Home

Advertisement

Customize
 
 
02 November 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Rant  
I'm going to start with the good news otherwise I'll go off on a tangent and completely forget to tell everyone the only piece of information that is making me happy these days: I got a job!!!

I know, I know. It doesn't sound thrilling but I work at Barnes and Noble and get amazing discounts and opportunities so I'm extremely happy. I already love it there.

It was built back in 2006 so this past June marked its two year anniversary so it's still new and amazingly kept. Talbot's, White and Black, Chico's, and Bread Co. are all in the same plaza and one minute away is Chesterfield Mall which was just newly remodeled a few years ago as well so it's amazing.

That was short and sweet but now onto the bad news...

Barack Obama is going to win the title of the next president of the United States. I'm a senior right now so I'm considering moving out of the country for college.

First off, I'm not a crazy radical but I do believe Obama's time is not now. I think in another four or eight years he'd make a great president but not for 2008. Let me tell you why.

The founders of the Constitution believed in what we call a system of checks and balances, meaning no one authority would have extreme power like a dictatorship or the monarchy they extracted themselves from.

The United States has three branches: the executive (president, his cabinet, EOC, etc.), the legislative (Congress, divided into the House of Representatives with 435 members of which are constantly being redistributed every ten years according to a state's increase or decrease in population, and the Senate with a total of 100 members, two from each state), and the judiciary (which we most notably know of as the Supreme Court but there is an entire pipe line of courts including district courts, etc.).

The purpose of each branch is to "check" the other one, making sure it has no more power than the next. A common misconception when voters here president's speeches, is that the president can actually do those things. Not true! Without the approval of Congress, the president has very limited rights, and even those rights are often scrutinized and called upon by Congress and the Supreme Court (i.e. declaring war, like President Bush did without the approval of Congress).

Here's where we run into the problem, though. When (not if) Obama becomes president, the executive branch will be liberal. Now, Representatives run every two years and Senators every six years (but only 1/3 run every six years because of the cycle, meaning every two years, there will be some Senators running for reelection as an incumbent). We're expecting the Senate to have no less than 55 democrats elected, more likely 60, causing the Senate to have a majority of liberals. Same idea with the House.

When we have a Congressional majority of liberals, that allows more leeway for the president if he is a liberal, too, because it makes it much easier for a bill to get passed (after it makes it through committee, etc.).

Now all that is left is the judiciary branch. Judges are always nonpartisan, however they are selected in a partisan format. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia (a controversial and right-winged Supreme Court judge) was nominated for his position based on his beliefs. So a president choose a judge based on his beliefs.

With two positions open on supreme courts, with two Bush nominees not being passed by Congress, it is more likely than not that those need-to-be-filled-positions will roll over into Obama's presidency.

Then we have four other judges who were elected by Reagan and Clinton expected to retire when Obama becomes president, allowing for Obama to choose those four appointees as well. And with a majority of democrats in Congress, all six suggestions are more likely to pass.

That leaves America with a liberal executive, legislative, and judiciary branch. When each branch is almost in accordance with the other, where are the checks and balances? They begin to cease to exist. This is not good for our nation!

For those who believe in pro-life or an other Supreme Court controversial issue, it's most likely going to swing to the left because the entire court system will be shifted.

People, please listen to what I'm saying. Even if you don't like John McCain and Sarah Palin, America thrives on checks and balances...it's how the founders hoped to keep America functioning. When there is no tension in Washington, and everything goes smoothly, it's actually a bad thing...trust me on this. There needs to be conflict in order for their to be success.

Save me from having to live through four years (oh, God, please no more) of an Obama administration.

And if you have anything to say on this, please be respectful. I honestly don't care if you disagree with me...I actually enjoy debates, but let's do so under friendly terms, eh?
 
 
Current Mood: scared
 
 
( 10 comments — Post a new comment )
simone x says[info]simonexsays on November 2nd, 2008 08:27 pm (UTC)
I definitely agree with the checks and balances thing, but sometimes when people want change that entire idea goes out the window. The past eight years have made some people worry about the current state of the republican party and think the democrats have something better to offer, and they can actually get that done if they have control of congress as well as the White House. It's hard to get things done when you constantly have a president vetoing so many bills that a certain party puts up for the greater good of the country, and sometimes it can help to have control of both. It's swung that way for both parties over the years; just look at Bush's first term.

I respect your ideals, but I'm not sure if we can handle another four years of republican policies with the current state of our economy/country in general, even if John McCain is a suitable candidate. Bush totally screwed him over eight years ago when McCain should have gotten the nomination.

PS- You made an amazing Palin for Halloween! :D
anielle[info]elle_bw on November 3rd, 2008 01:27 pm (UTC)
When people want change the entire idea of our fundamental system should not go out the door. Without we could develop into a tyranny a lot easier than we could without it. I'm not saying we will, because I don't think that, but the year 2009 will operate much more nicely for left-wingers than those on the right, which in unfair. Because it is a close race we have about 50% of the population who will be unhappy with an Obama win...how is he going to make those people happy? By catering to every whim of the left party? I think not.

My biggest issue is his idea on taxes. It's ridiculous. My parents are in the top 1% of our country's highest income bracket. They haven't worked their asses off so that the other 40% of the population who don't even pay taxes can get, in Obama's word "a tax break" when in actuality it's welfare.

We give so much of our money to charity each year, knowing it's going to help those who want to get back on their feet and start over again. With Obama, that will cease to exist. People automatically assume money coming out of taxes will go to help those in need; not true. Congress must approve every act the president makes and with so much money going to the government, pork barrel spending will not doubt increase. Who wants $130 million going to studying bear DNA? I don't. And that's where are tax payer money has gone in the past...Obama's tax percent increase will give way to even more ludicrous spending. So, no, it won't all go to helping those in need.

And you're wrong in your thinking that a president's veto is absolute. Congress can still overrule that by a 2/3 margin. So if Congress really wanted it, they would have passed it...it's not the president's fault.

Sigh. I'm thinking I'm getting carried away. I get so into it.

Anyways, thank you! I loved being Palin for Halloween. I especially loved my button that read: Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Democrat. Hehe.
Loly Darko[info]loonylolydarko on November 3rd, 2008 11:45 pm (UTC)
I think that would make sense but that'd be an extreme. A super extreme. Like waaaaay out there.
anielle[info]elle_bw on November 4th, 2008 02:49 am (UTC)
Call me stupid, but I have no clue what your reply meant, LOL. Clarification please!!!

Oh, and vote McCain, hehe. (:
Loly Darko[info]loonylolydarko on November 4th, 2008 02:51 am (UTC)
I mean, like the idea that democrats would completely take over and turn the US into an uber-liberal pro-choice crazy house is a bit extreme. They'll still be the lazy congressmen and senators from before, there'll just be new bills and things in the works.
anielle[info]elle_bw on November 4th, 2008 03:06 am (UTC)
O, now I understand. But still, I think I might disagree. I don't want to get into the mechanics of the thing because I'm so damn tired but basically every bill Obama might want to pass is more likely to go through because of the majority in Congress.

And the Supreme Court...oh god! For all those about equal rights, why not give them to unborn humans? Abortion...allowing funding for it? That just isn't right.
Loly Darko[info]loonylolydarko on November 4th, 2008 03:09 am (UTC)
Oh.

As for abortion, I was talking about that to my friends earlier, and I've always been iffy about it because it's wrong but I think people should have the choice, and I realized that like if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant no matter how slutty she may be, unless she really doesn't care, having a child throws away about 20 years of your life. The only time I would say no is for an abortion like 3+ months in. That's really inhumane to me, personally.
anielle[info]elle_bw on November 4th, 2008 10:22 pm (UTC)
Let me clarify something with you. McCain and his wife believe in abortion if the child was conceived through incest or rape or it's causing harm to the mother's body.

For 16 year olds, they can give the baby up for adoption...abortion isn't necessary when there are other avenues and outlets.

And when I say Obama is going to fund abortions...I even mean partial-birth abortions, where the woman gives birth to the baby halfway and then the crush the baby's skull so it dies. Talk about inhumane.
Loly Darko[info]loonylolydarko on November 4th, 2008 11:44 pm (UTC)
If I was 16, I'd rather have an abortion than a.) go through labor and b.) put my child into the horrible system of adoptions where they'd go through hell and back.

I know it's inhumane, those last-trimester abortions, but whoever is having an abortion - if they can live with that then so be it. Most women can't, though. But it'll be on their conscience, and everyone will know. I don't think they're right and trust me I know all the nasty details, but it's a choice people have to make. Get rid of the embryo before it gets big.
anielle[info]elle_bw on November 5th, 2008 01:05 am (UTC)
Hmm...it's a very personal and controversial issue. I think I might have to be put in that actual position, bit in all honesty I would never kill a human being, no matter what age I was when I got pregnant. It would be my fault; I should deal with the consequences.

But I respect your opinions, of course. Each is entitled to their own. If not, we wouldn't be Americans. (:
 
 

Advertisement

Customize