Would I Pardon?

...no, not at all. I think that if someone is in jail, they should stay in jail. It doesn't matter what kind of crime they committed, they're in jail for a reason, and they should be punished for their crime. If I, as president, were to pardon someone, I would put the legal system to shame by saying "well, even though you convicted him, I think he should not be in jail...so I'm going to utilize my seniority over everyone." The president is a person just like everyone else, and I don't think that one person should have authority over any other person.

The "Pardoning" predicament also gives friends and family of The President an easy way out. Granted, I doubt that anyone closely related to The President will do anything illegal, but there is one black sheep in every family right (...George Bush)? If you had the power to pardon someone in your family, wouldn't you feel obligated to? Not only does it give the people closely related to the president an extra incentive to do something wrong, but it also puts The President in an awkward position in that if he does pardon that close person, it will be all over the news because he only pardoned that person, and if he does not, it will be all over the news that he wouldn't even pardon his family member, which I don't think is fair.

Equal Oppotunity to Govern

After reading about the "equal opportunity to govern" predicament, I have to say that I lean towards the "no" category. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want someone who was born out of this country to represent our country. Someone from Nigeria would not represent Italy, and someone from Italy would not represent Nigeria. To me, it is unethical, and people might look at America differently because of it. If a native of China were to become president, then China might try to gain some influence because there is now common ground between countries.

Also, I don't think that this is as big of an issue as people make it out to be as of now. In the future, it might be different, but as of now, I don't see what the big issue is. Sometime down the road, if the amendment needs to be changed, then let it be changed. But as of now, I'm pretty sure that everyone has been (mostly) happy with past presidents (excluding Nixon and Carter, of course...), so why change something that has worked?

Obama's go to guy

Once Obama is inaugurated, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be turning to many sources of information (people) to help him run the country the way he sees fit. However, the question becomes: which person will he turn to first? which person can he trust to give him his or her valid opinion? After pondering this thought, I came to the conclusion that it will most likely be the speaker of The House. Of course Obama will have other sources that he will turn to, such as the vice president, who will give him valid information. However, if Obama and Biden both die in some freak accident, the speaker of The House will be the one to run the country. I think that if Obama is smart, he will try to have as much influence as he can to sway voters into getting who he wants to be the speaker of The House (keep in mind this must be the fair choice, not just a democrat because he is a democrat, or a republican just because he is a republican). That way, he knows that if he is in a freak accident with Biden, the country will be in good hands.

Keep in mind that the speaker of The House must be knowledgeable in both sides of the conflict, and will not just agree with Obama because he is The President.

Thoughts on the outcome of the election

My thoughts about the outcome of the election are depicted in the picture perfectly. It is a terrible time to be a Republican, and I think that last night's election carried this thought out completely. Not only has Obama won the President, but the Democrats have taken the majority of The House and The Senate. I think that this drastic change of parties in the offices has shown how fed up people are with the government. People are dissatisfied with how the government has been running things, all Obama had to do was say he wanted to do the exact opposite of what Bush did in The White House, and he did it successfully. Because Obama said he wanted to reform everything, this caused an increase in voter registrants, which helped the outcome of the election. Voters, who are voting for Obama, are naturally going to vote Democrat for the Senate and House.

I figured that this would be the outcome of the election, merely because people are fed up with the Republican Party. I did expect that John McCain would at least win Virginia, considering that it has voted for the Republican Party since 1964. But, once McCain lost Virginia, I knew that Obama was going to be the president. At that point, that was the only battleground state left, and McCain had not won any at that point.

I am excited (should I be worried?) to see what the Democrats are going to do in Office, and want to see if Obama is going to give the people what he promised.

Palin Rally

After seeing the Palin rally, it really made me realize how much rallies are irrelevant to the voting process. All rallies are are a frat party for candidates, and the people going there are going to vote for that particular party anyway. I think that the debates rely more on how people vote, because each candidate can accurately explain what they want to do with the country (...hopefully).
I also think that political rallies deal mostly with party bashing. For example, Sarah Palin might say "John McCain wants to lower taxes, unlike Barack Obama." This does not accomplish much, because there is no background info involved, but is effective because the people at the rallies, who are already voting republican, have another reason to vote for John McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the experience of being at the rally. I really liked the fact that I got to see a potential vice president speak in my home town; I think it was a great opportunity to potentially witness history.

Should the voting age be lowered?

...no. In my opinion, the legal age is eighteen...why should you able to vote when you are not even legal? Besides, most kids don't even finish their government classes until they are 17 or 18, and by that time they should be educated enough to vote at the age of 18. If you have kids who are not educated in politics, and voting just because they can or because they like how one candidate dresses does not help the country decide a president what so ever. Even if sixteen year old's have a sense of their political ideas, these ideas can change dramatically in two years...I know mine did.

Honestly, I really don't have an issue with not voting until I am eighteen years old. Voting is not really discussed until it is time to elect a president, and that is when minors want to go out and vote. I don't think that minors are really complaining about the fact that they can't vote besides election year.

Should the electoral college be reformed?

No. My initial thought was that America needs some kind of structure to voting, and the electoral college brings that.

2nd answer: Yes. Yeah Yeah Yeah, Al Gore won popular vote but lost. The thing about that, is that he won the larger states, who actually have fewer electoral votes. Whereas Bush won smaller states, who have more electoral votes, thus causing him to win the presidency. I don't think that the smaller states should get more say in who gets to be president. All states are are just imaginary lines that separate a few buildings, anyway.

3rd answer: Yes. By this point, I think that the president should be chosen by the people, or that the president should be chosen by selected electors. None of this in between Charlie Brown Wishy Washy garbage. Either put your trust into the people, or don't. Basically, it's leading to the president being chosen by electors. If popular vote really mattered, Al Gore would have (would be) been president.

4th answer: Yes. Small States...huh. Never really thought that through. Small states need love, too, but in the case of this election, I think America will vote primarily for one candidate, and it won't be so split. However, if you vote for a president, and lose, get over it. You lost. No recounts.

5th answer: Yes. I think that the electoral college does do some good and some bad, and that the process can be tweaked a little bit. Unfortunately, to change the Electoral College will be near impossible, so I don't really know that it can be reformed. So, Americans may be stuck with voting and praying that the electors vote their way.

Should the government regulate interest groups?

In short, no. I don't believe that the government should have the role of saying which interest groups are legitimate, and which ones are not. I think that every group should have a say in what they want, rather than to have some of the smaller groups kicked to the side because they are not deemed important. Some of the smaller groups might be more efficient in their ideas than the bigger groups, so it isn't necessarily fair game if only the big dogs have say in what they want.

I disagree with the fact that it is the government's job to say that there is corruption and/or misinformation here or there. I think that should be left to the newspapers. Somehow or another, word will get out, and people will know about corruption without the government's help, so why should they get involved if they don't have to?

Overall, I think that if the government regulates interest groups, they are essentially taking away the right to freedom of speech, which violates the Constitution. I think the Constitution should be upheld in this case.

Does the United States spend too much money on defense?

1st answer: "yes." The way I see it, the U.S. spends approximately $600 billion a year on making sure our country is safe. Please don't get me wrong, I think that America needs to be protected from outside threats, but $600 billion a year? and increasing every year? what? I think there is a fine line between protecting our country and making a military safety bubble out of America.

2nd answer: "Yes." Now, I was told that the U.S. defense system actually benefits the economy. I think this might be a potential future problem. An economy that is dependent on one thing is double trouble (as we've seen with oil), and can only lead the economy into further turmoil. Also, if we cut spending, we won't necessarily be cutting military jobs, we would (SHOULD) be cutting the technology that goes behind weapons, seeing as we have the best in the world as of now.

3rd answer: "Yes." I understand that defense is a necessity, but so are shirts, and you don't see me spending $5,000 (how much per household it takes to protect the country) a year on those.

4th answer: "Yes." I understand that the world is a topsy turvy one, but (according to this article) we are the ONLY super duper country. As a super duper country, do we need to spend that much money on making sure we're safe? According to this, no one can touch America because of our CURRENT weapon technology state. Why not keep it like this? I don't think anyone can catch us for awhile...why don't we put that $600 billion a year towards something else?

Final answer: "Yes." Wow, this article really didn't change my opinion of anything at all. I thought I might find some "No's" in there, but apparently not. Maybe I'm just stubborn, who knows.

Who would I vote for?

If I was to vote this election year, I would probably vote for Barack Obama. Unfortunately for Republicans, it is a terrible time to be a Republican. Republican President George W. Bush has gotten our country into a war that now seems unnecessary, has gotten the American economy dependent on foreign oil, and has caused economic instability. Knowing this, I would probably not vote for another president that might repeat the past. I think John McCain has this ability, which is why I do not want to vote for him. McCain has voted for Bush about 95% of the time, and Bush's decisions obviously have not been the best for our country. I also do not agree with McCain on his program for education. I think that the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be reformed, and I think that kids should not choose wherever they want to go to school. If kids got to pick and choose where they want to go to school, it throws the American Dream right out of the window. Working hard to put your children through school was what Americans thrived on, and McCain is willing to give this all away.

That is why I want to vote for Barack Obama. Barack Obama's campaign focuses on change, which is what America needs right now. Barack Obama wants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and wants to push the manufacturing of Zero Carbon Emission Cars, going so far as to offer a rebate to those who buy them (McCain does offer the same thing, but Obama offers a higher tax credit, which tells me he wants to push the protection of our enviornment to a greater extent). Obama also wants to put money towards the sciences, which I think is a great thing to do. The subject of science in schools is getting less and less interesting, and I think that with more opportunities available to students, they will take advantage of them, which will give them future careers.
Barack also wants to pull out of Iraq, which I am for 100%. I think that this war now seems a little unnecessary, and that we should no longer endanger the lives of Americans. Obama also wants to resort to war as a last option, which I think is the best thing for America right now. If we get into another hasty war, I am afraid of what the consequences will be.

Overall, I would vote for Barack Obama based on what America needs now. America needs change, and I think Obama offers that.

Town-Style Debate

I think the format of the debate was not as efficient as I thought it would be. Going into the debate, I thought that the questions would have been better, so I assumed that both candidates were going to answer the questions less and less and instead focus on bashing each other. Turns out, the questions were not thought through, so they were equal to the moderator's questions in previous debates. Still, both candidates barely answered the questions, which really angered me. The questions weren't that hard, and yet they still focused on bashing each other. I wanted to jump into the TV and slap them both. What's so hard about answering questions about fixing the economy? It can't be that hard, in my opinion...

Vice Presidential Debate

Overall, I think that there was no distinct winner in the debate. Palin did succeed expectations, but that does not mean that she won the debate by any means necessary. I think that they both did not answer the questions what so ever. Rather, they just bashed each other's opposing party, which I think was suspected. It's hard to have a vice presidential debate because they are obliged to reiterate what the presidential candidate stands for. So, they can't really have their own ideas because it might contradict the presidential candidates, which would be viewed as political blashphemy.

I was really upset with how the debate played out. None of the VP candidates answered any of the questions, and they did not back up any info relevant to the questions. Rather, Biden ranted about how Obama was better than McCain, and Palin ranted for an hour about energy.
Honestly, I could care less about either VP candidate. This debate showed me that they only care about party bashing, rather than focusing on what they want to do in The White House.

Political Ad

I think that this is a good political ad because it shows the level of thought put into these types of ads. Now, not only are candidates mudslinging each other, but now they are mudslinging those who they associate with. By doing this, they can now say "if you don't approve of these people, then you shouldn't approve for this candidate," which I think is bogus. You are voting for a candidate, not for the people they hang out with on the weekend.

Satire

I think that this is political humor because they are exaggerating the fact that Sarah Palin might not be the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to debating. I think this cartoon is saying that they want to postpone the debate until after the election so that she doesn't have to give it (i.e. embarrassing John McCain, as well as the whole Republican party).

Who would I vote for based on enviornment?

After hearing both speeches today, I would have to say that I would vote McCain based on his environment and energy policies. I agree with the idea of offshore drilling. If we drill offshore, more jobs will open up because we need people to drill oil, and gas prices will go down because we are depending less on foreign countries for our oil. Also, I am for the idea of McCain's zero emission challenge, which will reward everyone who buys a zero emission car. Encouraging people to help the economy by offering money is probably one of the best things a potential president can do (I don't think anyone will buy a zero emission car for an ice cream cone, do you?).
It is not that I completely disagree with Obama's opinions about how to help the environment. I just think that between McCain and Obama's policies, McCain's policies appeal most to me (as stated above).

Test Results

After taking the political test, and seeing the results, I have to say that I was a little surprised by my results, but not completely taken aback. The test showed that I was a liberal, which I think I tend to lean more towards of the two main parties, anyway. For example, I agree that the government should give back to the people, and that it's the government's job to help the poor get off of their feet, and not help the upper class as much. Also, I am a firm believer that you will have more success in this country if you try your hardest to get ahead. I believe that the harder you work, the more rewards will come. However, I do not believe in supporting illegal immigration, nor am I a fan of low taxes. I think that taxes should be raised so that the government will have money to spend on creating schools, thus giving everyone a better education for the future.
Overall, I can agree with what the poll test gave me, but I would have been surprised if the test gave me a conservative response, either.

What matters to me in the election of 2008

One important aspect about this election that has not been discussed as much as the economy, war in iraq, etc., is the issue surrounding illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is especially important to me because I will eventually be applying for various jobs in order to support myself within the next decade. Who knows, within the next decade, illegal immigration could spread to jobs such as education and business. If I can't get a job, I will be in some serious economic trouble.
I am curious to hear Obama and McCain's stance on immigration, and what they are going to do about it (if they want to do anything at all). I know that Liberal's tend to favor immigration, and Republicans tend to hate immigration, but I am more concerned about how they are going to deal with the illegal immigration, because immigration will always be an issue. You can't stop immigration alltogether. Instead, you need to figure out how to work with it, and I am curious as to how Obama and McCain will work with it, if they want to work with it at all.

McCain's RNC Speech

After listening to McCain's speech, I was a little on the fence about most of the points he was making. For example, I am not so sure about the whole cutting taxes thing anymore. Obama, in his speech, said he was all for it. McCain, in his speech, also said he was for it, but criticized Obama by saying he wants to raise taxes, which will take away saving money from the people. To put it lightly, I disagree. I think we should raise taxes. By doing this, the government will be able to spend more money on creating jobs, which will eventually lead to more Americans having saving money.

I also disagreed with McCain on his view about the war in Iraq. He wants to continue pouring troops into Iraq, while Obama wants to get everyone out. I think that we should be in the middle of both views. While people are going into Iraq, there are still people coming out of Iraq. It isn't like the first 10,000 troops to go out there are still out there waiting to come home. If we keep (roughly) the same amount of troops overseas, America should be in pretty good shape defense wise.
I did agree with his little rant about Russia, however. I think that McCain is right in saying that we should not keep a blind eye towards potential threats, and that we need to be prepared for war no matter what. I am not saying that we should invade immediately, I am just saying that I would rather have us prepared for war, rather than being caught off guard if another attack occurrs.

McCain's personal stories seemed to get in the way of the bulk of his speech. Sure, some personal stories about his 96 year old mother are amazing, but I don't think that they should be thrown into his political campaign. I think that campaigns should be based solely on how each candidate wants to lead the country; that's it.

Overall, I did like hearing McCain's views on how he wants to run the country.

Barack Obama's DNC Speech

After listening to Obama's speech, I was a little bit surprised that I was agreeing with most of the things that he was saying. Obama's main point was that America is in turmoil because people are losing their jobs, having trouble paying their bills, as well as having difficulty with giving their children a good education. He said he was going to fix these things by cutting middle class taxes, and eliminating programs that do not work effectively anymore, which should help create new jobs. I agree with his reasoning, but I think that it is easier said than done. By cutting middle class taxes (which takes up most of America's population), the government will have less money to create those new jobs.

I also agreed with what Obama had to say about the war in Iraq, but only to a certain extent. Yes, the war has gone on for longer than everyone had expected, but the middle east will never be considered non threat to America anymore. I think that if we pull out ASAP, that they will turn around and attack us again, thus leading us back to 9/11. The other thing to think about is: since 9/11, have we had another terrorist attack? I think I am just a little concerned about what will happen if a different person with a different perspective about the War will lead us to in the future.

One thing that I disagreed with Obama's speech was his statement that "in a few weeks the Republicans will ask you to reward their past eight years with another four." I think that Obama is getting a little caught up in the "category" situation. Everyone has different ideas, and just because Bush hasn't been the most successful president to date, it doesn't mean that McCain will do any worse just because he is a Republican. Now, I realize that this does go both ways, and I am not saying that only the Democratic party does this. I just think that putting everyone into a category is what sways votes.

Overall, I found Obama's speech interesting, and I am intrigued as to McCain has to say in response to Obama's speech.

Slick Willy's DNC Speech

After listening to Bill Clinton's speech about Obama's dedication to making a better America, I was not surprised by what I heard at all. I figured that Bill Clinton would support Obama's campaign because of their mutual desire to change what is wrong with America today. Clinton mentioned that since the Republicans got control of The White House and Congress simultaneously, that health care, as well as availability of jobs have decreased dramatically. He then went on to say that because of Obama's past personal experiences, that he was ready to take on the role of president and change everything (according to Clinton). I can see where Clinton is coming from, but at the same time I think that his argument was a little one sided. All Clinton talked about was what the Republicans have done wrong, but not what the Republicans have done right. Clinton should have mentioned how he thinks the Republicans have succeeded in the past eight years, and if Obama was willing to keep the same policies going. I think that because of this, Clinton is a little wrapped up in categorizing Democrats/Republicans. For example, if he were to agree with some of the Republican views, he might cause Obama to lose votes because he is admitting that Republicans are right in some areas of their campaigns.
I am not saying that Clinton's speech was utter garbage. I did agree with him that the new president does need to do something about the rising poverty, but I think that he should have touched on what was going right in the country, as well.