Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[
Report Post
]
Comments ( 33
)
Sort:
best |
oldest
-
-
-
[Old Memory]
Lol. The fact that Obama (I think that's the one) is basically coning women and feminists, using them for his own gain, and that he will most likely get chosen due to the stupidity and how gullible feminists are, they will vote for him.
It's amazing how feminists want to be seen as strong individuals, yet get used for someone's political gain.Hilarious. I am feminists, watch me!!!...Get used by one man for political gain.
Would be sad if it wasn't hilariously ironic.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
To be fair, Democrats seem to have a much clearer and less 19th century view of women's issues than Republicans. I don't think it's gullible of women to think they'd be treated better under a Democratic government than a Republican one, I think it's probably true. If I was a woman there would be no way in Hell I would vote for a President who's party is anti-abortion and has no idea about rape or gender inequality in the workplace. I don't think it's unreasonable for women to vote for a party because it seemingly understands women's issues better.
I also don't think it would be unreasonable or naive for a man to vote for a party which stood for equality in divorce cases, either (despite the fact that no mainstream party seems to want to focus on that).
Obama appealed to ethnic minorities, women and young people in 2008. Does that mean he is using them for his own gains? Partially yes and partially no, probably. I just don't see what's so gullible about voting for a President who stands for the same things as you do. Politicians lie and politicians use people for their votes, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth voting for someone who shares your views.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
Debating in this area would involve me looking up things due to me not being in America, and so I will only respond to the part that doesn't require me looking up more.
(You may already know the reason on why I am not interested enough to look the subject up more).
So forgive me for not addressing a lot of your points, you can take it as me being unable to counter what you said if you want.As for the gullible part. Yes, it is gullible.
If someone is using a certain groups interest and claiming it their own, in which they had no interest before the new elections, so they can gain more votes, then yes, they are being gullible, especially when Obama has a track record of not sticking to his word.The whole thing of women's inequality in the workplace is a joke. When you actually look in to it, it tends to show that women get paid less because they go for less paid jobs and more likely to go in to jobs that involve social involvement.
Not only that, but males risk far more and are more likely to spend more time in a career, which psychologists have stated already.
Your idea of equality in the workplace is women not risking as much as men, not doing as much as men, and not spending as much extra time as men, then getting paid equally to men. There have also been research that shows women get paid 8% more than men when everything in their career, as in time, risk, etc is the exact are exact.POint being, are they actually sharing the views, or using a large group's views as a way to fish people in, which is what he is clearly doing.
If people want to be gullible to vote for someone that is most likely not going to do anything, using your views to fish you in, even if such views are using completely incorrect information (feminist propaganda), then they can be gullible. Just don't expect people to not see them as gullible.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
I was going to typing something big and long but you already stated that you won't do the research, ergo, you would rather your opinions be uninformed so I will make this as short and sweet as I can.
Planned parenthood provides birth control, abortions and adoption services, OB/GYN, social services and STD screenings. It benefits both genders/sexes and it benefits people in the lower income bracket like myself. Health insurance in the US is very expensive and the prices are getting higher.
Romney declared that he wants to cut Planned Parenthood. Whether or not he WILL is up to speculation but the fact remains that this was his declaration and quite frankly, it (rightfully) scares a lot of people.
Anyone who has any concern for "women's rights" would naturally have concern for women having easy access to birth control. It's only reasonable to assume that voting for Romney (if he makes good on his word) will deprive women of easy access to birth control. Out of the two major candidates, only one of them hasn't threatened women's access to these services. Obama will most likely leave them alone, as he pretty much has for the past four years.
Take it however you will. This isn't up for debate, this is real, serious, factual shit, yo. I am not voting for Obama because his fiscal, economic and foreign policies suck and I do agree that rallying behind someone just because they speak pretty words about feminism (which is the only reason why some feminists, who are most likely Democrat to begin with do have his back) is downright fucktarded. I just wanted you to understand why a lot of women would rather have Obama in office. There are real issues at stake here, it's not all about gull and beliefs.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
"are they actually sharing the views, or using a large group's views as a way to fish people in, which is what he is clearly doing."
That's the crux of the issue. Is Obama preaching gender equality purely to gain women's votes, or does he genuinely believe in his policies? I don't think it is as cut-and-dry as to say he's clearly just fishing for votes. Let me explain why I don't think he is doing that.
If Obama was purely fishing for votes he would start backing the coal industry more strongly and match Romney's rhetoric on ending job out-sourcing to China, because those are areas where Romney gains big points. Yet he doesn't. He refuses to make cracking down on China part of his campaign or backing the coal industry part of his campaign to anything resembling the extent Romney does. If Obama was purely playing to for the most number of votes possible he would copy Romney in areas where Romney wins big points. These are just examples of popular Romney policies which came off the top of my head, I could probably think up more but on the other hand it's 4 AM and I don't have the capacity for that.
It is clear, then, that Obama is not in the business of trying to win the most votes he can at the expense of sacrificing his principles. Exhibit A: Obama would not sacrifice his moral commitment to sustainable energy merely to win the votes of people in coal-mining communities (which lie in key swing states meaning they ARE an important group).
Factor in the fact that 30% of Americans don't even believe global warming is caused by humans ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/20/most_americans_believe_global_warming_is_caused_by_human_activity/ ) and that 174,000 people work are directly employed in the coal industry (with maybe as many as 1.5 million employed indirectly ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States ) versus only around 500,000 employed indirectly or directly by the green energy industry ( http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/2128 ), and you can deduce that it would result in a net profit of votes for Obama if he jettisoned his environmental policy in return for supporting coal.
Now let us consider once again the issue at hand: is the President merely pandering to women to grab their votes on the back of empty promises or does he truly believe in his policies regarding gender equality and will do his best to push them through? Using the example of the coal-miners, I think it is fair to say Obama does not always sacrifice his personal morals in return for votes. I don't think anyone can say with any confidence that Obama would support women's issues if he did not believe in them, just as he refused to support the coal industry.
You might be right, I cannot prove Obama honestly believes in women's issues and I cannot disprove your hypothesis that he has chosen to publicly support them merely to gain votes, but it *is* nonsense to suggest it's as cut-and-dry as you are making it out to be. It is very popular during times of election to believe that politicians are heartless monsters removed from society who will do anything and sell out any belief the hold dear for a few extra votes, but it just isn't true.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
-
-
-
[Old Memory]
You misunderstand.
I wasn't willing to look up what needed looked up for the first paragraph of what Dom had said, the rest was the parts I replied to because I didn't need to look up those parts.
I replied to all but the first paragraph, because I needed more information on the 'first' paragraph. What I was replying to was the other parts. Perhaps I should of made that more clear.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
I mean, all politicians are using you for your vote. They're all pretty much scumbags who are out there trying to appeal to the greatest common denominator, and I definitely won't be voting for the guy who's trying to take away my reproductive rights. Honestly I don't like any of them and all these people sucking Obama's balls just kind of makes me feel ill, I'm somewhat torn between him and Gary Johnson. But Gary Johnson doesn't support gay rights... There's no way to win. You'll always just be voting between a douche and a turd sandwich, so might as well vote for the one who shares your stance on the most issues, it's more useless and sad to do nothing.
Though I do think I've talked to you about how modern feminism just kind of jump right into the shitter and flushed continuously. Equal rights ain't what they used to be. :/ I used to identify myself as a feminist but now I shudder to be associated with that group when most people who seem outspoken about it are bloody hypocrites. When I had my women's studies class we actually spent a good bit of time on the chapter on gender, talking about, you got it, MENS issues.
Maybe the problem is just too many outspoken idiots with computers.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
-
[Old Memory]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm so tired of watching the same presidential race over and over again. None of these bastards have our best interest in mind, why do we consistently play by their rules? "I want things to change!" Then be the damn change, don't wait for somebody else to.
Not directed at OP, just ranting.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
I can have an opinion and can see what is best for America from the outside. I've done my research, know a few American people and have some relatives in America.
I dread hearing that Romney has got in - it would be so backward. What with America supposedly being the 'big power' in the world, I just don't think it's a great idea for you to do that to yourselves. Obama may not be perfect, but he's a damn sight better and er... Democrat : ) Republicans are like a ten times concentrated version of the Conservatives over here (who are, by the way, f*****g things right up.) Romney is a sour cherry on top of an already stale cake i.e. the Republican party.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
no I do want change, but simply protesting everything and throwing a way a bunch of money towards untested alternative energy programs in a bad economy wont make it any better. (she would do more good in a stable economy)
for the record, Im for alternative Energy (Hydrogen powered cars FTW), but right now, focus on getting jobs for people in the us.(especially manufacturing) Once the economy is stable, then we can focus on alternative energy. (I know green could make jobs, but not enough to offset the cost of research)
we arent ready for the green. Making the jump completely to green energy now would be like taking away a heroin addicts needle.
get rid of foreign oil first and build more refineries here. (like giving Siboxin to a recovering heroin addict, us oil will help us get off oil)
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-