or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections - Page 9

post #161 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post

I read the Political Compass's defense of why they placed Obama there, and I disagree with it.  It's obvious they are biased and prefer 3rd party candidates.  Obama isn't as far into the lower left corner as I am, but he's closer to me than he is to Romney.

 

Everyone is biased. Why does their inclusion of 3rd party candidates causes you to disagree with their placement of Obama? Hundreds of thousands of people voted for 3rd party candidates on Tuesday.  46% of Americans want a 3rd party.  

 

I'm not particularly attached to the Political Compass's estimations, and aside from Gary Johnson I hadn't heard of any of these other candidates.  But I think it's important that they included Stewart Alexander on the graph; he's solidly in the lower left block, where that Socialist Devil, Barack Obama, is not. 

post #162 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post

 

It's a win because, under Romney, neither would have been safe.  Nor would a lot of other things.

 

 My interpretation: With Romney, GMOs would still be an issue, along with women's rights. Is that correct? If so, then I agree.

Question: Do you agree with Obama's decision to appoint Michael Taylor to the FDA, while on his campaign trail he made promises to change GMO policies? Do you think he's done anything wrong here?

 

Just because you prefer him to the opposing Republican, does that make what he's actually done alright?

 

Let's all relax--Romney lost, and is already ancient history. Women are safe, breathe a sigh of relief. However, why on earth does Obama get a free pass for his GMO-friendly behavior? This is a HUGE deal! Your signature says "GO Organic", and if that's true, then how can you support what Obama has done? I get it, he's better than Romney.  Let's move past that. But still, what he's done is not ok with me. I disagree with his actions concerning GMOs, and as someone who is pro-organic, how can you let this slide? Maybe GMOs are not important to you, and then this all makes sense to me--how and why you so easily dismiss this issue. 

 

This is not an unfounded attack on Obama. He has done several things that I cannot support, and GMOs are just one. You know, I do think the Michael Taylor appointment would have happened with or without Obama, no matter who was president at the time....that's how powerful I believe corporations are in the US. But, as a fact, it was Obama who appointed him. It was Obama who gave hope to the non-GMO movement, and it was Obama who went back on his promise.  I just am trying to understand why it's so easy to move past Obama's GMO mistakes.

 

To be clear, this IS an attack on Obama, BUT this would be the same attack on McCain, Bush, Romney, or Frosty the Snowman. The human being, name here, who appointed Michael Taylor to the FDA, is why I have a problem. I am trying to figure out why a go-organic person can so easily dismiss it. I don't understand.

post #163 of 172

http://www.naturalnews.com/037310_Barack_Obama_Monsanto_lobbyist.html

 

Here is a quote from the article that is interesting... "Because this is an election season, people will say, "But what about Romney? Is he any better?" I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto's man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

 

post #164 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

Why does their inclusion of 3rd party candidates causes you to disagree with their placement of Obama? 

Please read what I wrote.  It is not their inclusion of 3rd party candidates that causes me to disagree with their placement of Obama.  I read their rationale for placing Obama where they did.  It is similar to erinmattsmom's arguments in this thread that attempt to minimize the differences between Romney & Obama in order to make a case for voting third party (The Repub and Dem are exactly the same so the spoiler effect doesn't matter).  Also, I know that Obama's views are closer to mine than they are to Romney's.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 My interpretation: With Romney, GMOs would still be an issue, along with women's rights. Is that correct?

Yes.  

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Question: Do you agree with Obama's decision to appoint Michael Taylor to the FDA, while on his campaign trail he made promises to change GMO policies? Do you think he's done anything wrong here?

I disagree with the appointment, certainly.   He did do something wrong.  It's my biggest criticism of Obama.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Women are safe, breathe a sigh of relief.

Yes!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

However, why on earth does Obama get a free pass for his GMO-friendly behavior? This is a HUGE deal! Your signature says "GO Organic", and if that's true, then how can you support what Obama has done? I get it, he's better than Romney.  Let's move past that. But still, what he's done is not ok with me. I disagree with his actions concerning GMOs, and as someone who is pro-organic, how can you let this slide? Maybe GMOs are not important to you, and then this all makes sense to me--how and why you so easily dismiss this issue. 

He doesn't get a free pass.  All I ever said was that he was better than Romney.  And since Obama and Romney were my only choices, I voted for Obama.  That doesn't mean I support everything he's done.  I don't need to support everything a person has done in order to vote for that person.  I just have to think they'd be better than the alternative.  Yes, the GMO issue is a huge deal.  I agree.  I do not support what he has done on this issue.  It's not okay with me either.  I'm not letting it slide.  I'm just glad that he wasn't replaced by the worse person.  The GMO issue is very important to me.  Romney probably would have required genetically modified DNA in all municipal water supplies (yes, I'm exaggerating), as well as doing horrible things with a bunch of other issues that are just as important to me as GMOs.  I don't dismiss this issue at all.  My biggest election result disappointment was that California didn't pass their GMO labeling law.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

This is not an unfounded attack on Obama.

Nope, you've gotten your hands on a real criticism of him, for sure.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

I just am trying to understand why it's so easy to move past Obama's GMO mistakes.

I'm not moving past it.  I'm just glad about other issues and I'm glad Romney didn't win.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

I am trying to figure out why a go-organic person can so easily dismiss it. I don't understand.

 

I don't dismiss it.  Obama is just better than the other guy on other issues that I care just as much about.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 View Post


To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

 

GMOs are not the only issue in the world.  Very important, absolutely, but there are many other very important issues.  I find Obama to be *much* better than Romney where most of them are concerned.

post #165 of 172

Sustainer, thank you for taking the time to respond. We disagree on many issues, but I am glad to know that the GMO issue is important to you. This is an area where people from different political views can join together to help make a difference. I am open to any suggestions as to what we should do now. It seems like this will have to be a grassroots movement!

post #166 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Sustainer, thank you for taking the time to respond. We disagree on many issues, but I am glad to know that the GMO issue is important to you. This is an area where people from different political views can join together to help make a difference. I am open to any suggestions as to what we should do now. It seems like this will have to be a grassroots movement!

Agreed.  I think a lot of these issues are grassroots issues.  As someone who cares deeply about food and the politics of food, I think it is going to take a lot more than where a president stands on the issue.  I think that most good things have come from the bottom up, so to speak. Not enough people in America care about the GMO issue and it's likely that many people are unaware of it.  We have a huge food crisis in America, and it is not being recognized by the general public.  I think there needs to be education from the grassroots level.  The more people know, the more people will become informed, the more people will demand action from politicians.  I don't think you can expect politicians (most of them) to be versed in all the issues that important to a few that hold the knowledge.  There has to be public demand.  There has to be a resounding "No" we're not going to take this anymore.  

post #167 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

This is an area where people from different political views can join together to help make a difference. 

 

nod.gif

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

I am open to any suggestions as to what we should do now.

 

 

Well, what worked for Monsanto was to inundate people with false information.  So maybe we should try inundating people with correct information.  

 

We have, on our side, the fact that, nationwide, 90% of people want GMO labeling.  We need to loudly demand that our elected officials take action.  We need protests and we need to speak out publicly.  We need to spread the word and keep the issue alive.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

It seems like this will have to be a grassroots movement!

nod.gif

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post

I think that most good things have come from the bottom up, so to speak. Not enough people in America care about the GMO issue and it's likely that many people are unaware of it.  We have a huge food crisis in America, and it is not being recognized by the general public.  I think there needs to be education from the grassroots level.  The more people know, the more people will become informed, the more people will demand action from politicians.  I don't think you can expect politicians (most of them) to be versed in all the issues that important to a few that hold the knowledge.  There has to be public demand.  There has to be a resounding "No" we're not going to take this anymore.  

 

yeahthat.gif

post #168 of 172

I know this thread was about the 2012 elections, but now that they are over, let's talk about GMO's lol!

I thought this might be of interest:

 

Washington County Bans GMO Cultivation

http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/washington-county-bans-gmo-cultivation.html

 

Small steps!

post #169 of 172

I do think GMOs are relevant to the 2012 election discussion, since it was on the ballot in California.  I was glad to hear about the county that banned GMOs.  I hope Monsanto doesn't take them to court.

post #170 of 172

Interesting... I saw a petition on the white house website titled... "Prevent Genetically Engineered & Modified organisms from being introduced into our bodies, food supply & environment." It only has 3800+ signatures and needs 25K by December 13th... not sure why the deadline? Anyway, just thought I'd add that to the conversation. Would anything be done if it reached the 25K signatures? I'm thinking... no. But, maybe if enough people sign it, there would be hope?

post #171 of 172

If enough people sign it in time the Administration will read it and issue a response.

 

Why the deadline? I imagine they receive tons of these petitions all the time. It wouldn't be fair to the 30,000 people who signed the secession petition in the first few days after Obama was re-elected to have to compete for the Administration's attention with the petition to release the Area 51 records that's only gathered 3,000 signatures over several months.  One issue is more time-sensitive and important to more people than the other issue? I dunno.

post #172 of 172
Also you get more chances than just one. If the GMO doesn't get the 25,000 by Dec 13, someone can start a new petition that says the same thing with a new deadline. In fact, I think those will be taken more seriously, after all the secession nonesense dies down and are given responses. Keep monitoring and watching for new petitions regarding this important issue.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › Random Chatter on 2012 Presidential Elections