Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Joey D]

Then in that case, no I don't think the fetus has rights. It's still part of the mother's body.

And yes the issues should be determined on a lower level then the national government and it should be by a public vote.

 

[Danoff]

This nice little discussion we're having here is certainly a good example of why abortion issues should be decided as locally as possible.

But, on the other hand, the question of where personhood begins would have to be universal.

I'm gonna need more explanation here. The second phrase seems to nullify the first. Once you define when "personhood" begins, you're done with abortion questions are you not?

 

[Duke]

Guys, I realize this is A) fruitful discussion, and B) relevant to the original topic, but we have an existing abortion thread. If you're going in depth on the abortion topic, please consider moving the discussion there.

 

[Omnis]

I'm gonna need more explanation here. The second phrase seems to nullify the first. Once you define when "personhood" begins, you're done with abortion questions are you not?

It does. That's why the issue is ultimately confounding. I guess you could say the point is that it should be a locally determined thing until we know the truth/come to a definite, universal conclusion.

 

[YSSMAN]

These options are in spite of a government-enforced monopoly on phone carriers (and probably cable carriers). Wherever the free market is present, you have options. And one thing that people do not do well is give up services they currently have.

We'll have to see what the market does assuming that legislation does not pass. It will likely be the cell phone companies who spoil the fun for the companies who do not want to play nice, but, we'll have to see.

Its just one issue that sticks out for me against McCain.

=====

New Topic?

Within the week, we're likely to find out who Obama's VP choice will be. Not too long after, we'll find out who McCain's choice will be.

Anyone have thoughts of who they'd like to see? Or, for that matter, what you're looking for in a VP for either candidate?

Its my understanding that McCain is still looking heavily into Mitt Romney and (oddly enough?) Tom Ridge, the former head of The Department of Homeland Security. The argument I'm hearing from most of my Republican friends is that he needs a fairly hardcore conservative on social issues to pull in more of the family-values base. It seems like Mitt Romney would be the stronger choice with those two, but both are pretty weak on the abortion issue (which will likely mean that others are being considered), however it seems safe to assume that they are all "conservative enough" by comparison to McCain.

As for Obama, the names keep bouncing around. Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are the two biggest names being mentioned, Time Kaine being a fairly consistent mention as a running mate as well. I'm personally only familiar with the first two, and of them, Bill Richardson seems the most-appealing. He would presumably be able to bring in a stronger Latino vote, and his foreign policy experience would be a welcome addition should they be elected. But, I'm not opposed to Biden either.

It will be interesting to see what happens as I'm under the impression that there are a lot of undecided voters who are waiting for the VP candidates to help that decision along.

 

[Sage]

We'll have to see what the market does assuming that legislation does not pass. It will likely be the cell phone companies who spoil the fun for the companies who do not want to play nice, but, we'll have to see.

Its just one issue that sticks out for me against McCain.

You seem to have missed the rest of Danoff's post (the part that addresses the moral issue):

Fundamentally, you cannot have a right to have something provided to you and still live in a free society. In America, you should get access to other people's labor by voluntary methods - not via coercion. That means you absolutely cannot have a right to any sort of internet access or web content. Because if you do, that content has to be provided to you by someone.

You do not have a right to force an ISP to provide you with any kind of service whatsoever. They own their business, can offer whatever packages they choose, and can make deals/contracts with whomever they choose. For you to take the position that you can usurp their freedom because you want access to youtube is beyond arrogant and selfish - it's immoral.

I see no reason that an ISP's freedom of contract should be usurped. I see no reason that an ISP's freedom to offer whatever services they choose should be usurped.

 

[YSSMAN]

Its a difference of personal beliefs, and I'm fine with that. I think what this conversation has demonstrated, if anything, is that it likely depends on how you're viewing the legislation that will determine what you believe to be "right" by any sense of the measure... That's politics. I'm concerned about the people and the businesses on opposite ends of the internet, so consequently I'm all for maintaining Net Neutrality to keep the peace. If you're understandably pro-business and a firm believer that the market will keep things level, hey, I completely understand as well. Its just my opinion that things will have to work out differently.

I have enough confidence in both business and government to do what is right (well, I assume so at this point, har har), and I'm quite sure that I'll be speaking with all my congressmen to voice my opinion when the legislation comes to vote. Either way, its one reason (among many) that I'll be voting for Obama versus McCain in the fall.

 

[Sage]

If you're understandably pro-business and a firm believer that the market will keep things level, hey, I completely understand as well. Its just my opinion that things will have to work out differently.

But that’s not the issue – that’s an aside. I happen to think the free market will work it out, but it doesn’t matter what I think, and it doesn’t matter whether I’m right or wrong.

What matters is whether it’s morally okay to force – physically force – a voluntary, consensual, contractual business agreement to your side without the other’s consent. When the contract is presented to you, you have free will to not sign the contract because there isn’t a line in it saying “We will not throttle any particular service or website at any time”. If you don’t agree with the contract, then don’t sign it – nobody’s holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign that contract. Internet access is not a right – it’s a nice luxury to have, but it’s not a right, not even a necessity. The ISPs have no obligation to even offer you internet access at all.

I realize Poly Sci probably teaches that politics is a whimsical, fluid subject that should be based on the wants of the voters. You can’t have that – you can’t have a system that tramples over the rights of a minority (business owners) because of the whims of a majority (consumers). You can’t have a system that suddenly decides millions of contracts don’t apply just because the majority of people want something more than the contracts they voluntarily signed onto. You can’t have a system that uses force against an entity that has broken no rules. You can’t have a system where the majority decides what “rights” are, because the majority will always vote away the rights of the minority.

 

[YSSMAN]

It is very true the last bits there, and it is simply how politics works in the great sense of things. I'd love to say that I have a better way around it, but I really don't. I really don't think anyone in Washington does either. Politics is about compromise, unfortunately, I'm even remotely aware if there would even be anything close to a compromise on the issue.

 

[Danoff]

Politics is about compromise, unfortunately

That's what the constitution is for - to draw the line on what cannot be compromised.

 

[Joey D]

That's what the constitution is for - to draw the line on what cannot be compromised.

Except the Constitution can be changed, even though it's a bit difficult to do so.

 

[Danoff]

Except the Constitution can be changed, even though it's a bit difficult to do so.

Yes, but this is not an activity that should be embarked upon in response to public demand alone. Changes should be carefully rooted in rational thinking.

 

[Tornado]

Or else you get lovely things like number 18.

 

[YSSMAN]

Except the Constitution can be changed, even though it's a bit difficult to do so.

Which is one of the best things about it. Even if I'm not a very strict constitutionalist, the last thing that I'd want to do is change it... That's where the push of power down to the states comes in handy.

 

[Solid Fro]

Another gaffe by The Chosen One?



I would like tho know who Obama's president is?

New Topic?

Within the week, we're likely to find out who Obama's VP choice will be. Not too long after, we'll find out who McCain's choice will be.

Anyone have thoughts of who they'd like to see? Or, for that matter, what you're looking for in a VP for either candidate?

I would like to see former Oklahoma representative and GOPAC chairman J. C. Watts as McCain's VP. It would remove Obama's capability of playing his race card.

I think VP choice is much more important for 2008. McCain is picking his successor in 2012 and the Democrats will have at least a potential candidate.

 

[YSSMAN]

I was watching Hardball last night and they were really pushing the idea that McCain is leaning heavily towards Libermann, which at least in my opinion is going to be the political equivalent of a bullet in the foot with the GOP "base" voters. The only major issue they really agree on is Iraq, but with McCain jumping on the "hey I'm a crazy pro-life guy" train while Libermann has been fairly clear with his pro-choice stance... That could get messy fast. Especially when McCain is already saying he wants to do a single-term Presidency.

As for Obama, the word is from my campaign friends that we could hear on Thursday who it is, but no one is completely sure. I think most of the Democrats and Independents who are truly concerned with Obama's chances to win are counting on the nomination of Sen. Biden to make it to the White House. Hes served long enough in the senate and has had a strong enough foreign policy experience to offset McCain and his "experience," but, I'm not completely sure if there is enough chemistry between them to make it feel right. We'll see.

The choices for VP are going to be crucial for both of them, so, lets hope they make good decisions between them.

 

[Danoff]

What you wrote:

I think most of the Democrats and Independents who are truly concerned with Obama's chances to win are counting on the nomination of Sen. Biden to make it to the White House.

What I heard:

I think most of the Democrats and Independents who are truly concerned with Obama's chances to win are counting on the nomination of Sen. Beelzebub to make it to the White House.

 

[YSSMAN]

It looks like the rumors are leading us to two pretty specific VP nominations:

For McCain, its all starting to center around Mitt Romney. For Obama, it seems fairly certain that Joe Biden will be announced tomorrow.

I'm happy with the Biden nomination for Obama (I would have preferred Gov. Richardson of New Mexico), but the Romney choice pretty much seals the deal against McCain for me. I can't stand the guy, even the strongest conservative friends of mine can't and we're all from Michigan, his "home state." We'll see how these things play out in the coming days, but it seems fairly certain that Biden will have to re-introduce himself to a lot of Americans again.

 

[Danoff]

it seems fairly certain that Biden will have to re-introduce himself to a lot of Americans again.

Biden is basically an unashamed communist. He's about as anti-american as it gets. He'd be considered leftist in Soviet Russia.

On my list of hated politicians there's Hillary, and then there's Biden.

 

[Omnis]

Biden is basically an unashamed communist. He's about as anti-american as it gets. He'd be considered leftist in Soviet Russia.

On my list of hated politicians there's Hillary, and then there's Biden.

No Edwards? You're kidding me.

 

[Danoff]

No Edwards? You're kidding me.

Well I didn't finish the list. It was basically number 1 and numer 2. I could have kept going I suppose... but I was also kinda limiting myself to politicians that matter today - which doesn't include Edwards.

If it had been a list of politicians who once mattered, Roosevelt goes at the top of the list.

 

[Omnis]

Well I didn't finish the list. It was basically number 1 and numer 2. I could have kept going I suppose... but I was also kinda limiting myself to politicians that matter today - which doesn't include Edwards.

If it had been a list of politicians who once mattered, Roosevelt goes at the top of the list.

True.

 

[Solid Fro]

Edwards has to worry about being a baby daddy, not second in line to the presidency.

Edit...

It's Biden.

It's 3 AM and your children are safe and asleep, but there is a phone ringing, you've received a text message. Something is happening in the world. Obama has picked a running-mate...

O Hai!
stil ur BFF?
srsly i heart JOE BIDEN
u wil 2!
LOL
dnt forget 2 donate!
LOL
kthxbai!

edit...

And the beat goes on:

 

[YSSMAN]

That little deal earlier in the year I had assumed wrote Biden off completely when it was going to come to being VP, but I was wrong. Oddly enough it was my cousin Mike (from Chicago) that mentioned Biden as a VP nod months ago, but I didn't believe him, I was holding out for Bill Richardson. We'll see what kind of picture they're going to paint at the convention, it should be interesting to see how those two work together. The big keys for the Biden choice are on foreign policy and labor relations, so it will be interesting to see how his name effects states like Pennsylvania and Ohio later in the year.

The big question:

Does he know how many houses he owns?

 

[Omnis]

Foreign policy and labor relations? Biden-- the remote controller.

 

[Solid Fro]

Foreign policy? Is this the same guy who thought dividing Iraq into separate pieces was a good idea?

 

[Joey D]

Based on things I'm reading from local newspapers and internet automotive sites it looks like both McCain and Obama want to bail out Detroit's Big Three. Now my question is why should the government give money to three companies that failed because they a.) exported jobs out of the US to Canada, Mexico, and other countries, b.) built crappy products, and c.) gave into way to many demands from the UAW? This makes no sense to me. I don't want my tax dollars going to corporations, if I want to support the Big Three I'll buy one of their cars.

 

[Tornado]

Now my question is why should the government give money to three companies that failed because they

Because if they don't and any one of them (Chrysler) goes under, the economy will take decades to recover. The last thing the country needs in a recession is for a hundred thousand people to get laid off at once. I'm not sure I agree with it (though I would rather have that happen then have Chrysler dissolve, especially since Chrysler sucking isn't Chrysler's fault at all), but there may be no alternative. Both candidates should probably shut up about it and see how things play out in the coming year, though, before they go around promising bailouts.

 

[YSSMAN]

Although bailouts are hardly anywhere close to a good idea, I'm sure that both you (Joey) and I have a fairly good idea of how quickly our state would collapse without the big three paying checks for most of the people here. The difference that I've noted so far is that its pretty well varied between Obama and McCain as to how they wish to handle the situation, and although a $4 Billion figure has been thrown around as an idea in Washington, I've heard that they (the automakers) could ask for $25 Billion.

While I'm personally uncertain that bailouts are anywhere close to a "good idea" by any politician, I would instead look towards a greater amount of investment in our state for further green engineering projects, and possibly, the suggestion that GM/Ford/Chrysler could eventually build say wind turbines instead of just cars and trucks. Of course, that all depends on what Detroit is able to do within the next 12-18 months.

====

I was on Digg this evening and came across an interesting story...

Remember when Ron Paul took second in Nevada ahead of McCain? Apparently there is a bit of a fight going on in Nevada over who is representing what, and certainly, it paints an interesting picture within the Republican party. I'd be very interested to hear how this turns out, and when I hear more, I'll share.

 

[Omnis]

Because if they don't and any one of them (Chrysler) goes under, the economy will take decades to recover. The last thing the country needs in a recession is for a hundred thousand people to get laid off at once. I'm not sure I agree with it (though I would rather have that happen then have Chrysler dissolve, especially since Chrysler sucking isn't Chrysler's fault at all), but there may be no alternative. Both candidates should probably shut up about it and see how things play out in the coming year, though, before they go around promising bailouts.

Fascism is a bitch.