McCain's running mate

[LazySlacker]

McCain chose Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/) as his running mate for the upcoming election.

So what are your thoughts on Sarah Palin, the governor with little experience in politics, something McCain criticized Obama for.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I think there's a difference between being a governor and being a senator, though.

My brother, who's big in politics, said a while ago that he won't vote for a senator because they just go up and give speeches, whereas governors actually have to run stuff.

Besides, Obama's running for president. While the VP does have to do work as well, she doesn't get the final say.

I don't know a whole lot about her yet because I had only just heard of her today, so these are just my ponderings, more or less.

[LazySlacker]

I know she's running for VP, but it's feels like she's only McCain's running mate to help McCain win by getting the votes from Clinton supporters.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I know what you mean; I kind of suspect that as well.

But I think if that were TOTALLY the case, he'd pick someone more people had heard of before. They were talking about him picking some other woman earlier on in his campaign.

So I'm sure that's part of the reason, but not everything. Besides Palin may not even attract that many Hillary supporters because of how pro-life Palin is.

[Tatterdemalion]

I'm opposed to the concept of running mates altogether..

A lot of people don't realize that the Vice President and the President are elected to office separately. That is to say, the Electoral College has separate votes for the two offices. Now, with this whole crazy Party system, which really doesn't work too well for America, the Party delegates essentially choose who runs for president, but at least that is based on the primaries that come before it,leading to some semblance of democracy, albeit very limited sham democracy. But why is it that for the vice-presidential election, the candidate chosen by each party now is selected by the presidential candidate? If the general election is supposedly so democratic, why do the people have virtually no say in who becomes Vice President until we reach the general election, when it's down to two people? I mean, what if a candidate who you support for the Presidential office chooses a very bad running mate? Then you're either forced to vote for both that candidate and their running mate, no matter how bad the running mate may be, or you have to not vote for either of them, regardless of the fact that you strongly support the Presidential candidate.

Nope, I say it's wrong, and ultimately works contrary to democracy. Then again, most of American politics works against democracy (and trust me, the Framers knew exactly what they were doing when they introduced it).My brother, who's big in politics, said a while ago that he won't vote for a senator because they just go up and give speeches, whereas governors actually have to run stuff.
Actually, that's not quite true, and either way it's a moot point, because the President doesn't "run" the country the way a governor runs a state. Come to think of it, the President does a lot more speech making (but not the way a senator does). It's misguided to judge people as candidates based on their previous political titles, because neither governor nor senator, as significant as they may be as positions in American politics, directly resemble the presidency, nore does experience as either of them qualify a person to be president. A Mayor of New York could just as easily run for President and be qualified (notice people didn't bat an eye when Rudolph Giuliani announced he was running, and for a while there was a significant amount of support for Michael Bloomberg runing for office, despite the fact that he didn't even announce plans to run).

And keep in mind that a lot of American Presidents have never been governors or senators. Abraham Lincoln was a Congressman for 2 years, George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant were generals who had no experience in politics at all, Hoover was a Secretary of Commerce (how ironic)...so it's really not a requirement at all. It just so happens that a lot of Senators and Governors go on to be President because they are two of the most public and significant elected offices in the United States.

[OverMind]

Now, with this whole crazy Party system, which really doesn't work too well for America, the Party delegates essentially choose who runs for president, but at least that is based on the primaries that come before it,leading to some semblance of democracy, albeit very limited sham democracy. But why is it that for the vice-presidential election, the candidate chosen by each party now is selected by the presidential candidate?
In fact, from what I've read, the system was originally designed such that the candidate with the most votes would become president, while the runner-up would go on to become vice-president (even though they'd be from different parties). The philosophy here was that the most able people in the country should hold public office. Thus, the runner-up, though not able enough to hold the presidency (in the people's eyes) was able enough to hold the vice-presidency. It kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

In practice, I doubt today's democracy, which has essentially boiled down to two major monolithic parties intertwined in a battle of alternating supremacy, could accept the above system.

[Tatterdemalion]

In fact, from what I've read, the system was originally designed such that the candidate with the most votes would become president, while the runner-up would go on to become vice-president (even though they'd be from different parties). The philosophy here was that the most able people in the country should hold public office. Thus, the runner-up, though not able enough to hold the presidency (in the people's eyes) was able enough to hold the vice-presidency. It kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
Yeah, but it all fell apart with Jefferson and Adams. You know what American politics was like after Washington left office? Absolute chaos. A lot of people forget this, which is a shame...

[metagaia]

The main problem I see with a directly elected VP is that it's just another needless way of throwing money away. A VP election would mean more funds raised, conventions held etc, all for a position of surprisingly little power.

Yes, the VP is the back President, but President of the Senate isn't that big, and all the other powers are more or less unofficial.
Having a President select his back up makes a lot more sense really for 2 reasons:
a) It tells us a lot more about the presidential candidate in question
b) In the event of the President's death, continuity wull hold since the VP is unlikely to take a different stand.

Under the old system, it would be chaos if the president died and the VP was from an opposing party, since everything that could be reversed would be.

Direct elections are overated, and you get more say in the head of state than the UK or Germany.

[killshot]

b) In the event of the President's death, continuity wull hold since the VP is unlikely to take a different stand.
But this would mean that a president that was not elected by the people will be in office. McCain has a real possibility of dieing in office so his Vice President matters more than most others. It might be more efficient to elect the VP in the current system, but the idea of a president not being elected by a democratic process doesn't sit right with me.

[OverMind]

Then, there's the reverse.

If the old system were to be applied today, and assuming McCain were to take the presidency, then Obama would be President if McCain died. Would this not mean that the Republican platform McCain stood for, which is what got him into office in the first place, has now been replaced by a Democratic one ... one that the majority of the country did not vote for?

[Tatterdemalion]

The main problem I see with a directly elected VP is that it's just another needless way of throwing money away. A VP election would mean more funds raised, conventions held etc, all for a position of surprisingly little power.
By that logic, why do we even need a Vice President in the first place? Why don't we just let the Speaker of the House assume the office of the President, should the President leave office during his/her term?

And as far as money spent, when you think about it, it's nothing compared to all of the money that's already being wasted during the Presidential election. The national conventions, for example. It used to be that the national conventions meant something, because that'w where the delegates would decide who from their party would run in the general election. But now that we have primary elections, by the time the national convention comes we already know who the presidential candidate is going to be, making the entire event a purely symbolic affair. So why do both parties continue to invest such massive amounts of money into an event that has literally no political significance whatsoever? If people were ever to do anything about the wastefulness that's in place, then I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible to find money to support a Vice Presidential campaign. And unlike other funds, it would be money well spent.a) It tells us a lot more about the presidential candidate in question
No it doesn't. The notion that you can judge someone based on who they associate themselves with may sound like a nice idea when talking about people in day to day life, but as far as an election is concerned, it say absolutely nothing about what a particular candidate is going to do in terms of policy once he assumes office. And a lot of people forget it, but that's what matters, policy.

All that associating running mates with each other does is create a distraction. In terms of things like personality, they're still two different people, meaning that you can't judge one based on the other, and on top of that you shouldn't be voting based on personality anyway. And as far as policy goes, only the President becomes President, whereas the Vice President has other responsibilities, so since they're not going to be sharing the office, then why should the Vice President's ideas about policy reflect on the President? Hint: they don't.b) In the event of the President's death, continuity wull hold since the VP is unlikely to take a different stand.

Under the old system, it would be chaos if the president died and the VP was from an opposing party, since everything that could be reversed would be.

By this logic, couldn't the exact same thing happen during a general election? I mean, think of it this way. Let's say that we had used this system during the last Presidential election. That would mean that if Bush were to die today, then Kerry would become President. Now, you say this wouldn't work, because if the party of the person in the office of the President changes hands, then the new President will try to undo all of the work of the previous President, and there will be complete chaos. Now, if this is true, then let's assume for a moment that Bush doesn't die, and serves his full term, but that in November Obama is elected, and he becomes President in 2009. Since the party of the office of the President is still changing hands, wouldn't the exact same thing happen? What difference does it make whether it happens mid-term or after an election?

But still, I think you're giving too much credit to the office of the President. Keep in mind, the President doesn't completely run the country, and it's not as though when the office of the President changes hands, the Congress changes also.

But that does call into question the matter of partying up the elections. Any way you slice it, the two-party system we have in America, in which we elect to power various people, who take it upon themselves to represent two polar, contradictory philosophies, doesn't work. The way it ends up working out is one of the following situations:

1) The office of the President and the Congress are both controlled by the same party. If that party acts cohesively, with little division within the party, then progress is made, and action is accomplished, but the power of the party goes substantially unchecked, and a single group is allowed to essentially take the government and run with it in a single direction, which leads to great potential for corruption and abuse of power, as well as problems for the government once another party comes to power.

Look at President Bush's first term as an example

2) The President is of one party, but the Congress is controlled by another. If both parties act cohesively, then you have more checks of the power of the others, but you also end up with direct conflict between the two parties, conflict based not on individual matters judged on a case by case basis, but rooted in the division of power between two fundamentally opposing political philosophies, and party unity which leads to a lack of compromise, and ultimately hinders progress.

A recent example of this could be President Clinton's terms in office (although the best example would probably be the really heavy conflicts between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans during the Adams and Jefferson era.

3) Regardless of the parties involved, the President and the Congress are both committed to achieving progress and taking action through bipartisan discussion, debate and resolution, choosing to work together between parties to serve the interests of the people, rather than working against one another to serve the interests of their respective parties. Overall this is the only way anything is ever going to be accomplished, and accomplished in a balanced, effective and lasting way. The only problem here is that while this is possible under the curent system involving these political parties, the parties serve to polarize people, both within the government and amongst the voters, in a way that makes bipartisan cooperation very difficult, and overall slows down the wheels of democracy (not that America is a democracy)

And while you may say that the formation of parties is reasonable in that the parties represent the political views of large groups of people, and that it is simply representative of public opinion. The problem here is that generally you still have significant variation within a particular party, with both candidates and voters expressing a wide variety of views on particular issues, and varying political philosophies. The problem is that rather than distancing themselves from one another based on their differences in politics, the two party system, with only one candidate from each party running, causes peoples' choices to be significantly narrowed by the time the election rolls around, causing people to then vote down the party line, because while they may not personally support the candidate represented by their party, they're still better than the "other guy." And there are some people who don't even listen to the candidates, and vote down the party line unconditionally. That's even worse.




If the old system were to be applied today, and assuming McCain were to take the presidency, then Obama would be President if McCain died. Would this not mean that the Republican platform McCain stood for, which is what got him into office in the first place, has now been replaced by a Democratic one ... one that the majority of the country did not vote for?
Yes, but what you need to remember is that regardless of the platform, it's the candidate who is elected, not the party. That is to say, in a two party system, with one candidate from each party, then yes, there would be conflict, but I strongly doubt that it would create such conflict if people didn't narrow their views based on party affiliation. That is to say, if there was a plurality of candidates, not one from each party, and votuing was done based on the particular policy proposals of the particular candidate, then the voting would probably turn out much differently, with less division along party lines, and much more room for compromise, creating less of a conflict there.

And keep in mind, the old system still ends up making more sense than the concept of running mates.

Look at it this way. Right now we have Obama and Biden running against McCain and Palin. Now, let's say that McCain wins the Presidential election, and Palin becomes vice president, with the two recieving 53% of the vote. If McCain dies in office, then Palin will become President. Now, you could say that because they're running on the same platform, the public voted for her, but at the same time, she was never democratically elected either. And saying the public voted for her because she and McCain are both Republicans is to suggest that the election is based on political party and not on individual candidates, and while political party does play too much of a role in politics, this is certainly not the case.

But at the same time, we don't know how much of the vote Palin would have recieved were she not paired up with McCain. After all, she never ran in the primary, and if she had, I seriously doubt she would have come close to winning.

So let's suppose we were to do things the way they were back in the old days. That is to say, rather than running in pairs, all four would run separately, McCain, Obama, Biden and Palin. Now let's suppose the voting were to turn out like this:

52% McCain, 44% Obama, 3% Biden and 1% Palin (which is very possible, considering Palin's political record). If you were to do things this way, and McCain were to die in office, you'll end up with someone who still recieved a significant chunk of votes, albeit not the majority, yet still much more than Palin. It's also possible that if Palin had run against Obama, then Obama would have won...we don't actually know, but then what we would end up with, if she were to assume office, is someone who if they had actually been up for election would have lost the popular vote, yet who assumes office anyway because they were latched onto a popular candidate.

Now, you could also say that people are just going to have to vote for them as a pair, but this doesn't make much sense, because in the scenario above, people still prefer McCain over Obaba. So if people vote for both at once, then you end up with people not voting with someone based only on what would happen if the actual candidate were to die in office, which isn't very fair to that candidate.

So really, the only thing that makes sense out of all of the possibilities we've discussed is just having a separate election for Vice President. Of course, we wouldn't even need that if we didn't have a two party system, because if people voted for the candidates themselves, in a world with no party affiliations, there would be much less resentment from the people towards people from another political party. (And there would be myuch more of a spirit of compromise. Hopefully. At least, more than there is now, because compromise wouldn't be an option, it would be a necessity, and there would be nothing to fuels such a strong division, as there is now.)

Also, we're ignoring the fact that the people don't actually elect the President. There's always that to be considered.

[Emmy]

Speaking as a politically interested outsider (as in, a citizen and resident of another country), I see the two-party system to be a huge flaw in the democratic process. The Irish political system has its own flaws and foibles, which I won't bother to list, and so does every other democratic process I am aware of. But I think the American take is one of the most problematic.

Some of these flaws are:
The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you are a Democrat or a Republican. America has a reputation for being an extremely conservative country, and this is the reason. The Democrats are pretty conservative, when compared with, say, a French socialist. The Republicans are uber-conservative. I'm told America's population is one of the most varied and interesting in the world, with every point of view on offer, every ethnicity, every political standpoint. Yet when it comes to elections, you get to choose between conservative and really really conservative.

The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you can get huge wads of cash from somewhere. This is just dangerous. People aren't usually going to give someone cash to spend on winning a popularity contest unless they're getting something in return. And not even "I'll give you this money if you make sure this piece of policy gets through." It can be much more subtle. "Remember you owe me." That or you have to be super-rich yourself. If I couldn't get health insurance, if I was having trouble getting enough money together to send my kids to school, if I wasn't able to keep up with my rent, I wouldn't be very impressed with two rich guys trying to up their own power. I certainly would find it hard to trust them.

The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you're God-fearing. And not just any God, the Christian one. And not just a little, it needs to be big-time. I don't know, maybe Presidents in the past have been famous for their atheism, their agnosticism, their devotion to Islam or Buddhism. But Obama being "accused" of having islamic connections, or of being a Muslim? That's just plain wrong. You don't "accuse" someone of belonging to a major world religion. And if the poor guy was a Muslim, or if a Muslim kind in school in Boston or somewhere wants to be President when he grows up, why the song and dance? Or, save us all, an atheist? Everyone is equally capable of having a moral compass, an astute political mind, a drive to do the best for America and America's place in the world.

Basically, I think you could easily make a list of the people who could become President, and it would be a short list, compared with the amount of people who technically qualify. And all the people on the list would be more similar than they are different.

Maybe I'm wrong. As I say, I'm looking in on this objectively. But we in the rest of the world are taking the American elections just as seriously as we take our own and our close neighbours'. Because however he is elected, and whoever he has as his VP, and however conservative, rich and Christian he is, he will be the most powerful person in the world, yet again.

Also, how does everyone think this pregnant-daughter thing will go? Has it damaged McCain and/or Palin, and if so, how much?

[darkarcher]

The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you're God-fearing. And not just any God, the Christian one. And not just a little, it needs to be big-time.
Not necessarily. While yes, calling yourself a Christian makes you more appealing, many candidates are not "big-time" Christians. It is often more of a political ruse.

You also have to realize that Americans are still very wary of Islam. This has nothing to do with Christianity, just the people in general.Also, how does everyone think this pregnant-daughter thing will go? Has it damaged McCain and/or Palin, and if so, how much?
I believe Obama said it best when he mentioned that the campaign should be more about big politics, and we shouldn't be focusing on the small things for the sole purpose of bringing the other candidate down.

On the other side, I find it interesting that people tend to ignore aspects of our country until they show up in a candidate. In this case, teen pregnancies happen. They shouldn't, but they do. Part of the reason people are going crazy about Palin's daughter is because they're having to see a side of America that they do their best to ignore.

[Tatterdemalion]

I'm told America's population is one of the most varied and interesting in the world, with every point of view on offer, every ethnicity, every political standpoint.
No, you're thinking of New York. And maybe some other major cities. Other than that, most of America hovers somewhere between White and Bread.The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you are a Democrat or a Republican.
You know, this is the flaw of a two-party system, but I think in America we take the two-party concept for granted. For example, back in 1996 Ross Perot was doing pretty well in the polls before he dropped out of the race. If he had continued his campaign up until the election, it's definitely possible that he could have won. It's not exactly likely, but it wasn't an impossibility. And around a hundred years ago there were some very popular Socialist candidates who did run for President (although weren't elected).The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you can get huge wads of cash from somewhere.
Strange as it may sound, that was pretty much the idea in the first place. America was founded by a bunch of wealthy land owners who were annoyed because they had to pay taxes...do you really think they'd want just anyone running the country? I mean, if anyone could run, that might lead to sweeping reforms...which is never good for the rich landowners, mind you.The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you're God-fearing. And not just any God, the Christian one.
Not even that, but it has to be the Protestant concept of the Christian god. Throughout all of American history there's been only one Catholic president, and he proved to be very controversial among voters simply because of his religious affiliation (also, he did get shot before his term even ended). But what fo you expect from a country that was founded by Puritans?But we in the rest of the world are taking the American elections just as seriously as we take our own and our close neighbours'.
That's sad...not only do Americans believe that their government is the most important government in the world, but people abroad do too...you know, the President doesn't have that much power in the first place.Also, how does everyone think this pregnant-daughter thing will go?
It's okay, Palin's rich. It's not like her daughter's going to have to quit school, then struggle to support herself and her child as a single mother. Don't worry, she'll be fine.



You also have to realize that Americans are still very wary of Islam.
But whatever for?

[darkarcher]

America was founded by a bunch of wealthy land owners who were annoyed because they had to pay taxes...
I find that to be rather close-minded. The Americans were not angry because they had to pay taxes. They were angry because their rights as British citizens were being revoked, and that they were paying undue taxes that no one else had to pay.

Also, not everyone in America was rich. Many people were fairly poor.That's sad...not only do Americans believe that their government is the most important government in the world, but people abroad do too...
On it's own, no, it isn't. However, you need to realize that the election of the President affects the entire world (and even if the President doesn't have a lot of power, there is still a considerable amount there especially foreign policy), and I think that may be something the world might be concerned about.But whatever for?
People tend to be scared of things that they don't understand, especially if a "representative" of that thing has hurt them before.

[Tatterdemalion]

I find that to be rather close-minded. The Americans were not angry because they had to pay taxes. They were angry because their rights as British citizens were being revoked, and that they were paying undue taxes that no one else had to pay.

Also, not everyone in America was rich. Many people were fairly poor.
I'll admit, that was more of a generalization, and was probably too general. I wouldn't go so far as to call it close minded.

But for the record, the guys who actually had the money were the ones who came up with a great deal of the ideas. It's not as though the American Revolution was some sort of working class uprising (not that there was a "working class" then as there is today).

[metagaia]

I believe Obama said it best when he mentioned that the campaign should be more about big politics, and we shouldn't be focusing on the small things for the sole purpose of bringing the other candidate down.
I can't agree with that I'm afraid. The President, more so than say the Senate, is a diplomat at heart, and the face of America. While he still has major power over federal bodies etc. I believe that it's more important that he is 'battle hardened' in face of political infighting that he will no dount face at things like UN and G8 meetings. The President can always get experts to formulate his policies for him (a la JFK) but no-one else can face the world leaders alone.

[darkarcher]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the Palin's daughter.

Yes, the character of the President is important. That qualifies as big politics, because whoever holds the office is almost strictly in charge of foreign affairs.

What I'm saying is that people should not be making a big deal over Palin's daughter, since that really has no bearing in the political sense whatsoever.

[metagaia]

Well, the basic principle is the same. The character of the candidate is related to how they deal with these attacks, both on their personality and their family.

Unfortunately it does have a bearing, since it is important for the public to know that candidates practice what they preach. It would shed a whole new light on things if Sarah Palin insisted that her daughter abort. Everything a Vice/Presidential candidate does is important before an election, and that also concerns what they do with their family. Sarah Palin has chosen to keep hers out of the limelight (and rightly so I believe), however, she is going to be less able to use them now to show her interest in family values.

[Tatterdemalion]

I can't agree with that I'm afraid. The President, more so than say the Senate, is a diplomat at heart, and the face of America. While he still has major power over federal bodies etc. I believe that it's more important that he is 'battle hardened' in face of political infighting that he will no dount face at things like UN and G8 meetings. The President can always get experts to formulate his policies for him (a la JFK) but no-one else can face the world leaders alone.
That's a nice thought, but I can't agree that it's going to be essential to foriegn relations, or at all relevant to diplomats from other nations, if the Vice President of the United States has a daughter who is pregnant at an uncommonly low age. It's not going to be an international scandal, I'm sure.

Not sure what you mean about "battle hardened," though. Last time I checked, being a tough guy doesn't necessarily get you too far at the UN. Especially when you're from America, who everyone can't stand, because America is always swaggering arount trying to look like the tough guy (America as a country seems very insecure with its identity as a political state).

Also, as far as diplomacy is concerned, Obama is less experienced than McCain, but he's much more popular overseas...so are you saying that's what counts the most?

[MrsSallyBakura]

The whole "controversy" with Palin's daughter, IMO, is just dirty politics, kinda like how Hillary Clinton accused Obama of smoking pot when he was a teenager, except in this case the controversy started with a decision her daughter, not Palin herself, made (rather than a young care-free Obama). Bristol is 17, almost a legal adult, so I'd say she's at the age where she can make her own decisions without having her mother watch her every move and make every decision for her.

I listened to Palin's speech on YouTube a bit earlier and I enjoyed it; I think she made some good points. I do wish she had gone and explained the kind of experience McCain could bring to the table as president, but then again maybe that wasn't the time to bring that up because her audience was from her own party who didn't care. We'll have to wait and see until the debates for more information on that.

I was reading some of the comments on YouTube though, and a lot of them were like, "The crowd is just cheering and booing when she wants them to! They're robots!" and stuff like that, and it's like, "Um, doesn't Obama's crowd do the same thing?" I mean Obama also speaks about hope and change, stuff his party wants to hear. It's no different on either side; they all just have different roads of ideals to a possible solution.

[Krendall]

As a proudly-admitted right-wing nut-job (that's a lot of hyphonated words, eh?) Sarah Pallin is a dream nomination. She has shown to be extremely conservative and she's willing to take on her fellow Republicans in the name of ending corruption. Even if McCain wins, he's unlikely to run for a second term. That means if four years Pallin will likely run for President, and I will be happy to vote for her.

Yes, McCain did pick her mostly as a strategic move. He's about as far from conservative as a Republican can get. Also, reports state that he really wanted Joe Lieberman. Fortunately (to me, at least), McCain's aids said that he would definately lose with that ticket. In about a week of choosing a new running mate, he came up with Pallin. Pallin helps on two levels: she brings in some of the moderate Clinton supporters and she energizes the conservative base.The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you are a Democrat or a Republican. America has a reputation for being an extremely conservative country, and this is the reason. The Democrats are pretty conservative, when compared with, say, a French socialist. The Republicans are uber-conservative. I'm told America's population is one of the most varied and interesting in the world, with every point of view on offer, every ethnicity, every political standpoint. Yet when it comes to elections, you get to choose between conservative and really really conservative.
The policies of some of the current Democrat leaders would disagree with you. Read the actual records of people like Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and so on. They are actively trying to move the Democrat party further left. Also, to say the Republicans have been ultra-conservative is also wrong. In fact, since the late 90's the party has moved closer to center and, in some cases, into the left. What I do agree with is that the two-party system causes this problem. Rather than people just starting a new party, many of them feel the need to take over the Democrat or Republican parties and move them in their direction.

The biggest reason for the two-party system is the way the election process is set up. The winner is not the person who gets the most electoral votes, but whoever gets more than 50% of the votes. Should no one get that many votes, then congress votes on who should be president. This goes on until more than 50% of congress chooses someone. In fact, this is how John Quincy Adams (I believe) got elected. He actually lost the election, but no candidate won 50% of the vote. Adams got in through a vote in congress. To try to prevent this from happening, two major parties were created. If there are only two people running, then one of them has to get over 50% of the vote (I believe it's impossible to tie given the way the electoral college is set up).The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you can get huge wads of cash from somewhere. This is just dangerous. People aren't usually going to give someone cash to spend on winning a popularity contest unless they're getting something in return. And not even "I'll give you this money if you make sure this piece of policy gets through." It can be much more subtle. "Remember you owe me." That or you have to be super-rich yourself. If I couldn't get health insurance, if I was having trouble getting enough money together to send my kids to school, if I wasn't able to keep up with my rent, I wouldn't be very impressed with two rich guys trying to up their own power. I certainly would find it hard to trust them.
I agree that it's bad that things are runned this way. However, I believe it's a neccessary evil. The compensation for not electing based on popular vote is that people "vote" with their pocketbook. While I would like to see more power given to the individual vote (such as each congressional district giving and individual vote rather than each state being winner-take-all), going by popular vote would be a horrible idea. And you are right about organizations donating to politicians and then saying "You owe me." This is especially true in congress and the senate, where you have career politicians. If those positions had term limits, it would cut down on a lot of the shady deals going on right now. Sadly, that would mean congress and the senate proposing and passing a bill that would limit themselves, and we all know that chances of that happening are almost none.The fact that you are never, ever going to be elected President unless you're God-fearing. And not just any God, the Christian one. And not just a little, it needs to be big-time. I don't know, maybe Presidents in the past have been famous for their atheism, their agnosticism, their devotion to Islam or Buddhism. But Obama being "accused" of having islamic connections, or of being a Muslim? That's just plain wrong. You don't "accuse" someone of belonging to a major world religion. And if the poor guy was a Muslim, or if a Muslim kind in school in Boston or somewhere wants to be President when he grows up, why the song and dance? Or, save us all, an atheist? Everyone is equally capable of having a moral compass, an astute political mind, a drive to do the best for America and America's place in the world.
The people trying to make the Obama-Muslim connection are whackos that give people like me a bad name. That being said, not every President has been an uber-religious person. Bill Clinton didn't mention God every chance he got. The fact does remain that the US is about 80% (if not higher) Christian, so it makes sense that a person who at least claims to be Christian will have a better chance of getting elected. Personally, I feel a person who believes in a god (not neccessarily the Christian one) is a person who believes there is something greater than himself (or at least there's a greater chance of that person feeling that way). I want a person like that running the country.

As far as a Muslim being elected President, it will probably be some time before that happens. Keep in mind we are currently involved in a war on terrorism. A huge number of those terrorists state that they are Muslim. It would kind of be like trying to elect a Nazi during World War II.Basically, I think you could easily make a list of the people who could become President, and it would be a short list, compared with the amount of people who technically qualify. And all the people on the list would be more similar than they are different.
I whole-heartedly disagree. If 2012's reace is Sarah Pallin vs. Hilary Clinton, you'd have two people who couldn't be more different from each other. Heck, even McCain and Pallin are very different politians, and they're in the same party!

[killshot]

I don't agree with this at all. I'll start out by saying McCain really shot himself in the foot by choosing Palin. His whole experience platform just went out the window as she has even less experience than Obama. I'm sure no one outside Alaska has ever heard of Sarah Palin, and McCain chose her simply because she is a woman.

Hillary Clinton got to her position because of who she was and not what she was. She competed on equal footing with McCain and Obama because of her platform, and not just because she was a woman. She also lost the primary because of who she was (a horrible person) and not what she was. This is the way equality is meant to be. Sarah Palin on the other hand would not have be given a second glance if it where not for the fact she is woman. All the progress Hillary made was undermined by the selection of Palin as a running mate.

As much as I hated Hillary, I would gladly choose her over Palin. I listened to her speak about Obama's qualifications and his work as a community organizer. Not only does she have a voice that makes children cry, but she had the audacity to spit in the face of citizens who get involved in their community.

Sarah Palin is against abortion under any circumstances. This alone is reason enough not to vote for her. Palin thinks that God told her to drill for oil in Alaska. I don't know about anyone else, but I think after God told us to go to war with Iraq, I think we should have stopped listening to God. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Sadly enough, Palin will bring in a lot of votes from the natives of Jesusland. Not only is she just the type of person that Christian America relates to, she killed and field dressed a moose. This by itself is more important than her entire political background to most right-wing voters.

[darkarcher]

Go easy on the stereotyping. Other than that, you make valid points.

[Krendall]

I don't agree with this at all. I'll start out by saying McCain really shot himself in the foot by choosing Palin. His whole experience platform just went out the window as she has even less experience than Obama. I'm sure no one outside Alaska has ever heard of Sarah Palin, and McCain chose her simply because she is a woman.
I first heard of her earlier this year when she opposed putting polar bears on the endangered species list. I admitted her being a woman played into her being picked, but I think her appeal to the right-wing conservatives was also a major factor.Sarah Palin is against abortion under any circumstances. This alone is reason enough not to vote for her.
Speak for yourself. I'm also against abortion in all but the most extreme cases (such as the mother will die unless the baby is aborted).Palin thinks that God told her to drill for oil in Alaska. I don't know about anyone else, but I think after God told us to go to war with Iraq, I think we should have stopped listening to God. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
Well, since I both want us to drill in Alaska (and anywhere else we can for that matter) and I agree with the battle in Iraq (the war is a much bigger picture), I'd say God's right on the money.Sadly enough, Palin will bring in a lot of votes from the natives of Jesusland.
So are you saying a person's religious beliefs should have no influence whatsoever on who they vote for? Or is this a thin-veiled "Christians are idiots" statement?Not only is she just the type of person that Christian America relates to, she killed and field dressed a moose. This by itself is more important than her entire political background to most right-wing voters.
Well, I liked her since I first heard about her, and this is the first time I heard about her field-dressing a moose. Anyway, I find that first statement interesting. Most Americans are Christian. Actually, a huge majority of Americans are Christian. So it's a bad thing that a person who appeals to or has something in common with the majority of Americans would run for office? I always thought the President was supposed to represent the people.

I'm guessing from your comments that your pretty left-leaning. That's fine, but I doubt we'll ever agree on much on a political level.

[killshot]

Speak for yourself. I'm also against abortion in all but the most extreme cases (such as the mother will die unless the baby is aborted).
Palin would let the woman die if the birth would kill her. What is your reasoning for taking the choice out of the hands of the mother?Well, since I both want us to drill in Alaska (and anywhere else we can for that matter) and I agree with the battle in Iraq (the war is a much bigger picture), I'd say God's right on the money.
I for one do not think it is worth raping the land of its natural beauty just to feed our oil dependency. We need to be breaking away from oil, not opening up new areas for drilling. Call the quagmire in Iraq anything you want. It doesn't change the fact that it was and still is a mistake.

So are you saying a person's religious beliefs should have no influence whatsoever on who they vote for? Or is this a thin-veiled "Christians are idiots" statement?
I am saying that your religious beliefs should not effect me in any way. Religious beliefs should always take a backseat to political policy. Simply believing in the right deity should not be a qualification for presidency. Most Americans are Christian. Actually, a huge majority of Americans are Christian. So it's a bad thing that a person who appeals to or has something in common with the majority of Americans would run for office? I always thought the President was supposed to represent the people.
The President is supposed to represent the people. All of the people, not just those will the same religion. The United States is not and never was a Christian country. Religion should not take the place of actual credentials. I remember back in the 2004 election, there was a news article about Kerry trying to gain support from hunters by posing for a few photos with a shotgun. I also remember asking myself why anyone would care whether or not Kerry hunts in his free time. What I'm trying to say is that some people vote for candidates for stupid reasons. Religion and whether or not you are able to kill a moose should never factor into an election.

[Tatterdemalion]

To try to prevent this from happening, two major parties were created. If there are only two people running, then one of them has to get over 50% of the vote (I believe it's impossible to tie given the way the electoral college is set up).
I'm pretty sure that there was already a largely two party system by the time Quincey Adams was elected.Personally, I feel a person who believes in a god (not neccessarily the Christian one) is a person who believes there is something greater than himself (or at least there's a greater chance of that person feeling that way). I want a person like that running the country.
Why do you want a person like that running the country. To tell you the truth, I think I'd rather have someone running the country who answers to the people first. And also, isn't it very possible to believe in something greater than oneself, without that something being a deity? Couldn't that thing be an idea? Or a country, for that matter? (Hint: yes it can)As far as a Muslim being elected President, it will probably be some time before that happens. Keep in mind we are currently involved in a war on terrorism. A huge number of those terrorists state that they are Muslim. It would kind of be like trying to elect a Nazi during World War II.
That's a bad analogy, because while Muslim --> Terrorist are a step removed, Nazi --> Nazi is not. Even if it was possible to fight a war on an abstract concept (which it's not), it's still a war on an abstract concept, not a war on Muslims. You say that some terrorists are Muslim (and some Muslims are terrorists) which is true.

So to use your analogy, electing a Muslim President now would be like electing a German-American President during WWII (because some Germans are Nazis). It didn't happen, but keep in mind, there were no elections during WWII. And who became President after Truman, and was also a WWII General? What's that, Eisenhower? And what is Eisenhower's ancestry? Oh, right, German. Does that mean he was a Nazi? I think not.Well, since I both want us to drill in Alaska (and anywhere else we can for that matter) and I agree with the battle in Iraq (the war is a much bigger picture), I'd say God's right on the money.
Yes, let's drill in Alaska. Let's drill right under your house too, while we're at it. And then what do we do?

And as far as Iraq, yes the War on Communism is definitely a much bigger picture, although I must say that by any definition of the word, the military operation in Iraq is by no means a battle.














Sarah Palin is against abortion under any circumstances. This alone is reason enough not to vote for her.
Yes, that's a great reason not to vote for someone, considering that the President is so instrumental in deciding whether or not women have the right to vote. Oh wait, I forgot, that's not true.

Why does everyone feel the need to talk to death about abortion? It's not as though the fate of abortion rights rests in the hands of the President.

And how is voting for the President based on political ideologies that have no strong relevance to the office any different than voting for the President based on religious ideologies that have no strong relevance to the office? I mean, aren't they equally irrelevant?The United States is not and never was a Christian country
It's hard to say that's true. I mean, the government has always been secular (except for that bit in the Declaration of Independence), but at the same time keep in mind that even before the country itself was founded, some of the key people in shaping what would become the United States of America were the Puritans, with their belts on their hats. As pleasing as it may be to think of America as some sort of modernist, progressive, secular or pluralist country, the Puritans haven't exactly gone anywhere, they're alive and well, living, and working, and, more importantly, voting.

So, as wrong as it may be, if you let the people vote, and an exceptionally large percentage of the country are either fanatical Christians or moderately obsessive Christians, what do you think is going to happen? This doesn't take a genius.

[killshot]

And how is voting for the President based on political ideologies that have no strong relevance to the office any different than voting for the President based on religious ideologies that have no strong relevance to the office? I mean, aren't they equally irrelevant?
No, they are not equally irrelevant. Why would you vote for someone who believes it is acceptable to deny people of their freedom of choice? The office of president may not have much to do with abortion, but the principle of denying simple freedoms is the mark of a tyrant. I do not need the government in my life any more than it has to be. And why is abortion such a highly discussed topic? It's because women are still made to feel terrible about getting one even though it is legal. I'll shut up about abortion whenever I stop seeing pro-life nonsense everywhere.I mean, the government has always been secular (except for that bit in the Declaration of Independence), but at the same time keep in mind that even before the country itself was founded, some of the key people in shaping what would become the United States of America were the Puritans, with their belts on their hats.
It is not entirely accurate to say that America was founded by people of faith. A few of our founding fathers were deists, their times equivalent of an atheist, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. Jefferson and Paine in particular wrote articles describing the importance of a "great dividing wall" between church and state. This quote from Jefferson illustrates his opinion on religion quite nicely:

"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."

I understand that Christians will vote for the candidate who can recite the most scripture, but surely there has to be some moderate Christians who can understand the real issues. I know from experience that not all Christians are mindless drones, but they are the only ones who seem to be voting.

[darkarcher]

I'm sorry, but you seem to come off acting like any thinking person is going to see things your way. That is in no way true. People have just as much right to believe what they want as you have to say that they should believe what you think they should.I'll shut up about abortion whenever I stop seeing pro-life nonsense everywhere.
This is an example of what I'm talking about. Some people think abortion is wrong. Now, you may or may not choose to believe it, but saying that it's depriving a person of choice is, to some people, like saying that stopping a gunman from shooting someone is an obstruction of choice. I won't go any farther in this matter because there's already a topic for this.

All I'm trying to say is that people see things differently. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are ignorant.


As far as a candidate holding religious views, people often want to vote for someone who sees things the same way they do. Even for non-religious people, holding a religion is often an easy way for a candidate to put sort of a general blanket over their code of ethics. People like to think someone has ethics, even if the religious affiliation is a front.

On the matter of separation of church and state, the common view of most of the founding fathers was that the government should not be able to establish on religion above the others. This does not mean that religion cannot determine the actions a candidate can take, because it's an extension of their personal morals.

[killshot]

How am I forcing my beliefs on others if the stance I am taking is personal choice? Some people do think abortion is wrong. Those same people have the right to not have abortions if they don't believe in them. But why should everyone else bend to the whims of these people? Your example of the gunman is flawed because the shooter is depriving the victim of choice. I already know the counter argument so I don't want to pursue this any further. All I'm trying to say is that people see things differently.
I know this quite well. All I'm saying is that morality can not and should not be imposed on others.

[Tatterdemalion]

I'll shut up about abortion whenever I stop seeing pro-life nonsense everywhere.
Well then you're never going to shut up. Abortion isn't an actual issue, it's one of those issues that serves to distract from those other issues (in the same class as flag burning). In the grand scope of American politics, abortion rights aren't anywhere near the top of the priorities list, or even the "likely to change" list.

There's going to be pro-life nonsense in places for quite a while. Especially in America. Why? Because a great deal of Americans are pro-life. And you know what? There's not going to be some sort of sudden change in this any time soon. People are going to go on about abortion one way or another. You have the choice as to whether to engage in these discussions because everyone else is involved in them, or to ignore them because there's nothing to discuss. I generally choose the latter. You can do what you will.It is not entirely accurate to say that America was founded by people of faith. A few of our founding fathers were deists, their times equivalent of an atheist, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine. Jefferson and Paine in particular wrote articles describing the importance of a "great dividing wall" between church and state
Say what you will about the Framers, but in the end, they're all dead. The political state of America may not have been founded on religious principle, and I never said it was, but the fact remains that culturally speaking much of America has historically been Christian (and pretty extreme Christian in some circumstances), and that this religious fervor amongst the population, while it has died down at times and grown stronger at others, can still be seen today in general American culture, and is expressed by a large portion of the population. So whether or not the Constitution, or the government is or ever was based on religion is besides the point, irrespective of the Framers America as a whole has historically been and continues to be a Christianity-oriented country.

[Krendall]

Palin would let the woman die if the birth would kill her. What is your reasoning for taking the choice out of the hands of the mother?The office of president may not have much to do with abortion, but the principle of denying simple freedoms is the mark of a tyrant.
Bear in mind that those of us who are against abortion believe that it kills a life. To say someone is a tyrant for denying abortion is the same as saying someone's a tyrant for denying me the right to kill someone.

Also, unless you can give me a direct quote where Palin feels that way, I'll have a hard time believing it.I do not need the government in my life any more than it has to be.
Sweet! We agree on something! <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley1.png'> I'll shut up about abortion whenever I stop seeing pro-life nonsense everywhere.
You know, I don't consider your points of view nonsense even though they're different from mine. All I ask for is the same respect.I for one do not think it is worth raping the land of its natural beauty just to feed our oil dependency. We need to be breaking away from oil, not opening up new areas for drilling.
I agree that we should be exploring new areas of energy, but I don't think we have to just up and drop any usage or exploration of oil in order to do so. As for the "natural beauty" thing, the area in Alaska that companies are looking to explore is effectively a wasteland. There're no forests, no herds of animals, nothing. Besides that, the area looking to be explored is like a quarter on a throw rug. We're hardly looking to rip up the entire landscape here.Yes, let's drill in Alaska. Let's drill right under your house too, while we're at it. And then what do we do?
You've got to be kidding me. You honestly think that looking to drill in uninhabited areas is the same as drilling under a person's home? When companies and/or the government starts booting people out of homes in order to drill for oil, then we have a problem.Call the quagmire in Iraq anything you want. It doesn't change the fact that it was and still is a mistake.
Okay, except this is not a fact. Your opinion, but not a fact. Really, we'll never know whether or not the war in and of itself was a mistake since there's no way to see what the world would have been like had the war never happened. Now the point can be argued and people can form an opinion on what they think was right, but it will never be a fact.I am saying that your religious beliefs should not effect me in any way. Religious beliefs should always take a backseat to political policy. Simply believing in the right deity should not be a qualification for presidency.
1) The Constitution grants freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. To expect to not be effected "in any way" from someone else's beliefs, especially when that person holds office, is just naive.
2) For a religious person, his beliefs influence everything he does in his life. All choices, attitudes, stances, etc. are based on his faith. Politcal policies will always be influenced (though should not be dictated by) the religion of the persons who make them. Sorry, but faith is not a jacket that can be taken on an off as needed.The President is supposed to represent the people. All of the people, not just those will the same religion.
No one man can represent every single person's beliefs. By "the people" I mean "the majority of the people." If that majority and the president happen to share the same religion, then that's the way it is. Religion should not take the place of actual credentials.
Once again, we agree on something.I remember back in the 2004 election, there was a news article about Kerry trying to gain support from hunters by posing for a few photos with a shotgun. I also remember asking myself why anyone would care whether or not Kerry hunts in his free time.
It was pandering to the pro-gun undecided voters. Since most Democrats are anti-gun, Kerry wanted to pose with a shotgun and show himself hunting in hopes that those undecideds would go "Hey, this guy hunts. He can't take our guns away, then."What I'm trying to say is that some people vote for candidates for stupid reasons.
Again, agreed.Religion and whether or not you are able to kill a moose should never factor into an election.
I agree completely with the last half of that sentance. I kind of agree with the first. While a person's religion in and of itself should not be a factor, I would like to know that candidates beliefs and how they influence his judgments.I'm pretty sure that there was already a largely two party system by the time Quincey Adams was elected.
True, but they didn't have the one party; one candidate system like we have now. My point was that people wanted to try to have only two main candidates so that it would be easier for one candidate to get over 50% of the vote.Why do you want a person like that running the country. To tell you the truth, I think I'd rather have someone running the country who answers to the people first. And also, isn't it very possible to believe in something greater than oneself, without that something being a deity? Couldn't that thing be an idea? Or a country, for that matter? (Hint: yes it can)
That's why I said a greater chance. I'm sorry, but most Atheists I've talked to don't seem to see anything greater than themselves. I do not want a President that feels that he is the greatest being on Earth or that there is no higher power that he has to answer to, whether that's a god or nature or whatever.

I have no probelm with the President answering to his god before the people. Then again, I'm a Christian and that's how I try to live my life, so I might not have the best perspective on the issue.



Dang, a bunch of work just came in. I'll have to try to finish commentating on the rest later. I hope my internet at home works a lot better tonight.

[killshot]

Bear in mind that those of us who are against abortion believe that it kills a life.
Unborn children were never alive, therefore they can't be killed.You know, I don't consider your points of view nonsense even though they're different from mine. All I ask for is the same respect.
I can't respect something as inconsistent as the pro-life movement. Many people who claim to be pro-life are in favor of the death penalty. There have been rare instances of pro-lifers killing abortion doctors. If these people think life is so sacred, then why do they fell some lives are more sacred than others? Okay, except this is not a fact. Your opinion, but not a fact.
The Bush administration itself said the situation was poorly handled. My statement may have technically been an opinion, but that opinion still holds true. As for the "natural beauty" thing, the area in Alaska that companies are looking to explore is effectively a wasteland.
I've heard about ANWAR. It may be a wasteland, but we still don't need to open up any new areas for drilling. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no shortage of oil at this point in time. The cost of gasoline is up because there is a predicted shortage of oil in the future. Opening a new site for drilling would not effect gas prices for several years. By that time, we should be well on our way to making better use of alternative fuel sources. 1) The Constitution grants freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Actually, I believe freedom from religion is implied this way as well. It makes no sense to say its acceptable to believe in anything as long as you believe in something. I've read a few articles that make a strong argument for my position, but I don't have time to look for them right now.


I'm running out of time here. I'll finish this later.

[Tatterdemalion]

For a religious person, his beliefs influence everything he does in his life. All choices, attitudes, stances, etc. are based on his faith.
Not true. There are definitely people (probably the majority of the people I know) who are perfectly capable of distinguishing the material world from the spiritual world, the sacred from the profane, the religious from the secular. Even if a person is of a religious persuasion, when they take part in something, such as law or government, they can be reasonably expected to make that distinction.

[qoute]I have no probelm with the President answering to his god before the people. [/quote]

Yet I do. I'm sorry, but most Atheists I've talked to don't seem to see anything greater than themselves.
Really now? So you're saying that all Athiests you've met believe themselves, as individuals, to be the greatest powers in existence? If that's true, then I'd like to see the sort of people you hang around.

My experience, to the contrary, is that a significant number (though not all) of the atheists I've had experience with have been Humanists. Would you have a problem with a Humanist President? I do not want a President that feels that he is the greatest being on Earth or that there is no higher power that he has to answer to, whether that's a god or nature or whatever.

Does it really matter that much? I mean, why should the President have to answer to a so-called "higher power"? If the President were to answer to the people, and only the people, keeping the interests of the people above his religious views, would that be such a terrible thing?

I have to say, at this point it just seems like you're being silly, placing far too much importance on something that has much less significance than you attribute to it.

[DarkWarrior]

Unborn children were never alive, therefore they can't be killed.
There is sufficient scientific evidence to disprove this theory. Therefor, this reasoning doesn't apply.I can't respect something as inconsistent as the pro-life movement. Many people who claim to be pro-life are in favor of the death penalty. There have been rare instances of pro-lifers killing abortion doctors. If these people think life is so sacred, then why do they fell some lives are more sacred than others?
So all Muslims are bad because of the extremist suicide bombers in the middle-east, right? Or do you respect Muslims and their beliefs? This is just a way to dodge the actual subject. It's also a double-standard, for the logic applied above. Don't apply it to a race, but be sure to apply it towards a political viewpoint you disagree with. I've heard about ANWAR. It may be a wasteland, but we still don't need to open up any new areas for drilling. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no shortage of oil at this point in time. The cost of gasoline is up because there is a predicted shortage of oil in the future. Opening a new site for drilling would not effect gas prices for several years. By that time, we should be well on our way to making better use of alternative fuel sources.
Two questions.
1) Where do you expect to pull the money to fund these alternative fuel sources from?
2) Why should it be the government's issue? I'm of the opinion that people should be taking these things into their hands, not expect the government to solve all their problems for them.Actually, I believe freedom from religion is implied this way as well. It makes no sense to say its acceptable to believe in anything as long as you believe in something. I've read a few articles that make a strong argument for my position, but I don't have time to look for them right now.
Maybe in your personal life, but when the majority of people believe in a certain religious position, and feel that it is their obligation to act in a certain way, provided it doesn't take from basic human fundamental rights (Right to life is more important than "right" to choose, by the way, simply because the existence of a living person is at stake), then they should act in that way. You might not like how they act, but you can't tell them not to act that way. Try convincing them of your points, instead of forcing (Yes, that is what you're doing) your views on others.I have no probelm with the President answering to his god before the people.Yet I do.
You might, but it's the other person's right to take that into consideration when electing a president, or anyone else, into their position.Does it really matter that much? I mean, why should the President have to answer to a so-called "higher power"? If the President were to answer to the people, and only the people, keeping the interests of the people above his religious views, would that be such a terrible thing?
I agree, to an extent. The individual people need to be take these things into consideration, however, when they vote. If a subject is important to them, religious or not, then it should be considered when said person votes.

[killshot]

There is sufficient scientific evidence to disprove this theory. Therefor, this reasoning doesn't apply.
There has been scientific evidence that shows unborn children have experienced life? They are alive only in the sense that cells and tissues are alive. So all Muslims are bad because of the extremist suicide bombers in the middle-east, right? Or do you respect Muslims and their beliefs? This is just a way to dodge the actual subject. It's also a double-standard, for the logic applied above. Don't apply it to a race, but be sure to apply it towards a political viewpoint you disagree with.
I respect Muslims, but not their beliefs. Beliefs don't deserve any more respect just because someone holds them. The actual subject is that the government has no right to interfere with a woman's body. This point wasn't well received so I took a different approach. Two questions.
1) Where do you expect to pull the money to fund these alternative fuel sources from?
2) Why should it be the government's issue? I'm of the opinion that people should be taking these things into their hands, not expect the government to solve all their problems for them.
1.) How about doing something useful with the money being spent on the War? Does it really take billions a day just to keep the peace?
2.) What use is the government if it doesn't solve problems? I already have to piss away my tax dollars to support a war I don't believe in, so the least they could do is fund something that would benefit everyone. Maybe in your personal life, but when the majority of people believe in a certain religious position, and feel that it is their obligation to act in a certain way, provided it doesn't take from basic human fundamental rights (Right to life is more important than "right" to choose, by the way, simply because the existence of a living person is at stake), then they should act in that way. You might not like how they act, but you can't tell them not to act that way. Try convincing them of your points, instead of forcing (Yes, that is what you're doing) your views on others.
Ask Patrick Henry which is more important, the right to life or the right to choice? I think that freedom is an idea that is more important than the life of a potential person. Also, would anyone care to explain how I am forcing my beliefs on others instead of just insisting I am? I am just a guy ranting on a forum. No one even has to acknowledge what I'm saying.

[Tatterdemalion]

You might, but it's the other person's right to take that into consideration when electing a president, or anyone else, into their position
I know that, I was just expressing a difference of opinion.

[Tatterdemalion]

I respect Muslims, but not their beliefs. Beliefs don't deserve any more respect just because someone holds them.
How can you respect Muslims without respecting their beliefs (that is, without respecting Islam)? What you're saying is that you don't respect a set of beliefs (Islamic teachings) yet you'll automatically respect anyone who holds those beliefs (Muslims).

So if you don't respect the beliefs themselves, why do you respect those who are distinguished only by the fact that they hold them? Isn't that kind of like saying "I don't respect racism, but I respect Nazis"? Or "I don't respect art, but I respect painters"?

It seems a bit like a contradiction to me.

[DarkWarrior]

Ask Patrick Henry which is more important, the right to life or the right to choice? I think that freedom is an idea that is more important than the life of a potential person. Also, would anyone care to explain how I am forcing my beliefs on others instead of just insisting I am? I am just a guy ranting on a forum. No one even has to acknowledge what I'm saying.
But the "freedom" you're speaking of is taking away freedom from another person entirely. You prove to me that the child isn't its own existance, and that it's "Just part of the mother." Attached, yes. But also separate. I cite conjoined twins to back that.

[killshot]

How can you respect Muslims without respecting their beliefs (that is, without respecting Islam)? What you're saying is that you don't respect a set of beliefs (Islamic teachings) yet you'll automatically respect anyone who holds those beliefs (Muslims).
Am I not allowed to see a Muslim as a human being? What I'm trying to say is that I try not to fault someone for what has been drilled into their head. I doubt most Muslims have a choice of religion so it wouldn't be fair to discriminate based just on their faith.So if you don't respect the beliefs themselves, why do you respect those who are distinguished only by the fact that they hold them? Isn't that kind of like saying "I don't respect racism, but I respect Nazis"? Or "I don't respect art, but I respect painters"?
Beliefs aren't the only things that can distinguish someone. Nazis may have done horrible things, but their crimes are not the only things that define who they are. And your last example doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that if you don't like an artist's paintings then there is no way you can like the artist?But the "freedom" you're speaking of is taking away freedom from another person entirely. You prove to me that the child isn't its own existance, and that it's "Just part of the mother." Attached, yes. But also separate. I cite conjoined twins to back that.
Conjoined twins can be separated depending on where they are conjoined. A fetus cannot survive without the support of the mother. Until the fetus can survive without feeding off of the nourishment the mother provides, I would not consider it a separate entity.

[Tatterdemalion]

Am I not allowed to see a Muslim as a human being? What I'm trying to say is that I try not to fault someone for what has been drilled into their head. I doubt most Muslims have a choice of religion so it wouldn't be fair to discriminate based just on their faith.
I'm sorry, but if you think that Muslims have no choice in their religion, then once again you seem to have little idea what you're talking about. I mean, maybe in Saudi Arabia, and other countries in that region, but keep in mind that there are plenty of far eastern European countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey, Eurasian countries such as Kazakhstan, even an Arabian country like Yemen, which are largely Muslim, yet which have freedom of religion, and do not have the same obsessively confomist social attitudes. Are you saying that the people in these predominately Muslim countries have no choice what to believe? Because if you are, that's just blatantly false. And what about all of the Muslims living in non-Muslim countries? They certainly have a choice, don't they? It's not as though the vast majority of Muslims come

So by saying that you respect Muslims because they can't be held entirely responsible for their religious beliefs, which are the real guilty party, you're not really respecting them at all, are you?

I mean, by most definitions of the word, I'd consider that to be rather disrespectful. I mean, how is it any different from the Spanish landing in Central America ans saying "Oh, look at these poor dark people, running arond naked and worshipping false gods; clearly it is not their fault that they are heathens, they're simply child-like and ignorant, and don't know any better."

Now, did the Spanish really value the natives as human beings? In their minds they did. To most of us it's pretty clear that they didn't. You're making a very similar argument, that no one in their right mind would be a Muslim, and that most Muslims simply have no choice, and don't know any better, so they really can't be blamed for worshipping false gods, and embracing the wrong ideology. So while you may call that respect, I call that arrogance and superiority. I suppose they're similar, though.Nazis may have done horrible things, but their crimes are not the only things that define who they are.
So, let me ask you, if you don't like racism (which I assume you don't) do you respect Nazis. That is German WWII Nazis, American Nazis, Neo-Nazis, anyone who falls under the header of "Nazi." And if so, then why? You could say that they have "other things that define who they are," but you've never actually met these people, you're just categorizing them as a group based on their beliefs. So considering that the only thing Nazis have in common as a group is that they are Nazis, do you respect Nazis? And if so, why, if not, why not?And your last example doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that if you don't like an artist's paintings then there is no way you can like the artist?
Okay, strike that, I think I'm doing fine with the Nazi analogy.

[DarkWarrior]

Conjoined twins can be separated depending on where they are conjoined. A fetus cannot survive without the support of the mother. Until the fetus can survive without feeding off of the nourishment the mother provides, I would not consider it a separate entity.
Nor can an infant. Also, as science progresses, we'll be able to support unborn children earlier on in their developmental stage in the event that something happens to the mother. So this logic doesn't exactly apply.

I seem to have forgotten to address this one, too:1.) How about doing something useful with the money being spent on the War? Does it really take billions a day just to keep the peace?
2.) What use is the government if it doesn't solve problems? I already have to piss away my tax dollars to support a war I don't believe in, so the least they could do is fund something that would benefit everyone.
1) Uh, you're definition of "useful" doesn't apply here. Military spending is part of the government's job. Saying that they shouldn't be spending it just because you don't support the war is absurd.
2) Same logic as above. Also, the energy issue is more economical than it is political. While I'm sure that it will soon become necessary for the government to start helping fund renewable, clean energy along, that is not its primary reason for being there. The people need to start doing things about that, not whine that the government isn't doing its "job". Providing energy isn't the government's job.

[Tatterdemalion]

It's odd how I find myself alternating between agreeing and disagreeing with killshot.1) Uh, you're definition of "useful" doesn't apply here. Military spending is part of the government's job. Saying that they shouldn't be spending it just because you don't support the war is absurd.
I think what Killshot is suggesting is ending the war, not continuing the war as it is now, but just not funding it.2) Same logic as above. Also, the energy issue is more economical than it is political. While I'm sure that it will soon become necessary for the government to start helping fund renewable, clean energy along, that is not its primary reason for being there. The people need to start doing things about that, not whine that the government isn't doing its "job". Providing energy isn't the government's job.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the government should "provide" energy to its citizens, but rather that funding should be granted to research and develop clean/renewable energy. Of all of the areas of research, energy technology is by far the most pressing, paralleled perhaps only by medical development.

Now you say that "the people need to start doing things" and not "whine," so I ask you exactly what it is that people are supposed to be doing in the area of energy research and development. I'm a person, so I suppose I count as the people, so why don't you enlighten me as to what I, and I suppose all of us, are meant to be doing. I mean, I could get a degree in the field, and actively take a role in the research, but then the matter as to where the funding is going to come from so that the institute at which I work can. I mean, yes, there are grants by private organizations and academic institutions, but if you think such funding is sufficient to cover the needs of the field you're deluding yourself.

So exactly what is it that the people should be doing?

[DarkWarrior]

People should be doing exactly what they say other people should be doing. Purchasing energy-efficient products, hybrid cars, and the like. By "whine", I mean the people that demand the government fix a problem that doesn't fall under their responsibilities. If they want government involvement, they need to find more diplomatic approaches and start practicing what they're preaching. I know several people who want the government to fix this problem, but won't bother doing things to improve the situation themselves. This is hypocrisy at its finest.

[killshot]

I'm sorry, but if you think that Muslims have no choice in their religion, then once again you seem to have little idea what you're talking about.
A poor choice of words on my part. I meant to say "many" instead of "most." My point was that Muslims in countries like Saudi Arabia are strongly encouraged, if not forced, to believe in the teachings of Islam. Other Muslims may be free to choose their religion, but ultimately their choice of faith will depend largely on the beliefs of their parents. They technically can choose any belief they want, but I think most people would prefer to follow the traditions set by their family. The same can be said for Christians or any other faith for that matter. So by saying that you respect Muslims because they can't be held entirely responsible for their religious beliefs, which are the real guilty party, you're not really respecting them at all, are you?
I wouldn't say I automatically respect anyone. For example, I met a Muslim from Turkey and he turned out to be a pretty cool person. I respect that particular Muslim. Perhaps respect is too strong of word to use on a group of people. I guess what I mean is that I don't disrespect people just for holding beliefs I don't agree with. So, let me ask you, if you don't like racism (which I assume you don't) do you respect Nazis. That is German WWII Nazis, American Nazis, Neo-Nazis, anyone who falls under the header of "Nazi." And if so, then why?
I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood. When I was in fifth grade I made friends with a guy in my class. I later found out that he had a deep respect for Hitler and Nazis Germany. Because their weren't any minorities in our entire school, the fact that he considered himself a Neo-Nazi didn't have any effect on anyone. The point is, even though I didn't agree with him, we could still be friends because we had other things in common (mostly video games.) The particular brand of Nazi doesn't matter as much as how big of an impact it has on their personality. So considering that the only thing Nazis have in common as a group is that they are Nazis, do you respect Nazis? And if so, why, if not, why not?
When you lump them into one group you are no longer talking about people, you are talking about an idea. I do not respect the idea of a perfect race and therefore I do not respect Nazis as a whole. I might be able to find something I can agree with if I examine Nazis on an individual basis, but as a whole they deserve no respect.Nor can an infant. Also, as science progresses, we'll be able to support unborn children earlier on in their developmental stage in the event that something happens to the mother. So this logic doesn't exactly apply.

If science progresses to the point where the fetus can be raised independently from the mother, then abortion would no longer be relevant. The point of an abortion is to eliminate strain on the mother and free her from the responsibility of a child. If this could be accomplished without destroying the fetus, then there would be no need to abort. However, we don't have that option yet and so the decision still should rest with the mother.

[RationalInquirer]

Strange that religion seems to force it's way into politics all the time. Especially in the United States. What happened to the Separation of Church and State? Did the constitution suddenly gone more lax? McCain only appointed Palin as his running mate because this way he could swing the vote of the conservative religious right to his favour, and attempt to gain the vote of the people who are more interested in a hockey mom whom you could sit down and have a chat with. (or have a beer with in Bush's case). Frankly, this is where McCain's decision backfires, as the parties were not even aware of Palin's choosing. They were more focused on the other possible candidates and when she was appointed it was a big surprise not to mention her disastrous interview in regarding the recent economic collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc and the amusing parody http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDqSvJ6aHc. If I was an american citizen, I would vote for Obama. Unfortunately, both of them have to clean up Bush's enormous mess, and both of them are capable of mishandling it.

[killshot]

What happened to the Separation of Church and State?
They did away with that when they decided there wasn't enough God on our money. It was around the fifties when America decided the illusion of safety was more important than civil liberties.