Comments | jslove: Why Obama can count on my vote tomorrow

jslove

Why Obama can count on my vote tomorrow

Nov 03, 2008 18:09

I'm not much of a joiner. In particular, I am not a member of a political party. I certainly have no desire ever to run for any office. For some people, political affiliations are like their religions, but I am an agnostic ( Read more... )

Comments 17

Importance of appointments blaurentnv November 4 2008, 00:29:41 UTC

One of the reasons I ended up supporting Obama strongly during the caucus process was consideration of who he appointed in various positions. Because of my role as Democratic Party Secretary for Elko County, Nevada, I had many opportunities to meet various adviser types ( ... )

Re: Importance of appointments dda November 4 2008, 01:24:47 UTC

I'm an odd duck in that I'm a small government Democrat; I don't believe that the government has any right to have a say in abortion.

I find this odd since it was the government that ruled that abortion was legal and, for at least some time, has paid for them. Also if one does believe that abortion is killing a living being, who better than the government to deal with that?

While I'm ranting slightly, I also don't believe that the government has any right to determine who can or cannot marry whom. Hence my vehement opposition to prop 8 here in California.

I find this even more odd since it is the government that bestows the rights and responsibilities of marriage and, thus, it is the government that gets to determine who can or cannot marry! I do wonder at people who say this since they would seem to be advocating me marrying my (non-existant) 16 year-old sister and I can't really believe they mean that.

Re: Importance of appointments blaurentnv November 4 2008, 01:31:00 UTC

"Also if one does believe that abortion is killing a living being, who better than the government to deal with that?" - To me, that's a religious issue.

"it is the government that gets to determine who can or cannot marry!" - I have yet to have someone identify the clause in the Constitution that grants that right. Failing that, the 9th & 10th amendments apply.

"I do wonder at people who say this since they would seem to be advocating me marrying my (non-existant) 16 year-old sister and I can't really believe they mean that." - I think this is a biologically unsound choice; however, if you are not having kids, then I don't see why the government should care. This is legal in some states and I've met offspring from this kind of marriage. I don't recommend this! I do, however, admit that the government should have some say in what minors should and should not be allowed to do, although I'm not sure what in the Constitution grants that right.

Re: Importance of appointments dda November 4 2008, 01:39:38 UTC

"Also if one does believe that abortion is killing a living being, who better than the government to deal with that?" - To me, that's a religious issue.

Not really; your statement was about why government should have a say in abortion and I still feel this is a good reason.

I have yet to have someone identify the clause in the Constitution that grants that right. Failing that, the 9th & 10th amendments apply.

The government grants certain rights and responsibilities to married people (taxes being one, health proxies being another, immunity from testifying against the spouse being a third); this, to me, gives it the right to decide who gets those rights and responsibilities and that means they get to decide who gets married. I don't believe anyone is saying that a religious same-sex marriage should be banned, just a civil one.

...I don't see why the government should care.The point isn't whether or not the government should care (but see above for why they might) but that those saying anyone should be able to marry anyone don't ( ... )

Thread 15

vixyish November 4 2008, 02:04:17 UTC

I'm interested to hear you say that about reinvention of the party, because I've been wondering why I haven't heard that from more longtime Republicans. It really seems like the party has been so badly hijacked in recent years. Small government and fiscal responsibility used to be the main values, as I understand it, and the last eight years have been more or less the complete opposite of that.

A co-worker of mine is fond of saying that the current administration aren't Republicans; they're "neo-cons". I wish there had been a mechanism for the Republicans to boot them out of the party altogether.

jslove November 4 2008, 03:13:51 UTC

The Republican party could have repudiated the administration. In fact, it is their failure to do so that makes me tar them with the same brush that tars the administration ( ... )