15 Feb 12
Originally posted by dryhumpYou are the fool. Ask a gay person in the military. DADT would have never been repealed if McCain were president instead of Obama. McCain was the leading and most vocal critic of the repeal in the Senate the last couple of years. Ask women who want judges appointed who will overturn forced sonograms, for example. Ask free thinkers and scientists distressed that Republicans are forcing the teaching of creationism on equal footing with evolution in science class in the public schools. Ask the majority of women who want the option to take the morning after pill, which would be outlawed by defining life beginning at conception as all the Republicans candidates including Paul want to do. Etc., etc.
There is no lesser of two evils in this case. If you believe there is than you are a fool.
15 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969I think the two parties agree to fight over stupid stuff like that so the electorate won't notice they've been completely excluded from issues that really matter.
Maybe so, but arguably the choice between the two parties is the choice between the lesser of two evils. Ask a gay person in the military. DADT would have never been repealed if McCain were president instead of Obama. McCain was the leading and most vocal critic of the repeal in the Senate the last couple of years. Ask women who want judges who will over ...[text shortened]... beginning at conception as all the Republicans candidates including Paul want to do. Etc., etc.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by rwingettI don't consider any of that stuff stupid, and the two parties differ on many other issues I consider important.
I think the two parties agree to fight over stupid stuff like that so the electorate won't notice they've been completely excluded from issues that really matter.
16 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAgain, maybe so. And I understand your point. But there are enough at least nuanced differences to make a decision about which of the two parties to support.
I think the two parties agree to fight over stupid stuff like that so the electorate won't notice they've been completely excluded from issues that really matter.
In the case of DADT, for example, what I have read is that DADT was evidently a huge life-impacting negative to gay people with careers in the military, much more than I had realized. Dominated their entire life and difficult to live, with some committing suicide. Thus, the repeal of DADT was an incredibly positive life-changing event for them. Thanks at least in part to President Obama. No thanks to McCain who strenously fought the repeal. Gays with military careers did not consider repeal of DADT a stupid issue. Just an example.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969Consider the amount of people you're talking about here in comparison with the general population. DADT didn't impact 99% of the population and this is supposed to be a great thing to have done for our country? I'm glad they repealed it, but listing it as a great achievement is ridiculous. Rwingett is spot on, these are distractions for the masses so they can continue to rob us blind.
Again, maybe so. And I understand your point. But there are enough at least nuanced differences to make a decision about which of the two parties to support.
In the case of DADT, for example, what I have read is that DADT was evidently a huge life-impacting negative to gay people with careers in the military, much more than I had realized. Dominated t ...[text shortened]... l. Gays with military careers did not consider repeal of DADT a stupid issue. Just an example.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by dryhumpThe greatness of repealing systematic discrimination by the US government is not dependent on the size of the minority group that was discriminated against.
Consider the amount of people you're talking about here in comparison with the general population. DADT didn't impact 99% of the population and this is supposed to be a great thing to have done for our country? I'm glad they repealed it, but listing it as a great achievement is ridiculous. Rwingett is spot on, these are distractions for the masses so they can continue to rob us blind.
16 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpIt was just an example. Another example is with the continuing election of Democrat presidents, women are less likely to have invasive restrictions on their right to choose. Forced sonograms, for instance, is big government in private lives. A real example.
Consider the amount of people you're talking about here in comparison with the general population. DADT didn't impact 99% of the population and this is supposed to be a great thing to have done for our country? I'm glad they repealed it, but listing it as a great achievement is ridiculous. Rwingett is spot on, these are distractions for the masses so they can continue to rob us blind.
There are so many examples of how the Republican party is worse than the Democrat party when it comes to our social freedom.
Overall, the more moderate jurists appointed to the federal judiciary by Democrat presidents compared to Republican presidents will affect all of us beneficially. It makes a difference. With Republican presidents and their judicial appointments, we are more prone to theocracy. A real issue.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by KunsooWow. This is big. Independents decide the election. Let's hope this trend continues, which I think it will with the economy continuing to improve.
He's losing the independents to Obama.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/independent-voters-on-the-run-from-romney-chart.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
17 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969That's interesting. Normally Republican voters are more diciplined in there voting habits than Democrats. I'm not sure if that will be the case this time however, Republican voters seem to be pretty unhappy with there choices for President this time around. I do predict Republicans will make some gains in congress however.
The question is do you vote or not vote. It would be easy to say it does not make a difference, and stay home and not vote. Your call.
For me, I choose to participate and vote straight-ticket Democrat because it inrceases the chances of of a progressive federal goverment and moderates in the federal judiciary, which I believe me and my family have benefitted.
17 Feb 12
Originally posted by bill718Unfortunately, your prediction may come true. For one, there is more Democrat senate seats in play than Republican senate seats. I hope that with the clown who emerges as the Republican nomine, the Republican electorate will be more apathetic and have a depressed turnout.
I do predict Republicans will make some gains in congress however.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 201753
18 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969It really depends on the Democrats, and what they do between now and November.
Unfortunately, your prediction may come true. For one, there is more Democrat senate seats in play than Republican senate seats. I hope that with the clown who emerges as the Republican nomine, the Republican electorate will be more apathetic and have a depressed turnout.