Power to the People

[spk1121]

Comments

[tinag]

I just can't wrap my head around viewing all four candidates as capable heads of the nation. They're just too ideologically different, and the implications for our nation are too huge, for me to imagine someone saying that either choice would be fine.

What am I missing?

(Then there's the prospect of Mister Seventy-Two Years Old dying and leaving Palin in charge, but we're not gonna go there.)

Checks & balances

[spk1121]

I think capability is different from ideology. I think they're all capable individuals, they just would come at the jobs from very different places. Remember that despite their influence, Presidents are not kings. I think either McCain or Obama would set a more positive tone than what we've seen in the last 8 years. You know that if McCain had been in the White House, he would be the LAST man on earth to defer to Cheney and his ilk in allowing unregulated war tribunals and torture, it's not just Obama who would be opposed to such things. And on other big issues, like abortion, I take that as a failure of pro-life people like myself to argue persuasively and show why the traditional church takes the stance that it does. If Obama is elected, I know he will be favorable to people who support abortion, but other than appointing judges, there's not much he can do on his own one way or another. I think the one good thing about Bush's eight years is that people are finally realizing that checks & balances exist for a reason; the

Re: Checks & balances

[tv_elf]

But... but... it isn't "a failure of pro-life people like myself to argue persuasively and show why the traditional church takes the stance that it does."

Pro-choice is not Abortions for Everyone! Buy one get one free! Pro-choice is having the right to choose. Like Palin's daughter. She "chose". Hearing all the options and weighing in what you think is best for you and your child. But Palin wants to take that choice away from everyone else (even in cases of rape or if the birth could harm mother or child).

I may not approve of abortions, but I don't want Washington DC in my uterus. Leave the debate to churches and other groups. Keep DC out of it. And, this year, that means keeping Palin as far away as possible.

Though, knowing you, I'm surprised you would vote for Palin. She who contmplates banning books and tries to fire librarians (a mortal sin in my house).

Re: Checks & balances

[wendanyon]

I think that is a very important point to make--you can dislike the concept of abortion as much as anyone and still be pro-choice. I think that's the real argumentative failure. Because really, just because abortion is legal doesn't mean anybody actually has one, and preventing unplanned pregnancies would fix the problem whereas making abortions illegal just leads to illegal abortions.

Re: Checks & balances

[spk1121]

Well, to put it simply, abortion is murder. If a women is attacked and kills her assailant, I consider self-defense to be a legitimate action, so if a woman's life is in danger from a pregnancy, that translates and I can accept the death of the baby as an unfortunate outcome. Two wrongs don't make a right in my book, and unless it's "self-defense" in preserving her own life, there is no "right" course of action otherwise. That said, we need to do a MUCH better job of teaching people about safe sex (since I think it's a mistake to think everyone will share my values about premarital sex) and increasing support for women who do carry a baby to term. We are shamefully lax on that front, that's something I always encourage people to think about when I bring up this issue.

[librarygal]

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't know ANYONE who would consider voting for both McCain and Obama!

[spk1121]

I was still debating right up until the end. They both had good strengths and definite weaknesses, but as I wrote today, I think Obama has a worldview and practical sense that I can identify with a little more readily.