Group items tagged

I know that it may seem horrible for me to say, but I do not view Gay Rights as a "key issue." I am all for the protection of the rights of the LGBTQ community, but I would not say that it is one of the most important issues at the moment. I believe that homosexual equality is necessary in a perfect country, but I do not believe that it is more important than any of the other issues on that list. The Gay Rights movement has many supporters because there is a visible opposition, but I think that we should focus on the current state of our economy or the current state of our planet before we put a large amount of effort towards any social issue. Mind you, these are just my thoughts. I support the cause, but I would rather see Climate Change solved, first.

I think that, like mentioned in the debate, their views on equal pay and hiring women can also play a huge role in who women vote for. Additionally, though, women are people: they have the same desire for a strong economy and a safe country just like men. I think that Obama's campaign probably appeals more to women as they are women, but Romney's campaign may appeal more to women as they are people.

Interesting point Sabrina and I agree. I'd like to add though that it's interesting how Obama is taking the comedian approach to these issues. At least from this article, I definitely took the event to sound like a place I would have been laughing a lot. I wonder if that is the best approach to handling the situation or if he would be more successful emphasizing the issues with a serious tone?

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.

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.

I actually really enjoyed this article just in the way it was written. There have been a lot of articles on how it will affect the polls and for the most part there seem to be losses for both candidates. I think Obama handled the situation well but I think it could go either way if it will gain him support for his efforts off lose him support from the suffering people will be going through

I agree, I think it was a smart idea that Obama did not panic about the storm. I think if here were to have, then that would have probably stressed the people out making him seem unprepared for this disaster. I think this would have had an impact in the polls, but since he took the news of the storm in calm manner that I do not think it will affect the polls.

I think the storm was really interesting because it makes people forget about politics for a second and think about life. It turns from Republican or Democrat to life or death, so people's minds must be really turned around right now. I think Obama's gentle care - and if he continues to have success in calming the people - will be majorly to his advantage because he helped people in a time when their lives were at threat. This seems more memorable than a critical TV campaign, so I'm thinking the storm will help Obama if anything.

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?

I agree with you about how it might make the President seem a bit more relatable to the public when he went on to the television show "The View" but right now was an awful time for him to do it. He is avoiding the world leaders that have come here for the United Nations General Assembly and he is shirking his responsibility to them and this country. He put his campaign in front of the foreign policy he is supposed to be in charge of. Sure as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton should be the one to handle the majority of the foreign policy affairs, but Obama still has to do his part, which he failed to do according to this article, by putting his campaign in front of meetings with Global Leaders.

James, I couldn't agree with you more. Why should the president be trying to appeal to the masses right now? If anything, his adamant resolution to work things out with Israel says way more about his integrity than going on some talk show to try to impress the masses, which, in most cases, aren't exactly adamant followers of international news. Obama selfishly chose the election over America, and just went down even more in my book.

I also think that in this case, Obama should have spoken with world leaders instead of going on a talk show. He is campaigning, but he's also the President of the United States, and that should still be his most important job right now.

I agree that Obama did not make the best decision in putting the talk show above metting with world leaders. I think it is a hard thing to balance when trying to figure out what the American people will think of either choice but I do believe that as the president, it would not have hurt his campaign and could have possibly helped his campaign if he had put international affairs above a tv show.

I'm not sure what I feel about the government investing. I don't think I know enough about this topic to weigh in.

Yes, every politician in history behaves differently around their donors and voters. Even Obama. Just look at how socialist of statements he makes in university speeches, calling directly for "spreading the wealth around" and "those who have more should be expected to give much more" (all excerpts from a speech to Loyola university) are vastly different to those he made at the DNC claiming that he wasn't necessarily for an increase of taxes in the 250,000+ category. All I'm trying to say is that any politician that ever went anywhere did so doing just this.

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

The article says "Democrats are likely to look at the economy with rose-colored glasses because they want their candidate to win in November" which doesn't really address anything. If they believe that the economy is bad and that Obama isn't going to fix it, why are they going to vote for him? The article doesn't give any reasoning at all for why people would want to vote for Obama, just makes them seem crazy for wanting to do so. As for your questions, James, I think they did pick the best candidate at the time. I just think that Obama is a really remarkable politician and public speaker, whether you agree with him or not, and Romney can't compete with that. That, and many people really do believe that Obama is improving the economy.

I'm not seeing the true point of this article. I think the "rose-colored glasses" refer to people that will support Obama regardless of the campaign. I think that there are people who like what he has done and trust him so will vote for him regardless of the economic state right now...but is that hard to believe? Not really. He probably has some advantage from winning people's trust in the past 4 years.

Yeah I agree. I don't think the article went into enough detail with enough facts to convince me of anything. Of course people who support Obama and want him to win are going to see him in a better way then people supporting Romney. And I think depending which part of Obama you choose to focus on, there is a good and bad just like with the policies or actions of any other politician.

Sabrina, I disagree with you in just about nearly everything that you said. The economy is not getting better. He's put more long term damage on us than I thought imaginable 4 years ago. I don't think that he has helped our economy, and here is why: Yes, he did help save us from total collapse, but even then, it wasn't him, it was TARP, signed into law under Bush, which even permitted his actions as acceptable. Gas prices have raised by 1.30/gal and the amount of americans on food stamps has doubled. Sure, short-term unemployment is down from a couple of weeks ago, but the fact of the matter is that at this time in 2008 it was 13M, and it is now 22M. Yes, I understand that Obama has to deal with the Bush era's layover, but in 2016 he will have only improved this number slightly to 19M, not nearly enough to say that he is helping our economy. Under Obama, income inequality was greater than in 2008. Long term unemployment rates have doubled, which in my opinion, is a better indicater of long term well being. The big 5 made 48% of our GDP this year, compared to 32% in 2008, thanks to Dod Franklin. He's increasing middle class tax burden by about 3,000$ with the passing of Obamacare. ACA will increase our debt by 500M a year because it calls for 1T in funds, but only allows tax raises totalling half of that, causing our budget deficit to increase rapidly. At current rates, excluding the increases in deficit from ACA and others, in 2016 our spending will be 130% of our GDP, which is simply instable and can in no way be considered 'helpful' to our economy. Let's not forget the high intrest on our debt, so this number will only drastically increase in the long run. Some of you will be paying taxes by 2016, and as a taxpayer you will owe the government around 220K apeice, because at that point in time an even lower fraction of our population will be paying taxes than currently. I do not like Obama as a politician at

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 can't imagine how it would feel to vote in a swing state. With the long lines in Florida and the difficulties in Ohio, it seems exhausting. I'm sure many people are relieved that the election is over with all of the campaigning. Reading this article just brings me back to what seems to be the flawed system of the electoral college. I obviously don't know what is the best alternative, but wouldn't some of this tension be reduced if we had a popular vote system?

Sabrina, I think for the many families struggling to put food on the table, yes their main concern is jobs. I'm still curious how Obama's track record will effect this election. I wonder if Romney will have somewhat of an advantage because he hasn't had some of the "failure" that Obama has with getting things done in congress. Do you think people are hopeful that Obama can fix the hold ups in Congress? This quote sums it up why some people think will happen again. "The president just cannot work with Congress to finally get the job done. He says he would. He said he would before and he didn't,"

Although I do think it is an important step, I feel like it shouldn't be. It is sort of depressing that electing women is still a big deal but I guess given the circumstances it's great.

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 think that it could be seen either way: as a commitment to the people or as a weakness in lack of ideals. While it seems nice to be always doing what the people want, I feel like our government was created to create equal opportunity for all, which means both gains and sacrifices for all people. If Romney lacks an ideal or a focus, how/where will we go forward? As we have learned from our history and even in Obama's decisions as president, too much compromise can get us nowhere, so where do we draw lines in order to reach our goals...if we have any?

Too much stubbornness can get us nowhere as well, remember. Our government is built on the principals of compromise, and Romney has a much more solid track record than Obama when it comes to business as well as pre-presidential government experience, which speaks way louder than anything else. Would Romney have been as successful if he weren't willing to compromise? No.