3 ms·

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),

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.
  - pmorici 14y ago
    I think you perhaps overestimate the setback that might have occurred. For example, things like repealing DADT would have happened regardless because a lawsuit had already been won ruling DADT unconstitutional a year prior to Obama doing away with the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin... The Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam... even suggests he supported equal rights and benefits for LGBT couples as a governor though he apposed the use of the word "marriage" to describe said couples. It seems like few people actually bother to look up a politicians actions and instead just take other politicians and partisans word for it when it comes to the "radical" positions of their opponents. I'd attribute the progress more to the changing attitudes of the country as a whole than the election of any one person.

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.
- pmorici 14y ago
  I think you perhaps overestimate the setback that might have occurred. For example, things like repealing DADT would have happened regardless because a lawsuit had already been won ruling DADT unconstitutional a year prior to Obama doing away with the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin... The Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam... even suggests he supported equal rights and benefits for LGBT couples as a governor though he apposed the use of the word "marriage" to describe said couples. It seems like few people actually bother to look up a politicians actions and instead just take other politicians and partisans word for it when it comes to the "radical" positions of their opponents. I'd attribute the progress more to the changing attitudes of the country as a whole than the election of any one person.