People not in the US- What's your take on it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

i can only judge on what i here, that he hates gays, etc. bad surly he isn't that bad, right?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who cares? He could hate retards as long as he does a better job than Obama and doesn't enforce his personal moral agenda in "We The People,"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think you know a single thing about politics and how to appeal to the people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know more than you think.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd like to hear how.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who cares? Oh, I don't know. Maybe gay people? Or supporter of equality in general? Not to mention women who prefer not to have their rights taken away. Or put in binders..

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I recognize that Romney isn't the perfect candidate but I laugh every time someone talks about him taking women's rights away. What has he said he's going to do? I know he has explicitly stated that he will not outlaw abortion (although we could get into a whole other depth about if that takes away women's rights), he will not remove contraception from health coverage, and will work to make them equal in the workplace (which I might add, Obama hasn't put any work into). And maybe I'm just dense but I don't see why the binder comment is so funny

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Cutting planned parenthood funding directly takes away free health-related things from women.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh! So when tax payers don't pay for your femine health needs, it takes away your rights? Makes perfect sense!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This country is too deep "in the shit" (as they say in the military) for Romney to mess with anyone's rights or equality. He would be far too busy with more pressing matters. Also, what about the rights our current president has ALREADY taken.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Mitt Romney is a pretty awful person who condones discrimination and doesn't remotely understand the middle classes, let alone the working classes. That's my personal opinion. It's worth taking into account that most developed western countries are a lot more left wing than the US, so they'll instinctively freak out when they see people as right wing as republicans.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not liking Mitt Romney because he was never part of the middle class is narrow minded. My advice don't vote for a person, vote for the policies you agree with.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

He doesn't have to be part of the middle class, he just has to be able to relate to them, he just has to understand them. To be honest, I'm much more worried about his attitude to the working class. I think he's a bad person BECAUSE I don't like his policies, not vice-versa. Apart from anything else, his stance on gay rights is sickening.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Romney's not a bad dude, he's just been very inconsistent. His campaign manager even said that once he was nominated, he could be like an "etch-a-sketch" and bring out new ideas instead of the ones he was nominated for. When Obama finds this weakness in a debate, he often just says "I didn't say that, and you did this!". But personally, I don't think the presidential election matters as much as the Congress. We need a much more bipartisan Congress than last time, whichever way it leans.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Agreed. Also, I think a lot of people are wary of going back to a Republican.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No they're not. For the most part, presidential elections go back and forth from republican to democrat to republican to democrat... What people are thinking is that Romney is a stupid, prejudiced candidate. He's sexist, homophobic, racist...you want someone like that as a president? The economy and taxes and all that will get better in due time because people constantly change them with each new presidency. And it's impossible to avoid recessions forever, because that's not how the economy works. I'm more worried about whether or not I'll still have rights by the end of this.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm completely aware of the other reasons to be against Romney, and there are many. I just gave another reason. They might not want to have a repeat of what Bush did, and what he did, as I've heard, was disastrously bad for the country. Romney has similar beliefs for the economy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If he does, then that's an even better reason to not vote for him. Bush did fuck us up real bad, and it's not because he was republican, it's because it was Bush. I believe that Americans are smart enough (hopefully) to realize that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well yes, we've had presidents like Bush and presidents like Reagan, both republican. Still, people see similarities between Romney and Bush and take that into consideration.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's funny...Bush was the least "republican" president to ever come off of the republican ticket. People say that Romney wants to return to Bush policies but Obama hasn't even taken us off of them. He's increased regulations, government social programs, and spent a crap ton of money just like Bush. If people are afraid of Bush policies (and they actually know what his policies were) they won't be supporting Obama in this election.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree, but I don't see how not liking gays is homophobic. Isn't "phobic" like "the fear of" ? I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like he's scared of them

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Homophobic doesn't mean the fear of gays necessarily (though it can). It's just generally being against gays. I know the term sounds weird, but that's the word for some reason.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's kind of confusing. All I really need to know is that he's a fucktard for trying to control someone's life.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. Phobia means fear- not intolerance.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia The suffix -phobia does mean fear, but it doesn't //just// mean fear here.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

By what authority was it redefined?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who fricking knows? There's a lot of words with certain suffixes and prefixes that don't relate back to the prefix/suffix.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sounds like what Obama did.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

From an American perspective, he is really bad. Everyone is bad, but I personally think he is worse than Obama. He opposes gay marriage //and// probably won't allow it. He doesn't even support medical marijuana, let alone actually legalizing drugs. He supports the ban on assault weapons. Now when I say he's worse than Obama, I don't mean by much, but he still is.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obama's main strategy is to blame the Bush Administration. I mean I know Bush did leave him with some problems, and I didn't expect the economy to do a full turn around, but I expect it to get a teensy bit better which didn't really happen.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You know what's fun to say when people (or Obama) defend his record by blaming the situation he came into? "Poor Obama! Look at this mess he's going to inherit if he gets reelected!"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you actually knew about politics, you would know Mitt Romney is the more logical choice. He's not like satan is any way. He has great plans to lower taxes and lower the national debt and he knows what he talking about. Obama says all sorts of things during the debates that aren't true, Romney corrects him, but people still want to side with Obama. If you look it up you will see that's Romney is right. Obama has only brought our country down and will continue to borrow too much money from other countries like china and over-tax te middle class. What happens when we have no money left and china does? They take us over. I know that's a little presumptuous and dramatic but that's kind of the direction we're headed in.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Note - I don't know much about American politics. But I thought that Obama wanted to tax big businesses, and cut some taxes on small businesses?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Removing loopholes and deductions on big business is better than raising the tax.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's what he's said but not what he's done. He's raised taxed around the board. I just had the opportunity to speak with a small business owner. I asked him policy-wise, what would help your business the most. Without hesitating, he said "Taxes need to come down". He (the sole proprietor of his business) also said that he can't expand or hire anyone because taxes are so high. As for taxes on big businesses, the are very counterproductive. Higher taxes on individuals is different, but businesses need their profits in order to grow. When higher taxes eat into their profits it slows growth, which is 1) bad for the business and by extension all employees of that business, and 2) just stagnates tax revenue. At the point where business can't expand because of taxes (like the one I mentioned) profits don't increase which means tax revenue doesn't increase without further hikes. On the other hand, when taxes are low, the business can grow, and therefore pay more in taxes because their profits are higher

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What about his steps to perpetuate the War on Drugs? That's gone on far too long. We need to put a stop to it NOW. Obama has at least shown he is willing to talk about a more sensible policy, while Romney is against even medical marijuana. And what about the ban on assault weapons? It's another senseless policy that will impact millions of Americans and serve as a stepping stone to further deteriorate the Second Amendment.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am a big fan of the second amendment. I actually just became a member of my local gun club. But I don't really see why assault weapons have a public use. I can see them being used by private security forces and such, but why would a civilian need one? I also don't feel this is a reason to vote against Romney because in the debate, both of them supported the ban

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why //shouldn't// civilians own assault weapons? It's such a stupid ban. Do you even understand it? Do you know what an "assault weapon" is classified as? Speaking as a gun enthusiast and someone with a broad knowledge on firearms, assault weapons aren't even a thing. The Government defines them as firearms that bear similar cosmetics to an assault rifle. Let me give you an idea of how stupid this is. http://savannaharsenal.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ruger-10221.jpg http://www.fatwallet.com/static/attachments/28381_100307_dt_44a.jpg Look at the two above firearms. They are identical in the round that they fire, in operation, and in capacity. Essentially, they are the same gun, only the second one would be banned because it //looks// more dangerous. Can you even begin to grasp how ridiculous that is?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Calm down I get it. I still think that they aren't necessary. They could be easily modified to fire full auto if you know how the gun works. The ones (like Ak's or Thompsons) that's have a large magazine capacity are especially dangerous since they can fire for long periods of time. I feel like this would be a small political concession to make. However, speaking as an anti-federalist, I believe that most issues like this should be up to individual states to decide not the federal government

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Virtually nothing is necessary. Necessity is a poor argument for not letting people have stuff. That's the stupid thing, though. Thompsons are sub-machine guns that wouldn't be affected by the ban on Assault Weapons. And what do you consider a long period of time? An AK-47 with a standard 30-round box magazine would empty the magazine in under three seconds. It's not a small issue, though. It's simply one step out of many that the Government wants to take in order to rid us of our guns. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Other than serious collectors, most civilians have no business owning assault weapons.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What does that even mean? "no business owning assault weapons". Are you everyone's mother telling them what they shouldn't be doing? Honestly, the Assault Weapon Ban doesn't do anything except give the Government greater foothold in their race to take away our guns. They don't want us to have guns, because they're trying to turn the United States in to a police state. I thought this was supposed to be the land of the free. How fucking free are we if we can't own things just because "we have no business" owning them? Fuck that. People have no business owning cars that go over 20 mph, and no business owning food that contains over a certain amount of calories. People should be limited on how much money they make, and how much property they own. People have no business being out of their homes after a certain time, so let's employ a curfew. Let's just turn America in to a Communist country, because that's pretty much what you're saying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I feel like the only person who doesn't see it as such a horrible thing if Romney gets elected. Like yeah, he opposes gay marriage and things like that, but he still might help the economy. Personally, I believe the economy is the most important thing. Also I'm gay, so I'm not just some straight person who doesn't care about gay rights and all that. The country won't be ruined if he's president for four years.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am right there with ya.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Out of interest, aren't you a little worried that he wants to change the constitution to ban gay marriage? That could last a lot longer than four years.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I just need to be clear before I answer... How would "banning gay marriage," alter the constitution?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I looked it up and apparently he supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Marriage has already been defined, by it's origins and by article 16 of the UDHR.

by Anonymous 11 years ago