Hillary for President??

[Trieste]

It makes me hesitate because I honestly am not sure he can finish whatever he starts. It's not even a question of "I can't be one hundred per cent confident he will begin what he starts"... whatever he begins, I don't think he'll be able to finish. It looks like he's got the candidacy, so I hope very very hard that I'm wrong, that his precautions are enough, that he's able to do what he wants to do. But.

Assuming he isn't cockblocked by other politicians.

Assuming he's telling the truth about what he wants to do.

Assuming he's able to start doing it.

Assuming he's able to get others to help (because no man is an island and all that).

Making all those assumptions, there is still the very very strong spectre of assassination right there.

Very few forces on this earth could make me vote for McCain ... or any Republican now that Giuliani is gone. But I don't know that anything could make me vote for Obama, either, for several reasons. I bring up this one because I don't see anyone else mentioning it (I may have missed it in 17 pages of posts, granted) and I felt like mentioning it.

[Kathadon]

Assuming he isn't cockblocked by other politicians.

Assuming he's telling the truth about what he wants to do.

Assuming he's able to start doing it.

Assuming he's able to get others to help (because no man is an island and all that).

Making all those assumptions, there is still the very very strong spectre of assassination right there.

Excellent points. Mind if I tackle them one by one?*lights a cigarette keeping it in his mouth as he speaks*

Being cockblocked by other politicians most likely will not be an issue, as long as the Democrates keep hold of the Senate and House, which they are forecasted to do. Some pundints even think they may gain more seats in the Senate. I seriously doubt the democrats will abandon him so he'll have help.

As for him telling the truth. I am not so naive as to think he is telling us the truth all the time, but he does have a rather straight approach with the public. Take Hillary's and McCain's gas tax holiday they wanted so baddly to pass this summer. He called it what it was, a gimick. A political stunt. That took honesty and leadership from Obama, he didn't have to tell us that. He could have smiled and added his voice to the duet just to get a few more votes.

Will he be able to walk in on day one and start making sweeping changes? Nope. Not gonna happen, but even if he lays the ground work for REAL change in the first two years he'd do a great service for this country.

Just my two pennies. *finishes his cig and tosses the butt in the trash*

[Tiberius Reign]

I'm rather glad that Hillary has finally, ended it.

Now the question I am most afraid of, is will the DNC try and force a compromise ticket, putting Hillary as VP just to try and solidify the party? I feel that would be a nightmare scenario, that would probably alienate Obama's core supporters.

Stepping back a second, let's look at some of what's been objected to before.

Obama's "Lack of Experience": This is actually a benefit. Obama's lack of insider politics and being part of any washington machine lends him credibility as a voice of change, a person of international interest, and even more a voice of moderation and reason. How many times has he said he wants to return to personal diplomacy? Has anyone stopped to seriously consider what it would mean to the leaders of some of the most wartorn and religiously en-flamed nations if the head of the nation they hate most goes to Publicly visit? It's a major statement of trust and faith in the honor of that nation, an an acknowledgement of their right to exist. This could help seriously cool the international hatred for Americans, if we're seen as being led by a President that has a respect of and for other nations.

Obama's "Lack of a Plan": He does not have anything more than pipe dreams for a national healthcare plan. Why? He doesn't need more. Hillary already has one. If he's smart, he'll appoint her to a cabinet post, Department of the Interior maybe (I believe that's the right one, if not, feel free to post a correction), which would give her oversight to begin the development and implementation of such a plan.

Obama's "Economy & Tax Plan": Let's face it folks, no one has had a good one for a long time. Reagan ruined it for us with "Reaganomics". Most people don't realize this, but they teach in college Macro that there hasn't been an associated tax raise on the 250K+ income bracket since the early 1980's. If we were to gradually institute the tax increase that should have happened over the last thirty years, to that income bracket, we would find a massive increase in tax revenue. Furthermore, Obama has pledged multiple times to work on closing the Tax loopholes. anyone want to place a wager on how many billions of dollars don't go to the IRS from upper income bracket personages every year due to literally thousands of loopholes? He's at least talking about closing the loop holes.

Even though he doesn't have a set economy plan, it's not really his place anyway. His job is not to interfere with the FED or the SEC. They're in charge, let them handle it. We already saw what happened when Bush stuck his hands where they didn't belong.

There are a lot of IF's with every candidate, but I'd feel more comfortable with a candidate that would use personal diplomacy first, and war last. I was afraid with Hillary, and still am with McCain that we'll find ourselves with Slim Pickin's for a president instead of someone that would use war as a last resort.

[Zakharra]

 

Obama's "Economy & Tax Plan": Let's face it folks, no one has had a good one for a long time. Reagan ruined it for us with "Reaganomics". Most people don't realize this, but they teach in college Macro that there hasn't been an associated tax raise on the 250K+ income bracket since the early 1980's. If we were to gradually institute the tax increase that should have happened over the last thirty years, to that income bracket, we would find a massive increase in tax revenue. Furthermore, Obama has pledged multiple times to work on closing the Tax loopholes. anyone want to place a wager on how many billions of dollars don't go to the IRS from upper income bracket personages every year due to literally thousands of loopholes? He's at least talking about closing the loop holes.

When Regan took office, the tax rate was extremely high. 70% for anyone making over $250k. By '82, that was down to 50%, by '88, 28%. The amount of earned income level was changed repeatedly.

It rose in '93, to 39.6%, and has stayed at that level, to '03 where it dropped to 35%. The rich pay lots of taxes.  I do agree about closing many of the loopholes though.

[Trieste]

Tax loopholes don't just help the rich. They help anyone who's willing to look for them, and who's willing to itemize. Exemptions, exceptions and odd deductions found in little nooks and crannies in the tax law help save small businesses thousands a year ... which can sometimes be make or break. The goal of a small business is to break even - make profit, then turn around and put it back into the business enough that your write-offs equal your taxes, so you get nothing back, but you don't pay anything either... not all businesses can do that, and it's not all due to poor management.

Not only that, but it flat out isn't fair for people with more money to have to pay higher percentages of taxes. Percentages take care of the difference in income. Why do we have to add on more? People in very low income brackets are exempt fron taxes, and that I agree with. But that should be it. If we are going to call ourselves a capitalist country, we should not be punishing people for succeeding in their ventures. I'm not saying it's the government's job to reward them, either, mind.

Edit: Forgot to add this part... I don't mind people being taxed more if they are a drain somehow on the tax system... and I'm not talking about things like property taxes being higher in better neighbourhoods (paying for better schools, etc etc)... I'm talking strictly about income taxes, here. /edit

Technically, I run my own business as an independent contractor, so it makes people like me nervous when they start talking about fucking with tax law. Revisions ... yeah, sure, okay. But a flat out overhaul makes me worry that those who can grease the right palms will come out of it much better than I ever will... considering I have no grease. People like me, whose assets are tied up in equipment and whatnot to keep their business going and who don't have taxes deducted every cheque ... that's who it will hurt. Not those with liquid assets who want to keep them that way. Or perhaps I'm just jaded.

[National Acrobat]

Good points Trieste, and I'll add to that. Raising the taxes based on income, and on profits of companies, actually encourages them to put less back into their businesses, and to put less into the intangibles that affect communities, such as supplies, labor and materials. If we tax businesses and corporations unfairly based on their success, then it leads to not only higher prices for the products and services rendered, it also encourages them to invest elsewhere, possibly even overseas, in a more friendly environment.

[Vandren]

Obama's "Lack of Experience": This is actually a benefit.

I always laugh at this as an objection to a political candidate, especially a presidential one (and yes, I realize TR's not saying it's a bad thing).  Despite what people say during an election year, history shows that the American people don't look for federal or international political experience in their presidents.  For example, look at the last four presidents:

Ronald Reagan (no federal political experience; governor of California)

George H.W. Bush (minimal federal political experience in his VP post, no congressional experience; pre-VP, he was head of the CIA)

William Jefferson Clinton (no federal political experience; governor of Arkansas)

George W. Bush (no political experience period; the handful of days he actually spent working as governor of Texas instead of campaigning don't count, IMHO)

Many of the presidents before those four also lacked federal and international political experience.  History shows that not having federal experience actually helps a presidential candidate get elected.  Many of our presidents jumped from governor to the presidency and never held a congressional seat or appointed federal position before their presidential bids.

Just an observation,
-Van

P.S. I say this as someone who has issues with both Clinton and Obama on various key issues from education to civil rights, but since the candidate I supported left fairly early . . . either of them is far better than McCain in my book.

P.P.S. I'm also not saying that lack of experience is necessarily a good thing (Reagan and the Bushes spent enough time messing up this country), but it does appear to help a person get elected.

[Zakharra]

 Clinton did enough damage in his 8 years too. Hillary and Obama would do even more. Especially with a Democrat controlled Congress. Welcome to the Socialist States of America. The vision they have for America will ruin the economy.

[RubySlippers]

I have been keeping up on the banter over the economy from both sides. I have a question how the hell do they expect to pay for them you can't cut taxes or give away money that is not accounted for when we hare already spending more than we take in? And have a massive national debt and are fighting a useless war.

You want real reform they are never going to do it at best my only small hope is a Libertarian or someone else will VETO every spending bill that includes one dollar outside the exact requirement for said spending bill, so any pork at all the bill will be VETOED by the president. Regardless how important the bill is and then demand a Federal Budget that is balanced, reduced spending and pays off some of the national debt with some relief from taxes each year or VETO the bill sent to him or her. Then let Congress override them each time. Dig in and a president may have to stand up to Congress that way and neither party will do that that.

I don't get people they say they want lower taxes and yet want the government to baby them and micromanage the economy, execute powers far over they should need at the Federal level and expect to be bailed out when they screw up.

[Zakharra]

 The President should have the line item veto power. So he/she can strip out all of the riders that get tacked onto a bill. That I would overwhelmingly favor. Let the pork get cut.

[Vandren]

The President should have the line item veto power. So he/she can strip out all of the riders that get tacked onto a bill. That I would overwhelmingly favor. Let the pork get cut.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what Congressional conservatives refused to allow Clinton to do back in the mid-90s. 

On the other hand, some of those riders are attached to force the President to do the right thing, like funding military hospitals rather than building more illegal secret prisons in foreign countries.
__________________________________________________________

Honestly, I'm not seeing what Clinton did to screw things up.  Under his administration we had the best economy of my lifetime, other countries liked us, and we were rather close to a Mideast peace deal thanks to Madeline Albright, among other things.  On the other hand, Bush Sr. funded, equipped, trained, and abandoned both Hussein and Bin Laden which led to both men's campaign against us (on that issue) and both he and Reagan sent us into recessions.

Personally, after looking at our culture, I'd say we're already 50-60% of the way toward being a socialist society.  And I've visited a couple fully socialist societies.  They're generally better off than we are in the States.  In fact, while we've been in a recession for several months now (despite what our leaders are claiming), most of the socialist states are seeing improved economies - one reason the U.S. dollar is in bad shape at the moment and probably will be for the forseeable future.  I also have a number of friends and friends of the family living in socialist societies, virtually all of whom are extremely positive about it.

Taxation isn't necessarily a bad thing and socialism isn't a bad word, despite what Joe McCarthy might say (that man has a lot to answer for).  What I think a lot of people completely miss about socialism is that it doesn't stiffle business (in fact, it helps smaller businesses and hinders megacorps like Sprawl-Mart) and although taxes are higher, there's less to pay for so that largely balances out.

Honestly, I'd rather have a liberal in charge - someone who knows that you have to have taxes in order to fund programs - than our current crop of Republicans who seem to believe that money appears our of nowhere and that you can decrease income while increasing spending and end up in a good place.  Of course, I'm a bit biased because I'm an educator and Education is always the first place the conservative leaders cut funding from while expecting education to increase in quality as teacher salaries drop and more smart people avoid teaching as a career, thus causing education majors to have the lowest GRE and other test scores on average of any field and of any developed nation.

But, anyway . . . that seems a bit tangential for this thread.

[Zakharra]

 Clinton blew it on Al-Qada and N. Korea. He inherited a good economy, he didn't make it. Because the Congress turned to Republican control, he was unable to do some of the things he would like to have done. Hillary Care for one, bad idea. Clinton was unwilling to do anything that would make him look bad, so of course other nations liked him. He didn't do anything.

Taxation isn't necessarily a bad thing and socialism isn't a bad word, despite what Joe McCarthy might say (that man has a lot to answer for).  What I think a lot of people completely miss about socialism is that it doesn't stiffle business (in fact, it helps smaller businesses and hinders megacorps like Sprawl-Mart) and although taxes are higher, there's less to pay for so that largely balances out.

  What the Democrats are wanting to do is to make the wealthy (who already pay the majority of income and earnings taxes) pay even more, while exempting more of the middle class from paying taxes. The recent attempt to make the oil companies pay windfall profit taxes is the best example of punishing the successful businesses. The Democrats hate winners, excepting themselves of course. Mega corps should not be hindered at all, except by the same rules that small business have to use. Keep the taxes at a sane rate and do not make them to punish an industry just because you think it's too successful.

Low taxes means more money coming in from increased volume. Regan and the Bushes taught us that. It works. What's killed the budget has been the spending. Which the Republican controlled Congress has screwed up big time.

What bothers me most about the socialists here is their first answer is government. That should be the last answer for any problems. Taxes are raised  for the 'good' and handed out to people who should not be getting anything. Too many bailouts.

Honestly, I'd rather have a liberal in charge - someone who knows that you have to have taxes in order to fund programs - than our current crop of Republicans who seem to believe that money appears our of nowhere and that you can decrease income while increasing spending and end up in a good place.  Of course, I'm a bit biased because I'm an educator and Education is always the first place the conservative leaders cut funding from while expecting education to increase in quality as teacher salaries drop and more smart people avoid teaching as a career, thus causing education majors to have the lowest GRE and other test scores on average of any field and of any developed nation.

The Democrats think they can raise taxes to get more money, not thinking that their actions will kill the golden goose. The way money is spent could be improved. Too much is wasted and slips through the cracks. I'd rather see programs earn what they get and show a true need for it before getting more. Not to have an automatic increase in funding every year. 

On the education front, there was a school levy that was voted on. Because the schools need more money. I voted against it. Because the only people who pay for those is the property owners. $14 million they wanted. It passed, unfortunately, and it's supposed to last about 4 years. But I am sure that within 2 years, they will be asking for another one. Everything like that is piled up on the backs of the property owners here. a large part of the school's problems in grades the kids get is the subjects they study. Everything has been so dumbed down and changed, it can only turn out idiots.

Now that's not to mean you can't get an education, but it's harder to get a good education in the public school anymore. they are not teaching. Note, I'm not blaming the teachers. They have to teach what's handed to them here. Throwing more money at the problem is not going to fix it. The system is what is broken.

[calamity]

Now that's not to mean you can't get an education, but it's harder to get a good education in the public school anymore. they are not teaching. Note, I'm not blaming the teachers. They have to teach what's handed to them here. Throwing more money at the problem is not going to fix it. The system is what is broken.

Wow, what?  You don't think that paying teachers more money helps?  You don't think having better facilities helps?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  Maybe you're saying that we need to be making more intelligent spending choices with the money that IS "thrown at" the education system.  I hope so, because to say that money isn't part of the answer is absolute lunacy.

Computers cost money.  New buildings cost money.  Better equipment costs money.  Teachers cost money.  Quality teachers cost more money.  And yeah, we (even the "property owners") should pay for that.  Because education is a fairly critical part of any society.

[Celestial Goblin]

What the Democrats are wanting to do is to make the wealthy (who already pay the majority of income and earnings taxes) pay even more, while exempting more of the middle class from paying taxes. The recent attempt to make the oil companies pay windfall profit taxes is the best example of punishing the successful businesses. The Democrats hate winners, excepting themselves of course. Mega corps should not be hindered at all, except by the same rules that small business have to use. Keep the taxes at a sane rate and do not make them to punish an industry just because you think it's too successful.

I doubt it's even worth to answer this in detail...
Rich pay more taxes not as a punishment, but because they can pay that money and that money is needed for certain things.
Food,housing,healthcare,education,safety and sexual freedom are basic human rights. You seem to believe that being able to reap full profits of one's bussines is a basic human right that trumps some of the above.
Fucking tough, there's probably no use trying to change your mind about it. But at least I can explain to you why people support progressive taxation and it has nothing to do with either hate nor wishing to stop success.
(quite opposite, less big companies means less taxes to collect)
edit: and while I don't know your democrats, I highly doubt they actually want money to be spent inefficiently and stuck in bureaucracy, rather than go directly where it's needed. Unless they actually hate America(tm).

[RubySlippers]

Looks around and looks under the bed...

Nope I don't see the infinite money fairy with her magic wand conjuring up money for the government.

So my question stands how do you pay for the Nanny State and still allow citizens to be free from government interference in their lives, I'm talking about the soul of this nation that the Founding Fathers created?

They saw Europe at the time and didn't want that, the people the slaves of the government bloated with power. With huge standing armies that answered to a leader that could wage war for any reason they wished. Our Constitution was the first in history that chained the government to what it can and cannot do at the Federal level there was no need for courts to interprete or make up things its in plain, black and white ENGLISH. And they even added the 9th and 10th amendments that lefts every other power or right not defined in the plain language to the States and the citizens as sacred rights.  

You want to save money get the Federal government down to size and with it all Federal taxes over minimal ones to allow the function of small and very limited Federal government. And I will add States already do many of the Federal functions they usurped- education, environmental protection, work safety, food safety, medicine, drug management, job training for the disabled etc. etc. etc. So why the hell do we need the Federal government to do these things. The States could run militias and not rely on the National Guard which they did up to the Civil War then they would not have their citizens sent abroad to conflicts that are of no vital concern to the States. The Federal government is allowed a Navy and by default the Marines they can fight with those forces.

If I pay taxes I'd rather have it be local over the county, county over the State and the State far before the Federal Government and as small as possible. The great Founding Mother Abigail Adams noted in a letter to her husband she felt any taxes over a tithe ,ten percent, is unreasonable on the citizens for if that is good enough for God surely a government run by men could get by with that and it encourage frugalness. Now that was my kind of woman pretty, educated and practical and sentiments shared by others such as Benjamin Franklin.

Maybe we Libertarians are never going to win, or maybe are impractical since everyone is at the Federal money teat but this nation is dying and I fear we will see George Orwell's vision in 1984 come to pass in some form. The death of this nations soul from fear, from distrust, from cowardice and from people not standing up for their rights granted to us to be free from the Federal government.

So what does it matter Republican or Democrat we are doomed.

[Celestial Goblin]

Well, conjuring more money would be a bad option anyway, because more money means inflation. One can just print more money instead of using magic, but we know that's rarely a good idea.
It's about taxing what you can tax, without driving that thing into bankruptcy(slaughtering the golden goose) and letting those folks keep enough of the profit to make the bussines worthwile for them. It's a hard craft, but it's doable.

American constitution is a paper worth more than a sheet of gold, that's for sure. But applying Bible-like stories about founding fathers to modern reality isn't worth it. Washington, Jefferson and everyone else had a lot of wise things to say about the America(and world) they lived in, but they've got nothing to say about today, because they're dead and never got a chance to see the modern USA.

Europe of the time of creation of USA was not a good place. The problems had little to do with too much goverment, though. Britain was an actual, not just 'for show' monarchy that time. An actual, non-democratic monarchy is an abomination for a modern person and rightly so. But King George was not a 'goverment' in any modern meaning of the word.

I don't think the Libertarian party in USA stands any chance of winning under the current election system. Even under a different system they'd be a minor power at most.
While I don't agree with libertarianism, there's nothing wrong in standing by your beliefs despite having no chances.
I do personally believe that if libertarians would get their way, the result would be just as dystopian as Orwell's 1984, altough in a completely different way. There's probably good fiction about that somewhere. :)

I don't think USA is anywhere close to being doomed, by the way. It's more about USA having a chance to do something good or continue to be a place where 21st century meets with 19th.

[Zakharra]

I doubt it's even worth to answer this in detail...
Rich pay more taxes not as a punishment, but because they can pay that money and that money is needed for certain things.
Food,housing,healthcare,education,safety and sexual freedom are basic human rights. You seem to believe that being able to reap full profits of one's bussines is a basic human right that trumps some of the above.
Fucking tough, there's probably no use trying to change your mind about it. But at least I can explain to you why people support progressive taxation and it has nothing to do with either hate nor wishing to stop success.
(quite opposite, less big companies means less taxes to collect)
edit: and while I don't know your democrats, I highly doubt they actually want money to be spent inefficiently and stuck in bureaucracy, rather than go directly where it's needed. Unless they actually hate America(tm).

At what percentage though? All during the campaign, I have heard, from both Hillary and Obama, that they would fund programs with money taken in taxes from the wealthy. A 1-2% tax. After awhile, these do add up to making it harder to fund when the money well dries up. They should pay some taxes, but to be fair, the poor should pay taxes too.

A good example of this is the money used from cigarette taxes. That money is supposed to be used for smoking related health programs. However it was not used that way, and the taxes keep going up. Soon the market will either go black or go away. Then where will the programs get their funding? The democrats won't let them die. They'll be forced to either kill the program or find funding from somewhere else.

I highly doubt they actually want money to be spent inefficiently and stuck in bureaucracy, rather than go directly where it's needed. Unless they actually hate America

They might not wish it, but that is an effect of their actions. Their actions and words say that they do not like America as it is. They want to remove rights from people. The right to bear arms, the right to practice your religion, the right of free speech. They are subtle about it, but that is what they are doing.
 
To bear arms. Everytime a tragedy happens that involves guns, there are calls to restrict gun ownership more.  Punishing the people who are not using guns for crimes.   Religion. They are wanting to remove all traces of religion, especially Christianity, from any mention or place in government.  Free speech. That one is subtle too.  by disallowing certain viewpoints to be heard, they can alter what people hear and think. It happens on collage campus already. Some people are harassed when they arrive to speak. Loudly enough that the speech is disrupted. Drowning out free speech.

[Celestial Goblin]

At what percentage though? All during the campaign, I have heard, from both Hillary and Obama, that they would fund programs with money taken in taxes from the wealthy. A 1-2% tax. After awhile, these do add up to making it harder to fund when the money well dries up. They should pay some taxes, but to be fair, the poor should pay taxes too.

See, even if being rich means having 3/4 of what you earn than all of what you earn, it's still good to be rich and no one will say 'screw it, it's not worth to make a career because after taxes I'll only be able to buy one yacht and not two'.
Only a situation where taxation would create an actual hard cap on the income (that is, earn 100$, gov leaves you 50$, earn 200$ and you're still left with 50$) would actually send things to hell. But that's impossible and no one even suggests it.
I don't see paying taxes as some sort of chastisement or moral judgement of those who pay(you have X dollars, so to keep you from getting to proud and happy, we'll take Y from you). I see it as a necessary contribution towards keeping certain things running like they should, because if those things break, people will suffer.

A good example of this is the money used from cigarette taxes. That money is supposed to be used for smoking related health programs. However it was not used that way, and the taxes keep going up. Soon the market will either go black or go away. Then where will the programs get their funding? The democrats won't let them die. They'll be forced to either kill the program or find funding from somewhere else.

If the cigarette market will go black, the gov will have no choice but to wise up, or they'll end up with smugglers getting rich and the source of tax money drying up.
Just like the market can self-regulate, taxation of goods to a certain degree can adjust itself. If something is priced too high, people won't buy it. If something is taxed too high, people won't buy it as well.
That said, do you know what the money was used on? How do you know it was a democratic and not republican or corporate-lobbied thing?

They might not wish it, but that is an effect of their actions. Their actions and words say that they do not like America as it is. They want to remove rights from people. The right to bear arms, the right to practice your religion, the right of free speech. They are subtle about it, but that is what they are doing.

I think many Americans don't like America the way it is and they are right. And I think someone who sees bad things in their country and wants to improve them is a patriot, not someone who'd sooner see misery and failure than abandon their doctrine(whatever doctrine that would be, mind you).
I definitely do not like the way my country is right now. To tell the truth, I can easily say we're a f...n podunk of Europe and we need to change more than we need to keep. But I like my country and I consider myself a patriot, exactly for that reason.
 

To bear arms. Everytime a tragedy happens that involves guns, there are calls to restrict gun ownership more.  Punishing the people who are not using guns for crimes.   Religion. They are wanting to remove all traces of religion, especially Christianity, from any mention or place in government.  Free speech. That one is subtle too.  by disallowing certain viewpoints to be heard, they can alter what people hear and think. It happens on collage campus already. Some people are harassed when they arrive to speak. Loudly enough that the speech is disrupted. Drowning out free speech.

Bear arms - sorry, I think it's paranoia sponsored by republicans who want to kick democrats in any way possible. There are calls to ban 'violent' video games as well. There's the Bush gov sponsored anti-porn squad and punitive anti-porn legislation. There's corporate-backed banning of online gambling.
But those things don't get nowhere. You have your constitution and I only wish Europe would have something just as legally tough as it. And sorry, but I don't think Americans will lose their guns any more than they'll be unable to play GTA or gamble online.

Removing religion from public view, well... maybe it's democrats that want to remove Christian stuff, but I don't think it was a democrat that wanted to deny a Pagan soldier the right to a pentacle on his grave. No idea who he voted for, but probably not democrats.
And to tell the truth, it's also something that's just filler for spin-doctors and talking heads. No one can 'ban' the practice of religion itself, like above. It's a 'paper tiger' used to scare people.

Separation of church and state though, works. Religion doesn't belong in the goverment in an official way and the goverment should be a goverment of all people, regardless of what they believe in(or not). Many Christians(and other religionists) support this view. It's the fundies that stand the most to lose on this.

Free speech on campuses. Yeah, unpleasant to be shouted down. But that has nothing to do with either party, nor presidental candidate, nor their policy. If US campus culture and ettiquete suck, it's not something the goverment can solve either. (because forcing people to be polite is also a kind of restriction on freedom of speech)

These three things are problems, but none of them can be fixed with voting. Regardless of what party will be in power, there will always be someone wanting to ban guns(and failing), bashing a religion(or lack of it) undeservingly or refusing to discuss an academic topic.