( Read more... )
( Read more... )
Then she was worried because of people saying "Romney's for the rich!!" (she knows this is BS, but it makes her think more people think this way than not and it will affect the outcome) I asked her where she heard this. She works at a public elementary school here on Long Island, NY, and she claimed one of the teachers said it. I had to explain to her that teachers (especially here) in public schools as a whole are liberals, and the whole teachers' union thing, etc. I told her not to listen to them. And honestly, I'd be very surprised if NY didn't go for Obama. I can't even remember the last time we went Republican in a presidential election. It might have been 1984 or 1988? So she especially shouldn't listen to people here (though she countered with "but our county is a Republican one!" But again, she hears these comments from the teachers, who are NOT Republican... *sigh*).
I cited some of the battleground state polls, how well Romney seems to be doing there, and how different things are from 2008. She just kept saying "Yeah, okay, okay..... But I really hope he gets in." I'm not sure what else I can do to put her fears to rest. Myself, I'm cautiously optimistic. Not complacent, but feeling better than I did at this time 4 years ago. I realize they can still try to pull stunts with voter intimidation and fraud, but I'm hoping Romney's margin would be big enough that they wouldn't be able to affect it. Anyone have any articles or links I could send to her to put her fears to rest? Funny, I used to be the one worrying and she'd send me stuff to make me feel better. I guess working at the school all day and hearing the leftist drivel from teachers is affecting her.
At first the story was that Ryan and his team just barreled in there without anyone's okay and the dishes they were washing were *gasp* CLEAN. It was all just a staged photo opportunity. Then Brian Antal, the President of the Mahoning County Society, came forward and said he wasn't on-site but Ryan and his group DID wash dirty dishes for several minutes. However, he stated it paled in comparison to the staff who worked hard that day to serve 180 homeless a meal that day. Antal also said that St. Vincent De Paul had no political ties and wanted to keep it that way, and the person who allowed Ryan and his group to enter had no authority to allow it nor to turn them away. Now the soup kitchen is losing donors from both sides because of the situation. (It should be noted that Antal described himself as an independent voter to the press, but has voted in Democratic primaries for the past 17 years.)
I'm just curious as to everyone's opinion on something like this - should charity work be used as a voting point? I think there's too many opportunities where politicians could take advantage of it, like this one. I would feel differently if Ryan and his staff had contacted a soup kitchen ahead of time and volunteered to serve meals AND clean-up after, with maybe a few candid photos. It's not going to change my opinion as to who could do a better job in office, but it just makes me look at them more as career politicians than people who truly are out to change this country for the better.
(Mods, could we get a Paul Ryan tag, please?)
The whole post is gold. But here's the money quote:
So while I don't agree with Romney's positions on most topics, I'm endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.
( Read more... )
I guess this is like a two-part question. There's an actor I kind of like (used to really like, but I've backed off a little mainly because the fandom is really crazy) who retweeted something that an entertainment blogger tweeted:
Romney continues adorable streak, insisting "government does not create jobs," then insisting HIS government will create jobs. #wtf #debate
My first reaction was to be a little pissed off and think "just when I couldn't lose any more respect for this guy..." He's usually the type of person who doesn't talk politics. He has made jabs at Obama at fan conventions, mainly his stimulus, and he did make a snarky comment during the primaries about Newt denying an "open" relationship but hid his affair from his wife, etc. This is a guy from Texas who for all intents and purposes is pro-gun, maybe socially liberal but I'm not really sure.
Does this tweet prove that he's in the tank for Obama? I know, I really shouldn't care, and I guess I mostly don't. But again it just grates on me to have to lose respect for yet another actor because they have to be a political moron. :P And that I'd have to stop watching their show, buying the dvds etc (even though I still like the show). How do you guys deal with being into tv shows where the actors' politics are completely opposite of yours? I guess it just makes sense to separate the person from their performance?
Sorry if this doesn't make sense... still early and I need coffee...
Now I'm over there and most of them are all harping on the fact that Obama is ahead in today's Rassmussen poll, I think 2 points ahead of Romney (although the internals don't make sense in that they're saying Romney is ahead with women while Obama is ahead with men; plus he's assuming Dems will have a bigger turnout this time... huh?). They're all saying what an awful candidate Romney is, that he'll be just like McCain and Dole in the debates, that this country is too busy loving their new "Obamaphones" and want government to take care of them and they'll all just reelect him.
This is seriously freaking me out. I just cannot think of 4 more years of Obama considering how bad things are. I know the media likes to demoralize us into not voting, a lot of the polls oversample Democrats, etc.
Yes, I know this country is vastly different now from the way it was even 20 years ago. And I know that the die-hard Obama fans will stick with him. But I'd like to think that the average Joe is a little concerned about the way things are going to want change.
I'm really worried for my future and that of my family and friends if this guy ends up being reelected. Someone please calm my fears before I slit my wrists. :(
Anyone have any flisters mentioning/bitching about this?
I have a liberal flister who is usually a very respectful person. We've agreed to disagree on a bit. But she wrote a long rant in her LJ yesterday about it. She thought it was "cruel" of Romney to say that remark about 47% of Americans wanting to be treated like victims, etc. To be honest, I scrolled right past it because I didn't feel like getting into an argument. I'd had a long day and wasn't in the mood.
Last night a British friend-of-a-friend had to make a snide remark about it though. One of my British flisters was complaining about fanfiction, and how it's annoying when people "Americanise" their characters, and what's the big deal if someone writes a fic using British spelling or colloquialisms. Her friend commented:
"And criticism because someone isn't using the proper "American" words. Well, newsflash all Americans, your language is just a worse version of "proper English" i.e BRITISH ENGLISH. So shut up!"
I seriously hate when they throw that card around, that our English is a "dumbed-down" version of their "proper" English. My friend herself challenged her a little, saying it wasn't just Americans who do it. I finally had to say something and asked her not to generalize like that. I personally don't care if I'm reading fic and it's in British English. I mean, yeah, if you're reading a published novel about American characters *in* America getting something out of the boot of their car, or giving someone a "five note", it might feel a little out of place, but that's just me. My friend later assured me that this girl was just kidding. Maybe I'm clueless, but usually when people kid on the net, they'll put something like "LOL" or ";)" or whatever.
Anyway, to get back to the whole thing about Romney's statement, that friend-of-a-friend replies to my comment with:
"Okay... I'm not doing a Mitt Romney "47% of all Americans" if that's what you're referring to, no."
Is this not a big deal at all and she's just trying to tell me she's not generalizing? Was Romney really generalizing when he made this statement? Personally I didn't really find anything wrong with it, although a few people told me there are people who are actually struggling and are part of that percentage. It's obvious what she thinks of him, but I could have done without that I think.
They have an article in their "In the News" section entitled "The Conventions' Winners and Losers." For "winners", they include the speeches of both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney (must've really pained them to include her), the "partisan cable networks" (MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned for getting the most viewers during the DNC and RNC, respectively), and Bill Clinton, natch.
For the "losers", they pick everyone on the right: "The convention bounce", as in the lack of bounce for Romney following his convention; Clint Eastwood, and Sarah Palin.
I shouldn't have been surprised, but it just pisses me off how they perpetrate this garbage to prop up Obama. Romney actually did receive a small bounce after the RNC. Most polls I saw, including Reuters/Ipsos (which has been known to tilt left) and Rassmussen, showed him with a bounce between 4 and 6 points at least. But of course the media wouldn't make any mention of it. Meanwhile, according to pollsters, Obama did receive a bounce (though some of those polls I saw were pretty suspect based on the questions asked and oversampling Democrats... in one, Romney trailed by 5 points, but was leading by double digits with Independents) but it's already fading pretty quickly. Of course they don't want us to know this either. I fired off an email to them. They'll probably laugh and delete it, but I don't care. Had to let them know that not all of their readers appreciate this.
I know, you're thinking, "Well, what do you expect from them?" I do like TV Guide for info on my shows. But again, I'm just so sick and tired of them bending over backwards to show how slanted they are and to prop up this President. *shakes head*
Disclosure: I am a Christian, and I am pro-Israel so this is a platform change of which I approve. That said, I am quite surprised at how, well, undemocratically this change was carried out.
In the video, Mayor Villaraigosa had to call for the vote three times before seeming to decide that he was going to approve the platform change whether there'd been a two-thirds aye vote or not. Obviously this platform change was a matter of major contention among the delegates. I am very surprised that a more formal vote was not carried out, given how divided the Convention seemed to be on the matter. And while I realize that these things take time, isn't this sort of boring, in-house housekeeping the actual reason these conventions happen in the first place? I know we like to pretty them up with balloons (unless we're Democrats) and confetti and music and whatever, but that stuff happens all the time. Hashing out the platform, on the other hand, doesn't come around just whenever.
I suppose, given the way they rammed through Obamacare without concern for what the country wanted, I shouldn't be too surprised, but I didn't figure they'd go all petty-dictator on one another. I would, honestly, have been disappointed in the party (more than I already am, anyway) had these changes not been made. But the way they were made feels dishonest and forced. Where do Democrats really stand on these issues and why didn't they take a more careful vote?
Edit: I have unscreened the comment by "Stan Chaz." Mods, he's your call. ;)
I have an flister who I've met in person a few times. She's a really nice girl but a very strong-minded liberal. Despite our very different political views, we get along well and don't really discuss politics. Today she made a post showing off a button a friend gave her that said "Dogs Against Romney" on it. She told us she was voting for Obama, how strongly held her beliefs are, and five reasons that she's a liberal. She said at the end that she's fine with agreeing to disagree. I told her that's what I love about her, that she can at least be respectful of opposing views. But one of her friends (who isn't on my flist) decides to say "If you have a vagina and are voting the Ronney/Ryan ticket, I judge you. I judge you hard."
It's comments like this that annoy me because they seem like they're looking for a fight. I'm sure this person thinks that not everyone on my friend's flist has the same exact beliefs. And I'm sure there are some out there, but none of the conservatives or libertarians on my flist say things like this. It always seems to be the liberals. More than four years ago a former (thank goodness) flister was ranting "I HATE THE ASSHOLES WHO VOTED FOR BUSH!"
99% of my flist are liberals, so I have a filter for political posts that includes like-minded friends. I know it's my LJ and I should be able to say whatever I want, but I don't feel like slinging mud back and forth with people I otherwise get along with. Has anyone else had to deal with such provoking garbage before? Hoping I'm not alone, lol. I have a feeling it's going to get worse as the weeks go by. *sigh*
I saw someone on my flist post this:
( Bla bla bla, Romney is evil, bla bla bla )
(Probably doesn't matter but this flister is from the UK)
Okay - first of all, I first heard about this a few months ago *at least*. It's only making the rounds on LJ now?? I guess someone's really feeling threatened by the possibility that Romney might actually defeat Obama....
I felt compelled to comment and inform her that Obama used to *eat* dog. Isn't that abuse of sorts? I'm sure they'd rebut with "Oh but that was years ago and he never said he liked it! Plus he has Bo now!" Well, this Romney thing was years ago, too. Again I'm not the biggest Romney fan and I don't condone what he did, but honestly, the one-sided drama queens just make me shake my head. I'd comment to her but she's a decent person otherwise (has never posted about politics before with the exception of her opposition to SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) and I don't feel like getting into an argument.
( One of these things is not like the other... )
There's a world of difference between a Governor investing in a corporation within his own state to ensure job creation and the President of the United States floating a company a half-million dollar loan to fulfill a lofty campaign promise. There's also a big difference in a company that goes bankrupt eight years after getting $1.5 million in state government funding and a company that goes bankrupt one year after getting $527 million in federal government funding. I just hope the American voting public is smart enough to notice the difference but if the 2008 election is any indication, they're not.
X-posted from dreadfulpenny00 and to conservatalk
Note to mods: Any way we can get hashtags for "business" and "mitt romney"? Thanks!
The world press and political leaders, shaken by the political courage and uncompromising step, said that this is the dawn of the new historic era. Well, not everyone, but those who are worthy of attention.
My comments are as follows:
1. Obama had to gather all his glorious courage into a fist, all his qualities of a leader and to finally join Dick Cheney on this topic.
2. A spokesman for Vice President Biden announced that Obama was leading on this issue from day one. That's after Biden apologized for forcing Obama to announce his decision before Obama was ready.
3. This incredibly bold decision might cost him at least a dozen votes.
4. But this is unlikely, given that Obama has just explained that he would not insist that the party should do something about it.
Obama is now in a position where he is struggling to avoid things like the pre-election debates on the state of the economy. And he frantically throws into the furnace any topic that he can hang on to. Free condoms for women! Burned. Romney does not like dogs! Oops. Julie's Life! Mega-ups. Well ... Well ... Oh! I support gay marriage!
I think there are enough distraction topics to last for a month at most. And then what?
The past month has been crazy to say the least for Republican Congressmen and their supporters, and most notably for right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh, whose admittedly vitriolic words toward Sandra Fluke opened a Pandora's Box in the midst of the Presidential campaign season. Several companies have expressed their desire to keep mentions of their company off the airwaves during Limbaugh's radio broadcasts, though it doesn't seem his program has suffered because of it. Now Democrats have decided to strike while the iron is hot by introducing legislation that they think Republicans will refuse:
Democrats, confident they have the political upper hand with women, insist that Republican opposition falls into a larger picture of insensitivity toward women that has progressed from abortion fights to contraception to preventive health care coverage — and now to domestic violence.Democrats are claiming that Republicans are waging a "war on women" but it seems to me that the real warmongers are the Democrats, attempting to use women as pawns on their re-election chessboard.
Some conservatives are feeling trapped.Does ice cream melt in the sun?
“I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”
The two provisions that Republican legislators disagree with are the provisions allowing battered illegal immigrants to apply for temporary visas (which some believe would creates loopholes in the immigration process) and the provision which would include same-sex couples in dometic violence programs and afford them the same protections. (On a personal note, I see nothing wrong with same-sex couples receiving help in domestic violence situations. However I don't think temporary visas should be granted to immigrants in domestic violence situations, but they should also receive services and protection while they get their affairs in order, whatever the outcome may be.)
The question is will this strategy work? A Wall Street Journal/ABC News poll showed Obama's approval among women rose 14 points from 40% in December to 54% in February. It should be noted that the poll was administered between February 16 and February 20, before Sandra Fluke was even on the national radar. However, a New York Times/CBS News poll (with the poll administered between March 7 and March 11) shows Obama's approval among women dropped 12 points, nearly to its December numbers.
(x-posted from mividaloca99