On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote: Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Romney and Obama are well-suited for each other. Two empty suits that can change their positions at any time depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls.
Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite.
Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to?
Of course the two ideas are complementary. That's why you can't support one and not the other without being a hypocrite, as I said.
If you look at Obama's and Romney's records you will see that they are not much different. If you look at their rhetoric then you will think they are very different. But everyone knows their rhetoric is bull. The only winner in this election will be the status quo.
They are not contradictory, you can mock the Reasons or Basis (or lack of) for their fear mongering whilst simultaneously sharing the consideration that Obama may achieve more in his second term.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
Yes, I dispute that. I believe he has supported gay marriage for quite some time (if not always), but the political environment in the US did not allow him to take a firm stand on the issue without risking losing important votes. I don't consider it shallow or cynical to be forced to stay temporarily silent on certain subjects (and yet work in favor of the positions we hold) in order to be able to achieve greater good.
The whole "Bush is stupid" thing came in part from the fact that he was a terrible speaker, and his southern accent didn't help. The other part was really to do with attacks from his opponents. In reality, Bush is a really smart guy; educated at both Yale and Harvard in fact. If you look at some of his political moves and some of the political rangling he did while in office; it's pretty clear he was no dumb guy. He just had a bad tendency to say really dumb things and trip over his words.
It's kind of absurd to say a country should support X politician because they appear more charismatic. There are some major domestic issues at odds in this election, not the least of which is the healthcare law. This election is going to be huge in determining the future direction of US domestic politics for the next decade easily. It's in many ways the opposite of the situation with Sarkozy and Hollande, in fact.
Well then it seems logical that I favor Obama since I favored Hollande. But you say appearances don't matter, and I strongly disagree with you. First the US has such a huge influence over the state of the world than anything that is done there is amplified tenfold here. So when a US president talks about an axis of evil, associate terrorism with middle east, and so on, he is at least partially responsible for a whole cultural crisis and stigma of western v.s. middle east. Obama has maybe done a lot of bad things, but the way he appeared during the crisis actually was inspiring, as the vast majority of EU just copied his bailout plan (if I am mistaken about something, please correct me).
In general, politics is first and foremost about appearances, and when your every move is analyzed criticized and acted upon by a huge number of countries, I think the way Obama appears actually matters a lot.
The bank bailout plan was actually initiated by Bush, the General Motors bailout was Obama. The latter having more to do with union support than anything.
Listen, I get it that rhetoric has an impact, and Obama has clearly made an effort to discontinue the use of terms like "islamic fascism". But I don't see how changing rhetoric helps when his actions betray that rhetoric. Obama started a second middle eastern war (third war in total), and has continued virually all of Bush's policies concerning the War on Terror including the detainment of individuals at Guantanamo Bay--which he expressly said he would not--and drone strikes into Pakistan which Bush was criticized for. The only difference is the Obama administration no longer calls it the War on Terror.
He also actually ended our involvement in Iraq and has set a firm date to end involvement in Afghanistan. You forgot those.
Obama's not an idiot. The Democrats obviously scrambled to do polling once Biden made his statements and you can guarantee that Obama would not have come out to endorse it if they weren't showing that the demographics have changed on this issue and that due to the increase in Generation Y'ers becoming eligible to vote, that it was electorally wise to endorse same sex marriage. Even a lot of younger people in Churches these days are not following in the footsteps of their bigoted/irrational elders in their views towards homosexuals.
What makes me cringe is how Obama explains it - how it was due to him talking to his friends and family blah blah blah. For once I just want to hear a politician say: "Yeah, truth be told I've always held the view that Christians who are against gay marriage are retarded but I needed to be careful not to alienate any of them when I first ran for President which is why I pretended to believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman and was willing to sacrifice the rights of the homosexuals but now that I'm President and people no longer have to consider me a 'risk' in order to be elected for a second term I can take this political gamble and endorse gay marriage now because gay marriage is now more generally accepted by the public and only a minority of Bible thumping evangelicals whose votes I was unlikely to win anyway are going to get their hypocritical holier than thou panties in a twist about it."
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
Yes, I dispute that. I believe he has supported gay marriage for quite some time (if not always), but the political environment in the US did not allow him to take a firm stand on the issue without risking losing important votes. I don't consider it shallow or cynical to be forced to stay temporarily silent on certain subjects (and yet work in favor of the positions we hold) in order to be able to achieve greater good.
Leave it to kwizach to spin being a pussy and not standing up for your own principals as a good thing. Such a cheerleader. I'll just point out that American voters have fairly consistently punished politicians that do this.
For what it's worth, I think you're exactly right when you say that Obama has supported gay marriage for a long time.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
Yes, I dispute that. I believe he has supported gay marriage for quite some time (if not always), but the political environment in the US did not allow him to take a firm stand on the issue without risking losing important votes. I don't consider it shallow or cynical to be forced to stay temporarily silent on certain subjects (and yet work in favor of the positions we hold) in order to be able to achieve greater good.
Leave it to kwizach to spin being a pussy and not standing up for your own principals as a good thing. Such a cheerleader. I'll just point out that American voters have fairly consistently punished politicians that do this.
I don't know about you but you've pretty much just explained why that if Romney loses, that will be the reason.
On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote: Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in. Romney and Obama are well-suited for each other. Two empty suits that can change their positions at any time depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I have a lot more respect for people like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Even if some of their ideas are ridiculous, at least they will stand behind them even though they will be hurt in the polls.
Bill Maher mocks Republicans by saying they live in a bubble for believing Obama is a radical when his policies have been centrist. But if you listen to both sides, the liberals believe it too. Whenever Obama takes a position like anti-gay marriage or anti-marijuana they say he is "forced into the position" and that he will have more flexibility in his second term. You can't mock the Republicans for fear mongering about Obama's second term while at the same time believing that Obama will be able to do a lot more in his second term. That would make one a hypocrite.
Please explain why these two ideas do not go together, they seem rather complementary. You seem to assume that Romney and Obama are entirely alike, and yet you back this assertion up with very little in the way of concrete evidence. And if you look at their political platforms issue by issue, even historically, it becomes quite clear that both men have entirely different ideas of what political solvency means. Who exactly are you listening to?
Of course the two ideas are complementary. That's why you can't support one and not the other without being a hypocrite, as I said.
If you look at Obama's and Romney's records you will see that they are not much different. If you look at their rhetoric then you will think they are very different. But everyone knows their rhetoric is bull. The only winner in this election will be the status quo.
You say that, but what have you in the way of evidence? They both come from very different places, with very different sentiments on a variety of policies/issues. Both have changed positions on certain things given issues of political climate, but that hardly makes them "not much different". In fact, I think a good case can be made for arguing that Romney's total 360 on a healthcare reform program that is almost the same as his Massachusetts initiative all in the name of Republican consensus puts him on a different level of flippancy. In any case, an insistence on the two being overtly similar is simply lazy, nothing is so simple, especially in politics.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
Yes, I dispute that. I believe he has supported gay marriage for quite some time (if not always), but the political environment in the US did not allow him to take a firm stand on the issue without risking losing important votes. I don't consider it shallow or cynical to be forced to stay temporarily silent on certain subjects (and yet work in favor of the positions we hold) in order to be able to achieve greater good.
Leave it to kwizach to spin being a pussy and not standing up for your own principals as a good thing. Such a cheerleader. I'll just point out that American voters have fairly consistently punished politicians that do this.
I don't know about you but you've pretty much just explained why that if Romney loses, that will be the reason.
Believe me, I agree. Romney is very weak on this same point. However, I still think that Americans' desire to get rid of Obama will carry the day, despite any misgivings that they have for Romney.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
There's nothing laughable or shallow about it. Given how closely the polls are predicting this election to be, gay marraige could be the issue that loses Obama the election if independents reject his stance. Granted, it could also enpower gay rights activists to fill up Obama's campaign fund with much needed cash. It's hard to say right now what effect this will have, but I think it's clear that it will have an effect.
Most stances candidates take in the election are carefully calculated manuevers, in this case though this was critical mess cleanup. Still though, there's nothing shallow about it, it's politics. I'll say again, I really think Obama does support same sex marraige, Biden just forced him into admitting it.
Not going to happen. I think a lot of independents are right leaners but cringe at the social conservatism. His statement there actually gives him a lot of credibility, and is actually making me think of voting for him (I work for the GOP, to give that context). I was concerned about Obama coming in, but he's done a pretty damn good job outside of healthcare (namely foreign policy). Had Romney not bowed to social conservatives, I would have voted for him. But I doubt that now. I think Obama will dominate the independent vote come election time. He's earned it.
I don't like the tip-toeing, but his blunt statements about his concerns surrounding it are credible to me.
Also, voting for someone for being charismatic is stupid: Hitler was the most charismatic politician ever (so I understand). look where that went.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
Yes, I dispute that. I believe he has supported gay marriage for quite some time (if not always), but the political environment in the US did not allow him to take a firm stand on the issue without risking losing important votes. I don't consider it shallow or cynical to be forced to stay temporarily silent on certain subjects (and yet work in favor of the positions we hold) in order to be able to achieve greater good.
Leave it to kwizach to spin being a pussy and not standing up for your own principals as a good thing. Such a cheerleader. I'll just point out that American voters have fairly consistently punished politicians that do this.
I don't know about you but you've pretty much just explained why that if Romney loses, that will be the reason.
Believe me, I agree. Romney is very weak on this same point. However, I still think that Americans' desire to get rid of Obama will carry the day, despite any misgivings that they have for Romney.
Desire to get rid of him? His approvale rating is near 50%. I think this week it is currently 48%. Although approval rating doesn't really matter much in the election up until the final few weeks, I think the current approval rating doesn't suggest that the entire country wants to get rid of him for Romney.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
There's nothing laughable or shallow about it. Given how closely the polls are predicting this election to be, gay marraige could be the issue that loses Obama the election if independents reject his stance. Granted, it could also enpower gay rights activists to fill up Obama's campaign fund with much needed cash. It's hard to say right now what effect this will have, but I think it's clear that it will have an effect.
Most stances candidates take in the election are carefully calculated manuevers, in this case though this was critical mess cleanup. Still though, there's nothing shallow about it, it's politics. I'll say again, I really think Obama does support same sex marraige, Biden just forced him into admitting it.
Not going to happen. I think a lot of independents are right leaners but cringe at the social conservatism. His statement there actually gives him a lot of credibility, and is actually making me think of voting for him (I work for the GOP, to give that context). I was concerned about Obama coming in, but he's done a pretty damn good job outside of healthcare (namely foreign policy). Had Romney not bowed to social conservatives, I would have voted for him. But I doubt that now. I think Obama will dominate the independent vote come election time. He's earned it.
I don't like the tip-toeing, but his blunt statements about his concerns surrounding it are credible to me.
Also, voting for someone for being charismatic is stupid: Hitler was the most charismatic politician ever (so I understand). look where that went.
A better case could be made for Napoleon I'd say, as Hitler's rise had a great deal to do with the political/social climate of Germany, while Napoleon was known for being to totally change people's minds with a single conversation.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
There's nothing laughable or shallow about it. Given how closely the polls are predicting this election to be, gay marraige could be the issue that loses Obama the election if independents reject his stance. Granted, it could also enpower gay rights activists to fill up Obama's campaign fund with much needed cash. It's hard to say right now what effect this will have, but I think it's clear that it will have an effect.
Most stances candidates take in the election are carefully calculated manuevers, in this case though this was critical mess cleanup. Still though, there's nothing shallow about it, it's politics. I'll say again, I really think Obama does support same sex marraige, Biden just forced him into admitting it.
Not going to happen. I think a lot of independents are right leaners but cringe at the social conservatism. His statement there actually gives him a lot of credibility, and is actually making me think of voting for him (I work for the GOP, to give that context). I was concerned about Obama coming in, but he's done a pretty damn good job outside of healthcare (namely foreign policy). Had Romney not bowed to social conservatives, I would have voted for him. But I doubt that now. I think Obama will dominate the independent vote come election time. He's earned it.
I don't like the tip-toeing, but his blunt statements about his concerns surrounding it are credible to me.
Also, voting for someone for being charismatic is stupid: Hitler was the most charismatic politician ever (so I understand). look where that went.
A better case could be made for Napoleon I'd say, as Hitler's rise had a great deal to do with the political/social climate of Germany, while Napoleon was known for being to totally change people's minds with a single conversation.
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
Yes, I dispute that. I believe he has supported gay marriage for quite some time (if not always), but the political environment in the US did not allow him to take a firm stand on the issue without risking losing important votes. I don't consider it shallow or cynical to be forced to stay temporarily silent on certain subjects (and yet work in favor of the positions we hold) in order to be able to achieve greater good.
Leave it to kwizach to spin being a pussy and not standing up for your own principals as a good thing. Such a cheerleader. I'll just point out that American voters have fairly consistently punished politicians that do this.
For what it's worth, I think you're exactly right when you say that Obama has supported gay marriage for a long time.
Leave it to xDaunt to automatically discard opinions that don't fit his views. Oh well, since you have a tendency to discard facts, I guess discarding opinions is at least an improvement.
In case you didn't notice, he was already acting on his principles - see the repeal of DADT and the abandonment of the defense of the DOMA. My point was that if there was a good chance he would not get elected for his position on gay marriage, I'd rather he not express it publicly and still work for the cause than fail to get elected and have a Republican win instead, since the said Republican would be way worse both for the cause and for literally everything else.
Obama's not an idiot. The Democrats obviously scrambled to do polling once Biden made his statements and you can guarantee that Obama would not have come out to endorse it if they weren't showing that the demographics have changed on this issue and that due to the increase in Generation Y'ers becoming eligible to vote, that it was electorally wise to endorse same sex marriage. Even a lot of younger people in Churches these days are not following in the footsteps of their bigoted/irrational elders in their views towards homosexuals.
What makes me cringe is how Obama explains it - how it was due to him talking to his friends and family blah blah blah. For once I just want to hear a politician say: "Yeah, truth be told I've always held the view that Christians who are against gay marriage are retarded but I needed to be careful not to alienate any of them when I first ran for President which is why I pretended to believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman and was willing to sacrifice the rights of the homosexuals but now that I'm President and people no longer have to consider me a 'risk' in order to be elected for a second term I can take this political gamble and endorse gay marriage now because gay marriage is now more generally accepted by the public and only a minority of Bible thumping evangelicals whose votes I was unlikely to win anyway are going to get their hypocritical holier than thou panties in a twist about it."
That's an interesting point, but I'm not so sure you're right. Democrats (and republicans) have been doing demographic polling all along, if they had seen that it was beneficial to take a stance in favor of same sex marraige Obama would have done it already. The fact that he didn't--when his liberal allies have been criticizing him for it all along--strongly suggests that the electoral data was not in favor of doing so. I think Obama and his advisors looked at the situation and decided that the fallout from ongoing drama and speculation about Biden's opinions would be worse than and damages caused by endorsing it.
His explanation wasn't real, it was a hastily assembled list of talking points with the purpose of explaining away his apparent "flip flop" on the issue. If he used the explanation you suggested, there would be a number of groups out there who would be hitting him hard about doing a 180 on the issue. As it stands, politically it was his only option. Again, this was a very bad situation that Biden got them into. The upside is that it may stimulate some fundraising for him, which might offset the damage that this gaffe caused.
Also, there are people who oppose same sex marrage on grounds other than religion, and not everyone who does oppose it on the grounds of religion are bigots. It's not about denying people their civil rights, but rather it's about what some people would term "traditional values".
On May 10 2012 04:57 xDaunt wrote: Regardless of what you actually think about the issue (I personally don't really give a shit one way or the other), does anyone really dispute that Obama's evolving stance on gay marriage is laughably shallow and political cynicism on parade?
There's nothing laughable or shallow about it. Given how closely the polls are predicting this election to be, gay marraige could be the issue that loses Obama the election if independents reject his stance. Granted, it could also enpower gay rights activists to fill up Obama's campaign fund with much needed cash. It's hard to say right now what effect this will have, but I think it's clear that it will have an effect.
Most stances candidates take in the election are carefully calculated manuevers, in this case though this was critical mess cleanup. Still though, there's nothing shallow about it, it's politics. I'll say again, I really think Obama does support same sex marraige, Biden just forced him into admitting it.
Not going to happen. I think a lot of independents are right leaners but cringe at the social conservatism. His statement there actually gives him a lot of credibility, and is actually making me think of voting for him (I work for the GOP, to give that context). I was concerned about Obama coming in, but he's done a pretty damn good job outside of healthcare (namely foreign policy). Had Romney not bowed to social conservatives, I would have voted for him. But I doubt that now. I think Obama will dominate the independent vote come election time. He's earned it.
I don't like the tip-toeing, but his blunt statements about his concerns surrounding it are credible to me.
Also, voting for someone for being charismatic is stupid: Hitler was the most charismatic politician ever (so I understand). look where that went.
A better case could be made for Napoleon I'd say, as Hitler's rise had a great deal to do with the political/social climate of Germany, while Napoleon was known for being to totally change people's minds with a single conversation.
Whats wrong with Napoleon?
Besides the wars he started that resulted in the death of millions? Not much.
Anyways back on topic. I'm actually really curious as to how this will affect the independent vote (The gay/lesbian demographic was going to vote for him anyways.), as I've always held the belief that the majority of independents are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so this could be a huge grabber. (Then again it could alienate the catholic base, who are more of the opposte: socially conservative and economically liberal)
edit: Toast brings up a good point. I really think this is more of a scrambled defense then a sudden change of heart.
What makes me cringe is how Obama explains it - how it was due to him talking to his friends and family blah blah blah. For once I just want to hear a politician say: "Yeah, truth be told I've always held the view that Christians who are against gay marriage are retarded but I needed to be careful not to alienate any of them when I first ran for President which is why I pretended to believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman and was willing to sacrifice the rights of the homosexuals but now that I'm President and people no longer have to consider me a 'risk' in order to be elected for a second term I can take this political gamble and endorse gay marriage now because gay marriage is now more generally accepted by the public and only a minority of Bible thumping evangelicals whose votes I was unlikely to win anyway are going to get their hypocritical holier than thou panties in a twist about it."
I think that you should just be sad that Obama has to explain it like that in order to not get ripped apart by the media. As they say, don't hate the player hate the game.
On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote: Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in.
It was Biden's extremely stupid comment that forced Obama to take this position much earlier than he wanted to. Monday's White House Press Briefing was a mess for the administration, Carney got so flustered it was almost comical. If Obama doesn't come out in favor of it, it just leads to more embarrasing questions about why Biden is advocating for same sex marraige but he isn't. It's a whole mess I'm sure the democrats would have preferred to avoid.
I disagree with this assessment. While Biden frequently makes gaffes it really seemed to me that he was floating a trial balloon. Couple that with this data:
and it seems like a well calculated move. To have it be otherwise would be pretty uncharacteristic of the way Obama campaigns.
On May 10 2012 04:24 BlackJack wrote: Obama has always been in favor of same sex marriage. He's just never had the courage to admit it. He cares more about being a politician and getting elected than he cares about fighting for what he believes in.
It was Biden's extremely stupid comment that forced Obama to take this position much earlier than he wanted to. Monday's White House Press Briefing was a mess for the administration, Carney got so flustered it was almost comical. If Obama doesn't come out in favor of it, it just leads to more embarrasing questions about why Biden is advocating for same sex marraige but he isn't. It's a whole mess I'm sure the democrats would have preferred to avoid.
I disagree with this assessment. While Biden frequently makes gaffes it really seemed to me that he was floating a trial balloon. Couple that with this data:
and it seems like a well calculated move. To have it be otherwise would be pretty uncharacteristic of the way Obama campaigns.
That is an interesting split for independents. But it's a bit tricky, elections aren't decided by popular vote they're decided by states' electoral votes. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of that data for the "battleground" states.
It's entirely possible that the Obama campaign was planning to change their stance later, but it's very clear that they were not ready to do so just yet. Carney's reaction to the press grilling he got on Monday made that extremely evident. He was clearly taken off guard and had no idea how to respond to the questions. Link to that briefing: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Daily-White-House-Press-Briefing/10737430498-1/
And I don't know that it would be "uncharacterisic" of Obama's campaigns. Biden has a long history of making big gaffes.
On May 10 2012 05:55 TheToast wrote: Also, there are people who oppose same sex marrage on grounds other than religion, and not everyone who does oppose it on the grounds of religion are bigots. It's not about denying people their civil rights, but rather it's about what some people would term "traditional values".
"Traditional values" or "family values", as used in American politics, are codewords for the privilege of white, straight conservatives and the oppression of others.
On May 10 2012 06:02 firehand101 wrote: Please put Ron Paul in there so we can see how many would vote for him There is a chance he may still be on the ballot so it is worth including him
Don't worry - there's a zero percent chance that his name will be on the ballot.
EPT![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/9qu3xuq5nk6ix3xjo99xcg.gif)
