Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
I can tell you how it works out now - my candidate may not win, but I will not have contributed to continuing the status quo, which MARK MY WORDS is what you will get with either of the two main party candidates.
Let me know how the whole "voting for the lesser of two evils" or "voting for someone I don't really support but feel I should vote for" or "voting AGAINST a candidate more than voting for one" works out for you!
eta - that is an inclusive "you", directed not just to UGAalum but all those who have stated a variation of the above rationales for voting for Obama or McCain.
|
By voting for the lesser of all evils, I'm also voting for the person who I think would make the best President of the group (McCain). I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
Interesting, from swtx's signature, I googled and found the Baldwin site -- for all those arguing that who is elected President could ultimately have no direct effect on the abortion issue, this from the Baldwin issues link:
Not saying this would happen (lots of politics would come into play), but it makes the point that it COULD happen.
|
It could happen, but there are a lot of things that
could happen. I just don't think it's at all likely.
Stripping the Court's appellate jurisdiction on a single issue would be an enormous move, and (I think) one unprecedented in US History. The thing is, the Court's decisions on the abortion issue reach so many other issues (right to privacy, etc.), that you would have to strip the Court's appellate jurisdiction on those issues as well. Then, you're getting into a real seperation of the powers problem and a whole number of other legal issues. I that if this Baldwin is suggesting that the Court's appellate jurisdiction could be stripped on a single issue, he really doesn't get the point.