US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[maiforpeace]

Well there are advantages to being as bland a candidate as Mitt Romney. At least little old ladies don't die from excitement shortly after hugging him

Yeah, but we'll also never know if they simply wither away in boredom.

[Hermit]

Well there are advantages to being as bland a candidate as Mitt Romney. At least little old ladies don't die from excitement shortly after hugging him

Thanks for that exceedingly witty comment.

Overall, women have little attraction for him for other reasons either. Romney's policies in relation to them includes the outlawing of all abortions, even of terminating pregnancies that are the result of rape and incest. He also intends to stop planned parenthood programs.Apart from that, Romney also said: "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. ... We have a very ample safety net. And we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor." Meanwhile, the current Republican policy is to cut the budgets of all of them. If I were a woman living in the US, I'd seriously explore the possibility of getting the fuck out of the country if he looked like winning the election.

[Warren Dew]

Well there are advantages to being as bland a candidate as Mitt Romney. At least little old ladies don't die from excitement shortly after hugging him

Thanks for that exceedingly witty comment.

Overall, women have little attraction for him for other reasons either. Romney's policies in relation to them includes the outlawing of all abortions, even of terminating pregnancies that are the result of rape and incest.

Sounds like you're buying propaganda from the guy who signed the biggest ever restriction on women's reproductive choice, the Stupak amendment, into law. Prolife groups actually favor Obama because he's actually more antichoice than Romney:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion

He also intends to stop planned parenthood programs.

Stopping the public funding of Planned Parenthood is long overdue. They had no problem surviving on contributions back when they actually championed abortion choice, and they'd have no problem surviving without public funds again if they would return to that purpose.

[Hermit]

Overall, women have little attraction for him for other reasons either. Romney's policies in relation to them includes the outlawing of all abortions, even of terminating pregnancies that are the result of rape and incest.

Sounds like you're buying propaganda from the guy who signed the biggest ever restriction on women's reproductive choice, the Stupak amendment, into law. Prolife groups actually favor Obama because he's actually more antichoice than Romney:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion

Which end of your anatomy are you talking out of?

Obama on abortion, in, of all places, an interview conducted by a prominent god-botherer and originally published by Godtube: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade." During that interview he does say there should be limits on late-term abortions. Well, duh. The Stupak Amendment removes Medicare subsidies from abortions. That is a bad move in my opinion, but Romney goes one huge step further; he is going to make abortions illegal.

He also intends to stop planned parenthood programs.

Stopping the public funding of Planned Parenthood is long overdue. They had no problem surviving on contributions back when they actually championed abortion choice, and they'd have no problem surviving without public funds again if they would return to that purpose.

Who was talking about the Planned Parenthood organisation? I thought I said - and Romney meant - planned parenthood programs. Even if I am wrong, organisations that assist with the implementation of contraceptive measures, but not abortion, are better than no family planning organisations at all. As for their government funding, you're talking as a Libertarian, right?

Romney also said: "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. ... We have a very ample safety net. And we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor." Meanwhile, the current Republican policy is to cut the budgets of all of them. If I were a woman living in the US, I'd seriously explore the possibility of getting the fuck out of the country if he looked like winning the election.

I note that you have nothing to say about that. The poor among the women most likely do.

[Warren Dew]

Obama on abortion, in, of all places, an interview conducted by a prominent god-botherer and originally published by Godtube: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade." During that interview he does say there should be limits on late-term abortions. Well, duh. The Stupak Amendment removes Medicare subsidies from abortions.

The Stupak amendment prohibits any health insurance offered through the Obamacare exchanges from covering abortions. Obamacare also requires individuals and small businesses to buy health insurance through the exchanges, thus prohibiting them from buying abortion coverage.

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you believe what the politicians say, while I look at what they actually do.

Edit:

I note that you have nothing to say about that.

I'm don't really have the time for an extended discussion at the moment, but Romney is correct. People on the various quite generous forms of welfare in the U.S. are about the only class of people in the U.S. who have not suffered under the Obama economy. The rest of us are having to do with less, so I don't have a problem if they have to tighten their belts a bit as well. If we're going to "spread the wealth around", we can darn well spread the pain around too.

[Hermit]

Obama on abortion, in, of all places, an interview conducted by a prominent god-botherer and originally published by Godtube: "I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade." During that interview he does say there should be limits on late-term abortions. Well, duh. The Stupak Amendment removes Medicare subsidies from abortions.

The Stupak amendment prohibits any health insurance offered through the Obamacare exchanges from covering abortions. Obamacare also requires individuals and small businesses to buy health insurance through the exchanges, thus prohibiting them from buying abortion coverage.

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you believe what the politicians say, while I look at what they actually do.

At this stage we only have proposed policies, and we do know this: Obama wants to exclude abortions from health insurance. Romney wants to make them illegal. The former increases the cost for those who want abortions. The latter makes them, and those who perform those operations, likely to go to gaol, resulting in backyard abortions. Bring back the coathanger, right?

[Warren Dew]

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you believe what the politicians say, while I look at what they actually do.

At this stage we only have proposed policies, and we do know this: Obama wants to exclude abortions from health insurance. Romney wants to make them illegal. The former increases the cost for those who want abortions. The latter makes them, and those who perform those operations, likely to go to gaol, resulting in backyard abortions. Bring back the coathanger, right?

First off, I've never seen anything but your unsupported assertion about Romney's position. That's why I didn't find it worth answering.

Secondly and more importantly, Romney does have a record on abortion, as governor of Massachusetts. As governor, he was very careful neither to expand nor contract abortion rights. It's very likely he'd do the same as president.

You're also wrong about Obama. He has already excluded abortions from health insurance. If I were going to go back to contract software, for example, as I hope to do, I'd have to get one of those health insurance plans that excludes abortion coverage for my wife, because Massachusetts has already switched to Obamacare exchanges for individuals and small businesses.

[Hermit]

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you believe what the politicians say, while I look at what they actually do.

At this stage we only have proposed policies, and we do know this: Obama wants to exclude abortions from health insurance. Romney wants to make them illegal. The former increases the cost for those who want abortions. The latter makes them, and those who perform those operations, likely to go to gaol, resulting in backyard abortions. Bring back the coathanger, right?

First off, I've never seen anything but your unsupported assertion about Romney's position. That's why I didn't find it worth answering.

What was your previous post about then? Anyway, support for my assertion, right out of the horse's mouth.

Secondly and more importantly, Romney does have a record on abortion, as governor of Massachusetts. As governor, he was very careful neither to expand nor contract abortion rights. It's very likely he'd do the same as president.

Meanwhile, we have his policy announcement. It is worse than Obama's. Whether either of them will actually implement it is not really that relevant. If I were one of the 40 million US women who each year stood the chance to be made a criminal for having an abortion if Romney got elected, I'd have second thoughts about voting for him.

[Warren Dew]

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you believe what the politicians say, while I look at what they actually do.

At this stage we only have proposed policies, and we do know this: Obama wants to exclude abortions from health insurance. Romney wants to make them illegal. The former increases the cost for those who want abortions. The latter makes them, and those who perform those operations, likely to go to gaol, resulting in backyard abortions. Bring back the coathanger, right?

First off, I've never seen anything but your unsupported assertion about Romney's position. That's why I didn't find it worth answering.

What was your previous post about then? Anyway, support for my assertion, right out of the horse's mouth.

There's nothing in that link about abortion.

Secondly and more importantly, Romney does have a record on abortion, as governor of Massachusetts. As governor, he was very careful neither to expand nor contract abortion rights. It's very likely he'd do the same as president.

Meanwhile, we have his policy announcement. It is worse than Obama's. Whether either of them will actually implement it is not really that relevant. If I were one of the 40 million US women who each year stood the chance to be made a criminal for having an abortion if Romney got elected, I'd have second thoughts about voting for him.

His nonexistent policy announcement, evidently.

[Hermit]

Looking at previous posts of yours, it seems that unsupported assertions only prevent you from replying when it's inconvenient to take a stance. Nevertheless, here it is - once again right out of the horse's mouth. Romney describes himself as "firmly pro life" and wants to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision. The latter, of course is a copout for not taking responsibility for the fact that at least half the states will make abortion criminal once again. What the fuck does he expect will happen if the supreme court's decision is reversed? Nothing to do with him? Nothing to do with his "firmly pro life" stance? Get real.

[Warren Dew]

Looking at previous posts of yours, it seems that unsupported assertions only prevent you from replying when it's inconvenient to take a stance.

Of course. When something can be answered in a one line response that only takes five seconds, I'm a lot more likely to make that response than when it takes half an hour of careful writing.

Nevertheless, here it is - once again right out of the horse's mouth. Romney describes himself as "firmly pro life" and wants to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision. The latter, of course is a copout for not taking responsibility for the fact that at least half the states will make abortion criminal once again. What the fuck does he expect will happen if the supreme court's decision is reversed? Nothing to do with him? Nothing to do with his "firmly pro life" stance? Get real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_XFyvcWG5g

Thanks for finally providing a relevant link.

In the video, Romney says he's "firmly pro life" but then says "good people come out on both sides of this issue." Those aren't a policy statements, they're personal statements. It's like Reagan's statement that he was pro life before he nominated Justice O'Connor, who went on to staunchly defend abortion choice for decades on the bench.

The president doesn't get to overturn Supreme Court decisions, so it's highly doubtful that this stance will result in any change to the legality of abortions. That's far preferable to the restrictions on actual availability of abortions that has happened under Obama.

That said, Romney does make a policy statement in this clip, and it's not to get rid of abortions; it's to return the decision to the state. So even if we assume that Romney will be an all powerful President who gets everything he wants, unlike every other president in history, here are our choices:

Under Obama, abortions are already prohibited from being covered under a growing proportion of health care plans. This will eventually lead to legal abortion clinics going out of business due to lack of payment, and abortion being unavailable to most Americans.

Under Romney, health care plans are allowed to cover abortions in states where it is legal. True, legal abortions will be unavailable in some states, but those will be states where the majority of the people are antiabortion anyway, and you can always drive to another state to get the abortion, since Romney will permit interstate competition in medical coverage. And for most people who are prochoice, they will live in states that allow abortion, and unlike what has actually happened under Obama, abortion will be available and covered by their health care plans under Romney.

The bottom line is, abortion will be more available under Romney than Obama even under the worst case assumptions - and under more realistic assumptions, it will continue to be legal in all states and will be covered by insurance, which will make it financially available to people who won't be able to get it under Obamacare.

[Coito ergo sum]

At a campaign stop in Ohio on Friday, Obama actually said we’re still “heading in the right direction.” Is he kidding? As a stagnant GDP drops below 2 percent, employment falters, retail sales decline, and the ISM index for manufacturing drops below 50 (signaling contraction)? No objective observer can deny that the economy is headed in the wrong direction.

I don’t like playing the pessimist, but the numbers are the numbers. This is exactly what former Clinton advisers James Carville, Doug Schoen, and Stanley Greenberg have been warning Obama about. People just don’t believe the economy is getting better. So he’s gotta change his message.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... rry-kudlow

[Ian]

More fair and objective reporting from the National Review.

[Tyrannical]

What an interesting political cycle this is turning out to be

Obama has lost his luster, and Romney never excited anyone. Both sides are motivated much more by dislike for the others policies than excitement for their candidate.

[Coito ergo sum]

More fair and objective reporting from the National Review.

It was a freelance opinion piece by Kudlow.