Politics & Current Events
catsareniice1
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Why do you think Obama is doing a great job as president?
Question to dems - why do you think Obama is doing a great job as president?
Re: Why do you think Obama is doing a great job as president?
The first thing that came to my mind was ending two wars. I will never forget going to a coworker's son's funeral who died in Iraq. Seeing his pregnant wife's hand on the coffin shook me to my core. The price of the Iraq war was too great and I thank him for bringing that to an end years after the "mission accomplished" banner.
I also like the way he is protecting social service programs. I love his stance on gay marriage. I am in an interracial marriage and not long ago I would not have been allowed to marry the man I love.
I think he is doing a B- job. I would like him to be more liberal. I wanted single payer health care reform. I want stronger social programs and way less spent on defense. I also think that my taxes can be raised and his $250k threshold is too high. I did my taxes last night (quick look) and I need to be taxed more to help others and we don't make $250,000.
I think Obama is doing a decent job as President. Although he's dragged his feet, he's overall made progress on gay rights.
Obama also gets a lot of credit because the opposition is insane. There's no legitimate second party in the US. There's the Democrats and a completely dysfunctional party with no real interest in governance.
Agree.
This. And here are some other reasons why I think he's doing a good job: actually did something about health care (not as much as I would have liked but it's moving in the right direction), ended war in Iraq, scaled back war in Afghanistan, support for the auto industry (that's big 'round these parts
, repealed "don't ask; don't tell", greatly improved our image abroad and took steps to address student loans crisis. That's all for now 
Lol at pinkgummybears. You crack me up! I love the criticism over Obama ::gasp:: evolving his opinion on gay marriage. How dare he ever change and evolve with the times!!
Also, here in Michigan we are beyond happy with the auto bailout. Saved our state, yo.
And communist country? Hilare. I love to laugh, so I hope you keep posting.
munches popcorn, waits for more
So when Obama changes his mind it's called evolving w/ the times? LMAO!
No. He didn't have anything to do with my interracial marriage but he is supporting others ability to get married. That is what I can stand behind. Once upon a time, someone supported and backed my interracial marriage. I think I should pay it forward and help others have the same rights as us.
It is when he's moving in the direction the country is moving in.
Romney in '94 claimed to be pro-choice and supportive of women's rights, but in '12 was all for legislating the uterus. He has the right to change his stance but it's not evolving with the times when you want to send society back 60-70 years.
Exactly!! It is very natural for people to grow and change as they gain knowledge and wisdom.
Cats, are you suggesting people should never evolve their viewpoints? I don't understand your issue.
No, I think she was trying to make the point that when a Dem changes their mind about a certain issue, it is considered evolving. But when a Republican does it is considered flip flopping.
Typical liberal/conservative double standard.
Um, but who said that? I certainly don't feel that way. In fact, when Bush was president one of my big complaints about him was that he refused to evolve his opinions or viewpoints. He even said something to that effect ("The President cannot keep changing his mind," or something). I felt that made him too inflexible. When presented with new evidence and information, a person most certainly should reserve the right to change and evolve their viewpoint.
So, who has the double standard?
This happens on both sides. It just is more often that the Republicans are going backwards in their thinking.
Perhaps I should have elaborated more. This narrative is played out in the media ad naseum. I believe, people should keep learning and keep growing. The media, however, thinks it is only OK for Democrats to do this.
And Mrs.Goodkat, you believe Romney was regressing because his "evolved" view differed from your own? Perhaps you missed the Gallup poll in the Spring of 2012 which found that 41% of Americans now identify themselves as "pro-choice" which was down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves "pro-life," one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009. Guess there is another 6% of the population who has "regressed" as well.
But in 2009, pro-life was 51% so we could argue that 1% "evolved" into being pro-choice, right?
Sure, it is "evolving" if it aligns with your beliefs. Regressing if it does not align?
Yep, I get it. Point made.
Oh, come on, I was joking with you. I see your point. I'll give it to you. Going from supporting women's rights to wanting to revoke 40 years' of women's freedom to choose on behalf of their own body is evolving with the times. Better?
Well that is your (Pro Choice) view. Some people who are Pro Life, see it as a right to life issue - not a revoking women's freedom. I know you don't understand...I forgive you.
While I would never want to outlaw abortion entirely, I could better understand the pro-life perspective if there was actual support (financial, emotional, physical) for mothers of unplanned children, easy access to birth control for all, and a real effort to provide sex education that was all-encompassing. A lot of the same people who want the right to life are the first to say it's not their responsibility to help the mother or baby whose life they fought so hard to save. States - red states in particular - have been cutting funding to programs that would help these mothers. You cannot just say "don't have sex and you won't get pregnant" because while true, it's never ever going to happen that people won't have sex and get pregnant unexpectedly. Too many people think it's a black and white issue and it isn't.
I can understand why someone is morally pro-life. What I don't understand is when their support of the fetus seemingly ends at birth.
Thank you for clarifying. Because, yeah, media does not equal all liberals. The same way I don't assume Fox News and Rush Limbaugh represent you. However, if I listen to FN and RL, I'm sure I'll hear evidence that it's only okay for conservatives to change their minds, not liberals. Goes both ways, hon.
As for Romney, I honestly can't recall anyone ever saying he wasn't allowed to change his mind. He went from seemingly moderate, to very conservative on some issues. It was worth noting, yes? Should it have been ignored?
When Obama announced his change in heart on gay marriage, it was more than duly noted in the media. A new, random, black preacher was being interviewed daily as speculation abounded over Obama losing an important voter bloc. The change in viewpoint was worthy of discussion - and boy, was it ever discussed.
So, I still don't understand the point Cats was trying to make.
MrsG - I wish more people would embrace the idea of adoption. There are tons of parents (married, gay, or single) out there with seemingly everything in the world...except a child. As an adopted child myself, I know what a blessing it can be.
I pray (and I do) that more women who find themselves in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy will consider adoption.
That would be ideal for me, as well, but as it is there are more than 100,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted now. We need the resources available to support these children.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17102594-once-inconceivable-republican-leaders-sign-pro-gay-marriage-brief?lite
So is this flip-flopping or evolving beliefs?
Or possibly... maybe... about the fact that most of them are done trying to get elected?
Just like Obama.
I mean, seriously? Having the DoJ stop defending DOMA is one thing- but do we really think Obama would have just come out for the SC striking it down if they'd taken up the case in his first term? Am I just cynical?
I had always thought that Obama support of same-sex marriage was politically motivated and perhaps not entirely genuine. Which made me sad for the LGBT community. But then, I could also be cynical.
But does motivation even matter? The majority of democrats support same sex marriage. So, the party he represents needed to adopt a platform for equality.
It's the same with Romney. Do you think being a moderate was not genuine, or was it when he switched to more conservative viewpoints that he was being disingenuous? It honestly does not matter. As long as the intent is to stand behind the positions they take, the motivation is irrelevant.
Cincy- I don't know if I think it was politically motivated, necessarily. If he thought it would help him politically (and was doing it as such), he should have said in his campaign that he supported same-sex marriage, rather than waiting until he was in office. And if it was just about votes and he didn't actually support it, he would have zero incentive for butting into the Prop 8 case and supporting a SC total strike down of DOMA now that he's been reelected.
I just think that politicians will naturally look out for their primary interests and that's why we're seeing him so strongly support it now, when he'll never run for office again, and why we're seeing a bunch of out-of-office Republicans come out for it now. D'you think Huntsman would have said it a year ago?
Missy- if politicians' platforms were formulated based on party members' polling statistics, they'd all sound the same. A voter should be obliged to research and support a candidate that best represents his or her views; a candidate should not base them off of the masses. In general, I think we do want leaders who are, yes, smarter than us and are forward-thinking. If they hold a different view from us, it should be up to them to explain it and convince us.
I think you're really discounting the effect that adoption has on the bio mom. Some women who give their babies up for adoption suffer for the rest of their lives because of it - it's not an easy choice at all.
And a large percentage of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Can you seriously imagine a married mother giving her, say, third baby up for adoption? You're pregnant for 9 months, everyone knows you're pregnant, your friends and family, but you're going to say "well I really just don't want a third child so I'm choosing adoption"? How do you explain that to your other children?
And that isn't even going into the number of women who chose abortion not just because they didn't want a child, but because they didn't want to be pregnant. Adoption doesn't solve the "I don't want to be pregnant" problem.
I feel the opposite. I think he always supported same-sex marriage but couldn't come out and say it because it was still a politically touchy issue that could lose him a lot of supporters. Once all the analysis showed he would gain more than he lost, he came out in favor.
Which makes me roll my eyes, but it's politics and he is a politician.
I disagree. I never said a platform was solely based on party members viewpoints. As I've mentioned many times, this country is very diverse - even in the same party differences of opinion abound. However, if a candidate sees that their party majorly supports a certain viewpoint, and still refuses to govern based on that, they are not an effective leader.
Even if President Obama personally was against marriage equality, the onus was on him to represent the people who voted him into office. I would certainly think less of him if he saw the majority of his party supported gay marriage, and he refused to do so. He represents US, not just himself. For the people, by the people.