Hey, flist?

[preussisch_blau]

Can we be reasonable, rational human beings when it comes to politics?

I think we can. No, scratch that. I know we can.

Right now, there's a big election coming up for us Americans. And honestly? I have a lot of questions I'd like answered. So, hopefully we can be civilised while I get these questions answered.

Here's how it goes. I'll be making a public post every couple of days, with one of my questions. Anyone can participate. You can even send your friends over here to participate. However, there will be ground rules.

1./ There will be no insults thrown. This applies to your fellow commenters AND to the politicians. For those of you who need specific examples, there is to be no mention of "kool-aid" in reference to either party (unless we're actually discussing kool-aid), there will be no comments like "Grumpy McSame" or "Osama bin Biden", and there will definitely be NO calling anyone a cunt. We're going to be respectful here.

2./ Please make ONE point per comment. You may have a lot of answers. However, I like things organised. So, if I ask a question you can give a lot of different responses to, please leave each point as a separate comment. For example, if I were to ask "What do you like about chicken noodle soup and why?" and your answer is "the chicken and the noodles", you would leave two separate comments; one about the chicken, and one about the noodles.

3./ If someone's already made the point you wanted to make, please just continue in the thread they started. I think this one explains itself.

4./ Anyone is free to express their opinion in any thread they desire. Please keep opinions/comments related to the thread at hand, however. The corollary to this being that if you don't like someone's opinion about a candidate, calling them racist or misogynist is not the way to go. I don't tolerate pointless bandying about of the race or sex card. That, and it falls under Rule 1.

5./ Opinions are opinions, not facts. If it's your opinion, you don't need to back it up. Just realise I will ask WHY you think that way. Also realise someone may have facts that run contrary to your opinion. If you tout something as fact, I will demand proof. Take as long as you need to find proof. I won't rush you, so long as you don't rush me. Same applies to everyone else.

6./ Celebrities are neither political nor legal experts. So I'd be very careful bringing any actors or musicians into this.

Breaking these rules will result in frozen threads, banned users, and possible deleted comments if the comment is THAT offensive. Also, this is my personal blog, so if I say the discussion is over, it is over. You can carry it on in your blog, you can IM eachother about it, knock yourselves out, but don't let it continue in my blog.

THAT business out of the way, I have my first question.

Why should I vote for Obama?

Comments

[foofighter0234.livejournal.com]

Yes ma'am! Here's my view. :)

In my opinion, you should vote for Obama because he'll bring something new to Washington politics that favors the middle class American worker, instead of bringing more of the same, tired, big business centered fuckery that favors oil companies and CEOs and does nothing for the common Americans who often struggle to pay their mortgage, have to decide between buying food or buying medication, and finding a way to get health care for themselves when they do not have health insurance.

I personally voted for Obama because I cannot stand four more years of America getting screwed by the oil companies and big businesses, and us having to pay the price for their fuck ups.

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

What will he bring that favours the middle class American? I need specifics here. I mean, I can't just decide based off of a general feel-good statement.

[foofighter0234.livejournal.com]

He will give tax breaks to 95% of Americans; basically, anyone who makes less than $100,000 per year will get a tax break, and cut off said tax breaks for oil companies and big businesses.

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

40% of Americans don't pay taxes*, according to this article in the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/). How is he going to give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes?

Also, I'd hardly say that big businesses get tax breaks, as America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Source for that is here. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html) Now, that's just an average figure, but still. If I owned a corporation, I wouldn't want to have my main workforce in America. More likely that I'll have to spend a lot of money on taxes. I'd rather have my workforce overseas, where there aren't such high taxes on corporations.

*Edit: My apologies. After looking further into the matter, I've discovered that this only refers to income taxes. Those 40%, however, do still pay taxes for Social Security and such. My new question is, how can he give those people a tax cut when Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs are things EVERYONE is supposed to be taxed on?

[foofighter0234.livejournal.com]

This would be a general tax cut, not for stuff like Social Security and Medicare.

Read this...

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

Obama says that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He also says he'll cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% (lower than it is today).

Let's ignore the fact that he is proposing the largest tax hike in history on the other 5% of Americans, to the extent that 1.13 million Americans (1%) will pay more taxes than 128 million Americans (80%) combined.

How is he going to cut taxes when, as mentioned before, roughly 40% do not pay, or pay an extremely small amount of, income tax and similar taxes?

He's redefining tax cut.

With his plan, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. Now, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." The plan is to create or expand seven such credits (at least):

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

All but the clean car credit would be "refundable". In plain English, that means you get those checks even if you don't otherwise have any income tax liability. They are an income transfer from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. In other words, "tax cut" is just a shiny new way of saying "welfare".

This is a summary of the primary points of this article at the Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html)

[skew-whiff.livejournal.com]

The points I would usually argue this based upon are largely ideological; as you're conservative by inclination, these would be wasted upon you.

I'm generally of the opinion that most people have fairly fixed tendencies which they wouldn't wish to change, and it's a waste of time to attempt to convince all but the politically indecisive.

That, and well, I don't know enough about the specific policy points of the two parties to really comment intelligently.
I will say this, though. You live in the world's sole superpower (for the moment; keep an eye on China). Who you vote for affects all of us. And, well, I'm sure a lot of us would prefer it if you go for the one with the less hawkish foreign policy. The 'war on terror' has done little for your global reputation. You've tried aggressive military tactics for the past seven years - maybe it's time to try something else, and Obama seems to suggest he'd take a more diplomatic tack. That's my argument for, I suppose.

Still, I'm hardly expecting this to sway you.

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

You may know me all too well, oh skewed one.

However, both candidates are for withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Obama wishes to do so right away, whereas McCain would like to wait until there's more stability in the region. I don't see either candidate as out and out picking a fight with Iran, although McCain seems more likely to get the UN to put pressure on Iran to keep them from getting too aggressive with their nuclear program.

Obama's plan just seems like it's not very well put together. It's like, I like the idea, but I don't see how he could execute it in the timeline he's been talking about, especially with the withdrawal. He's thinking it'll happen pretty soon after he gets into office, but taking other factors into account, it might not happen till when McCain is talking anyways.

Also, you may want to take a look at This, (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm) this, (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75438) and this (http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2008/09/obama_brags_abo.html).

If you don't feel like clicking through, the gist is that Obama purposely stalled the withdrawal of troops from Iraq for his own political gain, presuming he wins the election.

That's not something that sits well with me. It doesn't make me feel confident, even though I think he's got a lot of good ideas. (I'd love to provide you with more links than those, but anything negative about Obama tends to be vastly underreported compared to the latest "scandal" involving Palin.)

[skew-whiff.livejournal.com]

Well, no politician lives up to their promises. And with the amount of hope invested in Obama, no way can the guy be anything but a bit of a disappointment if he wins. That's just the way of things.

The Iraq withdrawal thing, though, hmm. Didn't McCain also say he'd be willing to stay in there for a hundred years if it got the job done?
I hear you on how long it could take, though. The UK's meant to be hauling ass out of there soon but they're taking their sweet time - you can't get out of a country overnight.
Still. It seems just natural to me that a Republican president is likely to be more gung-ho than a Democratic one. Ideology, again.
The links, though, I ain't too sure. The NY Post is a reasonable source, but it's an op-ed. And I'd as soon believe World Net Daily as believe a tramp yelling at me in the street that aliens are beaming signals into his brain. Same other way round, of course - I'd hardly expect you to be at all swayed if I tried to back up an argument using a blog post from Daily Kos or Pandagon. Not that I'm writing it off entirely, just taking it all with a pinch of salt.
(And I find it hard to believe that negative stuff about Obama is underreported given how conservative the US television news networks are. But then, I imagine you think it's got a liberal bias. Grass is always greener, isn't it? It's about like how nobody here can decide if the purportedly impartial BBC are actually reactionary tools of the establishment or raving communists.)

Um, anyway. That went on kind of long. But points accepted and taken on board, if not agreed with. I wasn't expecting to convince you of anything, after all.

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see us stay there for a hundred years. I assure you in that time, that some President would have come along and withdrawn the troops long before a hundred years could pass. The point of that statement was that he'd be willing to stay there until we got the job done.

Is the Washington Times neutral enough for you? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/)

(The U.S. news is CONSERVATIVE? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA et all. I am DYING of laughter here. DY. ING. I'll get back to you on this when I'm not about to break something with laughter.)

[utapau.livejournal.com]

The US televisions are very, very far from being conservative. Especially CNN.

[greek-jester.livejournal.com]

Personally? I would be very, very nervous if the Republicans got in due to M's ill health - the chances of him surviving his term as president are slim, & that would mean SP would take over. The idea that someone who would charge rape victims for the kits that collect evidence of the rape & prevent them getting pregnant, is appalling. The fact that the same person states she would be willing to deny victims of rape, even incestuous rape, access to an abortion is worse. The thought of someone like that being in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world? *shudders* Just my $0.02.

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

So wait, your issues with Sarah Palin involve a statewide policy concerning those rape kits (never mind that the victims NEVER saw the cost of those and that rape kits have to be done by qualified medical personnel, hence why they can be billed to insurance and why most hospitals write the cost off if a woman doesn't have insurance) and abortion?

Alright, I'll get to that in a moment, but can I just say that I am a multi-issue person who's not going to be swayed by two VERY minor issues that aren't going to affect me any? (Also, it's highly unlikely that McCain is going to die in office, so long as he doesn't go for a second term. Of eight presidents dead in office, half were assassinated and the other four died of diseases easily cured by modern medicine. Honestly, I haven't heard a lot that would indicate McCain's health is such that he wouldn't last a single term in office. But I digress.)

Anyhow, there's no point arguing the rape kit thing, as there's certainly enough information out there that you have most likely researched well enough to form your own opinion on, and unfortunately my legal research has run a bit dry on the subject of abortion... But, I'm fairly certain it would take the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade and an act of Congress to make abortion illegal. So I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.

Honestly though, compared to the economy and the war in Iraq, I'm just not that concerned about abortions. Even though I disagree heartily with Obama's stance; that abortions can be done even in the third trimester, and that it's perfectly alright to deny medical care to infants born alive as a result of a late-term abortion because they've "been aborted"; I'm still a bit on the fence about him. On the one hand, there is the promise of change. On the other hand, McCain promises change too.

Edit: That said, here's everything about her stance on abortion. (http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm) I have to ask, why do you think an unborn child ought to suffer for the sins of their father? The mother only needs to carry the child to term, and then she never has to see the child again. It's still a human life, a human life that has done nothing wrong other than existing. Why should it be okay to murder an unborn child because his father was a rapist when we cannot murder the rapist?

[greek-jester.livejournal.com]

Murder is an inflammatory term, please reconsider it.

Completely ignoring the emotional damage to a woman who is forced to continue a pregnancy which was, quite literally, forced on her (& which may endanger her life as suicide might be considered an option), & ignoring the financial hardships faced by a woman who, even in the best of pregnancies, must pay for clothing, vitamins, trips to the doctor, & deal with the loss of income & (possible) damage to her career when she takes time off work, & also ignoring the effects on the woman's relationships with her family, friends, & community, there is the fact that pregnancy permanently changes a woman's body. This leads to further financial hardship when clothing has to be replaced, & in the case of a forced continuation of an unwanted pregnancy, emotional & psychological issues relating to the unavoidable physical changes caused by the pregnancy. And unless the state is willing to pay for the 24/7 personal trainers & chefs that celebrity mums have access to, there is no chance of regaining that pre-pregnancy figure.

There is also the fact that there are women who must avoid pregnancy completely as it could cause permanent medical damage or even death. I am one of those women - due to some of the health issues I have, there is an extremely high chance that I would be left permanently disabled, brain-damaged or dead. SP may say that the life of the mother would be given priority, but is that just physical life, or quality of life? If there is a chance that the mother will be permanently maimed by a pregnancy, will she be allowed to abort, or will she be forced to continue with the pregnancy because she will 'live' afterwards?

Until the foetus is capable of surviving without medical intervention outside of the womb, the rights of the mother should have a priority. Women are not brood mares, & their wishes should be made a priority when they did not ask to be inseminated.

Banning abortion will not stop women from trying to end unwanted pregnancies. The number of horror-stories about women who went to back-street abortion 'clinics' are not exaggerated - I know a woman who went through it in the 50's, & it left her unable to bear children & incontinent for the rest of her life. Despite it all, she said that she didn't regret it - she said anything was better than bearing the 'devils spawn' - the devil being her father.

Attempts to take the choice of what to do with her own body away from a woman should be shot down immediately. Anything else is the first step towards a return to the days when women were considered to be property, unable to care for or think for themselves.

[alouette-sparra.livejournal.com]

Why should I step away from the term murder? The death penalty is murder, and I don't agree with that. Abortion is also murder. At least the death penalty, you're killing someone who has done something wrong.

You're spewing a lot of crap here. Sarah Palin would not want a woman to continue pregnancy if it's a severe danger to her health. It's possible to regain that pre-pregnancy figure... Well, either that, or a lot of women I know are utterly delusional, going around wearing the same size clothes or SMALLER than they did before they got pregnant.

I think you're talking to the wrong woman about children of incestuous rape, seeing as I did end up pregnant as the result of such a thing, and I was going to carry the child to term. It wasn't that baby's fault that it's father was a disgusting example of humanity. The only reason I'm not a single mother right now is because of a miscarriage.

Obama doesn't care about the child even when it's viable outside the womb. You decide at seven, eight months you don't want a baby and you can get an abortion, and he doesn't want doctors to give medical care to infants born alive as a result of abortion.

You know what? I can't even continue this, because you have utterly ENRAGED me, and I'm about ready to get personal.