Cliff Dude wrote:
Duke Juker wrote:
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong in their views or shouldn't have a voice in government. You don't have to vote for them if you don't want, but their views should be just as valued as Democrats or other parties' views.
My point is, if I don't agree with them then I wouldn't vote for them. Instead I'd vote for someone I'd agree with, and sometimes that's a hard choice because Democrats are just as bad.
Also separation of church and state. I believe that if religion is more separated from government, then we can have actual progress. And by that I mean beneficial changes or reversions from any party.
Right now I think that if a Republican is elected, then there would be eight years where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has happened in the US government. And that's pretty bad, regardless of which party you support.
And that's fine, vote for who you want. But also know you don't have to vote for either party, too, if you aren't happy with either one. Not voting for one doesn't mean you have to vote for the other.
The whole idea of separation of church and state has been misunderstood and twisted beyond it's original context by no fault of your own, Cliff. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of the idea, he was talking about government not interfering with religion (essentially what the 1st Amendment was; government was not supposed to support one religion over another or restrict the practice of a religion). He wasn't saying that religion had no place in politics. The fact of the matter is that many people are religious and you can't disassociate their religious views from affecting their political views, but again this isn't a bad thing. I won't draw out a long debate here. Bottom line: religion is fine in politics. There are plenty of other factors and groups in this world that hold up progress more than religion (for example environmental groups). The country was founded by religious people for goodness sake, so it only makes sense that religion was considered in the construction of government.
I wouldn't jump to the assumption that a Republican president won't get anything done. At worst, it would be four years, not eight, since the people would probably kick him out if he did nothing in his first term. Also, is it really that bad that the federal government accomplish nothing? I'd say know. The government that doesn't have to do that much or pass that many laws is a better type of government, especially if the states are handling most issues (which they should be). What gets done during a Presidency has much more to do with who is in control of Congress as opposed to one man. With a split Congress, you won't see much get done anyway, which is the case right now. Focusing on the Presidency detracts from other crucial elements of government that should be focused on (such as Congress, state govt, and local govt). There is a lot the President can do, but it depends on Congress if they want to limit his power and influence.
)
