Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections

[Turquesa]

OK, U.S. voters. Since we've been given the green light to engage in respectful political discussion, what are your thoughts on the coming election?

Here are some discussion starters. You can run with any or none of these!

1. Whether or not you're a Republican, one *could* end up President in 2012. Whom do you think will end up running? Is there anyone you're hoping to see win the primaries?
2. If you voted for Obama, how has he measured up? Is he what you hoped for in 2008? What strategies do you think he needs to adopt to win 2012 votes?
3. What are the BIGGEST issues that will affect your voting decisions in 2012?
4. Independents, who's your candidate and why?

Sorry this isn't more focused. I'm sure our discussions will get there in the coming months!

[Imakcerka]

Ok I'll bite.  These elections make a mockery or our intelect... I'm not excited about this at all.  It's more Hollywood to me now and akin to watching Dancing with the stars hoping Nancy Grace rips through her dress.  It's all about who is the star Megalomaniac in the Circus.  Who can make people believe in them.  Since they've done such a lovely job... collectively this Disabled Veteran will not vote.  Unamerican?  Then give me back the time I served. 

[Sustainer]

I'm voting for Obama, for the same reason I've always voted for Democrats:  he's better than the Republican.  

Romney is my nightmare.  He's been Numero Uno on my s*** list since his infamous firing of the Mass. Public Health Council members in the Spring of '06 when the council tried to halt the practice of infant formula being marketed in hospital maternity wards.  (Quote from article in Mothering Magazine: "Less than two weeks later, Romney announced a deal with Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest formula manufacturer, to build a $66 million pharmaceutical plant in Devens, Massachusetts."  Coincidence?)  http://banthebags.org/27

I never expected Obama to be the messiah that many people hyped him as, so I have not been disappointed in him.  In fact, I think he has accomplished a surprising number of progressive measures, considering how much the Republicans have fought him.  

The issues I vote on are the usual suspects:  health, education, human rights, etc.

The polls are frighteningly close, so I think it's high time we had this conversation.  I hope more people will participate.

[AdinaL]

Whoa....blast from the past!  Hi Sustainer! :) Nice to see you.

I'll jump in. LOL

I voted for Obama in 2008.  Am I 100% happy?  Nah. But then I don't think I would be with anyone. I am however satisfied enough that I will vote for him again. I think he has done what he could with the amount of opposition he has faced, and I would love to see what he can do with another 4 years.

Romney makes my eye twitch.  And that's all I can say about that.

I also don't watch network TV, so I am not getting bombarded with ads, which I think lets me do my homework more, and from a lot of different sources..

But, I know I'm a big, fact liberal, so I know I am biased. ;)

[anjsmama]

I am somewhat of a political moderate, although I usually lean towards conservative and consider myself a Republican, I tend to lean heavily toward liberal when it comes to issues of human rights. 

I voted for Obama in 2008, not because I liked what he presented at all, but rather because I saw the McCain/Palin team as the world's fastest route to destroy the country. 

I will not vote for Obama in 2012. I also absolutely will not vote for Romney, who as a PP said, makes my eye twitch!  Truthfully, I was really hoping that Ron Paul would run independently if he didn't win the Republican nomination, and I think he would be one of the first outside of the two parties to have a legitimate chance. However, his campaign maintains he will not run independent. I will not try to vote "lesser of two evils" again... what a broken system.

I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 even if I have to write it in, because he is the only person in the current political system I believe has the best interests of both the people and the world in mind. He is not blind to what is happening around us, nor is he trying to cover it. In fact, he has predicted the financial collapse and the food crisis and has proposed solutions to both. He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of.  My vote probably won't "matter" in a true sense, but I won't contribute to the election of either Obama or Romney.

[imagine21]

Originally Posted by anjsmama 

Ron Paul in 2012 ...He has an open stance on health freedom as well - that Americans should be allowed to make our own choices involving food, vaccines, and medical interventions or lack there of. 

But, Ron Paul doesn't believe in women having reproductive freedom of choice.  I wouldn't call that health freedom. I could never vote for someone who is anti-choice.  I'll be voting for Obama, like I did in 2008.  Is he perfect?  No, but he beats the alternatives.

[Adaline'sMama]

I'll bite. I voted for Obama in 2008 and Ill vote for him again. Im not completely satisfied with him, but I wouldn't be completely satisfied with anyone. I honestly dont think our country is run on true democracy, and Im not a big believer in our cooperate sponsored American government, but I vote because women fought for my right to do so and I feel like if I don't get my ass to the polls they fought for absolutely nothing. I vote primarily on reproductive freedom keeping as many social services as we can- so it's pretty unlikely that a republican candidate will ever get my vote.

[MrsMike]

I voted for Obama in 2008. I will vote for Obama in 2012. I think he has done well, especially given what he has had to work with/against in Congress. The thought of a Romney presidency makes me shudder. He is bad, bad news.
 

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by imagine21 

But, Ron Paul doesn't believe in women having reproductive freedom of choice.  I wouldn't call that health freedom. I could never vote for someone who is anti-choice.  I'll be voting for Obama, like I did in 2008.  Is he perfect?  No, but he beats the alternatives.

Different strokes for different folks:) I could be et vote for a candidate who doesn't believe in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I will not vote for Obama. He supported legal infanticide as a senator, and is so deep in the pocket of Planned Parenthood it is downright sickening. He also has deliberately stepped on religious freedom rights for Catholics with the HHS Mandate.

This is NOT meant to start a debate on abortion and/or. Planned Parenthood, I am simply stating my point of view. Anyway, I will vote for Romney.

[moonshoes]

Sorry for the typos iPad keyboarding issues.

[Sustainer]

Before we start throwing around words like "infanticide" I'd like you to clarify whether we're talking about a baby that has been born and whose body is therefore independent of the mother's body.  I strongly doubt he would support the legalized termination of the life of such.

[Sustainer]

He also has deliberately stepped on religious freedom rights for Catholics with the HHS Mandate.

I'm the one paying for your health insurance so I get to dictate your medical options?  I think it's stretching it to call that religious freedom.

The patient is the one whose freedom is at stake and who should not be subject to the personal religious beliefs of the employer as far as health care options.

What if someone's religion involved the belief that women should not receive any health care at all?  Would they have the "right" to provide health insurance only for their male employees?

[moonshoes]

No, non no. You are incorrect, but this is not the place for a debate over health insurance.

Obama, as a state senator, voted against a law which would require a doctor, other than the abortionist, to determine if a baby should be given life-sustaining treatment should he/she survive an abortion. This is common in late-term abortions. But again, this is not a place to debate abortion and it is not my intention to do so. I am simply stating that while many will vote a straight pro-abortion ticket, many of us will vote pro-life.

And before you are offended by my use of "pro-abortion" - it is just as annoying when I am called"anti-choice."

[AdinaL]

Abortion debate is not allowed.  Hasn't been, for like....ever.  :)  So, let's leave that out.  

For respect's sake, and the sake of being able to continue the conversation -  stick to the terms pro-choice, pro-life.  If you have used pro-abortion/anti-life or anti-choice, please edit accordingly and ASAP.

I think another thread can be started for the discussion of health insurance - let's just keep this on the presidential candidates/election.  

[Sustainer]

Not to debate abortion itself but simply to clarify terminology:

Presumably we may say "against my right to choose" if we're not allowed to use the term "anti-choice"?  

("Anti-choice" is, at least, accurate... I don't think a person on that side of the debate would deny that they oppose women having a legal choice.)

"Pro-abortion" is inaccurate because pro-choice individuals are NOT pro-abortion.

Do you really think that "pro-life" is a neutral term?  You don't think it implies that pro-choice individuals are "anti-life"?

Personally I reserve terms like "anti-abortion" for those people who are personally against the procedure, and therefore would not have one HERSELF.  Anti-choice only describes those who think they should have the right to make that choice for all women by outlawing the procedure outright.

Originally Posted by moonshoes 
Obama, as a state senator, voted against a law which would require a doctor, other than the abortionist, to determine if a baby should be given life-sustaining treatment should he/she survive an abortion.

 

Just for clarity's sake, since infanticide is a serious charge, this is not the same as supporting infanticide. 

[AdinaL]

Extending the respect to other posters by identifying them as they choose to identify themselves goes a long way toward furthering the conversation - and ensuring that it doesn't go down in flames.

None of the terms are neutral. None.

I would say that people would argue that they are not anti-choice. In fact I have seen that very argument on this board.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by AdinaL 

Extending the respect to other posters by identifying them as they choose to identify themselves goes a long way toward furthering the conversation - and ensuring that it doesn't go down in flames.

I do see the value in that.  Of course, when the phrase "anti-choice" was used in this conversation, it was in reference to a politician, not a poster.

Originally Posted by AdinaL 

None of the terms are neutral. None.

 

I think pro-choice is pretty straightforward, and doesn't imply that those on the other side are against something they aren't against.

 

Originally Posted by AdinaL 
I would say that people would argue that they are not anti-choice. In fact I have seen that very argument on this board. 

 

Of course, some people who have an ethical problem with abortion and wouldn't have the procedure themselves are NOT anti-choice, and I don't object to calling them something else (although I wouldn't, voluntarily, call even them "pro-life" because that term would still be offensive in its implications about the other side).  But if a person's position is that women should not have a legal choice, I don't know how they could disclaim the term "anti-choice."  

 

 

I'm only posting this for the record, though.  I'm happy to let the matter drop and concede your restrictions.  Thank you for clarifying.  :)

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by Sustainer 

although I wouldn't, voluntarily, call even them "pro-life" because that term would still be offensive in its implications about the other side).  But if a person's position is that women should not have a legal choice, I don't know how they could disclaim the term "anti-choice

Either one, "pro-life" or "pro-choice" can be taken as offensive by either side. You stated that you have a hard time accepting your opposition's views as anything but "anti-choice", and yet another person can have a hard time with the fact that they feel a fetus is a life, and so therefore can't see themselves as anything but "pro-life". There's no sense arguing about people's feelings :-)

The point is to move on, use the names each groups uses to self-identify, and then have an actual conversation about the issue.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by sarafi 
another person can have a hard time with the fact that they feel a fetus is a life, and so therefore can't see themselves as anything but "pro-life". 

The problem with "pro-life" isn't that the "pro-life" people are motivated by their belief in the sanctity of life.  The problem is the implication that the people on the other side of the issue are against life.

Originally Posted by sarafi 
The point is to move on, use the names each groups uses to self-identify, and then have an actual conversation about the issue.

I already expressed my readiness to move on, abide by Adina's stipulations, and continue the conversation about the 2012 Presidential election.  

[philomom]

Love Obama. He's a smart man and a good father. He's had a tough road with the economy and the split between the houses but he's hanging in. Love that he is pro-choice and for gay marriage, too!