McCain-Palin supporters scare me

Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap.

Give yourself a medal.

maybe if you'd put the oxy down for a sec, you'd see why we're worried.

Just like he supported the FISA bill when it was convenient, only to vote against it when the time came, I only see this as convenient, since it's unlikely to pass. It's a candidacy of convenience, not far removed from McCain's, which puts me off.

I also wasn't thrilled with his vote for the pork-ridden bailout bill (not that I thought the previous version was any better). I'm happy that my senator, Ron Wyden, voted against the bailout bills and the FISA bills. I would have wished Obama would do the same.

RON WYDEN FOR PRESIDENT!!

Indeed, if Ron Wyden were running I would consider voting for him. He's one of only ten senators to vote against renewing the PATRIOT Act. Obama voted for it, even though he continues to say he supports repealing it. Wyden also sponsored the Healthy Americans Act, which would create a universal health care system with public and private funds. It's not single payer health care, but it's a better system than either Democrat has proposed. Oh, and he voted against the war in Iraq.

Still, I disagree with Wyden on a lot of things. He voted for strengthening the embargo with Cuba, something I'm hugely against. We're trading with North Korea and China, but somehow Cuba is still not ok? Would it be better if Cuba rattled its saber a bit like North Korea did so it too can get preferential treatment? It's by far this country's most hypocritical and inhumane policy.

I also disagree with his tax and trade policies, he voted for NAFTA and voted with the Republicans to lower capital gains taxes. He also wants to look into a flat tax, which I find ludicrous, and wonder how his policies are supposed to work without a progressive tax system. This is why I also found his health care plan's funding proposal dubious.

By the way, Jeff Merkley, who is running for the other senate seat in Oregon, agrees with Wyden that the bailout bill is bad.

He too, is getting my vote.

Ok but we have two real candidates running. no fantasy candidates. The ridiculous argument that OBAMA's policies are anything like JOhn McCain's and Bush's is the sort of ridiculous tripe that bought us 8 years of W.

Who made that argument?

Many of the people who support 3rd party candidates, and Ron Paul, and is there not a flavor of this argument here??

fixed?

Links to nothing.

However, most of the people doing that sort of 3rd party arguments really don't know much of anything about the real candidates' policies. They make arguments to try to convince people who aren't paying attention.

Are you seriously comparing me to a Paultard? Have I told you who to vote for? No. Have I told you who I'm voting for? No. End of straw man argument.

I'm noting that three SG members in one area all say these two candidates are similar on multiple issues, and I'd have to disagree.

I'm not calling anyone at all a Paultard, merely including them in a list.

Obama and McCain do agree on multiple issues, they said as much in their last two debates. The only issue I personally brought up where they agreed was same sex marriage, in that they both oppose it.

However, whereas Obama is for civil unions, McCain is not.

I also brought up the PATRIOT Act and the bailout bill, for which both senators voted the same way. And finally I brought up FISA, which McCain didn't vote on, and Obama voted for, despite claiming before and after the fact that he did not agree with the telecom immunity provision. He still voted for it though. This is one in a series of stances he's taken to appease the right, which was my initial criticism.

You can feel free to lump me in with other people, but the points I made are valid and you haven't shown otherwise.

I'm not calling you a paultard, but I am accusing you of living in a bubble of thinking that a Democrat can get elected to the White House in this electoral college system without appealing to some conservatives.

Also, care to explain why you think that the President will decide the gay marriage issue?

Well, that's your opinion and you're welcome to have it. I admit that I don't share CE's collective blind love for Obama nor do I believe he's as infallible as people take him to be.

I like him, he's a very nice man, and I was more persuaded to vote for him after the last debate than in 20 months prior. But I still have very valid critiques of his policies, and I find it hypocritical that McCain gets accused of things here while Obama gets a free ride.

Eh?

YES, OBAMA'S FREE RIDE!!

Oh, and you still didn't answer my query about gay marriage.

Yeah, FTR agrees with me (or did, I don't know that he still does), and he was about the only one. By the way, my post in that thread says much the same thing I'm saying now.

I responded to your previous comment, before you edited it. I will now gladly respond to your current comment.

Well then I'm apparently living in the same bubble that JFK and LBJ did. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The president signs bills into law. What happens if we get Congress to pass a bill allowing for same sex marriage, only to have it vetoed by the president? Can Obama assure me that won't happen? Can he assure me he won't vote for a federal Defense of Marriage Act?

Plus, I think this is the best chance we have towards a federal law allowing for same sex marriage. You mentioned the US Supreme Court earlier, and are apparently more confident than I am that they would decide in favor of gay marriage if it went to court. Maybe you can link me to something showing why this is the case. The US Supreme Court leans conservative, and I have a hard time believing five justices would rule in favor of this.

But that's not a "free ride", now is it? I recall a lot of people were openly vocal in more than a few threads about Obama vote for the FISA bill.

Agreed. You are living in 1964.

There won't be any federal legislation "allowing same sex marriage" because authority of regulating marriage is granted to the states. The only way that the legislature could decide on the issue is an amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as between a man and a women.

Not only that, but Obama has come out against Prop. 8 in California. So, even in your impossible scenario, it's unlikely that Obama would veto any such bill.

I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion, especially how the court is currently made up. But two liberal judges are set to retire (or pass away). Do you really think he wouldn't nominate a liberal justice because they would hypothetically vote in support of gay marriage?

Indeed, Obama has some very liberal friends, no? McCain does not. If anyone is interested in who might be seated for the next supreme court for the next 20 or so years, they'd favor Obama.

Indeed this article which came out today in the National Review says OBAMA favors GAY marriage but isn't talking yet.

Many people think Obama and McCain offer very different thoughts on what to do as POTUS.

Here are two moderate columnists spelling out the differences, not in the NYTimes.

p.s. I don't like him bc he's cute. I like him bc he's smart and pragmatic and nice.

But hey, vote for who you want to. If it's because of his FISA vote, then that's justifiable (notice I never disputed that point). If it's because he can't magically immediately withdraw a large occupation force in a matter of weeks or the idea that the President will have any direct effect on same sex marriages other than appointing Judges, then that's ridiculous.

FISA was a big disappointment, but no one is perfect and political expediency befalls all politicians.

So I guess asking current politicians to be held to that same standard is too much to ask? Yeah, I guess I am living in a bubble.

Well then maybe I'm confused. The Defense of Marriage Act as I understand it seems to state that neither the Federal Government, nor any individual state, may recognize same sex marriages. The provision being that each state may decide on its own whether they recognize same sex marriage, which is where we are now.

Someone with more legal knowledge than I would have to explain to me why Congress can pass into law a bill that says states aren't required to recognize same sex marriage, and yet can't pass a bill repealing that law and stating the opposite (that the Federal Government must recognize same sex marriage).

More than you simply stating that the only thing the legislature can do is add a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage isn't quite enough for me.

He opposes a ban on same sex marriage, as he opposes a ban on any discriminatory law. He hasn't said if he supports laws for same sex marriage, or would sign such a bill into law. He simply states that he supports civil unions which give the same rights, and I fail to see how this is different than the old "seperate but equal" argument given during the Civil Rights movement.

No, but as you said, I don't think it will make a difference. The vital justice appointments happened four years ago, and it's too late to do anything about it for a very long time. Right now the best Obama can do is maintain the status quo if more justices retire or pass. This was my biggest issue of the last election cycle for this very reason.

By the way, you seem stuck on this one issue. It's one of many issues I mentioned. I know Obama's heart is in the right place here, I know he's trying to be tolerant and move us forward gradually, but the fact is, we still disagree on this issue and others. I haven't even mentioned capital punishment, which he supports and I abhor. I think this is a major issue, and it's embarrassing how we're one of only a handful of intolerant nations that still believe it's ok to kill people.

And may I say now, if I haven't been clear enough in the past, that I'm not telling people who to vote or not vote for. This is where I differ from the muppet at the start of this thread. By all means, vote for your candidate of choice, the one that appeals to you. If that person is Obama, then great, I do sincerely hope he becomes president. But I don't have to agree with him, or vote for him, to think so. I don't, and I won't.

How about I decide on voting for the guy who aligns best with my beliefs? Isn't that what you're supposed to do in an election? Why is that so bad?

You are confused. DOMA simply says that states aren't forced to recognize gay marriages performed in another state. It attempts to (unconstitutionally, in my opinion) carve out an exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Art. IV, Sec. 1. It does NOT say that individual states can not recognize gay marriages. Someday DOMA will be challenged, however in a (correct) abundance of caution, gay rights organizations aren't going to do that any time soon.

Similarly, the Federal Government can (and someday will) make the decision to recognize gay marriages. Whether they could, through legislation, force other states to recognize gay marriages as well is not entirely clear. Probably yes, but the trend since 1995 has been to limit the ability of the Federal government to impose on state laws. Regardless, neither of these scenarios will happen any time soon and neither are something that Obama could do all by himself were he to become President, both practically and legally speaking.

In my mind, the best reason to vote for Obama is because he will appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that will uphold the right to choose and prevent the executive branch from disregarding habeas corpus and the other types of blatant abuses of power we've seen in the past 8 years. If you care about abortion rights and about limiting the reach of the executive branch, Obama is the ONLY person you should vote for. If McCain gets into office, it is a virtual lock that Roe will be overturned and it will be decades before we see cases decided in favor of the rule of law like Boumendiene, or Rasul. There is no doubt in my mind that McCain will appoint Justices who will tip the scales the other way and we will end up with the most conservative Supreme Court in over a century.

The Defense of Marriage Act does not allow or disallow same sex marriage. States are still free to define marriage how they choose. The Defense of Marriage Act prevents comity, via the Full Faith and Credit Clause, between states. And while you may not like the result, it actually preserves the decision to the individual state.
How?
Well, w/o the Defense of Marriage Act a same sex couple living in a state which does not allow same sex marriage could travel to a state that recognized same sex marriage. The couple could marry in that state and return to their home state and demand that the marriage be recognized because it was valid in the other state (that's what the Full Faith and Credit Clause is about).
So, the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent same sex marriages. It just curbs the ability of couples to avoid their state's non-recognition of same sex marriage by getting married in a different state.
It was hostile to same sex marriage in that it provides the federal gov't won't recognize the marriages. This is probably most significant in that it would prevent certain Social Security retirement/death benefits and presumably prevent filing as Married on Federal Income taxes.