Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

...That actually seems like quite a lot of democrat voters he could stand to lose on the issue.  It seems more like a vote loser than a vote winner, to be honest (most of the votes he could've potentially won were probably staying a million miles away from the Republicans anyway).  Also due to the insane backlash you can get from churches and conservative groups for doing this (here we've had the Catholics read out an anti-gay marriage service in all of their churches and schools, for instance, which is definitely not good for the government) to be honest I can see why Obama would want to back away from this issue.

I guess it does put Romney in a bad position, though.  He has to come out against gay marriage to avoid driving off his base, even if it contradicts his views on gay rights when he ran for governor.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's not necessarily true. Now that Obama has supported same-sex marriage; Romney can say pretty much anything on the issue and not lose votes. What are they going to do, vote for Obama in protest?

[GlyphGryph]

Stay home. That's almost always the worst thing. Gotta turn out the base. Gotta turn out the moderates too.

Adopt a moderate stance, like civil unions, you attract a bunch of people who are opposed to outright gay marriage cause it's icky but don't really hate the gays. But then the hardliners stay home, because they don't really want to vote for Romney anyway.

Adopt a hardline stance, and the moderates might stay home, or they might even vote for Obama.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I meant saying liberal things. Saying ultra-conservative things would be a bad move, yes. Saying liberal things about same-sex marriage won't keep the hardliners away. They're too focused on getting rid of Obama to let one issue disbar Romney.

[Leafsnail]

Them staying home is a real possibility, though.  They might think it'd be better to have 4 more years bashing Obama (with hopefully the economy still struggling) than to put in someone who they don't really like anyway to make a fool of himself.

[RedKing]

I dunno....some of them are already on the verge of fence-sitting after losing their Great White Hope in Santorum.

FWIW, Romney's stance today was that he's opposed to gay marriage *and* opposed to civil unions which are "functionally equivalent to marriage". In other words, he's in favor civil unions as long as they don't have all the same rights. Second-class status only.

When pushed on that, he's said that domestic partner benefits and hospital visitation rights are OK, but additional benefits aren't. He didn't provide an example of an "additional benefit" that wouldn't be acceptable.

[kaijyuu]

Heh, the usual conservative radio I constantly overhear at work was going on and on about this. "Obama flip flops!"


This is the sort of flip flop I like. Let's hope he sticks to it.

[Truean]

Heh, the usual conservative radio I constantly overhear at work was going on and on about this. "Obama flip flops!"


This is the sort of flip flop I like. Let's hope he sticks to it.

This is the problem:

a.) Any change in position for any reason is now a "flip flop," which denotes no consistency and is an insult.
b.) Because of "a" no politician can ever change their minds about anything no matter how wrong they are without risking this being thrown at them.
c.) Obama was always Pro Gay for years and how could anyone not know that? Refusing to defend DOMA. Getting rid of Don't ask; don't tell. Etc.

Just another distraction from actual problems, which let's face it, no one really knows how to solve. If they knew, then they'd solve them already....

Shit, nobody really knows how to get the US a few million jobs that actually pay something.

[Leafsnail]

Only this goes further.  It seems to imply that merely stating your position on something you haven't stated your position on before is a flipflop.  Apart from anything else that's really questionable terminology.

[kaijyuu]

This one actually pulled a quote from 2004 where he (supposedly) said marriage is "between a man and a woman."

Dunno the accuracy of that, due to it being a radio talk show.

[Flying Dice]

In either case, it is incredibly disturbing that we've reached a point where re-evaluating your opinion when new information comes up (or even just changing your bloody mind) is considered to be a sign of weakness.

[RedKing]

Uh, we reached that point years ago.

[Flying Dice]

Well, yeah. I was speaking in general terms; I've been terrified of political thinking from the moment I was capable of understanding "election", or near enough. 


Would probably have been better for me to say, "I'm terrified that the world can be this backward and so many people don't seem to care."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This one actually pulled a quote from 2004 where he (supposedly) said marriage is "between a man and a woman."

Dunno the accuracy of that, due to it being a radio talk show.

2004? Wow, like no one has ever changed their mind in eight years.

Hell, back in 2004 I thought homosexuality should be illegal. How's that for a flip-flop?

[kaijyuu]

In 2004 I think I was on the fence, as that was roughly when I woke up to the world that wasn't within 10 feet of my immediate position.



And yeah, politicians changing their stance on something they said ages ago is an obvious sign of weakness, or worse, lying! Their first position is their only position and any change is just pandering to voters (right, Ron Paul?).