Cards On The Table
The announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate late last Friday sent a shockwave through the political and media world. The snap judgment of what passes for conventional wisdom among the chattering class is that the Ryan pick was bold (as opposed to safe), and that the election will henceforth be all about wonky details from the Ryan budget plan. "A campaign of Big Ideas!" the pundits excitedly gasped. "Just what we've always wanted!"
Well, we'll see, won't we? I tend to think that -- even given the opportunity -- most of the media will quickly get tired of actual budgetary issues and return to what they do best: shallow speculation about the horse-race aspect of the contest, focusing on meaningless trifles and shiny distractions because they are so much more fun to "report" on than digging through budgets and doing actual math. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, though. Maybe they'll surprise me.
Cynicism aside, Ryan's choice is going to make for an interesting election dynamic. Mitt Romney really has three choices now: run on the Ryan budget, come up with his own just-as-detailed budget, or try to have things both ways by running away from Ryan's budget while refusing to say what he would do differently as president. Right now it appears Romney really would like to take that third route, but my guess is that the first option is going to be forced upon him by default. Ryan's budget is now going to be (Democrats are already leaning hard on this phrase) "the Romney/Ryan budget."
What is interesting is that this election will be the opposite of the 2008 election, in that everyone's cards will be on the table. By that, I mean that in 2008 we held an "open" election, as neither candidate was a sitting president or vice president. Meaning both John McCain and Barack Obama didn't have budgets of their own for the media to scrutinize. They both released plans (some fuzzier in the math department than others), but were given a pass on nitty-gritty details of those plans. Both candidates were free to use sweeping generalizations about what it was they would be attempting if elected.
Not so, this time around. Barack Obama has sent a budget proposal to Congress every year he's been in office. None of these were voted straight into law, but this is not unusual -- a president's budget is virtually never adopted without major tinkering by both houses. I doubt it's ever happened, or at least not in the past 50 or 60 years. Regardless, the Obama budget documents still exist, and they map out exactly what the president's budget priorities are for the future. So Obama is constrained by what he's already proposed, in a way he wasn't when he was merely Candidate Obama.
Paul Ryan likewise has two budget documents which the Republican House has passed. Neither of these made it into law either, because their purpose was much the same as Obama's budgets -- a political document which laid down a bargaining position for later negotiations between the Republican House and the Democratic Senate. These negotiations never really took place, which means neither document was tested by the fire of necessary compromise.
But they do -- for the first time in a long time -- allow for a straight-up apples-to-apples comparison. Presidents, of course, don't write budgets, the Constitution gives this task to Congress. The Obama budget proposals and the Ryan budget can be seen as equals in both political positioning and in level of detail.
The level of detail won't even be enough for the wonkiest of the inside-the-Beltway crowd. Both men's budget plans were merely for the budget "overview" that Congress is supposed to pass before they get down to the much-harder task of the appropriations bills where every last dollar is accounted for. Ryan's budgets, for instance, say that they're going to get rid of undefined "loopholes" in the tax code -- but never state exactly what this means. Obama's budget has similar wiggle room, as do all budget proposals of this nature.
Still, this is more hard data than the media and the public usually gets from both candidates in a presidential election. The question is what will they do with it?
The most amusing reaction in the political and media world has been outright joy at the selection of Paul Ryan -- from both sides. Republicans are happy because Ryan is loved by the Tea Party base, and Democrats are thrilled at the prospect of putting the Ryan budget into some hard-hitting ads.
There are risks for both sides in this approach. One risk for Democrats is that they decide the race is all but over, that Obama is going to win in a landslide, and that they can relax and not stress out too much about the rest of the election. But the bigger risk for Democrats is underestimating Ryan's ability to defend his own budget plan. Ryan, to put it starkly, is not Sarah Palin. He's not a pit bull in lipstick (or a Mama Grizzly, take your pick). He's a pit bull with a brain. And the ability to make everything he proposes sound not only reasonable but in fact the only possible answer to what ails America. I've already seen some Democrats act entirely too dismissively of Ryan's ability to think on his feet, and articulate his vision. This could be a fatal flaw. Ryan is no lightweight, and Democrats would be wise to realize it now.
The risk for Republicans is that they may have just brewed up some partisan Kool Aid which is so strong it is simply going to prove to be too unacceptable to large swaths of the American electorate (such as seniors and independent voters). Ryan is a true believer -- of his own genius, among other things. He, quite obviously, believes that if he just explains his plans well enough, that everyone will then quite naturally agree with them. The light will dawn over the electorate, and they'll all be logically forced to conclude that his plan is the only real way to solve any of our problems.
If you'll excuse me for saying so, Ryan (in this respect) sounds like a whole lot of misguided Democrats on this front. Democrats are usually the ones to fall into this fallacy, so it'll be interesting to see the Republican version of "if you'd just listen to my reasoning, I'm sure you'll have to agree with all my conclusions."
Maybe Ryan can pull it off -- who knows? As I said, I certainly do not sell his speaking abilities short. Seeing him interviewed is an interesting experience. He's got his ducks in a row, he's on the "Bill Clinton" level of wonkitude on detail, and he is a perfect interview for cable television because he talks fast and makes his point so overwhelmingly that few media types can even follow his logic well enough to challenge him on any one particular point. In other words, I'm not looking for the David Gregorys of the media world to really dent Paul Ryan in any way. Ryan, to be perfectly honest, appears much more intelligent than almost any of the folks sitting in the anchor chair.
What this means is that the biggest question in the election may be one of messaging. Who can frame the Ryan budget with the voters better? Now, I'd be willing to be that at least 90-95 percent of the people reading this column would have known all about the Ryan budget even before last Friday's announcement. I could have used the phrase "the Ryan budget" in a sentence, and not had to provide any details for readers to understand what I was talking about.
Hard as it is for me to admit, though, the vast, vast majority of the American public simply does not read this column. Or (more to the point) any political columns like this. An enormous segment of the American voters have never even heard of the Ryan budget (or Paul Ryan) before now. They are about to, in a big way.
The Obama camp's challenge is to present all the negatives of the Ryan budget to the American public in a way they can relate to. Democrats see this (as the military calls it) as a "target-rich environment." Picture yourself duck hunting, and a flock flies by that is so enormous it blocks out the sun. Pretty much any direction you aim, you're going to score a hit. This is why there's so much glee in the Democratic camp right now.
The Romney camp chose to meet the challenge head-on. If Mitt Romney is going to be attacked over the Republican budget plan, what better person to make the case for it than the plan's author? Ryan will be spending a lot of time making this case to American voters who have never even heard of him before now.
That article I linked to above has a cautionary tale for both sides, though. The New York Times reported on focus groups set up by Democrats to test how attacking the Ryan budget's actual details would play with the public. Here's what happened:
According to the Times report, the attacks had little impact. The participants "simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing."
As I said, this is cautionary for both sides. When people do find out what is in the Ryan budget, they mostly don't like it. But the American public shows an enormous ability (as always) to come to the wrong conclusion, as well.
Who frames this issue best in the next month is going to win the election.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The Romney camp chose to meet the challenge head-on. If Mitt Romney is going to be attacked over the Republican budget plan, what better person to make the case for it than the plan's author? Ryan will be spending a lot of time making this case to American voters who have never even heard of him before now.
I don't know if you've had the chance to watch any of R/R's speeches on the campaign trail, following the veep announcement, but I'm noticing an interesting strategy emerging: Romney is giving very Reagan-esque morning-in-America/light-on-the-hill speeches while Ryan is covering the meat and potatoes bugetary stuff. It took me by surprise only because I had assumed that Ryan would be laying out the vision and that Romney would, essentially, be chiming in with, "Yeah, what he said!" But they appear to be running two campaigns at once: one very hopey-changey-uplifting and the other very nuts-and-bolts, with specific roles strategically assigned to each man. Almost like conducting two campaigns for the price of one, all on the same stage. I'm seeing the CEO in that move.
Excellent article, and I totally agree with your warning of not underestimating Ryan's ability to state his case in a very convincing manner. Another thing that intriques me is that both Romney and O are challenging voters to make a choice between the two very different and equally ("extreme") directions, and neither is being shy about spitting it out. They're both acknowledging that voters need to "pick one," i.e. Left or Right. But I think the advantage Romney has, right out of the gate, is that the direction O is defending is the status quo — which hasn't worked. Every time I hear O say (what amounts to) "Do it my way," I immediately think, "Your way has produced 8.3% unemployment, sir," and I immediately wonder how the average swing-voter will react to that battle cry. It's a little tough to lead the charge up the hill with an 8.3% ball-and-chain attached to one's ankle. But I guess we'll see.
Chris,
I've already seen some Democrats act entirely too dismissively of Ryan's ability to think on his feet, and articulate his vision. This could be a fatal flaw. Ryan is no lightweight, and Democrats would be wise to realize it now.
There is at least one Democrat who is also no lightweight and who is not dismissive of Rep. Ryan's ability to think on his feet and articulate his vision, however fantastical those thoughts and visions may be.
That would be the vice president, of course, and he is capable of not only thinking on his feet and articulating a vision, but he can also recognize a cruel budget when he sees one and explain why the numbers don't add up.
The vice presidential debate should be thrilling. It may even result in a MIDOTW award but, I won't be holding me breath on that one. I just hope I won't see a token honourary mention in its place. :)
Oh, this man knows how to lay out his case, all right: http://youtu.be/DJIC7kEq6kw And he delivers it like a Boy Scout.
The thing that surprised me is that ever since the Primaries the talk was around when Romney would pivot to the centre or moderate his policies to try and win over independents. Months went by and he kept sticking himself on the right, attempting to shore up his base (which wasn't that into him). It didn't work.
So now Romney is not pivoting. He can't win without his base so he is forced into throwing them a bone in the form of Paul Ryan. The fact he has so much clout in the GOP shows you how far right they have swung. This isn't 'bold', it's desperation as the polls were swinging away and it became clear he couldn't even win over his own base enough to get them out to vote in numbers.
So yes, CW, now we have 2 very distinct campaigns because one party has moved to the centre and the other is sticking out on the far right. This is why the Democrats are happy. The fact that both parties tend to move to the centre shows how advantageous being seen as the centre party is.
Even the more 'lefty' parts of the Democrats economic policies (like raising taxes on the wealthy) are very popular in polling, especially with independents. So now they can run on how extreme and far right the Republicans are, since they haven't pivoted to the centre at all, and mop up the Independent votes. The election becomes a referendum on the GOP extreme right vision of America. I can't see them losing this referendum.
But CW you're absolutely correct in that the biggest danger for Obama is underestimating the Republicans. But they won't. They are too well prepared for this. This isn't 2010, this is a BIG full Presidential, Senate and House election. You can't compare it in this sense to 2010.
For Romney and Paul they have got to try and convince people that they don't intend to destroy Medicare and Medicaid. They are attempting this through the usual Romney tactic: declare that it is your opponent who wants to destroy these! The idea is that if you get this in first, by the time your opposition gets his shot in, no-one will believe either of you, which is a win for those that DO want to destroy Medicaid/Medicare. It is a good sign: when their only argument is that it's actually Obama ('Mr Socialist') who is cutting Medicare/caid it will be harder to convince people because of their all their other 'Obama is a socialist' propaganda. Victims of their own success I guess!
/rant.
This also isn't the last time the GOP have run on cutting Medicare and Medicaid, alongside tax cuts for the wealthy, claiming they are necessary. The last time was 1995, where they said this was the only road to a surplus; Clinton instead favoured tax increases as the road to surplus.
We all know how that turned out (and what happened to the Clinton surplus after Bush inherited it...)
So yes, CW, now we have 2 very distinct campaigns because one party has moved to the centre
Wait, what? Which party might that be? I don't know what the Left regards as the "center," but with respect to Obama and Romney, "47% Consider Obama’s Political Views Extreme, 31% Say Same of Romney":
"...51% of Likely U.S. Voters describe the political views of the presumptive Republican presidential candidate as mainstream. Thirty-one percent (31%) consider his views extreme. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/june_2012/47_consider_obama_s_political_views_extreme_31_say_same_of_romney
Granted, that may change now that Romney's brought hard-core-Rightie Ryan aboard. But I haven't seen any polls indicating that, yet. Have you? It generally takes about a week for the public to, first, hear the news, and then learn about the candidate, and then formulate an opinion.
So far, so good for Ryan, among Likely Voters:
50% Now View Paul Ryan Favorably; 43% Say He Was Right Choice
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/august_2012/50_now_view_paul_ryan_favorably_43_say_he_was_right_choice
Let's see if O and the Left succeeds in turning him into Satan.
Chris
You need to rely on more than one poll before forming opinions on the data, especially just relying on one polling company (which some people, including myself, have their doubts over).
It is pretty obvious Obama has moved to the centre and Romney right, I can back this with reason and policies if you are actually seriously doubting this?
An easy example. Gay marriage:
Obama - Supports it (left, progressive) but doesn't want to interfere with States decisions on it or do anything on it federally (centre).
Romney - Doesn't support it (Conservative, far right) wants to federally ban it (Conservative, far right).
You need to rely on more than one poll before forming opinions on the data
I don't need but one poll to formulate a "so far, so good" opinion.
It is pretty obvious Obama has moved to the centre
Obvious to whom, and in whose personal opinion, michty? Yours? You can hold any opinion you like, but the majority of Likely Voters appear to disagree with you, according to the polling I just put up. O has been percieved as more to the left than poll respondents' own view of themselves for a long time now. Here's one from December, 2011: http://www.gallup.com/poll/151814/Americans-Huntsman-Romney-Paul-Closest-Ideologically.aspx
Here's what a Rasmussen poll said in January, 2012:
"55% Say Obama More Liberal Than They Are"
I'm too lazy and tired of debating this sort of level with you to bother finding polls that disprove your point or list policies showing Obama moving to the centre. Like I said one poll (of mainly Conservatives) doesn't prove much and certainly doesn't prove that Obama hasn't moved to the centre.
I'm too lazy and tired of debating this sort of level with you
I thought you liked reality-based facts, michty.
Like I said one poll (of mainly Conservatives) doesn't prove much and certainly doesn't prove that Obama hasn't moved to the centre.
I've shown you more than one poll, but whatever.
Fwiw I do actually like that you used facts and polls to back your view, please don't stop! It's just not an exciting topic to debate and too soon after Ryan's announcement for any data to be meaningful...
I'd also guess that to you, since you are very right-wing minded, Obama might seem left-wing. To me, since I am more left-wing minded, he is central/right of centre. But neither of our opinions really matters, independents in America are the ones whose opinions do. This is why most parties move towards the centre at an election. Show me a poll of those, that'd be interesting...
Long but worth the read: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1
This is why most parties move towards the centre at an election.
I'm not seeing either candidate doing it this time around, and I don't expect to. They're both drawing a clear line in the sand and telling Americans to pick a path, Left or Right, with no "center" about it. And with R/R jumping right onto the third rail, no less, inviting that politically forbidden Medicare/Medicaid/SS fight. This is gonna be quite an interesting race.
Chris
As someone who is left minded I can tell you Obama is not left-wing and has almost certainly pivoted to the centre. He is Mr Compromise, unable to take a stand. This is one of his biggest flaws.
Here is a quick list of policies that he has compromised on which people on the left want him to be more of a leader:
- Gay rights
- Money in politics
- Military spending
- Economic stimulus
- Regulation
- Prisons and crime
- Guns
- Healthcare
- National security
etc.
He has abandoned the left and moved to the centre in his positions on all of these. Just look at where he stood on these during the Democratic Primary in 2008 and look where he stands now... Both parties run further left/right during Primaries than they do during elections.
On almost every issue, Romney has taken a right-wing position. One some (like healthcare) he has to because he can't be seen to support some of the bills that Obama compromised to pass...
The only left-wing position Obama has left is raising taxes on the 'wealthy' and even then he is pretty central on this (defining 'wealthy' as >$250k, and his minimum tax rate is on people earning over $1m).
As someone who is left minded I can tell you Obama is not left-wing
That's your personal perception and conclusion, michty; not a fact.
He is Mr Compromise, unable to take a stand. This is one of his biggest flaws.
Well, I'll agree that folks are certainly welcome to perceive it that way, but while you see it as not being able to take a stand, another person might see it as consciously taking whatever position best suits his own political purposes and standing. They're just different perceptions, is all, with neither being right or wrong.
Just look at where he stood on these during the Democratic Primary in 2008 and look where he stands now...
Well, could it be that he was just telling people whatever they wanted to hear on the campaign trail, in order to get himself into the White House? It could boil down to something as simple as that, i.e., looking out for his own self-interests.
Chris1962 [6] -
I agree with that last bit, there. It takes about a week for any event to show up in the polling. The event happens, it takes 1-3 days to "sink in" to the public (for everyone to hear about the event), and then a day or so of figuring out what you think about it. Then polls take (usually) at least two days, with one day for number-crunching.
So we should start to see any "Ryan effect" starting roughly this weekend. Until then, it's just "snap polls" and speculation. Personally, I'll be watching FL, IA, and OH the closest.
[7] -
I dunno, I saw a poll giving Ryan 39 positive and 42 negative. But I'm really waiting to see once the voters really get introduced to Ryan (most don't know who he is, which is about to change big time).
michty6 [12] -
Yeah, see above. In about a week, we'll be able to see what the folks in the middle of the road think, after they've been introduced to Ryan. And it all comes down to who they support, not what they think of people's views. For instance, I'd probably answer that Bernie Sanders was "more to the left" than me, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't wholeheartedly vote for him if I lived in VT.
Chris1962 [14] -
Yeah, I agree with that. Almost a year ago, I pointed out that Obama was going to be the first Dem in a LONG time to actually run on raising taxes for the wealthy -- or, for that point, ANY taxes on ANYbody. Dems may legislate this sort of thing, but since Reagan, they've all been terrified of actually RUNNING on it. Obama set this up in Dec of 2010, when he got the two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts. At the time, I pointed out that a one year or a three year extension made a whole lot more sense, politically. But by choosing this path, Obama set the parameters of tax policy for this election. For me, it is refreshing to see a Dem actually run on "tax the rich!" because it is honest. Likewise, Romney has doubled down on the GOP tax policy with his choice of Ryan -- he won't be running away from GOP dogma, in other words.
So, yes, it is going to be an interesting election, because so much "conventional wisdom" has already flown out the window.
michty6 -
Don't forget Rahm Emanuel. Rahm despised the "Left" base of his party, famously calling them "fucking retarded" at one point. He apologized after saying that -- to the mentally-challenged, but not to the Left. The Left had to put up with two years of disdain from Emanuel, while Obama was tacking to the center.
Like I said, in any list like the one you made, "Rahm Emanuel" really deserves to be a bullet-point.
-CW
Chris
Lol did I state it was a fact? We are talking about the dynamics of left-right-centre wings of politics - nothing is a fact, almost everything is semantics. When you're dealing with a lot of semantics most things are going to be opinion.
One thing that is widely agreed as 'norm' is that Primaries in America are run to the left (D) or right (R) then candidates pivot to the centre. Given the fact that Romney Governed largely from the centre as Governor, most people expected this to happen and his own campaign advisor's indicated so (i.e. the etch-a-sketch remark). Now, surprisingly, this is not happening and I credit this to him being unable to lock up the base.
Looking back, in 2008 Obama and McCain fought from the centre. Obama hasn't changed his stance since 2008 and in fact has moved more right and centre (eg. passing the ACA with a mandate which he previously disagreed with) where as the Republicans have moved very far right, with the Ryan pick even more so.
CW - I agree a week sounds about right.
The event happens, it takes 1-3 days to "sink in" to the public (for everyone to hear about the event), and then a day or so of figuring out what you think about it. Then polls take (usually) at least two days, with one day for number-crunching.
I'd even add another day or two, since Ryan was introduced on the weekend.
I dunno, I saw a poll giving Ryan 39 positive and 42 negative. But I'm really waiting to see once the voters really get introduced to Ryan (most don't know who he is, which is about to change big time).
Things are already happening, even though it's just Tuesday. I posted a Rasmussen poll, earlier, that says 50% of Likely Voters have a favorable opinion of Ryan. And now I'm seeing an Ohio poll, with 51% favorable: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/ohio_51_have_favorable_opinion_of_paul_ryan
He's off to a good start, but these numbers don't mean squat if they don't stick. So I'm waiting a week to see what the reality is.
Rahm despised the "Left" base of his party, famously calling them "fucking retarded" at one point. He apologized after saying that -- to the mentally-challenged, but not to the Left.
ROFL. That Rahm was/is a piece of work.
Lol did I state it was a fact?
Yeah, actually, you did. You state your opinions in the form of fact more times than not, and then you go on to elaborate and argue as though your personal view were a fact, like that's somehow supposed to render the other person's view wrong/incorrect/unviable/illegitimate.
We are talking about the dynamics of left-right-centre wings of politics - nothing is a fact, almost everything is semantics. When you're dealing with a lot of semantics most things are going to be opinion.
Well, in political discussions, which deal with BOTH opinions and facts, it's important to distinguish between the two ("in my opinion"; "as I see it"; "I think"; "I believe"; "I suspect"; etc.) It can go far in keeping the peace.
One thing that is widely agreed as 'norm' is that Primaries in America are run to the left (D) or right (R) then candidates pivot to the centre.
We're not talking about the primaries, though; we're talking about the prez race between presumptive nominees O and Romney, who are a couple of weeks away from their formal nominations at the conventions. And I wouldn't consider this particular race to be the "norm." Nobody's pretending to be a centrist, from where I'm sitting.
Obama hasn't changed his stance since 2008 and in fact has moved more right and centre
Not according to poll respondents, who perceive him as Left/liberal, as indicated in those polls I posted.
For me, it is refreshing to see a Dem actually run on "tax the rich!" because it is honest. Likewise, Romney has doubled down on the GOP tax policy with his choice of Ryan -- he won't be running away from GOP dogma, in other words.
That's what I'm loving about the (new) dynamics of this race. Neither side is running away from anything. They're hurling themselves onto the third rail and into the fire, with "Tax the evil rich!" from one side, and "Yeah, deep cuts and they're gonna hurt" from the other. HOW REFRESHING. A real, genuine race with clear choices. I applaud the candidates from both sides for having the guts to go for it.
Chris
Yeah, actually, you did.
Sigh. I can't believe I'm being dragged to your level. But no, I didn't. You know my comments are on the same page so lying about them is pointless?
Well, in political discussions, which deal with BOTH opinions and facts
Yes, usually when I state something as fact I say 'the fact is' or 'the facts are'. I know you're new to this whole 'fact' thing posting on here and getting actual facts - don't worry you'll get used to it.
We're not talking about the primaries, though
Neither was I. I was talking about a norm accepted in almost all the media about adjustments that are made AFTER a Primary and BEFORE an election. This is exactly the period we are in...
Not according to poll respondents, who perceive him as Left/liberal, as indicated in those polls I posted.
Again, read the info in the polls you posted about the people making up the poll. As I mentioned a poll of 40%+ Conservatives means nothing - they are always going to find Obama more liberal. 'Conservatives believe Obama is liberal' isn't headline making. Show me independents then you have a debate. THIS is why candidates pivot to the center.
"Tax the evil rich!"
Haha awesome! This made me laugh. I love the far-right view of the policy it really is eye-opening!
Haha http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/uexc_attach/paul-ryan_cartoon_budget-plan_ncaa-brackets_tax-cuts_mine-blank_small.jpg
Sigh. I can't believe I'm being dragged to your level. But no, I didn't. You know my comments are on the same page so lying about them is pointless?
I believe the problem is that you simply don't see a difference between these two statements: "As someone who is left minded I can tell you Obama is not left-wing" and (example) "As someone who is left minded I don't perceive Obama as left-wing." One states a fact and the other a personal view/opinion. So spare me your sighing and accusations of lying, michty, and start using words a little more responsibly. One's views do not miraculously transform into facts just because one chooses to percieve them as such.
As I mentioned a poll of 40%+ Conservatives
That's because it's a Likely Voters poll. Righties and right-leaners are the most likely to vote. So, quite naturally, they're gonna have higher representation in a Likely Voters poll. And try not to forget that "conservatives" include DEM conservatives. So don't assume that every "conservative" in an LV poll is necessarily a Republican conservative. Have a look at the breakdowns before brushing it off. There's a reason RV pollers, like Gallup, switch over to LV polling as election day draws nearer. It's because LV polls are more reliable, for obvious reasons.
Chris
Amazing. Any statement which says the phrase 'is not' is apparently a statement of fact! Awesome! I love your interpretations - it is not surprising to me though. Discussing things with you is not a waste of time. It is not the case that I don't like such discussions . Also it is not the case that your views of reality and reasoning are completely warped.
America is not the greatest country in the world anymore. The world is not enough. God is not great. (All statements of fact, in your world, of course!)
One more, these are too funny http://paxus.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ryan-good-deed-cartoon.jpg
Amazing. Any statement which says the phrase 'is not' is apparently a statement of fact!
"Is" and "is not" generally denotes a statement of fact, michty: "My shoe is not on my foot." I can look at my foot, see that my shoe is not on it, show another person that my shoe is not on it, and state as an unequivocal, verifiable fact that my shoe is not on my foot. Really simple stuff, michty.
Romney commercial re: Medicaid...
http://youtu.be/l4gPvToKTWU
Whoops, sorry. Medicare.
Chris1962 -
I have to interject here -- you are guilty of semantic looseness yourself. I mean, I hear your points to michty6, but at the same time you tend to get too close to the polling data, and overinterpret its "big picture" meaning.
There's a famous saying that seems appropriate here: "The map is not the territory."
Public perception is not reality, to put it another way. What voters think may not be correct (and often isn't).
In other words, both you and michty6 can be right at the same time. Michty6 says Obama has moved to the center. This is provable, politically, on particular issues. On health care, Obama ran against individual mandates, and for a public option. He punted on both, which is (on today's political scale) moving rightwards, or more toward the center. You, I believe, are even fond of pointing this fact out with a favorite video of yours.
There are other places Obama has moved Rightwards. National security, for instance. There are also issues Obama has moved Leftwards. Gay marriage, for instance. Those are all provable facts.
But the public sees things the way the public sees things, which is a different subject entirely. Here's an example: George W. Bush was (I don't think he actually "moved" in this case) more to the Left (or to the center) on immigration reform than his own party. His plan was rejected for this reason (don't think it ever even got a vote in the GOP Congress).
But if you polled Latino voters today, would they think Bush was more Lefty than Romney on immigration? They might, and then again they might not. But whatever they think, it is immaterial, because Bush is provably further towards the center (or the Left) than Romney on the issue.
So citing polls to prove a point about a politician's stances or political movement doesn't really prove anything, other than "that's what people think." The politician may have moved, and the public may not have noticed, to show just one way the two could have a major disconnect.
The poll is what it is, I'm not saying it's wrong or anything (you know I love polls, no matter what they say). But the only thing it can prove is "this is how the public perceives things" which is not the same thing at all as saying "this is the reality of the situation."
Polls, much as I love them, do have their limits.
I know, I know, we're all just bickering because we're all smart enough to know we've got roughly a week to wait to see what the public is going to think of Ryan. But you can't play Semantic Police without expecting the same in return.
:-)
-CW
CW: Public perception is not reality, to put it another way.
Actually, it is, Chris, when you're talking about voters opinions, preferences, perceptions, etc.
What voters think may not be correct (and often isn't).
But it IS what they're thinking, which is what enables one to factually state that x% of voters think [whatever]. That becomes a fact, because voters did, in fact, state what they were thinking. Look at it this way: If a pollster asks National Adults if they (for example) prefer hotdogs or hamburgers, and 68% say they prefer hamburgers, then "the majority of Americans prefer hamburgers over hotdogs" becomes a statement of fact until such time as another survey is able to demonstrate that the public's attitude has shifted.
Now, that's hamburgers, not politics, but the same rules of communication apply. If the latest survey shows that x% of Americans perceive Obama as more liberal than themselves, then it is a fact that O's perceived as a liberal (not a centrist), until another survey comes along and shows a change in respondents' attitudes.
In other words, both you and michty6 can be right at the same time. Michty6 says Obama has moved to the center. This is provable, politically, on particular issues.
But it doesn't mean he's changed his ideology. It doesn't make him a centrist. And it certainly doesn't mean that people have changed their perception of his (liberal) ideology, just because he runs to the center (for whatever reason). He can run back and forth, from the left to center, six times a day. But if the majority of Americans still feel he's more liberal than they are, then you and michty can't state, as fact, that O "has moved to the center." You can state it as an opinion, based on how many times you've seen him do it, but it doesn't become "fact" until the majority of the country agrees "Obama has moved to the center; he's a moderate, not a liberal." 'Til then, you're just talking about your own personal analysis and conclusions, based on your personal definition of "the center."
In other words, both you and michty6 can be right at the same time.
I agree. Take that same poll, for example:
"...A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 27% of Likely U.S. Voters feel that the president has about the same ideological views as they do. Fifty-five percent (55%) say Obama is more liberal than they are..."
From that data, I can factually state that the majority of Likely Voters say Obama is more liberal than they are. That's what they say, and it's verifiable, and scientifically accurate. And then michty can knock that number down by stating that, when you factor in the 3-point margin of error, "only 52% say Obama is more liberal than they are." And we would both be factually correct. But michty doesn't get to declare, as a fact, "Obama is not left-wing." That's just the personal conclusion he's drawn. I can just as easily say, "Obama is left wing, because he wants to tax the rich, and he forced CrapCare on the country, and he's giving amnesty to young illegal aliens, and..." on and on. That would be my perception of what constitutes "left wing," in my opinion, according to how I choose to personally perceive, interpret and define O's actions.
michty,
You really must stop referring to Chris1962 as simply Chris. I know you wouldn't want newcomers to this site, for example, to confuse one Chris for another. God forbid!
Chris1962,
Your last post here (oh, I wish) demonstrates that you are truly beyond hope and have no desire to engage us in any sort of meaningful discussion.
You should know that your spurious intentions here are utterly transparent.
May I present a direct quote from Chris1962:
"As someone who is left minded I can tell you Obama is not left-wing" and (example) "As someone who is left minded I don't perceive Obama as left-wing." One states a fact and the other a personal view/opinion. So spare me your sighing and accusations of lying, michty, and start using words a little more responsibly. One's views do not miraculously transform into facts just because one chooses to percieve them as such.
You really are quite lost, Chris 1962 ...
Is that a fact or a personal opinion? And, yes, this is a trick question. Heh.
Chris62 (better Liz? :))
""Is" and "is not" generally denotes a statement of fact, michty: "My shoe is not on my foot." I can look at my foot, see that my shoe is not on it, show another person that my shoe is not on it, and state as an unequivocal, verifiable fact that my shoe is not on my foot. Really simple stuff, michty.
Hahaha you just made my day. That is brilliant arguing. There is no way I can argue with such logic! Amazing.
Romney commercial re: Medicare...
Yay I called it in post [4]. Not a hard one to call, the usual Romney tactic: when an opponent has a legitimate reason to criticise your plans put out a false ad lying about their plans on the same issue - that way you create an idea that 'both campaigns must be lying' in the minds of the public (even when one is and one isn't) .
But michty doesn't get to declare, as a fact, "Obama is not left-wing."
I didn't say this. The full sentence: As someone who is left minded I can tell you Obama is not left-wing and has almost certainly pivoted to the centre. If you can't see this is not a statement of fact you really are lost (clue: the phrase "I can tell you" lol).
Aside from the usual stupid semantics debate with you, you are completely missing the point on the argument we are having. I am not saying Obama is a centrist politician. I know he is slightly left of centre. So when people say 'Obama is more liberal than them' they are probably right.
But what I am saying are two things, completely different to this:
- He has governed from the centre, if not even the right of centre. This is because even though he is personally left of centre he has compromised on his personal beliefs consistently as President.
- He is running a campaign from the centre - this is common in all elections (this one being an exception) where both parties move to the centre and moderate after their Primaries. Obama is doing this, whilst Romney stays on the right and I think this is a huge mistake (of Romneys).
Not interested in your insults, Liz.
Chris1962,
Not interested in your insults, Liz.
Don't take it as an insult. Take it as constructive criticism. She is correct. CW was also correct, but you refuse to (or can't?) admit that. You have no interest in engaging in honest debate here. You routinely use opinion as fact and then project your actions onto whomever is engaging you. You refuse to look at any data that is not "Chris1962 Approved" (does that come with a seal of approval they can post on the website?), stating flat out that it is biased before you even give a legitimate look.
You simply want to post your opinions (and most often present them as facts) gleaned from whatever right wing media sources you frequent. And then when someone soundly debunks the talking point du jour, you are dismissive and condescending.
Take a deep breath and look around. There is an old addage that if everyone around you is crazy, perhaps you are the crazy one (and they are all actually sane). I think the same argument can be used for crying "liberal bias" against every news or research organization. Perhaps if every news or research organization providing facts is "biased," the bias is yours — not theirs?
The community here goes out of their way to post thoughtful comments with links to facts to support their thesis. If there is a deliberate agenda where the information is linked, it is usually noted so that can be taken into consideration when viewing it.
In thread after thread, you refuse to bring intellectual honesty to your debates. If someone provides facts (or even opinion based on fact) and provides you with links to those, you dismiss them out of hand, never even considering them because you have deemed from on high (with prejudice) that their sources are not good enough. This makes you no more interesting to interact with than a wall.
So, yes. Liz is correct when she says that you have no desire to engage in meaningful debate.
CW
Michty6 says Obama has moved to the center. This is provable, politically, on particular issues. On health care, Obama ran against individual mandates, and for a public option. He punted on both, which is (on today's political scale) moving rightwards, or more toward the center. You, I believe, are even fond of pointing this fact out with a favorite video of yours.
There are other places Obama has moved Rightwards. National security, for instance. There are also issues Obama has moved Leftwards. Gay marriage, for instance. Those are all provable facts.
My point is that Obama is definitely personally left of centre minded but he has Governed from a centre to centre-right position and is campaigning from the centre.
These are all good examples you provided except I would interject on the gay marriage one. Gay marriage is actually the perfect example of how he is personally left (believes it should be legal) but is campaigning from the centre (isn't going to make any decisions on it federally) compared to his opponents who are campaigning firmly on the right (want to federally ban it).
Now if you ran a poll and asked 'is Obama left, centre or right on gay marriage' a vast majority of people would say left - because they know his personal opinion. So basically this poll would prove is that people have an opinion that doesn't fit the facts and that Obama is campaigning to the right and centre of what people think his personal views are. I agree with this, hence why I stated he has moved to the centre (i.e. right of what most people think of him).
The point is a survey of what people in general think proves nothing. The reason parties move to the centre is to swoop up the independent vote. And, to continue my example, traditional electorate analysis would dictate that independents are much more likely to vote for Obama's centrist do-nothing position on gay rights than either the left (federally legalise it) or right (federally ban it) positions...
Hahaha you just made my day. That is brilliant arguing. There is no way I can argue with such logic!
Evidently, since you can't refute what I've said.
The full sentence: As someone who is left minded I can tell you Obama is not left-wing and has almost certainly pivoted to the centre.
The full sentence doesn't change anything, michty, since you can't tell me that Obama is not left-wing, because your can't substantiate that statement with anything beyond the personal conclusions you've drawn. Look at your own conclusion: "...and has almost certainly pivoted to the center." "Almost certainly, according to whom, i.e., in whose opinion? Answer: Yours, and other "left-minded" people who share your view. How many people? Does it amount to a majority of national adults? A majority of registered voters? You don't know how many share your view; ergo, you can't "tell me" Obama "is not left-wing," because all you've got to substantiate that claim is your personal perception, assessment and judgment.
Aside from the usual stupid semantics debate with you
Then start communicating a tad more responsibly, michty. In a discussion of politics, where both opinions and facts are routinely exchanged, state your opinions as opinions and your facts as facts, and stop trying to pawn your personal views off as fact in an effort to bolster your positions and arguments and/or diminish mine.
But what I am saying are two things, completely different to this:
- He has governed from the centre, if not even the right of centre.
Yeah, as you see it. He's also governed from the left, as I see it.
- He is running a campaign from the centre
As you see it. I'm seeing both candidates asking the public to pick a direction, Left OR Right, and offering two very distinctly different ways to go about solving the economic, unemployment, entitlements, etc., problems this nation is dealing with.
You refuse to look at any data that is not "Chris1962 Approved"
I am not obligated to accept, as "fact," data put out by self-interested parties, with partisan agendas, and arrived at by methodology designed to achieve a desired result. I have every reason and right in the world to reject so-called "proof" from self-interested parties, or even data that gives the APPEARANCE of bias.
Here, maybe you can relate to this, because it's the Left accusing the Right of engaging in those tactics:
Flap over study on gay parenting raises questions about private funding for research
"A recent study by a University of Texas professor that raised doubts about gay parenting has stirred controversy and drawn sharp criticism from some sociologists and gay rights advocates. Among their concerns: The study was paid for by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation.
Associate professor Mark Regnerus has denied that those groups colored his work. But the flap over the report highlights the growing role of private groups in financing university research as government funding shrinks, and it raises larger questions about what constitutes ethical funding for scientific research and whether social scientists can be independent from the political biases of their patrons...."http://www.statesman.com/news/local/flap-over-study-on-gay-parenting-raises-questions-2432410.html
The public info hub is fast becoming polluted, in my personal AND professional opinion, by tainted studies and reports and push polls, etc., and it is becoming a genuine problem for communications industries, which seek out studies to use as references to substantiate facts. REAL facts. Only desired results are not "facts"; they're spin. And it's become a time-consuming, EXPENSIVE chore to figure out which data is reliable and which is biased; hence, bogus.
So, yeah, I can and will promptly reject anything that even smells like the infamous "studies" that the Left AND Right are gleefully waving around on bulletin boards, with no clue that such studies are created for the sole purpose of spreading SPIN and eclipsing the real, actual facts.
"The full sentence doesn't change anything, michty, since you can't tell me that Obama is not left-wing"
Lol this is amazing. I CAN tell you - I just did. I can tell you whatever I want. I can tell you the sky is pink. 'Telling' someone something is not the same as 'stating fact'. You're completely lost in this.
"He's also governed from the left, as I see it."
Anyway, in the hopes of progressing this debate, perhaps you would like to present some reasons why you think he has governed from the left? And I can provide reasons why I think he has governed from a centrist/right of centre position? Then we can actually debate and discuss this instead of stupid semantic arguments...
I'm seeing both candidates asking the public to pick a direction, Left OR Right
Yes and I see one candidate asking the public to support a far right extreme agenda, ending social welfare as we know it, extending and making permanent massive tax cuts on the wealthy; the other running from the centre which is definitely 'left' of this vision but is not left-wing as I (a left-winger) have come to know it...
Lol this is amazing. I CAN tell you - I just did.
Yeah, stated in the form of fact rather than opinion. And you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two, which is why we've got a failure-to-communicate problem going on.
Anyway, in the hopes of progressing this debate, perhaps you would like to present some reasons why you think he has governed from the left?
In my opinion? CrapCare, for starters. The majority of Americans were against it and, to this day, they want it repealed.
Chris1962 [31] -
If the latest survey shows that x% of Americans perceive Obama as more liberal than themselves, then it is a fact that O's perceived as a liberal (not a centrist), until another survey comes along and shows a change in respondents' attitudes.
But that still doesn't mean that any of that conflicts with what Obama actually IS, it is just repeating what the PERCEPTION of him may be. Which is nothing more than opinion, writ large. Sure, it's measurable, but it's still opinion, not fact.
Michty6 is arguing about what Obama is -- a fact, measurable by his actions on any particular issue. Now, there's some room for disagreement about how "left" "right" and "center" any particular action or issue stance is, but it's still a factual matter.
Public perception is also a factual matter, but has no real bearing on the reality of the situation -- what a politician IS, not just how people see him.
Here's another example: Poll Republicans, and ask them if Reagan raised taxes. I bet you'd get an overwhelming "Of course he didn't, he cut taxes!" response from a GOP sampling.
This doesn't change the fact that Reagan did raise taxes (and cut them, at various different times). Public perception is one thing, but the facts on the ground are another.
Michty6 is arguing about the reality of Obama on the political scale. You're attempting to counter with polls, which is not the same thing at all.
One is indeed, factual, and the other is no more than a giant aggregate of opinions. Sure, this aggregate is a measaurable fact, but it's still nothing more than a lot of opinions mashed together.
But if the majority of Americans still feel he's more liberal than they are, then you and michty can't state, as fact, that O "has moved to the center." You can state it as an opinion, based on how many times you've seen him do it, but it doesn't become "fact" until the majority of the country agrees "Obama has moved to the center; he's a moderate, not a liberal." 'Til then, you're just talking about your own personal analysis and conclusions, based on your personal definition of "the center."
Hogwash. Read your own words: "no matter how many times you've seen him do it." This is a variation of the "who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or me?" -- if he did it, then he did it. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, he still did it. It is fact, whether anyone saw him do it or not.
Obama can move to the center, and if the public doesn't notice, then which is true: he has moved to the center, or he has not moved to the center? Factually, he has moved to the center. Public opinion polls are precisely that -- public OPINION polls. They tell you what the public is thinking, but they do not tell you the facts. You have it precisely backwards, and are saying that "fact" only happens after "opinion" validates it as fact. That is nonsense.
The American public is often wrong. How many Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11? Didn't make it true, no matter how high American public opinion ran. That is the FACT of the matter, even when public opinion was wildly wrong.
A politician moving to the center is a fact. You can say "that's not the center, that's left (or right)" and that can be a point of valid argument. But you cannot claim with a straight face that public opinion dictates reality -- because, as I said, that is precisely backwards. The map is not the territory.
But it doesn't mean he's changed his ideology.
So now you're a mind reader? Obama can shift politically on an issue, but you know his true ideology by reading his mind, so he cannot be a centrist until you (or a majority of the public) say so? Hogwash.
Public opinion surveys show -- some more accurately than others -- what the public thinks. No more, no less. They are lots of fun, but don't really prove anything other than that's what the public thinks. If the public thought pi was equal to 3.2, would that change the ratio of a circle? No, it would not.
Public opinion is lots of fun, such as "who was the best president ever?" but they tend to ask questions without factual basis. How can anyone prove the "bestness" of any particular president? You might be able to prove something like "which president was best economically" or "militarily" or suchlike, but just "best president ever" is totally subjective.
"Do you think Obama's more lefty or centrist" is also totally subjective, as you actually point out a number of times. So why is it subjective and opinion when micthy6 says it, but "fact" when a whole bunch of people say it in a survey? You're actually arguing against yourself, I think.
Stop being so intentionally disingenuous. Michty6 was making a fairly commonsensical point -- most politicians in a general election campaign want to pivot to the center. You can argue how effectively any candidate is doing on that front by his perception in the polls, but you can't argue the fact of political history. You can say "Obama isn't moving to the center, and here is why: his stance on X hasn't changed, he's moved more left on Y, and he's a raging Marxist on Z." But to say "most people don't believe that, so it must not be true" is laughable. If it were, sailors would still regularly be sailing off the edge of our flat earth (which the sun would be revolving around).
Here's a question to see what your opinion is: taking Obama's 2008 campaign position as a starting point, did he move towards the left or towards the right on health care when he passed the Affordable Care Act?
-CW
Chris62
Yeah, stated in the form of fact rather than opinion. And you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two, which is why we've got a failure-to-communicate problem going on.
And here-in lies the problem. If you believe the phrase 'I can tell you' is a statement of fact then I can see why you have problems on every single thread in this blog about understanding and misrepresenting and all this other semantic crap...
In my opinion? CrapCare, for starters. The majority of Americans were against it and, to this day, they want it repealed.
Great let's debate. The ACA is a great place to start:
Obama during 2008 Primary - I support single-payer. Hilary supports mandates, I disagree with her. [Left-wing view]
Obama during 2012 - The ACA and mandates are the best thing ever for Americans. [Moved to the center/right]
Can you see how Obama has moved to the center/right on this issue? So my view that he is personally left-wing (supported Single-Payer) but has Governed from a center or center-right position (implemented an individual mandate - originally a Conservative idea) holds true for healthcare?
Bring up some other areas if you want to keep discussing this. I'd say that the only areas that I believe Obama hasn't governed from the center/center-right are Foreign Policy (excluding National Security), Immigration and Civil Rights (even on this he has been centrist, like gay rights - but that's because civil rights in general are now a centrist issue).
Oh, and by the way, I think all y'all are chicken not to take the geography quiz.
Hmmph.
What have you got to lose? Kevin's mark of 35 is still standing as the standard to beat. Get crackin', folks!
:-)
-CW
Heh.
"You have no interest in engaging in honest debate here."
It's continuous source of fascination to me the dynamic at work here..
ONLY those who argue the Left's position are "interested in honest debate"..
Anyone who chooses NOT to partake of the Obama kool-aide are always wrong, not interested in honest debate and, likely, are the cause of the black plague, cavities and the coming Armageddon...
Let's play a fun game, shall we??
Let's assume, just for fun, that those who oppose Obama and his policies are not Satan incarnate, are NOT racist and just have different set of values that are no more nor no less "evil" than any other set of values..
Can we play this really fun game and see where it takes us??
I honestly doubt it, but let's give it a shot, eh??
{lurk mode}
the other running from the centre which is definitely 'left' of this vision
I think O's only "vision" is to get reelected, and whichever direction the political winds tell him to go is where he goes. And I think he just wants to split the political baby in half so he can have things both ways, most times. Take his gay-marriage "evolution," forced upon him by Biden's gaffe. O seemed real content not to go down on the record, up to that point, so as not to inflame his Left base OR swing voters. So, when backed into a corner, with Left demanding a response, he split the baby in half: Yes, he (suddenly) supports the Left's view, BUT... BUT... BUT... he also supports states rights.
But do I believe that decision was made for any reason other than political expediency and salvation? No. Do I believe he truly, genuinely agrees with gay marriage? I have no clue.
Michale
Welcome back! Unfortunately you completely missed the point in your post. There is a difference between debating an issue intelligently and dragging the conversation down to semantics and avoiding the actual subject we're debating. And...
Let's assume, just for fun, that those who oppose Obama and his policies are not Satan incarnate, are NOT racist and just have different set of values that are no more nor no less "evil" than any other set of values..?
I oppose Obama's policies but I can make a reasoned and logical argument why I'm against them without insulting the guy or resorting to cheap political tricks and shots. Like calling him un-American, demanding his birth certificate or school records (as many on the right do)... And yes fwiw I vastly disagree with Romney/Ryan considerably more than I disagree with Obama...!
Chris62
Take his gay-marriage "evolution," forced upon him by Biden's gaffe. O seemed real content not to go down on the record, up to that point, so as not to inflame his Left base OR swing voters. So, when backed into a corner, with Left demanding a response, he split the baby in half: Yes, he (suddenly) supports the Left's view, BUT... BUT... BUT... he also supports states rights.
Finally! Now we're talking! I totally agree 100%. Like I said, I believe he IS personally left-wing but he governs from the center/right. He doesn't take a stand or push for what he believes in often enough...
Do I believe he truly, genuinely agrees with gay marriage?
This is the difference. I do believe he agrees with this but he was previously avoiding it because he thought it would cost him politically. Then when that cost disappeared and the road was a little clearer, he made his beliefs known. This makes sense to me logically and rationally...
Chris62, as I mentioned before gay rights is an excellent example of Obama being left wing (believes in gay marriage) but both Governing and campaigning in the center (won't do anything about it) whilst Romney and co campaign on the far right (want to bar it)...
michty6 -
Just to stir the pot a bit...
You might compare O's gay marriage stance with Romney's on abortion.
R had a close relative die from a botched backstreet abortion. He told this story on the campaign trail, when convincing MA voters to vote for him because he would protect a woman's right to choose.
With an emotional story in his past like that, I think the man truly does believe in legal abortion.
But he tacked right to run for pres, so using your language about O, I think his views are pretty centrist on this one, but he's being politically expedient about what he says about it now. What would he do if elected on the issue (ie. how would he govern)? I have no idea.
Which is kind of the point. If O is a Lefty in his heart, but has governed from the center, then R is more of a centrist in his heart, but might govern from the hard right. It's hard to tell, perhaps the centrist R is a thing of the past.
-CW
Michale -
Hey, buddy, you've been missed!
But I have to say... you're the only one bringing up Satan here. Nobody's saying anyone's evil, we're actually doing what you are asking for -- trying to debate the relative left/right positions of both candidates.
What could be better than that?
Other than the squabble over semantics, we actually are getting in to substance here.
Now go take the geography quiz! I bet you'll do the best, because you've moved all over the country, so probably know more of these off the top of your head than most...
:-)
-CW
Michale -
And, I have to say, I was thinking of you when I (correctly) used the plural of the expression: "all y'all".
Heh.
-CW
Chris62, as I mentioned before gay rights is an excellent example of Obama being left wing (believes in gay marriage) but both Governing and campaigning in the center (won't do anything about it)
Except that he isn't really "governing" on gay so-called rights. He isn't doing anything but opining. And I'm not even sure how the country ACTUALLY feels about gay unions or gay marriage, because I'm seeing the usual crapload of poll-spinnning going on, including by the press. Like so:
Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/
But look at the results: ONLY 38% feel same-sex couples should be allowed to married, and ONLY 24% feel they should be allowed civil unions. 38% is not a majority; far from it. And neither is 24%. So (example) when a gay marriage or gay unions initiative is on the ballot — such as occurred in North Carolina, not too terribly long ago — ONLY about 38% are likely to vote in favor. So what's with CBS News' bogus assertion that "most Americans" support it? You have to ADD those two numbers together to arrive at that figure, and how misleading is that?
And what does it say about how Americans REALLY feel about it? If the majority of the country is in favor of it, they sure as heck aren't showing it on election day, when an itiative is up for a vote.
Here's an article that came out, following the NC vote. Notice what the PPP Polling guy had to say:
Marriage Beats Non-Marriage 61–39 in N.C.
Even Public Policy Polling (a Democratic firm), which showed marriage amendment passing by 16 points right before the election, were shocked by the massive victory for the North Carolina marriage amendment, admitting via tweet: “Hate to say it, but I don’t believe polls showing support for gay marriage nationally. Any times there is a vote it doesn’t back it up.”
Actual margin of victory: 22 points, in a swing state which backed Obama in 2008.
I'm with the PPP polling guy on this.
CW
But he tacked right to run for pres, so using your language about O, I think his views are pretty centrist on this one, but he's being politically expedient about what he says about it now. What would he do if elected on the issue (ie. how would he govern)? I have no idea.
Exactly, this is why Romney not pivoting to the centre is so surprising. And, talking of abortion, Ryan is as far right you get on abortion!
This is why the whole thing is amazing: I can understand Romney shifting well right for the Primary but everyone thought he'd come back to the centre (where most of his views were before) - Ryan is the final nail in the coffin for that though. And it does leave a lot of questions: Is he reallyanti-abortion? Is he really against healthcare mandates? I guess part of the problem is when you already have a reputation as a complete flip-flopper, the pivot to the centre maybe just wasn't an option?
perhaps the centrist R is a thing of the past.
This seems to be the case at least for just now. I'm sure they swing right regularly but come back when it doesn't work. I think this election will push them to the centre if it is a complete disaster (which I think it will be).
Chris62
Except that he isn't really "governing" on gay so-called rights. He isn't doing anything but opining.
Doing nothing is a form of governing, especially on this issue where he has made it pretty clear his policy will be to let the States decide themselves - this is actually about as centrist a policy as you can get.
So what's with CBS News' bogus assertion that "most Americans" support it?
CBS is actually correct. For one thing, with regards to polls, I never rely on one poll on anything. But there have been many polls showing a majority of Americans support it, even if the one poll you reference has it's numbers skewed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2012
And what does it say about how Americans REALLY feel about it? If the majority of the country is in favor of it, they sure as heck aren't showing it on election day, when an itiative is up for a vote.
The difference is:
Before Obama supported it - polls showed American's didn't support it or it was VERY close.
After Obama supported it - polls shifted and, in general, almost every poll shows support for it now - it is starting to become a lot clearer.
There has never been a referendum since Obama endorsed it, North Carolina was just before he endorsed it, so this would explain the difference between the polls and actual votes...
So I would think when there was a vote in the post-Obama-public-support-of-gay-rights period it would yield a yes. There are several later this year I believe to test this hypothesis out...
Also, obviously support for gay marriage will vary State to State and even if it is easily above 50% nationwide, it could easily below 50% (and much lower) in certain States...
But I have to say... you're the only one bringing up Satan here. Nobody's saying anyone's evil, we're actually doing what you are asking for -- trying to debate the relative left/right positions of both candidates.
It's the questioning of motives or assumptions of an agenda that I have a problem with.. It just would be nice if everyone would agree that we're ALL here for honest debate and NONE of us have any ulterior agendas or motives... That we don't say outlandish things just to push buttons, that we might honestly BELIEVE the things we say and that we have VERY valid reasons for such beliefs...
Yea, I know.. I know.. In an election year!!?? What was *I* thinking!! :D
Now go take the geography quiz! I bet you'll do the best, because you've moved all over the country, so probably know more of these off the top of your head than most...
Oh, OK.... If only to one-up Kevin..
J/K Kevin.. :D
Michale....
Obama first Medicare attack (back) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giTuafVOXFg&feature=player_detailpage#t=77s
CBS is actually correct. For one thing, with regards to polls, I never rely on one poll on anything. But there have been many polls showing a majority of Americans support it, even if the one poll you reference has it's numbers skewed
You're missing the point, michty. The numbers themselves weren't skewed. They were 38% and 24%. The reporting was bogus, stating right in the headline "Most Americans support same-sex unions." And that so-called "majority" was arrived at by adding those two MINORITY percentages together. This is CBS, a national big-three broadcaster, SPINNING for the Left with an utterly misleading headline. That's the problem going on out there: People are getting SPIN fed to them, and buying into it, and spreading it. Only when an actual same-sex marriage or union election comes up, it's shot down by voters. So where's this so-called "majority"? My gut feeling? I don't think it exists. I think poll respondents may be giving politically correct answers that they, in reality, don't subscribe to.
And that's why I'm prone to agree with the PPP pollster — a Democratic polling group, no less — who said, "Hate to say it, but I don’t believe polls showing support for gay marriage nationally. Any times there is a vote it doesn’t back it up." PPP's pre-election poll was off by SIXTEEN points.
The point is that something's suspicious about polling on this subject, in general, because there's a disparity between this so-called majority support that polls are showing but which aren't being reflected in actual ELECTION results. North Carolina isn't exactly the only state that's held a vote on this issue.
"Hate to say it, but I don’t believe polls showing support for gay marriage nationally. Any times there is a vote it doesn’t back it up."
And THAT is the point of the whole mental exercise.
Sure, it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy to claim that Americans support same sex marriage..
But EVERY time it has come to a vote, in EVERY state it has been defeated..
When the rubber hits the road, Americans don't support same sex marriage.
Now that's not *MY* personal opinion, but it IS the will of the majority of Americans.
I respect that. Even if I don't happen to agree with it...
Michale....
Chris62
I'm not doubting that you may have found an error with one survey or poll (I haven't looked myself). My point is that there are plenty of polls that back this up - see the Wikipedia article I linked to (which itself references the polls in it's footnotes). For example, the first poll in the Wikipedia article has support for gay marriage at 54% - here is the actual poll http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf
I think poll respondents may be giving politically correct answers that they, in reality, don't subscribe to.
Sure this is always possible. But I'd say there are now too many polls out there that show a support for gay marriage (see wiki article). Also the polls show the reasoning why this support is going up, for example, in the CNN poll, in 2010 49% of people said they had a family member or close friend who was gay or lesbian; this number is now 60% in 2012. As society becomes more accepting of gay/lesbian people, more will come out the closet, people will have more gay/lesbian friends and then more people will 'evolve' (;))their views on gay marriage - this is a never-ending circle... So there this kind of rationale and logic for people moving towards supporting it.
North Carolina isn't exactly the only state that's held a vote on this issue.
This is not really evidence that polls are wrong for many reasons:
- The 'tipping point' where support for gay marriage started to over-take opposition was late 2011 (going by the polls). NC is the only State to have had a vote since then.
- A major boost in the pro-gay-marriage support was Obama's support, which came after the NC vote.
- Almost all surveys (now) show very high support among Democrats, mediocre support among Independents and very low support among Republicans. Although Obama won NC in 2008 it is almost certainly still a red state at heart - 1976 was the last time Democrats won it before Obama.
So yeh the fact NC voted no solidly can be easily explained other than considering all the polls wrong. There are many more votes later this year which will more accurately reflect the polls.
Apparently, the polls ARE wrong..
While Americans may *SAY* they support gay marriage, when the rubber hits the road, when it comes time to actually VOTE on it, gay marriage has **ALWAYS** been defeated..
Mitchy, it seems you are guilty of exactly what you were accusing CB of..
You are putting forth the case that the POLLS (the opinion of the voters) equals reality...
But in the case of Gay Marriage, the POLLS are saying one thing, but the FACTS are saying quite another....
Americans do NOT support gay marriage...
They may SAY they do, but the FACTS clearly show that they don't....
Michale.....
Obama can move to the center, and if the public doesn't notice, then which is true: he has moved to the center, or he has not moved to the center? Factually, he has moved to the center.
Which begs the question, in whose eyes, and by whose definition of "the center"? Your "reality" is based on your perception of what constitutes "the center." You can say (for example), "Obama moved to the center, evidenced by his governing from the center on the gay marriage issue," and I can say "Obama isn't 'governing' on the issue at all; he's opining, and pro-gay-marriage is not 'the center,' evidenced by gay-marriage intitiatives failing in about 30 states." So whose VIEW of what constitutes "the center" is factual: yours or mine? Neither, because we're stating opinions, not facts, Chris. The American people get to define "the center," not you or me. And in order to get the American people's definition, you have to conduct a survey. And those survey results then define "the center" and dictate which one of us made the factually correct statement.
While Americans may *SAY* they support gay marriage, when the rubber hits the road, when it comes time to actually VOTE on it, gay marriage has **ALWAYS** been defeated.
But in the case of Gay Marriage, the POLLS are saying one thing, but the FACTS are saying quite another....
Americans do NOT support gay marriage...
They may SAY they do, but the FACTS clearly show that they don't....
Nonsense. The facts align to the polls. NC aside, every single vote on gay marriage has matched the polls - since before late 2011 all polls said it did not have nationwide support. You need to look at the timeline before throwing this around as 'fact' because it isn't.
NC, I have covered in my previous post.
and I can say "Obama isn't 'governing' on the issue at all; he's opining, and pro-gay-marriage is not 'the center,' evidenced by gay-marriage intitiatives failing in about 30 states." So whose VIEW of what constitutes "the center" is factual: yours or mine?
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Previously (when every single vote, bar NC, was held) gay marriage did NOT have support of the majority in polls, so the results DID follow the polls! This is a statement of fact.
Michale: It's continuous source of fascination to me the dynamic at work here..
ONLY those who argue the Left's position are "interested in honest debate"..
Anyone who chooses NOT to partake of the Obama kool-aide are always wrong, not interested in honest debate...
I must say, I'm pretty fascinated by the dynamic, myself. You forgot the part whereby rejecting a desired-result study amounts to not engaging in reality-based conversation. Evidently, "reality" is based on whatever spin a self-interested party, with an agenda, releases to the public.
The dynamic of this message board is parallel to the dynamic in the actual campaigning imo.
My take of it is that people like me (on the left) don't like Obama's policies because he has governed from a centrist/right of center position - continuing the vast chunk of Bush policies and passing very few things that he promised back in 2008. He has thrown the left only a few scraps here and there in areas like immigration and has been excellent in foreign policy (not hard when you're following Bush).
But this is a HUGE problem for people on the right. The Republicans didn't know what to do earlier this year - this is why a different guy led every week during their Primary. Eventually they settled on a very weak candidate in Romney. He has very little to criticize Obama for, since Obama has effectively passed right-wing policies that Romney himself once endorsed. So he either had the choice to fight him square on, or move further right. He chose the latter and cemented this move with his pick of Ryan.
So now Republicans see something like the individual mandate, once a gem in the Conservative policy bank, as an 'evil-socialist regime' now. They don't have stuff to actually criticize Obama on, since he caved into their demands considerably over the last 3 years, and has Governed in the centre-right - so they make up a bunch of stuff:
'He's a socialist!'
'He is killing us with regulation!'
'He wasn't born here/where are his school records!'
'He is killing medicare!'
'He is giving out welfare checks with no work requirement!'
'He is apologizing for America abroad!'
etc.
The result is that people like me, and most of the media, who have legitimate concerns about Obama, spend all our time fighting off these complete nonsense falsehoods promoted on the right. So Obama gets away scot-free with no serious discussion of his failures, as people spend their time arguing about stuff made up by people on the right attempting to make Obama look more left than he actually is.
That last sentence effectively sums up the dynamic on the campaign and in this comments board - every day could be summed up by this once sentence.
Nonsense. The facts align to the polls. NC aside, every single vote on gay marriage has matched the polls - since before late 2011 all polls said it did not have nationwide support. You need to look at the timeline before throwing this around as 'fact' because it isn't.
My gods! You actually DO live in your own little world, don't you!!???
Name ONE state that, when the vote has been put before the people, the people voted in favor of gay marriage..
Just ONE state that the people voted for gay marriage..
Just one...
CB,
I must say, I'm pretty fascinated by the dynamic, myself. You forgot the part whereby rejecting a desired-result study amounts to not engaging in reality-based conversation. Evidently, "reality" is based on whatever spin a self-interested party, with an agenda, releases to the public.
Exactly.. It's almost sad to say, but I don't recognize practically ANYONE here...
And I can pinpoint EXACTLY when it happened..
It was when Weigantians started supporting the idea that any heinous accusation doesn't require ANY proof at all, and that it's up to the ACCUSED (not the accuser but the ACCUSED) to prove it false..
Once that standard was established and embraced by Weigantians, I knew that there was no hope for this country...
Michale.....
Michale, I don't think you understood my last post that you quoted - I suggest you read it again. Lol at the term 'Weigantians' too btw ;)
Michale, I don't think you understood my last post that you quoted - I suggest you read it again.
I have a better idea...
In the United States, every time voters were faced with the question of legalizing same sex marriage, each and every time, it was voted down..
Would you agree that THAT is a true and factual statement.
If you don't, then please provide an example of voters of any given state in the United States Of America that has approved same sex marriage..
Lol at the term 'Weigantians' too btw ;)
I like it cause it makes me think of "Lanteans" a'la STARGATE:ATLANTIS :D
Michale.....
Michale
In the United States, every time voters were faced with the question of legalizing same sex marriage, each and every time, it was voted down..
Would you agree that THAT is a true and factual statement.
Sure I 100% agree. Like I said you didn't understand my point. Let me take your sentence above and add my point to it:
In the United States, every time voters were faced with the question of legalizing same sex marriage, each and every time, it was voted down. These results were (aside from North Carolina) exactly in line with national polls on gay marriage at the time the vote was performed.
Understand my point now?
I'm not doubting that you may have found an error with one survey or poll (I haven't looked myself).
I'm not referring to an error in the poll I had cited, nor have I even found an error. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say "I'm not doubting that you may have found an error..."
Sure this is always possible. But I'd say there are now too many polls out there that show a support for gay marriage
And I'm saying that I'm with the PPP Polling guy: “Hate to say it, but I don’t believe polls showing support for gay marriage nationally. Any times there is a vote it doesn’t back it up.” When polls say one thing (e.g., majority support for same-sex marriage/unions), but elections consistently produce an opposite result, there is very likely something wrong with...the polling. That's my point. And it's my personal hunch that poll respondents might be giving politically correct answers instead of saying how they actually feel; hence, the disparity in the polls and the election results.
Michale, this sounds like something you would do. :D
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-deli-co-owner-caters-for-obama-visit-but-his-t-shirt-tells-another-story/2012/08/15/abde5208-e71e-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html
Chris62
Sorry, I meant error in the methodology or flaws in results. It doesn't really matter, you get my point.
When polls say one thing (e.g., majority support for same-sex marriage/unions), but elections consistently produce an opposite result, there is very likely something wrong with...the polling
I agree with this logic. But (aside from NC) there is no evidence to support it actually happening (yet). Every other vote (aside from NC) has followed the polls...
Sorry, I meant error in the methodology or flaws in results.
I hadn't even mentioned anything about errors in either, so I still don't know what you're talking about.
I agree with this logic. But (aside from NC) there is no evidence to support it actually happening (yet). Every other vote (aside from NC) has followed the polls...
Michty, North Carolina was the latest election on the issue, and precisely the same thing happened. It went down in flames. So when is this so-called "majority" supposed to show up? There has never been a show of majority support on election day; not in the past, and not in the very latest vote. Yet everyone's supposed to continue to believe there's, nevertheless, a majority of supporters out there? Somewhere? I think I'll stick with the belief that there's obviously something wrong with...the polling, i.e., respondents are likely giving politically correct answers.
It went down in flames. So when is this so-called "majority" supposed to show up?
The so-called majority only existed just before the NC vote and the majority was only really solidly affirmed just after the NC vote (when Obama showed his support for it).
Also Obama has a narrow lead nationwide over Romney in the nationwide polls just now. Do you expect that because people support Obama nationwide by a few percentage points he will win EVERY State on a state-by-state basis? If he doesn't that makes these nationwide polls 'wrong'? And do you think if gay marriage has nationwide narrow support it will win EVERY State on a state-by-state basis? Do you think when gay marriage has around 20% support from Republicans it is likely to win in redder states (like NC)?
There has never been a show of majority support on election day; not in the past, and not in the very latest vote. Yet everyone's supposed to continue to believe there's, nevertheless, a majority of supporters out there? Somewhere?
Apart from NC there have never been a single vote where polls showed support of gay marriage was ahead of opposition before the vote. Lol I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Just because gay marriage is now shown as supported in polls in 2012 doesn't make a vote in 2009 or 2010 evidence that the 2012 polls are wrong!
The so-called majority only existed just before the NC vote
Well, I'm questioning these polls, because PPP's poll had also shown a majority just before the NC vote. Only that poll was off by a whopping 16 points, prompting the pollster to question nationwide polls, in general, because "...any time there is a vote it doesn’t back it up." What did he mean by "any time," michty, which refers to elections in the past? He was referencing polls that although didn't show +50 approval, had higher favorabilities than unfavorabilities (i.e., more support than not), with "undecideds" serving as the swing voters, who invariably decide such elections.
and the majority was only really solidly affirmed just after the NC vote (when Obama showed his support for it).
Well, it remains to be seen whether there's validity to those polls, or if they're simply showing an oversampling of Dems, as is usually the case in NA polls. But you had originally used this gay so-called rights issue of a perfect example of Obama moving to the center, only the "the center" never represented majority support for gay marriage/unions "rights" in the first place, as you're now affirming with your wiki link.
Do you expect that because people support Obama nationwide by a few percentage points he will win EVERY State on a state-by-state basis?
I don't recall saying that, but I see you've decided not to drop "do you think?" (now "do you expect"?) from your sentences, as I had suggested. So I'll just skip this, and future,"do you think?" questions.
And the last two nationwide polls I'm looking at have Romney ahead or statistically tied: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
CB,
Michale, this sounds like something you would do. :D
Yea, that's dead on... :D
And it's oh so true... I might get me one of those shirts myself. :D
I think that statement of Obama's truly will be the beginning of the end of his re-election bid...
mitchy,
Understand my point now?
Ahh yes... I see your point now.
Your point being you can tap dance even better than I can. :D And THAT is saying something.. :D
And ya'all jump on CB for semantics!!??? :D
So, I guess it is your OPINION that, if the same sex marriage votes were held today, the voters would approve same sex marriage in line with the polling..
So, obviously, your conclusion is that polls are always right..
Which is funny, because above (or afore, not sure which) ya'all were arguing that polls are not the reality, that the VOTES are the reality.
Now you seem to be arguing the opposite. That the polls are the reality and the votes simply follows the polls...
Michale.....
These results were (aside from North Carolina) exactly in line with national polls on gay marriage at the time the vote was performed.
Are you sure??
Check the voting results for California. Then check the polls at the time of the vote..
Californians polled that they were greatly in favor of same sex marriage.. Yet when the rubber hit the road, same sex marriage was defeated by the voters..
It makes sense..
If people are going to be "on record" (even in an anonymous poll) they are going to SAY they are for same sex marriage. I mean, who wouldn't!?? Look what happened to the Chick-Fil-A boss?? (as an aside, kudos to CW for condemning the reaction from the Left leaders over that..)
Anyways, when voters actually got into a place where they could state their opinion completely and unequivocally without ANYONE knowing, the voters showed that they didn't approve of gay marriage..
Again, don't misunderstand me.
*I* am not speaking out against gay marriage... I don't have any qualms about gay marriage whatsoever. I do have issues with gay ACTIVISTS, but that's because I (usually) have a problem with ALL activists. By and large, they are selfish ingrates who only see their perspective and to hell with anyone else...
*I* don't have a problem with gay marriage.. But, I also don't have a problem with people who DO have a problem with gay marriage..
That's what makes me the only one amongst Weigantians who is truly liberal.... :D
Michale....
If people are going to be "on record" (even in an anonymous poll) they are going to SAY they are for same sex marriage. I mean, who wouldn't!?? Look what happened to the Chick-Fil-A boss??
That's the downside of political correctness, all right: When you train people to give the answer you want to hear, lest they wish to be scorned and lambasted (or worse) if they fail to fall in line, you run the risk of not getting the truth when polling is conducted on hot or sensitive topics.
Lol this is ridiculous. I'll give it one more shot.
only the "the center" never represented majority support for gay marriage/unions "rights" in the first place, as you're now affirming with your wiki link
The 'centre' moves all the time. Based on polls I would argue supporting gay marriage, without federal intervention, is now the 'centre'.
Do you expect that because people support Obama nationwide by a few percentage points he will win EVERY State on a state-by-state basis?
I don't recall saying that, but I see you've decided not to drop "do you think?" (now "do you expect"?) from your sentences, as I had suggested. So I'll just skip this, and future,"do you think?" questions.
Read my comment properly, and stop with the stupid semantics. Did I quote you as saying this? No. This was clearly posed as a RHETORICAL QUESTION but once again you completely miss the point by trying to pick up on semantics, the point being:
If a candidate has a marginal lead in the nationwide polls we would NEVER expect him to win every State (particularly red States) - just as if gay marriage has a lead in nationwide polls we would NEVER expect it to win every States (particularly red States). This is why gay marriage can be ahead nationwide, lose in NC and not mean the polls are 'wrong'...
Michale
So, I guess it is your OPINION that, if the same sex marriage votes were held today, the voters would approve same sex marriage in line with the polling..
Sort of. It would depend on the State (red States would probably still vote no). But I would put forward that if you did polling within the State, the results would be close to this polling...
So, obviously, your conclusion is that polls are always right..
Sort of. Nationwide polling is probably correct and every time gay marriage has been rejected (aside from NC) it has never been ahead in the nationwide polls - by this polls have been 'right'. But, as in a Presidential election, there will always be States that don't follow the nationwide polls...
Which is funny, because above (or afore, not sure which) ya'all were arguing that polls are not the reality, that the VOTES are the reality.
Now you seem to be arguing the opposite. That the polls are the reality and the votes simply follows the polls..
I don't know what you mean? Votes are the reality. Polls on voting are a representation (based on samples, within a MOE) of how people are likely to vote. I don't know where I ever said this wasn't the case?
Check the voting results for California. Then check the polls at the time of the vote..
Californians polled that they were greatly in favor of same sex marriage.. Yet when the rubber hit the road, same sex marriage was defeated by the voters..
From Wikipedia: "one week after the 2008 court decision, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 54% of respondents supported an amendment to the California constitution to ban marriage equality"
So even California was accurate to polling AT THE TIME. From what I gather polls showed support around 50-50 which is pretty close (within the MOE) to the actual result...
*I* don't have a problem with gay marriage.. But, I also don't have a problem with people who DO have a problem with gay marriage..
That's what makes me the only one amongst Weigantians who is truly liberal.... :D
I'd say it makes you chicken (j/k ;)) You support gay rights but don't support standing up for them? Come on man, show some backbone ;)!
The 'centre' moves all the time. Based on polls I would argue supporting gay marriage, without federal intervention, is now the 'centre'.
I know you would..
And you would be wrong... :D
I'd say it makes you chicken (j/k ;)) You support gay rights but don't support standing up for them? Come on man, show some backbone ;)!
Not at all.
I would say that I support gay rights but I DON'T support FORCING my views on others.
Just as I wouldn't support FORCING everyone to agree that there is a god...
Like I said. In this regard, I am really the only TRUE liberal amongst Weigantians...
Michale.....
Michale
I'd say your logic is slightly backwards. It is US who is enforcing OUR views on gay marriage on to others (by not allowing it)... By allowing it we are not forcing anyone to do anything.
Similarly with your God analogy: you don't have to agree or force people to believe there is a God, but you should allow others to have this belief if it does no harm; similarly I would allow homosexual people to marry (follow their beliefs) since it does no harm to anyone...
similarly I would allow homosexual people to marry (follow their beliefs) since it does no harm to anyone...
Yet you WON'T allow that others might have a moral problem with same sex marriage..
You, like the gay activists, want to legislate ACCEPTANCE.. You want to FORCE those who don't believe in the idea of gay marriage to change their way of thinking. One only has to look at the recent Chick-Fil-A debacle to know this is true...
In essence, you and the gay activists are saying, "THINK LIKE WE DO OR WE'LL MAKE YOUR LIFE AND YOUR BUSINESS AND YOUR EXISTENCE A LIVING HELL.."
This is why you are not a true liberal and I am... :D
Michale.....
You, like the gay activists, want to legislate ACCEPTANCE.. You want to FORCE those who don't believe in the idea of gay marriage to change their way of thinking.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. They can continue to demonize, hate or demonstrate against gay marriage all they like.
Just like I can (if I wanted to) demonize or hate religion but that doesn't mean religion should be made ILLEGAL because I'm being FORCED to ACCEPT it! What other people choose to believe in and do in their spare time is none of my business as long as no-one is getting hurt.
There are lots of things in life I don't like and have to accept - this is not a rationale for making them all illegal! I hate brussel sprouts and can't live in a world where I am FORCED to ACCEPT other people eating them - they should be made illegal!
In essence, you and the gay activists are saying, "THINK LIKE WE DO OR WE'LL MAKE YOUR LIFE AND YOUR BUSINESS AND YOUR EXISTENCE A LIVING HELL.."
Lol I never said such a thing. I said people should be FREE to make their own choice. You can CHOOSE to hate gay marriage and demonstrate against it; you can CHOOSE to have a gay wedding; you can CHOOSE to do neither of these. All 3 of them have absolutely no impact on your life, since they are all your own choice in a free society.
Choice and freedom, rather the subscribing to traditional values only, are the tenets of being a 'true liberal'.
Read my comment properly, and stop with the stupid semantics. Did I quote you as saying this? No. This was clearly posed as a RHETORICAL QUESTION
Yeah, rhetorical questions with YOUR personal views serving as the answers, which you then usually go on to use as the foundation of your ensuing arguments. That's the problem. So either spare me that antic or don't expect me to respond to your "Do you think?" points in the future.
If a candidate has a marginal lead in the nationwide polls we would NEVER expect him to win every State (particularly red States) - just as if gay marriage has a lead in nationwide polls we would NEVER expect it to win every States (particularly red States).
Apples and oranges, michty. Gay marriage is a sensitive, hot-topic social issue (e.g., sex, race, religion). And hot-topic social issues are not the same as standard presidential/national issues (e.g., the economy, deficit/debt, unemployment, job creation, etc.) Plus, the point is whether "political correctness" is playing in a role in respondents' answers on the gay-marriage/unions issue. "Political correctness" doesn't even factor in, with regard to national/presidential issues (economy, etc.) — unless one wishes to wonder if Obama's race is playing a positive or negative role and producing cloudy results, owed to "political correctness." But that would be another subject, entirely.
Lol I never said such a thing. I said people should be FREE to make their own choice.
OK.. So you are saying that you have absolutely NO problem with comments like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A made..
You have absolutely NO problem with a person that thinks gay marriage is evil and wrong. That you would treat that person the same way as you would treat someone who thinks exactly as you do..
Is that what you are saying?? :D
Michale.
Basically the problem you have mitchy (you and activists, I mean) is that you want, expect and demand tolerance for your viewpoints, but are unwilling to show tolerance for those whose viewpoints differ..
That makes for a bad liberal.... :D
Michale.....
Chris62
You you think the statement: Do you expect that because people support Obama nationwide by a few percentage points he will win EVERY State on a state-by-state basis? is a PERSONAL VIEW and not a rhetorical question?? You need to give up on this semantic crap. If you want to continue it I'll just go back to ignoring your comments because you're wasting my time...
Apples and oranges, michty. Gay marriage is a sensitive, hot-topic social issue (e.g., sex, race, religion). And hot-topic social issues are not the same as standard presidential/national issues
I totally disagree. It is the same (on this particular social issue) because there is partisan divide on this issue, just as there is on the Presidential/national issues: 70%+ of Democrats support gay marriage, where as around 20% of Republicans support it (from recent polls).
So yes, this will mean different results in different states depending on the partisan view of the electorate... Red States are overwhelmingly likely to vote against in, even now in 2012 where it has popular support, because Republican support of gay marriage is so low...
Plus, the point is whether "political correctness" is playing in a role in respondents' answers on the gay-marriage/unions issue
Sure this is definitely plausible. But since every vote on gay marriage has followed the polls it would suggest that this is simply just a theory. When there are more votes later in this year we might have more data to confirm/deny this theory better...
OK.. So you are saying that you have absolutely NO problem with comments like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A made..
No he is free to make these comments. And I am free to decide that, in light of these comments, I will not spend my money in his stores if I believe his profits are going towards anti-gay-marriage political activist companies.
You have absolutely NO problem with a person that thinks gay marriage is evil and wrong. That you would treat that person the same way as you would treat someone who thinks exactly as you do.
Yup. One of my best friends is a staunch catholic and believe this. We debate it and discuss it. But he's still one of my best friends.
Basically the problem you have mitchy (you and activists, I mean) is that you want, expect and demand tolerance for your viewpoints, but are unwilling to show tolerance for those whose viewpoints differ.
Nope you are portraying this on to me. I don't demand tolerance. I demand freedom. You can continue to be intolerant towards gay marriage all you like but I don't believe you can continue to block people's freedoms to have a gay marriage.
This is true liberalism: protecting freedom and choice. Not forcing your beliefs on to someone else and stopping them from doing something THEY believe in because YOU don't...
No he is free to make these comments. And I am free to decide that, in light of these comments, I will not spend my money in his stores if I believe his profits are going towards anti-gay-marriage political activist companies.
Would you encourage others to act the same??
Yup. One of my best friends is a staunch catholic and believe this. We debate it and discuss it. But he's still one of my best friends.
If this is true, then I stand corrected...
This also makes you an ATYPICAL Leftie, as the vast majority of the Left does NOT feel the way you and I feel...
Michale.......
Would you encourage others to act the same?</I.
I would point out the fact that their profits are spent in this way and let them make their own choice ;)
Fwiw if the Chick-Fil-A guy just said 'I don't support gay marriage' I wouldn't really care - this is his choice which he is free to make... But when he spends his profits on anti-gay-marriage activist political groups, looking to take away people's freedoms and rights, then he isn't getting any of my money to do this.
This also makes you an ATYPICAL Leftie, as the vast majority of the Left does NOT feel the way you and I feel...
This is just your opinion and I think even you'll admit it is very biased against the left... I have many Conservative friends (although most are sensible, centre-right Conservatives and support gay marriage, this friend is a far right exception ;)) and just because we have different views doesn't mean I can't be friends with them!
But when he spends his profits on anti-gay-marriage activist political groups, looking to take away people's freedoms and rights, then he isn't getting any of my money to do this.
And your evidence to support that he did, in fact, do this??
Because, all I have heard is that he has made some comments opposing gay marriage on religious grounds..
And because of that, many (so-called) leaders on the Left want to destroy his business...
Let's see you defend THAT! :D
This is just your opinion and I think even you'll admit it is very biased against the left...
As well as being well supported... The latest shooting in DC is but another example..
I am betting you don't even know about THAT, do you?? :D
I have many Conservative friends (although most are sensible, centre-right Conservatives and support gay marriage, this friend is a far right exception ;)) and just because we have different views doesn't mean I can't be friends with them!
Again, that makes you ATYPICAL of the Left in general.. But it means you fit in right perfect here amongst Weigantians.. :D
Michale.....
Because, all I have heard is that he has made some comments opposing gay marriage on religious grounds..
And because of that, many (so-called) leaders on the Left want to destroy his business...
Let's see you defend THAT! :D
Nope you did not hear correctly.
He has donated around $5m to two very anti-gay-marriage activist groups - the Family Research Council and the Family Foundation. The Family Research Council states that 'same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country'. Both companies promote criminalising homosexuality both in and outside America.
So yes I support people taking a stand and boycotting a company that gives your money to activists looking to push back human rights around the world.
Again, that makes you ATYPICAL of the Left in general.
In your opinion, which, everyday, I see as being very biased against what you perceive to be the left ;)
He has donated around $5m to two very anti-gay-marriage activist groups - the Family Research Council and the Family Foundation. The Family Research Council states that 'same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country'. Both companies promote criminalising homosexuality both in and outside America.
Any cites??
OK, so you believe that it's NOT OK for someone to be activists about their beliefs??
That, if their belief is different than yours and they are activist about it, that's wrong...
Have to ask... Would your friend stop being a friend if he donated to one of the afore mentioned companies based on his beliefs???
So, to sum up.
You don't think it's right that you should be penalized in your beliefs, just because you are activist about them..
Yet, you have no problem penalizing others and encouraging others to penalize others, just because they believe something different...
Does that about sum up your position???
In your opinion, which, everyday, I see as being very biased against what you perceive to be the left ;)
I am intimately familiar with what the Left is all about.. :D
The problem is, it's getting so it's very difficult to tell the Left from the Right..
The latest Harry Reid debacle is a perfect example...
Michale.....
Michale
Any cites??
Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
OK, so you believe that it's NOT OK for someone to be activists about their beliefs?? That, if their belief is different than yours and they are activist about it, that's wrong...
Nope. Being an activist is fine as long as you're not breaking the law. But if:
- They are using my money to be activist I have the right to boycott them getting my money
- I have a right to protest their activist stance (be an activist to their activism!)
Have to ask... Would your friend stop being a friend if he donated to one of the afore mentioned companies based on his beliefs?
Ha! This is an excellent question and I was wondering when you'd get to it. I would probably still be friends with him but I'd let him know how I felt about it for sure (I already do this anyway!).
You don't think it's right that you should be penalized in your beliefs, just because you are activist about them..
Correct.
Yet, you have no problem penalizing others and encouraging others to penalize others, just because they believe something different...
Nope, I have the right to decide how my money is going to be used and where it goes. And just as they have the right to be activist to support their view, as do I with mine (within the law).
The problem is, it's getting so it's very difficult to tell the Left from the Right..
This is because you don't have a left in America. You currently have a centre-right part and a very right party ;)
A timely article re: O's gay-marriage stance and polling:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/barack-hussein-mcgovern_649720.html?page=2
From your article Chris62 "In looking at voters’ attitudes toward abortion in the five presidential elections from 1984 to 2000, Gallup concluded that “the issue netted the Republican party’s candidate two to three points in [each] election."
Wow! That's insane. I haven't heard that stat before. I cannot believe that! Abortion. At the end of the 20th century still being an 2-3 points issue!? Unreal!
Ha! This is an excellent question and I was wondering when you'd get to it. I would probably still be friends with him but I'd let him know how I felt about it for sure (I already do this anyway!).
I have an even better question.
How would you feel if your friend told you, "I can't be your friend any more because your activism on behalf of same sex marriage is morally wrong to me."
The point I am trying to make is that, unless people (Right AND Left) are willing to see another person's point of view rather than simply vilifying them, nothing will ever get resolved..
Nope, I have the right to decide how my money is going to be used and where it goes. And just as they have the right to be activist to support their view, as do I with mine (within the law).
"You find nothing contradictory in a society that outlaws suicide but practices capital punishment?"
-Tuvok, STAR TREK:VOYAGER, Deathwish
In other words, you don't find it contradictory that you want tolerance for your views and your activism, but you don't have any tolerance for other people's views and other people's activism..
This is because you don't have a left in America. You currently have a centre-right part and a very right party ;)
Touche' :D
At least we find SOME common ground in that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans... :D
Wow! That's insane. I haven't heard that stat before. I cannot believe that! Abortion. At the end of the 20th century still being an 2-3 points issue!? Unreal!
Personally, I have to agree.. Abortion being an issue in this day and age is redonkulous..
"It's...... REDONKULOUS!!!"
-Donkey, SHREK 4
:D
Michale.....
Wow! That's insane. I haven't heard that stat before. I cannot believe that! Abortion. At the end of the 20th century still being an 2-3 points issue!? Unreal!
Yeah, it's still a contentious issue in this +70% Christian nation. While lots of them may support a woman's right to choose, not everyone agrees on the morality of abortion. And even "right to choose" is at a low point:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
That poll was taken only about two months ago.
How would you feel if your friend told you, "I can't be your friend any more because your activism on behalf of same sex marriage is morally wrong to me."?
I would say 'what activism?' :) And if he was really insistent then that's his choice (remember I like freedom and choice ;))
The point I am trying to make is that, unless people (Right AND Left) are willing to see another person's point of view rather than simply vilifying them, nothing will ever get resolved..
Sure of course. But when you are suppressing a large chunk of society and not giving them the freedoms and choices that you have, then I could see why they would fight back at this reality. You can't supply certain human rights to one group of humans but not another and then get annoyed when that group starts to fight back...
But of course their fight should not be vilifying but pointing out the logical flaws in their arguments.
In other words, you don't find it contradictory that you want tolerance for your views and your activism, but you don't have any tolerance for other people's views and other people's activism..
What are you talking about? I tolerate their views and activism, I have stated nothing to counter this. I just don't want MY money being used for THEIR activism, as is my right. This has nothing to do with tolerance. I think those homophobic groups are disgusting. But I tolerate them, in the same way I think brussel sprouts are disgusting and I tolerate them too!
My point is that making gay marriage legal does nothing to affect the lives of anyone in these groups. They can still continue to be intolerant towards it or do whatever they want. But THEIR views affect many millions of peoples lives and make millions of people more miserable in the world. You can be intolerant of anything without enforcing it on other people and making their lives worse. So because I tolerate religious anti-gay-marriage bigots, doesn't mean I think religious anti-gay-marriage bigots should be made illegal; they should extend the same courtesy when it comes to gay marriage...
Personally, I have to agree.. Abortion being an issue in this day and age is redonkulous..
Yeh not just an issue but a 2-3 point swing issue! I am gob-smacked!
Yeah, it's still a contentious issue in this +70% Christian nation.
I know that's what's so crazy - the UK is a +70% Christian nation too and I can't even remember the last time abortion was even raised as an issue. I don't think they even bother to do polls on it since it would be a colossal waste of time as they would just show 95%+ support! Never mind being a large enough issue for a 2-3% point swing!!
Sure of course. But when you are suppressing a large chunk of society and not giving them the freedoms and choices that you have, then I could see why they would fight back at this reality.
I don't see it that way..
No one is saying that gay people can't be together in a marital relationship..
They simply can't call it marriage. Because, when all the chafe is torn away, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution...
So, the idea here is to create a marital institution that ISN'T "marriage" but reflects all the legal and other privileges that are inherently equal to what is found in the RELIGIOUS institution of marriage.
The problem is, the gay activists don't WANT equal. They want acceptance... Worse, they want acceptance by the religious of this country, which I think is utterly ridiculous...
So, there you have it.. A way that gay people and straight people can live in complete harmony.. Straight people have their institution and gay people have their institution...
But, the activists on BOTH sides of the issue don't want that..
And here we are...
Michale.....
They simply can't call it marriage. Because, when all the chafe is torn away, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution...
I disagree. Marriage is a social term. To take Wikipedia's defintion: a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.
It comes from Greek culture, where religion was nothing to do with it. Even in Ancient Rome and early Christian culture religion had nothing to do with it. It was only hijacked as a 'religious' institution later.
The problem is, the gay activists don't WANT equal. They want acceptance... Worse, they want acceptance by the religious of this country, which I think is utterly ridiculous...
Sorry Michale you lost me on this one. This seems to be nothing but blatant rhetoric.
Equal does not mean acceptance.
Equal means the same rights as everyone else.
Again: you can have the right to practice your religion and I might hate and be incredibly intolerant of your religion, but that doesn't give ME the right to ban your religion or make anyone practising your religion an unequal human being with less rights than me... This analogy applies to the situation for gay rights.
So, there you have it.. A way that gay people and straight people can live in complete harmony.. Straight people have their institution and gay people have their institution...
There is no institution. A heterosexual male who is atheist agnostic can still get married. Surely he should be barred the 'institution' of marriage too? But he is not, because he is seen as an 'equal' to the anti-gay-marriage groups, despite this blatant hypocrisy.
I know that's what's so crazy - the UK is a +70% Christian nation too
Well, aside from being a much bigger nation than the UK, I suspect we probably have a whole lot more Roman Catholics.
I disagree.
That is your right. Doesn't change the FACT that marriage is a religious institution.
The fact that a church is usually involved should have been your first clue. :D
Granted, it has evolved to the point to where social and legal aspects are certainly embedded within the institution of marriage.
But Marriage has always been first and foremost, a religious institution..
Doesn't mean I like it. Matter of fact, since it has anything to do with religion, I hate it..
But it doesn't change it..
Sorry Michale you lost me on this one. This seems to be nothing but blatant rhetoric.
If activists wanted equal, they would have been happy with civil unions.
The fact that they weren't shows that equality is not what they are after.. They are after acceptance... They want society as a whole to say, "Don't worry, it's OK.. It's perfectly acceptable to be gay."
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But I also don't have a problem with the people who DO have a problem with it..
Some people just won't find "gay" as being acceptable, as being "normal"..
That is their right to feel that way. And they shouldn't be vilified because they do..
Equal does not mean acceptance.
Equal means the same rights as everyone else.
If that were true, then civil unions would have been acceptable to the gay community.
They weren't...
Ergo, it's not equality that they are after, it's acceptance...
Again: you can have the right to practice your religion and I might hate and be incredibly intolerant of your religion, but that doesn't give ME the right to ban your religion or make anyone practising your religion an unequal human being with less rights than me... This analogy applies to the situation for gay rights.
Interesting that you equate gay with religion... :D
So, continuing on that line of reasoning, there should be a complete separation between "state" and "gay", eh?? :D
There is no institution. A heterosexual male who is atheist agnostic can still get married. Surely he should be barred the 'institution' of marriage too? But he is not, because he is seen as an 'equal' to the anti-gay-marriage groups, despite this blatant hypocrisy
OK, let's bring in your GAY = RELIGION theory..
Would said heterosexual male be allowed to marry in a Christian church if he were a Satanist??
Of course not.
The answer to this huge morass is simple...
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Civil Unions can be between a man and a woman or two men or two women...
All rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded marriage will be afforded to civil unions..
Problem solved...
But the gay community won't go for it..
Why??? Because equality is not what they are after...
Acceptance is...
Michale
Chris62
Depends. If you (correctly) include Northern Ireland in the UK then it's probably close since NI is about 90% Catholic... I'd imagine something around 20% in the UK and 25% in the USA, not that huge a difference - but the differences in abortion legality and status in society are HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE. Like in this years Presidential debates abortion will be raised as an issue. It hasn't been an 'issue' in the UK for decades...
I knew this, but I didn't think it was 2-3% points huge that's just unbelievable.
Michale
Firstly, as I mentioned, marriage was never a religious ceremony and still isn't. Religion took over it only after it was well established in Greece/Ancient Rome. Even today it is still recognized as a legal (civil) contract and not a religious ceremony: if you have a marriage without the civil contract signing it is not an official (legally) recognized marriage. The UK and USA are among the few countries where the legal ceremony can take place at the same time as the religious ceremony (where the person chooses the religious route, which they don't have to to become 'married').
Secondly, marriage is a huge step to equality between hetero and homo sexuals. As a heterosexual male, I can get married no matter what my religious beliefs, background or anything. I CAN be a satanist and get married! This is a great example, thank you for providing this. The same doesn't apply to a homosexual male... Hence why civil unions are not far enough because they are not equality under the law. A civil union is a separate legal status from marriage!
Finally, marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. How would you feel if you could be fired for being gay with no legal recourse (true in many States)? Or organizations were raising money and being supported by Chick-a-fila to make YOUR sexuality illegal and criminal?
This is the reason I use religion as an example, because it is singling out one group of society based on their beliefs and targeting them based on your own bigoted beliefs. The most common other circumstance of this happening is with religion...
Anyway I'm off for a while, won't be around much - enjoy the forums!
Mitchy,
Your entire premise is based on one faulty assumption.
Being gay is a lifestyle choice... If a person doesn't want all the hassles and problems of that lifestyle then the solution is simple..
Don't be a part of that lifestyle....
I am somewhat of an authority on the inherent problems of lifestyle choices that are counter to the public morality... My lovely wife and I never demanded equality based on our lifestyle choice...
To do so would be ludicrous...
I know, I know.. You are going to claim that gay people are born that way..
Simply another case of policy-based evidence making...
Funny how many of the Left's agenda consists of policy based evidence making.. :D
Once you get past the bullshit being gay is akin to being black or hispanic or oriental, you can see the illogic of the Left's position vis a vis the so-called equality issue..
But, I have to say, wouldn't it be kewl if we could evade personal responsibility by simply claiming we were "born that way"!! What a world that would be...
"There would be no consequences! We could do whatever we want!!!"
-Gus, GROUNDHOG DAY
Michale....
Kevin,
There is absolutely NO solid scientific evidence that people are born gay.... It's all conjecture and wishful thinking...
The kind of evidence YOU'RE talking about also says that people are born promiscuous..
Like I said, it's a bonanza of responsibility evasion...
People could do anything they want and get a pass from the Left because, after all, they are not responsible..
They were BORN that way....
I mean, hell.. Let's take that idea and apply it here in Weigantia..
You can't be mad at me that I am an arrogant prick!!
After all..
It's not my fault...
I was BORN that way!!!!
:D
You see the utter ridiculousness of the claim??
It's EXACTLY like the religious fanatics saying, "The Devil made me do it.."
That's EXACTLY the same reasoning.. :D
OK, give it a shot.... :D
Michale.....
I'd imagine something around 20% in the UK and 25% in the USA, not that huge a difference
A huge difference in head count, since there are many more people in the U.S. than in the UK. The U.S. is +300M, and about 64M of them are Roman Catholics. How many people are there in all of the UK?
Like in this years Presidential debates abortion will be raised as an issue.
I didn't even know that. Where did you hear this? I didn't even know the debate moderators had already crafted their questions. Yet you, apparently, have access to them.
It's like I said to Kevin this morning.
A person who is a thief will always point fingers at people who are stealing from him.
And a person who is racist will always claim racism in others...
Michale.....
DOH!!!!
That shoulda been posted here:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/17/ftp223/#comment-25385
My bust...
Michale....
I came here to post the fact that I was at my friends wedding at the weekend. They got married outside in a ceremony not conducted or anything to do with religion (neither of them is religious). Yet they are legally married because they are heterosexual.
Then I saw this from you Michale:
Being gay is a lifestyle choice... If a person doesn't want all the hassles and problems of that lifestyle then the solution is simple..
Don't be a part of that lifestyle....
There is absolutely NO solid scientific evidence that people are born gay.... It's all conjecture and wishful thinking...
Wow. You've got to be kidding me. Chatting to you and Chris on these boards has really opened my eyes as to why some people are super far right wing because they believe this utter nonsense. I don't want to say anymore because it will start to get insulting...
Chris
A huge difference in head count, since there are many more people in the U.S. than in the UK. The U.S. is +300M, and about 64M of them are Roman Catholics. How many people are there in all of the UK?
I mean you claim to look at statistics and numbers a lot but you always make comments like this that shows you completely misunderstand them.
The percentage is what is important in this case, not the number. Both the UK and USA are democratic, meaning they are governed by the party that gets the highest PERCENTAGE of the votes. So if there are a high percentage of Catholics in the UK and USA voting, one might expect catholic issues to be of key concern.
Since there are a similar level of percentage of catholic voters in both countries, one might posit that their issues would have equal concern in both countries - my point is that they don't. Abortion is still an issue in America, it is not in the UK - even though we have a similar percentage of catholic voters.
This really isn't that hard a point to comprehend, I'm not using complex jargon or numbers - simple percentages!
I didn't even know that. Where did you hear this? I didn't even know the debate moderators had already crafted their questions. Yet you, apparently, have access to them.
Yes you see unlike you I am capable of looking at and using history to predict probabilities of the future. So when every single Presidential debate for the past 40 years has mentioned abortion I am going to assume it is almost a certainty that it will come up in this years. Not exactly rocket science. Look at the past, predict the future.
Sadly if far right extremists had done this we wouldn't have the same failed economic policies...
Aside from the main flaw in your view of being gay as a choice, your logic is also completely flawed:
Once you get past the bullshit being gay is akin to being black or hispanic or oriental, you can see the illogic of the Left's position vis a vis the so-called equality issue..
Actually if you believe homosexuality is a choice then you obviously must also believe that being heterosexual is a choice. So the equality issue still stands under this logic: why should one group who 'chose' to be heterosexual get rights that the other group who chose otherwise doesn't get?
Equality is still an issue even under the circumstances of believing this is a 'choice'.