Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Obama comes out in favour of gay marriage

  • 09-05-2012 8:19pm
    #1
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-us-politics-live
    President Barack Obama wrote:
    at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married

    Bar the redneck and lunatic fringe of the Republican party, gay marriage is nowhere near as contentious an issue as it was even four years ago. America has changed, and public opinion with it. Despite making it look like he is making a courageous stance, in reality he is not. The people who are really opposed to this won't vote for him. Most independents either won't care or if they do, won't sway their decision to vote or not to vote for him. So in reality he is giving his liberal base some red meat to chew on. Don't let the tea party fanatics confuse you - Obama has governed as a moderate conservative. With the exception of a moderate stimulus package and a cosmetic 'tax the rich' stance, his economic policy is more like a moderate Republican (Somebody like Nixon) than Jimmy Carter. Since the Republicans nominated a moderate Republican (Or at least a pragmatic one), Obama has had to do something to get the liberals to come out on polling day. If he were facing Santorum I would greatly doubt it whether he would have made these remarks today. The Trayvon Martin thing was a calculated statement to African Americans (He needs them to show up in similar numbers to 2008) If I were one of Obama's advisors I'd engineer a new round of anti-immigration rhetoric from nativist Republicans in order to shore up the Hispanic vote. With Republicans routinely offending women, expect Obama to pick up some ground here as well.

    He is one shrewd political operator.

    Cynical? Absolutely. But at least gay marriage has now become an entrenched value within the Democratic party. Which can only be a good thing.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    I'm quite cynical about this move as well. I think this statement is in some way linked to Richard Grenell leaving the Romney campaign recently.


  • #3
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    It's a clever enough move. It provides a focus issue that the republicans will obsess over (Fox has already called it Obama's "War on Marriage") even though the vast majority of voters have already decided how they feel about it.

    Meanwhile less certain and more important issues like fiscal and foreign policy go ignored by the media, allowing Obama to shore up his vote.


  • #4
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    seamus wrote: »

    Meanwhile less certain and more important issues like fiscal and foreign policy go ignored by the media, allowing Obama to shore up his vote.

    Its not in Obama's interest to downplay his foreign policy. He is the first democrat since Lyndon Johnson who can claim to be tough on national security (Personally I don't consider this a good thing, but America is an ultra nationalist country whose military are venerated to an unhealthy degree) Consider the aerial war he has waged since taken office, which has been much more severe than his predecessor. Then there is the removal of Gadaffi from Libya (How Reagan would have loved to do that!), the assassination of Bin Laden, the increased effectiveness of the CIA... If anything he needs to be shouting this from the rooftops so that the Republicans don't steal the narrative from him.

    Ultimately Obama needs this election to be as far away from the economy as possible. If he can provoke the Republicans to vent their bigoted anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant reflexes, the election will be his. The tea partiers will be replenished and their extremism will dismay the millions of independents who didn't bother voting in the 2010 midterms. I've said it before - the best thing that could have happened for Obama was the rise of the quasi fascist reactionary wing of the Republican party since his election. They are over-represented in mid term elections as most normal people don't bother voting in those. He'll get a big turn out from blacks, hispanics, gays, a majority of women, and hopefully a huge liberal turnout should the election be about social issues, immigration, and gay rights. He'll hold his own if foreign policy comes into play. The only way Romney can win is if he convinces Americans that he will do a better job of running the economy. Obama needs to prevent that discussion from even happening, to deflect the conversation elsewhere into a bottomless pit of hatred and fury which is the Republicans specialty.


  • #5
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    I'm not convinced it was a political move. He was forced into it by Biden's support for it... he risked looking weak and indecisive by continuing the line that he is "evolving" on the issue.

    I know it's early in the race, but at 9 points ahead of his rival I don't see why they'd think there was a need to take risks like this. And I do think it's a risk... here in Ireland about 75% of people support same-sex marriage. In the states, it's about 50/50. And its legalisation has yet to survive a public vote. I know anyway if I were him, I probably wouldn't have done this. I would have waited until after the election. He had the lgbt vote wrapped up... he has done more for lgbt rights than all previous presidents combined. He didn't need to appeal to his liberal base on this issue, and I don't see what he has to gain from it. I think those most concerned about lgbt rights knew that he really support marriage equality, they were just annoyed that he wasn't saying that he supported marriage equality.


    Although the above is just my view on the politics of it.... personally, I'm delighted to see Obama to be the first US President to support same-sex marriage and it has made my week.


  • #6
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Mark200 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced it was a political move. He was forced into it by Biden's support for it... he risked looking weak and indecisive by continuing the line that he is "evolving" on the issue.

    I know it's early in the race, but at 9 points ahead of his rival I don't see why they'd think there was a need to take risks like this. And I do think it's a risk... here in Ireland about 75% of people support same-sex marriage. In the states, it's about 50/50. And its legalisation has yet to survive a public vote. I know anyway if I were him, I probably wouldn't have done this. I would have waited until after the election. He had the lgbt vote wrapped up... he has done more for lgbt rights than all previous presidents combined. He didn't need to appeal to his liberal base on this issue, and I don't see what he has to gain from it. I think those most concerned about lgbt rights knew that he really support marriage equality, they were just annoyed that he wasn't saying that he supported marriage equality.


    Although the above is just my view on the politics of it.... personally, I'm delighted to see Obama to be the first US President to support same-sex marriage and it has made my week.

    What poll is this?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx Romney 47%, Obama 44%

    On topic, this is an example of Obama leading from behind after his evolving position became untenable because of the pro-gay marriage positions taken by Mr. Biden and other members of Mr. Obama's own cabinet.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    SMASH THE UNIONS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    An unsurprising idiotic move from one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever. His advisors must have let him off the leash for 2 seconds and then he comes out with this gaffe. Homosexuals already overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so Obama doesn't stand to gain any voters from this move, only lose. He will only alienate traditional Democratic voters who oppose same-sex marriage, such as religious Catholics and Jews and certain sections of the black community.

    Future President Romney must be laughing with glee. Congrats to him.


  • #8
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    An unsurprising idiotic move from one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever. His advisors must have let him off the leash for 2 seconds and then he comes out with this gaffe. Homosexuals already overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so Obama doesn't stand to gain any voters from this move, only lose. He will only alienate traditional Democratic voters who oppose same-sex marriage, such as religious Catholics and Jews and certain sections of the black community.

    Future President Romney must be laughing with glee. Congrats to him.

    Inexperienced ??? How can anyone have experience at a job you can only get hired for once ? He has more political experience to some previous presidents before they got the job and is also a lot more intelligent when compared to some previous presidents.

    Shockingly enough, it is not just homosexuals that care about the right for gay people to marry and to be seen as equal. A lot of people will see this as a very progressive stance that shows he wants to move America away from some of its very illogical and backward views.


  • #9
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Carcharodon wrote: »
    Inexperienced ??? How can anyone have experience at a job you can only get hired for once ? He has more political experience to some previous presidents before they got the job and is also a lot more intelligent when compared to some previous presidents.

    Shockingly enough, it is not just homosexuals that care about the right for gay people to marry and to be seen as equal. A lot of people will see this as a very progressive stance that shows he wants to move America away from some of its very illogical and backward views.

    Which previous presidents had less experience than Obama when they took office?

    Let's look at the main level of experience of the last 5 before Obama:

    Bush II - Governor of Texas
    Clinton - Governor of Arkansas
    Bush I - Many examples of executive experience (CIA Director, Chairman of RNC etc (see his bio)).
    Reagan - Governor of California
    Carter - Governor of Georgia


  • #10
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    An unsurprising idiotic move from one of the most inexperienced Presidents ever. His advisors must have let him off the leash for 2 seconds and then he comes out with this gaffe. Homosexuals already overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so Obama doesn't stand to gain any voters from this move, only lose. He will only alienate traditional Democratic voters who oppose same-sex marriage, such as religious Catholics and Jews and certain sections of the black community.

    Future President Romney must be laughing with glee. Congrats to him.

    I couldn't disagree more. Overwhelmingly the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose President Obama. The net effect of this single issue will be tiny, it will neither gain nor lose him much.

    The greater effect, as Denerick pointed out, will be smoking out the ultra-right wing Republicans who will spew their anti-everything not White, Christian and Hetrosexual vitriol across the airwaves. Fingers crossed this finally pushes right minded swing voters into Obama's camp for good.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #11
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    briankeating wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree more. Overwhelmingly the people who oppose gay marriage also oppose President Obama. The net effect of this single issue will be tiny, it will neither gain nor lose him much.

    The greater effect, as Denerick pointed out, will be smoking out the ultra-right wing Republicans who will spew their anti-everything not White, Christian and Hetrosexual vitriol across the airwaves. Fingers crossed this finally pushes right minded swing voters into Obama's camp for good.

    Such a narrow view of the right in fairness. Romney is a step in the right direction for the GOP.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    wasn't "the black vote" pretty instrumental in california and north carolina banning gay marriage?

    be interesting to see if the desire to vote for a black president is stronger than the desire to kill gay marriage in black churches across america.


  • #13
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,392 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    wasn't "the black vote" pretty instrumental in california and north carolina banning gay marriage?

    be interesting to see if the desire to vote for a black president is stronger than the desire to kill gay marriage in black churches across america.

    It will be interesting how this pans out.

    Here is my reading of it.

    Back in 2008 Obama got a lot of votes from young and first time voters.
    The reason being that he was, young, new , a breath of fresh air, exotic in a way.

    Now 4 years later and with a sluggish economy he is going to find it hard to hold on to those first timers from 2008 and the new first timers for 2012.
    They are not necessarily going to go and vote for Romney, they are more likely not to vote at all.
    You can only elect a black president for the first time once remember.

    This support for gay marriage is an attempt to make sure of that young vote, the younger you are the more likely you are to support gay marriage.

    On the flip he may alienate some older supporters and black supporters as the poster alludes to, and he may push some conservatives who were not going to vote for Romney (because he was not conservative enough) to get out and vote for him anyway as this support for gay marriage is the last straw for them when it comes to Obama.


  • #14
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,392 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Mark200 wrote: »
    I'm not convinced it was a political move. He was forced into it by Biden's support for it... he risked looking weak and indecisive by continuing the line that he is "evolving" on the issue.

    I know it's early in the race, but at 9 points ahead of his rival I don't see why they'd think there was a need to take risks like this. And I do think it's a risk... here in Ireland about 75% of people support same-sex marriage. In the states, it's about 50/50. And its legalisation has yet to survive a public vote. I know anyway if I were him, I probably wouldn't have done this. I would have waited until after the election. He had the lgbt vote wrapped up... he has done more for lgbt rights than all previous presidents combined. He didn't need to appeal to his liberal base on this issue, and I don't see what he has to gain from it. I think those most concerned about lgbt rights knew that he really support marriage equality, they were just annoyed that he wasn't saying that he supported marriage equality.


    Although the above is just my view on the politics of it.... personally, I'm delighted to see Obama to be the first US President to support same-sex marriage and it has made my week.

    And in polls 40% of people said they would vote for David Norris for president of Ireland a few months before the election


  • #15
    MrMister
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭MrMister


    jank wrote: »
    Romney is a step in the right direction for the GOP.
    Romney is a corporate robot who flounders when taken off script. He opposes everything except tax cuts for the rich. Romney and his party have time after time demonstrated that they are not capable of seeing a point of view other than their own. A Romney presidency would be disasterous for the US as he would only cater to the far right in hopes of having a second term.


  • #16
    BOHtox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    ‎"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama, 2004

    "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008


    I used to be for flip flopping but now I'm against it!


  • #17
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Is he not entitled to change his opinion on the matter after four years?


  • #18
    MrMister
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭MrMister


    BOHtox wrote: »
    ‎"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama, 2004

    "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008


    I used to be for flip flopping but now I'm against it!
    Do you think Obama is doing the right thing in supporting Gay Marriage? Do you think he should be for or against?


  • #19
    BOHtox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    I'm for gay marriage, I'm just not too sure why Obama changed his opinion.

    I don't think some of the posters on here would welcome a U-turn of an opinion expressed just 4 years ago if done by an Irish politician. I just don't know why the change of opinion.

    I think it was just an act of populism tbh.

    edit: not the first time he changed it either.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142198/Gay-marriage-Barack-Obamas-shift-sex-marriage-nets-1m-90-minutes.html

    "Obama supported gay marriage in 1996 but later opposed it in 2004"


  • #20
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,392 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    seamus wrote: »
    Is he not entitled to change his opinion on the matter after four years?

    Yes he is entitled, but I bet you that you are going to hear a lot more about Romney changing his stance of this, or any other issue, than you are Obama, this side of the world at least

    Here is an example from this morning's Morning Ireland Program on Radio 1

    http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120510,3282055,3282055,flash,257

    Go to 3 minutes in, no mention of Obama, just Romney


  • #21
    BOHtox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭BOHtox


    In fairness, Romney is a far bigger flip flopper

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    BOHtox wrote: »
    edit: not the first time he changed it either.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142198/Gay-marriage-Barack-Obamas-shift-sex-marriage-nets-1m-90-minutes.html

    "Obama supported gay marriage in 1996 but later opposed it in 2004"
    I actually can't find a proper citation for the 2004 quote. This is the best I can find, which while has a lot of flustering and stepping around words, doesn't put him in opposition to gay marriage, just displays a concern on his part for "traditional" marriage in a religious setting.
    At that point he still affirms his support for civil unions between gay people.

    It's hard to say really what he's at. Even with the 2008 quote, he admitted at that stage that it's an issue he "struggles" with. So it may genuinely be that he has felt a need to constantly defend "marriage" (in the traditional man/woman sense) in spite of other personal feelings and public pressure in relation to civil unions.

    Or he has been doing his best to walk the line until he felt the country reached a point where gay marraige was inevitable and widely supported. So they will happily endorse gay rights but then the blinds go down when you mention the word "marraige".

    In the strictest sense of the word there's no actual difference between marriage and civil union, yet for many the idea of gay marriage for some reason conjurs up images of men in sailor suits walking up the aisle of their local church.


  • #23
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,040 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ha,

    149435_449093948453397_205344452828349_100678244_1701245141_n.jpg


  • #24
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    divorce is pretty traditional in fairness..


  • #25
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,040 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    divorce is pretty traditional in fairness..
    Not really. And Christians would tell you it's not sanctimonious either way.

    Of course my other favorite analogy is "claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone eating donuts because you're on a diet".


  • #26
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    BOHtox wrote: »
    ‎"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama, 2004

    "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union." Barack Obama, 2008


    I used to be for flip flopping but now I'm against it!

    The main reason he gave for the change of opinion was his children who'd have class mates from same sex relationships, they see no difference so he has reconsidered in that light. Don't see any problem with changing an opinion like that, some see it as weakness.

    It isn't that populist either as "the black vote" tends to be more anti-gay marriage.

    Could we cut out terms like redneck, does nothing to help the discussion.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #27
    matthew8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    K-9 wrote: »
    The main reason he gave for the change of opinion was his children who'd have class mates from same sex relationships, they see no difference so he has reconsidered in that light. Don't see any problem with changing an opinion like that, some see it as weakness.

    It isn't that populist either as "the black vote" tends to be more anti-gay marriage.

    Could we cut out terms like redneck, does nothing to help the discussion.

    Obama will win the black vote with 90+ no matter what. He's clearly flip-flopping. He probably really supports gay marriage but pretended he didn't when it was unpopular.


  • #28
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,040 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Obama will win the black vote with 90+ no matter what. He's clearly flip-flopping. He probably really supports gay marriage but pretended he didn't when it was unpopular.
    • Gay Rights
    • Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)
    • Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable. (Feb 2008)
    • Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
    • Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
    • Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
    • Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
    • Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
    • We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
    • Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
    • Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
    • Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
    • Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
    • Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
    • Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
    • Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
    • Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
    • Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
    • Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
    • Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
    • Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
    • Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
    • Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

    http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm


  • #29
    snow scorpion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭snow scorpion


    I can't help but wonder if the White House's internal polling for the election is so bad that Obama feels the need to shore up the gay vote.

    Come 7 November will we all be saying the handwriting was on the wall all the way back in May?


  • #30
    matthew8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    snow scorpion wrote: »
    I can't help but wonder if the White House's internal polling for the election is so bad that Obama feels the need to shore up the gay vote.

    Come 7 November will we all be saying the handwriting was on the wall all the way back in May?

    We won't be unless he loses and we then pretend we knew he would lose all along. Last year I almost said he was sure to lose, I've completely changed my opinion, the ball's in his court now.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    matthew8 wrote: »
    We won't be unless he loses and we then pretend we knew he would lose all along. Last year I almost said he was sure to lose, I've completely changed my opinion, the ball's in his court now.

    Is that because of Obama's strengths or Romney's weaknesses?


  • #32
    matthew8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Denerick wrote: »
    Is that because of Obama's strengths or Romney's weaknesses?

    The economy has been getting better. The tea party has calmed down. That's pretty much it. Romney was never a good candidate, but he has gotten worse.


  • #33
    snow scorpion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭snow scorpion


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Last year I almost said he was sure to lose, I've completely changed my opinion, the ball's in his court now.

    We seem to be opposites. Last year I was sure he was going to win. Now, the tea leaves are looking bad for Obama. The last week has been a brutal one for him:
    • When the 8.1% unemployment rate was announced last week, even the mainstream media was quick to point out that the number is that low because so many people have given up looking for work. Put those people back into the calculation and the unemployment rate jumps to 11%
    • He launched his re-election campaign at Ohio State University to thousands of empty seats.
    • In West Virginia's Democrat primary Tuesday, Obama's opponent was a convict sitting in a prison cell and Obama could get only 59% of the vote.
    • And now he appears to be trying to shore up the gay vote with yesterday's announcement.

    The election is 6 months away and everyone know that's several eternities in the world of politics. But there's no denying Obama has had a very bad week.


  • #34
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    Which previous presidents had less experience than Obama when they took office?

    Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower or Lincoln.

    Don't know why you are so wrapped up in experience, its not like certain experienced presidents have covered themselves in glory once in office.


  • #35
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    jank wrote: »
    Such a narrow view of the right in fairness. Romney is a step in the right direction for the GOP.

    I don't have a narrow view of the right. There are plenty of honest, decent and well educated conservatives out there who I respect. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

    There is a growing extreme right to the Republican party, as clearly demonstrated by Santorums run. That is who I am referring to.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #36
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    MrMister wrote: »
    Romney is a corporate robot who flounders when taken off script. He opposes everything except tax cuts for the rich. Romney and his party have time after time demonstrated that they are not capable of seeing a point of view other than their own. A Romney presidency would be disasterous for the US as he would only cater to the far right in hopes of having a second term.

    And Sanatorum or Gingrich would be better? Romney has experience of running a business, a profitable one at that.
    Sure I would love if Ron Paul was the candidate but the US is not ready for that yet. So out of the other big 4 Romney is a step in the right direction. Is he perfect? No, not at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    briankeating wrote: »
    I don't have a narrow view of the right. There are plenty of honest, decent and well educated conservatives out there who I respect. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

    There is a growing extreme right to the Republican party, as clearly demonstrated by Santorums run. That is who I am referring to.

    And the fact that he didnt win should also give an indication of the GOP finally getting it. Stop the social conservatism bollox and get on with running the country in a fiscally common sense way.


  • #38
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,392 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    snow scorpion wrote: »
    We seem to be opposites. Last year I was sure he was going to win. Now, the tea leaves are looking bad for Obama. The last week has been a brutal one for him:
    • When the 8.1% unemployment rate was announced last week, even the mainstream media was quick to point out that the number is that low because so many people have given up looking for work. Put those people back into the calculation and the unemployment rate jumps to 11%
    • He launched his re-election campaign at Ohio State University to thousands of empty seats.
    • In West Virginia's Democrat primary Tuesday, Obama's opponent was a convict sitting in a prison cell and Obama could get only 59% of the vote.
    • And now he appears to be trying to shore up the gay vote with yesterday's announcement.

    The election is 6 months away and everyone know that's several eternities in the world of politics. But there's no denying Obama has had a very bad week.

    This probably belongs in the election super thread but here goes anyway.

    Obama could have an apathy problem in this election, the empty seats at OSU were an example of it.
    The sheen of the 'change we need is coming' etc has worn off,, not a whole lot has changed,
    Those that went out an voted for him in 2008, the minorities, the young, will likely sit at home and not bother this time, like they did in most elections pre 2008.

    The economy is 'sluggish', it is not powering ahead like it was for Regan in 1984 or Cliton in 1996, so the overused term ''it's the economy stupid" cannot be used in this case to argue why Obama will win.

    His support for gay marriage is an attempt to find a new demographic to support him.
    jank wrote: »
    And the fact that he didnt win should also give an indication of the GOP finally getting it. Stop the social conservatism bollox and get on with running the country in a fiscally common sense way.

    Totally agree.
    The rejection of the right wing and the tea party indicate that the GOP are not the 'crazy' people most around here try to protray them as.


  • #39
    MrMister
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭MrMister


    jank wrote: »
    Romney has experience of running a business, a profitable one at that.
    Romney made his fortune buying up companies (not, by the way, using his own money, but using the companies' own assets as collateral for the loans to buy them with). Then Romney fired many of the workers, making the rest do the extra work. He cut wages and benefits for the rest and then pocketed that money for himself. This is the guy who says that good wages and benefits is what puts companies out of business. In other words, Romney is saying that the problem with the economy is that we have a middle class. Romney wants America to be more "business-friendly". Outsourcing jobs to places where people don't have a say so they can't demand good wages, firing people and making them reapply for their jobs but at half the pay, gutting people's benefits, stripping companies, closing factories, stealing pensions, borrowing and pocketing... Locust capitalism. Chop shops. That's Mitt Romney's view of how to make money. Not the kind of guy I'd want running the country where you have to care about ALL members of society not just your rich shareholder buddies.


  • #40
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    jank wrote: »
    briankeating wrote: »
    I don't have a narrow view of the right. There are plenty of honest, decent and well educated conservatives out there who I respect. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

    There is a growing extreme right to the Republican party, as clearly demonstrated by Santorums run. That is who I am referring to.

    And the fact that he didnt win should also give an indication of the GOP finally getting it. Stop the social conservatism bollox and get on with running the country in a fiscally common sense way.

    TBH I don't think the GOP establishment ever lost it.

    Romney had to pander to the "social conservatives" to actually get the nomination. Reagan would never have been nominated if he was around right now as he would be seen as too liberal. George HW Bush either. 2 of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever.

    Fingers crossed Romneys pandering to the far right will sink him :).

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #41
    matthew8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    MrMister wrote: »
    Romney made his fortune buying up companies (not, by the way, using his own money, but using the companies' own assets as collateral for the loans to buy them with). Then Romney fired many of the workers, making the rest do the extra work. He cut wages and benefits for the rest and then pocketed that money for himself. This is the guy who says that good wages and benefits is what puts companies out of business. In other words, Romney is saying that the problem with the economy is that we have a middle class. Romney wants America to be more "business-friendly". Outsourcing jobs to places where people don't have a say so they can't demand good wages, firing people and making them reapply for their jobs but at half the pay, gutting people's benefits, stripping companies, closing factories, stealing pensions, borrowing and pocketing... Locust capitalism. Chop shops. That's Mitt Romney's view of how to make money. Not the kind of guy I'd want running the country where you have to care about ALL members of society not just your rich shareholder buddies.

    He did all this because it was neccessary to do this to keep the businesses alive. Bain Capital has many success stories like Domino's pizza, staples, Dunkin' Donuts and Burger King. If Bain didn't invest (and no other venture capitalists did either) many of the businesses would've gone bust.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    matthew8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    briankeating wrote: »
    TBH I don't think the GOP establishment ever lost it.

    Romney had to pander to the "social conservatives" to actually get the nomination. Reagan would never have been nominated if he was around right now as he would be seen as too liberal. George HW Bush either. 2 of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever.

    Fingers crossed Romneys pandering to the far right will sink him :).
    You don't get the republican base at all. If you're a moderate it doesn't matter. You just have to act like a conservative, and that doesn't even mean saying conservative things. Chris Christie is immensely popular among republicans despite being a social moderate.


  • #43
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    matthew8 wrote: »
    briankeating wrote: »
    TBH I don't think the GOP establishment ever lost it.

    Romney had to pander to the "social conservatives" to actually get the nomination. Reagan would never have been nominated if he was around right now as he would be seen as too liberal. George HW Bush either. 2 of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever.

    Fingers crossed Romneys pandering to the far right will sink him :).
    You don't get the republican base at all. If you're a moderate it doesn't matter. You just have to act like a conservative, and that doesn't even mean saying conservative things. Chris Christie is immensely popular among republicans despite being a social moderate.

    I do get the Republican base. Why is everyone determind to miss my point.

    The far right is not the republican base, I know this. The problem Is that they have to be won over to win the nomination because they're such a large minority.

    Chris Christie is not a social moderate. He's just slightly leas right wing, which I suppose in US terms does make him moderate. The base loves him because he's a hard line fiscal conservative, just like Reagan. I don't think Christie would have won the nomination anyway, without a large swing right on social issues.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #44
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Hmmm... What really has President Obama done more than fool a select group of people into getting more donations to his relection campaign? According to him, the individual states can still do what they want, and he said he wouldn't use his power as president to stop others from banning gay marriage? So basically... nothing!

    As Joe Scarbough (R) said on his MSNBC show… "Do these progressive cheerleaders of the president realize that their hero has now adopted a position on gay marriage that is horrifyingly close to the views of Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and yes, even me."


  • #45
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »

    As Joe Scarbough (R) said on his MSNBC show… "Do these progressive cheerleaders of the president realize that their hero has now adopted a position on gay marriage that is horrifyingly close to the views of Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and yes, even me."

    All of those Republicans (bar, perhaps, Reagan) were sane. At least by comparison. Though as a social liberal I'm quite biased as they were all (bar Reagan) libertarians.

    Can't say that for the modern party. Reminds me of Rwanda before the genocide.


  • #46
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    All of those Republicans (bar, perhaps, Reagan) were sane. At least by comparison. Though as a social liberal I'm quite biased as they were all (bar Reagan) libertarians.

    Can't say that for the modern party. Reminds me of Rwanda before the genocide.

    Didn't President Obama basically say the same thing Dick Cheney said a few years ago?

    "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

    “The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage”

    Perhaps Cheney has "evolved" faster than Obama. ;)


  • #47
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    Didn't President Obama basically say the same thing Dick Cheney said a few years ago?

    "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

    “The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage”

    Perhaps Cheney has "evolved" faster than Obama. ;)

    Cheney's daughter was a lesbian so Cheney didn't have the standard advantage of been capable of abstract bigotry. Since it affected him personally, he took a liberal stance. Its a very grim day indeed when a majority of Republicans are less enlightened than Dick Cheney. Otherwise known as the dark heart of Satan himself.


  • #48
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,040 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You realize he has no heart don't you? Had to replace it with a mechanical implant last year, the original had become lifeless.


  • #49
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    He should have said be before amendment one past in north carolina. I have a feeling even the wingnuts will be regretting that one soon enough once they realise the language bans straight civil unions too.

    either way, it's about time.


  • #50
    SMASH THE UNIONS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    RichieC wrote: »
    ...it's about time.

    Umm, what are you on about? You do realise that Obama coming out of the closet changes absolutely nothing. It is up to each individual state to legislate on gay marriage.

    Why is one man's opinion such a big deal? Allow me to refer you to this thread. Obama is only one man. His opinion on gay marriage is no more valid than a lunatic's. The vast majority of the 50 states do not allow homosexuals to marry, despite what their president thinks.


  • #51
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,040 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    Umm, what are you on about? You do realise that Obama coming out of the closet changes absolutely nothing. It is up to each individual state to legislate on gay marriage.

    Why is one man's opinion such a big deal? Allow me to refer you to this thread. Obama is only one man. His opinion on gay marriage is no more valid than a lunatic's. The vast majority of the 50 states do not allow homosexuals to marry, despite what their president thinks.
    ..........All he said was "It's about time."

    I think you read into that comment way, way too much.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement