Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

LOL. Welcome to my world.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Having just read nittanyalum's interesting post about worry about Sarah Palin's ability to enact social change based on her very conservative, religion-based policy stances (specifically with regard to things like abortion and gay marriage

Just to clarify, I didn't express worry about SP's ability to enact anything (nor have I ever mentioned gay marriage in any posts), I brought back my concerns about her extremist views as a reflection on the top of the ticket and the decision-making that must have gone into bringing her on as the VP nominee.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.

An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness), and I would slightly disagree with some of your post. I don't want to derail the thread, however, so if you have any thoughts, or want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me. I'm always up for discussing SCOTUS issues.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

So what do you law nerds think about this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...7-faf565ec9105

To me it reads a little like Biden hagiography, but what do you all think? It's linked on Instapundit too.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So what do you law nerds think about this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...7-faf565ec9105

To me it reads a little like Biden hagiography, but what do you all think? It's linked on Instapundit too.

I'll PM you - Rosen has some interesting things to say, but I don't want to derail this thread.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Some of us had this discussion a few months ago about McCain being a POW and a vet. Some of you didn't like the idea that I was put offish about his status being more concerned about what he did in office as opposed to what he did during the war. Fine...cool. BUT...like I said, you served your country years ago...what are you doing NOW.

Just did a lil digging and what I find is bothersome. For someone that has the status and position to do something for those that has been in some of the same situations as he is/was....he looks like he doesn't show any love for fellow vets.

the link shows in numerous cases, he has voted against bills that in many cases could probably help a lot of vets and even voted FOR a bill that would outsouce jobs from Walter P Reed Medical Center.

Here is the link: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_vets.cfm

Status doesn't mean everything....

This should probably go in the "Election 2008" thread. Unless, of course, you just find it that hard to take off your Partisanship hat when you post.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

I think social change is much harder to push. It is something we are all more qualified to have an opinion on, and thus there is a lot more convincing to do. With that said, I vote based more so on social issues then economy or foreign affairs. I am HARDLY an economist, and foreign affairs have way too many complex factors for someone other than a staunch analyst to decide. However, I have faith in my freedoms, and that is something I am proud of. It bothers me all to hell to see someone stand behind a gun rack with a billion shotguns and preach about family values, a spin term for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage propaganda. I'm not a girl, nor gay, nor have a gun... but Its MY Body, MY bedroom, and MY gunrack and I should do what I want with it... AND HELL its MY lungs and MY brain, I should smoke pot if I want to!!!!!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

I think social change is much harder to push. It is something we are all more qualified to have an opinion on, and thus there is a lot more convincing to do. With that said, I vote based more so on social issues then economy or foreign affairs. I am HARDLY an economist, and foreign affairs have way too many complex factors for someone other than a staunch analyst to decide. However, I have faith in my freedoms, and that is something I am proud of. It bothers me all to hell to see someone stand behind a gun rack with a billion shotguns and preach about family values, a spin term for anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage propaganda. I'm not a girl, nor gay, nor have a gun... but Its MY Body, MY bedroom, and MY gunrack and I should do what I want with it... AND HELL its MY lungs and MY brain, I should smoke pot if I want to!!!!!

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

[33girl]

Well, after Obama's saying he's going to give even more $$ to charter schools, it looks like I'm going to have to.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Well, after Obama's saying he's going to give even more $$ to charter schools, it looks like I'm going to have to.

More details? Because, here, the charter schools simply get the appropriation for each individual student that the state would be giving to the school that kid went to. There is no more funding than public schools get. Additionally, some of them are really phenomenal. There is an Automotive Academy associated with Ford, an Early College for Health care associated with the health system I work for, University Prep geared for college bound students and even foreign language immersion schools. Then again, some of them are awful and simply hold the kids who get expelled from the other public schools..

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

More details? Because, here, the charter schools simply get the appropriation for each individual student that the state would be giving to the school that kid went to. There is no more funding than public schools get. Additionally, some of them are really phenomenal. There is an Automotive Academy associated with Ford, an Early College for Health care associated with the health system I work for, University Prep geared for college bound students and even foreign language immersion schools. Then again, some of them are awful and simply hold the kids who get expelled from the other public schools..

Presumably, when he says he'll "give more money" that means either:

a.) Schools will get more money than they do now (so, more than the "normal" school would get), or
b.) He'll push for more charter schools, period, to increase the total amount going to charter schools.

Given that you yourself noted the extreme hit-or-miss nature of charter programs (in addition to the fact that there are disagreements over the scope and nature of what should be a "charter" program), either of these solutions seem like a band-aid rather than an actual solution to many (likely including myself and 33).

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

I did last election... but I don't like Barr. Secondly, I don't believe in having no civil rights laws for the private sectors. Discrimination should be outlawed. I also believe in freedoms such as free trade... but I think we need limitations and control in order to not kill the economy (BUT, this is not my speciality, and I often have conflicting views that turns me to the extreme Laissez-faire capitalism), ... AND I was a little misleading in my last post... I believe in gun control. I believe a citizen has the right to control the gun, if the government can determine that he is able to use it safely. Our guns should be treated like our cars, esp. since guns are even more so a lethal weapon.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Presumably, when he says he'll "give more money" that means either:

a.) Schools will get more money than they do now (so, more than the "normal" school would get), or
b.) He'll push for more charter schools, period, to increase the total amount going to charter schools.

Given that you yourself noted the extreme hit-or-miss nature of charter programs (in addition to the fact that there are disagreements over the scope and nature of what should be a "charter" program), either of these solutions seem like a band-aid rather than an actual solution to many (likely including myself and 33).

When asking for details, I kind of wanted to know when he said this and in what context because it's not something outlined in his education plan at all. I'm really on the fence about charter schools and would prefer that they not take money away from public schools but have seen some really great ones too.

I thought money for charter schools and voucher systems were a Republican thing.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

You send a message, but unless you can put together a historic movement, you can't expect that your vote will contribute to the kind of government you'll see in action in the next few years, really. This didn't keep me from voting Libertarian in 1992, but I can't see myself doing it again because I see foreign policy differently now. (I certainly might vote Libertarian at the state and local level, depending on a couple of issues that vary among candidates in the party and the likelihood that the office I'm voting for would address them.)

Sure, if enough people voted Libertarian, the other parties might recognize they needed to change their own platforms to appeal to these voters, but when you're talking less than 1% of total voters, it's hard to see how it's going to play out that way.

Like your signature says, sometimes you decide you're better off trying to vote for the major party candidate who you think will screw it up a little less.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

Idealism is swell and all Ksigkid, but I def. have an opinion of who I want in the McCain vs. Obama battle... I voted for Ron Paul this year, because he is someone I absolutely believe in, (and I knew my state was going towards the candidate I wanted in both parties) and he was garnering more than 1%, so his impact makes a difference, he did say something in the primaries, and still is... Barr, well, the man is totally off the radar.

Of course, if people complain about the candidate I DO vote for, if I vote for Barr, I could just throw my hands in the air and say, "Hey, I didnt vote for him."