Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[YSSMAN]

Well, lets be honest. I think it is safe to say that we've benefited by the existence of the Justice Department (maintaining law and order), the introduction of the Department of Agriculture (better maintaining America's farmlands, increased production with farm subsidies), certainly with the Department of Labor (managing labor laws), etc. All of those, technically, are outlawed by section II of the Constitution.

Federal regulation, although certainly restrictive on business, has benefited Americans by making the food and water we consume safe to drink or eat, make our farms more productive, and certainly enforce laws more heavily and (generally) highly discourage illegal activity with the existence of the FBI and the like.

Sure, the government shouldn't have to get involved, but looking back on many of the things that had been improved by Roosevelt, Taft, FDR, Johnson and the like... Its hard to imagine that this nation would be nearly as great as it is today. Well, maybe wind the clock back a little bit, we aren't quite as great as we were ten years ago...

Meh. Depends on how you look at it of course.

So, care to elaborate on the unconstitutional policies of Obama?

 

[Danoff]

Well, lets be honest. I think it is safe to say that we've benefited by the existence of the Justice Department (maintaining law and order),

The justice system is actually a mandated activity REQUIRED by the constitution.

the introduction of the Department of Agriculture (better maintaining America's farmlands, increased production with farm subsidies), certainly with the Department of Labor (managing labor laws), etc. All of those, technically, are outlawed by section II of the Constitution.

Those are both holding us back. Farm subsidies do increase production, but that's not a good thing. Increased production without the demand to meet it means that we're paying for food we aren't eating. That's a drain on the economy. The department of labor is also wholly unnecessary and a drain on the economy. Didn't I see you ranting about GM unions in another thread?

Federal regulation, although certainly restrictive on business, has benefited Americans by making the food and water we consume safe to drink or eat, make our farms more productive,

More production can sometimes mean waste. Residential and commercial water is completely regulated by the government - socialist style, but people still turn to private water companies for better quality. As for food, that's a self regulating system.

but looking back on many of the things that had been improved by... FDR... and the like...

FDR is responsible for some of the worst aspects of government we have today. Social Security??? FDR is still threatening to bankrupt the country - not just through programs, but by introducing socialism to the US.

So, care to elaborate on the unconstitutional policies of Obama?

Shall we start with his healthcare plan?

 

[YSSMAN]

Like it or not, we're gonna get a healthcare plan from any of the candidates. I'd personally prefer Obama's over Hillary's (that whole issue about garnishing my wages tends to piss me off a bit, that, and her improper choices for creating these funds), but generally speaking, I honestly can't say that the Republican alternatives are that much better. Romney clearly is just telling us to go get coverage, which many of us (including myself) can't afford, and then plans to pay us back with a tax cut that simply put won't offset the cost.

Its a messy system, and we could all benefit by clearing it up. The whole thing, not just heathcare.

Like we discussed at length in class today, everyone talks a good game, and truthfully these constitutional ideals are some of the greatest mankind has ever seen. But the problem is that in application, in reality, they often times do not work. The founders knew that, this is why the constitution is amendable, but this document that clearly was written by rich, white, land-owning men can only go so far as the times change.

Ideology vs Reality, that is something that will have to be addressed in this election.

 

[Danoff]

Like it or not, we're gonna get a healthcare plan from any of the candidates. I'd personally prefer Obama's over Hillary's (that whole issue about garnishing my wages tends to piss me off a bit, that, and her improper choices for creating these funds), but generally speaking, I honestly can't say that the Republican alternatives are that much better. Romney clearly is just telling us to go get coverage, which many of us (including myself) can't afford, and then plans to pay us back with a tax cut that simply put won't offset the cost.

Its a messy system, and we could all benefit by clearing it up. The whole thing, not just heathcare.

Like we discussed at length in class today, everyone talks a good game, and truthfully these constitutional ideals are some of the greatest mankind has ever seen. But the problem is that in application, in reality, they often times do not work. The founders knew that, this is why the constitution is amendable, but this document that clearly was written by rich, white, land-owning men can only go so far as the times change.

Ideology vs Reality, that is something that will have to be addressed in this election.

That's it? No response to anything I wrote above? Just lofty "nothing else works" defense of socialized medicine?

I thought we were actually having a discussion...

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, heres the best answer I can give: I'm split, and I don't care much for anyone's current suggestion. More or less its a choice of whats less-painful with every candidate given that every one of them (with the exception of Paul) are looking for some kind of expanded role of government in heathcare.

Like I said, its all fun and games and easy to talk about the perfection that is a strict constitutional platform. I even do it myself on occasion. But through personal expirience, I've seen that there is a time for government decrease and a time for government increase. No, I personally do not want to see the government get more involved with our daily lives, but on the national scale, I'm beginning to see that its becoming drastically important that something be done to address the problems of poverty, healthcare, economic imbalance, civil liberties, and the massive amount of debt that our party... The Republican party... Has just shifted onto our generation, our kids' generation, and our kids' kids generation.

Simply put, I don't have the answers, which likely means that I should shut up. But the good thing is that I care, and listen to the different sides of the arguement. If someone was to tell me back in 2004 when I fully-backed Bush and his policies that I'd be considering backing a Democrat in 2008, I'd likely punch them. No, I don't like turning to the party of Pelosi and Clinton for answers, but I don't think that Regan's party is doing any better either.

We'll see what happens of course. It looks like Romney is pulling out today, which is a good thing for America. One hopes that the Democratic contest can be settled quickly as well. I want to get to the meat of the argument and have a good discussion of policy with candidates at the forefront. We are at a fork in the road, and I don't think either are going to be particularly horrible, but I can't see either being particularly good either. I'd generally choose not to compare it to the race in 2000, but maybe something closer to what we saw in 1968. Politics is a messy game, and rarely is anyone completely right.

Still, I look forward to the political discussion on these boards, even if I may not be good at addressing all of the issues directly and having all the answers... There is only so much that a Political Science student can do!

 

[Danoff]

But through personal expirience, I've seen that there is a time for government decrease and a time for government increase. No, I personally do not want to see the government get more involved with our daily lives, but on the national scale, I'm beginning to see that its becoming drastically important that something be done to address the problems of poverty, healthcare, economic imbalance, civil liberties, and the massive amount of debt that our party... The Republican party... Has just shifted onto our generation, our kids' generation, and our kids' kids generation.

Nevermind the fact that you closed this paragraph with an example of government interference backfiring. I think what you're lacking is a clear understanding of how a lack of government intervention can in practice help with problems of "poverty, healthcare, etc."

I stopped short of "economic imbalance" because economic imbalance is not a bad thing. Economic imbalance is a symptom of a system that rewards different people differently - based on their productivity. the only way to eliminate "economic imbalance" is to unjustly reward some with the fruits of other's labors. So economic imbalance is not a problem at all - in fact, it's a badge of honor.

Your civil liberties example above is also one in which the intervening government is the real problem.

But, you really believe that the solution to poverty (like there is a solution) and healthcare is to grow the size of government? I just want to make sure of that before I give you a detailed example of how shrinking the size of government will help both of those things.

 

[livemusic]

I haven't followed this issue much so far but I'll keep an eye on this thread.

 

[Joey D]

Looks like Romney is out of the race:

Romney suspends White House bid
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has suspended his campaign for the Republican party nomination for the US presidency.

Mr Romney spent millions of dollars of his own money on the campaign, but fell well behind front-runner John McCain after Super Tuesday's primaries.

Correspondents say his exit has in effect cleared the way for Senator McCain as Republican candidate.

Senator McCain congratulated Mr Romney and invited his supporters to join him.

"You are welcome to join my campaign, and it will be a campaign based on conservative principles and a consequential election about the country's future," he said.

"I'd be deeply humbled to receive the nomination of my party as we continue to move forward in this campaign."

The BBC's Kevin Connolly in Washington says Senator McCain worked hard to reach out to conservative Republicans, who have frequently attacked him for being too liberal.

He stressed his support for core issues such the pro-life movement and permanent tax cuts, as well as President Bush's troop surge in Iraq.

Officially former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still in the campaign, but they stand no realistic chance of victory.

Tough decision

Analysts, however, say Mr Romney has not officially dropped out of the race. Suspending the campaign allows him to lay claim to his delegates and use them as leverage to win concessions from the eventual nominee.

He announced his decision at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

He said the decision had not been an easy one.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or [Barack] Obama to win," Mr Romney said at the conference.

He added that he would continue to fight for conservative principles, which were now needed more than ever.

"I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st Century - still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower," he said.

A successful businessman, he had hoped to be the first US president from the Mormon religion.

But he failed to translate leads in opinion polls into victories in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

In recent weeks, conservatives in the party rallied behind him as a candidate who they hoped could stop Senator McCain.

But the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says he faced resistance among some evangelical Christians because of his Mormon faith.

He also had difficulty convincing his party that he held strong beliefs on some very important subjects, such as abortion rights, immigration and gun ownership.

'Unite the party'

Mr McCain skipped the annual conference last year, angering many members of the group.

He enjoyed wins in the big states of California and New York, as well as Illinois, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Missouri, Connecticut, Delaware, and his home state of Arizona.

Some key conservative figures have refused to vote for Mr McCain in the presidential election if he wins the nomination.

Mr Huckabee, who is popular with evangelical Christians, took five states on Tuesday, backing up the widely held view that Mr McCain lacks support from conservatives in his own party.

Mr Huckabee will speak to the conservative conference on Saturday.

 

[Omnis]

Lol @ people who voted Romney instead of Paul because they didn't want to waste their vote. All of these guys are in cahoots with each other.

Anyway, I still hope this thing ends up being decided by a brokered convention. Ron Paul kicked ass a CPAC today and there may be some hope left.

 

[Sage]

What happens to Romney’s delegates?

 

[YSSMAN]

Nevermind the fact that you closed this paragraph with an example of government interference backfiring. I think what you're lacking is a clear understanding of how a lack of government intervention can in practice help with problems of "poverty, healthcare, etc."

No no, I understand it quite well. But the thing is, I'm not certain that it is the best way of doing things either. Belief in the market is always a good thing, but even Hoover did that, and look where that got us...

Could it "work" today? Its hard to say of course. I'd prefer not to take a position either way without seeing solid data, but that being said, I think the Democrats have a better grasp as to how to deal with it sooner than later. This "trickle down" effect that has been practiced by the GOP, more or less, has not worked effectively. The income gap has increased, deficits are up, and the economy is in the toilet. Things could get better, I don't know... Economics have always been a weak point for me in Politics. I'm a foreign policy guy.

I stopped short of "economic imbalance" because economic imbalance is not a bad thing. Economic imbalance is a symptom of a system that rewards different people differently - based on their productivity. the only way to eliminate "economic imbalance" is to unjustly reward some with the fruits of other's labors. So economic imbalance is not a problem at all - in fact, it's a badge of honor.

And I whole-heartedly agree with you! I often come under a lot of fire for putting a large ammount of emphasis on work to justify rewards... But at the same time, you've also got to be able to recognize that there are millions of Americans who will never have the same opportunities as you and I. Its a catch-22 again, of course. I don't want to give hand-outs, but I want to help. Presumably then, it would be in the best interest for the government to better fund education programs in inner-cities and give these kids the opportunity they deserve?

Your civil liberties example above is also one in which the intervening government is the real problem.

Quite right. I'd certainly advocate for the removal or a significant rewrite of the Patriot Act, and furthermore a significant decrease in the domestic spying power of the NSA/CIA and such. The government doesn't need to watch us like they have, and thats why I support Obama's policies to address these issues.

But, you really believe that the solution to poverty (like there is a solution) and healthcare is to grow the size of government? I just want to make sure of that before I give you a detailed example of how shrinking the size of government will help both of those things.

I don't have the right answer, simply put. I'm interested to hear how the proposals shift as the November election draws closer together, but as of right now, I'm not a huge fan of the mass socialization of policies by Obama, but I certainly find it difficult to support the "same-ol, same-ol" policies of McCain that thus far haven't worked either.

My problem likely is that alike many Americans, I want instant fixes for our problems; That obviously isn't feasible. I haven't thrown all of my eggs in the Obama basket, but I certainly wouldn't mind supporting him come November. We'll of course see how things shake out.

Don't worry, I voted for Ron Paul in the Michigan Primary. I still have my Ron Paul stuff all over MyBook and FaceSpace. I'm interested to see who Ron Paul supports, that is, if he does... But of course, one does have to find an alternative candidate these days.

 

[Danoff]

No no, I understand it quite well. But the thing is, I'm not certain that it is the best way of doing things either. Belief in the market is always a good thing, but even Hoover did that, and look where that got us...

I'm gonna need more specifics about how Hoover followed the market to disaster.

Could it "work" today? Its hard to say of course. I'd prefer not to take a position either way without seeing solid data, but that being said, I think the Democrats have a better grasp as to how to deal with it sooner than later. This "trickle down" effect that has been practiced by the GOP, more or less, has not worked effectively.

Uh.... what? The GOP is practicing a "trickle down" policy? That's news to me. If you're talking about the Bush tax cuts, I'd point you to the corresponding increase in tax revenue following the tax cut. That's like having your cake and eating it too.

The income gap has increased, deficits are up, and the economy is in the toilet.

First of all, the economy is not in the toilet. But even if you did think that it was in the toilet, I'd point you to a bazillion things that the democrats are planning to do that will make matters far worse. Step 1, raise taxes, step 2 start more government handouts.

And for the love of god stop complaining about income gaps. Who cares? Again, unequal rewards is a symptom of a GOOD economic system. One that WORKS.

But at the same time, you've also got to be able to recognize that there are millions of Americans who will never have the same opportunities as you and I.

What opportunities have you and I had that these other millions of Americans have not?

Its a catch-22 again, of course. I don't want to give hand-outs, but I want to help.

And I'd say the same thing to you that I'd say to any person who wanted to help - give to charity. You're free to help as much or as little as you want. But it's wrong to attempt to put a gun to the heads of others to get them to help.

Presumably then, it would be in the best interest for the government to better fund education programs in inner-cities and give these kids the opportunity they deserve?

The US public education system is a pimple on the backside of the world. Take it from me, I went through it. It's not due to lack of funding either. It's due to the fact that it's a bad system. The government is bad at just about everything it does. Why on Earth would you advocate getting it any more involved in something it's already doing a piss-poor job of.

Quite right. I'd certainly advocate for the removal or a significant rewrite of the Patriot Act, and furthermore a significant decrease in the domestic spying power of the NSA/CIA and such. The government doesn't need to watch us like they have, and thats why I support Obama's policies to address these issues.

Ok, what about his gun control policies? What about his environmental policies? What about the sorts of regulations he (no doubt) wants to extend to auto manufacturers? Public smoking? Democrats are not the safe haven for liberty that so many think (not that the answer is the republicans mind you).

I don't have the right answer, simply put. I'm interested to hear how the proposals shift as the November election draws closer together, but as of right now, I'm not a huge fan of the mass socialization of policies by Obama, but I certainly find it difficult to support the "same-ol, same-ol" policies of McCain that thus far haven't worked either.

Vote Libertarian.

My problem likely is that alike many Americans, I want instant fixes for our problems; That obviously isn't feasible. I haven't thrown all of my eggs in the Obama basket, but I certainly wouldn't mind supporting him come November.

If you want solutions, pay attention to what Obama is saying and tell me if you really think it'll solve anything.

 

[Omnis]

Vote Libertarian.

Or Constitution Party.

 

[High-Test]

Am I the only one not surprised that Huckabee won Kansas? Kansas has been one of the reddest states year after year, and many republicans are anti-McCain. Duh they voted Huckabee! That and he was a minister. Many people I know voted for Bush only because "he is a good Christian."

 

[Joey D]

Obama swept the Democrat's primaries today. Sort of surprising and a bit of a blow to Clinton I would think. Huckabee won Kansas but did anyone honestly think the heart of the Bible Belt would vote any different?

Obama takes US poll clean sweep
Barack Obama has won three more states in the battle for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The Illinois senator won by wide margins in the states of Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska.

Mr Obama is neck-and-neck with Hillary Clinton in the nationwide battle to be the party's nominee.

For the Republicans, Mike Huckabee has won the Kansas caucus - although analysts say he still stands no chance of catching front-runner John McCain.

Mr Obama also won caucuses in the US Virgin Islands.

The BBC's James Coomarasamy says the results in the Democratic contests will not be decisive, but they will return the momentum to Mr Obama.

As for the Republicans, our correspondent says that Mr Huckabee's victory in Kansas shows that there is a constituency within the Republican Party that is very suspicious of John McCain, and that Mr McCain has some work to do to unite the party.

Mr Huckabee and third-placed Ron Paul have already been coming under pressure to step aside for the sake of party unity.

For his part, Mr Huckabee said on Saturday that he had no intention of quitting.

"Am I quitting? Let's get that settled right now. No, I'm not," he said.

"I majored in miracles, and I still believe in them."

Going into Saturday's contests, Mr McCain had a wide lead with 719 delegates, to Mr Huckabee's 198 and Mr Paul's 14.

Mr Romney's suspended campaign still has 298 delegates.

On the Democratic side, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are facing the prospect of a long drawn-out battle after neither was able to deliver a knock-out blow in Super Tuesday's 22 state contests.

Fight for funds

In advance of the 9 February contests Mrs Clinton had won 1,055 delegates to Mr Obama's 998 of the 2,025 needed to secure victory at the Democratic party convention in August.

Mr Obama's success in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska will add to his delegate tally and buoy up his supporters.

But Mrs Clinton's campaign says that it expects to take victory at the forthcoming primaries in Maine on 10 February and in Texas and Ohio on 4 March.

As well as fighting for every vote, the candidates are also jostling for funds.

The Obama campaign says it has raised $7m (£3.6m) since Tuesday.

The Clinton camp is now claiming a similar fund raising bump, gaining $6.4m. They earlier admitted that the former first lady had lent her campaign $5m to paper over what aides called a "temporary cash flow problem".

Democrats
Hillary Clinton: 1084 delegates, 13 states
Barack Obama: 1057 delegates, 18 states

Republicans
John McCain: 719 delegates, 12 states
Mike Huckabee: 234 delegates, 7 states
Ron Paul: 14 delegates, 0 states

Am I the only one not surprised that Huckabee won Kansas? Kansas has been one of the reddest states year after year, and many republicans are anti-McCain. Duh they voted Huckabee! That and he was a minister. Many people I know voted for Bush only because "he is a good Christian."

I missed this while I was posting, but no I am not surprised. Frankly I think it is stupid to vote for someone who is that religious. Like I said Huckabee takes a literal approach to the Bible which honestly does not hold much confidence for him. The US is not a Christian Nation no matter how much some of the Christians want it to be, this is a nation of freedom of religions meaning you can practice whatever religion you like or just say hooey on it altogether. I just can't see a former minister respecting the separation of church and state as much as he should.

 

[Omnis]

It might as well have been a 3-way tie in Washington too. Ron Paul probably could have won if he didn't send out the stupidest email EVER yesterday. Basically, he said he was cutting staff and making sure to defend his congressional seat. I swear, he has some jokers running his campaign. They all took him for a ride big time.

Also, Joey, way to show some ignorance in your last paragraph there. If you feel that way about Huckabee, fine, but all ministers and religious people are not Huckabee.

I think it's becoming clearer that the Democrats are going to win the white house. Every state has like double or triple democratic turnout. The GOP killed itself. New Deal² time, folks. Holla @ Switzerland.

 

[Azuremen]

Not another FDR deal...

And thank god someone else here thinks FDR was horrible to the country... I give you a million invisible rep, Danoff.

 

[Joey D]

Also, Joey, way to show some ignorance in your last paragraph there. If you feel that way about Huckabee, fine, but all ministers and religious people are not Huckabee.

Where did I say that?

 

[Omnis]

Where did I say that?

Here:

The US is not a Christian Nation no matter how much some of the Christians want it to be, this is a nation of freedom of religions meaning you can practice whatever religion you like or just say hooey on it altogether. I just can't see a former minister respecting the separation of church and state as much as he should.

Replace "a" with "the" and "he" with "Huckabee" and no hard feelings.

 

[Joey D]

Well to be honest I honestly can't see any minister/priest/religious leader respecting the separation of church and state fully. Look at President Bush now, he's made decisions based on his faith and not what is good for the country, the whole stem cell thing comes to mind. I'm all for you being and practicing whatever religion you want to, just do not put your views on the country because you think it goes against your higher being.

 

[Omnis]

There you go again...

 

[Joey D]

Would you care to add a little more to your reply? I can't imagine any religious leader being in office and not trying to push their "moral" views. I find this sort of odd coming from someone who wants the Constitution to be upheld like yourself. Does out country not adhere to the policy of freedom of religion?

 

[Omnis]

You're being incredibly presumptuous. Besides, the Constitution was designed to prevent that very thing.

At the same time, I can only wonder how people can be so wary of theocracy without being equally critical of secular agenda.

 

[YSSMAN]

Not another FDR deal...

And thank god someone else here thinks FDR was horrible to the country... I give you a million invisible rep, Danoff.

I don't think anyone likes the gigantic expansion of government that we've been trying to reset for the last 70 years, but one does have to give FDR credit for putting the country onto the path to recovery (that WWII ultimately finished). Hoover's "blame the Europeans" and "we didn't do it, believe in the market, it will correct itself" practices only pushed us deeper and deeper into recession, so whether we like it or not, FDR's policies essentially saved our government.

I completely agree that FDR is over-glorified as this messiah who saved our country, but he certainly played a large role in fixing what was wrong. On a similar note, I kinda think the same way about Ronald Regan too. He certainly managed to gain a reputation as this great President despite the fact that he managed to extend the debt into unforeseen territory and left conditions for an economic downturn that his predecessor would eventually have to deal with, leading to the installation of the "Great Satan" Bill Clinton.

Its fun being a poli sci major with a history minor, it lets you see a lot of different topics from different perspectives. It would be great if some of the idiots in Washington could do the same, as it seems impossible to have a rational and constitutional government anymore. Absolutely none of the candidates have the best solution (other than Ron Paul), but as far as the choices that have enough delegates to gain the nomination, its a matter of what you find to be the best option. None of them are really all that different, they all seem to advocate for the same thing... Well, except for 100 years in Iraq and slightly different ways of otherwise creating socialized medicine.


===

As for the religious vs secular government arguement, its something we're stuck with, so we just have to deal with it. Like it or not, our government was built on Christian principles and values, and will likely continue to have a large influence on how our government works for generations to come. Like Omnis had said, the Constitution has rules/regulations preventing Huckabee's ideals of changing our laws to better match Christian values, not to mention the rather large faction of religiously moderate and otherwise secular Americans who would actively oppose his proposals.

...Don't worry. That "non-conservative" McCain has the nomination in the bag, so we're likely done with the Christian "right" for now (thank God). We just have to worry about that "Muslim" Obama getting in office...

(sorry, we joke about the outrageousness of those worries by some conservatives like that here at Aquinas. And just for the hell of it, "Iraq caused 9/11," so remember to trust the government kids!)

 

[Azuremen]

I don't think anyone likes the gigantic expansion of government that we've been trying to reset for the last 70 years, but one does have to give FDR credit for putting the country onto the path to recovery (that WWII ultimately finished). Hoover's "blame the Europeans" and "we didn't do it, believe in the market, it will correct itself" practices only pushed us deeper and deeper into recession, so whether we like it or not, FDR's policies essentially saved our government.

World War II didn't finish it as much as make it happen. Furthermore, FDR went against ideas of the Founding Fathers and such by bringing the government into, what had been, the private business sector. On top of that, his attempt to pack the Supreme Court, extra terms, and so on.

Whether or not the "New Deal" saved the economy is not the bigger issue; the war would have done that regardless. The amount of socialism he injected into the country makes him on of my least liked Presidents, right next to Teddy Roosevelt.

Religion and Secular views can be held separate by those that hold power. Huckabee and Romney I do not think are the cases for that, and I just see another Bush type deal with both of them. This would be the case if I was still actively Mormon in regard to Romney as well.

Ron Paul is personally against abortion, but felt states should make the decision himself. This is just the same as separating religious views from secular elements, as religious beliefs are just the same as one's personal beliefs. What is needed is the ability to realize that personal views are not always the correct path for the majority.

 

[YSSMAN]

Whether or not the "New Deal" saved the economy is not the bigger issue; the war would have done that regardless. The amount of socialism he injected into the country makes him on of my least liked Presidents, right next to Teddy Roosevelt.

Understandable, of course... FDR isn't my favorite, my family has actually had a long history of not liking him at all. As for Teddy, why not? I'd have to say that hes one of the best Presidents we've had, period. I'd very nearly rate him as my topic pick, unfortunately his imperialist views/practices somewhat hinder it.

Religion and Secular views can be held separate by those that hold power. Huckabee and Romney I do not think are the cases for that, and I just see another Bush type deal with both of them. This would be the case if I was still actively Mormon in regard to Romney as well.

For what I could call the "sane" portion of the GOP, I think its their outstandingly religious backgrounds that scare the pants off of us. Romney wasn't just a religious nut, he is an absolute idiot when it comes to foreign and economic policy. Anyone who comes into Michigan and has the guts to say "I'm going to bring the jobs back," automatically gets the "I R DUM" sticker on their forehead. An absolute idiot...

What is needed is the ability to realize that personal views are not always the correct path for the majority.

QFT, +1!

*sigh*

If only the rest of the people could figure it out...

 

[Azuremen]

Understandable, of course... FDR isn't my favorite, my family has actually had a long history of not liking him at all. As for Teddy, why not? I'd have to say that hes one of the best Presidents we've had, period. I'd very nearly rate him as my topic pick, unfortunately his imperialist views/practices somewhat hinder it.

Hey look, you said it for me. Thats entirely why I dislike him. "Hey, guys, lets just get Panama already... here lets help them have a revolution." From what I can recall, he basically started the US policy of nation building and foreign involvement for our benefit. And that policy is very much against the ideas and principals that created this nation.

You could look at the Spanish American war, but that was more of a Congress thing than McKinley's decision. So I'll forgive him.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, there is a bit of a lead-up to it. By most estimations, 1898 was our first big year as an "imperial" nation, taking over Hawaii in a bloodless coup, utilizing the Monroe Doctrine in Central and South America, and then of course the Spanish American War that placed us in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Haiti as well as Guam and the Philippines in the Pacific. One cannot forget about us prying open China with the "Open Door Policy" as well around this time...

I don't level all the blame with Roosevelt and the like, there were plenty of Senators and other businessmen who had a hand in that. Dole, for instance, comes to mind with the Hawaii situation...

You'd likely LOVE my American Foreign Policy class here at Aquinas. It has quickly become my favorite, ever. So many Americans are completely unaware of what we've done, and likely, why we've done it.

Spoiler

MONEY, MONEY, MORE MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

 

[Omnis]

If only the rest of the people could figure it out...

Yes, but that goes just as well for secularism as it does for religiosity. I think the recognition of religion and the guidance found within religion can be very helpful and important. The problem with the "religious nut" is the man, not the religion.

And besides, hearing Bush attempt to say "Eid Mubarak" would put a stupid grin on my face.

As far as FDR and the New Deal goes... the reason we got out of the depression is because the banks turned on the credit faucets to fund the war. Financiers will always fund war. Beforehand, we had everything a great economy needed... except for enough money in circulation to make the system work.

 

[Joey D]

Yes you should recognize religion, you just should not base decision for the whole country based off of your personal faith. You can look to your personal supreme being for guidance but at the end of the day you have to think about what it means for the country and if it's in violation of the Constitution.

Personally I don't like the idea of an abortion but I think if the government tells the population that they are suddenly illegal because it's morally wrong then they are forcing a religious agenda on to everyone. This is why I would never support and overly religious person for office and especially a minister. I know many people would and as Americans they have every right to do so however misguided it may be.