The US Presidential Election

[LRae12]

As the time grows closer to the US election, I thought we needed a new poll. The old one was a bit outdated since so many factors have changed since it was opened.

Also, I wanted to get a gauge on how American's are going to be voting as opposed to non-American's, so I've altered the poll a bit to include this statistic.

I voted 'neither' in the last poll, but have since switched to McCain-Palin. I find their ticket more in line with main-stream America and issues that are relevant to my everyday life.

So vote and discuss!

[Nina]

I'm Dutch, so I can't vote.

At first; Because I can't vote, I don't spend hours researching both parties ... But I went for the Obama-Biden ticket because I would vote for a democrat. My first choice was John Edwards ...

But what is it with the plans of both candidates? After 8 years Bush ... they need to be careful with money but if we have to believe both men, they will be big spenders. I guess that the most ideas will never happen, from both parties.
So, I'm note sure how serious I should take their plans.

But why Obama?

I live in a country where woman can have an abortion, gay people can marry and people can ask for euthanasia. Those things are for me the most normal things in the world. And I think that those rights are rights everyone should have. I'm aware that the democrats probably won't go that far ... it's always more than what the republicans will do.

The plans of the democrats were always closer to the politics in the Netherlands. The biggest part of our right wing would vote for a democrat. I think that it's part of how I grew up, the biggest part of the people in the Netherlands will vote Obama. We think different, other things are normal for us. We are less nationalistic, we won't vote for somebody because he was in the army, we also are less buzy with religion. It's our culture, and I'm part of that I guess.

I don't know enough about the candidates to make big points about them. I love Obama's speeches, and I'm aware of McCain's impressive past ... I'm no fan of either running mate.

[tangent]

I ave to agree with Nina. I'm no expert on American politics but from what I've seen and what I understand of the parties I would have to vote Obama.

Although Americans probably see Obama as a bit of a lefty he actually seems to be more central in his politics from a European point of view. This would mean that he still isn't my ideal candidate but he's probably the closest electable option.

McCain's stance on foreign policy seems to be too aggressive to me. After Bush I Think America needs a president that concentrates on the people of America rather than sorting out the rest of the worlds problems. I also think that promising tax cuts in the current financial climate seems unrealistic at best and sounds like an attempt to buy the vote. I'm also not keen on how much he stresses his military background and certainly wouldn't vote for him based on that.

Whoever wins the election, I hope that they make the economy their first priority as this is something that is in dire need of sorting out, not just for America's sake but for the rest of the world. I also hope that they work to reduce the amount of warfare and conflict in the world and that they increase the freedoms of the American people by relaxing some of the super conservative laws that seem to exist over there.

[LRae12]

Although Americans probably see Obama as a bit of a lefty he actually seems to be more central in his politics from a European point of view.

See, this is why I wanted both the American and foreign points of view in the poll. To me (and most Republicans), McCain has always been more of a centrist, whereas he needed a very conservative running mate just to appeal to his own party. It's funny (not haha, but interesting) to see someone from across the pond thinking of Obama as a Centrist, because to me he is so FAR left.

[tangent]

See, this is why I wanted both the American and foreign points of view in the poll. To me (and most Republicans), McCain has always been more of a centrist, whereas he needed a very conservative running mate just to appeal to his own party. It's funny (not haha, but interesting) to see someone from across the pond thinking of Obama as a Centrist, because to me he is so FAR left.

Compared to European politics America really doesn't have a party on the left I'd class McCain as being on the right and Obama as being on the centre right. I don't see anyone standing on issues like nationalised healthcare, redistribution of wealth or better social services for instance.

Actually I believe there is a socialist party of America or some such thing but it appears to be tiny and as you apparently need millions if not bllions of dollars to become president and as socialism has become a dirty word in America they probably don't count too much.

[Magnetic Duty]

My vote is exceedingly tainted for very very selfish reasons. Being in a neighbouring country to the United States of America, and being an enegry and resource super power, and having trade with the United States ammount to multiple billions of dollars a day, I would have to throw my support behind a candidate I feel would be best for Canada.

When Obama started squaking about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA I became worried for the economic state of both nations. Although job losses and a loss, to some degree, of sovereignty has been felt on both sides of the border, because it has been more than twenty years entrenched in our economies I think that it would be an entirely foolish move to scrap it and renegotiate. It would end up costing all sides involved; and if any nation cannot afford that right now it would be the United States of America.

I am also a strong liberal and feel the Democrats too often paint themselves with this term, but fail to deliver. I find it gross to go around giving liberalism such a bad name. Liberal International won't even accept them! At least the Republicans don't pretend to be something other than right winged.

This said, I am skeptical of the ability of either party to deliver what I would like to see in America in terms of civil liberties and social progression; thus I wipe social issues from my slate of important criteria a candidate must meet for my support since both sides are inadequate.

As for what I think of the candiates, Obama is exceedingly arrogant and doesn't deserve to be so. When you're running to be the President you don't fly over and have a (expensive) trip to Europe in order to talk policy with leaders of other nations so you can pretend you have international experience in the world. I've been to China and Japan; does that make me qualified to deal with Asian nations in issues of trade and diplomacy? The speech he made in Germany was just so he could ego stroke himself.

As for McCain, I'd like to see him hush hush about how he was in Vietnam. Again this view might be tainted because of geography, but being tortured in what we view here as an illigitimate war does not make you some hero. Being a soldier in general does not strike sympathy from me. What I like about McCain is that he told off the insanity of the religious right way back when. Of course he is appealing to them with Palin, but that isn't him going back on his own word - he has her to do it for him

[holypotatoes]

Gah I don't even know who I want to vote for. One of them is trying to take my guns from me and the other is trying to take my right as a woman to choose to have an abortion if I wanted one (not that I'll probably ever get the opportunity for that since I don't plan on getting knocked up any time soon unexpectedly ). Both sides tend to annoy the piss out of me. I have never understood why we can't have a candidate that's basically a compromise between the two parties. The Democrats and Republican's seem very flawed to me. They need to start working together instead of thinking their side is better or else this country is never going to get any better. Granted I have a feeling if Obama wins and the economy starts to get better under him, the Dems are definitely going to try throwing that in the Repubs faces since they'll think Democrats are the only way to get things done. When in all actuality, if a Dem gets put into office and the economy gets better it's only because it can't really get any worse. Bush made sure of that. So yeah, I'm torn on who to choose for, guns or pro choice? Decisions, decisions.

[KingofCretins]

I'm really glad that LRae did this parsing it out by distinguishing whether respondents are American or not. I had a feeling that "33-7" or whatever it was was not representative of any sample that will actually be voting. Obviously, I will be voting for McCain/Palin. This is actually the first time in four elections so far that I have a ticket I actually want to elect, not just use to vote against something else. My Dole and Bush votes were mostly because I was being shown much worse alternatives. McCain and Palin are actually people I believe in.

Compared to European politics America really doesn't have a party on the left I'd class McCain as being on the right and Obama as being on the centre right. I don't see anyone standing on issues like nationalised healthcare, redistribution of wealth or better social services for instance.

Actually I believe there is a socialist party of America or some such thing but it appears to be tiny and as you apparently need millions if not bllions of dollars to become president and as socialism has become a dirty word in America they probably don't count too much.

Well, "dirty word" happens when, as a political philosophy, it has the largest body count in the history of mankind. More 50,000,000 dead in the 20th century in pursuit of socialist utopia. It troubles me every day that that philosophy *still* is capable of gaining ground, even in places that have already been victimized by it, and I am very pleased that we've managed to marginalize it where it belongs in the US. I mean, Obama as "centre right"? He's an avowed socialist that learned politics at the knees of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. For him to be "centre right" is to define, I dunno, Hugo Chavez or Castro as "slightly left of center".

Gah I don't even know who I want to vote for. One of them is trying to take my guns from me and the other is trying to take my right as a woman to choose to have an abortion if I wanted one (not that I'll probably ever get the opportunity for that since I don't plan on getting knocked up any time soon unexpectedly ). Both sides tend to annoy the piss out of me. I have never understood why we can't have a candidate that's basically a compromise between the two parties. The Democrats and Republican's seem very flawed to me. They need to start working together instead of thinking their side is better or else this country is never going to get any better. Granted I have a feeling if Obama wins and the economy starts to get better under him, the Dems are definitely going to try throwing that in the Repubs faces since they'll think Democrats are the only way to get things done. When in all actuality, if a Dem gets put into office and the economy gets better it's only because it can't really get any worse. Bush made sure of that. So yeah, I'm torn on who to choose for, guns or pro choice? Decisions, decisions.

I usually stay far, far away from this topic, but I feel obliged to point this out -- were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, exactly zero abortions would be made illegal by that process. What would happen is that the question would, as a matter of state law, stabilize across the country with different states' legislatures (y'know... the people) defining different laws. The 10th Amendment says that anything that's not expressed to the federal government to oversee is for the states to oversee. Nothing in Article I, II, or III gives the federal government power over abortion, or reproduction of any kind. So I really hope that you don't think of overturning Roe as making something illegal as a consideration in voting. It would just become a matter for you to take to your state legislature.

[holypotatoes]

I usually stay far, far away from this topic, but I feel obliged to point this out -- were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, exactly zero abortions would be made illegal by that process. What would happen is that the question would, as a matter of state law, stabilize across the country with different states' legislatures (y'know... the people) defining different laws. The 10th Amendment says that anything that's not expressed to the federal government to oversee is for the states to oversee. Nothing in Article I, II, or III gives the federal government power over abortion, or reproduction of any kind. So I really hope that you don't think of overturning Roe as making something illegal as a consideration in voting. It would just become a matter for you to take to your state legislature.

Well then that still doesn't make any sense. If it's not really doing anything besides giving the states power why the hell does the government want to overturn it in the first place? Why is leaving it as it is now such a problem for Republicans?! It makes no sense. It's just the government trying to take even more control over us as citizens. I say leave it be. There's a reason it's been working as long as it has. Same with guns. Leave it f**king be. Stop tryin to change s**t that's been working for years. it is a boiler room thread, we need some anger involved.

[sherrilina]

I will be voting for Obama/Biden of course--even if Obama doesn't have as much experience in the SENATE as McCain (I don't count Palin's experience of governing a small town--honestly, you might as well try to say that a college Student Body President has enough executive experience to be US President, and that's often over more people than in her town! --or of governing a small state (in people) like Alaska--especially when we already know from Bush that state governor does not equal enough executive experience or good leader), I think he would be better for our country in his policies, and with his sharp mind and attempts not to delve into totally dirty politics in his campaign. I think that "100 years in Iraq" is far too long--they THEMSELVES have said they want us out, and thus McCain can't claim to be respecting their sovereignty and say we're going to stay there interminably at the same time. I think that we desperately need a break from the Bush years, and that McCain would not provide that, especially given how close he's made his votes and policies to Bush lately--even if he is now spacing himself a little further from Bush than before, his record stands, and it just shows more of his dishonesty. I also think we need improved international relations and image in the world, and that McCain and his way of thinking and attitudes will not get us that.

I also don't want Palin as president if McCain gets cancer again or something and dies--some people say she's great because she's so honest and whatnot. Well fine--I personally like Huckabee as a person, and think he's also a great, honest guy--I heard that he promoted a Democrat within his administration for example on merit, which shows some good. Do I want him as president? Hell no--because I don't like his policies, even if I like him personally. Though I don't like Palin personally either--her whole "being mayor of a tiny town is like being a community organizer, and thus makes me more qualified than Obama" (yes KoC, I know she's also governor, but I'm going off what SHE said--that even her mayoral experience made her more qualified) is just plain absurd--there is such a BIG (literally and figuratively!) difference between the number of people in her town and the complexity of it, and the complexity and size of the US populace that I don't think you can make a real comparison--you might as well say Duncan Kane is good to go as President after being president of Neptune High! I think that someone working in the national senate would have a better idea of how the US government works and runs, etc, than a little town mayor.

As for her personal situation, of course it shouldn't pertain to politics--but then again, given how "OMG NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE THAT IS FORNICATION AND ANTI-FAMILY VALUES!" (Edward Cullen would NOT approve! Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in! ) the religious right is, I think it's a tad hypocritical that they're not making a bigger deal out of it--can you imagine what they'd be saying if one of the Democratic candidate's kid was knocked up? And even a conservative uber-Catholic Spanish old man (who thinks McCain would be better) I was talking to says that there's a 90% chance that a marriage at 17 only b/c of a baby is going to end badly, and that if it were his daughter who was pregnant he would have her wait until the baby is born, and have them decide some time afterwards if they still love each other enough to commit to marrying.....it bothers me. I feel like that's as much a sacrilege to marriage (marrying in a hurry at such a young age only b/c of a baby--not because they want to at the moment) as the religious right believe gay marriage to be....

Back to Palin though--she just rubs me in the wrong way. As a person and in her policies--and it's not just because she's a woman. I know a very feminist pro-Hilary, Obama-hater who still dislikes Palin, especially in her comments about Hilary--and I agree to some extent. You can't really compare Hilary's political achievements as far as her long and hard presidential campaign to the point of being a serious contender to Palin's "oooh, I got picked!" as far as working to break the glass ceiling....

Really, I think any pro-choice feminist who votes for McCain out of vegence against Obama for not being Hilary (those idiotic PUMA people) or because of Palin is just shooting themselves in the foot, since in doing so they are hurting themselves on their issues like Roe v. Wade, etc.

Anyway, in short, Obama! And now....

I am also a strong liberal and feel the Democrats too often paint themselves with this term, but fail to deliver. I find it gross to go around giving liberalism such a bad name. Liberal International won't even accept them! At least the Republicans don't pretend to be something other than right winged.

This said, I am skeptical of the ability of either party to deliver what I would like to see in America in terms of civil liberties and social progression; thus I wipe social issues from my slate of important criteria a candidate must meet for my support since both sides are inadequate.

Well it's hard to deliver in a country like ours--but at least Democrats make an effort to be more progressive and liberal in their policies, unlike the Republicans.....

You have to keep in mind that our country as a whole is a LOT more conservative than many others, as has been noted, so you can't necessarily blame the Democrats for not being able to follow through on all their desires on the social front.

And it's the Republicans who most like to slather the Democratic Party with the word "liberal" as a scare tactic, so if you want to talk about pretending/dishonesty....

As for what I think of the candiates, Obama is exceedingly arrogant and doesn't deserve to be so. When you're running to be the President you don't fly over and have a (expensive) trip to Europe in order to talk policy with leaders of other nations so you can pretend you have international experience in the world. I've been to China and Japan; does that make me qualified to deal with Asian nations in issues of trade and diplomacy? The speech he made in Germany was just so he could ego stroke himself.

Well that trip at least proved that Obama would probably help mend America's international relations and image, given his popularity abroad, which is something that I think is sorely needed--in contrast to continuing more gung-ho aggresive "100 years in Iraq" stances. To people who care about what Bush has done to our status in the world, this trip was not a total waste and ego trip....

And McCain has done his share too, like when he stated during the Georgia crisis that he was sending envoys there to have talks and try to resolve things--um, envoys? What gives you the status to be doing that--I might as well send some envoys. That seems to me to be no better in terms of "defacto president" than what Obama did.....

Of course there's also all the money he received from Georgian lobbyists before being so gung-ho about Georgia....

What I like about McCain is that he told off the insanity of the religious right way back when. Of course he is appealing to them with Palin, but that isn't him going back on his own word - he has her to do it for him

But when he already went back on his word on countless other issues after hopping on the "Bush is my Best Bud" pandering bandwagon to get elected as the nominee, I don't think that counts for much....

Gah I don't even know who I want to vote for. One of them is trying to take my guns from me and the other is trying to take my right as a woman to choose to have an abortion if I wanted one (not that I'll probably ever get the opportunity for that since I don't plan on getting knocked up any time soon unexpectedly ). Both sides tend to annoy the piss out of me. I have never understood why we can't have a candidate that's basically a compromise between the two parties. The Democrats and Republican's seem very flawed to me. They need to start working together instead of thinking their side is better or else this country is never going to get any better. Granted I have a feeling if Obama wins and the economy starts to get better under him, the Dems are definitely going to try throwing that in the Repubs faces since they'll think Democrats are the only way to get things done. When in all actuality, if a Dem gets put into office and the economy gets better it's only because it can't really get any worse. Bush made sure of that. So yeah, I'm torn on who to choose for, guns or pro choice? Decisions, decisions.

No one is going to take your right to bear arms away.....but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, trying to get automatic weapons off inner city streets doesn't really fall under that category.

I'm really glad that LRae did this parsing it out by distinguishing whether respondents are American or not. I had a feeling that "33-7" or whatever it was was not representative of any sample that will actually be voting. Obviously, I will be voting for McCain/Palin. This is actually the first time in four elections so far that I have a ticket I actually want to elect, not just use to vote against something else. My Dole and Bush votes were mostly because I was being shown much worse alternatives. McCain and Palin are actually people I believe in.

Wow, when did you start believing in McCain? Before he was the lesser evil for you....

Well, "dirty word" happens when, as a political philosophy, it has the largest body count in the history of mankind. More 50,000,000 dead in the 20th century in pursuit of socialist utopia. It troubles me every day that that philosophy *still* is capable of gaining ground, even in places that have already been victimized by it, and I am very pleased that we've managed to marginalize it where it belongs in the US. I mean, Obama as "centre right"? He's an avowed socialist that learned politics at the knees of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. For him to be "centre right" is to define, I dunno, Hugo Chavez or Castro as "slightly left of center".

I think you mean "communism"--socialism isn't quite the same thing, as seen by numerous European countries. (Unless you mean a body count in say, Denmark?)

I usually stay far, far away from this topic, but I feel obliged to point this out -- were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, exactly zero abortions would be made illegal by that process. What would happen is that the question would, as a matter of state law, stabilize across the country with different states' legislatures (y'know... the people) defining different laws. The 10th Amendment says that anything that's not expressed to the federal government to oversee is for the states to oversee. Nothing in Article I, II, or III gives the federal government power over abortion, or reproduction of any kind. So I really hope that you don't think of overturning Roe as making something illegal as a consideration in voting. It would just become a matter for you to take to your state legislature.

And what if your state legislature doesn't listen to you? To strong supporters of Roe v Wade it's an issue of whether even a woman in a conservative state where a majority of people in it want to outlaw abortion have the right to do so, or whether the woman should be able to chose her fate--which means it is quite important that RvW isn't overturned--that there are no new conservative justices appointed under yet another Republican president to make it so. So it IS important.

[KingofCretins]

Well then that still doesn't make any sense. If it's not really doing anything besides giving the states power why the hell does the government want to overturn it in the first place? Why is leaving it as it is now such a problem for Republicans?! It makes no sense. It's just the government trying to take even more control over us as citizens. I say leave it be. There's a reason it's been working as long as it has. Same with guns. Leave it f**king be. Stop tryin to change s**t that's been working for years. it is a boiler room thread, we need some anger involved.

Because it's a gross abuse of federal power that violates the face value meaning of the 10th Amendment? When the judiciary can, under the rubric of constitutional law, usurp state authority on matters of law over which the federal government was never *meant* to have any power, the Constitution itself loses meaning. Roe, as written, is a *greater* exercise of government power over the public than overturning it would be.

Though I don't like Palin personally either--her whole "being mayor of a tiny town is like being a community organizer, and thus makes me more qualified than Obama" (yes KoC, I know she's also governor, but I'm going off what SHE said--that even her mayoral experience made her more qualified) is just plain absurd--there is such a BIG (literally and figuratively!) difference between the number of people in her town and the complexity of it, and the complexity and size of the US populace that I don't think you can make a real comparison--you might as well say Duncan Kane is good to go as President after being president of Neptune High! I think that someone working in the national senate would have a better idea of how the US government works and runs, etc, than a little town mayor.

Actually, Mayor of a town versus community organizer is still, frankly, paper-rock-scissors in Palin's favor. Do you know what Obama's community organizing consisted of? Even his employer concedes that he didn't really have any *accomplishments* in that role to point to. It's basically just going door to door and registering people to vote, arranging for them to be bused to polling locations and council meetings, and general activism. It involves no actual power, obligation, or authority in a community.

As for her personal situation, of course it shouldn't pertain to politics--but then again, given how "OMG NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE THAT IS FORNICATION AND ANTI-FAMILY VALUES!" (Edward Cullen would NOT approve! Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in! ) the religious right is, I think it's a tad hypocritical that they're not making a bigger deal out of it--can you imagine what they'd be saying if one of the Democratic candidate's kid was knocked up?

It's also a non-negotiable teaching of the Catholic Church, of which more than a few members of the left are ostensibly members. I mean, I know Nancy Pelosi feels free to flat out *lie* about Church teaching from time to time, but still.

Oh, and we know *exactly* what "they" would be saying if a Democrat candidate's kid was "knocked up" -- nothing. It would be a page 6 or page 8 in the Post and Times, it would be buried by MSNBC and CNN, and it would be alluded to as "hate speech" to even raise the topic socially by Huffpost and DailyKos-ers.

Well that trip at least proved that Obama would probably help mend America's international relations and image, given his popularity abroad, which is something that I think is sorely needed--in contrast to continuing more gung-ho aggresive "100 years in Iraq" stances. To people who care about what Bush has done to our status in the world, this trip was not a total waste and ego trip....

I'd like somebody to tell me, with a straight face, when in US history we have been well-liked and celebrated by the man on the street in even countries that are close allies. It wasn't true under Clinton (as dead Marines dragged around Mogadishu would suggest it wasn't, or the countless terrorist attacks to which we were subject). It wasn't true under Reagan. It wasn't true under Carter, when the Iranians took our embassy hostage. It's a myth, this notion that America is suddenly going to be well-liked no matter *what* we do.

No one is going to take your right to bear arms away.....but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, trying to get automatic weapons off inner city streets doesn't really fall under that category.

Thankfully, despite the four illiterate Justices who dissented, things Obama loved like full gun bans such as the one in DC which turned it into such a crime plagued city, are no longer possible. As for automatic weapons -- fully automatic weapons are already illegal and already impossibly to buy legally. And there's no legitimate reason to ban semi-automatics.

Wow, when did you start believing in McCain? Before he was the lesser evil for you....

It started when he made energy independence the defining GOP issue of the election.

I think you mean "communism"--socialism isn't quite the same thing, as seen by numerous European countries. (Unless you mean a body count in say, Denmark?)

No, I meant socialism -- "communism" is what happens when a state tries to impose socialism in spite of the fact that there are always people who don't *want* to belong to the state. It's a false distinction promoted *by* socialists to distance themselves from the atrocities that are *guaranteed* when socialist authoritarianism begins.

And what if your state legislature doesn't listen to you? To strong supporters of Roe v Wade it's an issue of whether even a woman in a conservative state where a majority of people in it want to outlaw abortion have the right to do so, or whether the woman should be able to chose her fate--which means it is quite important that RvW isn't overturned--that there are no new conservative justices appointed under yet another Republican president to make it so. So it IS important.

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.

[holypotatoes]

No one is going to take your right to bear arms away.....but as Obama said in his acceptance speech, trying to get automatic weapons off inner city streets doesn't really fall under that category.

Well he physically couldn't take my right to bear arms away because he doesn't actually have enough votes in Congress to do so but just because automatic weapons are off the street, do you really think that's going to stop violence? What makes you think that Obama won't ban guns from all areas and not only inner cities? How is he going to go about this? How the hell is he going to get rid of all the "automatic" guns that are in circulation off the streets? Is he just going to ban people from selling them in that area, if so who's gonna stop people from going other places? This whole thing is ridiculous. Besides, it's not the normal law abiding citizens that aren't doing anything wrong like shooting people on purpose, it's the criminals; the one's who don't give a damn whether or not if it's illegal to have them. Again I say, leave it alone!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by KoC:
It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.

The bolded part I'm gonna say something about.... that definitely didn't help your case KoC. Telling me that it was banned in more than half the states before it became legal isn't making me feel any better to turn it over to a government who is trying to overturn it and go back to state laws. I don't see why it's such a big deal to leave it be the way it is. Let people choose in whatever state they're in to have an abortion or not.

[sherrilina]

Roe, as written, is a *greater* exercise of government power over the public than overturning it would be.

NATIONAL government perhaps--but not state government if they're going to start instituting bans and such again.....

It's also a non-negotiable teaching of the Catholic Church, of which more than a few members of the left are ostensibly members. I mean, I know Nancy Pelosi feels free to flat out *lie* about Church teaching from time to time, but still.

That may be--but such members don't generally emphasize the whole "no sex outside marriage" aspect so vocally in their politics, only not to follow it themselves. Like Larry Craig......or people like Reagan who marry their mistresses.

Oh, and we know *exactly* what "they" would be saying if a Democrat candidate's kid was "knocked up" -- nothing. It would be a page 6 or page 8 in the Post and Times, it would be buried by MSNBC and CNN, and it would be alluded to as "hate speech" to even raise the topic socially by Huffpost and DailyKos-ers.

Ah yes, the Great Liberal Bias.....which was the reason why Clinton was so covered by the media during the Monica (because the Liberals love to attack their own, that's part of the bias!), or why the media treated Bush more gently than Gore during the debates and campaigns, or why McCain has been often given a pass by the media and only lionized and given positive labels like "maverick," and was even given a pity party by the media when he wasn't doing as well over the summer--because of that "Liberal Bias" that always attacks the Republicans and not the Democrats! I suspect that Liberal bias was behind the media's gungo-ho support initially for Iraq as well.....

Yeah, give me a break. It would have been covered just as much as the Edwards thing or the Clinton thing, to give more recent examples, don't kid yourself. There is not as great a liberal bias in the media as the right-wing always tries to suggest, especially not on the mainstream non-cable stations.

I'd like somebody to tell me, with a straight face, when in US history we have been well-liked and celebrated by the man on the street in even countries that are close allies. It wasn't true under Clinton (as dead Marines dragged around Mogadishu would suggest it wasn't, or the countless terrorist attacks to which we were subject). It wasn't true under Reagan. It wasn't true under Carter, when the Iranians took our embassy hostage. It's a myth, this notion that America is suddenly going to be well-liked no matter *what* we do.

I didn't say "no matter *what* we do." But it cannot be denied that we have gone through periods of greater international relations than others, and Clinton certain was better on that front than Bush, even with Mogadishu....

Thankfully, despite the four illiterate Justices who dissented, things Obama loved like full gun bans such as the one in DC which turned it into such a crime plagued city, are no longer possible. As for automatic weapons -- fully automatic weapons are already illegal and already impossibly to buy legally. And there's no legitimate reason to ban semi-automatics.

We'll see--but there's no reason to believe that it would deter crime to have more guns floating around. As a native of the DC area I can tell you that this is not a popular thing.....though I think the way the city is planning to implement it is okay so far.

It started when he made energy independence the defining GOP issue of the election.

Ah yes, the temporary short-term (though not even so much as far as the ocean drilling, given how long it will take to start up) energy independence plan.....

No, I meant socialism -- "communism" is what happens when a state tries to impose socialism in spite of the fact that there are always people who don't *want* to belong to the state. It's a false distinction promoted *by* socialists to distance themselves from the atrocities that are *guaranteed* when socialist authoritarianism begins.

Then why isn't there a body count in England and Denmark, etc yet?

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.

As holypotatoes notes, given that that is more than half of the states, I don't think "this kind of alarmism" would be dishonest at all, historically speaking.

Well he physically couldn't take my right to bear arms away because he doesn't actually have enough votes in Congress to do so but just because automatic weapons are off the street, do you really think that's going to stop violence? What makes you think that Obama won't ban guns from all areas and not only inner cities? How is he going to go about this? How the hell is he going to get rid of all the "automatic" guns that are in circulation off the streets? Is he just going to ban people from selling them in that area, if so who's gonna stop people from going other places? This whole thing is ridiculous. Besides, it's not the normal law abiding citizens that aren't doing anything wrong like shooting people on purpose, it's the criminals; the one's who don't give a damn whether or not if it's illegal to have them. Again I say, leave it alone!!!!!!!!!!

But he already said he wouldn't take away rifles from rural areas and such, the point of the analogy is that guns mean different things to people in inner cities and in other areas, and their respective concerns should be treated accordingly (such as more active gun control in the cities perhaps).....you don't need to worry!

[holypotatoes]

As holypotatoes notes

You can call still call me by my real name Doppel. It's in my profile so I don't mind if you say Stacy instead of holypotatoes.

But he already said he wouldn't take away rifles from rural areas and such, the point of the analogy is that guns mean different things to people in inner cities and in other areas, and their respective concerns should be treated accordingly (such as more active gun control in the cities perhaps).....you don't need to worry!

Eh, I'll stay worried until I know it won't happen for sure. Candidates like to say everything you want to hear and then once they get in power, do the exact opposite. I don't trust either candidate as far as I can throw them at this point. But we'll see though.

[Thomas]

The bolded part I'm gonna say something about.... that definitely didn't help your case KoC. Telling me that it was banned in more than half the states before it became legal isn't making me feel any better to turn it over to a government who is trying to overturn it and go back to state laws. I don't see why it's such a big deal to leave it be the way it is. Let people choose in whatever state they're in to have an abortion or not.

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

[holypotatoes]

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

Exactly. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you do, go for it. Yeah, it's just.. dumb. I don't get it. Just leave it be.

[KingofCretins]

The bolded part I'm gonna say something about.... that definitely didn't help your case KoC. Telling me that it was banned in more than half the states before it became legal isn't making me feel any better to turn it over to a government who is trying to overturn it and go back to state laws. I don't see why it's such a big deal to leave it be the way it is. Let people choose in whatever state they're in to have an abortion or not.

NATIONAL government perhaps--but not state government if they're going to start instituting bans and such again.....

I don't know what to tell you -- the simple fact is that the federal government was never meant to have its powers substantially increased by nothing more than judicial fiat. For abortion to be an area of legitimate federal authority, that power would either A) need to be expressed to the federal government by constitutional amendment, or B) the restraint on it claiming unexpressed powers lifted by repealing the 10th Amendment. But in either case, you're still talking about having to get something past the legislatures of 3/4s of the states, so if you don't consider the will of the majority to be an appopriate part of the decision-making on the subject, there's still no way to get to it. That's what the defense of Roe comes down to -- an argument that it's a more legitimate use of federal judicial power because it usurps the majority. That's twisting the counter-majoritarian principle into an argument for judicial oligarchy.

An interesting bit of very ironic history, lost to time, in the Roe opinion, was the concurrence offered by Chief Justice Burger...

I do not read the Court's holding today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices... Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand.

Admit it, I don't care where you are on the issue... 35 years later, that quote is nothing short of hilarious.

Ah yes, the temporary short-term (though not even so much as far as the ocean drilling, given how long it will take to start up) energy independence plan.....

I meant the "expand our nuclear power usage to levels seen in France and other countries, updating alternate energy sources through natural gas, clean coal, while simultaneously improving our national security by cutting foreign oil out of our economy" plan.

Beats the hell out of the "if we all make sure our tires are inflated, everything will be fine after we figure out how to make the wind blow 24 hours a day in the 20 years or so it will take to make wind and solar energy cost effective and not reliant on fossil fuel for back up anyway, but no matter what we do, we can't expand our domestic oil supply" plan

Then why isn't there a body count in England and Denmark, etc yet?

Because they haven't jumped *off* the cliff yet, they're just staring over the edge curiously. And, for that matter, who says there aren't? Victimization by the state is what happens when socialism becomes the rule of law, but where it is already the rule of culture, there are plenty of other ways to be victimized and bullied. The "youth" riots in France, the cartoon riots, and such incidents are examples of the other kind of body count that socialist tendencies create for a society.

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

Thomas, you can't look at the question in a vacuum -- the reason that position can't fly with the pro-life movement is because of what it is that the movements sees abortion as being. The taking of a human life. The concept "if you don't want one, don't get one" is no different to the ears of a pro-lifer than "if you don't like murder, don't kill anyone, leave the rest of us alone". Put that way, would you accept that argument in their position?

[LRae12]

As for her personal situation, of course it shouldn't pertain to politics--but then again, given how "OMG NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE THAT IS FORNICATION AND ANTI-FAMILY VALUES!" (Edward Cullen would NOT approve! Sorry, couldn't help throwing that in! ) the religious right is, I think it's a tad hypocritical that they're not making a bigger deal out of it--can you imagine what they'd be saying if one of the Democratic candidate's kid was knocked up? And even a conservative uber-Catholic Spanish old man (who thinks McCain would be better) I was talking to says that there's a 90% chance that a marriage at 17 only b/c of a baby is going to end badly, and that if it were his daughter who was pregnant he would have her wait until the baby is born, and have them decide some time afterwards if they still love each other enough to commit to marrying.....it bothers me. I feel like that's as much a sacrilege to marriage (marrying in a hurry at such a young age only b/c of a baby--not because they want to at the moment) as the religious right believe gay marriage to be....

Well regardless of anyone's religious beliefs about sex and abstinence, Palin's daughter's personal life is really nobody's business especially in a political arena AND especially considering that she's a minor. The media should never even have gone there.

Secondly, how dare ANYONE judge whether or not someone's marriage will or will not fail based on the facts that they're young and expecting a child. I find that personally offensive considering that my husband and I got pregnant before marriage when I was 17 and decided to get married because we WANTED to, not because we were having a baby. We've been married for almost 14 years now and we're doing just fine, thank you. Besides, who says that they're forced to get married? Maybe they planned on being married anyway someday and decided to move it up due to the baby. Or perhaps they are going to wait for a time before they're married. It's not like they've announced a wedding date (that I've heard).

Well that trip at least proved that Obama would probably help mend America's international relations and image, given his popularity abroad, which is something that I think is sorely needed

Yes, by all means, appease the rest of world while alienating the needs and safety of your own country, it's a great strategy....

Personally, I think it shouldn't even be up for discussion. If you think it's wrong don't get one! If you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not she carries a baby inside of her for nine months, feel free to get one. It's really that simple. I really don't see why it's such a big issue to people.

Which is why Roe SHOULD be overturned. Abortion is not a subject that should be up for discussion on a federal level. It should be left up to the states to decide their own laws. Before Roe it was illegal in 33 states because the majority of the voters in those states WANTED it that way. The federal government has no right to tell those states that their citizen's opinions don't count just becuase a few liberal extremists went over thier heads. Like KOC said, if you can't have your way legally in your own state, there's always the left coast.

Ah yes, the temporary short-term (though not even so much as far as the ocean drilling, given how long it will take to start up) energy independence plan.....

yes because the liberal plan of 'let's do nothing and hope it just gets better' is such a greater option.


And thinking about it, I've come to realize that I just don't put any stock in Obama's judgement calls. I mean think about it. This election wouldn't even be an *issue* if he'd picked Hillary as his running mate. Palin, though I would vote her over any Clinton any day, honestly wouldn't compete nearly as well if Obama had Hillary on his ticket. The guy's just not so smart.

[EvilVampire]

Thomas, you can't look at the question in a vacuum -- the reason that position can't fly with the pro-life movement is because of what it is that the movements sees abortion as being. The taking of a human life. The concept "if you don't want one, don't get one" is no different to the ears of a pro-lifer than "if you don't like murder, don't kill anyone, leave the rest of us alone". Put that way, would you accept that argument in their position?

That works both ways, though.
For instance:

It was only illegal in 33 states when Roe was passed -- this kind of alarmism is just... well, kind of dishonest, historically speaking. If your state legislature doesn't listen to you, you drive to another state and get one if you absolutely *must*. People have done this to get married or divorced throughout US history.

What if we were talking about, say, interracial marriage?

Yes, maybe you interpret the Constitution as banning states from passing laws prohibiting interracial marriages but not abortion, but others do not - just as others disagree with your view that an embryo has a soul (yes, I know Christians usually say their opposition is based on different grounds, but in my experience, opposition to abortion is far more common among Christians than among non-theists, and theists who believe in other religions tend to support whatever their religion supports, so I see a correlation there).

Anyway, what if, for instance, a legislature passed a law establishing strict limits on reproduction, including forced abortions, etc.?

Or maybe enforced blood donations?
Organ donations?
Just a ban on tattoos and piercings?

Sure, you could point out differences between those situations and abortion.

But similarly, someone could point out differences between, say, the killing of a pinhead-sized embryo and that of a 10-years old kid.

Some of those differences will surely be seen as more important than others by some people, and some other people will of course disagree, but in any case, the SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution and strike down some state laws interfering with people's control over their bodies, while allowing others, even if the Constitution says nothing explicitly about those matters.

[EvilVampire]

Which is why Roe SHOULD be overturned. Abortion is not a subject that should be up for discussion on a federal level. It should be left up to the states to decide their own laws.

In which cases should states be allowed to decide?


Interracial marriages?
Tattoos?
Piercings?
Burkas?
Same-gender marriage?
Same-gender sexual intercourse?
Sodomy laws?
Minimum wages?
Work conditions standards ?

Before Roe it was illegal in 33 states because the majority of the voters in those states WANTED it that way. The federal government has no right to tell those states that their citizen's opinions don't count just becuase a few liberal extremists went over thier heads. Like KOC said, if you can't have your way legally in your own state, there's always the left coast.

Yet, a similar case could be made in regard to tattoos or interracial marriage - which most people in some states wanted to ban, and which ban had been accepted for a very long time, without many people showing outrage at the constitutional violation.

Yes, I know the mainstream right-wing of today (it wasn't so in the past) claims the US Constitution prohibits bans on interracial marriage but not on abortion. Others disagree, and the question is who gets to appoint more Justices of their liking (I mean, Justices who are of course correct on the matter ...according to the one picking them )