system so great, but rather find ways to motivate insurance companies to discount coverages to lower income families, or employers to purchase benefit plans, probably through some sort of tax benefit. But turning the entire system over to the one entity least competent to run it? Nose... cut... face. For you, belief in nationalizing healthcare is worth voting for. For me, it's one of the two or three things I must and always will vote urgently against. I want doctor and hospitals competing for my healthcare dollar. I want second opinions just because I feel like it. I want to know that if I'm willing to put down the co-pay or pay out of pocket, I can get an MRI just because I'm paranoid about a twinge in my ankle.

[litzie]

It's hard for me to separate personal matters from politics. spoiler for a sidebar on my biggest issue:

Spoiler:

I want a democrat as president because with a republican, it's hard to imagine how I can ever move home. My girlfriend is British; I'm american. No immigration law in the US recognizes our relationship, and if we were to get married they still wouldn't. She will have to apply for a visa individually because I won't be able to sponsor her. I feel very strongly that gay marriage should be legal in the US but I feel even more strongly that I should be able to live in my own country with the woman that I love. And not that there's any guarantee that Obama would make this kind of change...he doesn't believe in gay marriage (though he does believe in civil unions with the same rights), and unfortunately few politicians would be willing to expend political capital to get an immigration law changed that only affects about 50,000 people and has no political advantage...democrats have no motivation cuz they already have the 'gay vote', and republicans think my girlfriend and I should stay well away. But at least with a democratic president, there's a chance.

But I also care about other stuff. I'm a very liberal person generally, because I believe that tolerance is an important value, because I believe that I have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate than I, and because I think that our civil rights should be protected. The "war on terror" is a frame I don't like to engage with - in what way has terror been fought? What battles have we won against "terror"? Iraq has only made things worse. We've created far more terrorists than we've stopped. Thousands of americans and iraqis dead, for what exactly? so that we could send some more over? Throw a country into chaos and bloodshed? Whatever the risks of pulling out troops, it's a bit like saying, well, we'd better make sure to put our campfire out before we run away from the wildfires engulfing the woods...this is better? And McCain wants to stay in it for 100 years...sounds like an awesome plan to me.

Re the whole heathcare debate, there's this political philosophy that I can't quite remember because I haven't had it in school for...good god, was is it really seven years since I was a freshman in college?! But it's called the Veil of Ignorance, I believe...perhaps by Rawls? sorry, can't remember. Anyway, the idea is that you form a perfect government by first drawing a veil of ignorance across yourself - imagining that you could be any member of that society. Rich or poor...any race...any sex...you could be smart or stupid...educated or uneducated...wrongly accused of criminal charges or never speaking to the police for your entire life. Any place at all in the society...and then try to design a system that would be fair to all, or as fair to all as it could be. To take your Titanic analogy, KoC, the result wouldn't be not lowering any lifeboats at all - it would be lowering as many as possible, and not taking the first class passengers first.

And certainly, I've had a privileged upbringing...I went to a private university (if public high school/grade school). My parents both had white collar jobs, they believed in education, they pushed me to excel and they were able and willing to help me do so. And not to be an ass, but I'm quite smart. And I'm white. I've had a lot of advantages growing up in America, and I feel like it's my duty, my civic duty, to do what I can to help those who haven't. And that's why I'm a democrat. One of the things that I like about Obama is, having heard him speak in person once in the 2006 congressional campaign, he believes in the democratic party for the same reasons. And I think he can make other people believe.

[KingofCretins]

Litzie, the answer to your personal concern is easy --

Spoiler:

You return home. Your British girlfriend travels to Mexico City and stays long enough to tan nicely. She then walks illegally across the US-Mexico border in full view of TV cameras and border patrol who've been specifically instructed not to block her way. She would then be nearly impossible to deport from the United States for the rest of her life; it might even be easier to deport *you*.

Problem solved

I have an *almost* completely sure policy on *not* discussing the war on this forum, so I can't help you on the other thing. The veil of ignorance is Rawls, though. Cornerstone of Social Contract Theory.

[litzie]

I have an *almost* completely sure policy on *not* discussing the war on this forum, so I can't help you on the other thing. The veil of ignorance is Rawls, though. Cornerstone of Social Contract Theory.

Totally valid on the war front...I think it's easy to go to far, I was a bit worried I had actually.

But DUDE. Can we talk about the fact that I remembered a random theorist's name and theory from a introductory class I took as an 18 year old seven years ago??? How awesome am I?

thoughts on the non-war part, ie healthcare and the actual theory?

[Wolfie Gilmore]

I don't see the tension in those statements... ?

If the government’s role is “to protect the rights of the citizens from being overruled by external threat, disaster, or lawlessness.” then making drugs illegal does not square with that. Taking drugs is an individual’s decision, it’s not an external threat, disaster or (if they made the drugs legal) lawlessness. If the behaviour is lawless because you make it illegal, that seems rather a circular justification!

There are issues surrounding the drugs trade that complicate this – because on the one hand, making drugs legal stands a chance of reducing other crimes (gun crime, for example) because street dealing would be reduced (there may still be a black market of course, for people who for other reasons – they’re a bit dodgy and criminal generally! - wouldn’t want to be registered with eg doctors to get their drugs), but it’s not possible to predict what would happen on the global scale to the drugs trade. However, talking about the principle of the thing, legalising drugs seems to fit better with your view of government than keeping them illegal.

I do think these things are things with enough corrosive force on the community's wellbeing that they justify being controlled by law.

But what if legalising them reduces that corrosive force? EG making it easier for prostitutes and addicts to get regular health checks? And what about other things that are a corrosive force from a particular point of view? Who decides what’s corrosive?

See, I'm quite the opposite. There's no reason to screw anyone over just for the sake of everything being equally screwed. That reasoning would have required that [i]Titanic[i] not lower *any* of her lifeboats, wouldn't it?

But we’re not screwing people over. People can get private healthcare if they like, a lot of people do. It’s a free choice for those who can afford it… and a not that bad option for people who can’t.

Here's a truly frightening quote about the purpose of state education in the US, though.

Think about that -- that's the mindset that guided the founding of most of America's public education. That's the government's view of educating, at least in our country.

Right. Well, it’s not the view here. But I wonder, is it really the view there, overall?

Easy -- would someone who'd lived in a cave their whole life and then was thrust into society be able to intuitively understand them? Their right to exist? Their right to the things which are *theirs*, their property? Their right to be let alone by others?

I’d feel pretty strongly about my right not to be left alone to die and be eaten by mammoths! Also, would they have property? Or just food that they need and excess to be shared? Everyone might have different intuitions. Like Anya and Giles in the magic shop – her intuition tells her she knows how to do magic. She’s a “blank slate” to a degree…well, in latin…but her intuition is WRONG! Or at least, wrong unless you like fighting skeletons and bunnies everywhere.

Essentially, my view pretty much goes along with the immortal words of Bill and Ted: Be excellent to each other.

…a parody of itself, with people on both sides routinely cross-registering to selectively attack an opposing party's candidate rather than vote for one of their own.

Yeah, re parody – sometimes a satirist’s job is merely to record what’s happening. There’s a great show called “The Thick of It” in the UK (sadly over now, but maybe will come back) that’s a political satire re behind the scenes in policy making/how MPs and the government work, especially vis spin doctoring. Watching it, it seems ridiculous, over the top… and yet, many people have said it’s either accurate, or things are even MORE ridiculous in reality!

O RLY? I certainly hope those numbers play out in the general election.

And I hope the opposite. But not being one of those numbers, I’ll have to just sit back and watch. Like the Blair Witch watching Willow with the snakes. Actually, some of my mates are going over to the US in November to experience the thing first hand. It’s crazy (and yet not, given how powerful the US is) how invested people in the UK are in the US elections. It’s like a medieval mystery play or something – representing so much about the world.

I could have just as easily linked it from the Baltimore Reporter or something called Wikio -- the story is what it is.

Fair enough! Just wanted to point out the Mail’s evil (never miss an opportunity to do that!). It has an evil laugh, and probably does that sudden inevitable betrayal thing.

We have a lot of people in our country uninsured, that's true. But the actual quality of healthcare we provide is matchless, and your ability to pay *can not legally prevent you from obtaining it*. It's settling the tab that's the problem.

So, you could have any operation you needed and then just lump the financial consequences? They wouldn’t ask can you afford it before they do the op? That’s definitely better than I thought, but still, the choice between bankruptcy and death is not a pretty one.

For you, belief in nationalizing healthcare is worth voting for. For me, it's one of the two or three things I must and always will vote urgently against.

It probably makes a difference that the status quo is one way in my country, another way in yours. There are problems with the system, but as it is, it still seems fairer.

Liztie said: To take your Titanic analogy, KoC, the result wouldn't be not lowering any lifeboats at all - it would be lowering as many as possible, and not taking the first class passengers first.

Yes, true.

I think it comes down to the idea that I don’t think having money should be the basis for your position in society. Not that class should either! But I have this incredibly angry reaction to the notion that someone deserves more from life because they have more money. Obviously it’s a reality of life… but my ideal government is one that makes it easier for people to live their lives without their fates being so determined by their ability to make money (or their parents’ ability to do so).

You return home. Your British girlfriend travels to Mexico City and stays long enough to tan nicely. She then walks illegally across the US-Mexico border in full view of TV cameras and border patrol who've been specifically instructed not to block her way. She would then be nearly impossible to deport from the United States for the rest of her life; it might even be easier to deport *you*.

Sadly, I don't tan, I burn. Also, the prospect of just not being deported isn't exactly enticing.

Now, I don't think I have a right to live in the US or anything. If no spouses had the right to stay in a country unless they had an independent visa, that'd be ok. Well, it would make my life tricky... but that's just a personal issue... however, the fact that straight couples get an advantage that gay couples don't...I don't think the word sucks is strong enough to cover it!

However, progress is a slow thing. We only got civil partnerships in 2003, so...I do hope that if Obama wins there's some hope of change. Not necessarily much, but some.

Can't San fransisco just leave the states or something so we could live there?