Obama Vs. Romney: 2012 US Election

["Spite" DefaultAsAwesome]

I'm not gay, I'm straight as a board, but the only rational against gay marriage is religions, and that has no place in government. It's dumb, it shouldn't even be a problem. Go let them get married or whatever, sheesh.

Telling someone they can't get married because it's against your religion is like saying someone else can't eat a cupcake because you're on a diet. Then you try to get the government to ban cupcakes because you can't eat them.

[Snorunt conservationist]

The whole anti-gay rights & anti-women's rights is one of the major things that threw me off. Though that's typically the party itself saying that.
I'm not gay, I'm straight as a board, but the only rational against gay marriage is religions, and that has no place in government. It's dumb, it shouldn't even be a problem. Go let them get married or whatever, sheesh.

Yet there's no popular mandate for gay marriage. Indeed, there's the opposite. I'm pro gay marriage but I don't think it should be enforced upon a people that doesn't want it.

As far as women's rights, I mean, I'm a guy, but I have a lot of respect for women. It's ridiculous that womens and mens salaries still arent equal 100% of the time.

The gender wage gap as presented currently is a myth.

[Brutaka]

Telling someone they can't get married because it's against your religion is like saying someone else can't eat a cupcake because you're on a diet. Then you try to get the government to ban cupcakes because you can't eat them.

That's...a pretty good analogy.

EDIT:

Yet there's no popular mandate for gay marriage. Indeed, there's the opposite. I'm pro gay marriage but I don't think it should be enforced upon a people that doesn't want it.

What do you mean by that? I'm fairly sure the gays want it.
I often compare it the civil rights movement. Most of the nation didnt want black equality, but look where we are now.

[Snorunt conservationist]

Telling someone they can't get married because it's against your religion is like saying someone else can't eat a cupcake because you're on a diet. Then you try to get the government to ban cupcakes because you can't eat them.

Fails when it's not the status quo. Nobody is trying to get gay marriage banned because gay marriage doesn't exist.

[Silver Soul]

Well you know a few days ago, Tea Party Republican Joe Walsh is running against Democratic candidate Tammy Duckworth who is a war veteran that lost both legs in the Iraq War. Well in their debate, Walsh decides to complain an important issue about his opponent which is that... she was picking out a dress for the DNC!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1955968.html

[Brutaka]

Fails when it's not the status quo. Nobody is trying to get gay marriage banned because gay marriage doesn't exist.

That's the problem; it should. It makes no sense for it not to. Does it say anywhere in our founding laws or in any constitutional amendment that marriages have to be male x female? I never seen it, but I may have to go check my pocket constitution again.
To be honest, disallowing it is against the 1st and 14th amendments, i believe.

And i have never seen a law backing the anti-gay marriage beliefs.

[Silver Soul]

That's the problem; it should. It makes no sense for it not to. Does it say anywhere in our founding laws or in any constitutional amendment that marriages have to be male x female? I never seen it, but I may have to go check my pocket constitution again.
To be honest, disallowing it is against the 1st and 14th amendments, i believe.

And i have never seen a law backing the anti-gay marriage beliefs.

There's DOMA with section 3 ruled to be unconstitutional by a federal judge in Connecticut and a Federal Appeals court in Boston, MA.

[Snorunt conservationist]

That's the problem; it should.

Yeah but it doesn't.

It makes no sense for it not to.

To you and I, that's the case. However, as a whole, the population of America doesn't agree.

Does it say anywhere in our founding laws or in any constitutional amendment that marriages have to be male x female? I never seen it, but I may have to go check my pocket constitution again.

No but that's how it's always been generally recognised. Does it say it can't be between a man and a dog?

[Brutaka]

No but that's how it's always been generally recognized. Does it say it can't be between a man and a dog?

Perhaps not. But come on, just let them get married, how would it affect the straight population? Why do they even care?
Some people, seriously. There's a case concerning the faith and full credit clause and gay marriage. I hope it makes headway. The conflict is, is that if gays get married somewhere that its legal, and then go somewhere else, should the states honor the marriage?
By law, they HAVE TO. But they aren't. So, it's become a supreme court case that's being held sometime this fall.

I see this remarkably similar to the civil rights movement, and I hope it gets the same results. Not a great leader being shot, of course, but you know what I mean.

[Snorunt conservationist]

Perhaps not. But come on, just let them get married, how would it affect the straight population? Why do they even care?

I don't know, but the point is that they do.

I see this remarkably similar to the civil rights movement, and I hope it gets the same results. Not a great leader being shot, of course, but you know what I mean.

Please don't compare the current status of gays to those of non-whites prior to the 60's. It demeans both parties.

[BigLutz]

To get back to the actual election, Survey USA conducted a poll in Tampa Florida to see how minds changed after the VP debate.

13% say they changed which candidate for President they support as a result of the debate. Of those who tell SurveyUSA they changed their mind:

* 44% switched from the Obama ticket to the Romney ticket.
* 29% switched from undecided to the Romney ticket.
* A total of 73% switched to the Romney ticket.

* 18% switched from the Romney ticket to the Obama ticket.
* 6% switched from undecided to the Obama ticket.
* A total of 24% switched to the Obama ticket.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...d-261b4ee426eb

Ryan also edged out Biden by 42/38 in the poll.

The D/R/I break down is 35/37/28, which is on par with the 2010 midterm election. I will say that the 2%+ for Republicans does put it well into the margin of error on debate winner, but it still is what it is. In the meantime, the drastic switch may be a indicator at how poorly Biden's laughing played with people.

[Silver Soul]

According to the Reuters/Ipso poll among early voters, Obama is in lead with 59 percent while Romney has 31 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

["Spite" DefaultAsAwesome]

I've had a conversation with someone on Skype yesterday. He said Obama was a liar and was only elected because he was part black. It's hard to get out of a political debate, so I just continued on. In the end he blocked me without saying anything. So ya know what this means... http://image.torrent-invites.com/ima...1DT2Z1rqfd.gif

[Brutaka]

I've had a conversation with someone on Skype yesterday. He said Obama was a liar and was only elected because he was part black. It's hard to get out of a political debate, so I just continued on. In the end he blocked me without saying anything. So ya know what this means... http://image.torrent-invites.com/ima...1DT2Z1rqfd.gif

It's insane that people are still on that.
I can't have skype debates on stuff like that, since I only have two skype friends, 1 doesnt like to talk politics and the other agrees with most everything i say.

[BigLutz]

According to the Reuters/Ipso poll among early voters, Obama is in lead with 59 percent while Romney has 31 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

And? You are taking the word of not even exit pollsters, but people polling through the phone of those that may have voter early even though not every state is allowing early voting yet, and not to mention Democrats tend to vote early. I mean really...

I've had a conversation with someone on Skype yesterday. He said Obama was a liar and was only elected because he was part black

I hate to say it but he is right. If Obama were just another white guy who looks good and can read a teleprompter, he never would have gotten the black vote. Which means Hillary ( First lady of the First "Black" President as Bill Clinton was deemed ) would have received the vast majority of it. That puts Clinton way ahead in the South, and means she pretty much wraps up the nomination before Super Tuesday.

[marioguy]

AI hate to say it but he is right. If Obama were just another white guy who looks good and can read a teleprompter, he never would have gotten the black vote. Which means Hillary ( First lady of the First "Black" President as Bill Clinton was deemed ) would have received the vast majority of it. That puts Clinton way ahead in the South, and means she pretty much wraps up the nomination before Super Tuesday.

But White Obama wouldn't have lost the racist vote.

[BigLutz]

But White Obama wouldn't have lost the racist vote.

But he would also have struggled to emerge from the pack. He had no history, he was just a good looking guy in a race that already had one ala John Edwards. As such the "racist" vote would be split between all the candidates. In the end there is just no way for a white Obama to beat Clinton, or even I would say Edwards. He just had nothing to run on, no real past that would separate him from everyone else.

In the end it would have probably been Edwards vs Clinton, with Edwards staff sabotaging their campaign because of the affair, and Clinton easily running away with it.

[marioguy]

But he would also have struggled to emerge from the pack. He had no history, he was just a good looking guy in a race that already had one ala John Edwards. As such the "racist" vote would be split between all the candidates. In the end there is just no way for a white Obama to beat Clinton, or even I would say Edwards. He just had nothing to run on, no real past that would separate him from everyone else.

In the end it would have probably been Edwards vs Clinton, with Edwards staff sabotaging their campaign because of the affair, and Clinton easily running away with it.

If Clinton won, I bet Palin wouldn't have been picked for VP.

[BigLutz]

If Clinton won, I bet Palin wouldn't have been picked for VP.

The circumstances would be the same, McCain would be in a tight race that he was slowly beginning to lose, and he needed something to spice everything up and make a difference. Palin is on a very very short list of people in 2008 that could do that.

But I do think Biden wouldn't be the VP. Obama was a little star struck by him in the debates, I can't see the well oiled Clinton Machine putting all their money on a relatively unknown VP candidate who has a tendency to say some very damming if not racist things ( Indians at 7-11 ).

[The Oncoming Storm]

You know what I don't understand. Why is it that republicans are called the small goverment party when they are always trying to take away liberties. No you can't have an abortion, no birth control pills paid for by insurance, no gay marriage, and no evolution in schools. While democrats allow all these things. They just want higher taxes on corporations, socialized medicine, and strict gun control. It seems to me that the right wing is more controlling.

[marioguy]

The circumstances would be the same, McCain would be in a tight race that he was slowly beginning to lose, and he needed something to spice everything up and make a difference. Palin is on a very very short list of people in 2008 that could do that.

Palin was only picked because she was a women. McCain's campaign was just so excited that Biden was picked instead of Clinton that they decided to pick her to manipulate a few women. She wasn't even vetted first.

[Nyula]

You know what I don't understand. Why is it that republicans are called the small goverment party when they are always trying to take away liberties. No you can't have an abortion, no birth control pills paid for by insurance, no gay marriage, and no evolution in schools. While democrats allow all these things. They just want higher taxes on corporations, socialized medicine, and strict gun control. It seems to me that the right wing is more controlling.

Absolutely, the Republican party is ruled by Christian Dominionists (aka, the Christian Right) who want to turn the USA into something like Iran. The Christian Republic of America. The Republicans play lovely word games and use free words like 'liberty', 'freedom' and 'democracy' but they don't really mean that. It's a party of corporate interests and religious dogma.

[THEIRONDONUT]

I am not of the voting age, and i'm not even american, but I would vote for two party members for different reasons.

Barack Obama because:

1) He helped Britain out of a few tight spots

2) Him and David Cameron are pretty tight

Mitt Romney because:

1) I heard his speech, it was pretty compelling

2) David Cameron is a shite PM because he put us in an even crappier recession than we're in than we were come 2010, and if the Romney dude CAN really 'change the world' then maybe he can do us a solid, cos we helped out America a bunch of times too

[BigLutz]

1) He helped Britain out of a few tight spots

It should be worth noting he also turned his back on Britain a few times, he sent the Churchill bust loaned to the White House by Britain back, and he sided with Argentina against Britain on the Farkland Islands issue.

Palin was only picked because she was a women. McCain's campaign was just so excited that Biden was picked instead of Clinton that they decided to pick her to manipulate a few women. She wasn't even vetted first.

And I honestly fail to see how that changes anything? A woman VP would be still be big, and Palin would provide the needed spark for the ticket. Granted they could go looking for a Black Republican for the ticket, but Palin's experience as a "Maverick" going after Republicans and Democrats in Alaska was a big draw for McCain.

[marioguy]

And I honestly fail to see how that changes anything? A woman VP would be still be big, and Palin would provide the needed spark for the ticket. Granted they could go looking for a Black Republican for the ticket, but Palin's experience as a "Maverick" going after Republicans and Democrats in Alaska was a big draw for McCain.

I was just saying it's manipulative, and I don't like Palin.