Obama's Stances...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Aug 9, 2008.

  1. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #1
    I've been curious lately about liberal/democrat support of Barack Obama.

    I'll start off by saying this is not a Obama bash-fest on my part, but trying to understand.

    1. He's against gay marriage. (He's said marriage is a man and a woman - rhetoric that makes most democrats squirm.)

    2. He voted for immunity for companies that wiretapped for the Bush administration.

    3. He's for expanded use of drug courts - still keeping drugs illegal at all levels.

    I mean there's more, but if you are a Barack supporter, is it more "he's better than McCain" or what? How do you reconcile some of his right-leaning thoughts?

    Just curious.
     
  2. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #2
    By voting for Nader. :D

    Obama is rather conservative, despite what the media/right-wing would like to portray. Too conservative for me to vote for. Luckily Nader will be on the ballot here in Arizona, so he'll be getting my vote this year.
     
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    1. He might be personally against it (which while I don't agree with, is fine if he doesn't use personal, religious beliefs to legislate) however, is against any ban on same-sex marriage and is OK with civil unions.

    2. I do disagree with him on that. However, he did not vote for criminal immunity and can go after the telecoms for criminal charges once he's president

    3. For me, drug laws are towards the bottom of the list of issues that are important to me. I wouldn't mind seeing drug laws relaxed a bit, but I won't touch that kind of crap so for me, this is not a make or break issue.

    Unless I'm running for president, there won't ever be a candidate I agree with on everything. But I agree with Obama on about 95% of the time and McCain on 0% of the time. And that's good enough for me
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    He's miles better than McCain.

    1. When you look at which party is more likely to install judges that would uphold sodomy laws, or work towards passing amendments to the constitution actually enshrining a 'one man one woman' take on marriage it's not a tough call. How many politicians actually have the courage to stand up for gay marriage? It's pretty small, and almost exclusively a stand held by liberals rather than conservatives.

    2. I'm still pissed at his cave on FISA. No excuse for it other than a political calculation that he would lose anyway so he might as well be on the winning side. That's not an excuse I'm willing to accept, and it's not leadership.

    3. Just like gay marriage, there are near-zero politicians out there willing to look "soft on drugs". We've got a while to go until we get a leader willing to look at the drug issue with a critical lens. You have to admit, it's political suicide to go "soft on drugs". And the issue resonates with people who are easily scared by the "drug threat" in the same way the AWB resonated with people scared of guns.
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Yes. He's far better than McCain. And far more left wing than McCain. What's the question?
     
  6. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #6
    By realizing that what he says to the public is probably not how he'll actually let his administration be run.

    Most of the damage that Bush has done hasn't been through the public policy he's changed (though that has been quite damaging) but rather through the subtle changes on the part of his Cabinet and administration as a whole.

    I trust that Obama will at least run his administration responsibly, and let most other social issues get buried to be dealt with by later courts, which he will hopefully shape with good old fashioned liberal appointments.

    Other than that, he's the better choice out of two imperfect candidates, and the one who will be much better for America in the long term.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    I voted for Hilary in the primary so it's not a matter of Obama vs McCain.

    Obama is too conservative for me. Not just his public persona, but the guy he is deep inside. He's pretty naive about world affairs and his domestic policy propositions leave a lot to be desired. What's won me over is his speaking ability.

    I'll vote for him, but he wasn't my first choice.
     
  8. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #8
    I would imagine your options are:

    1. Vote for Obama; weep bitter tears.
    2. Vote for Nader; weep bitter tears.
    3. Abstain from voting; weep bitter tears.

    The United States is conservative *shrug*.
     
  9. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #9
    Except he would lose. Before proceeding, the telecoms wanted government assurance that they were not breaking any laws. They all got that assurance in writing. That assurance puts the government in a position where they will be unable to prosecute - and the bill didn't grant direct civil immunity, it granted immunity to telecoms with the letter.
     
  10. bbotte macrumors 65816

    bbotte

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    Seriously is gay marriage a topic that we should elect a president for? Seriously, do gay men and women think there are not far worse problems that need attention?
     
  11. Duff-Man macrumors 68030

    Duff-Man

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    #11
    Duff-Man says.....if you don't agree with his stance on an issue no need to worry - Mr. Barack-and Forth will change it just to get your vote, or at least he'll pretend to...the man has no stance on anything.....oh yeah!
     
  12. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #12
    Would that defense really hold up?

    They got that assurance in writing from either the executive branch (enforcement) or from some lawyers in the justice department.

    If I get a letter from a lawyer that says I'm not breaking the law by speeding, would it have any weight in court if I got pulled over? What if the letter were from another cop? Would it sway the court or the officer that pulls me over?

    Basically the assurances they got were that this administration thought it was legal and would not pursue legal action against them. I'm not so sure that the letters would hold up in court.

    Of course couldn't Bush just pardon them in December if McCain doesn't win?
     
  13. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #13
    The pardon risk is always there, but I don't think it will be needed.

    Remember, this isn't your private attorney telling you that running the stopsign at First and Main is legal, it is the police department and D.A. telling you that it is legal, in writing. Based on that assurance, it would be reasonable for you to believe that it was legal, regardless of the underlying illegality.

    I expect that the telecoms will show that they only proceeded under the legal assurance of the state their their actions were legal, and that prosecuting them for acting under that good faith assurance is inappropriate.

    Either way - those yea votes mean there will be no accountability.
     
  14. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #14
    But if you end up with a new D.A. and some Police unaware of the assurance, would those assurances hold up in court?

    To me it basically sounds like, we won't enforce and we won't prosecute, but once a new D.A. and new law enforcement arrive it seems that those guarantees would be out the window.

    And it hardly seems like assurances that they won't enforce or prosecute would not change the illegality of the actions if it actually makes it to court.
     
  15. motulist macrumors 601

    motulist

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    #15
    I was much more in favor of him before his FISA vote. I wouldn't have liked it, but I could've understood it if he abstained from voting against the FISA telecom immunity bill since it was going to pass anyway and as a presidential candidate he has to play the game as it stands now until he can become president and have an opportunity to change the game. But when he actually voted for it I lost a gigantic amount of positive regard for him.

    Here's what it boils down to. You're never gonna agree with everything that a candidate does, it's not humanly possible. So you have to pick the candidate that you think will do the most things that you want them to do, and do the least that you don't want them to do.

    Gay marriage I don't care about, there's just way too many bigger fish to fry right now. I'm in favor of government getting out of the marriage officiating business altogether, but that's not an issue that even hits my radar in terms of deciding who to vote for.

    Drugs. It's one of those lighting rods in the politics world. I think personal use should be decriminalized, but I'm a realist, I don't think our uptight puritanical reactionary fear-mongered population is ready to accept it yet. So that doesn't enter my radar because I don't think it'd get past congress even if he was all for it.

    The things that do matter are that he's gonna try to fix the debacle that Bush has created with the unnecessary war. And by extension he's NOT going to get us into any new unnecessary wars as McCain has all but promised. Obama has promised to review the constitutionality of all of Bush's signing statements, many of which are obviously unconstitutional. He's gonna try to get our country's health care in order. We American's pay the most for healthcare out all the countries in the entire world, yet the level of healthcare we get is far from the top. And having more neocon judges appointed to the supreme court would be a wound I fear our democracy couldn't recover from.

    It's pretty cut and dry. I don't agree with nearly 100% of what Obama is for, but I am for MUCH more of what Obama is for than I am with what McCain is for.
     
  16. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #16
    Well said. Unless you're running, there won't be a candidate you agree with 100% of the time. You just have to determine which one you agree with the most and will do the best job, and for me, that candidate is Obama.
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    Maybe it comes from being a Certified Olde Phart, but the social issues in this election are of zero importance to me. And, whichever candidate wins, I believe the ongoing degradation of individual rights will continue. Privacy rights will continue to decline. After all, since 2006 there has been no Congressional effort to "clean up" the Patriot Act, Son of Patriot Act, Homeland Security, TSA. Neither presidential candidate has introduced any meaningful bill to restore any of our rights.

    So: I'm looking at the ideas insofar as "good of the nation" with respect to economic issues and monetary policy. From that standpoint, then, Obama is a bigger loser, a worse enemy of all our billfolds than is McCain--which is not to say McCain is good.

    It does no good to give a lower-middle economic class a tax break, if all other policies increase the cost of living above the amount of the break. That's a net loss. And, sadly, I see no way that the Democratic Party ideas will not increase our costs of living.

    Clinton was absolutely correct about the importance of his slogan, "It's the economy..." although he was wrong about the economy itself. Now, neither candidate seems to know diddly-boo about either the economy or some rational slogan...

    I'm just really tired of having no choice but to vote for the lesser of two weevils; either way, they mess up the cornbread.

    'Rat
     
  18. motulist macrumors 601

    motulist

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    #18
    Every reasonably unbiased major financial publication that I've seen says that Obama is a better choice for the economy than McCain.


    Here's the Wall Street Journal's article about McCain being worse for the country and the economy than Obama would be.
     
  19. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #19
    And McCain's stances have been set in stone, right? :rolleyes:

    Oh yeah, I forgot, it's only bad for the democrats to "flip-flop". It's perfectly fine for republicans to do it.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    McCain's stances are set in stone. He's so old that he had to use a chisel and stone tablets to write his early campaign speeches ;)
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    And what good does it do to give the upper economic class a tax break if all other policies increase the cost of living?
     
  22. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #22
    It sounds like you are placing the individual before the position. Any assurances that the telecoms were given were not issued in individual capacities, but in official capacities. That you have John Edwards as your A.G. and Wesley Clark running the F.B.I. isn't going to change the fact that DoJ issued the assurance.

    Going back to the local level example, just because there is a new police chief and new D.A. doesn't change the past. If you run the sign again, you'll probably lose. But when you ran it before, that assurance was in place, and is all the assurance you will need.

    But, yes, going forward, the telecoms won't be able to rely on previous assurances.
     
  23. MonksMac macrumors 6502a

    MonksMac

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Location:
    DFW
    #23
    If McCain wins I have a sneaking suspicion that his administration would continue Bush's economic policies. The Rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the Middle Class disappears.
    God bless America.:(
    I hope McCain loses. Obama is not the ideal candidate, but he is so much better than McCain.:apple:
     
  24. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #24
    So in essence the next administration could throw out the assurances and prosecute if they so desired? If not, could they review the "assurances" and find that it was outside the scope of the DoJ and Executive branch to grant those "assurances" finding that the "assurances" themselves were illegal/invalid and then proceed to prosecute?
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    I would imagine that if you can retroactively make a crime not a crime, you could also retroactively make a crime that was not a crime back into a crime again...
     

Share This Page