More absurdity:
As well as the poll spouting some nonsense that the approval ratings of the current President of the United States are somehow in good shape despite clearly being unsuitable for the position, the poll also notes 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's approval rating.
My question is this: Why is Hillary Clinton being treated as though she's still running for president? Supporters of the current president demand that everyone who opposed him "move on" from the election yet they enjoy attacking Clinton at any given opportunity and using her as a deflection for the atrocious policies of the president. This poll that tracks her approval rating makes no sense: She's not running for president; she's a private citizen again. Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney - President Barack Obama's two Republican opponents - never had this after they lost. Once they were defeated, no one cared about them.
Oh, never mind - I know the reason why Clinton is receiving this negative treatment...it's because she's a woman. She's a woman who ran against the patriarchal system and as a result, she received frequent reminders of her defeat and supposed unpopularity. Misogynists will try to deny this but since McCain and Romney weren't given any similar post-election humiliation...yeah, it's misogyny at fault here.
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Friday, 10 March 2017
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
"...but Hillary!"
The United States presidential election has been finished for over two months. Since her defeat, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has effectively disappeared from the news, save from the occasional mention. This is consistent with previous major-party losing candidates.
Despite this, her former opponent's supporters - and even her opponent himself - frequently bring up her name, almost always to deflect criticism from the president-elect. In nearly every online discussion I've seen that involves criticising the president-elect, the only defense of his actions by his supporters is to mention Clinton's faults, or the "...but Hillary!" defense.
To me, this is the opposite of when these people constantly brought up President Obama's "57 states" comment. Whereas in that case, they kept bringing it up because they didn't have anything significant to criticize Obama for, here they keep resorting to "...but Hillary!" because they don't have any good reason to defend the president-elect and have no choice but to deflect. They know their candidate is terrible but aren't at the point yet to abandon him.
As recently as the past 24-48 hours, the president-elect briefly attacked Clinton in his disastrous press conference. Could you imagine if President Obama spent eight and four years, respectively, making snide comments about Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney? At the very least, he would have been slammed for unprofessionalism.
Despite this, her former opponent's supporters - and even her opponent himself - frequently bring up her name, almost always to deflect criticism from the president-elect. In nearly every online discussion I've seen that involves criticising the president-elect, the only defense of his actions by his supporters is to mention Clinton's faults, or the "...but Hillary!" defense.
To me, this is the opposite of when these people constantly brought up President Obama's "57 states" comment. Whereas in that case, they kept bringing it up because they didn't have anything significant to criticize Obama for, here they keep resorting to "...but Hillary!" because they don't have any good reason to defend the president-elect and have no choice but to deflect. They know their candidate is terrible but aren't at the point yet to abandon him.
As recently as the past 24-48 hours, the president-elect briefly attacked Clinton in his disastrous press conference. Could you imagine if President Obama spent eight and four years, respectively, making snide comments about Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney? At the very least, he would have been slammed for unprofessionalism.
Friday, 4 March 2016
"Mitt Romney Style (Gangnam Style Parody)" - CollegeHumor
The recent return of Mitt Romney reminded me of something...
Mitt...Mitt...Mitt Romney style! "Mitt Romney Style" originated during the final weeks of the 2012 presidential election in United States and is a parody of Psy's "Gangnam Style", which was popular that year. Over three years later, I still find the song amusing and even catchy in itself.
Mitt...Mitt...Mitt Romney style! "Mitt Romney Style" originated during the final weeks of the 2012 presidential election in United States and is a parody of Psy's "Gangnam Style", which was popular that year. Over three years later, I still find the song amusing and even catchy in itself.
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Melissa Gilbert's Congressional run
Actress and former President of the Screen Actors Guild Melissa Gilbert is running for Congress is Michigan's 8th District. She moved to Howell - a town in the district - in 2013 after she married her current husband. Her reasons for running can be summarized as, "wanting to help others".
What are Gilbert's chances of winning? The media has described the seat as "solidly Republican" and, to be fair, the seat has been held by that party since 2001. That being said, it's certainly not impossible for Gilbert to emerge victorious: it's a swing area on the presidential level (Clinton x2, Bush x2, Obama, Romney) and its current incumbent was first elected in 2014 with 54.6% of the vote to the Democrats' 42.1%. Before the main election, though, she still needs to pass the primary.
Why am I writing about Gilbert? To the general public she is known for her prominent role as Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1970/80s TV series Little House on the Prairie and for her work with the Screen Actors Guild; however, I saw her in some episodes of the 1990s science fiction show Babylon 5, in which she performed with one of her former husbands, Bruce Boxleitner. I remember being disappointed when that marriage concluded.
All I can do with her run is watch what happens. I'll be sure to post about Gilbert again once she's undergone the primary and - if she succeeds in the former - the main election.
What are Gilbert's chances of winning? The media has described the seat as "solidly Republican" and, to be fair, the seat has been held by that party since 2001. That being said, it's certainly not impossible for Gilbert to emerge victorious: it's a swing area on the presidential level (Clinton x2, Bush x2, Obama, Romney) and its current incumbent was first elected in 2014 with 54.6% of the vote to the Democrats' 42.1%. Before the main election, though, she still needs to pass the primary.
Why am I writing about Gilbert? To the general public she is known for her prominent role as Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1970/80s TV series Little House on the Prairie and for her work with the Screen Actors Guild; however, I saw her in some episodes of the 1990s science fiction show Babylon 5, in which she performed with one of her former husbands, Bruce Boxleitner. I remember being disappointed when that marriage concluded.
All I can do with her run is watch what happens. I'll be sure to post about Gilbert again once she's undergone the primary and - if she succeeds in the former - the main election.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Horrified
I posted this elsewhere today:
It was in response to a friend of mine who was disgusted when observing some people's reactions to the ricin letter sent to President Barack Obama which was intercepted; she was horrified to read about people expressing frustration that the letter did not reach Mr. Obama and kill him. This attitude towards the president is as disturbing as it is saddening: Everyone expects the president to receive criticism, regardless of their political party, but a few years and another president ago, a desire for the President of the United States to die would have been, as I said in my text above, unthinkable.
My friend disclosed that she voted for another person in the 2012 election; despite this, she opposes wishing harm on the president. Why? Because, as she said, Mr. Obama is a human being and he has a family; she also doesn't agree with killing people because they don't share her — or anyone else's — views. I agree with her: I was vehemently against Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy last year and I have friends with different politics to me, but I do not wish for death and despair to befall them and their families.
What makes this behavior worse is that it comes at a time when the United States is still in shock over the Boston Marathon bombings. It is beyond inappropriate to wish for someone's death at the best of times, but doing it at a time of national tragedy when the nation needs to heal? And against the president? It's grotesque and should not be tolerated — I support the 1st Amendment and I welcome people sharing their views, but there is a chasm between valid criticism and hate speech.
I wrote a piece relating to this subject a month prior to the 2012 election. I am disappointed that my concerns in the first sentence of that post's last paragraph were warranted.
"I
remember a time when wishing harm or death upon the President of the
United States was unthinkable; I think it's both sad and disgusting that
it has reached the point where some people are disappointed when the
president wasn't harmed by something."
It was in response to a friend of mine who was disgusted when observing some people's reactions to the ricin letter sent to President Barack Obama which was intercepted; she was horrified to read about people expressing frustration that the letter did not reach Mr. Obama and kill him. This attitude towards the president is as disturbing as it is saddening: Everyone expects the president to receive criticism, regardless of their political party, but a few years and another president ago, a desire for the President of the United States to die would have been, as I said in my text above, unthinkable.
My friend disclosed that she voted for another person in the 2012 election; despite this, she opposes wishing harm on the president. Why? Because, as she said, Mr. Obama is a human being and he has a family; she also doesn't agree with killing people because they don't share her — or anyone else's — views. I agree with her: I was vehemently against Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy last year and I have friends with different politics to me, but I do not wish for death and despair to befall them and their families.
What makes this behavior worse is that it comes at a time when the United States is still in shock over the Boston Marathon bombings. It is beyond inappropriate to wish for someone's death at the best of times, but doing it at a time of national tragedy when the nation needs to heal? And against the president? It's grotesque and should not be tolerated — I support the 1st Amendment and I welcome people sharing their views, but there is a chasm between valid criticism and hate speech.
I wrote a piece relating to this subject a month prior to the 2012 election. I am disappointed that my concerns in the first sentence of that post's last paragraph were warranted.
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Romney's
The 2012 presidential election in the United States and this recent Christmas reminded me of a gift I received in Christmas of 2010: a Romney's Kendal Mint Cake:
Kendal Mint Cakes are a confectionery originating from Kendal, a town in the North West England county of Cumbria. They are popular with mountaineers, trekkers and to a lesser extent cyclists because of their high energy content and portable size. Kendal Mint Cakes are essentially sweet, minty sugar (picture); some are coated in chocolate.
George Romney Limited are a sweet maker and one of three companies that continue to manufacture the mint cakes in Kendal. According to the company's history, it was named after George Romney, a portrait painter from the 1700s; it was also because the family that founded Romney's lived in a house located on a Romney Road.
Although it's not mentioned on that page, the aforementioned painter is a historical relation - although I am uncertain of whether or not he was a direct ancestor - of Mitt Romney. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a significant amount of people in the United Kingdom (especially those in North West England) would have been more familiar with Romney's Kendal Mint Cakes than the former governor prior to the 2012 United States presidential cycle. The Romney family aren't involved with the company, but given the rarity of the name there had to be a link somewhere.
As for what the mint cakes taste like, I have yet to try any: after two years I have not eaten the one I was given. It was placed in my travel bag and forgotten about; as of now, it is my longest-lasting piece of Christmas candy!
George Romney Limited are a sweet maker and one of three companies that continue to manufacture the mint cakes in Kendal. According to the company's history, it was named after George Romney, a portrait painter from the 1700s; it was also because the family that founded Romney's lived in a house located on a Romney Road.
Although it's not mentioned on that page, the aforementioned painter is a historical relation - although I am uncertain of whether or not he was a direct ancestor - of Mitt Romney. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a significant amount of people in the United Kingdom (especially those in North West England) would have been more familiar with Romney's Kendal Mint Cakes than the former governor prior to the 2012 United States presidential cycle. The Romney family aren't involved with the company, but given the rarity of the name there had to be a link somewhere.
As for what the mint cakes taste like, I have yet to try any: after two years I have not eaten the one I was given. It was placed in my travel bag and forgotten about; as of now, it is my longest-lasting piece of Christmas candy!
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
On the results of the United States presidential election, 2012
At long last, the United States presidential election of 2012 is over. I stayed up all night to watch the results come in, and although it was quite a nail-biter at first, President Barack Obama pulled ahead in the electoral vote when the Pacific states, Iowa and Ohio were all called for him. As I have been strongly in favor of his re-election since before his 2008 win, I am delighted at his victory.
Mr. Obama won all of his 2008 states with the exceptions of Indiana and North Carolina - the latter which he lost narrowly - and as of this writing Florida, which hasn't been called yet but he is leading there. Nate Silver, the statistician who correctly predicted the outcome of 49 of 50 states in 2008 will have a 100% success rate on the presidential level this year if Florida ends the vote counting with a win for Mr. Obama.
I watched Mitt Romney's concession. I am far from a fan of his but I give credit where it is due: I thought that the speech Mr. Romney gave was decent, polite, and gave a call for national unity and support for the president. He sounded fairly cheerful and even looked as though he wanted to be there. I can only commend him for his graciousness.
Beyond the presidential election, the Democrats have both maintained and increased their majority in the Senate, while the Republicans have kept their majority in the House with minor losses; I had hoped that the Democrats would regain the House, but that was definitely a long shot in this election. Maine, Maryland and Washington have all approved gay marriage in referendums held in those states, and Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality there. Colorado and Washington have both voted to allow the use of medical marijuana.
The other interesting referendums of the night were the two held in Puerto Rico. One referendum asked voters in they wanted to change its territorial status or maintain the status quo, and the other one asked if they wanted statehood, free association or independence. Puerto Ricans appear to have voted for change in the former and statehood in the latter. Should Puerto Rico's request be approved by Congress and signed by Mr. Obama, it will become the first new state since Hawaii was admitted to the Union in 1959.
A ridiculous amount of money was spent on this campaign: over two billion dollars was spent on the presidential race alone. Hundreds of millions more was spent on Congressional races, with some Super-PACs having spent tens of millions of dollars just to defeat one person - Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) were swamped with massive amounts of money against them but they held onto their seats. I would like to see the end of the Super-PACs and other excessive wasting of money before the next elections; too much was being spent on elections before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was ruled upon, and now political spending is out of control.
I am mostly satisfied with the results of the election. I'm also glad that the whole campaign is finally over, and hopefully people will make the attempt to mend any fences broken by extreme partisanship. Sour moods, grudges and a refusal to work together will achieve nothing but more bitterness and political fighting.
Now that the election is finished and I've said my piece, I'm looking forward to writing some more posts about my recent visit to Suffolk and showing some of the pictures I took while there...something that we can all enjoy regardless of our political persuasions!
Mr. Obama won all of his 2008 states with the exceptions of Indiana and North Carolina - the latter which he lost narrowly - and as of this writing Florida, which hasn't been called yet but he is leading there. Nate Silver, the statistician who correctly predicted the outcome of 49 of 50 states in 2008 will have a 100% success rate on the presidential level this year if Florida ends the vote counting with a win for Mr. Obama.
I watched Mitt Romney's concession. I am far from a fan of his but I give credit where it is due: I thought that the speech Mr. Romney gave was decent, polite, and gave a call for national unity and support for the president. He sounded fairly cheerful and even looked as though he wanted to be there. I can only commend him for his graciousness.
Beyond the presidential election, the Democrats have both maintained and increased their majority in the Senate, while the Republicans have kept their majority in the House with minor losses; I had hoped that the Democrats would regain the House, but that was definitely a long shot in this election. Maine, Maryland and Washington have all approved gay marriage in referendums held in those states, and Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality there. Colorado and Washington have both voted to allow the use of medical marijuana.
The other interesting referendums of the night were the two held in Puerto Rico. One referendum asked voters in they wanted to change its territorial status or maintain the status quo, and the other one asked if they wanted statehood, free association or independence. Puerto Ricans appear to have voted for change in the former and statehood in the latter. Should Puerto Rico's request be approved by Congress and signed by Mr. Obama, it will become the first new state since Hawaii was admitted to the Union in 1959.
A ridiculous amount of money was spent on this campaign: over two billion dollars was spent on the presidential race alone. Hundreds of millions more was spent on Congressional races, with some Super-PACs having spent tens of millions of dollars just to defeat one person - Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) were swamped with massive amounts of money against them but they held onto their seats. I would like to see the end of the Super-PACs and other excessive wasting of money before the next elections; too much was being spent on elections before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was ruled upon, and now political spending is out of control.
I am mostly satisfied with the results of the election. I'm also glad that the whole campaign is finally over, and hopefully people will make the attempt to mend any fences broken by extreme partisanship. Sour moods, grudges and a refusal to work together will achieve nothing but more bitterness and political fighting.
Now that the election is finished and I've said my piece, I'm looking forward to writing some more posts about my recent visit to Suffolk and showing some of the pictures I took while there...something that we can all enjoy regardless of our political persuasions!
Monday, 5 November 2012
On my support for President Barack Obama
For today's post I am taking a break from writing about my recent visit with family to cover something I haven't gone into a lot of detail about before: some insight into why I support Barack Obama for re-election as President of the United States. Tens of millions of people will be voting tomorrow and tens of millions more have participated in early voting: it seems fitting for me to write this today.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Scholastic Student Vote
For the past couple of weeks the polls for the presidential election in the United States have gone haywire. Given both the abundance of polls and how President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are continually switching back and forth in swing states and in the national popular vote, no one really knows whether to trust any of the polls or not. Do we really need yet another poll?
The results of the Scholastic Student Poll were released today, and 51% of the poll's respondent's chose to re-elect Obama, with 45% going to Romney, and remaining 4% going to other candidates. They predicted that Obama would win all of his 2008 states minus Indiana and Virginia, but would pick up Arizona and South Carolina. Only young people below the age of 18 could participate in the vote.
Why is this vote significant? After all, who cares what kids think...right? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the result: the Scholastic Student Vote has correctly predicted the outcomes of 16 of the past 18 elections. The only two they got wrong were 1948 and 1960 - backing Thomas E. Dewey and Richard Nixon over the victors in each election; neither of these are surprising given how the polls showed that Harry S. Truman was supposed be defeated in 1948, and the 1960 election was incredibly close with John F. Kennedy winning only 0.2% more of the popular vote over Nixon.
I am glad that the vote does spark young peoples' interest in politics; with the way adults often behave, I'm inclined to trust kids more - in a variety of circumstances! Will the Scholastic Student Vote correctly predict the results for the seventeenth time? We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
The results of the Scholastic Student Poll were released today, and 51% of the poll's respondent's chose to re-elect Obama, with 45% going to Romney, and remaining 4% going to other candidates. They predicted that Obama would win all of his 2008 states minus Indiana and Virginia, but would pick up Arizona and South Carolina. Only young people below the age of 18 could participate in the vote.
Why is this vote significant? After all, who cares what kids think...right? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the result: the Scholastic Student Vote has correctly predicted the outcomes of 16 of the past 18 elections. The only two they got wrong were 1948 and 1960 - backing Thomas E. Dewey and Richard Nixon over the victors in each election; neither of these are surprising given how the polls showed that Harry S. Truman was supposed be defeated in 1948, and the 1960 election was incredibly close with John F. Kennedy winning only 0.2% more of the popular vote over Nixon.
I am glad that the vote does spark young peoples' interest in politics; with the way adults often behave, I'm inclined to trust kids more - in a variety of circumstances! Will the Scholastic Student Vote correctly predict the results for the seventeenth time? We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Sheer disrespect
Discussions about politics often become heated. This is to be expected, but normally the conversations are respectful and there are no hard feelings by the end. This year, politics are extremely hot given the major election that has been taking place for the last ten months; even so, people should try their best to keep a cool head on and avoid insulting each other and their respective preferred candidates.
Which is why it appalls me to read hateful comments on Internet articles about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. There is a huge difference between disagreement and sheer disrespect/irrational loathing of a political figure. I am an Obama supporter, but I will listen to and sometimes even agree with reasoned argument and criticism; however, I will always dismiss offensive and hateful comments about him.
Over the past week alone I have read comments that contain insulting variations on his name and frequently call him a traitor, un-American, or that he outright "hates America". A number of comments say that Obama should be arrested, imprisoned, and some have even said he should be executed! The fact that Obama has not done anything to justify any of those things notwithstanding, I find the name-calling and potential violence these people spout to be blatantly disrespectful to someone who is the President of the United States and considered the most powerful man in the world. I could not imagine this sort of language ever being allowed to flourish under George W. Bush, and during his presidency I would have disagreed with anyone who suggested that he should have been executed (I haven't changed from this opinion).
It's at the point now where most comment sections I read on articles about American politics have immediately devolved into a thread devoted to hating the president and anyone who supports him - and these include British news sites. When someone writes "liberals are a cancer" or "death to Obama supporters" it makes me angry, but at the same time it upsets me that there are ordinary people who believe that stamping on their political opponents is the way to win elections and "take the country back" - that is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
To be fair, I have seen hateful comments directed at Obama's main challenger, Mitt Romney, although they are less vitriolic and I've yet to read anyone say that Romney should be executed or that his supporters are un-American and should be killed. On several occasions I have observed people who do not plan to vote for Obama argue against and scold people using hateful or violent commentary against him.
In the case of the First Lady, I almost always dismiss any criticism of her because I believe that she has not done anything to warrant it, she does not create policy or change any laws, and because she has not commented negatively about her husband's political opponents. I disliked criticism of Laura Bush, too - for the same reasons as Michelle Obama; both are decent women.
I worry that, regardless of who wins, the rhetoric will continue after the election has concluded. People need to stop the insults and pure hatred and go back to getting along and compromising (and by "compromising", I mean that everyone makes the effort to get along/work with others, not one side gives in to the other). As I said earlier, keeping a cool head is the way to go.
Which is why it appalls me to read hateful comments on Internet articles about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. There is a huge difference between disagreement and sheer disrespect/irrational loathing of a political figure. I am an Obama supporter, but I will listen to and sometimes even agree with reasoned argument and criticism; however, I will always dismiss offensive and hateful comments about him.
Over the past week alone I have read comments that contain insulting variations on his name and frequently call him a traitor, un-American, or that he outright "hates America". A number of comments say that Obama should be arrested, imprisoned, and some have even said he should be executed! The fact that Obama has not done anything to justify any of those things notwithstanding, I find the name-calling and potential violence these people spout to be blatantly disrespectful to someone who is the President of the United States and considered the most powerful man in the world. I could not imagine this sort of language ever being allowed to flourish under George W. Bush, and during his presidency I would have disagreed with anyone who suggested that he should have been executed (I haven't changed from this opinion).
It's at the point now where most comment sections I read on articles about American politics have immediately devolved into a thread devoted to hating the president and anyone who supports him - and these include British news sites. When someone writes "liberals are a cancer" or "death to Obama supporters" it makes me angry, but at the same time it upsets me that there are ordinary people who believe that stamping on their political opponents is the way to win elections and "take the country back" - that is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
To be fair, I have seen hateful comments directed at Obama's main challenger, Mitt Romney, although they are less vitriolic and I've yet to read anyone say that Romney should be executed or that his supporters are un-American and should be killed. On several occasions I have observed people who do not plan to vote for Obama argue against and scold people using hateful or violent commentary against him.
In the case of the First Lady, I almost always dismiss any criticism of her because I believe that she has not done anything to warrant it, she does not create policy or change any laws, and because she has not commented negatively about her husband's political opponents. I disliked criticism of Laura Bush, too - for the same reasons as Michelle Obama; both are decent women.
I worry that, regardless of who wins, the rhetoric will continue after the election has concluded. People need to stop the insults and pure hatred and go back to getting along and compromising (and by "compromising", I mean that everyone makes the effort to get along/work with others, not one side gives in to the other). As I said earlier, keeping a cool head is the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)