?

Log in

No account? Create an account
How I'm voting. - CERisE's Testing for L

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

February 5th, 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
12:37 pm - How I'm voting.
President: Barack Obama.

Hillary projects a very strong feeling of a "nanny state". She's on record as having been horrified by the "Hot Coffee" mod of GTA: San Andreas. She's been on record supporting an awful lot of RIAA issues. Obama doesn't have that history.

I like Clinton's plan for universal health care, but Obama is at least for universal access to health care. That's a good start.

I've heard some people point out that Obama's against gay marriage. He's on record bringing his religious beliefs into it as well. However, Obama is also for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", supports equal rights for alphabet soup folk (read: GLBT + whatever other letters you think need to get tacked on there) in adoption and employment, civil unions, expanding hate crime legislation, and voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and a Federal Marriage amendment which would have prevented gay marriage.

Obama is *not* anti-gay.

Propositions:
91: No. The only argument submitted for this is a "PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS" from the authors of the prop.
92: No. I like the idea of lowering Community College tuition, but I don't like that the funding to make up the difference has to come from somewhere.
93: No. It brings about a reduction of 2 years in term limits, nonspecific to whether they were spent in the state senate or state assembly, while resetting the limits for some 42 members of the state legislature who would term out.
94-97: Yes. The stuff about this being a sweet deal for the four tribes mentioned is true. The stuff about this working against the other ones is false. There's nothing in this that stops any tribe from developing a similar agreement. Additionally, it brings in extra revenue from the state from the pockets of the people who are separating themselves from their money. I'm all for that.

(34 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:danaewinters
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
OMG (taking a deep breath to get over the shock) we're voting exactly the same way. Although the reasons I'm voting for Obama over Clinton are different. Mainly, I've looked at this election as who can better instigate "damage control" like our foreign relations policies and the increased divisiveness between the two major parties. While Clinton does have more experience in international relations, I see Obama as having more of the drive and personality to make both sides work together for a common cause, and not make one or the other side out to be the bad guys. He may be slightly less experienced, but I'm more confident in his ability to actually get things done than I am with Clinton. I hope he wins...and then if he does, I hope he doesn't make me look like an ass by not living up to those high expectations.
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down. It's OK. Every so often you can be rational. This is obviously one of those times. It'll pass. I'm sure. ; )

Ultimately, I'd say the experience gap between Obama and Clinton is bigger than "slightly", but experience isn't really a reason to select for one candidate over another. It's pretty clear that no one's really prepared for the job when they get it.

The only notable difference I see between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy is that Obama supports immediate withdrawal and Clinton seems to think that we should keep troops in for a while longer. I think that ultimately, both of these are promises which are going to be discarded on analysis of the region and the need for stability we're providing.

I also think that a lot of what happens in Iraq is being decided with Bush and Iran right now.

Clinton also -- for better or worse -- brings out a lot of divisiveness. While I'm a big fan of divisiveness, it's not really something we need in a president right now.
[User Picture]
From:gemlikeflame
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would participate in this conversation, except I'm voting for Ron Paul. :P
From:charlio1
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:27 pm (UTC)

Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
FYI, Hillary Clinton was key in passing Gay Marriage in Massachusetts by having her campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, quietly calling legislators to sway their votes. Obama did nothing....www.OUTTAKEonline.com/blog.html
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:47 pm (UTC)

Re: Dems & Gay Marriage

(Link)
...so?

Obama is known to be against gay marriage, but *for* civil unions. If civil unions are created, then this will result in one of two things happening.

1) Civil unions are created and afforded the same effective rights as marriage. The difference then is only in name and minutia. Those are not things to be principled about at this time.

2) Civil unions are created and shown not to have the same rights to marriage. This sets the stage for a legal case which has the potential to be a Brown v. Board of Education sort of thing through judicial review. If the argument is sound, then we're back at point 1.

I really can't see why that matters to you.
[User Picture]
From:gemlikeflame
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hee, I'm a registered Republican. I don't have the same ballot as you, apparently.

I'm voting "NO" on everything.
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Why aren't you voting yes on 94-97?
[User Picture]
From:gemlikeflame
Date:February 5th, 2008 09:50 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's not that I don't support it, but I think they can do better. Mainly, in terms of where the money goes and how the tribes will be held accountable for it. It's not good enough for me, at the moment.
[User Picture]
From:beethatbumbles
Date:February 5th, 2008 10:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The truth is, almost ALL of the Democrats, and certainly all of the viable candidates are against gay marriage. I agree about Hillary's health plan, but Edwards really had the best one. :(
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 10:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I agree completely. Had he not dropped out, I would be voting for Edwards today.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 5th, 2008 10:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If I could time travel and bring me back from 2k, I would agree exactly.

McCain in 2k said something I really appreciated. When asked about abortion, he said that he personally was against abortion, but recognized that it's an important issue which the country needs to discuss and that he is not being elected to enforce his personal views on everyone.

That won him my vote in 2k. I reregistered as a Republican so I could vote for him.

McCain in 2k8 has since contradicted that by saying that he is flatly against abortion. To me, that demonstrates that he's changing his views based on his chances to get elected and that his words about compromise were really only just that -- words.

My ordering goes something like Obama > Clinton == McCain > Romney. I think I'd lean Clinton over McCain, but that's not an easy one for me.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
[User Picture]
From:theguindo
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
People talking about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" always confuses me. If it's repealed, that means the Army goes back to its OLD standard, which is much worse. If it's REPLACED with something DIFFERENT then that would be great, but REPEALING it is...a bad idea?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell right now means that you cannot ask a servicemember what their orientation is, and if you are asked, you don't need to tell. So basically, you ARE allowed to be gay and in the military as long as nobody finds out, and they're not ALLOWED to go looking to find out. The OLD way did not cover you at all and if you were asked you had to tell and people could go out of their way to find out and as soon as they found out you'd get kicked out.

So, I wonder if people mean REPEAL or REPLACE whenever they talk about this, because REPEALING it is a bad idea.
[User Picture]
From:testing4l
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
I intended "replace", not "repeal" -- it seems like that's what's commonly meant by repealing it in my readings anyway.
[User Picture]
From:babe_of_beyazit
Date:February 13th, 2008 07:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Unfortunately I didn't register to vote soon enough, so I didn't get to vote in the primary. Just as well, since I think I would probably be happy with whoever wins the democratic primary, Obama or Clinton.

I like the idea of Clinton winning and striking a blow against sexism, which would certainly make up for whatever draconian laws she might want to impose. But even though I believe strongly in civil liberties, can I be totally selfish for a minute? I can't deny that I would definitely benefit individually living under a so-called "nanny state", which many people have suggested is precisely what Clinton would try to impose. Such systems are known to provide many more benefits to women and students, and that would certainly give me a lot more freedom than I would have under any "small government" that would probably uphold the "freedom" of others to exploit me.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I would storm the supreme court myself. But abortion is only half the issue. I don't understand why more attention isn't given to the fact that millions of women are being faced every day with the fear of unwanted pregnancy and all the emotional strain that brings no matter what choice they make. We always seem to forget about one of the most important freedoms, freedom from fear.

Oh, and civil marriage should be abolished.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com