(no subject)
So, Jeffrey posted a cool thing that runs down canidates platform planks without telling you who is who, then tells you who you should vote for, based on issues alone. I got Obama by 89%, but I found the quiz to have several oddly phrased questions. I also found areas where I agreed with neither canidate, but had no way of voicing my belief.
So, here is a rather long rant as I run down the quiz, topic by topic. If you feel like reading, please do! I want to hear opinions.
On the topic of 'Abortion'
*A consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
*Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
Where I fall: While normally, on any other issue I would agree with McCain's statement that the judicial branch should not be making national law (See: The Tenth Amendment), Roe V Wade is an exception. The Constitution was created to uphold the morals upon which we ceded from England, and among these is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I do think that the court case is not the right way to create law, and pro choice congressmen need to be pushing for national law, if not an amendment, to make sure a woman's right to health during pregnancy is covered. So, by default, I fall to Obama.
On the topic of 'Environment'
*Will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
*Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s.
Where I fall: Setting limits on Greenhouse gases is a nice idea in concept, but it's not going to be enough incentive for companies to change their ways. A gradual increase of economy standards to set a time line for automakers and money to help sounds better, but I really like neither of those plans. Personally, I'd like to see a combination of the two plans. Gradual increase of economy standards to make car manufacturers change their ways. No hand out of money is needed, they are already doing this on their own thanks to market trends. make sure that the fuel standards extend to freight trucks. Then also do the cap and trade to force industry to shape up.
On the topic of 'Education'
*Believe[s] teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner.
*Institutions report on hundreds of factors to the U.S. government every year, but the government does nothing with the information. Making this information available to families in a clear and concise manner will help more students make more informed choices about higher education.
Where I fall: The first one. The second one there is a weak non-answer and SHAME on the candidate where that was his only plan. Making the information available should be done, yes. That is an automatic given. But it shouldn't be your only policy.
On the topic of 'Health Care'
*When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.
*Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Where I fall: When worded like this, I fall to the second one. However, I have never seen either candidate's plans worded like this. I agree that companies should be made to cover pre-existing conditions, and give tax incentives to companies who go above and beyond. However, nationalized health care is not the answer. I like MA's response to this issue, which is to require everyone to have health care, and for people who dont have employee provided health care, offer low cost state plans or state affiliated plans.
On the topic of 'Marriage'
*Believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
*Supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples.
Where I fall: NEITHER! BOTH ARE WRONG! "MARRIAGE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Obama/Biden pissed me off SO BAD at the VP debates when Biden said that Obama supports civil unions but not same sex 'marriages' because a marriage is between a man and a woman. Way to pander there, guys. I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that marriage is something between only a man and only a woman and your reasoning behind this is because religion tells you so, then the institution of marriage is automatically a violation of Separation of Church and State. By all means, go have a wedding in a church and get married. Studies say that people who are in healthy marriages live longer. But when you go to the court house and get that little piece of paper that says you can jointly file for taxes and claim each other on your health care and visit each other in the hospital and become legally family, that's not a marriage certificate. It is a civil union. I dont care if you're a Hetro couple or a gay couple. If your stand is that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a marriage is done through a government entity, you are automatically unconstitutional.
On the topic of 'National Security'
*A secure border is an essential element of our homeland security and, as President, he will finish the job of securing our land borders, ports and airports. He knows our border must be secure and that while progress is being made, the federal government still has not lived up to its responsibility to make it fully secure.
*Will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Where I fall: Way to pussy out, you guys. Ebolish the Fatherland Security Act (Oh, did I say that? Hah) To quote Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Stop pissing off people by saying they cant have nukes but we can. Speak softly on the global front, be nice. Be friendly. But still carry that big fucking stick.
On the topic of 'War'
*Believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
*Will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors-including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report.
Where I fall: Obama. I'm all for Obama's GTFO plan. When did we get elected the World Police? Now I'm gonna quote George Washington's Farewell Address: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Basically, be friends with the world. Smile and wave and chat at the proverbial mail box while you get your mail and morning paper. They are your neighbors. Say Hi over the fence when you see them. But for the love of god, do not go try to help when you hear the neighbors screaming at each other at 2 am. You'll just get punched in the face. When Washington wrote this, he was referring to agreements we had made with France during the Revolutionary War. He made previous reference in the speech to how people were going to be jealous of our new system and want our help to establish it in their country, and that we shouldn't do this. We are just an example. He meant dont go enforce constitutional democracy in other countries, be they France in the 1790s (his direct reference) or Vietnam in the 1960s (Cause that went SO WELL) or Afghanistan in the 1980s (Boy, did that one come back to bite us) or Iraq now.
I want to make an animation of George Washington and set it up in the oval office and anytime a president tries to pull some shenanigans like this, just have it point and eyes turn red and say NOOOOOO.
On the topic of 'Economy'
*Reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US.
*Believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers lie outside our borders, and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written.
There is a cycle in American History that goes a little something like this: Period of laizzes fair economy that is wonderful for a time. Rapid era of growth. Companies get greedy and start abusing consumers. Government sits on thumbs because our government is built with a handicap that keeps them from making rapid controls over the economy. Whole thing collapses like a flan in a cupboard. Period of recession/depression. Government makes laws to prohibit whatever it was that corporations did to fuck things up. Some great technological miracle/event is created/occurs that revolutionizes all industry. Things get better than before. People in control of government at the time take credit. Government decides they fixed it and steps back. Restart of laizzes fair economy that is wonderful for a time.
So let's examine where we are at now. In the 1880s we had a recession. Government was too overtaxed from Reconstruction following the Civil War to notice that industry was abusing it's workforce and no one could afford to live. Government starts to pass laws to protect workers. Unions form. Electricity is invented. Electricity causes nation to lift out of recession, but Government and Unions take credit. War in 1910s makes war industrial complex that boosts economy more. Period of rapid growth and laizzes fair policy throughout 20s. Stock Market over inflates and explodes.
In the 1920s we had a depression. Government was too busy recovering from WWI and patting it's own back to notice that the stock market was overinflated. New party takes control, issues tons of socialistic reforms that begin to pull nation out of depression. WWII creates a military industrial complex the likes of which the world has not seen since Rome. This pulls nation out of depression. Democrats take credit. A period of laizzes fair economy while the government focuses on fixing social issues and making war in Korea and Vietnam. A period of growth until corporations can no longer keep up with the high demand of the US population. Oil shortages and the loss of Vietnam and all the money invested there lead to recession.
In the 1970s we had a recession. It was much worse than where we are at now. It was caused because the government had expanded spending too much with the Great Society program, and didn't pay attention to the fact that companies were not keeping up with demand issues. There was an oil crisis and our first troubles with the middle east. Ronald Regan came in with a strong new economic plan that would stop programs like Great Society and give tax cuts to companies so they could afford to cover costs and meet demand issues. He stimulated the war industrial complex by getting involved with the Afghanistan Civil War and focusing military might on ending the cold war.
In the early 80s, PCs were invented. In the late 80s, they were becoming affordable. The Republicans took credit for the period of economic ease following the 80s era of recovery. The economy continued to grow through the 90s. The Democrats took credit for the growth that occured. The DotCom Bubble broke. Period of laizzes fair economy while government focuses too much money into war in Iraq and a false sense of fatherland security (Did I say that? Oh I mean 'homeland') and doesn't notice that socialistic groups like ACORN are leaning on housing lenders to create 110% housing loans for people who make 40k a year and are buying houses worth 5 times that much. Housing market collapses and pulls investment market with it. We go into recession.
So what will happen now? Someone will take office and introduce a new domestic fiscal policy. Something will be invented that will revolutionize the way we live (My money is on a new energy source). There will be a period of adjustment while everyone gets this new item and installs it into their factory/business/life. Whoever is in charge of the government when things rev up again will claim their policy was the reason why.
Fatalistic? Yes. I am a pessimist in the worst way about government. Yes, they are out to get you. I don't like a large federal government. Changes are harder to make and what is good for MA is not unnecessarily good for TN or CA or TX or anywhere else. I'm a fan of a confederation style government rather than a republican style.
On the topic of 'Energy'
*Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years
*Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production.
Hello. You cant do one without the other. You cant stop importing oil without expanding domestic oil. To think you can do one with out the other is silly. How about this: Tank NASA, pull back troops in Iraq. Take the money and resources and minds spent on NASA projects and the War effort and focus them on making a working hydrogen engine that wont blow up if you accidentally bump a rail while pulling out of a parking spot.
All in all, I'm very sick of the election, not happy with either candidate for a number of reasons for each one, and feeling very disenfranchised and disillusioned by the two party system.
So, here is a rather long rant as I run down the quiz, topic by topic. If you feel like reading, please do! I want to hear opinions.
On the topic of 'Abortion'
*A consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
*Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
Where I fall: While normally, on any other issue I would agree with McCain's statement that the judicial branch should not be making national law (See: The Tenth Amendment), Roe V Wade is an exception. The Constitution was created to uphold the morals upon which we ceded from England, and among these is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I do think that the court case is not the right way to create law, and pro choice congressmen need to be pushing for national law, if not an amendment, to make sure a woman's right to health during pregnancy is covered. So, by default, I fall to Obama.
On the topic of 'Environment'
*Will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
*Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s.
Where I fall: Setting limits on Greenhouse gases is a nice idea in concept, but it's not going to be enough incentive for companies to change their ways. A gradual increase of economy standards to set a time line for automakers and money to help sounds better, but I really like neither of those plans. Personally, I'd like to see a combination of the two plans. Gradual increase of economy standards to make car manufacturers change their ways. No hand out of money is needed, they are already doing this on their own thanks to market trends. make sure that the fuel standards extend to freight trucks. Then also do the cap and trade to force industry to shape up.
On the topic of 'Education'
*Believe[s] teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner.
*Institutions report on hundreds of factors to the U.S. government every year, but the government does nothing with the information. Making this information available to families in a clear and concise manner will help more students make more informed choices about higher education.
Where I fall: The first one. The second one there is a weak non-answer and SHAME on the candidate where that was his only plan. Making the information available should be done, yes. That is an automatic given. But it shouldn't be your only policy.
On the topic of 'Health Care'
*When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.
*Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
Where I fall: When worded like this, I fall to the second one. However, I have never seen either candidate's plans worded like this. I agree that companies should be made to cover pre-existing conditions, and give tax incentives to companies who go above and beyond. However, nationalized health care is not the answer. I like MA's response to this issue, which is to require everyone to have health care, and for people who dont have employee provided health care, offer low cost state plans or state affiliated plans.
On the topic of 'Marriage'
*Believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
*Supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples.
Where I fall: NEITHER! BOTH ARE WRONG! "MARRIAGE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Obama/Biden pissed me off SO BAD at the VP debates when Biden said that Obama supports civil unions but not same sex 'marriages' because a marriage is between a man and a woman. Way to pander there, guys. I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that marriage is something between only a man and only a woman and your reasoning behind this is because religion tells you so, then the institution of marriage is automatically a violation of Separation of Church and State. By all means, go have a wedding in a church and get married. Studies say that people who are in healthy marriages live longer. But when you go to the court house and get that little piece of paper that says you can jointly file for taxes and claim each other on your health care and visit each other in the hospital and become legally family, that's not a marriage certificate. It is a civil union. I dont care if you're a Hetro couple or a gay couple. If your stand is that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a marriage is done through a government entity, you are automatically unconstitutional.
On the topic of 'National Security'
*A secure border is an essential element of our homeland security and, as President, he will finish the job of securing our land borders, ports and airports. He knows our border must be secure and that while progress is being made, the federal government still has not lived up to its responsibility to make it fully secure.
*Will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Where I fall: Way to pussy out, you guys. Ebolish the Fatherland Security Act (Oh, did I say that? Hah) To quote Ben Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Stop pissing off people by saying they cant have nukes but we can. Speak softly on the global front, be nice. Be friendly. But still carry that big fucking stick.
On the topic of 'War'
*Believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
*Will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors-including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report.
Where I fall: Obama. I'm all for Obama's GTFO plan. When did we get elected the World Police? Now I'm gonna quote George Washington's Farewell Address: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Basically, be friends with the world. Smile and wave and chat at the proverbial mail box while you get your mail and morning paper. They are your neighbors. Say Hi over the fence when you see them. But for the love of god, do not go try to help when you hear the neighbors screaming at each other at 2 am. You'll just get punched in the face. When Washington wrote this, he was referring to agreements we had made with France during the Revolutionary War. He made previous reference in the speech to how people were going to be jealous of our new system and want our help to establish it in their country, and that we shouldn't do this. We are just an example. He meant dont go enforce constitutional democracy in other countries, be they France in the 1790s (his direct reference) or Vietnam in the 1960s (Cause that went SO WELL) or Afghanistan in the 1980s (Boy, did that one come back to bite us) or Iraq now.
I want to make an animation of George Washington and set it up in the oval office and anytime a president tries to pull some shenanigans like this, just have it point and eyes turn red and say NOOOOOO.
On the topic of 'Economy'
*Reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US.
*Believes that globalization is an opportunity for American workers today and in the future. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers lie outside our borders, and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written.
There is a cycle in American History that goes a little something like this: Period of laizzes fair economy that is wonderful for a time. Rapid era of growth. Companies get greedy and start abusing consumers. Government sits on thumbs because our government is built with a handicap that keeps them from making rapid controls over the economy. Whole thing collapses like a flan in a cupboard. Period of recession/depression. Government makes laws to prohibit whatever it was that corporations did to fuck things up. Some great technological miracle/event is created/occurs that revolutionizes all industry. Things get better than before. People in control of government at the time take credit. Government decides they fixed it and steps back. Restart of laizzes fair economy that is wonderful for a time.
So let's examine where we are at now. In the 1880s we had a recession. Government was too overtaxed from Reconstruction following the Civil War to notice that industry was abusing it's workforce and no one could afford to live. Government starts to pass laws to protect workers. Unions form. Electricity is invented. Electricity causes nation to lift out of recession, but Government and Unions take credit. War in 1910s makes war industrial complex that boosts economy more. Period of rapid growth and laizzes fair policy throughout 20s. Stock Market over inflates and explodes.
In the 1920s we had a depression. Government was too busy recovering from WWI and patting it's own back to notice that the stock market was overinflated. New party takes control, issues tons of socialistic reforms that begin to pull nation out of depression. WWII creates a military industrial complex the likes of which the world has not seen since Rome. This pulls nation out of depression. Democrats take credit. A period of laizzes fair economy while the government focuses on fixing social issues and making war in Korea and Vietnam. A period of growth until corporations can no longer keep up with the high demand of the US population. Oil shortages and the loss of Vietnam and all the money invested there lead to recession.
In the 1970s we had a recession. It was much worse than where we are at now. It was caused because the government had expanded spending too much with the Great Society program, and didn't pay attention to the fact that companies were not keeping up with demand issues. There was an oil crisis and our first troubles with the middle east. Ronald Regan came in with a strong new economic plan that would stop programs like Great Society and give tax cuts to companies so they could afford to cover costs and meet demand issues. He stimulated the war industrial complex by getting involved with the Afghanistan Civil War and focusing military might on ending the cold war.
In the early 80s, PCs were invented. In the late 80s, they were becoming affordable. The Republicans took credit for the period of economic ease following the 80s era of recovery. The economy continued to grow through the 90s. The Democrats took credit for the growth that occured. The DotCom Bubble broke. Period of laizzes fair economy while government focuses too much money into war in Iraq and a false sense of fatherland security (Did I say that? Oh I mean 'homeland') and doesn't notice that socialistic groups like ACORN are leaning on housing lenders to create 110% housing loans for people who make 40k a year and are buying houses worth 5 times that much. Housing market collapses and pulls investment market with it. We go into recession.
So what will happen now? Someone will take office and introduce a new domestic fiscal policy. Something will be invented that will revolutionize the way we live (My money is on a new energy source). There will be a period of adjustment while everyone gets this new item and installs it into their factory/business/life. Whoever is in charge of the government when things rev up again will claim their policy was the reason why.
Fatalistic? Yes. I am a pessimist in the worst way about government. Yes, they are out to get you. I don't like a large federal government. Changes are harder to make and what is good for MA is not unnecessarily good for TN or CA or TX or anywhere else. I'm a fan of a confederation style government rather than a republican style.
On the topic of 'Energy'
*Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years
*Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production.
Hello. You cant do one without the other. You cant stop importing oil without expanding domestic oil. To think you can do one with out the other is silly. How about this: Tank NASA, pull back troops in Iraq. Take the money and resources and minds spent on NASA projects and the War effort and focus them on making a working hydrogen engine that wont blow up if you accidentally bump a rail while pulling out of a parking spot.
All in all, I'm very sick of the election, not happy with either candidate for a number of reasons for each one, and feeling very disenfranchised and disillusioned by the two party system.