Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

37 posts in this topic

Posted

It just... makes me so angry. I am legitimately scared that a Romney presidency is even a possibility at this point. I can't even understand the thought processes of people who would vote for him. It shouldn't even be close at this point, but it is. The Republican platform is just so horrendously regressive on social issues.... I just hate the U.S. sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's quite simple: Romney isn't Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hate Romney with a passion. He's as dull as dishwater, as plain as Vanilla Ice Cream, as flavorless as Mayonnaise.

He's so out of touch he doesn't know how to use a Zipper, he thinks Zipper is one of his sons.

The way I see it, if you're young you'll Vote for Obama. If you're old you'll vote for Romney. That's why I'm glad Teens are more Politically active nowadays. On November 6th I'm voting Obama, my dad Romney.

#Romnesia

Mitt Romney has more flip flops than a Payless Shoestore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i think its more about the fact the president can veto things. so whether a bill that makes certain marriages able to happen can pass or not is up to him, after it makes its slow, slow way through everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To be frank, I don't think it's the president's job to give two shits about gay marriage, abortion, or any similar matter.

While important, those things are not their puppying problem. I'm more concerned with their views on the economy, on healthcare, and on foreign policy and terrorism.

I don't think anyone in this country realizes how close we are to a terroristic attack everyday. And I really don't think anyone understands what we're actually doing in the Middle East right now.

pheonix561 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hate Romney with a passion. He's as dull as dishwater, as plain as Vanilla Ice Cream, as flavorless as Mayonnaise.

All politics aside, in what universe is mayonnaise flavorless? And what makes vanilla any more plain than any other flavor of ice cream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Honestly it really is less about the presidential race and more about congress. A Romney presidency wouldn't mean all that much if there was a Democratic congress, but the real killer would be if the GOP had a majority in congress and the presidency. Then they could legitimately impede social and civic change.

I just kinda like having the same rights as everyone else. That's not a whole lot to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am honestly more concerned with the fact tyrion is implying mayonnaise is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In our case today I think civil rights are secondary to making sure Iran doesn't turn Israel into a giant irradiated crater. I don't believe Obama can stop that from happening so I voted for Romney because he is the better choice for dealing with this single most important issue, simple as that. The tradition is almost always that national crises will absolutely freeze civic change and that unfortunately has to happen now.

And yeah Romney can't directly affect gay marriage rights, but indirectly his election will let Republican state congressmen and governors ride his coattails and get into office, and those guys are gonna be making all sorts of crappy anti-gay rights legislation. Don't get me wrong though, this won't be a step backwards because even if Romney wins the anti-gay politicians are only gonna be able to get in states that have a majority supporting no gay marriage, aka all the states that don't have gay marriage right now anyway. It'll stop progress but it won't turn the whole country anti- gay.

inb4 you're a white male check your privilege social justice rant etc.

Cirt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My grandmother is voting for Romney because he's never done drugs or alcohol and his wife is a "model wife" and also his kids seem nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

probably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think Romney is very respectable at all, so far as I know about him.

From what I've seen of his governing, he's a cutthroat who doesn't really care much about people. He might be good for the economy, but a lot of people will suffer to get there. During Romney's governorship, he managed over about 3 billion dollars in savings to his state. That all seems fine and dandy, but he did it by making massive budget cuts to things like education and health care, and pretty much assured layoffs in the education system. 30,000 people lost their Medicaid eligibility. Actually, I think it was more around 40,000. Somewhere in between there. Public colleges had to increase their fees by 60%.

He also added 33 fees to his state and increased the existing 57. And they included stuff like this:

Also under Romney's plan, the state Department of Mental Retardation would have charged a fee of $100 to determine a client's eligibility and the Department of Public Health would have charged $50 for initial tuberculosis tests. Another $400 fee would have been assessed for those who tested positive. Those proposals were ultimately rejected.
source: Boston Globe

I think there was some ridiculous thing where he got rid of a bill proposing the state pay for attorneys representing the really poorfolk, and he pretty much told them they should just do it for free. Then there's just awful petty stuff like this:

It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.

But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.

He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

[...]

Crossouts and handwritten alterations constituted “violations of existing statutes’’ and harmed “the integrity of the vital record-keeping system,’’ the deputy general counsel of the department, Peggy Wiesenberg, warned in a confidential Dec. 13, 2004, memo to Mark Nielsen, Romney’s general counsel.

The changes also would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, she said, and children with altered certificates would be likely to “encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote."

source: Boston Globe

From what I've seen of Obama, he's at least taking care of what he said he would, and he isn't constantly changing his mind about issues. I've never heard of a presidential candidate (Romney) this blatant in his mood swings. He's really a cold, calculated bussinessman at heart, and I haven't seen much to the contrary.

So idk. I personally believe that radical groups in the middle east won't just forget about us if we leave, so it would be nice if we could keep an eye on them or do some actual work into investigating how to topple their structure or get information about them. It's easier said than done. Human beings are more easily corruptible by violence and intolerance than they are accepting of peace, and hate breeds more hate and all that jazz. I feel like the world is going to spiral out of control if no one ever does anything about it. I feel like Obama would be a much better candidate if we were in a period of peacetime, but that hardly happens with the US.

I think the economy definitely needs some help, but I'm worried about what will happen if Romney plays Monopoly with the whole country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think the economy will do very well under another 4 years of Obama. He only just recently managed to get unemployment down below the level it was when he first took office, and that isn't counting the number of people who have given up looking for work, which tends to increase over long periods of high unemployment. The number of people who are dependent on food stamps has increased by nearly 50% since Obama took office. Plus there's the entire "you didn't build that speech", which I think is adequate evidence that he is not fit to lead a free-market society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My political views aren't very important (even to me), but I'll put them here anyway because whatever, am I right

also this post turned out more lengthy than expected because I had a monologue down in the big paragraph that should have remained largely internal but there's nothing in it that could rile anyone up so whatever

EDIT: IT TURNED OUT SO LONG YOU CAN FREELY SKIP THIS WHOLE THING AND NOT LOSE A SINGLE MICROCOSM OF INSIGHT OKAY AND I'M SORRY

anyway if nothing changes in the next thirty-six hours or so, I won't be voting for Romney or Obama. I'll probably write in something goofy just because you know whatever

anyway I don't feel comfortable voting based on the economy, foreign policy, etc. because I don't know how those work. I honestly have no inkling as to which of their ideas would work out better. I probably wouldn't even be able to really comprehend what their ideas are, because I don't have the big picture; if someone told me why Barack/Mitt's plan would work, I would mostly say, "Okay, that sounds good," but still couldn't say why that'd be more effective than any other thing you could do with the economy or whatever. I could rely on other sources - studies, research, statistics - but it seems for each one that seems to endorse or reject one's policies, there's an alternative that endorses or rejects the others. When I was bored I watched their first big debate on Youtube, and the whole thing seemed to be "This is what I'll do"; "No, that's a lie"; "Well, you're lying"; "But this is what I'll do"; "That's not actually how you'll do it" and other stuff I didn't understand and found to be mostly inane. Some time in the future I'll take a greater interest in politics and feel like getting informed and know what I'm doing and make a choice. As the trend goes, probably when I'm an actual adult that'll start to happen

(following is not particular to the current election [or anything, it could be argued])

anyway it's a shame it has to be this way for my first vote, but it's kind of the most logical. Multiple presidential candidates campaign to advertise and inform people about how they would "run the country". The people listen, follow what's up, and vote for one on the basis of their own preferences: a president is never elected because they meet some higher criteria. It's because people vote for them (more accurately the electoral college and stuff I know the system is more complex but we're going to model it on democracy for a second), based on preferences as to how it should go down. Whoever gets the most votes wins. To say someone ought or deserves to be president is saying someone ought to get more votes than anyone else (by definition), which is saying someone ought to succeed in more people's criteria than anyone else who is running (by the assumption that people vote based positively on their preferences), which is to say either that they deserve that more people have criteria aligned with their qualities or that they deserve to have qualities aligned with the preferences of more people than anyone else running. So someone saying that is either claiming that democracy shouldn't be based on the people voting (i.e. that democracy be not democracy), or that the candidate they want to win deserves to be a person such that the most people will vote for them. The second one isn't something I know how to interpret or am going to spend any time on. The first one pretty trivially breaks the system, but that's what I was kind of getting at with this. Too many people view "the person who deserves be president" as "the person whom I would most like to be president" rather than "the person whom the most people would like to be president". This would make sense if the system of government distinguished certain criteria or certain people's criteria as more or less important than others or others', but in the current system, whether one person knows better than another person or not carries no weight, and neither does the gravity of their reasons, because they are each single people. If a woman on Youtube says she's voting for Romney because she thinks he's hot and has the same name as her cat, her reasons carry as much weight as those of someone who's voting for him because they think he'll fix the economy or be white, since democracy is a system based on the preferences of the people, not on those of the people with `good reasons'.

note I'm not saying people shouldn't feel that their candidate is the right one because that would kind of defeat the purpose. I'm saying any other individual person's opinions matter as much as anyone else's, so if more people want one candidate to win over a different candidate, that's democracy (if more members of the electoral college choose to cast a vote for one candidate over another, that's a democratic republic) and that's the government we get. Be thankful. When I was your age, all we got was one government and we had to share it.

also if it seems like I've got nowhere with what I've said, just pretend the pretense of the whole thing makes sense and that what it came to made some too but maybe little less

anyway, it just happens that my (pretty weak) preferences don't seem to draw me toward any (viable or not) candidate over another particularly, and since I can't vote for multiple, I'll vote for none or whatever

also I didn't break up the big paragraph so you could avoid it easily if you so chose, since it's one train of thought that isn't charming in any sense per se

also let's be honest I didn't have a lot to do in that past hour so that was me literally sitting back and drinking tea now carry on with something relevant

Chimetals likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am honestly more concerned with the fact tyrion is implying mayonnaise is bad.

It's because he subconsciously believes that Romney is actually delicious and that he'd like to cover Romney's entire body in white, sticky mayonnaise and then lick it all off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.