User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 112

  1. #51
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Ok, so you see it more as a probability/weighted outcomes thing than a moral hardline thing. Makes sense. Thanks for explaining.



    Well, but that's sort of the thing about Romney, he seems to be vague and shapeshifting with his opinions. He says he'll shut down Planned Parenthood ASAP but then somewhere else he says he doesn't oppose contraception. In regards to the Blunt amendment, first he said he opposed it then he said he misunderstood and supports it. With abortion, he repeatedly says he is pro-life (as far as I understand, that means anti-abortion) but then he had that quote in Iowa of "no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." I don't understand where his boundaries are and that makes me uncomfortable. And as President, he would be leader of all those not-currently-so-prominent politicians. I don't have a good sense of the future in terms of social policies with him, and with what he may or may not do. And it's to the point in campaigning where it's important to make the widest appeal, so of course he and Obama are both going to lean more moderate right now than they would probably actually operate as President. My "so on" includes fair pay and gay marriage.



    His legislative record speaks for itself.

  2. #52
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    His legislative record speaks for itself.
    This.

  3. #53
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I know it can be difficult, but you have to learn to decode what is merely said because it has to be said, in order to win the Republican nomination, and when certain signals are given -- often in such a way that they're not blatant enough to piss off the base -- to the cooler, more moderate heads in the party, who, fortunately, do still control things (see: McCain, Romney, Christie), about how he really feels. Hence, what Disco said (btw, good to have you back before the election, Disco): pay attention to what he's actually done, not what he has to say to win the nomination/satisfy the base. As I said in #4: he's a pragmatic moderate. He's essentially a moderate libertarian: moderately socially liberal, moderately fiscally conservative.

  4. #54
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post

    I have to admit that as a woman I feel genuinely threatened by the fact that some prominent politicians are advocating, with some degree of popular support, for the denial of birth control, abortion, and so on. I dunno, most women I speak to seem to echo this feeling, and a lot of men don't seem to understand it.
    No politician is advocating the denial of birth control; at most, there are some Catholic politicians who admit to being personally opposed for religious reasons (Santorum is the only one I can name right off hand), but explicitly state that they do not seek to make it illegal. Or are you confusing opposition to publically funded contraception (on economic and/or First Amendment grounds) with prohibition?

    As for abortion, there is practically no gender divide on the issue (look it up on Gallup), with the only major difference being that women on both sides of the issue are more likely than men to prioritize it.

  5. #55
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrcockburn View Post
    Mittens doesn't get much love around here. If you're planning to vote for him, step forward!

    Why do you choose him over Obama?
    I do not.
    The middle class pays all the income taxes. Romney wants it so.

    Obama has faith in the CIA disinformation. A serious handicap.
    However. Romney is submissive. He would have even more faith in the CIA disinformation.

    Why Obama?

    If the rich do not pay their share of the taxes, you pay it for them.
    Romney ignores climate change. He wants to make money for the owners of America.
    How many are they? 0.1 per cent of the population.
    What is there for you? Apart for working day and night to make the ends meet?
    Tic tic .. the temperature is rising. Look at the reports in Greenland.

  6. #56
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    If I tell the forum that I'm voting for Romney, I'll likely cause a stir and get myself some attention. Or it might be considered trolling.

  7. #57
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I know it can be difficult, but you have to learn to decode what is merely said because it has to be said, in order to win the Republican nomination, and when certain signals are given -- often in such a way that they're not blatant enough to piss off the base -- to the cooler, more moderate heads in the party, who, fortunately, do still control things (see: McCain, Romney, Christie), about how he really feels. Hence, what Disco said (btw, good to have you back before the election, Disco): pay attention to what he's actually done, not what he has to say to win the nomination/satisfy the base. As I said in #4: he's a pragmatic moderate. He's essentially a moderate libertarian: moderately socially liberal, moderately fiscally conservative.
    I understand what you and Disco are saying in theory, but what that would mean for me is essentially putting my own rights on the line - because no one can know how the future is really going to pan out, even you Ni-gifted ones - in exchange for the possibility of more rapid economic betterment. What I'm seeing is I can choose Romney, with ambivalent statements about women's issues, a clean record so far, plus the potential to improve the economy, versus Obama, with clear-cut positive statements about women's issues, a clean record so far, and moderate economic improvement. I'm not sure I'm really morally okay with supporting someone who makes himself intentionally ambiguous on issues that are a really big deal to me, even if he might be better in other areas. It really comes down to me feeling like it's such a ridiculous thing that equal pay, legal abortion and access to contraception are even political issues. It's infuriating to me. And while part of me says I dislike the idea of one-issue voting, it remains that Romney's platform is again and again ambiguous about his feelings towards women.

    That, plus environmental views put me solidly in Obama's camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No politician is advocating the denial of birth control; at most, there are some Catholic politicians who admit to being personally opposed for religious reasons (Santorum is the only one I can name right off hand), but explicitly state that they do not seek to make it illegal. Or are you confusing opposition to publically funded contraception (on economic and/or First Amendment grounds) with prohibition?
    I'm not confusing it; I'm just referencing the issue as a whole. I essentially just mean any debates over contraception, period, which I believe should be legal and publically funded (as part of universal health care).

    As for abortion, there is practically no gender divide on the issue (look it up on Gallup), with the only major difference being that women on both sides of the issue are more likely than men to prioritize it.
    I said "most women I speak to" - I'm talking about my own social circle. Many women in my social circle echo my concerns about women's issues in the current election. And since it seems like most people posting in this thread are men, it seemed pertinent to raise that observation.

    Clearly I'm not being a detailed debater here, guys - I hope you've seen on this forum that it's not out of my ability, but it's really not my priority in this case. I'm not trying to win an argument for the sake of winning. My goal here is to understand the decisions of those who are on the other end of the political spectrum than me, and hopefully to impart some understanding of my own positions.

  8. #58
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I know it can be difficult, but you have to learn to decode what is merely said because it has to be said, in order to win the Republican nomination, and when certain signals are given -- often in such a way that they're not blatant enough to piss off the base -- to the cooler, more moderate heads in the party, who, fortunately, do still control things (see: McCain, Romney, Christie), about how he really feels. Hence, what Disco said (btw, good to have you back before the election, Disco): pay attention to what he's actually done, not what he has to say to win the nomination/satisfy the base. As I said in #4: he's a pragmatic moderate. He's essentially a moderate libertarian: moderately socially liberal, moderately fiscally conservative.
    I understand what you and Disco are saying in theory, but what that would mean for me is essentially putting my own rights on the line - because no one can know how the future is really going to pan out, even you Ni-gifted ones - in exchange for the possibility of more rapid economic betterment. What I'm seeing is I can choose Romney, with ambivalent statements about women's issues, a clean record so far, plus the potential to improve the economy, versus Obama, with clear-cut positive statements about women's issues, a clean record so far, and moderate economic improvement. I'm not sure I'm really morally okay with supporting someone who makes himself intentionally ambiguous on issues that are a really big deal to me, even if he might be better in other areas. It really comes down to me feeling like it's such a ridiculous thing that equal pay, legal abortion and access to contraception are even political issues. It's infuriating to me. And while part of me says I dislike the idea of one-issue voting, it remains that Romney's platform is again and again ambiguous about his feelings towards women.

    That, plus environmental views put me solidly in Obama's camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No politician is advocating the denial of birth control; at most, there are some Catholic politicians who admit to being personally opposed for religious reasons (Santorum is the only one I can name right off hand), but explicitly state that they do not seek to make it illegal. Or are you confusing opposition to publically funded contraception (on economic and/or First Amendment grounds) with prohibition?
    I'm not confusing it; I'm just referencing the issue as a whole. I essentially just mean any debates over contraception, period, which I believe should be legal and publically funded (as part of universal health care).

    As for abortion, there is practically no gender divide on the issue (look it up on Gallup), with the only major difference being that women on both sides of the issue are more likely than men to prioritize it.
    I said "most women I speak to" - I'm talking about my own social circle. Many women in my social circle echo my concerns about women's issues in the current election. And since it seems like most people posting in this thread are men, it seemed pertinent to raise that observation.

    Clearly I'm not being a detailed debater here, guys - I hope you've seen on this forum that it's not out of my ability, but it's really not my priority in this case. I'm not trying to win an argument for the sake of winning. My goal here is to understand the decisions of those who are on the other end of the political spectrum than me, and hopefully to impart some understanding of my own positions.

  9. #59
    Knobgoblin mooseantlers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Do all you Romney supporters remember him, on camera, showing blatant contempt for 47% of the American population?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Tell me about the fucking golf shoes!

    "I don't wear a toupee!" Donald Trump

  10. #60
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mooseantlers View Post
    Do all you Romney supporters remember him, on camera, showing blatant contempt for 47% of the American population?
    Not that I agree with your interpretation, but, if you want to play it that way: do you remember Obama doing the same last election cycle?

Similar Threads

  1. Who would you vote for?
    By themightyfetus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-15-2016, 09:58 AM
  2. Who here will stand with Rand against the Federal Reserve?
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 04:19 PM
  3. Who would you vote for: Hitler or Frankenstein?
    By UniqueMixture in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-22-2013, 01:24 PM
  4. Non-Americans, who would YOU vote for?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 11-11-2012, 08:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO