Yup, I've seen them. Obama said that unemployment wouldn't reach 8 percent with the stimulas. Yeah, that didn't end well. Oh, and the deficit is just getting larger and larger. For some odd reason, Obama thinks that can be fixed by spending more.
I agree with that, and I also think that, while Bisexual rights were mentioned more than Transgender rights, they were still ignored more than they should have been. Otherwise, I think the video is great, and its a huge step. But, if he doesn't get re-elected, we'll probably be right back where we started- Obama has become our beakon of hope...which is slightly unfortunate, because he isn't the greatest president...he is better than Romney though... ([*[*All in all, I would like to give an applause for Obama (and Lady Gaga)- (t)he(y) deserve a thank you for the support (t)he(y) [have/has] given us! :eusa_clap *]*])
EXACTLY. Even though Obama isn't the best he's still a better pick than Romney. I just have a bad feeling that if Romney is elected, everything that happened in the last 4 years will start to be reversed.
What are Bisexual rights? The only difference between bisexuals and gays is that one likes the opposite gender as well as their own. Every right awarded to gays is something awarded to bisexuals.
I don't want to derail this thread too much. But as I have said many times before on this forum, though I don't agree with Romney's stance on us, it's his opinion.[/QUOTE] An opinion he will do his absolute best to turn into law should he ever get elected. No, just too conservative and not someone I'd ever vote for. I don't believe either is more important than the other, both should be adressed. Which 'warps' would that be exactly? Again, being rather vague here... I could never vote for someone who considers me to be basically less than a second class citizen. ---------- Post added 25th May 2012 at 05:49 AM ---------- Indeed he isn't my ideal president either and the Democrats are still rather rightwing compared to some liberal and democratic parties over here, but better they than a party and president who treat us like we're sick or wrong.
Okay guys let's stay on topic. Romney's views on gays: acceptable on this thread Obama's views on gays: acceptable on this thred Romney's views on economics: belong in Chit-Chat Obama's views on economics: belong in Chit-Chat.
Obama will do nothing for the movement. He just wants your vote. I believe he made promise's before. He's seems like a nice dude but I'm for Romney.
People forget to take into account the fact Obama's been blocked on almost everything he's tried to do. The fact is, while I have no problem with the Conservative ideals (even if I disagree on many points), the Republican party has got a severe childish streak. Every act he's tried to pass has been slowed, delayed, and chopped up to the point of being nearly useless. The leaders of the Republican party would rather 'prove' the world that Obama is ineffective by deliberately preventing his changes than actually help the country. Meanwhile, 'Obamacare' has either provided benefits for people who were having trouble or done absolutely nothing. The drop in employment rates has slowed, and trends show that it is turning around. The fact is, without Obama, we would be in a much worse place. Here's the thing about our Economy: As we all know, every government type has a dark side to it. Communism, for example, is a very efficient governmental structure, except is incredibly easy for a corrupt leader to get and keep power. Socialism is a great system for helping out the poor, but people that would otherwise be successful cannot separate themselves from everyone else. Democracy provides a lot of freedom, but is incredibly inefficient for enacting change. Any act that we want to pass has to go through so many different groups of people with so many contradicting agendas, it takes ages for anything extreme enough to make a noticeable difference to actually get passed. The Free Market also has inherent problems: It is entirely based around growth, but the planet has limits. Roughly every 20 years, the economy crashes. It caused our recession, it caused the Great Depression, and several other smaller events throughout the 20th Century. So, the Recession is no more Bush's fault than Obama's. It goes back to the economic infrastructure that we developed after WWII. The problem is, NO president is going to be able to stop it from happening, or control when it will end. The way to stop it from happening at all is to have the government controlling the economy; but the Free Market doesn't allow that. And that's fine, but it means you can't go on and on about how Obama and Bush didn't magically fix the economy immediately. As far as healthcare is concerned, there is a massive amount of misinformation surrounding the Affordable Healthcare Plan. It helps students, by extending the age we are kept on their parents plan. In 2014, companies will not be able to deny people for existing conditions. All the people that can afford healthcare, but refuse to pay for it, will be forced to buy it and stop putting strain on the tax system. New plans that allow these people to buy healthcare without breaking the bank will exist. And everyone who already has healthcare? Nothing will change. Except their taxes won't include as many people going to the ER without healthcare (Yeah, when someone can't afford their healthcare and get the treatment hospitals are required to give, it comes out of your taxes. Just so you know). The government NEEDS to interfere in Healthcare. Health Insurance companies are supposed to provide healthcare to their customers. However, For-Profit companies are supposed to improve their profit margin for investors. How does a Health Insurance Company earn profit? By not having to pay for people's healthcare. Meaning, a health insurance company improves their profit by paying for the least amount of healthcare possible. Do you see the problem with that system? Now, obviously we can't just force healthcare companies to be Non-Profit. But we can impose regulations to stop them abusing their customers.
At least to his credit it's just parroting. I think i detect a hint of influence of the far-right in the kid's life. My bet's on the daddy.
Ok, and you know that from? Short of the bullying incident in high school (which he apologized for), I have yet to hear anything to suggest that Romney actually hates gay people. Hell, before this election and his pandering to the ultra-social conservative Republican base, you could argue he was just as pro-LGBT rights as Obama was. The guy's a social moderate - it's why his own base hates him. You will not see gay rights "rolled back" if he gets elected. And let me add that I do not support Romney - I just believe we're irrationally attacking him on these issues.
His stance on the issues. Yes, I am sure that in a Romney presidency, his Secretary of State would have made it possible for transgender folks to put their identified gender on their passports. Since he was just as pro-LGBT rights as Obama. I believe that his "pandering" was not actually pandering. It was genuine. He's a conservative Protestant. He hates queers, and he's got the political record to prove it. I mean, unless you're going to set a bar so high for hatred that the word itself becomes meaningless. Hatred surely at least means that you want to block any political measure that would advance the happiness of a class of people based on nothing at all other than your religion. What about the aforementioned advance for trans rights? I'm sure he'd keep that, since he's such a nice guy who I shouldn't be irrationally attacking. Also, that Romney's base hates him because they are even more overtly evil than he is strikes me as the least impressive fact of all time.
From my View Romney would ruin America for everybody who is progressive, He would not extend LGBT rights, and start teaching creationism and is VP Paul Ryan would be even worst: Twelve Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan in short Voting for Romney is a vote against progression, you and to f*** you over even more. Basically if you want a American dark age, vote Romney, if not, anybody else.
Romney has several times in this election process come out in support of gay rights only to be reigned back in by his own people and told to "apologize" for his comments. That sounds like pandering to me, but if you want to believe otherwise go ahead. Based on his constant flip-flopping, I strongly doubt any of his stances are actually indicative of his social values as a person (with exception to the fact that you can't trust him as a politician and probably wouldn't want him in a leadership position of government). As for the trans issues, social moderate ≠ social liberal. A social liberal (my preference if you must know) gets that legislated, a social moderate does not. At the very most I will be willing to make the statement "he was a social moderate," and now isn't, if you're actually willing to believe any of his positions are genuine.
Even if he changes his views to his audience, he still truly believes something. I think that he believes in discrimination toward me and my community. You can say that he's "pretty good" or "nuanced" or something like that, and I shouldn't let good be the enemy of perfect. But at the end of the day, you're either in favor of discrimination, or you're not. And he is in favor. I'm not arguing whether the SOS move was something a social moderate would have done. I was just being snarky over the comment that Romney was (at some point in time) as pro-LGBT rights as Obama is. Obama is very lackluster on these issues, and I criticize his administration often for it. But to try and say that Romney and Obama are (or were) somehow equivalent on their views on these issues is unfair to reality. I look at all of his views through his religion and his deep understanding of politics as a very intelligent man who recognizes what the world around him is and wants to play it to his advantage. In other words, I believe he is deeply cynical. When he says that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and opposes even civil unions, I believe him, because that's motivated by his religion. When he says that he supports state level benefits for same-gender couples and opposes discrimination in the workplace, I look at that as an attempt to look nuanced to my generation which hates hatred. He is able to support these things because he knows they will fail, but he will look like the good, moderate guy to the independent voter or the Democrat who is so annoyed that he jumps ship.
