I doesn’t scare me in the least. I’m looking forward to a government that will look out for the middle class and not the rich.
I’m looking forward to national healthcare so everyone is covered.
I’m looking forward to a government that wont cave to big oil and will put real money into alternative energy.
I’m looking forward to a government that begins to regulate corporations again.
I’m looking forward to a government that will keep religion out of government again.
I’m looking forward to a government that will protect peoples rights, like abortion and gay rights.
I’m looking forward to a government that doesn’t shred the constitution in the name of “security”
I’m looking forward to a government led by a party that doesn’t try to divide the nation to serve its own purpose but has, as this summer has shown, bring people together.
You should be voting for Ralph Nader if you really want all of that. If you think this country is not going to be run by corporations with a democrat or republican in office, you are mistaken.
I commend those who are voting for Ron Paul. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but a vote for him is a vote to break up this damn 2 party system, just like my vote for Nader.
If your serious about the green party why not work on getting them some seats in the state legislature and then congress, maybe a governorship or something.
The Green party aims to high and because of it they will go no where. Start at the bottom work your way out.
I will agree with JJ. I went and saw Nader speak when he came to town and he made a fairly compelling argument. He, unlike Obama, gave me some hope of change. Whether or not he can deliver, it was genuine and that is what I like.
Obama will have to raise taxes on EVERYONE to get people covered under healthcare at what Americans are used to. Otherwise, people will need to be forced on generic medications or wait-lists for elective procedures. America already spends an ungodly sum on healthcare, and though we don’t get our “bang for our buck”, I’d argue that there is precious little in inefficiencies remaining in the system - especially with regards to the labor involved in healthcare.
I don’t think McCain’s ideas are any better (worse, probably), but that plan wouldn’t have passed in that form with a Democratic Congress in place. Obama’s will.
I argee with you - but the real way to solve that is to truly incentivize people to conserve - e.g. a carbon tax. Neither candidate has come out to argue for one, and both are pushing for cheaper energy. Obama was all for forcing the automakers into higher-CAFE regulations, until he realized that the companies are barely holding on as-is. Now he’s pushing for a massive bail-out of the domestics, at taxpayer expense.
Regulations are all well and good, except that in a global economy, we don’t want to put our major corporations under an undue/unfair burden. Any regulations imposed on domestic corporations have to be imposed equally on companies that import to the US - and I don’t see that happening either. Prime example: the pet-food/melamine issue. Local companies are well inspected and have to follow their regulations, yet imported foodstuffs from China are cheaper. At some point, we have to “even the scales” - yet Obama can’t do that in the face of a potential Chinese governmental backlash, and an agitated North Korea. Obama’s “talk-first” methodology will require China’s help on that regard, and China has shown that it is not above being spiteful in the face of American requests.
“Keeping religion out of government” is a good thing. Banning religious items in public spaces is not. In some sense, I think we’re morally worse off if the concept of menorahs, nativity scenes, etc can’t be displayed in public spaces for fear of offending some group. In a sense, we don’t want government adopting atheism as the national religion.
You could argue though about the definition of “individual rights”… as the unborn do not formally have any under current American law (though that is changing). If you consider fetuses as “individuals” - e.g. two counts of homicide when killing a pregnant woman - that line that allows abortion will by definition become blurred.
No arguments - the issue will remain, though, that some in the world don’t like us (the justification of 9/11 happened several presidents ago, remember). And just because Obama is in office, doesn’t change that fact either. If we are attacked again, I’m sure Obama will be forced to do some of the things Bush is being blasted for, because the people will clamor for it.
I agree with this one - though by his populist rhetoric, I’d argue Obama is unifying the country against its rich elites and big corporations. Push that too far, and you could risk eroding the work-ethic principles that push people to succeed. Either that, or it will push some people to offshore themselves, much like jobs are outsourced. I mean, those people of means have enough resources to live anywhere they want, really. And the last thing we want is a talent-drain on our economy, especially in this information-based age we live in.
I’m just pointing this out… not because I don’t like Obama & what he stands for (I’m a registered independent, BTW), but to show that there’s always more than one side to any argument.