5 ms·

>Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy Amazingly there is a middle ground. Yes, Obama is taking after Bush in sca

>Obama was worlds different from Romney, and that comparing Obama to Bush was lunacy Amazingly there is a middle ground. Yes, Obama is taking after Bush in scary ways. It makes me sick and it's why I voted third party in the re-election. That having been said, it's terribly reductionist to say that "Romney and Obama are the same" and anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me. >I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this. We're pissed off and still terrified at how much worse it would be with Romney. Or, we, like you, wish that third party candidates were viable, that people would be educated enough that it would MATTER that people like Gary Johnson exist, etc.

pmorici 14y ago
"anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  So at the time of voting, ignoring for a moment third party candidates... I can vote for someone who claims that they will make my life better (but might not), or someone who campaigned on and is a member of a party who's platform is decidedly against making my life better (but... he might be on my side anyway secretly?). Isn't it obvious who I'd vote for? (keeping in mind that I didn't actually vote for either of the two) But yes, Romney signed the NOM pledge, funded NOM heavily, said that same-sex hospital visitation rights was a "privilege" and needed no guarantee or legal backing, and was against ENDA; additionally, Paul Ryan voted against the DADT repeal and against the Matthew Shepard act and said something along the lines of "LGBT issues don't matter". edit, for what it's worth, I think you're right in many ways and I'm sorry to see you downvoted. Romney's record was vastly different before he became a GOP puppet, particularly in MA and him having expressed interest years ago in progressing gay rights. Unfortunately, I also liked McCain before he (was) turned in a GOP prick as well.
  - pmorici 14y ago
    All those things listed for Romney were actions taken in relation to his campaigning for president it isn't surprising that he would do those things in that context because a segment of the Republican base supports those positions. Surely if he were anti-gay or a closet misogynist there would be evidence of that in his record of actions taken as a governor. Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-control" issue that arose during the election. That's like a $9 per month benefit so if you voted for or against someone because of that and ignored things like heinous civil liberties policies you would essentially be saying you could be bought off for 9 bucks a month. That seems insane to me. edit: point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric. edit: This article sites generics as costing $9 per month http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth-control-patients-spend-9-1000-pills-iuds-shots-implants-article-1.1036118 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth...
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Everyone has different priorities. Among my priorities are civil liberties issues. Again, I see no reason to think that Romney would have been better on any front and for the very reasons that you imply (heinous civil rights violations) I chose not to vote for Obama. I'm not sure what you're advocating I suppose. I don't think people said that the $9 a month was important to them (I kinda doubt that figure for people w/o insurance but I don't know) but were instead saying "I'm not going to vote for some rich white dude that wants to tell me what I can do with my vagina".
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      >point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric. I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama administration that have made my life better. I agree that voting defensively is not the best, but I certainly understand why people do it to protect their self interests. Also, ironically, that article points out that contraception often costs far more than $9, implies that many of the low-cost alternatives are provided by organizations that Romney and Paul both expressed interest in defunding, or via insurance that the most-in-need-of-family-planning have no access to, etc.
- Anechoic 14y ago
  Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's? As governor, Romney spoke out against same-sex marriage and tied to get an amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...
  - pmorici 14y ago
    That's an over simplification of what is in the Wikipedia article. It also says, "He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples." It sounds like he supported equal rights and benefits but opposed the use of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples. Still seems like a superficial difference to me.
    - scarmig 14y ago
      I'm guessing you're neither gay nor female. Romney said a thousand different things over the years: what matters is what he would have implemented, which would have been the program of his then-owners: the hard-right. The amount of damage another Alito or Scalia would have done to the rights of women and sexual minorities by itself blows the idea that their difference was just "superficial" out of the water.
      - betterunix 14y ago
        "The amount of damage another Alito or Scalia would have done to the rights of women and sexual minorities by itself blows the idea that their difference was just "superficial" out of the water." Hm...the damage done to minorities... Barack Obama ramped up a US government program that has devastated African American communities across America. The War on Drugs has had a vastly disproportionate effect on black people in America, and the Obama administration is a big fan (as part of a deal to bring pharmaceutical companies on board with the healthcare bill). So while you sit there terrified that one group of right-wing politicians might push against gay marriage or try to repeal Row v. Wade, you seem to have failed to notice that behind the curtain there is another minority that is hard-hit by the administration's right-wing approach and its ties to powerful industries.
- Bud 14y ago
  You seem unclear on the point. It doesn't really matter that much what Romney's own views are. It matters that he's a Republican, and would appoint right-wing judges and a right-wing cabinet and would sign Republican legislation. These judges and legislation would, of course, be substantially different from those resulting from an Obama Administration.
  - refurb 14y ago
    I would urge you to look a lot deeper than putting people, judges and legislation in Republican=bad and Democrat=good buckets.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "These judges and legislation would, of course, be substantially different from those resulting from an Obama Administration." Is there some reason to believe that? Obama kept or accelerated a large number of rights-killing policies from the Bush administration...
anigbrowl 14y ago
Re. Gary Johnson, this makes depressing but necessary reading: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle
AJ007 14y ago
We are all victims of Bernaysian manipulation of public opinion. Fortunately for us, there are real journalists who see through the thin veil of Republican & Democrat propaganda. Like the specific and unnamed NYTimes columnist who regurgitates lobbyist talking points almost line for line, many "journalists" and political commentators simply regurgitate the bullshit that is being feed to them. What is embarrassing is that the segment of the population that counts as educated are the ones gobbling it up. Change will happen through radical transparency. Imagine watching a debate interrupted any time a candidates says something false. Or perhaps a Presidential address rebuffed on demand with clips of things that individual said while campaigning that directly opposed what they are saying now. Accountability does not have to be an option or a convenience.

pmorici 14y ago

"anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me." Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?

drivebyacct2 14y ago
So at the time of voting, ignoring for a moment third party candidates... I can vote for someone who claims that they will make my life better (but might not), or someone who campaigned on and is a member of a party who's platform is decidedly against making my life better (but... he might be on my side anyway secretly?). Isn't it obvious who I'd vote for? (keeping in mind that I didn't actually vote for either of the two) But yes, Romney signed the NOM pledge, funded NOM heavily, said that same-sex hospital visitation rights was a "privilege" and needed no guarantee or legal backing, and was against ENDA; additionally, Paul Ryan voted against the DADT repeal and against the Matthew Shepard act and said something along the lines of "LGBT issues don't matter". edit, for what it's worth, I think you're right in many ways and I'm sorry to see you downvoted. Romney's record was vastly different before he became a GOP puppet, particularly in MA and him having expressed interest years ago in progressing gay rights. Unfortunately, I also liked McCain before he (was) turned in a GOP prick as well.
- pmorici 14y ago
  All those things listed for Romney were actions taken in relation to his campaigning for president it isn't surprising that he would do those things in that context because a segment of the Republican base supports those positions. Surely if he were anti-gay or a closet misogynist there would be evidence of that in his record of actions taken as a governor. Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-control" issue that arose during the election. That's like a $9 per month benefit so if you voted for or against someone because of that and ignored things like heinous civil liberties policies you would essentially be saying you could be bought off for 9 bucks a month. That seems insane to me. edit: point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric. edit: This article sites generics as costing $9 per month http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth-control-patients-spend-9-1000-pills-iuds-shots-implants-article-1.1036118 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth...
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Everyone has different priorities. Among my priorities are civil liberties issues. Again, I see no reason to think that Romney would have been better on any front and for the very reasons that you imply (heinous civil rights violations) I chose not to vote for Obama. I'm not sure what you're advocating I suppose. I don't think people said that the $9 a month was important to them (I kinda doubt that figure for people w/o insurance but I don't know) but were instead saying "I'm not going to vote for some rich white dude that wants to tell me what I can do with my vagina".
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric. I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama administration that have made my life better. I agree that voting defensively is not the best, but I certainly understand why people do it to protect their self interests. Also, ironically, that article points out that contraception often costs far more than $9, implies that many of the low-cost alternatives are provided by organizations that Romney and Paul both expressed interest in defunding, or via insurance that the most-in-need-of-family-planning have no access to, etc.
Anechoic 14y ago
Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's? As governor, Romney spoke out against same-sex marriage and tied to get an amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...
- pmorici 14y ago
  That's an over simplification of what is in the Wikipedia article. It also says, "He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples." It sounds like he supported equal rights and benefits but opposed the use of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples. Still seems like a superficial difference to me.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    I'm guessing you're neither gay nor female. Romney said a thousand different things over the years: what matters is what he would have implemented, which would have been the program of his then-owners: the hard-right. The amount of damage another Alito or Scalia would have done to the rights of women and sexual minorities by itself blows the idea that their difference was just "superficial" out of the water.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "The amount of damage another Alito or Scalia would have done to the rights of women and sexual minorities by itself blows the idea that their difference was just "superficial" out of the water." Hm...the damage done to minorities... Barack Obama ramped up a US government program that has devastated African American communities across America. The War on Drugs has had a vastly disproportionate effect on black people in America, and the Obama administration is a big fan (as part of a deal to bring pharmaceutical companies on board with the healthcare bill). So while you sit there terrified that one group of right-wing politicians might push against gay marriage or try to repeal Row v. Wade, you seem to have failed to notice that behind the curtain there is another minority that is hard-hit by the administration's right-wing approach and its ties to powerful industries.
Bud 14y ago
You seem unclear on the point. It doesn't really matter that much what Romney's own views are. It matters that he's a Republican, and would appoint right-wing judges and a right-wing cabinet and would sign Republican legislation. These judges and legislation would, of course, be substantially different from those resulting from an Obama Administration.
- refurb 14y ago
  I would urge you to look a lot deeper than putting people, judges and legislation in Republican=bad and Democrat=good buckets.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "These judges and legislation would, of course, be substantially different from those resulting from an Obama Administration." Is there some reason to believe that? Obama kept or accelerated a large number of rights-killing policies from the Bush administration...

anigbrowl 14y ago

Re. Gary Johnson, this makes depressing but necessary reading: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle

AJ007 14y ago

We are all victims of Bernaysian manipulation of public opinion. Fortunately for us, there are real journalists who see through the thin veil of Republican & Democrat propaganda. Like the specific and unnamed NYTimes columnist who regurgitates lobbyist talking points almost line for line, many "journalists" and political commentators simply regurgitate the bullshit that is being feed to them. What is embarrassing is that the segment of the population that counts as educated are the ones gobbling it up. Change will happen through radical transparency. Imagine watching a debate interrupted any time a candidates says something false. Or perhaps a Presidential address rebuffed on demand with clips of things that individual said while campaigning that directly opposed what they are saying now. Accountability does not have to be an option or a convenience.