Don't Vote For Romney

[Aloysius]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1351102878' post='2497022']
By 'tool', I meant that he's willing to change his position if it benefits him. Even if he doesn't really believe what he's saying, I'd still rather he say that he's anti-abortion than that he's pro-choice.
[/quote]
He doesn't change his positions, he changes his rhetoric. His positions stand firm. You can clearly see that he changed his rhetoric during the Republican Primaries, but that now he has already stepped back into his comfortable decades-long stances that have formed his actual positions for his entire political life. He is not a pushover by any means, he will not change his positions to benefit himself, but he will weasel his way through the rhetoric in order to obtain power. He has already ensured some massive power grabs for his own campaign in the party and will continue to further those in order to shape the party to be what he wants it to be.

Make no mistake, the man has an agenda. And it's a bad agenda that we should all oppose just as fervently (if not moreso) as we oppose Barack Obama's agenda.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351111074' post='2497086']
He doesn't change his positions, he changes his rhetoric. His positions stand firm. You can clearly see that he changed his rhetoric during the Republican Primaries, but that now he has already stepped back into his comfortable decades-long stances that have formed his actual positions for his entire political life. He is not a pushover by any means, he will not change his positions to benefit himself, but he will weasel his way through the rhetoric in order to obtain power. He has already ensured some massive power grabs for his own campaign in the party and will continue to further those in order to shape the party to be what he wants it to be.

Make no mistake, the man has an agenda. And it's a bad agenda that we should all oppose just as fervently (if not moreso) as we oppose Barack Obama's agenda.
[/quote]

Assuming you are right, and I have no reason to believe you are not, then he is actually something of a manipulating genius. He has got half of the Republicans or more convinced that he is essentially just an opportunist weasel who will do or say anything to make people vote for him. A very dangerous mistake to make, if he actually is as you say he is. Perhaps that ties into his power grab at the RNC? I do not know a lot about what happened there, but obviously you do.

[savvy]

[quote]The US has MANY other political parties. They just do not represent the opinions of a significant amount of voters. Political parties, and political ideas are built from the bottom up.
Have you heard of the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party? These are all in more than 30 states. Then you have the couple of dozen smaller parties. In a representative system, parties have to have voters and supporters that agree with them. Sorry if your views are in the minority of public opinion. [/quote]

I am Canadian. We do have two prominent political parties too, but are not as divided as the Americans. You are like the Hunger Games. At the end of the day, it's not about minority opinion, it's about who invests in them, such as big media etc.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351107250' post='2497059']
Answer the question, Claire.
[/quote]
Issuing orders, are we?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1351111513' post='2497090']
I am Canadian. We do have two prominent political parties too, but are not as divided as the Americans. You are like the Hunger Games. At the end of the day, it's not about minority opinion, it's about who invests in them, such as big media etc.
[/quote]

Ours are perhaps even worse. As you know, no mainstream politician is willing to even approach the abortion issue. That was even made clear by Harper, the supposed conservative. That is part of the reason I refused to vote in the last election.

[savvy]

[quote]Ours are perhaps even worse. As you know, no mainstream politician is willing to even approach the abortion issue. That was even made clear by Harper, the supposed conservative. That is part of the reason I refused to vote in the last election. [/quote]

Yes, I agree. We need to start talking. On the other hand this is a cultural issue, rather than a political one. The same with gay marriage.

Edited October 24, 2012 by savvy

[Adrestia]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1351111513' post='2497090']
I am Canadian. We do have two prominent political parties too, but are not as divided as the Americans. You are like the Hunger Games. At the end of the day, it's not about minority opinion, it's about who invests in them, such as big media etc.
[/quote]

The same organizations invest in both the Republicans and the Democrats.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351096610' post='2496984']
I believe in authority. I reject power as the source of authority.

[/quote]
Correct! Christianity teaches obedience to authority but not by power.

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1351099101' post='2497002']
I agree with Winchester, if you support any government you support rape.
[/quote]

That's the whole moral dilemma! All governments are corrupt and have immoral policies. A don't vote is a vote for the winner. So there is no way of not voting for something immoral. A voter only needs to consider which party they think can do the best job for the country. A voter is really only voting for the parties good attributes. They should leave the immoral ones to the conscience of the party.

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1351102427' post='2497018']

Yeah - way to take things out of context.
[/quote]
Winchesters first name is Gym.

[savvy]

[quote]The same organizations invest in both the Republicans and the Democrats.

[url="https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php"]https://www.opensecr...res12/index.php[/url] [/quote]

70% of the media in Canada controlled by the same groups. I won't be surprised if this is the case in the U.S. too.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1351117673' post='2497143']


That's the whole moral dilemma! All governments are corrupt and have immoral policies. A don't vote is a vote for the winner. So there is no way of not voting for something immoral. A voter only needs to consider which party they think can do the best job for the country. A voter is really only voting for the parties good attributes. They should leave the immoral ones to the conscience of the party.

[/quote]
Agorism can be a moral way of life. That said, I am not an agorist.

[i<3LSOP]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351029303' post='2496502']
Here's my issue with devout Catholics advocating the "Don't vote for Romney" agenda.

It helps Obama get elected.

[b]Most[/b] people think exactly like me--voting third party is the equivalent of not voting.
[/quote]

[qfnol31]

Al, I'm not interested in this debate personally, but you repeated a common lie of our liberal media. While Romney's bill might have forced religious institutions to violate their conscience, Romney vetoed that part of the bill and was overridden. He also tried to introduce new legislation with Cardinal O'Malley's support, but it was shot down.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/offers.html?url=%2Fboston%2Faccess%2F897345151.html%3FFMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26type%3Dcurrent%26date%3DSep%2B16%252C%2B2005%26author%3DScott%2BS.%2BGreenberger%252C%2BGlobe%2BStaff%26pub%3DBoston%2BGlobe%26edition%3D%26startpage%3DB.4%26desc%3DLAWMAKERS%2BOVERRIDE%2BGOVERNOR%2527S%2BCONTRACEPTION%2BVETO

I'll see if I can find a better article, but Romney has always disavowed that portion of the law.

[Aloysius]

That refers to conscience exemptions for pharmacists; but Romney care included mandated contraceptive coverage for employers the same way the HHS mandate does, and he had no qualms about that and did not veto that at all.

pharmacist conscience exemptions are a completely separate issue and if I'm mistaken they are still on a state-by-state basis. this is in reference to his Romney care parallel to the HHS mandate, which is not the same thing at all as allowing pharmacists to have conscience exemptions; the HHS mandate is about employers having conscience exemptions, which is not something he fought for as governor of Massachusetts, to my knowledge.

Moreover, in a recent debate he explicitly said employers should not have the ability to exclude contraceptive coverage from their insurance coverage.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Aloysius

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351122055' post='2497201']
That refers to conscience exemptions for pharmacists; but Romney care included mandated contraceptive coverage for employers the same way the HHS mandate does, and he had no qualms about that and did not veto that at all.

pharmacist conscience exemptions are a completely separate issue and if I'm mistaken they are still on a state-by-state basis. this is in reference to his Romney care parallel to the HHS mandate, which is not the same thing at all as allowing pharmacists to have conscience exemptions; the HHS mandate is about employers having conscience exemptions, which is not something he fought for as governor of Massachusetts, to my knowledge.

Moreover, in a recent debate he explicitly said employers should not have the ability to exclude contraceptive coverage from their insurance coverage.
[/quote]
According to his spokeswoman, that isn't quite what he meant:

[quote]"Gov. Romney’s statement speaks for itself. He does not believe that bureaucrats in Washington or employers should tell a woman whether she can use contraceptives, and no policy that he has proposed or supported would do so. To the contrary, he has repeatedly made clear that he believes all women should have access to contraception and make such personal choices themselves. The disagreement between the governor and President Obama on this issue is over whether the federal government should impose a nationwide insurance mandate for contraception. The president wants bureaucrats to make that decision for all Americans, even where it violates their religious liberty. Gov. Romney does not."[/quote]

[Aloysius]

of course not. his spokespeople have tried to clean up every time he slips up and shows his true colors on life issues. they tried to clean up when he included the "health-of-the-mother" exception too; if Mitt had really changed his position, he would not be slipping into saying things in support of his old position. the fact that he slips and says these things is proof to me that he still holds his decades-long positions on these issues; if someone really had a change of heart on an issue, that's the kind of thing they would keep in mind.

employers have no capability to limit access to birth control in any way except by not including it in health insurance coverage, that's where the statement came from. there is no scenario in which an employer has any relation to contraception access except by offering health insurance. that is obviously what he was saying; and if it wasn't obvious, we need only look to his Romney care record to show that's exactly what he would leave up as established precedent.