How can any woman vote for Romney/Ryan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously - are you better off than you were four years ago? I started working at age seven so, hope was a luxury. I supported Bush although it would have been so cool if ANY ONE of the promises had been realized. I hoped Obama would succeed as the first African-American President. Now, enough is enough. I don't care what color or religion the next President is as long as they can get the job done.

Then vote Obama and Democratic. The political log jam was caused by republicans purposefully refusing to compromise with the express purpose of making Obama's re-election harder. If you think it was Obama who failed the US, think again.

[Anonymous]

"He hasn't been supportive of additional laws that aim, misguidedly in my view, to achieve equal pay. That's not the same thing about being against equal pay."

NP here. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which has been the focal point of this debate for the last few years, "amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck." You can read more on its wiki page, but the point is the law doesn't "aim to achieve equal pay." Rather, it aims to give women more time to file a lawsuit when they discover they are being discriminated against. Many Republicans opposed the bill.

The usual argument for that opposition - at least as stated by McCain, if I remember correctly - is that there would be a flood of lawsuits. If that's true, it would be because (A) a lot of women are being discriminated against and/or (B) women are just super litigious and enjoy filing frivolous lawsuits. If it's (A), then shouldn't they have the chance to sue? If it's (B), shouldn't judges/juries who hear the facts of each case be the ones to decide whether it has merit? How can lawmakers know ahead of time that all these women will by filing frivolous lawsuits?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

If Mitt Romney has the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will he choose someone in the mode of John Roberts?

I don't know-- I don't know if Romney knows. We all know how things can change once someone is appointed to the Supreme Court.

This is the sort of answer I would expect to any question about a specific Romney policy. Nobody knows. Romney doesn't even know.

Such a lame criticism from someone so seemingly knowledgable. How would Romney know today who he'd appoint? I hope he doesn't know, that keeps an open mind and considers the advice given him. Are you confident Obama knows today who he'd appoint? (Even you say "nobody knows".) And I don't know what "mode of JR" means but my wild guess is that Romney would appoint someone more like Roberts than like Kagan, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Such a lame criticism from someone so seemingly knowledgable. How would Romney know today who he'd appoint? I hope he doesn't know, that keeps an open mind and considers the advice given him. Are you confident Obama knows today who he'd appoint? (Even you say "nobody knows".) And I don't know what "mode of JR" means but my wild guess is that Romney would appoint someone more like Roberts than like Kagan, right?

Such a lame ability to read. I didn't ask "who" he would appoint, but if that person would be in the mold of John Roberts. It turns out it would be in the mold of Roberts, as well as Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. So, the person will most likely be Catholic. Surely anyone running for president knows the type of candidate they would have in mind for something as important as a Supreme Court justice.

I asked about Roberts because I know that Romney has professed admiration of him, but Roberts is the reason that Obamacare was found constitutional. Would Romney appoint to the court someone who holds views similar to Roberts given that Romney opposes Obamacare? Apparently so, if Romney's website can be beleived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

If Mitt Romney has the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will he choose someone in the mode of John Roberts?

I don't know-- I don't know if Romney knows. We all know how things can change once someone is appointed to the Supreme Court.

This is the sort of answer I would expect to any question about a specific Romney policy. Nobody knows. Romney doesn't even know.

Such a lame criticism from someone so seemingly knowledgable. How would Romney know today who he'd appoint? I hope he doesn't know, that keeps an open mind and considers the advice given him. Are you confident Obama knows today who he'd appoint? (Even you say "nobody knows".) And I don't know what "mode of JR" means but my wild guess is that Romney would appoint someone more like Roberts than like Kagan, right?

This discussion is a charade. Candidates say they have no litmus text. They are lying, all of them. Of course they all ask a candidates position on Roe. It would be a stunning failure of leadership if hey did not. Could you imagine Romney nominating a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage justice? And his explanation after earth shattering 5-4 decisions is "I picked him based on judicial philosophy but no I never talked about these issues specifically". He'd be tarred and feathered by his own people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Such a lame criticism from someone so seemingly knowledgable. How would Romney know today who he'd appoint? I hope he doesn't know, that keeps an open mind and considers the advice given him. Are you confident Obama knows today who he'd appoint? (Even you say "nobody knows".) And I don't know what "mode of JR" means but my wild guess is that Romney would appoint someone more like Roberts than like Kagan, right?

Such a lame ability to read. I didn't ask "who" he would appoint, but if that person would be in the mold of John Roberts. It turns out it would be in the mold of Roberts, as well as Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. So, the person will most likely be Catholic. Surely anyone running for president knows the type of candidate they would have in mind for something as important as a Supreme Court justice.

I asked about Roberts because I know that Romney has professed admiration of him, but Roberts is the reason that Obamacare was found constitutional. Would Romney appoint to the court someone who holds views similar to Roberts given that Romney opposes Obamacare? Apparently so, if Romney's website can be beleived.

Ha. My ability to read? You typed "in the mode of John Roberts," Mr. Crankypants. I freely admitted that had no idea what "mode of JR" meant. Sometimes spelling matters. Your post is one example. And to the extent that I understand it, I think your point is weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fyi romney won't outlaw abortion or contraceptives. romney and ryan have been faithful and respectful of their wives since and before marriage . Also note their wives are both accomplished and educated so its not like they are marrying battered beaten women.

Next questions

None of those things have anything to do with being an advocate for women's rights. Just because you don't beat your wife doesn't mean you're not sexist. Physical abuse is only one form of misogyny. People choose physical violence against women as an example because it's a seemingly black and white, visible act. Same thing with stranger rape. Date rape and verbal or emotional abuse are confusing and murky...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a proud supporter and can't wait to vote in Nov. I am pro-life and don't find their platform anti-woman. Actually abortion doesn't even rank in my top 5 issues I am most concerned about.

Economy
Debt
Jobs
School choice
Repeal of Obamacare

I have others but those are my big ones.

No snark intended - can you point to any ACTUAL policy positions from your candidates? If they have them they sure aren't talking about them.

Yes, Romney's actual policy positions are easily found. I don't expect them to talk about every policy position at each campaign stop. Plus it isn't like the news covers an entire speech (even from the President when he is campaigning) so do need to educate yourself about any candidate you may support.

Thank you, schoolmarm. The question really is why won't he talk about them. Watching him dissemble and obfuscate in the debates should be highly entertaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

If Mitt Romney has the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will he choose someone in the mode of John Roberts?

I don't know-- I don't know if Romney knows. We all know how things can change once someone is appointed to the Supreme Court.

This is the sort of answer I would expect to any question about a specific Romney policy. Nobody knows. Romney doesn't even know.

This is what Romney's website says on the issue. I'm a lawyer and it works for me:

Mitt Romney’s view of the Constitution is straightforward: its words have meaning. The founding generation adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government according to enduring principles. The job of the judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to elected representatives.

At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.

Mitt believes in the rule of law, and he understands that the next president will make nominations that will shape the Supreme Court and the whole of the judiciary for decades to come. He will therefore appoint wise, experienced, and restrained judges who will take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with the Constitution and laws — not their own personal policy preferences.

As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.

Just another reason NOT to vote for him....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My reasons...
Smaller govt
Less regulation on small businesses
Lower taxes
Restore USA as a world leader and I agree with American exceptionalism... There is no moral equivelency between USA and some other countries.
Enforcement of our immigration laws
No selection by the Admin or Justice Dept on which laws will be upheld.
Someone who can govern with help from across the isle ( romney has a history of governing in a liberal state)
I am pro choice and pretty middle of the road on social issues but I dont vote on those issues. Neither party has everything I support so I am picking the one that has the most

You would not get any of this under R/R. I just don't understand how you republicans fail to see that all they give you is a list of buzz words (see your list of buzz words). YOu elect them into office, and then they do NONE OF THE ABOVE! Bush did not deliver on any of this! Besides lower taxes (especially if you are a 1%er), but you are still enjoying those tax cuts.

Gov't actually GROWS under Republican Administration, and spending increases. Please explain to me why repubs love going to war and having a way-to-big military, but then say they want small gov't and to cut spending. Do you think they used a groupon to pay for those wars???? Our deficit is out of control mostly because of the wars. Yes, it continued to go up under Obama, but that's because we are still at war.

As PP pointed out, Obama has had a record number of deportations while passing the DREAM act to protect the innocent kids.

As for restoring the USA as a world leader... Please go to another country and ask people their opinions on Bush, Obama, and Romney. Oh, and Obama's foreign policy record is bad ass.

Obama tried and tried and tried to reach across the aisle. The GOP congress has been quoted many times as saying that "making Obama a one-term president is the top priority." Somehow he managed to push some amazing policy anyway. Sure, it wasn't ideal that he had to force feed it in some cases, but what else was the guy to do? Sit on hands for 4 years because the bullies won't work with him? He was well within his rights as president to do so. We have a system of checks and balances, not just to keep the prez form having too much power, but also to keep the congress from having too much power. Again, he's bad ass.

Please tell me how Obama has increased regulation on your small business, and be specific. And please read this: http://www.barackobama.com/small-business-owners/accomplishments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My reasons...
Smaller govt
Less regulation on small businesses
Lower taxes
Restore USA as a world leader and I agree with American exceptionalism... There is no moral equivelency between USA and some other countries.
Enforcement of our immigration laws
No selection by the Admin or Justice Dept on which laws will be upheld.
Someone who can govern with help from across the isle ( romney has a histuory of governing in a liberal state)
I am pro choice and pretty middle of the road on social issues but I dont vote on those issues. Neither party has everything I support so I am picking the one that has the most

You would not get any of this under R/R. I just don't understand how you republicans fail to see that all they give you is a list of buzz words (see your list of buzz words). YOu elect them into office, and then they do NONE OF THE ABOVE! Bush did not deliver on any of this! Besides lower taxes (especially if you are a 1%er), but you are still enjoying those tax cuts.

Gov't actually GROWS under Republican Administration, and spending increases. Please explain to me why repubs love going to war and having a way-to-big military, but then say they want small gov't and to cut spending. Do you think they used a groupon to pay for those wars???? Our deficit is out of control mostly because of the wars. Yes, it continued to go up under Obama, but that's because we are still at war.

As PP pointed out, Obama has had a record number of deportations while passing the DREAM act to protect the innocent kids.

As for restoring the USA as a world leader... Please go to another country and ask people their opinions on Bush, Obama, and Romney. Oh, and Obama's foreign policy record is bad ass.

Obama tried and tried and tried to reach across the aisle. The GOP congress has been quoted many times as saying that "making Obama a one-term president is the top priority." Somehow he managed to push some amazing policy anyway. Sure, it wasn't ideal that he had to force feed it in some cases, but what else was the guy to do? Sit on hands for 4 years because the bullies won't work with him? He was well within his rights as president to do so. We have a system of checks and balances, not just to keep the prez form having too much power, but also to keep the congress from having too much power. Again, he's bad ass.

Please tell me how Obama has increased regulation on your small business, and be specific. And please read this: http://www.barackobama.com/small-business-owners/accomplisments

Hahahahaha - YES. This. You Repubs are delusional liars all. My brother in law is a small business owner who is doing WAAAAAY better than four years ago, despite a massive contraction in his industry. The SBA programs AND the ACA have both helped him, yet he still quotes me that self-righteous Tea party bullshit. He's just one of millions of you misinformed asses who parrot blatant lies every single day. He worships at the altar of the extreme and divisive wingnuts among you - Palin, Beck, Limbaugh. And then je wonders why I won't discuss politics with him. Duh! I don't debate the merits of easilu debunked lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My reasons...
Smaller govt
Less regulation on small businesses
Lower taxes
Restore USA as a world leader and I agree with American exceptionalism... There is no moral equivelency between USA and some other countries.
Enforcement of our immigration laws
No selection by the Admin or Justice Dept on which laws will be upheld.Someone who can govern with help from across the isle ( romney has a history of governing in a liberal state)
I am pro choice and pretty middle of the road on social issues but I dont vote on those issues. Neither party has everything I support so I am picking the one that has the most

LOL you think dems and repubs are ANY different when it comes to cherry picking the laws they like? Just ask the Amerian Bar Association, that bastion of hippie liberals. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fyi romney won't outlaw abortion or contraceptives. romney and ryan have been faithful and respectful of their wives since and before marriage . Also note their wives are both accomplished and educated so its not like they are marrying battered beaten women.

Next questions

As usual, you are an idiot. You think because you aren't aware of any abuse or infidelity within those marriages that that equals pro-woman? Sweety every bastion of patriarchy is pro-woman - as long as the woman keeps her place, holds her tongue, and in general is a good, dependent breeder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My reasons...
Smaller govt
Less regulation on small businesses
Lower taxes
Restore USA as a world leader and I agree with American exceptionalism... There is no moral equivelency between USA and some other countries.
Enforcement of our immigration laws
No selection by the Admin or Justice Dept on which laws will be upheld.
Someone who can govern with help from across the isle ( romney has a history of governing in a liberal state)
I am pro choice and pretty middle of the road on social issues but I dont vote on those issues. Neither party has everything I support so I am picking the one that has the most

You would not get any of this under R/R. I just don't understand how you republicans fail to see that all they give you is a list of buzz words (see your list of buzz words). YOu elect them into office, and then they do NONE OF THE ABOVE! Bush did not deliver on any of this! Besides lower taxes (especially if you are a 1%er), but you are still enjoying those tax cuts.

Gov't actually GROWS under Republican Administration, and spending increases. Please explain to me why repubs love going to war and having a way-to-big military, but then say they want small gov't and to cut spending. Do you think they used a groupon to pay for those wars???? Our deficit is out of control mostly because of the wars. Yes, it continued to go up under Obama, but that's because we are still at war.

As PP pointed out, Obama has had a record number of deportations while passing the DREAM act to protect the innocent kids.

As for restoring the USA as a world leader... Please go to another country and ask people their opinions on Bush, Obama, and Romney. Oh, and Obama's foreign policy record is bad ass.

Obama tried and tried and tried to reach across the aisle. The GOP congress has been quoted many times as saying that "making Obama a one-term president is the top priority." Somehow he managed to push some amazing policy anyway. Sure, it wasn't ideal that he had to force feed it in some cases, but what else was the guy to do? Sit on hands for 4 years because the bullies won't work with him? He was well within his rights as president to do so. We have a system of checks and balances, not just to keep the prez form having too much power, but also to keep the congress from having too much power. Again, he's bad ass.

Please tell me how Obama has increased regulation on your small business, and be specific. And please read this: http://www.barackobama.com/small-business-owners/accomplishments

Killing Osama is not foreign policy. Here is an article on just a few things that aren't so great.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577615300669832384.html


Other country's opinions of Oba,a are not so great:

"In June, the Pew Research Center released one of its periodic surveys of global opinion. It found that since 2009, favorable attitudes toward the U.S. had slipped nearly everywhere in the world except Russia and, go figure, Japan. George W. Bush was more popular in Egypt in the last year of his presidency than Mr. Obama is today."

[Anonymous]

"Give me a good economy or give me death" - Patrick Henry.

Oh wait, his top concern WASN'T the economy? He was willing to die for his LIBERTY? Well fellas that's how I feel, and many women like me feel, about a party that wants to govern our bodies. Everything else comes second.

Get your representatives to get off the sex stuff and win more votes.