Aren’t Romney’s foreign affairs advisers the same as W’s?
Yeah, no great surprise to most people here that I’m going to vote for Obama. Now I wouldn’t really have big concerns with the kind of Mitt Romney that Governed Massachussetts. But I don’t think he can do that. The right wing of the Republican party has basically just gone insane, and they are esentially taking over the Republicans, and Mitt has basically had to disavow most of his sensible ideas in order to be Republicanable.
There are liberal wackos in the Democratic party too, but they’re not actually in charge of things.
Here’s someone else’s endorsement that does as good a job (or better) of summarizing my position than I could do myself:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/29/the-scalzi-endorsement-obama-for-president/
So you would have supported amending the US Constitution to allow the president to serve more than 2 consecutive terms and would have voted GWB a third term since he would have had 8 years experience compared to Obama’s 0 years of experience?
Ever hear of Nancy Pelosi?
Not the one you’re referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH9YhNLS-mw
How do I post the youtube to be viewed as a reply? Go to 2:20.
Not necessarily. I’m just saying that all else equal, non-zero job experience can be better than zero job experience.
My take on it is that Romney takes a harder line on middle eastern positions and conflicts than Obama does.
I don’t feel that the presidential position really has the ability to impact the economy and federal deficit, I believe they are largely neutered by the Congressional process and whatever they promise now will most likely only come to fruition far down the road and in a watered down form devoid of impact. This is the way of Washington.
Other exceedingly pointless candidate issues are abortion and religion which I can’t believe are even being discussed today. My parents are very Republican and will never support a president who supports abortion as part of their personal views. I think that’s a pretty dumb line to take. As a practical matter, the legalization of abortion will NEVER be overturned, simple facts of life, people need to accept this and vote for candidates based on issues they actually may impact. For instance, if a President shares your views on the legalization of lightsabers and hoverboards, but has very different views on foreign policy, it would be narrow minded to vote purely based on the former while ignoring the latter, which sometimes happens.
I do however, feel that the President plays a significant role in military and foreign policy as well as the declaration of war. Therefore, you can debate each candidates ideology and fiscal policy as well as their view on abortion and belief in God till you’re blue in the face and I simply don’t care. I don’t want another trillion dollar war in a sandpit, and I’ll support the President least likely to give me one.
Ok, Nancy Pelosi says some stupid things like:
“I believe in natural gas a a clean, safe alternative to fossil fuels.” Okay, dumb. But, as with Romney, more misspeaking that saying something crazy. Remove “alternative to” and I agree with her.
Trent Franks (R-AZ) says of Obama:
“He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.”
Rand Paul says on Obama:
“I garuantee it’s one of his long term goals, to have one sort of borderless mass continent.”
Michelle Bachman says:
“We will talk a little bit about what has transpired in the last 18 months and would we count what has transpired into turning our country into a nation of slaves.”
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), member of the Tea Party Caucus, shouting at Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI):
“Baby Killer!”
I mean, I’m a pragmatist and and I value knowledge and logic. The Republican party is now the least pragmatic and most anti-logic I have ever seen it. I’m not that old, but I am open minded and I have voted for both parties in the past. Right now, the Reps just scare me sh!tless.
by obama …are we talking about the kenyan fascist or a mistaken irishman o’bama??
doesnt pelosi claim to hear from or speak to ghosts?
Perhaps wacko is the wrong word for Rep. Pelosi, but you can hardly call her moderate considering her voting record. According to the Washington Post’s database, she has voted with the party 96% of her tenure and is perfect this session on 108 votes. Her ethics leave a lot to be desired as well and she has been the official face of the democratic party in the House for years. Only 4 or 5 house members are more “loyal” to their party over their tenures.
Voting with your party when you’re the party leader (you were saying that she was running things, right) is not proof of non-moderation.
If you’re a party leader, then it is expected that you are going to be lining up your party in order to get them to vote coherently, and you’re either going to be agreeing with them, or you’re going to be trying to organize them to agree with your perspective. That’s what being a leader is. If you’re not doing that, then you’re really just a party secretary (ironically, lots of dictators have the title “party secretary,” but that’s something different).
Or are you just arguing that it’s not moderate because it’s a Democratic position. If you think being a moderate means “finding the midpoint between two opposing poles and opportunistically planting yourself there,” then you should take a peek at David Brooks’s editorial last week. A fine example of a Republican moderate.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_21862503/david-brooks-what-moderation-means
Why is american politics so much more fun than the rest of us?
I thought Greek politics were pretty fun, with that neo Nazi party proposing land mines and slapping people on TV.
Unless Pelosi wanted to lead an effort to work across the aisle and actually get shit done. There’s no denying she’s a leader. She’s just sucks at it.
There is a hollywood glitz to the democratic/republican conventions that is simply not there anywhere else…maybe the saying that ‘politics is hollywood with ugly people’ is true…haha
I used to be neutral on abortion before I read Freakonomics. They convinced me that women that get aborted have a higher chance of raising criminal children if abortion was not an option. Maybe you should read that chapter to your parents.
A women that was aborted wouldn’t be alive to have a child???
Freakonomics states that you can see a decrease in crime when you allow abortions, because you have less unwanted children born into poverty. Some other economists argue with the finding and have done their own research, but it is interesting to contemplate.