Which point was that exactly?
I realize the point on Iraq was a bit far-fetched. However, I believe that most people around the world -- and most world leaders -- have an interest in a stable Iraq.
Currently -- and correctly, I fully believe, don't get me wrong -- the majority opinion is that our presence is Iraq promotes violence. As troops are scaled back, we expect the Iraqis to solve their problems without having US troops around to shoot at and blow up.
My point was simply rhetorical, that if that assumption is wrong, world leaders would still be interested in a stable Iraq. The far-fetched part is the assumption being wrong (which again, I don't believe is).
I apologize if the term "immediate withdrawl" caused any confusion. I suppose "immediate and complete withdrawl" would have been more accurate. I don't see Obama's Iraq page use the term "immediate withdrawl," though he does say he will "immediately
begin to remove our troops from Iraq," "immediately
begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations," and "take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq."
And if it looks like I have more reasons to vote against McCain than for Obama (or anyone else), it's partially the scope of my argument and partially the skeptic side of me who grew up in the same political environment that you all did, where you vote for the lesser of two evils. It's an attitude I'm hoping we can change in America.
I'm a Democrat. I generally agree with the Democratic platform. I believe that we're all created equally and endowed with certain rights. I think making sure all Americans have healthcare is important. I think 21st century energy solutions are important and that serious changes need to be made quickly. I believe that people who are struggling to get by should pay lower taxes. I believe in a strong system of public education, that it's a matter of national security. I think we're custodians of the Earth, that we should leave it better than we found it. I believe that government not only works, but is essential -- so long as we have the proper checks and balances. I believe in promoting individual wealth as a way to build a stronger nation. I don't believe our national security can be guaranteed by building higher walls. I believe the greatness of a country is only as strong as our weakest citizens. I know we need to embrace new technology and new ideas if America is to be the leader this century that we were in the last. And I think it's of utmost importance to keep the promises we make to those of us who put their lives on the line for others; and to that end, that we should bring the war in Iraq to a close as quickly and safely as possible.
Obama more or less agrees with me on those points. So does Clinton. So do all the other Democrats who were running.
McCain is another story. He cheered Bush's veto of SCHIP. At best, McCain is inconsistent on energy; he's very pro-nuclear. He supports Bush's tax cuts on the top 1% of Americans, revenue that cut billions from the treasury, that we're now borrowing from China to pay for the war in Iraq. Nearly 30 years in Washington have taught McCain how to skirt the law and even ignore it. He wants to secure our borders with unmanned drones and continue Bush's policy of not talking to any leaders with whom we disagree. I have serious doubts whether McCain, who is older than FM radio, has what it takes to understand new technology and how it fits into our rapidly changing world. He voted against a bill mandating adequate troop rest in between deployments, against THREE bills giving much needed funding to Veterans Affairs during this time of war, against an amendment to provide better safety equipment to our combat troops. He urged other senators not to fund gear for the National Guard and Reserves and he favors corporate tax loopholes over veterans' medical care. And McCain wants to stay in Iraq for how long, again?
For me, the choice in November is crystal clear.
Kul, let's see who you're closer to...
On gun issues... Obama, who's not anti-gun, but certainly not the hawk McCain is.
On education... Obama, so long as that strong public education overrides union support for (the relatively small number of) bad teachers who get the kind of protection you mention.
On taxes... Obama. I don't think either candidate agrees that fiscal policy shouldn't be used for social change. But for progressive taxation and a balanced budget, he's your guy.
On poverty... Obama. He may not go as far as you want, but McCain doesn't even address it in his platform.
On the death penalty... Obama. He still supports it in cases of heinous crimes, however. McCain wants to make it easier.
On abortion... McCain. That's one thing he's pretty consistent on.
On right to die... Obama. He said the one vote he would take back would be his bandwagon vote to keep Terri Schaivo's feeding tube in.
On rehabilitation... Obama. He supports rehabilitation and programs to reintegrate offenders and lower recidivism. McCain wants more prisons and harsher penalties, but doesn't offer any alternative to putting more people in jail.
On drugs... not sure. I don't think you're going to find a viable candidate anytime soon who will make drugs legal. Obama admits to using pot in the past and trying coke. Just like the jailtime question, Obama focuses on rehabilitation, while McCain mostly pushes harsher sentences.
On foreign policy... Obama. So long as you think the UN's worthwhile and think workers' rights abroad have to be part of the deal.
The funny thing is, you're not strange. These are very common and consistent views. Don't let the liberal/conservative labels keep you from voting for the person who's closest to your ideals.
If I were to categorize you, I'd say you're a libertarian Democrat. Your "conservative" views aren't really those of a modern-day Republican. You seem to believe in individual freedom, so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's freedom.
And finally, don't feed the trolls.
