Who will you vote for and why? [Allopathic version]

[gujuDoc]

I'm not really sure how we go on this topic seeing as how it was about elections. But since we are on it:

I'm a Christian, and pretty conservative too, yet I'm going to vote no for Prop 8 in California. I personally don't support gay marriage, and I'm pretty sure God hasn't changed on that, but I've realized that we don't live in Israel. America is not church state, with a temple in the center where God's presence resides. Its a country founded on religous principles sure, but also on a constitution which gave me the right to vote as a black person and has given me the right to practice my religion freely.

I truly believe that if I vote to take rights away from someone else, it will one day come back to bite me in the butt...somehow. 30 years from now people might say that all Christians must worship on Sunday, which would be fine for most, but it wouldn't work for me and other Adventists, 7th day baptists, etc. When you take rights from someone, your rights can easily be taken away also. I think that we Christians should stop trying to impose our morals through legislation and instead take hold of the great commission (Mat. 28:18-20) and go out and show the love and compassion that tends to draw people in more than anything. I'm not saying to drop the standard, but I'm saying that there is a different way to let others know about our standards.
---------------------------

I'll be voting for Obama because I really think that he will think carefully about the decisions that he makes. I'm sure he will make mistakes, but with deliberation and good advisors (Biden, etc.) I truly think he can make things even slightly better.

Also as a side note, I truly get sick of people talking about being qualified to be president. I believe the presidency is like medical school; yeah you can go through college and get a degree in biology. Or you can get your PhD in molecular genetics...it doesn't matter. The only thing that prepares you for what you are about to experience in med school is....being in medical school. Its just an entirely different level that people adjust to. Either way, I think that most have made up their mind on how they are voting for. It kind of sucks for us becuase we have tests during election day.

Doctajay,

They don't allow for early oting in your state??? at my county in Fl. they have been letting people vote early by voting at the election's offices.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mjl1717]

and although I think Obama will prob win overall i think its MUCh closer than people think. Mccain supporters tend to be classy and older and not likely to rub it in your face like young people or poor, uneducated people. This poll just reveals what we already know: young people, not neccesarily medical students are overwhelmingly liberal.

Yes, I agree with this.. Overall media aside. I dont think it should be this close an election but it is..

 

[BrianUM]

Then we should accept polygamy as well, right? Who are we to say they can't do it if they believe it is acceptable?

BTW, the Heat were the worst team in the league last year. They suck, and will continue to suck. They won a few years back only because they had Shaq. Get ready for another crappy year Heat fan.

kind of irrelevant but last yr was an abomination for the heat..shaq quit on the team, wade was injured 1/2 the yr and wasnt at all playing like he was on the olympics, now we have shawn marion and michael beasley...we wont be playing guys like earl barron and kasib powell i promise you that, granted we prob wont be contenders, but i think well be decent and possibly great in the future as beasley/wade will be unstoppable

and polygamy i believe is already legal in certain parts of utah (?) either way, in theory, i think a person should be able to practice that if they find partners that are willing...i think its morally wrong but again, who am i to judge, let people live their life the way they want provided it causes no harm to anyone

 

[mjl1717]

Just a thought and objectively speaking:

Current president has possibly the lowest I.Q. of all the presidents..[And even worse has no use for a think tank]

McCain obviously stuggles to have an average I.Q. "I voted with Pres. Bush over 90% of the time". or "Palin's great isn't she".[looks to me like he's cutting his own throat)

Is there something wrong with breaking the cycle and have an intelligent leader for once??...(Geez, some of the world leaders are intelligent and you want the U.S. to be competitive and fecund)
[For example and Im in No way discounting his cognition-A guy like Vladimir Putin and other world leaders REALLY, REALLY shine and can out maneuver when around our current President or even average I.Q. level..[plus they can "DEPEND" on arrogance..] And this hurts us!
Just my opinion..

 

[shadsupremacy]

I definitely encourage every medical student to find out who (and what else) is on the ballot in their states, go the the websites of every candidate to scout out their positions and make a choice. Check out websites like the Bar Association of your locale, the League of Women Voters and VoteSmart.

Never in the history of this country have we had the amount of information that can be had from many resources (the old media) and the new media such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube or Twitter. If you have a Twitter (you can tweet news anchors and reporters) account (or a Facebook account), you can submit questions directly to people being interviewed (and to the candidates/their reps) on the news networks like CNN. You have unprecedented access to anything that you are willing to click and research.

This country belongs to those who are willing to exercise their rights as citizens to be informed and make an informed choice. The good thing is that there is something (or some candidate) out there for everyone to choose or not choose. If you don't vote, you really can't complain about things that will affect your life on a daily basis (availability of student loans, how much you will potentially make in medicine etc.).

I have voted and I think I made the best decision for this country and the direction that I would like to see things go. Please do the same and keep involved. I always take at least 30 minutes each week to scan the bills that are being discussed and debated in Congress, the docket of the US Supreme Court, the docket of my state Supreme Court and the bills that are being considered if my State General Assembly is in session. My local bar association is a good source of info on judges and their suitability for service. The AMA-PAC is a good resource for information on legislation that can potentially affect Medicare/Medicaid disbursements to physicians. Check out everything and keep checking things out.

Thanks for putting that up. This election is an important one. We should be informed about the candidates, and make others aware as well. And ample resources are indeed available. We should look for consistency/flexibility of the candidates; analyze what they say, and their reaction to what's being said about them. Ultimately, we want a president that will benefit the country as a whole, including: economics, politics, millitary, and yes, morals (e.g. issue with gay marriage)... all these aspects of America are on a relative decline, from what I understand, and we can't let that happen, and therefore this election is a critical one.

 

[dhbighit]

Let it be known that I know that what I say will not change anyones mind, which makes even me wonder why I am posting. But here is what I think. The country is already in a great deal of debt, partially due to GWB. I think that if Obama is elected he WILL socialize healthcare.

Now, before I proceed, let me clarify that I believe that every human being has intrinsic value, and thus deserves healthcare. However, I don't think that the government can afford it/ should be responsible for providing it.

Socializing things may sound great, but for everyone who thinks that it is all good and will solve things hasn't thought through it very well. I don't love Mccain, but for someone to call him stupid, or say he has a low IQ is ignorant. What I think is stupid is nominating someone who is promising things that just are not possible. THINK people about what the candidates are truly standing for.

The problem with healthcare is not healthcare, its AMERICANS LIFESTYLES! We may be 34 in the world in healthcare, but we are by far the most obese and have the most chronic diseases, ever factored that in there? People vote for obama because they want to go on living comfortably. (Did he just say that?) Yes, I did. Its comfortable not to want to work hard and be given everything. However, I do believe that we should help those people, because they are humans and thus have value. But I don't think giving them freebies is always the solution.

When I become a physician, I won't make more than 250 anyway, so im not trying to save money, im trying to think what is best for our country, and that is to have an experienced leader who will protect our country and rid it of corruption.

 

[justlikethis]

I can appreciate that you find marriage so sacred...I do as well. I certainly hope to never get divorced. But to say that gay marriage makes a mockery of marriage while the 50% divorce rate or the hollywood stars who get married for less than a month or a week don't is, quite frankly, prejudiced.

50% divorce rate? How does that favor homosexual marriage? This unprecedented percentage is not due to inherent flaw of heterosexual marriage—but because people don't value marriage as much as they used to.

 

[WellWornLad]

I think that if Obama is elected he WILL socialize healthcare.

I'd just like to clarify something here, because this comes up a lot. Socialization of medicine is when the government runs hospitals directly (a la Cuba). Socialization of medical insurance is when the government pays for the medical plans of all it's citizens (like single-payer systems in the UK/Canada, or more limited examples like the VA here in the United States).

What Obama is proposing is neither. He is trying to make insurance available to everyone by extending government plans to those who want/need it. He is not preventing private insurance plans from offering their health insurance, and people can still choose any plan they want. If you're saying that you think he will try to take over hospitals somehow, I'd have to argue that's patently ridiculous, you'd have an easier time getting congressional support for an invasion of Maine, and we'd just have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you that lifestyle choices are probably the biggest impediment to containing health care costs, along with absurdly expensive end-of-life costs (Panda Bear makes a great case against this whenever it comes up). Insurance plans, no matter who is offering them, do not address these issues. Access to preventative care may have an impact, but not covering these people just puts the cost of their lifestyle decisions into the uncompensated pool, which gets distributed to everyone. All you've really done is prevented them from receiving care until their condition is acute and expensive.

 

[MrBurns10]

deleted

Well when you put it that way, you're totally right! I'm glad you created your account to convince me that gay people shouldn't be entitled to the same legal rights heterosexuals are.

By the way, clearly humans don't have a "universal desire for the opposite", or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. And humans aren't the only species like this...I would encourage you to read the article "Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom" in the July issue of Scientific American. It's an interesting read.

Also, I'm not getting back into this argument. The fact I even responded makes me feel crappy.

 

[MrBurns10]

The problem with healthcare is not healthcare, its AMERICANS LIFESTYLES! We may be 34 in the world in healthcare, but we are by far the most obese and have the most chronic diseases, ever factored that in there?

You make a valid point. But much of the obesity problem is due to eating too much fast food and processed foods, and most of the people who eat those on a regular basis are people who can't afford to buy fruits, vegetables, natural WholeFoods/Fresh Market meals. Fast food is cheap and filling. Exercise is also a big deal, obviously, and I think part of this is due to many in the lower socioeconomic status having to work more than one job and so they don't have much time to exercise regularly or they don't make it a priority. This obviously can't be generalized to everyone, but I think there's a significant number of people who fall into these categories.

 

[WellWornLad]

We have universal sexual desire for the opposite.

I think you've just revealed the depth of your ignorance with this sentence. Have you ever even talked to a homosexual person before?

Similar arguments were made for interracial marriage - that we have a universal desire for partners from the same race. Let's just save ourselves a lot of embarrassment 20 years down the road and let people live how they want to live. That's, ya know, freedom - if it's none of your business, don't dictate.

BTW, arguing for the "norm" is not an argument at all, it's a subjective categorization. If everything "abnormal" were verboten, I guess we could just make everything illegal that the majority of the population didn't indulge in. That's what the bill of rights is about - protection from the "tyranny of the majority."

 

[badasshairday]

You make a valid point. But much of the obesity problem is due to eating too much fast food and processed foods, and most of the people who eat those on a regular basis are people who can't afford to buy fruits, vegetables, natural WholeFoods/Fresh Market meals. Fast food is cheap and filling. Exercise is also a big deal, obviously, and I think part of this is due to many in the lower socioeconomic status having to work more than one job and so they don't have much time to exercise regularly or they don't make it a priority. This obviously can't be generalized to everyone, but I think there's a significant number of people who fall into these categories.

What an ironic twist of fate in which the poor are disproportionately overweight/obese in modern america. Throughout the history of mankind it was the fat cat rich people who would be overweight while the poor would be skinny because they could not afford rich fat laden food.

 

[dhbighit]

So here is my platform, I think that the solution to healthcare just might be to educate people more on how to be healthy, have insurance companies add incentives for those who remain healthy and/or work excercise regularly (although difficult it can be done), and provide more preventative care. Seems idealistic, I thought so too for the longest time as a Health Science major. The truth is, however, if you look at the healthiest countries, most of them have excellent preventative health.

 

[gujuDoc]

So here is my platform, I think that the solution to healthcare just might be to educate people more on how to be healthy, have insurance companies add incentives for those who remain healthy and/or work excercise regularly (although difficult it can be done), and provide more preventative care. Seems idealistic, I thought so too for the longest time as a Health Science major. The truth is, however, if you look at the healthiest countries, most of them have excellent preventative health.

To do that we need to really start at the bottom and make healthy foods more affordable for the poor and also make neighborhoods more safe and more safe parks and what not for kids to play in. You also need to help poor families who work all the time have higher pay so they can cut down hours and afford to be able to take their children to such activities to eliminate some of the more self induced problems. Sadly, that is not happening any time soon.

 

[Taliesinrk]

Why is it that noone seems to be asking the questions of purpose of government? I will be voting "Other" because neither party seems capable of understanding the principles that not only founded this country, but made it what it is today. Why is it that both parties feel that they're qualified to tell me how to live my life? How is it that someone else knows what's best for me. Our country is going backwards. We have forgotten the ideals of freedom, liberty, and hard work.
Liberals seem to think that because someone is "enduring" a difficult time, it has to be due to factors out of that individual's control; and it is subsequently everyone else's responsibility to support them. Republicans seem to have lost their conservative foundation and believe that it is ok to override state's rights and enforce "moral" law.
I don't give a damn who any of these politicians think they are. As a human being, I should have to only answer to whom I chose: in my case, my family and God. I was born free and informed that that was one of my "God-given rights" - unfortunately, modern politics has bastardized this entitlement.

 

[Excelsius]

I'd just like to clarify something here, because this comes up a lot. Socialization of medicine is when the government runs hospitals directly (a la Cuba). Socialization of medical insurance is when the government pays for the medical plans of all it's citizens (like single-payer systems in the UK/Canada, or more limited examples like the VA here in the United States).

What Obama is proposing is neither. He is trying to make insurance available to everyone by extending government plans to those who want/need it. He is not preventing private insurance plans from offering their health insurance, and people can still choose any plan they want. If you're saying that you think he will try to take over hospitals somehow, I'd have to argue that's patently ridiculous, you'd have an easier time getting congressional support for an invasion of Maine, and we'd just have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you that lifestyle choices are probably the biggest impediment to containing health care costs, along with absurdly expensive end-of-life costs (Panda Bear makes a great case against this whenever it comes up). Insurance plans, no matter who is offering them, do not address these issues. Access to preventative care may have an impact, but not covering these people just puts the cost of their lifestyle decisions into the uncompensated pool, which gets distributed to everyone. All you've really done is prevented them from receiving care until their condition is acute and expensive.

Those calling Obama a socialist because of his healthcare, need to read the above several times.

To do that we need to really start at the bottom and make healthy foods more affordable for the poor and also make neighborhoods more safe and more safe parks and what not for kids to play in. You also need to help poor families who work all the time have higher pay so they can cut down hours and afford to be able to take their children to such activities to eliminate some of the more self induced problems. Sadly, that is not happening any time soon.

Indeed. We are not going to get ourselves healthy by having good health insurance. Our food, and our water, has been steadily decreasing in quality. We import toxic drugs and toys from China and manufacture baby bottles with BPA. Some plastics that contain water or are "microwave safe" contain BPA as well. The soil is getting stripped of all nutrients and we end up eating foods that don't have much value. Genetic engineering and pesticides are getting better every day without a significant study to show their side-effects. Doctors are ignorant about preventive measures because they know nothing about medical alternatives like nutrition (I read that med students spend only two hours on nutrition during their entire medical education). Why invest in preventive medicine when it will not be a good investment, like a creation of a new drug? This is why we must expand the government regulations that mandate research into things like vitamins, effects of genetic modification of foods on human health, etc, etc. For example, vitamin D deficiency has been linked to liver disease and Parkinson's, among other things. Vitamin E has been found to increase the probability of death in elderly, but this only applies to synthetic vitamin E, which contains both chiral forms of vitamin E, one of which is completely useless. I don't see any other entity than the government who will be willing to devote the money to research things like natural vs synthetic vitamins. We need a new branch of government that protects the health of the citizens. Drug companies are mainly motivated by money. If you take a drug just once and it cures you, well, then the company is not really going to make much money from it. We need an active government involvement.

 

[JTubule1386]

Wow...It's scary that some of you will be doctors

 

[McLovinMD]

Why is it that noone seems to be asking the questions of purpose of government? I will be voting "Other" because neither party seems capable of understanding the principles that not only founded this country, but made it what it is today. Why is it that both parties feel that they're qualified to tell me how to live my life? How is it that someone else knows what's best for me. Our country is going backwards. We have forgotten the ideals of freedom, liberty, and hard work.
Liberals seem to think that because someone is "enduring" a difficult time, it has to be due to factors out of that individual's control; and it is subsequently everyone else's responsibility to support them. Republicans seem to have lost their conservative foundation and believe that it is ok to override state's rights and enforce "moral" law.
I don't give a damn who any of these politicians think they are. As a human being, I should have to only answer to whom I chose: in my case, my family and God. I was born free and informed that that was one of my "God-given rights" - unfortunately, modern politics has bastardized this entitlement.

Best post yet. Of course, it should be noted that you should only have to answer to whom you choose assuming you don't impose on the rights of others.

As far as the post about socialization of healthcare (socialized healthcare vs. socialized insurance), you're splitting hairs. In either case there is a redistribution of wealth occurring. Yes, I can still purchase whatever insurance I like, but I could also end up purchasing insurance for someone who "can't afford" it on their own despite being able to come up with the money for a couple packs and some lotto tickets every day.

I find it disturbing that many of you so easily buy into the idea that someone is born with an inherent "right" to healthcare. Really? Since when did any of our constitutional rights impose upon the freedoms of others (in this case, healthcare providers)? As a future doctor, are you seriously comfortable with the idea of a 3rd party (with minimal medical knowledge) dictating how you practice medicine and how much you will be paid?

I am well aware that there is a large population who simply cannot afford healthcare on their own despite hard work and frugal spending. And as a well-off citizen and future doctor I will be more than happy to provide significant charity (more than I would be taxed for this purpose) in order to help these individuals. But I am strongly opposed to a government who takes this charity and spends more of it on wasteful beauracracies than they do on the people it was intended for.

 

[bcat85]

Indeed. We are not going to get ourselves healthy by having good health insurance.

I never thought I'd say this... but I completely agree with you on this one excelsius. I would argue that it is 1/2 social stuff.. there's no denying that (not having somewhere to play, working parents, etc.), and 1/2 not knowing what to do to be healthy. Health ed. is very important, from both schools AND parents.

 

[WellWornLad]

As far as the post about socialization of healthcare (socialized healthcare vs. socialized insurance), you're splitting hairs. In either case there is a redistribution of wealth occurring. Yes, I can still purchase whatever insurance I like, but I could also end up purchasing insurance for someone who "can't afford" it on their own despite being able to come up with the money for a couple packs and some lotto tickets every day.

The point is that everyone ends up needing health care, whether or not they plan for it or not. When those people don't have health insurance they still get treated, but the costs still get distributed to the rest of us. Fair, unfair, whatever, you're already paying for it, and paying more because the uninsured don't get care until it is acute and expensive.

Now, if you propose not treating anyone who didn't have health insurance, that's a different argument entirely. That does seem to be the logical conclusion of what you're saying.

I find it disturbing that many of you so easily buy into the idea that someone is born with an inherent "right" to healthcare. Really? Since when did any of our constitutional rights impose upon the freedoms of others (in this case, healthcare providers)?

Are you trying to say that being a doctor is some kind of forced servitude?

Some jobs involve making concessions. If you want to join the military, for example, you'll be trading in some pretty heavy liberties. You don't have to take those jobs if you don't want to, and at least in medicine you can walk away without being arrested. It's a bit melodramatic IMHO to invoke constitutional rights because you don't want to care for uninsured people.

Oh, and as a point of trivia - the 19th amendment did impose upon the freedoms of others (prohibition), and if others would have their way perhaps we'll see an amendment on gay marriage to impose on the freedoms of others in the future.

As a future doctor, are you seriously comfortable with the idea of a 3rd party (with minimal medical knowledge) dictating how you practice medicine and how much you will be paid?

Guess what: private insurance or government insurance, they're both going to screw you, so I don't think that's relevant to the topic of whether the government should offer more health insurance.

As far as bureaucracy, all the studies I have seen show administrative costs to be far lower in government-run plans than private plans:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768/
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/10

Maybe you simply object to giving anything to the government, but if I'm going to pay for health care I'd rather know my money is helping to pay for someone else's health care rather than some CEO's bonus or some redundant advertising campaign.

 

[McLovinMD]

Now, if you propose not treating anyone who didn't have health insurance, that's a different argument entirely. That does seem to be the logical conclusion of what you're saying.

http://

Please read my last statement. I bolded it specifically for people to avoid making this conclusion.

 

[WellWornLad]

Please read my last statement. I bolded it specifically for people to avoid making this conclusion.

You can't just say you're going to provide "charity" when you get the chance and declare the problem fixed.

You argue against providing insurance or health care to the uninsured without explaining how these people will be treated (with the notable exception of your generous contribution). That is, after all, the CRUX OF THE PROBLEM.

 

[Taliesinrk]

Best post yet. Of course, it should be noted that you should only have to answer to whom you choose assuming you don't impose on the rights of others.

My apologies.. I was typing quite quickly. This is what I meant.

 

[Substance]

I'm Canadian, so I cannot make any decisions for which party to rule the USA.

However, since our countries are extremely intimate when it comes to both culture and trade, the results of your elections affect my country tremendously.

I will also preface this message by saying that if you were to define my political beliefs, they would be akin to economic conservatism and libertarianism. That being said...

Your election is a vote not for the presidential candidate, but for the running-mate. My take is that both of these presidential candidates will not survive their first terms in office: McCain will die of old age. Obama will be assassinated by someone who does not want a black man as president; even Biden has said this. Thus, this election is really a vote for Biden or Palin.

It is my personal opinion that Palin has no place running the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world. She is a mayor from a small city in a state that has no major influence on politics nor any major players within. She has not proven her intelligence or worth as a human being, beyond having a child with Down's syndrome and calling that a noble act. Her resume is barren.

Biden, although far from a perfect presidential candidate, is at least far more experienced in the political realm and could deal with foreign policy with a more intelligent and balanced mind than Palin.

I will say also say, unrelatedly, that the cults of personality that surround both McCain and especially Obama are concerning. It is unfortunate that the majority of people in both the US and even Canada vote not with critical minds, but with emotional attachments and black-and-white attitudes.

 

[aedelste]

I'm a Christian, and pretty conservative too, yet I'm going to vote no for Prop 8 in California. I personally don't support gay marriage, and I'm pretty sure God hasn't changed on that, but I've realized that we don't live in Israel. America is not church state, with a temple in the center where God's presence resides.

Not to hijack the thread, but this is really scary. Do people think Israel is a fundamentalist state?

Israel is actually more progressive than the States in certain respects, with regards to gay marriage.

 

[Excelsius]

...
Your election is a vote not for the presidential candidate, but for the running-mate. My take is that both of these presidential candidates will not survive their first terms in office: McCain will die of old age. Obama will be assassinated by someone who does not want a black man as president; even Biden has said this. Thus, this election is really a vote for Biden or Palin.
...

Your confidence is enough to make one cringe, as if it's almost a promise. I would not be so confident. First, McCain's mother is in her 90s. Given the effect of genetics, he could live well into his 80s. Look at the guy - he looks pretty good, especially for someone who was tortured brutally for years. As for Obama, I think there is some level of transcending race. That's why he is even getting the presidency. Should he be killed, I'd expect a huge civil war in USA where not only the blacks will rise, but all the minorities who see their representative in Obama. I am not even talking about the rest of the country, who see him as the only way out right now, in these troubled times. Given that republicans have stirred up so much anger and hatred against Obama by spreading rumors, their party will carry all the blame and it might very well be the end of them. I don't know, but I think anyone who is smart enough to carry out the assassination will have the brains to understand that this will grossly hurt everyone. That's why I don't think an assassination is likely. At least 50% of the country really love Obama. His recent rally in Denver broke his own record by gathering of 100,000 people, and this in a swing state. We can't even begin to fathom the ramifications of an Obama assassination.

 

[WellWornLad]

McCain will die of old age.

The most pessimistic actuarial statistic I have seen is that McCain would have a 25% chance of dying within the next 8 years. What exactly do you base your certainty on?

Obama will be assassinated by someone who does not want a black man as president.

Just wild spectulation, IMO.

She has not proven her intelligence or worth as a human being, beyond having a child with Down's syndrome and calling that a noble act. Her resume is barren.

Your bar for "worth as a human being" is pretty damn high there. I think she'd be a disaster in the WH, but you're just being an ass if you're trying to convince us that she is some kind of degenerate human being.

I will say also say, unrelatedly, that the cults of personality that surround both McCain and especially Obama are concerning.

Thank you, professor. Frankly, it's just another election year, and what you're seeing is just extremism amplified by the blogosphere. Up close people are hardly loosing their minds and swearing blood oaths.

 

[thRob]

Is there something wrong with breaking the cycle and have an intelligent leader for once

If Obama is as intelligent as the lines on his teleprompter make us think he is, he'd make his college grades, test scores, and thesis public.

 

[URHere]

At the end of the day, both of these candidates have significant problems. While Obama is clearly the better speaker and the most likely to garnish votes based on his personality, he is posing several courses of action that require significant government spending and I have yet to see him give a good answer as to exactly where he is planning to cut funding in return. McCain on the other hand makes more sense in several areas economically, but his stance on social liberties scares the hell out of me. As for the candidates healthcare plans, call me a skeptic, but I just don't believe that either plan will significantly improve our healthcare system the way the candidates believe it will.

That being said, I am deciding to vote for Obama for one overwhelming reason: he is the candidate that the rest of the world wants us to end up with. America has done some serious damage to our international relations over the past 8 years, and I think it is vital that we do everything we can to fix that situation. Why would we put someone into office that our allies just don't respect? I'm not saying that what other countries think should always dictate what our country does, but when we are having doubts ourselves as to who would be the better fit, I think it does make sense to take it into account.

 

[rachmoninov3]

That being said, I am deciding to vote for Obama for one overwhelming reason: he is the candidate that the rest of the world wants us to end up with. America has done some serious damage to our international relations over the past 8 years, and I think it is vital that we do everything we can to fix that situation. Why would we put someone into office that our allies just don't respect? I'm not saying that what other countries think should always dictate what our country does, but when we are having doubts ourselves as to who would be the better fit, I think it does make sense to take it into account.

Why vote for someone because everyone else will like him? What if they want that person because he'll be weak? I'm sure a manly man like Putin would love a metro running the U.S. Heck, maybe Obama and Chavez can become such good friends when the U.S. banks are socialized for good.

Look, I do not like Bush as much as the next American. However, I do not think that he is responsible for everything that the liberals say he is. I completely understand why you would want to make amends for the 8 years of Bush Presidency, but your logic is flawed and IMHO placating the world is not a reason to vote for anyone.

And believe me, our allies respect McCain.

 

[Excelsius]

Why vote for someone because everyone else will like him? What if they want that person because he'll be weak? I'm sure a manly man like Putin would love a metro running the U.S. Heck, maybe Obama and Chavez can become such good friends when the U.S. banks are socialized for good.

Look, I do not like Bush as much as the next American. However, I do not think that he is responsible for everything that the liberals say he is. I completely understand why you would want to make amends for the 8 years of Bush Presidency, but your logic is flawed and IMHO placating the world is not a reason to vote for anyone.

And believe me, our allies respect McCain.

I dissent. Selecting a president that is well-liked abroad does not amount to servitude, as you insinuate. The days of American grandeur are pretty much over, and it is arrogant to suggest that electing a president that the rest of the world prefers somehow means we are placating everyone. There is no indication at all that our allies respect McCain. But we do know that they do not like him. Polls in Europe show an overwhelming preference for Obama - 75% or so. McCain, on the other hand, is really favored among the terrorist organizations. In fact, the Al-Qaeda website sort of endorsed him. This is because the terrorist organization knows that McCain will really help them recruit new troops because he will continue, if not augment, the Bush Doctrine. It will be sort of hard to recruit new troops to fight against an "unfair" country that has a black president, born in a Muslim country with a Muslim name, who agrees to talk to the "enemy." Combine that with our allies who love Obama (in Germany, he drew a crowd of 200,000) and the prospect of involving the Clintons in foreign affairs, we are going to have a safer country by default - moral ascendancy. When are you going to understand that physical battle is not going to eliminate terrorist problems? Bush seems to be very tough, yet various reports say that we are not any safer than we were before 9/11. If anything, people hate us more.

Finally, "placating" the world is not the right term. It's more like befriending it. The notion that somehow going along with your allies makes you weak is an atavistic ideology, especially if you are an immigrant yourself (Russian?). Xenophobia is not limited to race, but to entire countries as well. Think about what the rest of the world thought of the "maverick" when he tactlessly attacked Obama for drawing such a huge crowd in Berlin. His comments were very sardonic and alienating.

If McCain were to be elected, you better pray that he never gets sick and that he doesn't attack Iran, which will likely trigger the third world war. Imagine if it does happen and then he becomes sick...

 

[rachmoninov3]

It will be sort of hard to recruit new troops to fight against an "unfair" country that has a black president, born in a Muslim country with a Muslim name, who agrees to talk to the "enemy." ...

Ummm so 9-11-2001 was just a misunderstanding? That people will stop wanting to kill us if we have a black man with a muslim name in office?


And wasn't Obama born in HI? Is that a muslim country?

However, I must say, should Obama be elected president, it will be entertaining to watch Sean Hannity's reaction. My guess is that Neil Cavuto will just go jump off a cliff. Sad, but at least I can take solice in knowing that there will at least be some entertainment before the world goes to pot.
Disclaimer:
I have no malice to either foxnews anchor, I am just trying to find the silver lining of an obama presidency.

 

[Excelsius]

Ummm so 9-11-2001 was just a misunderstanding? That people will stop wanting to kill us if we have a black man with a muslim name in office?
...

This is not an all-or-nothing situation. Reread what I said again.

Do you have any idea why those people are attacking us? You cannot make any judicious political decisions without knowing the core of the problem, and from your question, it seems that you don't.

Obama was either born or raised in Indonesia. I think it's the latter.

And anyone trying to get at least somewhat unbiased news watches either CNN or NBC. You don't need a black president to be able to laugh at fox news, though I am sure O'Reilly will perfect his skills. I suggest to watch Saturday Night Live instead - same amount of disinterested news, but better comedy.

 

[FutureInternist]

I am just trying to find the silver lining of an obama presidency.

The biggest silver lining is a NON-McCain presidency , although w/ McCain in office there would be a TON of old people jokes on late-night. Somehow I don't think the white late night talk show hosts are going to be making too many black jokes. There goes my 1 am TV time slot.

 

[grizzler]

You don't, but you're an n=1. I'm not going to say whether or not I'm Christian. But I will say that I just turned to my Christian fiance and asked him if he believes Christian and religious values have and can change over time and adapt to culture and he said "yes." Call it a difference of opinion.

I thought this was an interesting question but I don't understand what it has to do with the election. I would like to add my two cents.

I strongly believe that Christian values are static, they don't change. What changes is people. When people do things that are against their value system they usually would feel something remorse from their conscious. But in general people enjoy doing things against the values because it may feel good, or the like it, or it is hard to change behavior to match ones values. Lately what society has done for people including religion is to change the values to be more accomadating to people and less corrosive against their conscious. Thus values, especially "Christian values" have been eroded by leaders pandering for popularity. That is my opinion and I believe that the same principle can be applied to politicians who have strayed far from the ideal that they and we would have hoped to achieve

 

[WellWornLad]

Thus values, especially "Christian values" have been eroded by leaders pandering for popularity. That is my opinion and I believe that the same principle can be applied to politicians who have strayed far from the ideal that they and we would have hoped to achieve

As a non-religious person, the use of Christianity by politicians has really baffled me. It seems pretty clear-cut that violence and pride are non-Christian values, yet the conservative Christian movement seems to support a strong military and preemptive aggression as well as nationalism. How do Christians reconcile these positions?

 

[Steiner]

That being said, I am deciding to vote for Obama for one overwhelming reason: he is the candidate that the rest of the world wants us to end up with. America has done some serious damage to our international relations over the past 8 years, and I think it is vital that we do everything we can to fix that situation. Why would we put someone into office that our allies just don't respect?

It's funny that your one overwhelming reason for voting for Obama is the same reason some people will not vote for him.

My belief is the President should do what's best for the American people, if that happens to also make other world leaders happy, then so be it, but a world popularity contest should have no impact on policy decisions. The benefit to America should be the only concern. I hope that if you ask either candidate, they would agree.

Also, I think our allies would respect either candidate.

 

[rachmoninov3]

As for my sources, I prefer a mix of foxnews and the BBC.
Tho it is shocking how much of lemmings to the news we are. Our political views really are based upon what's on at 5pm when we're making dinner.

Forgive me, but the days of the US being a superpower are not over. Perhaps I hang on to this like I do guns and religion, but due to our freedoms, our education, our medicine, and our charity, the US is still the greatest nation on earth. Millions of illegal aliens can't be wrong.

However, I do not claim to know the entire history of the middle east. Please expound upon what points I'm missing (other than the crusade, the establishment of Israel, and centuries of war).

Also, do you find it just sorta disturbing that world leaders who we know would kill millions of people in the blink of an eye (iran), and socialize and become dictator of the country (hugo chavez), are touting the Obama line? That in itself would send up some red flags.
However, I believe that is our fundamental difference:
Those who support Obama do not see these foreign powers as agressors but rather people who are out to do what is best for the world post Bush:
Blow-up Israel, and socialize everything so that everyone is equal.

 

[scotties123]

thanks to my school, i dont have time to vote because on november 5th i have an anatomy lecture exam and lab pracitcal.

 

[WellWornLad]

Forgive me, but the days of the US being a superpower are not over. Perhaps I hang on to this like I do guns and religion, but due to our freedoms, our education, our medicine, and our charity, the US is still the greatest nation on earth. Millions of illegal aliens can't be wrong.

America is a great country, don't get me wrong, but our standard of freedom, education, and medicine are not unique in the Western world - and these countries have their own share of immigrant issues.

Personally, I think it's important to talk about ways to improve this country. That involves criticism, and too many people in government want to talk about how great we are rather than dealing with our problems. I don't need politicians to tell me how great America is, I need them to get to work fixing our problems.

Also, do you find it just sorta disturbing that world leaders who we know would kill millions of people in the blink of an eye (iran), and socialize and become dictator of the country (hugo chavez), are touting the Obama line? That in itself would send up some red flags.

If Obama were suggesting that we nuke Venezuela ASAP, Chavez would probably favor McCain. Doesn't mean that we should vote for Obama in that case, as it would still be a horrible policy.

I'm not sure what "blink of an eye" means, but I guess you could say that about any country with nuclear weapons. Iran's primary goal is to become a regional superpower. If Iran and North Korea learned anything from Bush's war, it's that we invade countries without nuclear weapons and sit down to talk with those that do.

Those who support Obama do not see these foreign powers as agressors but rather people who are out to do what is best for the world post Bush:
Blow-up Israel, and socialize everything so that everyone is equal.

Uh, no. We just realize that the US has limits on what it can do alone, and that we have to prioritize our own problems at home that are festering. Conservatives seem to see this as some sort of blasphemy or anti-Americanism, like we're not supposed to admit we can't do everything ourselves. Well congratulations, now it's pretty obvious we can't even invade a relatively weak country without stretching ourselves thin. That was an eye-opener for a lot of countries - notably Iran, Russia, and China.

As for socialism, that doesn't seem to bother Republicans anymore after this economic crisis (just like small government, states' rights, and individual privacy have gone out of fashion during the past 3 decades). We've had a progressive tax policy many decades now, and Obama is proposing extending government health insurance coverage (which 30% of the US already uses), not restricting private coverage. Crying socialism is just vacuous. What exactly do Republicans stand for, again?

And seriously, blow up Israel? Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads. They could nuke Iran halfway to China before they got enough uranium together to warm their hands. In fact, this scenario is about 100 times more likely than that of Iran nuking Israel.

 

[AZhopeful]

Not to hijack the thread, but this is really scary. Do people think Israel is a fundamentalist state?

Israel is actually more progressive than the States in certain respects, with regards to gay marriage.

I think it's clear that he's referencing the Israel of the Old Testament, not the modern Israeli state. Look at his comments about the temple, etc. OT Israel had a big temple in which the Spirit of God was present; the laws setting Israel apart from the rest of the world were established by Jehovah himself. Kings were often anointed by priests, thereby demonstrating the will of God in selecting the head of the government- all this was in addition to an influential line of priests, and of course, the prophets. When it functioned the way it was supposed to, it was about as close to a theocracy as you might find.

I think you'd agree that a lot of what I just described, and what the poster you referenced wrote, is not present in modern Israel. I think that before you start talking about how "scary" the poster's misguided views on Israel are, you should read his entire post.

Doctajay's referenced quote: Originally Posted by DoctaJay
I'm a Christian, and pretty conservative too, yet I'm going to vote no for Prop 8 in California. I personally don't support gay marriage, and I'm pretty sure God hasn't changed on that, but I've realized that we don't live in Israel. America is not church state, with a temple in the center where God's presence resides.

 

[Taliesinrk]

America is a great country, don't get me wrong, but our standard of freedom, education, and medicine are not unique in the Western world - and these countries have their own share of immigrant issues.

America is a great country and our standards of freedom, education, and medicine could be unique in the western world if our government remembered how it was supposed to operate. I will leave the latter two out, but in regards to freedom... if we operated as dictated to us by both the original constitution and the founding principles of our country, our "standard of freedom" would be unparalleled by the rest of the world. Instead, modern politics believes that they know better and may subsequently act in their best interests... this is how we have reached the point we're at today. Day by day.... by day by day (<-- joke)..., the United States government (and even moreso - the rest of the western world) takes away more and more individual freedom. If we continue on this path, Big Brother will be here before we know it.. if he isn't already.

 

[Steiner]

double post-delete

 

[Steiner]

thanks to my school, i dont have time to vote because on november 5th i have an anatomy lecture exam and lab pracitcal.

Technically, it's illegal to prevent you from voting or to punish someone for voting, i.e. firing you for not showing up to work because you were voting, or failing you for not being in class because you were voting. Since your exam is the next day, your school probably could get away with punishing you.

 

[cpants]

America is a great country and our standards of freedom, education, and medicine could be unique in the western world if our government remembered how it was supposed to operate. I will leave the latter two out, but in regards to freedom... if we operated as dictated to us by both the original constitution and the founding principles of our country, our "standard of freedom" would be unparalleled by the rest of the world. Instead, modern politics believes that they know better and may subsequently act in their best interests... this is how we have reached the point we're at today. Day by day.... by day by day (<-- joke)..., the United States government (and even moreso - the rest of the western world) takes away more and more individual freedom. If we continue on this path, Big Brother will be here before we know it.. if he isn't already.

Don't be silly, the constitution is an outdated document. The founding fathers would surely have agreed to illegal searches if they knew about terrorism. They would have realized how stupid the second amendment is if they knew about school shootings.

If they were alive today, they would realize how dated their ideas are. They would see that the government knows best, and we should trust it.

 

[rachmoninov3]

whomever we all vote for, it's refreshing to see the amount of libertarian principles on this board.
Neither party has offered smaller government, and this whole ecconmic bail-out (under Bush) is as socialist as they come.
However, I still think that Obama will make government even bigger, and that the world only likes him b/c he's young, inexperienced, and touts the same lines as Iran and Venezuela (without the bomb Israel part).


I'll still vote for McCain b/c of his record of smaller goverment, independence, and his history of service. No, the GOP has not delivered these principles as of late. However, you vote for person, not for party.
There's also much to be said for having a balance between liberals and conservatives in Washington.

As such, thanks for the great debates everybody.

Rach-out.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

thanks to my school, i dont have time to vote because on november 5th i have an anatomy lecture exam and lab pracitcal.

Maybe a typo, but election day is the 4th. Also, polls are usually open for 12hrs, so you could just go smelling like cadaver juice.

 

[scotties123]

Maybe a typo, but election day is the 4th. Also, polls are usually open for 12hrs, so you could just go smelling like cadaver juice.

not a typo. my point is im going to need the entire day to study and im not gonna have time to waste voting. and its not so much the 10 minutes it would take to do it, but the going there, parking, waiting, doing it, and then coming back, and getting back in the study groove.

 

[gstrub]

not a typo. my point is im going to need the entire day to study and im not gonna have time to waste voting. and its not so much the 10 minutes it would take to do it, but the going there, parking, waiting, doing it, and then coming back, and getting back in the study groove.

POOR YOU!! Don't vote then. Cry me a friggin river...just like Obama want people to ask for the day off to vote. Waste time? Parking? Aww...well have some chocolate ice cream.

 

[DrTexas]

that is such a ridiculous cop-out.