Politics

What changes do you believe WILL take place during the next four years? Note that I'm not asking you what you believe should happen, I'm asking you what you believe WILL happen. Taking into consideration political realities, economic and social realities, both at home and abroad, what do you think Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress will actually accomplish? I'll start off with my own predictions: - Assault weapons ban - Ending "don't ask don't tell" (75% of Americans now support the idea of gays in the military, versus 45% in 1993) (this requires congressional approval, btw) - An end to the ban on embryonic stem cell research - Closing of Guanta…

Interesting op-ed piece by Ron Paul on CNN's web site today: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html I don't agree with some of his point but it's pretty insightful and worth a read. Some things that stood out to me: I think these points are right on target. What do you all think?

In the book Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market talks about the three underground economies in the United States: marijuana, foreign labor, and pornography. Do you think that proper regulation and taxation of these markets could make a big impact in reducing our national deficit? I do...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDuXte5q_Mq4U0JKrcPRUJppvHVQD949MCJ81 I guess Harry Reid must have missed Obama's victory speech, in which he spoke of bringing people together and listening to one another. Today he went after Joe Lieberman in one of the most obvious examples of political pandering since the nomination of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. The technical right: To force members of your political party to play ball your way. The message: Support Republicans, and we will destroy you. This is a perfect example of how different President Obama will be from the partisan leaders of Congress. Something will have to be done about that, or th…

There's been some discussion about this, however I felt it deserved its own thread. California passed a ballot initiative which amends their state constitution specifically to exempt same-sex couples from being recognized as married. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) Some questions to consider: 1) What are the moral ramifications of granting homosexual couples different rights than heterosexual couples? 2) What do you think about a group of out-of-state mormons initiating an amendment to the constitution of a state they don't even live in? 3) What ramifications do you think this amendment…

In light of all the people complaining that the right of same sex couples to marry is restricted, what do you all have to say about the other restrictions on who people marry? And why don't the same or similar reasons apply to gay marriage? Why should polygamy be banned? Why does the state have the right to prevent people from marrying based only on the fact that they are already married to someone? Note also that there is a lot of tradition allowing polygamy. Why should marriage between close relatives be banned? If the only reason is to prevent inbreeding, should marriage between close relatives be allowed so long as they don't have children by each other? Note …

Are gay people asking for a new right (the right to gay marriage), or are they asking to retain a right that people are currently trying to take away? To my understanding, the question boils down to, Did the word "marriage", at the time when marriage laws were written, include same-sex marriage? Or, alternately, Is it acceptable to change a law by changing the modern meaning of words in the law, or does that require a new law?

From Obama's web site: http://change.gov/americaserves/ Now THAT strikes me as socialism. Bear in mind that as stated this would affect all students, however they are paying for their educations. It's possible something was just misworded here and it is actually intended to apply only to students receiving financial aid (this would be more consistent with statements made on the campaign trail). What do you all think?

The bailout was intended to unthaw the credit freeze and get financial institutions to start lending money again. Instead, credit seems to remain frozen, and despite assurances that the money would not be used to line executives pockets, that seems to be exactly what happened: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24012700/the_new_trough/3 Worse, the Fed has lent out almost $2 trillion in loans which don't require Congressional approval, and won't even name the recipients: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide My overall impression of the bailout(s) at this point is not very positive, and I do not…

It strikes me that the current economic crisis is, from a political perspective, similar in its effect to the political aftermath of 9/11. 1 - it's a huge surprise 2 - it's ruinously expensive 3 - it's a "game-changer" Now again, I'm talking about the political perspective here. How this affects political actions and opinions. With regard to #1, the surprise value is reflected in the way Democrats and Republicans seemed to stumble about on the way to respond to the issue, not having a basic ideological platform plank to fall back on. With regard to #2, when it comes to major political happenings, cost is one of the way they determine how important a…

Use this thread for discussing the election results (not including the Senate races, which Bascule has started a thread for here). Ohio was just called for Obama by ABC at 9:25 Eastern so that would seem to more or less cement things for him, what with PA staying on the blue side.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain If that's the case, it looks like Obama may already be set for a second term

http://gawker.com/5082235/keith-olbermann-enrages-view-ladies-by-not-voting I respected Keith Olbermann to a degree, until now. He didn't vote. What a jackass.

Well all of the McCain conspiracy crazies I know are all up in arms about Obama's citizenship status. So I've been playing backboard with their accusations and questionables, and in the process I noticed that I have no idea how a president's citizenship is actually validated. It would appear to rely on public forces to challenge citizenship in our courts, which appear to simply throw out these cases with what amounts to "it's not my job". So, what is the process by which we validate presidential candidate's citizenship? What about the legislative branch; how are they verified? I've been trying to search on this subject, but I keep getting Obama related arti…

Let’s talk about change. There are two major changes I'd like to see in the US that I’ve been chewing on for years. Any major change is viewed as radical in the US, and thus most politicians steer clear of them. We’re now seeing that, in hindsight, moderate changes in our energy policies thirty years ago would have helped us a great deal to avoid our current oil dependencies and the need for radical change. This is probably the best political climate EVER to gain support for some sweeping changes we can make now to avoid regrets later. The first change I’d like to see is in the military. Back in the 60’s, Sen. Stuart Symington (D-MO) proposed unifying the milita…

Who do you think will actually win? (Bascule has a thread started here where you can cast your vote for who you think SHOULD win. This one is for who you think will be declared the winner.)

Evidence of Obama's desire for moderacy and aisle-crossing came today in the selection of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a prominent member of the centrist New Democrat Coalition and one of the bigger names behind the party's move to the center and sweeping up of persuadable moderate voters that produced Obama's victory. He's a House member at the moment, but was a senior adviser in the Clinton administration, and, in a fact which I'm sure will infuriate many, headed up Clinton's failed health care strategy. That will be an interesting battle, given that the issue of universal health care has become a moderate/centrist position and is no longer an extr…

Mod Note: Individual poll answers are visible to all. We've had a poll for who you think will be elected and a poll for who you are planning to vote for. This one is for who you actually voted for. I suspect it will be pretty close to the other polls, but it should be at least slightly different since it takes into account: Not all voters in previous polls were of age to vote. Not all voters in previous polls were citizens of the United States. There is no "undecided" option. So, who did you vote for?

Obama has set up a web site for the "Office of the President Elect" http://change.gov I've got to say, I really love how much Obama works the Internet and electronic communications.

There's bee a lot of speculation that Democrats might get the 60 seats needed in the Senate to have a cloture vote and thus prevent filibustering. The polls don't show that as being particularly likely. 538 projects the Democrats may get 58 seats, but it's far more likely they'll get 57. What do you think?

There has been some rumblings lately, mostly from Congressional Democrats, about reviving the Fairness Doctrine. For background, it was an FCC policy that existed from the 1940s up through 2000, that stated that broadcasters had to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. In 1969 it survived a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds with an 8-0 decision, with the stipulation that it could never actually restrain speech, it merely had to give a "chance to respond." It would also only apply in cases of "limited channels." In other words, it applied to radio and broadcast television because there are only so many frequencies, but not to newspapers, …

I thank all Americans for doing the right thing: voting for Barack Obama. Let's hope he lives up to the promise, although I think that the positive feeling that the world got today is already invaluable.

Just curious if anyone else is getting beaten up by robocalls from candidates today. I got twelve this morning alone.

Yesterday reports came out that the GOP has spent $150,000 on outfits for Palin alone, a remark Palin called sexist. Today the New York Times reported that McCain's top staffer is... Palin's makeup artist, who was paid $22,000 for the first two weeks of October alone. Is any of this substantive, or is it just a bunch of mindless bluster? In my opinion it's indicative of how the McCain campaign has its priorities wrong.

Yes, out came the S-word! An aspiring young wingnut asked McCain why we have a progressive tax structure. McCain's answer seems to describe Obama's tax plan...