Mitt Romney

[Antimony]

Obama is definitely some sort of FJ. He has Fe out the wazoo from what I can tell.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I guess it doesn't matter anymore, since he lost, but...

Seriously? Just two days ago, Paul Ryan basically said Obama was godless and leading the nation down a path of destruction because he isn't the same denomination of Christian as him and said he is a betrayer of western values, and so forth. Do I need to dig back through all of the speeches by Ryan and Romney to show how they painted Obama many times over in this kind of crazy, false light? I'm not sure why you are saying Romney's team has not done this kind of thing. I'm not sure of the content of their TV and radio ads because I do not have TV or radio, but certainly by their SPEECHES to their constituents, I've heard the smear jobs.

I don't know, Jennifer. I understand that they think he is a betrayer of western values and I believe this as well (I'm not afraid to admit it); there is a lot of evidence in favor of this generalization. I'm not aware of them using their Christianity to suggest that Obama is destructive and I find it hard to believe, so if it's true I wouldn't mind seeing a source.

Besides I'm not saying they both don't it from time to time, perhaps accidentally, but Obama's speeches have mainly centered on making fun of and slandering his opponent. Romney focuses on Obama's failings. However, Obama's administration seem to consider the idea of Obama 'failing' in any way as slander, so whatever.

Using this to type him as a sensor is kind of ludicrous though when your generalization can easily apply to Obama, depending on what someone sees and which way they want to look.

Maybe it's because i'm white, but I haven't even been aware of much "black" politics in the news regarding Obama. In fact, the blacks have had a serious issue with him, especially because of his support of gay marriage, and feel he didn't do enough for them. Again, I'm not sure where you are coming from.

That's true and I'm aware of it. But they are few compared to the many that vote for Obama. Obama has the majority black vote and all one has to do is wonder why, considering that "he didn't do enough for them".

Some big examples would help. Even mustering up one specific example would be helpful.

Are you serious? Obama talks about 'getting revenge' through voting for him.
Have you forgotten about the comment he made about the "cambridge Police acting stupidly", which was about a black man.
Do you realize that he wants to even everyone out and make everyone the same, as if there are privileged people that need to be taken down to the same level as everyone else? It shouldn't be a surprise that poor blacks are seen as oppressed by the rich whites because they have the money. He plays on this. I would be happier if instead of further dividing white and blacks we could unite and compromise a bit instead. In the long run, what good does it do to make people angry or fearful of one another? Now I see the good in helping poor people, but if it's done purely through taking from another, rather than letting another give, it makes people resent one another.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obama-divides-americans-by-race-ethnicity-religion/
And there is plenty of evidence if you are willing to dig it up. http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Art...revealed-in-a-speech-Elite-Media-ignored.html

The Daily Caller is reporting:In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.

Anything I know about Romney, it's about listening to Romney talk, reading articles, listening to Paul Ryan, etc., and also being part of a conservative religious community for many many years of my life that is supportive of Romney just because he is white and represents conservative religion, and I have to listen to them besmirch Obama partly because he is black and certainly because he is not a Christian [like them, if they credit him with any faith in God at all]. I'm not sure why you think that is a wrong basis by which to not vote for Romney and to be critical of the lack of substance in his plans; one merely has to sit through a debate or compare speeches to see how he waffles and/or has no specific answers for how he will do what he claims he can do.

I've never heard about Romney hating Obama because he is black. What source do you have for this? And Obama provides even less information for how he will do what he claims. In fact, most of the things he claimed he would do in the last four years, he hasn't! How is this being an impartial voter?

In fact, the last few days he has ripped off Obama's 2008 schtick of claiming to be the "change maker" and preaching a message of hope, without ever really being convincing about what needs changed and how his changes are the best and how he would accomplish them. It's very silly. He pretends to be whatever he thinks will get him elected.

OMG. He has said plenty about what he plans to do, more than Obama. He would have been the change maker from obama, so i don't know what you are complaining about.

And I'm genuinely concerned that people care more about smaller issues than about dealing with the debt. This is what it has come down to in terms of the country's future. You know, if Obama would have reduced the debt, I would have been glad to vote for him. But he has not; and there has been inflation; and I have not been able to find a job after graduation (partly my fault, I suppose, but I have a lot of competition). I'm going into the military because I can't even get a job at Mcdonalds. And that's okay and I kind of look forward to actually having a job, but it saddens me that the nation is borrowing so much money, that the quality of life is going to dwindle. I want long-term solutions and plans, I don't care about these petty squabbles. Put a psychopath in office if they will do what needs to be done - it will do more good. Good character in a President is important, but not if that means compromising on solutions for the important issues.

I mean does it not bother you at all that the likelihood of borrowing more money in the next four years is probable, considering what Obama has done as President and what he focuses on? Are you aware that the house and senate have been extremely divided during Obama's presidency? Obama has not been willing to work with Republicans and 'compromise', whereas past presidents have. That should mean something, at least.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...balanced-approach-on-budget-despite-gridlock/

Mr. Obama's plan for reducing the deficit would cut $2.50 in spending allowances for every $1 of increased tax revenue - the same deal House Republicans turned down during last year's near-government shutdown episode. When Pelley reminded him of that, the president reasoned, "That's part of what this election's about," adding that GOP nominee Mitt Romney told "Face the Nation" in June he stood by an earlier pledge not to raise taxes, even if it meant $10 in spending cuts for every $1 increased revenue.

"You can't reduce the deficit unless you take a balanced approach that says, 'We've gotta make government leaner and more efficient,'" the president said. "But we've also got to ask people - like me or Gov. Romney, who have done better than anybody else over the course of the last decade, and whose taxes are just about lower than they've been in the last 50 years - to do a little bit more.

"And if we go back to the tax rates for folks making more than $250,000 a year, back to the rates that we had under Bill Clinton," he continued, "we can close the deficit, stabilize the economy, keep taxes on middle class families low, [and] provide the certainty that I think all of us would be looking for."

Not compromising won't get anything done. It just makes problems worse and this is not a good thing to know that important issues are not being dealt with, personally, and honestly.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Obama is definitely some sort of FJ. He has Fe out the wazoo from what I can tell.

Oh man, I do agree with you on that. He's a propaganda king, if I ever saw one.

 

[swordpath]

Obama = ENFJ.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Obama is an introvert. He's been widely criticised specifically for how introverted he is.

 

[Antimony]

Oh man, I do agree with you on that. He's a propaganda king, if I ever saw one.

I am really inclined to say ENFJ. I don't get those INFJ vibes. Also, his speeches don't ring INFJ.

 

[skylights]

IAnd I'm genuinely concerned that people care more about smaller issues than about dealing with the debt. This is what it has come down to in terms of the country's future. You know, if Obama would have reduced the debt, I would have been glad to vote for him. But he has not; and there has been inflation; and I have not been able to find a job after graduation (partly my fault, I suppose, but I have a lot of competition). I'm going into the military because I can't even get a job at Mcdonalds. And that's okay and I kind of look forward to actually having a job, but it saddens me that the nation is borrowing so much money, that the quality of life is going to dwindle. I want long-term solutions and plans, I don't care about these petty squabbles. Put a psychopath in office if they will do what needs to be done - it will do more good. Good character in a President is important, but not if that means compromising on solutions for the important issues.

I have heard this argument from many people but I disagree. I understand wanting to expedite economic improvement, but to start with, four years is not enough time to reverse major economic trends that have been building up long before Obama was even old enough to be considered for President. The economy is an enormous, infinite, and ever-changing nexus of complex interrelations, and to be honest, I think the President has far less influence over it than we would like to imagine. The partially-free economy with specific government restrictions is a complicated and difficult system to predict and leverage, and there are only so many variables that one person can control.

Maybe it's a naive belief, but my feeling on the economy is that it's more effective to empower individuals and encourage them into action, and then reap the economic benefits of an organic recovery, rather than attempt to strongarm the economy into submission while ignoring the importance of why individuals participate in the economy in the first place. In short, I believe that Obama appeals to human interests and that human interests are the reason for and the underpinning of the economy, and as such must be dealt with first and foremost. Trying to manipulate the economy into recovery is like treating the symptoms of a disease while ignoring its cause. People think that other issues pale in comparison with debt, but I think that debt pales in comparison to life quality. The great ship of the economy is going to continue its recovery; the difference is that under Obama, we all will be able to benefit from it.

I don't hate Romney, but I don't find him inspiring as a political leader. He seems like a great businessman but not a good option for the figurehead of a nation.

Back on topic, my impression of Romney is ENTJ. He's obvious Te dom but doesn't seem STJ to me. Too willing to change his views for the sake of perception. STJs are generally more straightforward...

Obama I have long taken to be ENFJ enneagram 3, a notably introverted variety of ENFJ.

 

[Salomé]

Obama is an introvert. He's been widely criticised specifically for how introverted he is.

American introversion isn't like proper introversion though..

Still. I agree. I think he's INFP. Can't be INFJ, he has a sense of humour. And he's humble.
Isn't it awesome that an INFP man is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

 

[Little_Sticks]

Maybe it's a naive belief, but my feeling on the economy is that it's more effective to empower individuals and encourage them into action, and then reap the economic benefits of an organic recovery, rather than attempt to strongarm the economy into submission while ignoring the importance of why individuals participate in the economy in the first place. In short, I believe that Obama appeals to human interests and that human interests are the reason for and the underpinning of the economy, and as such must be dealt with first and foremost. Trying to manipulate the economy into recovery is like treating the symptoms of a disease while ignoring its cause. People think that other issues pale in comparison with debt, but I think that debt pales in comparison to life quality. The great ship of the economy is going to continue its recovery; the difference is that under Obama, we all will be able to benefit from it.

I do not understand why you believe Obama is for all of this and that Romney wouldn't have been. Romney advocated more hands off government and practical investment in our natural resources, while Obama has done many things to an opposite affect.

Obama has focused on green energy and invested in many green businesses with the hopes of producing alternative energy sources that are economical (which is fine). The problem is, a lot of those programs he funded have gone out of business and he has helped lobby against drilling for oil in Alaska and using our untapped coal resources. His argument seems to be that global warming is real and will cause more economical harm, however this is strictly theoretical in the same way that MBTI is strictly theoretical. It is hard to find definitive evidence for or against. http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/
Romney just wanted to use what we have, our natural resources, instead of taking risks.

Obama has focused on taking money from the wealthier people and giving it to the poor with Obamacare, which sounds fine in theory and is noble for what it aims to do, except redistributing wealth doesn't create jobs. The wealth taken from the rich will remove jobs and allow those who receive the money to create jobs with it, but no net gain in jobs is really being created from it in theory. And smaller businesses have more upfront overhead and risk anyway, which could be argued to lose more jobs than it might create. Not too mention that since the debt is not alleviated, it will only result in more inflation and an overall loss of economical progress and thus jobs.
Romney wanted to increase the wealth for everyone as a means of easing our economic burdens as well as individual, rather than focus on an elaborate scheme to redistribute wealth, which probably will not help at all in dealing with the debt.

Obama stimulus spending also sounds good in theory, but he didn't seem to have much expectation for making sure the money borrowed and spent would produce a gain or profit. A lot of money was spend in things that would not have any way to 'sustain' an economical income. This article is old, but it should give you an idea. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/04/millions-doled-questionable-jobs/ And personally, if the debt is getting worse and there is inflation, what makes you believe his stimulus spending is going to start producing gain, given more time, if it hasn't already? If anything, any gain that comes now will come from people making smart business choices and decisions, but I'm sure the democrats will give the credit to stimulus spending or something they can say they did.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Isn't is awesome that an INFP man is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

It's odd that in labeling him INFP you seem to automatically grant him some kind of legitimacy as a leader. What is it to you about being INFP that shows he is a capable leader?

And it's funny that you think he is humble. A lot of people see him as a dictator. This country really is divided when someone is either a scumbag or a saint depending on who you ask...

 

[Salomé]

It's odd that in labeling him INFP you seem to automatically grant him some kind of legitimacy as a leader. What is it to you about being INFP that shows he is a capable leader?

It's certainly odd that you're reading it that way....

I think "exceptional" or "unexpected" are words that I would use here, rather than "legitimate". Although winning a landslide makes that exceptional though not unexpected success, legitimate. Rather conveniently.

And it's funny that you think he is humble. A lot of people see him as a dictator. This country really is divided when someone is either a scumbag or a saint depending on who you ask...

Well, I'm not of "this" country, so I guess my opinion doesn't really matter. But I think, as an outsider, to call him "a dictator" smacks more of hyperbole than to suggest that he is capable of humility (even if it's only feigned).

 

[Little_Sticks]

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION]

Can you please provide something that cites where Romney said that Obama was bad for the country because he is black? Could you also cite your claim of "Paul Ryan basically said Obama was godless and leading the nation down a path of destruction because he isn't the same denomination of Christian as him". If it's true, I do want to know the full context and the extent of how true that might be.

It's certainly odd that you're reading it that way....

I think "exceptional" or "unexpected" are words that I would use here, rather than "legitimate". Although winning a landslide makes that exceptional though not unexpected success, legitimate. Rather conveniently.

There's nothing odd about it. Winning an election does not mean he is automatically a leader. It does mean he's a good politician. Maybe when it comes to government, having leaders isn't the primary concern. I guess that could be argued.
Anyway, it wasn't exactly a landslide either. Yes, Obama won many more electoral votes, but the popular vote was very close and the swing states very close too.

Well, I'm not of "this" country, so I guess my opinion doesn't really matter. But I think, as an outsider, to call him "a dictator" smacks more of hyperbole than to suggest that he is capable of humility (even if it's only feigned).

No, calling him a dictator can be a metaphor for behavior he partakes in that makes him look entitled and pompous. It isn't literal. Look, just replace the word dictator with 'arrogance' or 'elitist' and it's the same underlying meaning. Obama sees no flaws in anything he does and this bothers some people. It's very hard to reach the conclusion that he is humble.

This is from an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/weekinreview/31baker.html)

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” he told a roomful of doctors who chipped in at least $15,200 each to Democratic coffers. “And the country is scared, and they have good reason to be.”

So anyone that doesn't agree with him isn't thinking clearly...
And this shows in how his administration attempts to deal with Republicans in Congress. Republicans are always doing the wrong thing and Obama must get his way. He doesn't compromise; and that's what scares me about him as a leader. Where is the humility in that? Why does he think he is above government process?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/whi...perate-obama-will-take-small-medium-and-large

“We hope to work with Congress to continue to take action on that to continue to grow the economy and create jobs,” Carney said. “Separate from that, and this was the case last year and will be the case this year, we can’t wait for Congress to act. And when Congress refuses to act, and Republicans choose the path of obstruction rather than cooperation, than the president is not going to sit here, this gridlock in Washington is not as excuse for inaction.”

Carney said the president wants to work with Congress, but if the House and Senate don’t, Obama will.

“He’s going to take the actions that he can take using his executive authority to help the cause here, to help Americans deal with this challenging economy. And they can be small, medium or large actions and they don’t have to be just executive authority actions,” Carney continued. “They can be things we can do working with the private sector. So he’ll pursue all tracks.”

He doesn't seem to care if people agree with him or not; there is no room for compromise...republicans must cooperate because they are wrong, it seems is his view.



And please don't get the wrong idea. As a President, even a politician, I think he means well, but he seems to overestimate himself and underestimate anyone that doesn't agree with him or his policies. It doesn't suggest humility, it paints him like a dictator.

 

[chickpea]

Anyway, it wasn't exactly a landslide either. Yes, Obama won many more electoral votes, but the popular vote was very close and the swing states very close too.

he won. get over it.

 

[Little_Sticks]

he won. get over it.

Could you please take the issues seriously. I don't care who wins. I'm concerned about the welfare of the country if the debt gets out of control. Criticism should prove to enlighten. Don't be an ignorant jerk.

 

[Salomé]

There's nothing odd about it. Winning an election does not mean he is automatically a leader.

um. It kinda does. Anyway, what is odd is the way you misread my comment. I didn't say anything about being an INFP meant he was cut out for the job - almost the opposite of my meaning, in fact.

I can see why you think he lacks humility, but I disagree. I don't personally see his failure to compromise as a bad thing. I have a lot of respect for that kind of integrity. I wouldn't want to cooperate with the Republicans either...

In fact, this is what I was driving at - the unlikelihood of an INFP achieving political success.

 

[Totenkindly]

Can you please provide something that cites where Romney said that Obama was bad for the country because he is black? Could you also cite your claim of "Paul Ryan basically said Obama was godless and leading the nation down a path of destruction because he isn't the same denomination of Christian as him". If it's true, I do want to know the full context and the extent of how true that might be.

I don't remember Romney saying things about Obama being black. Romney's flaw in fact was being all over the map, disagreeing with the president strongly and then turning right around the next week and agreeing with him.

Ryan's speech content was all over the news on Monday, and it wasn't the first time. I think the only person more blatant than Ryan about such things (from the candidate list) was Santorum. And they're both staunch Catholics, I believe.

You have Google. Use it.

You also need to frame Obama's behavior as president in the last year / 18 months of his first term as a reflection on his failed approach to Republicans in the first 30 months or so. Partisanship was at an all-time high even compared to the last twenty years of politics. Republican congress basically shut him down and out every chance they got, and he was stuck in a position where either he started to play hardball back or he just give up and completely fail. I think it shows some strong leadership that he (1) took a different strategy based on a playing field he did not anticipate, and (2) was willing to look bad / tough, in order to accomplish his objectives, even when it wasn't his preferred approach. This country has had a number of bad presidents over time, and a hallmark of a bad presidency is coming into a situation, not having your style/approach work, and continuing to do the same things that are failing rather than pragmatically changing course to deal with the new expectations.

But the statistics tell a different story. Under Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43, the Senate confirmed between 79 and 93 percent of the judicial nominees put forward during each administration’s first 18 months. The confirmation rate under Obama? Forty-three percent, or roughly half the historical norm. In 1981, 37 Senate Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts; 20 years later, 12 Senate Democrats voted for George W. Bush’s. In contrast, Obama pushed seven major bills before Republicans took control of the House in 2011. They received only 15 Republican votes—total.

Since then, very few challenging pieces of legislation have even reached the floor of the Senate, thanks to the GOP’s record-shattering reliance on the filibuster. In the last three sessions of Congress, Republicans have threatened to filibuster on 385 separate occasions—equaling, in five short years, the total number of filibuster threats to seize the Senate during the seven decades from the start of World War I until the end of Reagan administration. A recent study showed that post-2007, with Republicans in the minority, threatened or actual filibusters have affected 70 percent of major legislation. In the 1980s, that number was 27 percent. In the 1960s, it was 8 percent. “This level of obstruction is extremely unusual,” says Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “And the core of the problem is the GOP.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/21/president-obama-s-executive-power-grab.html

The article opening also describes how Obama approached Boehner with 44 days yet to go before the debt-ceiling issue came to a head, despite being advised to not take the bipartisan approach, and then how Boehner pulled out with 11 days to go unexpectedly -- in essence, playing chicken with the country. These problems unfold on a continuum, rather than individual acts occurring with a vacuum.

The article's rather disturbing because it tracks the cycle that can lead to the gov system becoming imbalanced as part of a natural way that people try to compensate for unnatural flaws in the system... very much like a dysfunctional family readjusts itself to survive in the face of a particular huge initial imbalance in the system. The article above complains about what Obama is doing to compensate because it can contribute to even more problems down the road. Both Congress and the President are doing things that, as separate acts, might seem within boundaries; but cumulative can really take things off-course and instill large amounts of power in certain institutions/offices that could horribly be abused.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Romney's flaw in fact was being all over the map, disagreeing with the president strongly and then turning right around the next week and agreeing with him.

Look, I agree. But Romney's approach was reducing government influence and investing in low risk business, such as using our natural resources; Obama and the media then hounded him on conservative issues, making him look like he would get rid of student loans, get rid of fema, help rich people get richer while the middle class gets poorer, help big business and not small business, be against gays and women, and get rid of ideas of healthcare for everyone. He didn't change so much as clarify his positions to alleviate legitimate concerns. He was put on the defensive and that's too bad because it turned people off without giving him a chance. But I understand how someone could see that as him just getting votes and not meaning what he says; but I disagree with that strongly.

Ryan's speech content was all over the news on Monday, and it wasn't the first time. I think the only person more blatant than Ryan about such things (from the candidate list) was Santorum. And they're both staunch Catholics, I believe.

You have Google. Use it.

I did and I found nothing, except for Ryan using religion to suggest Obama might have flawed values. Considering myself omnireligion, someone who has respect for all the meaning that people appreciate in religion, I have no strong opinion on whether this is true or false, but I can see truth and falsity to it. For instance, I think Obama is good at dividing people amongst one another and could support the Christian argument there. But at the same time, he is also trying to help people by drawing light to issues that may go otherwise unnoticed.
But this suggests nothing to back your generalization however. You made a claim and you haven't made a case for it. All I'm asking for is how you reached that conclusion. What evidence did you use and how did you find that conclusion? And using google won't give me that.

You also need to frame Obama's behavior as president in the last year / 18 months of his first term as a reflection on his failed approach to Republicans in the first 30 months or so. Partisanship was at an all-time high even compared to the last twenty years of politics. Republican congress basically shut him down and out every chance they got, and he was stuck in a position where either he started to play hardball back or he just give up and completely fail. I think it shows some strong leadership that he (1) took a different strategy based on a playing field he did not anticipate, and (2) was willing to look bad / tough, in order to accomplish his objectives, even when it wasn't his preferred approach. This country has had a number of bad presidents over time, and a hallmark of a bad presidency is coming into a situation, not having your style/approach work, and continuing to do the same things that are failing rather than pragmatically changing course to deal with the new expectations.

Right. And Obama never changes his approach. He wastes money on high risk endeavors like green energy, Obamacare, and stimulus plans where he throws money into the economy without any plan, hoping that throwing money around will be enough to cause serious growth. That's not a plan, it's being optimistic.
And his 'plan' to deal with the debt now seems to be to tax the rich. Well, fine, but if you tax the rich, they have less money to spend and someone loses a job. That solves one problem, but creates another. Eventually, socialism collapses an economy if it's taken too far.

The article opening also describes how Obama approached Boehner with 44 days yet to go before the debt-ceiling issue came to a head, despite being advised to not take the bipartisan approach, and then how Boehner pulled out with 11 days to go unexpectedly -- in essence, playing chicken with the country. These problems unfold on a continuum, rather than individual acts occurring with a vacuum.

The article's rather disturbing because it tracks the cycle that can lead to the gov system becoming imbalanced as part of a natural way that people try to compensate for unnatural flaws in the system... very much like a dysfunctional family readjusts itself to survive in the face of a particular huge initial imbalance in the system. The article above complains about what Obama is doing to compensate because it can contribute to even more problems down the road. Both Congress and the President are doing things that, as separate acts, might seem within boundaries; but cumulative can really take things off-course and instill large amounts of power in certain institutions/offices that could horribly be abused.

Of course. So how is it then fair that the Democrats always get to blame Bush for everything?

 

[Totenkindly]

Look, I agree. But Romney's approach was reducing government influence and investing in low risk business, such as using our natural resources; Obama and the media then hounded him on conservative issues, making him look like he would get rid of student loans, get rid of fema, help rich people get richer while the middle class gets poorer, help big business and not small business, be against gays and women, and get rid of ideas of healthcare for everyone. He didn't change so much as clarify his positions to alleviate legitimate concerns. He was put on the defensive and that's too bad because it turned people off without giving him a chance. But I understand how someone could see that as him just getting votes and not meaning what he says; but I disagree with that strongly.

I'm not sure what your point is here. This is the kind of stuff both sides do to each other, and it seems odd you're just picking on one.

Also, I'm not well-versed in all the issues mentioned, but I am definitely sure that LGBT rights would have taken a HUGE step backwards in this country considering Romney's religious beliefs and the factions he presents. Maybe you don't understand because you are not a part of that particular minority as I am, but the four years under Obama has seen some very realistic and positive changes for LGBT and especially trans-people, change that never happened under Bush and would never ever happen if the Republican conservatives were pulling strings on a religiously conservative president.

I'm not trying to focus on that one issue, it just happens to be the one I know most about; I was able to get all my legal ID corrected and made consistent because of Obama, involving my passport, and my passport is a form of national ID that allows me to change other ID and thus help me to not be discriminated against. So when you start listing all these things that Obama accused the Republicans of not wanting to do while in office... well, actually he's right at least on that issue; I'm really tired of being disenfranchised in this country because of right-wing politics. People can hold their own religious beliefs, but I should only be liable for being a criminal, and the medical community rather than religious bigotry should be making decisions about what treatments I need for my personal well-being. So to summarize: I did not vote for just this one issue in the election, I'm more comprehensive, but yeah, actually Romney and the Republicans with the loudest voices in this country ARE bad for LGBT people regarding marriage and rights. you wouldn't have seen me complaining about needing to flee to Canada if Romney would have won, but it would have been very depressing at least in regards to that issue to basically have another four years of lack of progress or even going backwards.

Maybe you'd feel differently if you were a woman living in this country before equal rights, and you'd get a sense of what that means to be treated as "less than" and have your rights restricted not because of anything you've done to break the law or in how you treat people, yet you are treated as inferior all the same in what rights you have and how you are discriminated against in work and housing and medical needs. OBama has actually been a friend, and it was pretty amazing he also adjusted his opinion on gay marriage... although I think if Biden had not thrown himself out there, Obama wouldn't have publicly come out like that. In any case, that's FAR further than any Republican candidate would have gone or has gone.

I did and I found nothing, except for Ryan using religion to suggest Obama might have flawed values. Considering myself omnireligion, someone who has respect for all the meaning that people appreciate in religion, I have no strong opinion on whether this is true or false, but I can see truth and falsity to it. For instance, I think Obama is good at dividing people amongst one another and could support the Christian argument there. But at the same time, he is also trying to help people by drawing light to issues that may go otherwise unnoticed.

But this suggests nothing to back your generalization however. You made a claim and you haven't made a case for it. All I'm asking for is how you reached that conclusion. What evidence did you use and how did you find that conclusion? And using google won't give me that.

I spent my entire life living in a conservative Christian wasteland, listening to this kind of shit being espoused at church, in my circles of friends, at Thanksgiving dinners with my family. (The last five years of my 40+ year old life, I've been trying to surround myself with less obnoxious people.) I circulated among various churches in different denominations, not just one. I'm really confused as to how you read nothing of Ryan's speech on Yahoo (for god's sake -- it wasn't even like I pulling up a specialized partisan news site), and possibly missed this kind of attitude during the Republican primaries from Santorum and others, and it's the same crap all my religious conservative friends have been spouting on FaceBook. My own mother told me unsolicited on Sunday night that this country was becoming "Sodom and Gomorrah" and that we are being judged for our sins [for endorsing gay marriage and allowing abortion and... I don't think I'm too far reading into this... by electing a black guy who isn't the type of Christian she is, because she doesn't even think he is one due to differences in beliefs.]

I'm very confused as to how you have missed Ryan's speeches and these attitudes in just the general news, even if you don't happen to be surrounded/engulfed by conservative religion and rural Republicans.

I'm also still laughing over your accusing Obama of being the divisive one. I listen to black radio and have listened to Fox, and there is no question in my mind which messaging is more divisive and more obnoxious. I suppose you would also claim that Susan B. Anthony was divisive. Obama seems far more restrained than the people he is representing, honestly; and he spent the first 30 months of his presidency trying to salvage the most divisive Congress ever, which stepped outside of normal operating procedure to stonewall and block any attempt he made to change things, since they wanted to limit him to a one-term presidency. When you're dealing with bullies, you either give up and slink away, or you fight back. If fighting back in that kind of situation is "divisive," then please... let's see more of it. Reasonableness only works with reasonable people.

Right. And Obama never changes his approach. He wastes money on high risk endeavors like green energy, Obamacare, and stimulus plans where he throws money into the economy without any plan, hoping that throwing money around will be enough to cause serious growth. That's not a plan, it's being optimistic.

If you compare Romney's plans to Obama's (which was the choice in this election), he definitely has more of a plan than Romney. So you should not equate them. If the choice is to note who seems better prepared, then that answer is obvious. It was so dominating a reality that the press can even just summarize it as the reality of the last ten days of the election:

In the final 10 days of the race, a split started to emerge in the two campaigns. The Obama team would shower you with a flurry of data--specific, measurable, and they'd show you the way they did the math. Any request for written proof was immediately filled. They knew their brief so well you could imagine Romney hiring them to work at Bain. The Romney team, by contrast, was much more gauzy, reluctant to share numbers, and relying on talking points rather than data. This could have been a difference in approach, but it suggested a lack of rigor in the Romney camp.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548103/why-romney-never-saw-it-coming/

It also doesn't help that the candidate who claimed to be the "numbers guy" did not want to show his numbers, that he got all the polling data WRONG (AKA the numbers), and that his software meant to mobilize his organization on Election Day horribly failed, leaving them directionless that day. On the contrary, Obama's team showed that they knew how to build a long-term coalition and infrastructure in order to get out the vote; the same principles can be applied within gov. One side knew how to actually run a campaign.

If Romney had been a better candidate, he would have had a much better shot at winning, honestly. Look how close he came with his plans as thin as they were. I would have definitely considered a candidate who sounded like he actually knew what he was talking about.

And his 'plan' to deal with the debt now seems to be to tax the rich. Well, fine, but if you tax the rich, they have less money to spend and someone loses a job. That solves one problem, but creates another. Eventually, socialism collapses an economy if it's taken too far.

I think the solutions are more complex than what you're reducing them to. You can tax the rich somewhat... but you will need other sources of money to help keep things together.

Of course. So how is it then fair that the Democrats always get to blame Bush for everything?

Because Bush was a huge fuckup for this country and was never a viable candidate for the presidency, yet the Repub bigwigs handpicked him in 1998 to run as their handpuppet because he was presentable (in their minds) and could be controlled. I read descriptions of their process and meetings in the major news mags in 1998-1999 before the thought he might actually become president was a viable reality. And Bush squandered the fiscal positioning left to us by Clinton and the Republican Congress, and spent eight years literally creating his own reality and refusing to listen to what the people were actually saying, because he was beholden to his group of Republican bigwigs.

But maybe you should read articles like this one at Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-responsible-for-budget-deficit-2012-8

My opinion is that the country needs more than four years to recover from the prior decade of poor money manageable + the bursting of the housing bubble and economic collapse in America. Obama couldn't fix that in four years and he was stupid if he suggested it might be possible, when running for his first term; I'm not sure whether he misspoke or whether the rabid following he gained in 2008, irate with Bush's policies and the economic collapse, just did not listen clearly. Also, faced with the option of Obama vs Romney (rather than a "perfect solution"), I picked the one that I felt was more viable and better thought-out and articulated. So it sounds odd to me that you're seeming to argue that one should have voted for Romney for a plan he never actually presented, compared to Obama's plans which you do not like. That's not what the election choice was -- it's "which guy overall would you rather have a leader during the next four years?"

 

[Little_Sticks]

I'm not sure what your point is here. This is the kind of stuff both sides do to each other, and it seems odd you're just picking on one.

I hate that you think I'm just focusing on one side. This is what makes politics frustrating is that the facts are always up for debate, making everyone defensive. But I will forever be an independent.

But to answer your concern,
Because Romney has not been in office for four years and I know much more about Obama's administration and how they deal with things. I don't think it would be fair if he got the same level of criticism as there is less of a history to be criticized. If I recall, Obama when he ran in 2008 used this to make promises he couldn't keep and hammer the Republicans. He had promising ideas, but not much of a detailed or direct plan either at the time. I remember him saying he would support Nasa and the space program, but at some point they downsized and now we don't even do launches. A lot of engineers lost their jobs around here, which was frustrating considering many of them got his vote for that reason.

Also, I'm not well-versed in all the issues mentioned, but I am definitely sure that LGBT rights would have taken a HUGE step backwards in this country considering Romney's religious beliefs and the factions he presents. Maybe you don't understand because you are not as part of that particular minority than I have, but the four years under Obama has seen some very realistic and positive changes for LGBT and especially trans-people, change that never happened under Bush and would never ever happen if the Republican conservatives were pulling strings on a religiously conservative president. I'm not trying to focus on that one issue, it just happens to be the one I know most about; I was able to get all my legal ID corrected and made consistent because of Obama, involving my passport, and my passport is a form of national ID that allows me to change other ID. So when you start listing all these things that Obama accused the Republicans of not wanting to do while in office... well, actually he's right at least on that issue; I'm really tired of being disenfranchised in this country because of right-wing politics.

I did not vote for just this one issue in the election, I'm more comprehensive, but yeah, actually Romney and the Republicans with the loudest voices in this country ARE bad for LGBT people regarding marriage and rights. you wouldn't have seen me complaining about needing to flee to Canada if Romney would have won, but it would have been very depressing at least in regards to that issue to basically have another four years of lack of progress or even going backwards. Maybe you'd feel differently if you were a woman living in this country before equal rights, and you'd get a sense of what that means to be treated as "less than" and have your rights restricted not because of anything you've done to break the law or in how you treat people, yet you are treated as inferior all the same in what rights you have and how you are discriminated against in work and housing and medical needs.

I spent my entire life living in a conservative Christian wasteland, listening to this kind of shit being espoused at church, in my circles of friends, at Thanksgiving dinners with my family. (The last five years of my 40+ year old life, I've been trying to surround myself with less obnoxious people.) I circulated among various churches in different denominations, not just one. I'm really confused as to how you read nothing of Ryan's speech on Yahoo (for god's sake -- it wasn't even like I pulling up a specialized partisan news site), and it's the same crap all my religious conservative friends have been spouting on FaceBook. My own mother told me unsolicitized on Sunday night that this country was becoming "Sodom and Gamorrah." I'm very confused as to how you have missed this in just the general news, even if you don't happen to be surrounded/engulfed by conservative religion and rural Republicans.

Wait...are you trans-gender? And I have absolutely nothing against gay rights, but I thought the possibility of economic collapse was more important in making a decision. I get your concern now. I'm not really sure what to say then. One bad experience doesn't necessarily mean the same outcome, but when it comes to polarities, it usually means fighting, meaning I'm inclined to agree with you.

I can't say that I understand everything about women's rights, gay rights, etc. But I do have a history of homelessness, having a controlling father institutionalize me, a divided and divorced family as a result of him, a childhood of having every moment of my life mandated and controlled to the point of psychotic breaks from not getting the time for enough sleep. I still have big self mutilation scars on my arm and sometimes people notice that; it's so embarrassing. And I never really did anything about it, since I didn't think I had the freedom to anything that would help. One day I just stopped talking to him and slept in my car. I have so much anger that sometimes I don't sleep and if I do, I'll wake up with diarrhea and fibromyalgia from the adrenaline that won't stop triggering. I had 6 months of chronic fatigue where my body would ache and doctors would prescribe antidepressants (it's inflammation from stress though). I still get random aches that never seem to go away and I'm guessing it never will. The worst part is that I can't tell anyone, since being labeled as mentally ill is the same thing as being labeled crazy in a lot of people's eyes. I probably have some form of post traumatic stress, but I'll be damned if anyone is going to force lobotomizing drugs on me or suggest that somehow getting sympathy from a therapist is going to mean shit to me, especially when sympathy is a trigger of mine. I feel more love and security when people are mad at me for disappointing them, because it means they care about having me in their lives on some level, then when I get 'sympathy', which is manipulative. And now I remember why I got diagnosed as borderline at some point. I guess it kind of is when someone has to hurt someone to determine if the other person loves them.

But FORGET that. Just please don't pretend I'm incapable of understanding social frustration and prejudice. And please don't bring this up or use it against me. I don't expect sympathy, I don't want it, and it literally freaks me out anyway, I'm just being honest to make a point.

WELL FUCK.

If you compare Romney's plans to Obama's (which was the choice in this election), he definitely has more of a plan than Romney. So you should not equate them. If the choice is to note who seems better prepared, then that answer is obvious.


I think the solutions are more complex than what you're reducing them to. You can tax the rich somewhat... but you will need other sources of money to help keep things together.

Obama said he want the rich to give a little more to help pay off the debt. Taking money from the rich and using to pay off the debt strictly, will result in job lose because they have less money to spend. Do you accep


Because Bush was a huge fuckup for this country and was never a viable candidate for the presidency, yet the Repub bigwigs handpicked him in 1998 to run as their handpuppet because he was presentable (in their minds) and could be controlled. I read descriptions of their process and meetings in the major news mags in 1998-1999 before the thought he might actually become president was a viable reality. And Bush squandered the fiscal positioning left to us by Clinton and the Republican Congress, and spent eight years literally creating his own reality and refusing to listen to what the people were actually saying, because he was beholden to his group of Republican bigwigs.

But maybe you should read articles like this one at Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-responsible-for-budget-deficit-2012-8

My opinion is that the country needs more than four years to recover from the prior decade of poor money manageable + the bursting of the housing bubble and economic collapse in America. Obama couldn't fix that in four years and he was stupid if he suggested it might be possible, when running for his first term; I'm not sure whether he misspoke or whether the rabid following he gained in 2008, irate with Bush's policies and the economic collapse, just did not listen clearly.

you know what, i just don't care now. I don't agree with your analysis, but it's stupid to have faith in anything other than myself anyway. Politics is the art of asserting someone's shit over someone else's shit. If someone always has to lose, then fuck it.


Okay. You're all right.

 

[ScottJames]

He's an ESTJ. Not much doubt.