All those things listed for Romney were actions taken in relation to his campaigning for president it isn't surprising that he would do those things in that context because a segment of the Republican base supports those positions. Surely if he were anti-gay or a closet misogynist there would be evidence of that in his record of actions taken as a governor.
Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-control" issue that arose during the election. That's like a $9 per month benefit so if you voted for or against someone because of that and ignored things like heinous civil liberties policies you would essentially be saying you could be bought off for 9 bucks a month. That seems insane to me.
edit: point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric.
>point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric.
I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama administration that have made my life better. I agree that voting defensively is not the best, but I certainly understand why people do it to protect their self interests.
Also, ironically, that article points out that contraception often costs far more than $9, implies that many of the low-cost alternatives are provided by organizations that Romney and Paul both expressed interest in defunding, or via insurance that the most-in-need-of-family-planning have no access to, etc.
I think you perhaps overestimate the setback that might have occurred. For example, things like repealing DADT would have happened regardless because a lawsuit had already been won ruling DADT unconstitutional a year prior to Obama doing away with the policy.
even suggests he supported equal rights and benefits for LGBT couples as a governor though he apposed the use of the word "marriage" to describe said couples.
It seems like few people actually bother to look up a politicians actions and instead just take other politicians and partisans word for it when it comes to the "radical" positions of their opponents. I'd attribute the progress more to the changing attitudes of the country as a whole than the election of any one person.
I can't believe you're chastising me or trying to correct me, or whatever, for judging Romney based on the actions that he PLEDGED to carry out during his term if he were elected.
To be honest, I judged Romney by what he actually did when he was governor. Which was basically, "Whatever might get him votes next time."
On the other hand, when I looked at Obama's actions as president...well, I just could not bring myself to vote for him. To push the beloved healthcare bill through (remember, the bill that failed the deliver the one thing everyone really wanted, the public option?), he promised the pharmaceutical industry a stronger crackdown on illegal drugs, and he absolutely followed through on that promises: more paramilitary raids on medical marijuana facilities during just his first two years in office than in all eight Bush years combined. The administration's push for strong copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret laws and trade agreements seem to have been equally motivated by ties to industry. His approach to reforming the student loan system was to focus on interest rates and offer indentured servitude for people who cannot repay their loans.
What candidates say during an election is worthless, even when they pledge to do something. Politicians lie to get votes. Look to their actions, not their words, and look to their ties to industry (at least if you are voting for a major party, which amounts to choosing which set of businesses will get special treatment by the government).
Everyone has different priorities. Among my priorities are civil liberties issues. Again, I see no reason to think that Romney would have been better on any front and for the very reasons that you imply (heinous civil rights violations) I chose not to vote for Obama.
I'm not sure what you're advocating I suppose. I don't think people said that the $9 a month was important to them (I kinda doubt that figure for people w/o insurance but I don't know) but were instead saying "I'm not going to vote for some rich white dude that wants to tell me what I can do with my vagina".
Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-control" issue that arose during the election. That's like a $9 per month benefit so if you voted for or against someone because of that and ignored things like heinous civil liberties policies you would essentially be saying you could be bought off for 9 bucks a month. That seems insane to me.
edit: point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric.
edit: This article sites generics as costing $9 per month http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth...