I agree with you on this... even if my way of getting there is a bit different. I have little philosophical issue with the idea of a death penalty, but it is not arrived at fairly in this country, thus in the political realm, I am against it.
I would add, I would be grateful for Obama to shock me and accomplish great things. I just cannot vote for him in conscience; and also because I have allowed politics to harden me. I have lost a trust in the process. I am going to believe his intentions are right, because I did that with George W. in the beginning. I for one do not like a stronger centralized government that makes it less likely for people to express and live personal liberties. I think federal economics drive this. I do not share the values of a global consensus being always the right thing and I feel right choices stand for themselves whether the majority supports it or not. In fact I am a believer that often the right choice is held by the minority and that is why I believe a republic form of goverance is superior to a social democracy. I do support his willingness to reach out more to the less fortunate- the weak and down trodden, this is a big downfall for republicans- they come across to me as uncompassionate capitalists. At least democrats raise the issues of the most needy.
You may be in favor of it, for all I know, but if government expenditure is a concern, Obama is also talking about stopping the humdreds or thousands of billions we spend in Iraq for the occupation.
lol. I was not trying to pick on you or anything, just that it seems defeatist to proclaim the US between a rock and a hard place. From a budget standpoint, someone needs to stand up and say "nope, I ain't funding this ****. And I'm gonna cut funding another 30% while I'm at it."
I agree, it should be a gradual and equitable process, but some claim to be 'anti-globalism' w/o qualification. I still find it funny that we so strongly categorize and segregate and define ourselves by our nations, races, religions, political affiliations... whatever we can think of... rarely admitting that we all are humans, with the same common ancestors. Same ancestors. Yesterday I read that all Native Americans are related to 6 females from 20,000 years ago, yet some of those tribes fought violently ... I think of Reagan's speeches on an alien threat bringing humanity together ... What were we talking about again?
We have been through this before. The GOP under Reagan and Bush I and II ran huge deficits. Tax cuts and huge increases in military spending under one pretext or another. This is supported by the hard core right wing theorists , who want to hamstring government and prevent it from being too effecive. The social security system, medicare and other popular federal programs piss them off, because they are popular. That was the rationale behind Bush's continual vetoes for exapnding the CHIPS program to more lower to middle class families. He was afraid that it would be popular and get people preferring government paid insurance over none or expensive private insurance. When the Dems get in all of a sudden the big emphasis should be on reducing the tax cuts and continuing the unsustainable tax cuts on the higher income folks that the Repubs put in during their time in office. Let the Dems take the political blame for being responsible and raising taxes.
Unfortunately a question that has to be asked for everything these days, I'm always wary of stuff like this because it's easy to pick small portions of bills that may be entirely unrelated to the larger bill and then say someone favors or is against an issue that they would have voted completely differently on had the issue been presented by itself. That's why you see everyone loading up all kind sof things on Omnibus Spending bills, transportation, agriculture, Military Budget bills, etc. Also, be wary of any group that tries to present an unbiased view of the issues by referencing advocacy groups. The first example is worth noting... it says: Why quote the National Right to Life Committee? They are certainly approaching the issue from a certain perspective and the fact they are quoted here shows a little bias. All that said, let's look at the first issue as an example. I don't equate stem cells with abortion. As far as I can tell, neither does Obama. That this source does shows where their bias (I use the word not in a bad sense) is, as does the linking of Obama's efforts to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptive... one would assume that reducing teen pregnancy will reduce the number of abortions. To the site's credit, they do provide a link to some quotes and things written about Obama that seem even-handed: I can't complain with that and it seems like a very mainstream position taken in response to a overreaching winger piece of legislation. Another: Here's the basis of the partial-birth abortion line: It's clear to me anyway that Obama's talking about abortion in general during most of this answer and only addresses the partial-birth stuff with only a passing reference. Deciding that he Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion seems a little bit of a stretch based on this answer. It may be his real position, but I don't see how you can claim that based on this. Furthermore, that answer is very much in keeping with his basic thinking on abortion: Again, it seems like a mainstream position on abortion... hoping to make it as infrequent as possible but recognizing that human nature will not let us completely stop it. I could go on, but I think the point is made. Agree or diasgree with a candidate, but just don't take anyone's word blindly.
Please elaborate. I'll give my stance: Outside of immediate protection, I don't think governments should be in the business of killing its citizens or funding that death. I certainly rank my opposition to the death penalty lower than my opposition to abortion, but I still feel strongly about it.
Thank you and very good points. I do not exactly know his position on abortion and I am making a judgment based upon things I read he said and did. I certainly need to dig deeper to try and understand his position- and will do that. Thanks again for that balance.
This is Barack Obama: This is Hillary Clinton: While they match on Economic Issues, SHE is more Socially liberal than he is according to the site that you used. So if you aren't going to vote for Barack Obama becuase he is a hard core liberal, you weren't going to vote Democrat at all. By the way, here is John McCain: John McCain is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.
^^ I generally like OnTheIssues, but I think they pick and choose issues that slant many views slightly to the right: Here's my chart from them: Conservative-leaning, libertarian-leaning moderate. I've taken hundreds of these, and I generally tend to be left and libertarian from there.
In my view, there are some things that some people do that should theoretically disqualify you from participating in the human race. For example, raping and torturing a child to death. That said, there's no way to enforce a death penalty equitably in this country. If you have money, are white, or get a good lawyer, your chances of not getting the death penalty increase greatly over someone who may have committed the same crime but is poor, black, and got a crappy lawyer. Similarly, if two people commit the same crime one yard apart, one may be in a state that has the death penalty and the other may be in a state that does not. Same crime, one death sentence, one life sentence with the difference being an imaginary line on the ground.
No need to feel bad or guilty about it. You've made a rational decision based on the issues you value and looking at the candidate's positions rather than being swayed by rhetoric. Whether I agree with you on your issues is a different matter but I'm not going to criticize the process that led you to make your decision.
The executive has a pretty strong say in the implementation of the death penalty as former IL gov. Ryan showed the executive branch can implement a moratorium or a broad commutation of sentences. I believe this also applies at the Federal level.
Timing had a lot to do with the success of the Clinton years but I wouldn't completely discount what Clinton did including raising taxes and cutting spending in the 1993 budget. Alan Greenspan has said those moves gave him the confidence to lower interest rates along with increasing faith in the soundness of the US economy that made credit much easier that helped to fuel the technology boom. The problem we have now is that the Fed has divorced interest rates from soundness in the economy.
While I admire their motivation, I think those kind of moratoriums and broad commutations are an abuse of power. Commutations are a perfectly reasonable use of executive power, but separation of powers requires it to be done only when there are legitmate questions about that case. Carte blanche commutations is really legislating from the Governor's (or President's) office.
