Obama, Hillary or McCain ... does it even matter?

I would love it if Obama proved me wrong, but I don't think it matters who is elected because of the political divide in the country.

 

But the "something" they're liable to screw up differs for each candidate. That alone is reason to be involved.

Of course there's no magic bullet candidate that'll make everything better. But the policy distinctions still make a huge difference down the road in determining the course the country takes and which people and organizations are likely to be better off and worse off a few years from now. McCain and Obama have vastly differing views on questions like health care, taxes, and when the damn Iraq war should end, and what happens in those areas depends greatly on who wins this election.

 

I respect the hell out of that, too. That said, it's that experience that scares the hell out of me should he be in the White House, because on a certain level, his brain can't be right after nearly six years as a POW.

 

"crickets"

(as per usual, when the tough questions surface)

 

What exactly is McCain's "experience" as regards foreign policy?
That he was in the Navy?
That he was a POW?
This, I don't get.

 

It matters because of what the judiciary would look like. Judges do not legislate nearly as much as they used to.

You cannot look at the Constitution as a static thing. It must be interpreted in light of the changes in our society; that's what makes this country great, the people have freedoms from government intrusion that are guaranteed, no matter what the legislature tries to do. That is what the checks and balances are all about. Throughout the past 200 years, the Supreme Court has done overall a great job of keeping the other branches in check.

The president is also vital because of the appointments that he/she gets to make to every single department of the government. The department head then gets to set policies that could either address global warming or bury it (see current administration's burying of protection of right whales.).

Either clinton or obama will be better for the vast majority of our inhabitants than McCain.

 

Except the current court has been overturning -- or gutting, which is just as bad -- precedents at a rate that is, well, unprecedented.
And Senator Cindy's Cash has said he'll let his judges be picked by Sam Brownback, R-Golgotha.
No thanks.

 

He was pointing out the Bush administration's mistakes along the way, constrcutively. He's been right from the beginning, and if Bush had listened, we would have already won.

And yes, of course it makes a difference who becomes president.

 

Should a bad precedent which misinterpreted, misconstrued or ignored the constitution, be adhered to blindly?

 

I've not heard this viewpoint.

Could you please cite some examples, in real time? Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, how wonderful it is that we now live in a country where nine lawyers in Washington D.C. -- who are supposed to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL COSTS -- are in effect running the country.

Of course the mantra for appointing supreme court justices is "no litmus tests" for both sides -- then both sides proceed to put every nominee through a litany of litmus tests to see where they stand politically -- which I thought was not supposed to be a part of the equation.

It is insane that the new reason to go to the polls is because "we want our side's judges" to get appointed.

I can't quite understand how we got here from the days the constitution was penned.

 

Can someone give me a reason to vote come November. I'm at the point where I'm not sure my vote means anything.