2012 President?

[ih8music]

I guess Obama decided now was the right time to make the political decision to support gay marriage. I wonder what he really feels about it, though.

To be honest, I think it'll hurt him more than help him. Put it this way, do you think any Romney voters are going to suddenly support Obama now because he's in favor of gay marriage? Not likely.

 

I think Obama is more likely to lose (some, not a lot) support from religious democrats and independents, especially in the black and latino communities. It probably won't be significant, though, as those voters still have many reasons to stay with Obama, even if they disagree with him on this issue.

[SarahC]

I'm for raising taxes drastically on the wealthy, closing loopholes on corporations (for example, those who incorporate in the Caymans to avoid U.S. taxes, and so on), raising a shit-ton more revenue, amending the Constitution to eliminate "corporate personhood" and guarantee Constitutional rights only to human beings (not corporations), and (among other things) repairing the nation's infrastructure, which is crumbling at an alarming rate, which would actually create hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions, not to mention the positive ripple effects it would have across the rest of the economy.

 

Essentially, a New New Deal. Let's bring back the Works Progress Administration. Let's give more than a spit-shine to this country -- update its infrastructure from mid-20th century to 21st century with room to grow into the 22nd. Let's re-regulate some industries that obviously can't behave themselves. Fuck the "unfettered free market" -- that's the naïve fantasy that landed us in this mess in the first place.

 

More than anything, let's narrow income disparity. Yes, that means wealth distribution, but instead of from the bottom up (which has been what's happening for decades, but especially since the Reagan administration), this time from the top down.

 

Does that smack of socialism? You fuckin' betcha. It also happens to be what this country needs.

I wish there was an applause emoticon for this.

[SarahC]

Also, something I don't get... why does everyone assume "religious" people can't be liberal/will not back the president.

I am a Christian, but I keep church and politics separate. The way this country is run should not be dependent upon its leader's religious affiliations. That leader should do what is best for this country, not what's best for the preachers of doctrine, and vice versa. Doctrine should not be intertwined with politics.

 

That being said, I voted for Obama in 08 and plan to vote for him this time.

[LouieB]

I am happy he did it, but I have those same hesitations you do. His waffling there has been pretty disappointing.

 

What part Lou?

 

I was a resident of Martinsburg for four years back in the mid 1950s. It was a great place to grow up for a few years. There was a farm at the end of the street. I walked to school past an old abandoned dairy, through a housing project and over the railroad tracks, Parents these days would never let their kids do that.

 

Compared to Romney's positions on just about everything, Obama has been pretty consistent on gay marriage. He has indicated his opinions were evolving lately and so I guess they finally evolved all the way. No matter how he got there, I am glad too. His position is going to freak out a ton of folks in the black community. But he will pick up more of the "youth" vote I suppose.

 

LouieB

[moxiebean]

Also, something I don't get... why does everyone assume "religious" people can't be liberal/will not back the president.

I am a Christian, but I keep church and politics separate. The way this country is run should not be dependent upon its leader's religious affiliations. That leader should do what is best for this country, not what's best for the preachers of doctrine, and vice versa. Doctrine should not be intertwined with politics.

 

That being said, I voted for Obama in 08 and plan to vote for him this time.

 

Ditto

[Tweedling]

I thought he's been for it all along.

[ih8music]

Also, something I don't get... why does everyone assume "religious" people can't be liberal/will not back the president.

I am a Christian, but I keep church and politics separate. The way this country is run should not be dependent upon its leader's religious affiliations. That leader should do what is best for this country, not what's best for the preachers of doctrine, and vice versa. Doctrine should not be intertwined with politics.

 

That being said, I voted for Obama in 08 and plan to vote for him this time.

Yep, same here. Lifelong Catholic and I realize that what my Church tells me isn't what my government should tell me (or frankly, care about).

[LouieB]

Also, something I don't get... why does everyone assume "religious" people can't be liberal/will not back the president.

I am a Christian, but I keep church and politics separate. The way this country is run should not be dependent upon its leader's religious affiliations. That leader should do what is best for this country, not what's best for the preachers of doctrine, and vice versa. Doctrine should not be intertwined with politics.

 

That being said, I voted for Obama in 08 and plan to vote for him this time.

As Dan Savage is so fond of saying, it isn't that people who are Christian can't support more progressive political ideas, since many do, but the fact that the batshit crazy evangelical crowd has highjacked so much of the dialogue and has made it look like they speak for all Christians and too few non-batshit crazy evangelicals ever speak up to disuade the rest of us that all Christians don't feel that way, particularly the clergy.

 

Regarding Protestants and Catholics, it wasn't so long ago that the evangelicals didn't even think that Catholics were Christians, but give the Church a chance to act just as reactionary as the right wing Protestents and they become blood brothers. Go figure.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

I am happy he did it, but I have those same hesitations you do. His waffling there has been pretty disappointing.

 

--Mike.

 

Not only that, but it's a stance on an issue that he really can't do anything about. What's his decision-making process on things that really matter?

[IRememberDBoon]

I guess Obama decided now was the right time to make the political decision to support gay marriage. I wonder what he really feels about it, though.

 

I'll take him at his word and applaude him for it.

[KevinG]

I guess Obama decided now was the right time to make the political decision to support gay marriage. I wonder what he really feels about it, though.

 

Stewart had a bit about this yesterday (when Biden jumped the gun and said he supported gay marriage on Meet the Press). Back when Obama was running for state senator he fill out a questionnaire and said he would support gay marriage, etc. So what I would guess it is politics got in the way of him supporting publicly in the past.

 

To quote Biden, "This is a big fucking deal"

 

So now I have a question for all of the republicans out there, how can you support a party/candidate who does see a portion of Americans as equal to the majority of Americans.

[LouieB]

 

So now I have a question for all of the republicans out there, how can you support a party/candidate who does see a portion of Americans as equal to the majority of Americans.

That's not a question, there is no question mark and besides you know the answer....easily. Besides according to those opposing it, gay marriage isn't in tbe Bible so it doesn't exist.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

Stewart had a bit about this yesterday (when Biden jumped the gun and said he supported gay marriage on Meet the Press). Back when Obama was running for state senator he fill out a questionnaire and said he would support gay marriage, etc. So what I would guess it is politics got in the way of him supporting publicly in the past.

 

To quote Biden, "This is a big fucking deal"

 

So now I have a question for all of the republicans out there, how can you support a party/candidate who does see a portion of Americans as equal to the majority of Americans.

 

In choosing candidates to vote for in elections, you always have to compromise...choose what issues are more important to you and what you may be able to live with. In the context of the race for President of the United States, supporting gay marriage is nice (there's no reason not to), but the President has little control over the actual issue.

[Hixter]

Obama officially supports gay marriage, about fing time.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1503245.html

 

I have never understood why the party [Republicans] of personal freedom with a "laser focus" on jobs and the economy cared about what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own home.

 

Oh wait, I forgot the Republicans are controlled by the religious right.

Nice to see President Obama coming around to Dick Cheney's point of view ...

 

[Tweedling]

Doh'

[calvino]

WASHINGTON - Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus released the following statement regarding Obama's gay marriage decision:

"While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

Read more: http://www.gop.com/i.../#ixzz1uTvm4prG

 

 

Not all Repubilicans agree, but it is the Party's platform, I think that is what KevinG is referring to...Not all Democrats agree with Obama, either, by the way.

[KevinG]

That's not a question, there is no question mark and besides you know the answer....easily. Besides according to those opposing it, gay marriage isn't in tbe Bible so it doesn't exist.

 

LouieB

That's not a question, there is no question mark and besides you know the answer....easily. Besides according to those opposing it, gay marriage isn't in tbe Bible so it doesn't exist.

 

LouieB

 

But it is ok to own slaves, beat your wife, etc.

 

To me I could never support a party (the republicans) who do give the same rights to all people, regardless of race, creed, ability, sexual preference, etc. Republicans have said, you get special treatment based upon who you love. That is wrong. Having gay marriage isn't "nice" it is fundamental question of rights.

 

The Democrats have a long way to go on this issue as the issue of gay rights, but this is a start. As we know the president's statement is not going to allow gay marriage, but it is a start, it is a big step. The repeal of DADT was a big deal.

 

I have always said this on my way to solve the issue of gay marriage. Government needs to get out marriage entirely. Marriages should come from a church. If you want to enter into a contract with another consenting adult (man, woman, roommate) you will get a partnership license from the state, which would give that partnership the tax rights, hospital visits etc. If you want to profess your love to God, Buddha, Satan, the flying spaghetti monster go for it. If you church doesn't want to perform your marriage then find another church.

 

Marriage is a religious concept and government should not have any part in it. But that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

[jff]

As Dan Savage is so fond of saying, it isn't that people who are Christian can't support more progressive political ideas, since many do, but the fact that the batshit crazy evangelical crowd has highjacked so much of the dialogue and has made it look like they speak for all Christians and too few non-batshit crazy evangelicals ever speak up to disuade the rest of us that all Christians don't feel that way, particularly the clergy.

 

 

Interesting. Remember all the right wingers saying that muslims needed to stand up in oposition to terrorists? And if they didn't, then that was an admission that all (or most) mulims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. I'm not saying that the Tea Party or rabid evangelicals are terrorists, but they do have some crazy-ass ideas/beliefs which go almost entirely unchallenged by the moderate christians and the moderate right. So, by their own reasoning, are we to believe that all republicans and all christians are in line with the fringe whackos?

[Doug C]

For me, Andrew Sullivan has eloquently articulated why President Obama announcing his support of same-sex marriage matters, regardless of the politics. Perfect.

 

"I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.

 

"So let me simply say: I think of all the gay kids out there who now know they have their president on their side. I think of Maurice Sendak, who just died, whose decades-long relationship was never given the respect it deserved. I think of the centuries and decades in which gay people found it impossible to believe that marriage and inclusion in their own families was possible for them, so crushed were they by the weight of social and religious pressure. I think of all those in the plague years shut out of hospital rooms, thrown out of apartments, written out of wills, treated like human garbage because they loved another human being. I think of Frank Kameny. I think of the gay parents who now feel their president is behind their sacrifices and their love for their children."

[Tweedling]

Come on Obama, you can do better than this.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/o-on-atms/

[lost highway]

They grabbed a weak analogy and tried to run with it. He said ATM machines where he could have said "self check at the grocery store." However you cut it, businesses are cutting costs by automating, which is good for business and bad for jobs. The posted tweet (ugh) that asks how could something be good for business but bad for jobs, is a clear example of American citizens having no nuance in their economic understanding. Obama made a smart point, the right just magnified its weakest example.

[KevinG]

They grabbed a weak analogy and tried to run with it. He said ATM machines where he could have said "self check at the grocery store." However you cut it, businesses are cutting costs by automating, which is good for business and bad for jobs. The posted tweet (ugh) that asks how could something be good for business but bad for jobs, is a clear example of American citizens having no nuance in their economic understanding. Obama made a smart point, the right just magnified its weakest example.

 

Wanna guess where the majority of ATM's are made? China.

 

Automation will always occur, business will forever try to become more efficient. However when we become more efficient we need to move people into different jobs and allow them the opportunities for growth. The republican policies will not do that.

 

It is a nuanced point, and I agree with Lost Highway, it was made well, if you think about it. Unfortunately those on the right don't think things through and believe it. This is the problem with Fox news and talk radio. I wonder if Tweedling actually read the full article or only the first couple of paragraphs.

[Tweedling]

I read the full article. So now you shouldn't wonder. I see both points and I understand that this will not be the last statement said on either side that will be blown up. My point is I believe Obama could have come up with a better example than what he provided us within this interview. ATMs? Come on....

[LouieB]

Yea, he could have. They can't all be gems.

 

Does anyone really think that under Romney more people will be hired by corporations? I just really keep trying to figure out what exactly he is going to do to make more businesses hire more people. We know one thing, that in the last three years there are a whole lot less government employees, so how many more of then will Romney be able to fire?

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

I read the full article. So now you shouldn't wonder. I see both points and I understand that this will not be the last statement said on either side that will be blown up. My point is I believe Obama could have come up with a better example than what he provided us within this interview. ATMs? Come on....

 

Any point he would have made would have been jumped on by the right user stand the as out of touch. ATM's, automated check outlines, robots in factories, whatever. Simple fact businesses are getting more efficient, people are been put out of work because of this, we as a country need the infrastructure to provide better jobs and education.

 

This is what the president said:

 

the other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM; you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy, and what we have to do now — and that's what this job council is all about — is identifying where the jobs for the future are going to be; how do we make sure that there's a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist; how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity. We are on the right track. The key is figuring out how do we accelerate it.

 

 

What would want him to say? I see that you read the article, but did you understand the article?