Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
I'm honestly surprised anyone can get worked up about McCain vs. Obama. In most of the important ways, it makes no difference. I have to say I really almost don't care which one wins.

I've been saying that for a while now. :lol:

What, no Obama/Paul dream team? Or have you fully transitioned from Paul to Obama now?

Obama/Paul dream team? That's another lol.

YSSMAN, I don't see how you or anyone can transition from Paul to Obama in the first place. They are so radically different.

Joey, you say Chuck Baldwin is "overly religious" but how familiar are you with him? I think the official Constitution Party platform language is a little religiously heavy, but I like Chuck and he has great respect for freedom of all kinds. He certainly isn't a hostile fundamentalist type. That said, Baldwin seems to have a more radical platform whereas Bob Barr's is similar but a bit more mainstream and transitional.
 
Ron Paul and Obama would be like oil and water, and although I sympathize with many of Ron Paul's issues, realistically I'm voting for a candidate that will take the country in a better direction for now... And that would certainly be Obama. I fully understand that their politics differ greatly on many points, and sure, that I can't have it both ways. But yeah, Obama has my vote. Hell, I've already given him money too...

The point here, and its something that I've tried to make before, is that we as the voting population need to decide between what is best for you, or what is best for the country. Given the truly viable options (and I'm not counting third party options... Bloomberg would have been the only candidate with a shot there), I feel Obama is the best choice, or at the very least, the one that won't raise my blood pressure too much. That sounds worse than I mean it, but in terms of what is rationally applicable to what the general population would want, Obama is really the only alternative.
 
Ron Paul and Obama would be like oil and water, and although I sympathize with many of Ron Paul's issues, realistically I'm voting for a candidate that will take the country in a better direction for now... And that would certainly be Obama. I fully understand that their politics differ greatly on many points, and sure, that I can't have it both ways. But yeah, Obama has my vote. Hell, I've already given him money too...

The point here, and its something that I've tried to make before, is that we as the voting population need to decide between what is best for you, or what is best for the country. Given the truly viable options (and I'm not counting third party options... Bloomberg would have been the only candidate with a shot there), I feel Obama is the best choice, or at the very least, the one that won't raise my blood pressure too much. That sounds worse than I mean it, but in terms of what is rationally applicable to what the general population would want, Obama is really the only alternative.

Nothing personal, but you make the fatal mistake that most Americans make: Picking the winner.

And people wonder why politics are so messed up...
 
And I won't argue that its bad to do so... You'd think that being a political science student that I'd know not to, but alas, its what we have to do on occasion.

I'll openly admit that my political viewpoint has changed drastically in the past four years (deeply conservative to progressive independent), but I still hang my coat with the Republicans, and I'll still do my job with congress and the referendums here in Michigan.
 
My coat is the coat that fits me best. If everyone voted only for candidates who 100% fit their platform, regardless of their "chances," there would be a much more accurate political environment in this country. I don't know if it's because people are too ignorant of the issues/platform, or if people are so obsessed with picking the winner that they vote that way, though. I don't think either applies to you, YSSMAN, but I'm just saying...

Could be the media propagating the system too, but I think that is scapegoating. Regardless, I hope Michael Crichton's "mediasaurus" theory comes true. Hopefully the future will contain less BS.

As for third parties, I think it would only take one major victory from one other party to introduce a multi-multi-party system. It's how any other party has died out. I'd crap in my shoes if that happened this year.
 
What, no Obama/Paul dream team? Or have you fully transitioned from Paul to Obama now?
The troops would come home and then they would argue domestic policy until they lost reelection.

Ron Paul and Obama would be like oil and water, and although I sympathize with many of Ron Paul's issues, realistically I'm voting for a candidate that will take the country in a better direction for now...
Translation: "I am voting for the leading anti-war candidate, no matter the other issues." That or your politics have drastically changed since you supported Paul.

The point here, and its something that I've tried to make before, is that we as the voting population need to decide between what is best for you, or what is best for the country.
I have this crazy notion that when you do what is best for the individual it is what is best for the country. But that just comes from believing the founding fathers had the right idea.
 
The media are merely tools of The System to fuel the war economy. Who are The Patriots? :sly:

Yeah, and Metal Gear Solid's purpose was to establish the possibility of "The Patriots" as mere fantasy. :lol:

Anyone else think Cindy McCain looks like a female Smeagel from LOTR?
 
Joey, you say Chuck Baldwin is "overly religious" but how familiar are you with him? I think the official Constitution Party platform language is a little religiously heavy, but I like Chuck and he has great respect for freedom of all kinds. He certainly isn't a hostile fundamentalist type. That said, Baldwin seems to have a more radical platform whereas Bob Barr's is similar but a bit more mainstream and transitional.

He's a Baptist pastor. I don't believe anyone who is that integrated in a religious institution should be president. It very well may influence their decisions based on their faith instead of what is right for the people of the country and through the Constitution the governs it.
 
While Baldwin himself has not made any religious comments I notice he is also not offering up his opinions on issues that the Constitution Party itself quotes the Bible as part of their platform.

The Constitution Party makes a definite statement about marriage on their Web site.
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.
I like this: No government can define marriage, unless it agrees with the Bible.

Then they somehow try to argue for stricter regulations on pornography based on a First Amendment argument, that I don't get (something about restricting obscenity to defend the 1st amendment) , because it "distorts God's intent."

And when it comes to drugs they support states' rights.....to ban them. They support legislation to stop them. I wonder what their stance on states' rights is if a state decides to legalize them.


I wonder where Baldwin stands on these issues, but they are missing from his Issues page on his Web site. It is as if he knows the religious issue is a contentious one that hurts the party and is avoiding the issues that the party uses religion to defend. As a pastor, I can only assume he agrees.
 
Ron Paul and Obama would be like oil and water, and although I sympathize with many of Ron Paul's issues, realistically I'm voting for a candidate that will take the country in a better direction for now... And that would certainly be Obama. I fully understand that their politics differ greatly on many points, and sure, that I can't have it both ways. But yeah, Obama has my vote. Hell, I've already given him money too...

The point here, and its something that I've tried to make before, is that we as the voting population need to decide between what is best for you, or what is best for the country. Given the truly viable options (and I'm not counting third party options... Bloomberg would have been the only candidate with a shot there), I feel Obama is the best choice, or at the very least, the one that won't raise my blood pressure too much. That sounds worse than I mean it, but in terms of what is rationally applicable to what the general population would want, Obama is really the only alternative.
I don't even know anymore at this point. The more I hear about him speaking of his "Oil Company Tax", the more I doubt the guy even understands basic economics.
 
He's a Baptist pastor. I don't believe anyone who is that integrated in a religious institution should be president. It very well may influence their decisions based on their faith instead of what is right for the people of the country and through the Constitution the governs it.

So you think people are wrong because they are Baptists or pastors? What happened to your anthro culture spiel?

I don't know why people get this religious politician phobia anyway. The whole beauty of our government was that things like religion don't even matter. Government isn't supposed to be the great decider you make it to be. That's what markets are for.

And, FoolKiller, I agree that the CP language is sloppy and the platform needs work. That's why I said Barr was a lot more mainstream. Party aside, I'm just saying Baldwin is a respectable man. I like a lot of his columns too.
 
I don't know why people get this religious politician phobia anyway. The whole beauty of our government was that things like religion don't even matter.
Because many times people use their religious beliefs to define policy in a way that I can't believe was intended by our founding fathers.

I think my quote from the party's stance on gay marriage is a perfect example of where the "divine definition" does not belong in politics. Any time a political issue comes up and the only defense someone can give is "because the Bible says so" I don't want them making policy decisions.


EDIT: You added this while I was typing.
And, FoolKiller, I agree that the CP language is sloppy and the platform needs work. That's why I said Barr was a lot more mainstream. Party aside, I'm just saying Baldwin is a respectable man. I like a lot of his columns too.
But between him and Barr I would likely go for Barr. I haven't had enough time to dig really deep into anyone, but so far I mostly agree with Barr.

I think if pressed that Baldwin wouldn't be able to duck the platform issues of the CP. If he did then he is in the wrong party.
 
So you think people are wrong because they are Baptists or pastors? What happened to your anthro culture spiel?

I don't know why people get this religious politician phobia anyway. The whole beauty of our government was that things like religion don't even matter.

Presidents have no authority to be the great deciders you make them to be. That's what markets are for.

Did you bother to actually read what I wrote? I said no one, regardless of their religion should be president if they are that involved with their place of worship. The same goes for overly outspoken atheist as well. It has nothing to do with him being Baptist, I'd say the same thing if he was Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or Pagan.

I didn't say he was wrong either for being Baptist. I support the idea of you being able to have a freedom of religion, but I also support the separation of religion from the government.

Religion and the government do not belong together at all because there are so many different views of spirituality. Also when running a country you have to put what is right for the whole country first and not what is right for your religious agenda. Yes the president doesn't have ultimate power, but he still has 1/3 of it.
 
Here's a few interesting quotes I caught on another forum today.
Sen. Barack Obama shed new light on his economic plans for the country, saying he would rely on a heavy dose of government spending to spur growth, use the tax code to narrow the widening gap between winners and losers in the U.S. economy, and possibly back a reduction in corporate tax rates.

"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.

Equal wealth? Sound familiar anyone?
 
Religion and the government do not belong together at all because there are so many different views of spirituality.

You can't separate them because you can't separate religion from politicians. I don't expect them to hide their religious ideals, but I do expect them to recognize the constitution - which, if done properly, will prevent them from making law based on religion.

If they violate the constitution, that's what the supreme court is for.
 
Did you bother to actually read what I wrote?

Yes, but why must you automatically assume that someone would dump his or her religious agenda into a Presidency just because he or she is "that integrated" into a religious institution? That's not the job of a President.

It's like being afraid that because your plumber is also a minister he's going to make your toilets flush with holy water and install cross-shaped pipes throughout your house.
 
It's like being afraid that because your plumber is also a minister he's going to make your toilets flush with holy water and install cross-shaped pipes throughout your house.
That would be awesome. :lol:

*McLaren*
The more I hear about him speaking of his "Oil Company Tax", the more I doubt the guy even understands basic economics.
Same here.
 
Yes, but why must you automatically assume that someone would dump his or her religious agenda into a Presidency just because he or she is "that integrated" into a religious institution? That's not the job of a President.

It's like being afraid that because your plumber is also a minister he's going to make your toilets flush with holy water and install cross-shaped pipes throughout your house.

First off my original post was this:
Chuck Baldwin seems overly religious to me and that is not a quality I want in someone running for office.

He seems, not he is defiantly a bible thumping mad man.

Then I said this:
He's a Baptist pastor. I don't believe anyone who is that integrated in a religious institution should be president. It very well may influence their decisions based on their faith instead of what is right for the people of the country and through the Constitution the governs it.

I said I don't believe and it very well may, not that he is 100% going to.

I personally do not want an religious leader in an office that governs 1/3 of the decision making power. While pushing a religious agenda isn't the job of a president does not mean they won't veto bills they don't agree with because of their faith., which is bad. Decisions on things should follow what is Constitutionally right since that is the document that governs our country and what is right for the country as a whole.

Also look at FoolKiller's post, he has explained some of the positions of the Constitution Party which seem very much like pushing a religious agenda to me. Even though Baldwin will not win it sort of concerns me a political part called the "Constitution Party" would say stuff like that about the Constitution.
 
Yes, but why must you automatically assume that someone would dump his or her religious agenda into a Presidency just because he or she is "that integrated" into a religious institution? That's not the job of a President.

It's like being afraid that because your plumber is also a minister he's going to make your toilets flush with holy water and install cross-shaped pipes throughout your house.
Is that plumber affiliated with a company who has a major selling point being that they are religious based and will make your toilets flush holy water through cross-shaped pipes?

Because I thought the whole Christian agenda, "because that is what the founders intended," thing was the Constitution Party's whole point. If they leave out their Christian agenda then they are practically Libertarians.

Also look at FoolKiller's post, he has explained some of the positions of the Constitution Party which seem very much like pushing a religious agenda to me. Even though Baldwin will not win it sort of concerns me a political part called the "Constitution Party" would say stuff like that about the Constitution.
See above. I have always been under the impression that the CP was basically Libertarians with a Christian agenda.

That's why I was not surprised they nominated a pastor, and why I am suspicious that he has avoided the issues which the party is defining based on Christian values more so than Constitutional equality.

If he were in any other party I wouldn't be suspicious. I wasn't judging Huckabee by this standard, but then none of his political affiliations defined policy with, "because the Bible says so."

If by some odd chance Baldwin got a front runner position these are questions that would legitimately be asked of him by some of the people in this discussion.

Joey raises a legitimate question that any CP member, pastor or no, would have to face regarding how they will follow the Constitution.
 
Even though Baldwin will not win it sort of concerns me a political party called the "Constitution Party" would say stuff like that about the Constitution.
That's because they are co-opting the word, just like Jerry Falwell co-opted the word Liberty when he founded his fundamentalist Baptist university in the early '70s.

Just like liberals have co-opted the word 'progressive'.
 
Is that plumber affiliated with a company who has a major selling point being that they are religious based and will make your toilets flush holy water through cross-shaped pipes?

Because I thought the whole Christian agenda, "because that is what the founders intended," thing was the Constitution Party's whole point. If they leave out their Christian agenda then they are practically Libertarians.

Joey raises a legitimate question that any CP member, pastor or no, would have to face regarding how they will follow the Constitution.

Yeah, but I am talking about Baldwin and individuals in general, not the CP. You make a good point, and I totally understand where Joey is coming from on the CP because I share the same criticism. I don't have that same criticism for Baldwin though because he's not the stereotypical Baptist agendaman. His intra-party competition was Alan Keyes, whom I think personifies the concerns all of us have about the CP. The party has its factions just like any other-- the two most obvious being the liberty/sovereignty circle and the holy/socialcon circle.
 
I have this crazy notion that when you do what is best for the individual it is what is best for the country. But that just comes from believing the founding fathers had the right idea.

I'm not as much of a strict constitutionalist as others may be, more or less, I prefer to believe it to be a living document that has to be adjusted from time to time. I highly doubt anyone then would have any idea what would have been going on 240 years later, so I generally take their beliefs with a grain of salt.

However, please do not mistake me for saying they were wrong. Their beliefs as to what is right and wrong as just as true today as it was then, but the world is a very different, and certainly a far more complex place than what it was then.

I give Ron Paul a lot of credit for what he did, and how he managed to get people excited about politics again. I'd love to have people run out to their libraries and pull out The Federalist papers, read Thomas Locke, and better understand what the basis of this country was founded on. But the political landscape has changed, and while I do support him and his ideals, realistically we have to look at what can, or for that matter, should be done. What he was asking for was a complete reversal of government, resetting (essentially) the last 100 years of progressive work done by both parties. I don't think the general public, or for that matter, those who generally do vote, would be willing to go to those lengths to change the country.

So, to answer a point you (or someone else?) made earlier... Yeah, I'm voting for the anti-war candidate. I'm sipping on some of the Obama kool-aide as well. But that being said, that does not mean that he and I wouldn't agree on certain aspects of his policies as well.
 
I'm not as much of a strict constitutionalist as others may be, more or less, I prefer to believe it to be a living document that has to be adjusted from time to time. I highly doubt anyone then would have any idea what would have been going on 240 years later, so I generally take their beliefs with a grain of salt.

However, please do not mistake me for saying they were wrong. Their beliefs as to what is right and wrong as just as true today as it was then, but the world is a very different, and certainly a far more complex place than what it was then.

I give Ron Paul a lot of credit for what he did, and how he managed to get people excited about politics again. I'd love to have people run out to their libraries and pull out The Federalist papers, read Thomas Locke, and better understand what the basis of this country was founded on. But the political landscape has changed, and while I do support him and his ideals, realistically we have to look at what can, or for that matter, should be done. What he was asking for was a complete reversal of government, resetting (essentially) the last 100 years of progressive work done by both parties. I don't think the general public, or for that matter, those who generally do vote, would be willing to go to those lengths to change the country.

So, to answer a point you (or someone else?) made earlier... Yeah, I'm voting for the anti-war candidate. I'm sipping on some of the Obama kool-aide as well. But that being said, that does not mean that he and I wouldn't agree on certain aspects of his policies as well.

So let's say you agree with Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or someone on more things than you do with Obama. You still gonna vote democrat?
 
CNN.com report today.
"The stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy, and with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," McCain will say Tuesday in Houston, Texas, according to excerpts of his speech released by his campaign.
"We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use."
McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether or not to explore drilling possibilities. The proposal could put McCain at odds with environmentalists who say it's incongruous with his plans to combat global warning. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain ally, is also opposed to offshore drilling.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist had expressed opposition exploring the coastal waters, but he said this week he supports McCain's plan to lift the moratorium and would not rule out letting his state choose to drill offshore.
"It's the last thing in the world I'd like to do, but I also understand what people are paying at the pump, and I understand the drag it is on our economy," Crist told the St. Petersburg Times. "Something has to be done in a responsible, pragmatic way."



The current law, which has been in effect since 1981, covers most of the country's coastal waters.
Many officials from coastal states oppose offshore drilling because of the risk of oil spills that can spoil beaches. Environmentalists want offshore drilling to stop, to protect the oceans from further pollution.
"The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not just of the current administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America," McCain will say Tuesday.
McCain on Monday said incentives could possibly be provided for states that choose to permit exploration off their coasts, adding that "exploration is a step toward the longer-term goal."
Tuesday's discussion marks the first in a series of talks about America's energy security that McCain will hold during the next two weeks as he lays out his plan to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
McCain does oppose drilling in some parts of the wilderness and says those areas must be left undisturbed.
"When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a reason," he will say.
McCain on Tuesday will also criticize the energy policy of rival Barack Obama.
"He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He's doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either," McCain will say.
"So what does Sen. Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters he supported the energy bill of 2005 -- a grab bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us," he will say.
McCain will argue that a windfall profits tax will only increase the country's dependence on foreign oil and be an obstacle to domestic exploration.
"I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s," he will say.
Obama on Tuesday blasted McCain for changing his stance on offshore drilling.
"John McCain's support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades," he said in a statement.
"It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil," he said.
Obama says a windfall profits tax would ease the burden of energy costs on working families. He also wants to invest in affordable, renewable energy sources.
Controversy over offshore drilling first surfaced in the United States in 1969, after a crack in the sea floor led to a huge oil spill off Santa Barbara, California.
During the 1970s, when many Arab nations launched an oil embargo, many U.S. officials pushed for the exploration of offshore drilling of the coastal U.S. Environmentalists responded by turning up the volume on their cries against offshore drilling.

YSSMAN, seems you're supporting Jimmy Carter's 2nd term as many have called it.
 
I'm not as much of a strict constitutionalist as others may be, more or less, I prefer to believe it to be a living document that has to be adjusted from time to time.
Doesn't that negate the idea that America is a country founded on principles?

Because if the Constitution is a living, breathing document then you basically are saying that it means what you say it means based on the day and time.

And you open a door for any of the rights that are explicitly laid out to be changed or removed. The Powers of Congress can be stripped away, the Judicial can be shut down,, and the Executive can take complete control.

No, it cannot be a living document that changes with time. It lays out precisely the limits of government and the undeniable rights of the individuals. What exactly is there to adjust?

CNN.com report today.
"I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s."
👍 👍
 
So let's say you agree with Ralph Nader or Bob Barr or someone on more things than you do with Obama. You still gonna vote democrat?

I suppose it depends, I'm not sure. I'd say Barr stands a chance of taking some votes away from McCain, but Nader is more of a novelty these days. Speaking of practical politics, it is very sad that we are limited to two parties, but yeah, I'd likely end up going with Obama in the end.

But that's not to say I'm dumping everything...

I'm still voting for Ehlers in the fall (odd, hes pro-war, but he has served our district well), and I'm not sure what the field looks like against Levin this year (I think hes up for re-election?). I'll be voting on more conservative issues in the state (except the pot law, legalizing medical usage), especially the proposed removal of the state income tax, moving towards a consumption tax.

*McLaren*
YSSMAN, seems you're supporting Jimmy Carter's 2nd term as many have called it.

I suppose that would be better than Bush's third term (McCain), yes? I've heard far more comparisons to RFK with Obama than Carter, so this is new to me. Although I'd say that they are both equally idealist in some respects, I'd tend to argue that Obama is more of a practical realist. But quite certainly, he is a very populist candidate at the moment... Still, the windfall tax is something I don't particularly agree with, but unless we see a complete turnover in the Senate, I highly doubt it would pass anyway.

FoolKiller
No, it cannot be a living document that changes with time. It lays out precisely the limits of government and the undeniable rights of the individuals. What exactly is there to adjust?

While I do understand your points, I think you're neglecting the fact that generally speaking, rational leaders and the process of checks and balances keep the Constitution in check while also allowing for progressive changes to be made. That being said, we purposely made it hard to change the Constitution for a reason... There wasn't much that needed change in the first place.

Saying that it is a living document doesn't mean that I want to throw it away, but more or less, that I prefer to use it as a solid foundation of ideas and principles to help frame the modern issues that we face today. With the help of the respective branches of government, we then are able to make the better decisions to improve our nation on the whole.
 
I suppose it depends, I'm not sure. I'd say Barr stands a chance of taking some votes away from McCain, but Nader is more of a novelty these days. Speaking of practical politics, it is very sad that we are limited to two parties, but yeah, I'd likely end up going with Obama in the end.

Alright, thanks.

Hey, Sage, would a QED be appropriate at this point?
 
I suppose that would be better than Bush's third term (McCain), yes?
I dunno. Didn't seem to work out too well for Carter, what with the OPEC crisis and middle eastern terrorism and what not. :P

I've heard far more comparisons to RFK with Obama than Carter, so this is new to me.
That's (far) worse than a comparison to Carter, in my opinion.
 
Back