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.

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)


[User Picture]
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:04 am (UTC)
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 If it's repealed, that means the Army goes back to its OLD standard, which is much worse.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]
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:52 am (UTC)
I intended "replace", not "repeal" -- it seems like that's what's commonly meant by repealing it in my readings anyway.
[User Picture]
Date:February 6th, 2008 12:54 am (UTC)
It probably is, but it just speaks the wrong message to me to phrase it like that. Repealing implies complete removal and negation of the policy, and without that policy all that's left is the military's anti-gay policy.

> Go to Top