Group items tagged

I think it's ridiculous that Romney has "changed" his standpoint on abortion. To me it seems that changing your "pro-life/pro-choice" standpoint publicly is to win certain votes. I remember during Romney's RNC speech he brought up protecting the sanctity of life right after a huge applause and I'm sure everyone did not hear him. His wobbly shifts on his position on abortion is something that bothers me.

I'm wondering how Romney will try and win over certain groups that Obama has not "captured" yet. The article said he may have to reach out to men and college students if he wants to be competitive with Obama's appeal to women and minorities. In Romney's RNC speech he seemed so focused on women and in general, I haven't seen him reach out to men.

Romney is a prime example of his religion shooting his logic in the face. He needs to start getting more libertarian or just accept that he needs to leave religion out of politics. If every child deserves a mother and a father, why do we allow single parents to adopt or single mothers to raise their children? I'm sure that you know more same-sex families up in Haight-Ashbury than I do down here in a conservative Atlanta neighborhood, and gay rights just seems so unquestionable, but it sickens me that I have friends that question gay rights, because 'it is against the bible'. For instance, I hosted a summer camp for young girls this summer and some parents were turned off by the fact that I invited a girl with two moms, even though the girl was super sweet and well-behaved. We even had a girl leave our school after coming out in 8th grade because of bullying and depression because of how intrinsically tied religion has become in this issue. I think that this is absolutely ridiculous and that gay marriage rights are completely constitutional. While it may be against the bible and Joseph Smith, it isn't against the constitution and people need to recognize that. In 40 years, they are going to look like white supremacists standing outside of voting booths and I hate that. This is one thing that I absolutely can't stand about the republican party.

To the republican party I wonder if Romney's religion is an issue or not? To me most republicans tend to be christian and Romney is not. I know that much of conservatives values are based on the christian religion. I mean I am not expert on christian or morman religion, but I assume that there are definitely differences. I also agree that Romney's opening quote on the site contradicts himself. HE NEEDS TO BE MORE CLEAR!

The quote on the top does seem contradictory and confuses me on what Romney actually believes. I'm with you Sabrina that his "every child deserves a father and mother" does not indicate if a child's home will be healthy and this isn't often realistic with divorce and what not. Sort of a side-note but I heard that the Common App used to have "mother" and "father" rather than "parent 1" and "parent 2" for the information section but it has changed in the past 5 years I think. For me, I don't understand why marriage can be controlled by the government in general.

This article is about how Obama's target audience in his advertising is mainly blue-collar women (middle aged white women without education). It brought up two major questions for me: 1. how important is advertising? It seems to be most affective when criticizing the opposing candidate. 2. how important are women (specifically blue-collar women) in this election? How do women's rights tie into the swing votes/why are many GOP-leaning blue-collar women now leaning towards Obama?

I found this very interesting, I normally don't really think of what the midwest's demographic is, but to see that it is blue-collar white women is super interesting. I also think the connection between advertising and the women is really powerful. The ads they are showing are definitely working since much of Obama's supports are their targeted audience.

It's funny that they focus on such a specific group. This quote stood out to me: "Democrats say blue-collar women have been the principal, and most receptive, target for their extended ad barrage portraying Romney as a plutocrat who is blind, if not indifferent, to the struggles of average families." The ads all seem to be focused on saying how bad Romney will be for these women, rather than Obama helping them. How can they know that Obama is really right for them if all they know is that they don't like Romney?

Hmm. I think that it could be a bad move for Romney to offend such large companies, especially because they are "job creators" and could be some of his largest allies. It may have seemed like a good move in the moment, but I don't think that it will be beneficial in the long run. Also, it doesn't bode well that GM and Chrysler kind of disproved Romney's message.

It's hard to say. I think it could go either way and from my point of view, I hope that those seeing the ad with also see the message from the companies saying it is not true. if not, it just might be beneficial for Romney's campaign.

What I found interesting in this article was Ryan's statement that "You know, it depends on the quality of the agreement," which indicates that his ideals aren't very set and could easily be changed by a convincing argument. Also, this seems to disagree with what Rush Limbaugh said about Obama just giving up. This race is still open to either candidate.

What stood out to be in this article was the quote from Charlie Cook saying, "the case for firing President Obama is really pretty obvious, but the case for hiring Mitt Romney is one that has yet to be made." I think this is a really strong point. Romney has made his points of why we should get Obama out of obvious very clear but I think for the remainder of the election it might be a smart move to start convincing people why he should be the replacement.

I was struck by the same quote that Sabrina mentioned that "You know, it depends on the quality of the agreement" (Ryan). I think there is plenty of time left in the election and I think Romney will be pushed to clarify his ideals.

Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s

ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.

Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...

Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.

In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.

Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co

But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

In this article, Romney expresses views on energy that oppose actions he made towards conserving energy in the past as state Governor. This seems to go along with a theme of wishy-washyness of beliefs that Romney displays throughout his campaigning this election season. Do you think that his lack of faith in his "beliefs" he is campaigning for will affect his presidency if he wins the election?

I feel like in a way his lack of faith in his beliefs make him seem less confident and secure. The perception he is giving to the people is confusing because relating this to Abby's article about how he and Paul Ryan feel extremely confident in winning the election. This is problematic. The way I see him at least is not confident.

What Romney's wishy-washiness says to me is that he really, really wants to be president. His own ideals matter much less to him than picking the views that will appeal to the most voters. This could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing; he's either not faithful to anything, really, or he is willing to cater to the needs of the majority.

Romney's back and forth ideals also concern me Yadira. I want a president that is totally confident in his beliefs and doesn't sway. I don't think it has to do with him not being confident necessarily but I think it makes him look less trustworthy. I think this will make voters feel uneasy...

I think this is a big part of this article: "there are now officially more jobs in the U.S. than when Obama took office." Yes, we need more, and any unemployment at all isn't a good thing, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what matters. The Republicans can't say that Obama has done nothing, because there's clearly some improvement.

I think this is an accomplishment and "the trajectory clearly indicates a recovery" but am not sure why this is related back to the debate. I thought Romney answered the questions more thoroughly and didn't shy away as much as Obama did. Overall, I thought Romney did a better job even though I don't agree with every thing he said. Just because these numbers came out doesn't mean Romney didn't debate successfully.

I agree that this race will be very close, but, like the article we read, polls aren't always reliable.

Eli, what part of the article did you find subjective/biased? I thought it gave a relatively neutral overview of the messages from his convention speech.

I, too, found the article somewhat subjective in the tone of the writing. As far as the content goes, it was interesting how so much of the election campaigns are based on the people's ignorance or unawareness. For example, Romney referring to our current economy as the "Obama economy", even though it is not the direct result of Obama's economical beliefs/plans, is effective through its inaccuracy because many people listening to his speech are probably unaware of how the economy got to where it is today.

This article does a good job of pointing out the disappointment that many Americans are probably feelings towards the government, but I agree with Eli that the tone is very Liberal. This was especially apparent in phrases like this one: " the GOP convention showed how broadly Republican leaders and delegates loathe the president". I also liked the point that you can like someone personally and still disagree with them politically-this is an email that comes up a lot in Democratic speeches. It was also interesting to read about whether Romney is running as a business man or a governor.

This article helped me go more in depth into Romney's speech as it analyzed what he was trying to say. The article brought into focus how all of Romney's key points are directly against what Obama has done so far as well as what Obama plans to do in the future.

I'm wondering how effective knocking on people's doors in the hopes of persuading them towards a particular candidate can be. This strategy seems ineffective from how I imagine the conversation going, if a person even gets a door opened. Also, how I'm curious how many people in Ohio participate in the election?

Battling for voters' attention is extremely difficult, especially when the two candidates seem to be saying exactly opposite things. And, in a case like this, money can talk, and the Republicans are funded by a lot of wealthy groups. It seems so frustrating to me that money plays such a huge factor in how people vote, but it some cases, money can demonstrate popular opinion. The more donations a campaign receives, the more money people are willing to invest in that candidate.

I don't think that this will change anyone's opinion on Obama: Democrats will say that it makes him light-hearted, ready to make a joke, and able to connect with people. Republicans will say that it's unprofessional and inappropriate. Imagine the same thing happening to Mitt Romney.