US Elections 2008

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

He's one among many current politicians who are clueless about technology. Obama seems to understand technology a bit better, so now we can start holding it against those who don't. However, there are many more issues to consider than just technology.

I'd argue that the majority of the US political government doesn't really understand technology or is in the pockets of the lobbyists. Things would have gotten interesting in 2006 if (RIAA puppet) Orrin Hatch had lost against the founder of XMission. There appear to be very few people in the tech sector who actually want to be in politics. However, technology is definitely an important issue as it relates to privacy and communications since our world basically runs on computers and the internet now. At this point in time, it is definitely important enough to be up in the questions asked of all candidates.

[Kaioshin Sama]

I'm glad to hear McCain's campaign is going well. He's one of the few Republican's I feel is moderate enough to run a stable country. That is if he somehow manages a miracle and defeat's either Obama or Hilary in the actual election.

McCain has always struck a chord with me that makes me feel he's honest and wants what's best for all people. Sure he's made some slip ups, gaffs and racial slurs over the years, but I can forgive such things if he is willing to admit his mistakes and move forward. If I had to list the pros and cons of his voting record it would go something like this:

Pros:
- Wants better gun control
- Against torture in any form
- Has frequently cosponsored progressive legislation with Democratic Senators
- Is never guaranteed to vote along party lines, but appears to vote based on his personal feelings and constituents wishes.
- His candidness

Cons:
- Pro-Life stance
- Pro Capital Punishment
- Wants to form a long term garrison in Iraq
- His candidness

That he has less cons then any other Republican candidate currently in the running and isn't a complete "Angel guided the bullet into the deer's head" nutcase like Mike Huckabee (Who pretty much goes ultra right wing conservative on every hot button issue) makes him my most desired candidate for the Republican nomination. I would vote democrat if I lived in the U.S, but even seeing a Republican in McCain win wouldn't seem so bad as a consolation.

Ron Paul now that I look at his policy was just bloody amazing and seems to have the same stances as McCain. Though I think now that Paul is seemingly out of the picture after Super Tuesday that McCain is the best bet at putting an end to Huckabee once and for all.

In short, either Clinton, Obama, McCain or Paul can win and I think the U.S is in good shape from my outside standpoint, but if Huckabee wins then there's nothing but trouble on the horizon.

About Vexx's comment on the whole right wing and left wing in the U.S versus other countries, let me share a story about the latest Ontario elections. Our Ontario Conservative party, sometimes known as the Progressive Conservatives (in Provincial Elections) leader John Tory (this is also hilarious because in Canada the cons are known as Tories) was running a decent campaign against Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty when he got a really really dumb idea. To extend public funding to faith based schools, or in other words, give up tax payer dollars to privately controlled funds. That was it, he was done. The public flipped out, he split his own party and the conservative election run was a complete disaster with Tory even losing his own seat as a result. We generally don't stand for taking things even that far. And as Vexx said, it's kind of true about different countries.

Canada's major parties are the NDP, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois. The only one that can really be considered at all Right Wing are the Conservatives (A merger of the Progressive Conservatives, Reform Party and Canadian Alliance for one really odd mishmash of policy that actually ends up sitting somewhere in the centre right), and even they've got nothing on the Republican party. I'd argue they are a bit to the left of the Democratic party. Essentially the NDP is a clear-cut socialist party, the liberals are a center left party, the Conservatives are center right and the Bloc Quebecois.....well I'm not sure actually, there platform is basically built on represenation for French speakers. I guess they'd be Centre left too.

Here is a pretty interesting blog article that lays out a comparison between the current American candidates and the Canadian parties that the author made by superimposing and scaling the parties onto a grid from PoliticalCompass.org. Yes, if Barack Obama were running in Canada he would likely be a left wing conservative.

For those who don't want to visit the blog for the commentary, I'll also post the graph here. Credit goes to Paulitics by the way.

Spoiler for U.S 2008 Presidential Candidate and Canadian Political Party Policy Comparison:

[D a m i e n]

being from a foreign country i d rather stay neutral and not take anyside since i totally lack the information about the candidates programs.
my general preference would go to either obama or clinton (though i dont really like her but that is totally partial since like i said i dont know enougth about each candidate's program).
unfortunatly no foreign nation can afford to careless about this electioin since USA 's politic directely affect too many other nation throught the way they deal with foreign policy.

what i m more interrested in is wich one between obama and clinton "won" this super tuesday, it was rather confused yesterday with no clear "winner".

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by D a m i e n

what i m more interrested in is wich one between obama and clinton "won" this super tuesday, it was rather confused yesterday with no clear "winner".

"Super tuesday" is just a name for a large number of primaries at once. There doesn't have to be a winner and loser since there is still 50% of the delegates up for grabs over the next 5 months. There is a lot of micromanagement that you can do to claim victories and defeats, but that is about it. Overall, Clinton had fewer victories than Obama though.

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

I'm glad to hear McCain's campaign is going well. He's one of the few Republican's I feel is moderate enough to run a stable country. That is if he somehow manages a miracle and defeat's either Obama or Hilary in the actual election.

I can't find the latest tracking polls but the last ones I recall were Obama just barely edging out McCain and McCain in a statistical dead heat with Clinton (advantage to McCain).

Ron Paul now that I look at his policy was just bloody amazing and seems to have the same stances as McCain. Though I think now that Paul is seemingly out of the picture after Super Tuesday that McCain is the best bet at putting an end to Huckabee once and for all.

Ron Paul was always out of the picture and his positions are not even close to McCain's except for a few social issues.

In short, either Clinton, Obama, McCain or Paul can win and I think the U.S is in good shape from my outside standpoint, but if Huckabee wins then there's nothing but trouble on the horizon.

As much of a "Keep the gov out of people's business" person as I am, Ron Paul winning would be a disaster. He is an isolationist and his strict belief in state's rights is a formula for disaster.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

McCain has always struck a chord with me that makes me feel he's honest and wants what's best for all people. Sure he's made some slip ups, gaffs and racial slurs over the years, but I can forgive such things if he is willing to admit his mistakes and move forward. If I had to list the pros and cons of his voting record it would go something like this:

Pros:
- Wants better gun control
- Against torture in any form
- Has frequently cosponsored progressive legislation with Democratic Senators
- Is never guaranteed to vote along party lines, but appears to vote based on his personal feelings and constituents wishes.
- His candidness

Cons:
- Pro-Life stance
- Pro Capital Punishment
- Wants to form a long term garrison in Iraq
- His candidness

I have to contest some of those perceptions. McCain's gun control support is in no way "better". It's just more of the typical worthless gun control that does nothing to decrease violence or keep hands out of the wrong people, but causes horrible legal landmines and unbelievable annoyances for people still owning/buying firearms. It goes right along with most of his cross-party progressive legislation: Useless for anything but ingratiating himself to the leaders of the Democratic party. I'm all for bipartisanship (up until we fix the two-party system), but his brand of it is nasty.

He's also not pro-life. Yes, he says he is, but he's not in practice. He generally seems like a straight-shooter, but that pandering (and his self-congratulating habit) is why I don't trust him. Not that I see how being pro-life is bad. So long as the life of the mother is in danger, I think its ridiculous to put social convenience ahead of human life. Even if we could decide when it becomes human life--and I don't think we can--by the time we're aware of most pregnancies it clearly is, even if it isn't fully developed. Nonetheless, his pro-life stance is mostly talk. He's bad enough that even many of the most prominent conservative republicans have said they won't vote with their party if he's nominated.

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

That he has less cons then any other Republican candidate currently in the running and isn't a complete "Angel guided the bullet into the deer's head" nutcase like Mike Huckabee (Who pretty much goes ultra right wing conservative on every hot button issue) makes him my most desired candidate for the Republican nomination.

I've got some serious reservations about Huckabee as a candidate, but the way people object to him is baffling. I can understand if people object to Huckabee's stances, policy, or even just him as a person, but I'd like to at least see some valid criticisms from people. That "angel guided bullet" comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Every one thought it was funny back when it was first public, but it's been interpreted differently, as have several other examples of him being willing to joke in near-irreverent ways have been taken as serious statements.
Liberals hate him for being too conservative, but conservatives hate him for being too liberal. If more people actually paid attention to what he was saying, though, instead of dismissing him by taking a couple of quotes out of context, I think many would find he's not that objectionable, as his notable bi-partisan support as governor is a clue to. Much like Ron Paul, his brand of conservatism can't be shoe-horned in with the stereotypical republicans.
Of course, many simply dislike him for being open about his faith, but that's really a different issue than most make it out to be. He's backed away from the "Intelligent Design" issue once it became clear that it was more than a movement to counter anti-religious rhetoric in the classroom and that it was being spearheaded by nutcases who wanted to teach religion in science lessons. He's also clearly separated the "evolution objection" from objecting to evolution as a whole to the very specific points Christians generally don't believe. The fact that every one else up there claims to have the same religion (Romney aside, whose religion teaches the same way) doesn't dawn on most people.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Huckabee's religion scares me less than even those who don't talk about theirs. I can understand why not every one sees it that way, because my experience with many religious people (pastors included) gives me a certain perspective. There are some who practically wish for theocracy, and there are some whose faith makes them even more respectful of the different values and beliefs of others and the government's responsibility to stay out of the issue. From what I've seen to be able to discern the difference, Huckabee lies on the latter end. Some comments he'd made about amending the constitution had caused me to think otherwise, but reading more about what he has to say on the subject at length rather than taking an out-of-context and misapplied sound bite defines it as something he sees as a social issue than a religious one--but a social issue that happens to fall in line with his religious views. I disagree with him on the proper solutions to this, but that's not something the president is responsible for, anyway.

Huckabee on the proper role of religion as a politician (the real meat comes after the first few questions, and some light is also shed on his actual stance on the death penalty):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZP0FxAhmgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1dvMttUh9k

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

Ron Paul now that I look at his policy was just bloody amazing and seems to have the same stances as McCain.

Ron Paul is practically the anti-McCain.

I'd say Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running, but much like Huckabee his conservatism isn't the stereotypical brand we're used to seeing squabbled over.

I think if we would stop reducing issues to sound bites and really discuss what's at their core, we'd find far more agreement and be able to come to more amicable decisions. That's more trouble than most people want to go to, though, and most people want to be able to play for a "team". *sigh*

A good example of this...

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

About Vexx's comment on the whole right wing and left wing in the U.S versus other countries, let me share a story about the latest Ontario elections. Our Ontario Conservative party, sometimes known as the Progressive Conservatives (in Provincial Elections) leader John Tory (this is also hilarious because in Canada the cons are known as Tories) was running a decent campaign against Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty when he got a really really dumb idea. To extend public funding to faith based schools, or in other words, give up tax payer dollars to privately controlled funds. That was it, he was done. The public flipped out, he split his own party and the conservative election run was a complete disaster with Tory even losing his own seat as a result. We generally don't stand for taking things even that far. And as Vexx said, it's kind of true about different countries.

We have the same issue in the US, but it's rarely discussed at such a high level (I'm not familiar with the Ontario debate, but I'm using that as a jumping point to note something about similar debates here).

Generally, though, if private religious schools are considered just as any other private school, and they are held to certain standards. On the chance that they might receive any government money, they are often held to further standards and subject to more state regulation.

The choice frequently comes down to private schools staying completely private, or private schools essentially becoming partly public in exchange for receiving some public money. The clamor over it, though, usually ends up sounding like "GOVERNMENT MONEY TO FUND RELIGION!!" although many private universities do similar things with their grants and scholarships.

[WanderingKnight]

For those living outside the US... keep in mind that our "leftwing" party is so far right makes your "rightwing" look downright moderate... and our "rightwing" pegs the meter.
And both are seriously infested with multi-national corporate influence because we've decided $$$=speech. The election is more of a question of which corporations do you want to have more "welfare" from the government than any advocacy for "the people".

Thank you for voicing my skeptical view over this whole issue. The media here has pointed its usual Summer tantrum to the US elections because there's nothing else to cover around these parts (everyone's on holiday), but I really can't perceive a difference. Republican, Democrat, they're all the same (not that there aren't these kinds of issues here, though--in Argentina it's largely an issue of personality and not of party, especially in the post-'83 years); from our third-world point of view, we're all screwed anyhow. And with a worldwide recession underway, there's no telling what might happen in the coming months, regardless of US president.

BTW, the media here has almost indecently targeted the Democrat campaign without much regard for the Republicans, so there's not much doubt around these parts on which party's gonna win.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

He's also not pro-life. Yes, he says he is, but he's not in practice. He generally seems like a straight-shooter, but that pandering (and his self-congratulating habit) is why I don't trust him. Not that I see how being pro-life is bad. So long as the life of the mother is in danger, I think its ridiculous to put social convenience ahead of human life. Even if we could decide when it becomes human life--and I don't think we can--by the time we're aware of most pregnancies it clearly is, even if it isn't fully developed.

There's been debate over the abortion issue on this forum before, so I won't get into the act of abortion itself. What I will get into is whether it's right for the government to play judge about that matter and tell people what they can and can't do. If you and some others in government feel that abortions shouldn't be allowed, that's fine - you and yours shouldn't get abortions. Don't push that view on the rest of the population.

[JustInn14]

If you and some others in government feel that abortions shouldn't be allowed, that's fine - you and yours shouldn't get abortions. Don't push that view on the rest of the population.

YES! It's THAT simple... Too bad there are too many dumb farts trying to run this country...


Anyways, when are the final elections supposed to be again? There's been too much Hooplah to keep track of when it is.... Not that I give a crap, or two!

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by JustInn14

YES! It's THAT simple... Too bad there are too many dumb farts trying to run this country...

Those dumb farts also try to protect kids at your age using similar kind of laws.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

There's been debate over the abortion issue on this forum before, so I won't get into the act of abortion itself. What I will get into is whether it's right for the government to play judge about that matter and tell people what they can and can't do. If you and some others in government feel that abortions shouldn't be allowed, that's fine - you and yours shouldn't get abortions. Don't push that view on the rest of the population.

I'll not go deeply into it since I don't want to take it off-topic, but I don't want to be misconstrued, and it relates heavily to two candidates:
I agree that laws should not force personal views or will upon the population, but abortion is a violation of that principle. I am, for the most part, quite libertarian: I'll live my way, you live your way--with the requirement that our rights to live the way we want extend all the way up to the point where they intrude on the rights of some one else to live the way they want. Abortion fails that test by pushing the view and decision of one person onto another (the mother's will against the child's), and excepting the case of rape or immaculate conception the existence of the child is not imposed upon the mother without her knowledge/consent.

If the law creates a special exception for taking the life of unborn children at the whim of the mother (or other entity) by not yet considering them human, then suddenly the law is dictating theology, which it has no business doing.

So, yes, this lines up with the "sanctity of human life at all stages" aspect of my faith, but I see it very much as a secular imperative of a society which respects the rights and personal boundaries of individuals. See also: Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee.

[JustInn14]

Originally Posted by Sazelyt

Those dumb farts also try to protect kids at your age using similar kind of laws.

Really? I did NOT know that.


OH, well. That's what you hear from me, when, your parents try to indoctrine you to beleive that EVERY SINGLE conservative is a greedy scumbag that is only doing things to get more money!

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by JustInn14

Anyways, when are the final elections supposed to be again? There's been too much Hooplah to keep track of when it is.... Not that I give a crap, or two!

November.

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I agree that laws should not force personal views or will upon the population, but abortion is a violation of that principle. I am, for the most part, quite libertarian: I'll live my way, you live your way--with the requirement that our rights to live the way we want extend all the way up to the point where they intrude on the rights of some one else to live the way they want. Abortion fails that test by pushing the view and decision of one person onto another (the mother's will against the child's), and excepting the case of rape or immaculate conception the existence of the child is not imposed upon the mother without her knowledge/consent.

Hmm... I'm sure I get this impression partially because you're trying to be brief, but I think you need to flesh out your views a little more. You claim that you're all for people living how they will until somoeone's rights/activities infringe on someone else's (or as the saying goes, 'your rights end where mine begin'). I have two problems with your views, purely from a legalistic standpoint.

First, you claim that abortion is bad because it pushes a mother's rights over those of her child. I'm not going to argue whether the fetus has rights or not, but you then make an exception for the cases of rape or when the existence of the child is imposed on the mother. You've just created an exception that tramples the rights of the child regardless. That is, you're recognizing that the child has rights, and yet you're stating that under certain conditions those rights of the child - which you are claiming are the same rights that any other person has, I presume - can be suspended. I think that is a very dangerous thing to state.

Second, it still bothers me that you'd make that judgement. It's that sort of judgement that causes people to call the police on their neighbors when they feel that a neighbor disciplining a child is abusing that child. Yes, there is a difference - in the case I described it's often a case of good will and misunderstanding that leads to an unpleasant visit from the police, whereas there's no real misunderstanding about an abortion, just different views. I'm not against neighbors watching over each other, or about trying to prevent child abuse, either. But that judgement still feels to me like a case of someone getting into someone else's business when they don't belong. My feeling over this is likely because I am pro-choice, so I don't suppose there's much more we can discuss here without going into the merits of whether rights are really being violated or not. I'd get into that all too easily so I'll try to refrain from responding on that aspect so that we don't derail the subject.

If the law creates a special exception for taking the life of unborn children at the whim of the mother (or other entity) by not yet considering them human, then suddenly the law is dictating theology, which it has no business doing.

So, yes, this lines up with the "sanctity of human life at all stages" aspect of my faith, but I see it very much as a secular imperative of a society which respects the rights and personal boundaries of individuals. See also: Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee.

I presume you're also against the death penalty. If you're not, I'll rip into you about hypocrisy. As it is, the first point I raised above - where you state an exception can be made in the case of a forced and unwanted pregnancy - makes me uneasy. When you have the time, I'd be very interested to hear some clarification or explanation for that part.

[JustInn14]

PErsonally, I don't beleive a human "Life" starts until age 3, or 4. DON"T ASK. That's just MY opinion on that matter...



Also, NOVEMBER?! Geez, there's going to be lots of hooplah before then about the elections, and stuff.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by JustInn14

Really? I did NOT know that.

That is why you don't know. If there won't be any kind of protection, there is a high chance that you would have known...

OH, well. That's what you hear from me, when, your parents try to indoctrine you to beleive that EVERY SINGLE conservative is a greedy scumbag that is only doing things to get more money!

I am sure the opposite side must also be saying things of similar nature about people that think like your parents. That doesn't mean they are true.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by bayoab

I can't find the latest tracking polls but the last ones I recall were Obama just barely edging out McCain and McCain in a statistical dead heat with Clinton (advantage to McCain).

Polls have been very unreliable so far in the primaries. The only real data has been the actual primary results, and they showed:

Originally Posted by The Economist

Democrats cast more than 60% of the votes on Tuesday, with twice as many Democrats as Republicans turning out in some states.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Polls have been very unreliable so far in the primaries.

That is completely untrue. Almost every single state fell well within the margin of error if not nailing it prior to super tuesday. The exception to this being New Hampshire where the pollsters nailed the republican polls but missed the democrats. The lone exception was the suffolk poll which nailed the democrats, but was way off on the republicans. New Hampshire clearly had a sampling problem on the dems side that only one place correctly handled.

On the democrats side on super tuesday, edwards had recently dropped out and the majority of his people were polling as undecided. For the majority of the states with enough polls to actually calculate anything, the polls were basically accurate to scale, even if they were outside the margin of error. There were less than a handful that were wrong or statistical dead head going in that ended up with slightly different results than the numbers said.

On the republican side, the same thing basically holds true with the majority of states being accurate to scale with a handful of exceptions and things that cannot be corrected for in polling. (Example: Caucus format caused the polls to be completely incorrect .)

Beside, polls are weaker when used as instantaneous measures of popularity. They are far more accurate when taken for trends because you can spot possible errors.

(The exit polls have been very accurate this year too.)

[ApostleOfGod]

Slow reply to people who told me how I was missing the part where McCain was a military hero who was tortured during the Vietnam War for 5 years? 12?

That's not the point. Honestly speaking, in Canada, there isn't much of a "Military Tradition" as there is in America. With that said, in America, when you have a military hero like McCain running for President, he's going to get a lot of supporters, veterans or troops or anything of the like. However, let me say this. The fact that McCain got tortured "For America" doesn't make him fit to be president off the hook. McCain probably suffered a lot more than many Americans, and others, such as myself, but that doesn't justify the luxury he is in right now. It just doesn't.

And about abortion....

"Seven years ago Pam Stenzel grew weary of hearing the phrase, NOBODY TOLD ME!! After years of counseling young girls who found themselves in crisis pregnancies, Pam began to realize that so many were completely unaware of the risks involved with sexual activity, and that many had never been told about all the consequences of their choices. That was the inception of Pam's life as a speaker, but Pam Stenzel's story started years earlier.

In 1964 a fifteen-year-old girl was raped, became pregnant, and decided to carry her unborn child to term. Five months after the baby girl was born, in an act of courage and love the young mother provided her child a better environment by giving her to an adoptive family. That child was Pam Stenzel. She is the oldest of 8 children… 7 adopted…1 biological, and her extended family includes 38 adopted children in all.


Following her graduation from Liberty University with a degree in Psychology, Pam moved to Minneapolis, MN where she began to work with New Life Family Services, and young girls who were planning to place their children for adoption.


Pam was approached by a group of concerned parents, to develop a two-hour program for the Rally for Life 1992, a conference on sexual abstinence. She developed the program by mixing media and music, her own talk, and the testimonies of young girls. The response of students, parents and the community was so overwhelming that Pam began to get numerous requests to speak all over the Midwest.


In 1993, Pam's talk Sex Has a Price Tag was produced as a video. No one was prepared for the explosive response. Pam's speaking requests were so numerous that she decided to go on the speaking circuit full time. "Sex Has a Price Tag" has since been translated into 11 languages, won the Charleston Film Festival Award in 1995, and is currently used in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, Australia, Ireland, Europe, the Ukraine, Romania, Poland, and throughout Africa.

In 1998 Vision Video and Gateway Films produced the film series "Sex, Love and Relationships" in Santa Monica, California. It won the Crown Award for Curriculum of the Year in November 1999.


Pam's current videography includes: "Time To Wait For Sex," "Sex Has A Price Tag 2000," "Character Matters" (a video for parents) "Sex, Love & Relationships," and "Take A Look In The Mirror" (a video for girls only).


She is also the Founder of Enlighten Communications, Inc., a organization focused and committed to the betterment of children and families in America and around the world. Enlighten offers a broad new model approach for those desiring to embrace strong character in today's youth. Enlighten empowers parents, youth leaders and educators to lead informed discussions on sexual abstinence and the benefits it produces.


Pam now travels both domestically and internationally, speaking to over 500,000 teens a year. Surprisingly many of her requests to speak come from teens themselves. She has been a guest on numerous national TV and Radio programs, including appearances on Fox News Network's "Hannity & Colmes Show," ABC Radio's "Sean Hannity Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," CBN's "The 700 Club," and ABC Television's "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher."


Pam Stenzel is a dynamic, charismatic, and educated expert on sex, love and relationships. She understands the perils that young people face as they make adult choices, and is dedicated to reviving the character and integrity of today's youth.
"
-http://www.pamstenzel.com/pamsbio.asp

Pam Stenzel. A person who fights for what she believes. Do not push the population to prevent abortion?

It's funny, how this abortion war got these titles "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". An average Miss South Carolina would hear the words "Pro-Choice" and be like "Oh man that sounds good. Pro Choice? Yeah I'm pro choice, I choose". In the process of choosing something that sounds so positive, yet involves the murder of a developing baby, the people, as it is part of human nature, develops bias towards the other side of the argument - "Pro-Life". Now obviously I'm Pro LIFE, and I choose to go with Pro Life because it involves saving the life of an existence, rather having to let it lose its existence after it's being hasn't been indulged into the great wonders of modern society.

I'll give you my opinion. I'm already influenced by Pam Stenzel's talk which I watched on DVD, but it's still legit and logical. DON'T GET THE ABORTION, HAVE THE BABY. There are many reasons which support this. One is that the person can turn out to someone who gives hope and encouragement to other people, such as Pam Stenzel. If you didn't read about her above, she's the result of a raped mother who decided to have the baby. I don't see another explanation existent here other than *out of love*. This woman doesn't even know her biological father. Yet, she has a family and helps the troubled youth of today with her abilities. Another reason is, There are MANY people in this world who want to adopt babies due to various circumstances. Have the baby, and then put the poor little girl/guy for adoption, so he/she can at least have a decent life with another family that is capable of taking care of the baby.

Rather than exceptions can be made, let's get things straight. By supporting pro-choice, one believes they have control over their body. Why are they going over into another being's freedom of choice too young to 'fend for itself?

So please, for Love's Sake, let's not try to cut through corners and reason why killing babies is not wrong. It ain't just some view and belief. It's just that simple irony of illegalizing murder and condemning someone to death when you got power, or allowing the mass murder of babies in a day (I think the figures are over 7,000 per day? That's right, 7,000 you's inside a city, all dying. Think about that.) that makes me think, "If no one else will say it, I better do it".

[SeijiSensei]

bayoab is entirely correct in his analysis. I recommend visiting http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and comparing the averaged late polling data by state against the actual results for Super Tuesday. The only glaring error is for the Minnesota Democratic caucuses where no poll was taken after January 27th. Caucuses are much more subject to turnout effects from a good "ground game." Obama clearly targeted the smaller caucus states where his financial advantage and pool of enthusiastic young volunteers could mount effective insurgencies. (I'm curious to see whether Clinton fights back on this front in the upcoming Washington and Nebraska state caucuses.)

One other intriguing error concerns the difference in results for California between the respected John Zogby and an outfit called SurveyUSA. Zogby had CA going for Obama, while SurveyUSA had Clinton with a slight majority, matching the actual result. What makes the difference interesting is that SurveyUSA apparently uses automated telephone robots to conduct its polls while Zogby uses human interviewers. My experience in polling, and my gut, both tell me humans should be better interviewers than robots, but the facts in this instance at least speak otherwise.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Hmm... I'm sure I get this impression partially because you're trying to be brief, but I think you need to flesh out your views a little more. You claim that you're all for people living how they will until somoeone's rights/activities infringe on someone else's (or as the saying goes, 'your rights end where mine begin'). I have two problems with your views, purely from a legalistic standpoint.

I think those are absolutely fair points, and the kind I'm more than happy to explain. I'd normally go to PM at this point, but considering that my explanations also explain some often-misinterpreted stances that Mr. Huckabee takes, I'll put them here, just in spoiler tags.

Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

First, you claim that abortion is bad because it pushes a mother's rights over those of her child. I'm not going to argue whether the fetus has rights or not, but you then make an exception for the cases of rape or when the existence of the child is imposed on the mother. You've just created an exception that tramples the rights of the child regardless. That is, you're recognizing that the child has rights, and yet you're stating that under certain conditions those rights of the child - which you are claiming are the same rights that any other person has, I presume - can be suspended. I think that is a very dangerous thing to state.

The human rights of a fetus is something I consider on par to a person on life support who is fully expected to recover consciousness. That aside, though...

I never really made an exception in the case of the rape/other imposition (although some do), since that punishes two humans for the crimes of one. I just recognize that this is a severely different circumstance than the usual unwanted pregnancy.

I do not think so lightly of the trauma that a pregnancy resulting from a rape causes that I would suggest a woman should be glad to bear the burden, but as a society we otherwise generally accept that life is of greater importance than even severe trauma (with the exception of defence of life or against severe bodily injury by an aggressor), with part of the purpose of the jury system being to provide either vindication or condemnation of those who choose to act in opposition of that mandate.

In short, I don't think we as a society can say "The mother should be forced to bear this burden", but we can even less say "The mother should be allowed to choose to impose her will upon the life of the child."

I personally think we should have public programs to streamline the adoption process and make it more open to find homes for such children (there are many homes willing, qualified, but unable to adopt for various reasons), and, contrary to my general opposition to government hand-outs, fund that and any possible compensation (including counseling, childcare allowances for those keeping the child, and other necessary social services) from the assets of convicted rapists.

I do make exception for cases where the child's life threatens the life of the mother, but that is a (tragic) case of defence.

(I've mentioned defence twice now. I'll say about on defence in terms of sanctity-of-life later in a later paragraph.)

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Second, it still bothers me that you'd make that judgement. It's that sort of judgement that causes people to call the police on their neighbors when they feel that a neighbor disciplining a child is abusing that child. Yes, there is a difference - in the case I described it's often a case of good will and misunderstanding that leads to an unpleasant visit from the police, whereas there's no real misunderstanding about an abortion, just different views. I'm not against neighbors watching over each other, or about trying to prevent child abuse, either. But that judgement still feels to me like a case of someone getting into someone else's business when they don't belong. My feeling over this is likely because I am pro-choice, so I don't suppose there's much more we can discuss here without going into the merits of whether rights are really being violated or not. I'd get into that all too easily so I'll try to refrain from responding on that aspect so that we don't derail the subject.

Well, you're correct in that this end of it really has more to do with a person's opinion on abortion and their view of the respect the law should give to a ("fetus"|"unborn child"|[other preferred term]).

I wouldn't equate this to neighbors calling on suspected abuse, but I will take that comparison and tweak it a bit for explanation: I see this more as law determining on what is and isn't abuse. In the US, minor corporal punishment is considered a private matter, but at some point the right of the parents to treat their child as they will ends, and the law determines it to be abuse because it treads on the child's human rights.

The prohibition of abortion simply draws the lines where they are traditionally drawn for every one else. In the US, the allowance of abortion is not because our legislators have chosen that our country would make exceptions in human rights for unborn children, but because of the court case of Roe versus Wade. That was legislation from the bench and a trampling of states' rights, though. In the US, if we, as a society, want to make changes, it is the job of legislators to change our laws--and in this case, at the state level. I will admit that states with drastically different laws regarding this issue is a HUGE monkey wrench, and could elevate to the federal level, but that can be hard to argue. The unlikelyhood of the Supreme Court revisiting Roe v. Wade and such interstate complications are why Mr. Huckabee supports enumerating the recognition of an unborn child's same "right to life" in the US constitution instead of at the state level.
(As far as Roe versus Wade, let me make clear that my opposition to the decision isn't based on my views on abortion, but on the nature of the decision overstepping the authority of the court. Supporters of abortion-choice are welcome to push for legislation. I'll be on the opposite side of that issue, but I respect the right of people to support change in government through the right channels.)

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I presume you're also against the death penalty. If you're not, I'll rip into you about hypocrisy. As it is, the first point I raised above - where you state an exception can be made in the case of a forced and unwanted pregnancy - makes me uneasy. When you have the time, I'd be very interested to hear some clarification or explanation for that part.

Correct, I'm not a fan of the death penalty. However, I do recognize that any justice system is based on the government denying offenders of the law rights that would otherwise be considered by most to be unalienable with the purposes of both containing people who might continue to offend and maintaining a valid threat to encourage others to not offend. Even in this, life is considered most important. Though I don't condone condemning any person to their death, I do take some comfort in the fact that at least this decision was made by a judge and a jury as part of a protective social system, only done as social justice for particular offenses (generally gross examples thereof) and ultimately not done at personal whim of an individual. And as personally opposed as I may be, I honestly don't have any suggestions for an alternative to maintaining the honest threat of the ultimate punishment. I do think, though, that prison crowding without the death penalty would be a minor issue as-is, and a complete non-issue if we weren't jailing people for things that shouldn't be illegal (ah, an issue for another time).

But no, not a fan of the death penalty. Even as part of a balanced social system, I cannot personally say I could ever condemn a man to die, and I therefore cannot expect society to do so on my behalf. More importantly, I hope and believe that any person can change, and in terms of my faith I believe that means we should preserve life so long as that life is not a threat to society.

Making this more relevant: Mr. Huckabee's (often contested on both sides) death penalty stance seems to be quite similar to my own. He is aware that it is enshrined in law, and that it happened under him as governor (apparently taking it very personally, since he says he "carried out" executions when in actuality he declined to pardon them). A tremendous number of executions were performed under his governorship (a statistic he cannot control except by pardons), which earns him a lot of criticism, but he also pardoned a remarkable number of people as he had the proper authority to do as governor, which also earns him a lot of criticism. In other words, his personal opposition to the death penalty drove him to pardon as he could, but he was keenly aware of the law as it is written and what was appropriate within his role of executive office. Rather than being so direct as to say he would rather not have capital punishment, he generally carefully states these facts. Voicing out against the death penalty is a kiss of death for a republican is like a democrat saying taxes on the wealthy should be cut: Instant political death if you say it directly.

The only time I believe one human being can make the decision to take the life of another is as a direct act to preserve the life of one's self or another or, in the case of defence against an aggressor, against great bodily harm. In the general case (very rare), I can only assume that each person's right to life being equal, each person must the consider the life of themselves or a loved one as taking priority (and in the much rarer case of having to consider between the lives of two others, I could hardly fault their decision). Defence against an aggressor is different, though, because such defence is a social-responsibility. This essay on self-defence as a social responsibility explains it better than I can, although it does so very bluntly.

Saying all this, Christians and Jews are aware that, according to our religious history, God not only ordered some minor wars but also laid out rules for capital punishment, and we hear criticism of such quite frequently from both sides when we oppose them. This is not contradictory to a personal opposition to the death penalty or war, though. Capital punishment was instituted as a last resort for a nearly-anarchist society, and carried out far more humanely than most think, with the general population being required to take part in a symbolic way to remind them of what a horrible decision and process it was. As well, no wars by divine mandate were issued to any one who isn't recorded to have been an entire society that followed a pillar of fire through the desert for a few decades, and that was specifically to provide for the continued preservation of said society in a particular location. I think that's a good litmus-test for a holy war, and no one has passed it since.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by bayoab

For the majority of the states with enough polls to actually calculate anything, the polls were basically accurate to scale, even if they were outside the margin of error. There were less than a handful that were wrong or statistical dead head going in that ended up with slightly different results than the numbers said.

Those polls, if I remember correctly, generally assume +/-4 points deviation from the actual results. Considering the difference between Clinton and Obama, that is a significant margin of error.

Also, if you watched CNN (or followed on the Web) on Tuesday, you should have noticed the winning announcement coming quite late for most of the states, even for the ones where the difference was more than 8 points in exit polls. Forget about the early polls, it is interesting to see the amount of trust they have even for the exit polls.