Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

[ihatethecold]

What are the main differences between Obama and romney?
Is Obama like labour and Romney like very right conservative?

Why does Romney say he will get rid of the healthcare bill that Obama brought in.

Did it not work?
why wouldn't you want people without insurance to access healthcare ?
Thanks

Extro - I've read your posts, and I see that you're trying to 'redress the balance'. But what balance? If the US election were run in the UK, Obama would win by a majority unseen in a US or UK election, ever. And it's because, as ever so many have pointed out, the US Republican party is long old way from mainstream (nevermind liberal) UK opinion.

The love the UK electorate have for an NHS free at the point of service is well documented and quantified.

The Tories have never pushed for changes to abortion law that even begin to echo Republican platforms in the US.

The sort of economic austerity that Cameron seeks to inflict on the poor would still make him a leftie in the US.

You seem to be suggesting that your views are mainstream in the UK, just not on leftie old Mumsnet. That's just patently untrue. You are more than entitled to your views, but they are out of whack with the bulk of British voters.

By all means, seek to change that if you like, this is a democracy and all opinions should be heard. It's just that thus far, your opinions are not that popular here.

Math- "extreme liberal" does not apply to you. You are moderate to left leaning from what you write on this thread, by US or Irish standards, and just centrist by UK standards.

I was using "extreme liberal" to describe People for the American Way given their continuous talk of "reproductive freedom", opposition to parents' rights laws, calling SCOTUS justices reactionaries, and the vitriol with which they cover the Right and the sort of blogs and articles they link to.

My talk of monks and nuns was in contrast to the openly anti-Christian Amanda Marcotte (that's not anti-Christian Right, but anti ALL religion, in a flippant and hateful tone) suggesting that teachers in high schools should be able to correct misinterpretations of human relationships, particularly those about what turns females on, encountered in porn. She mentioned "an experienced adult". I was pointing out that an adult without sexual experience would be just as good at explaining the sort of reproductive facts schools should confine themselves to teaching, and perhaps even do better at delivering an abstinence-focused, morally respectable message. I went to a independent non-denominational, (moderate- no evolution denial or hellfire talk) Christian school in England where the sex education was delivered by a Catholic nun. It was appreciated.

What Marcotte the misotheist has in mind is teachers who'll be prepared to listen to pupils confide their formative sexual experience and not disclose it to parents or anyone else. Which is almost as extreme as you can get. None but the most foolhardy or reckless pupil would start trying to share personal details of their sexual development with a celibate nun or monk, at least. They would be quickly cut off and a phone call made to the parents.

I get your points on school nurses. I think you've converted me on that.

Piglet John - I'm an actual American voter. If the election were run today in the US, Obama would probably win. And that's pretty poor for the Republicans, who should be flying high on the VP announcement and the RNC.

Anything can happen before November, so who knows? McCain was a much stronger candidate than Romney, but then Obama was 'vapourware', and now he has a record of failing to fish the economy out of the toilet. Still, I doubt Romney will succeed where McCain failed.

Extro Still not answering any questions yet.

Since you are anti-choice how do you feel about the figures from the WHO that clearly show that terminations of a pregnancy are far higher in abstinence only sex education states compared to comprehensive sex ed states.

No-one pushes for anti abortion laws because the other 75-80% are pro choice. I know I'm in the minority. I was saying it's not such a SMALL minority.

"inflict on the poor"- many think that fiscal conservatism benefits the poor in the long run even if it inflicts temporary suffering, so being compassionate does not require a high and progressive tax rate. You might not agree. I am centrist on economics anyway.

It's my social views and particularly my abortion statements which conflict with the UK mainstream. And I'm proud of that. I'm not going to go with the majority. The sexual "revolution" was wrong and abortion is wrong, and that is all I will say. But I accept that this being a democracy it is not likely that major steps will be taken to promote a pro-abstinence and/or pro-life agenda because there will be no electoral constituency for doing so. So I just live my life the old-fashioned way, which I see as the only morally right way no matter how unpopular it is in a given society, and all the permissives can get on with being the majority.

Pro-life, pro-family, pro-enterprise, but not anti-poor or anti-minority, and not pro-British mainstream and don't want to be. (Nor do I want to hear idiot comments telling me to "move to Afghanistan" or similar. I've had that fucking crazy shit before just because I believe in sexual morality and pro-life, that doesn't count as a reason to go into exile in a third world country. Britain is tolerant enough not to force me out for my traditionalist beliefs.)

I just might consider Ireland though. Not paying for the killing of unborn babies with tax pounds and a LOT more people still believing in God and the primacy of the family is a big improvement for a trip across a few miles of sea.

I am a fiscal conservative, and one that knows that inflicting some tough love on the City would save us a lot more money. Corporate welfare costs us far more money in the US.

By the way, the US Republican party is not pro-family. They resist any time off for maternity leave (paid or otherwise), any national minimum for holiday entitlement, any flexi working restrictions on businesses. In all the ways that matter, they want to keep families apart as much as possible.

I would not suggest you move to another country! That's the point of living in a democracy, you don't have to agree with the mainstream.

Anti-choice? That is abortion lobbyist language. Pro-life. In return I won't call you pro-death. Civility, you said...

I feel that abstinence is not working out properly because of the moral failings of the people... but how to improve morals is a very complex thing and one government cannot control, they can't "make" people moral. Abstinence has been difficult throughout history; we know most males weren't virgins at marriage even in the Victorian era, just not speaking about sex in public (so that was more a misogynist system than a truly moral system as it shamed women.) Now that men and women are closer to equality and one does not have to do all the parenting could we finally enter a period of abstinence by both sexes until marriage, and a renewed emphasis on living life with higher goals than mere animal rutting? Women now have the power to make demands of their partners and they should begin to demand sexually pure men. That would change the game toward family values. Most importantly, all the Christians and Muslims of the world start living out abstinence/sex within marriage only. Instead of moaning about "how times have changed" or "it's not like that anymore", let's go out and pro-actively make it "like that": in the US over 70% of the population is still Christian and yet 95% are sexually experienced at marriage. I can get atheists rejecting the marriage-based standard. Those of us with faith need to get together and we can completely transform society just by our rededication to moral truth- actually supporting the sanctity of marriage, purity and pro-life values instead of the suburban 1950s or 1870s Victoriana fantasy which was really full of backstreet abortions, brothels, "easy" girls and affairs.

Is this reasonable?

I did not suggest any particular person would tell me to move to another country, only that people have told me that before just for disagreeing with abortion or promiscuity or explicit sex education. It's usually one of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan. Like I'd live in an anti-woman third world hellhole dictatorship rather than be a minority voice in a democracy. It's one of the lines that most pisses me off.

Well only Saudi Arabia and the VATICAN don't allow woman to vote and Iran and Afghanistan are democracies.

But going by your rantings you would prefer a theocracy. you're demonstrating exactly why a religious zealot like Romney should never be President as with Ahmadinajad wanting a nuclear weapon being bad enough the last thing the world needs is a cult member of the USA with thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal.

Abstinance only leads to more abortions. Plane simple fact from the WHO

I think that has to be one of the oddest posts I've read on Mumsnet.

You are right you cannot make other people comply with your view of morality. Live your life the way you think right, but don't presume to think that other people will subscribe to your views however much you choose to talk about avoiding sex.

Novack and Math have said everything I would have, so no need to repeat them. I'll keep this short, and just my opinion as all the stats and history of religions/racism etc has already been well covered.

When I was a little girl, I used to fantasise about moving to America. Then I took up International Politics and International Relations in high school

Now, IMO America is no better than the countries they condemn. It certainly is no longer 'land of the free.'

When I say America, I mean their politicians who criticise the Middle East for the way they treat women, homosexuals etc. It seems they're becoming the very sort of government they despise so deeply.

It worries me very much that my country -Australia- seems to be turning into 'Mini America.' Since it's pretty much a done deal the Liberal's will win our next election (I am Labor) I am following this election very closely. A Republican POTUS and a Liberal PM could land Aussie's in real hot water.

Posted too soon, didn't get a chance to edit!

Due to our foreign policies with the US, having a Republican POTUS and a Liberal PM could land Aussie's in real hot water.

Mississippi pregnancy rates

Mississippi vs New Hampshire

Sex Education Works

Abstinance based education increases hiv transmisson

Why does the religious right want to turn women into diseased baby producing autonomons?

I'm a real American voter, Piglet, and have never been out of North America in my life (or really the US; I took a couple of day trips to Canada when I was younger) so I'm about as steeped in the culture as it comes.

What would you like to know? :)

It is a shame but not a surprise no-one's coming to my defence in a rational way.

Because you are so far out of touch with what the mainstream British view is. Got nothing to do with the fact this is MN. For all the criticism MN gets, its more representative than people give credit for. I have to say I'm now actually quite fascinated as to how you vote...

But to be honest, I actually think you are doing a great job of not redressing the balance, but hijacking the thread with a lot of factually incorrect nonsense and don't want to readdress any questions that challenge them. Because what you are saying actually has very little to do with American Elections in reality and is all about you trying to push this idea that Brits are more right wing than they actually are. Also sounds like you are trying to campaign yourself and make these ideas acceptable to British ears, and want to someone to desperately pipe up and support you.

I think I'll stick to topic from now on.

Extro -- I have been accused of being an Unreconstructed Marxist by British standards here, but then again, I considered the source and said - nah...

I love People For The American Way. I think it is far more The American Way than the way of Falwell and Robertson that it opposes.

WRT the formative sexual experiences of children... The idea that any parent would want to hear about something like that is (to me) incredibly, gobsmackingly, appallingly prurient. If any of my DCs ever disclosed a sexual experience to a teacher I would like to think a teacher would be discreet enough not to ever repeat it to me and smart enough to wonder what exactly my child was trying to say above and beyond what they disclosed. Children do not just disclose sexual experiences to teachers without a good reason. I would rather they disclosed something on their mind to a teacher, a professional with some child protection training, than to some random friend, or the janitor or the bus driver...

Do you honestly think that there is some piece of legislation possible that would make children not talk to a trusted teacher, and would stop a teacher listening and talking to them? That is a very intrusive role of government you are envisaging there.
(But the real question is why would you even think of such a detail?)

Good luck in Ireland. Maybe you could try the congregation of Rev. Ian paisley in NI? You will pass hundreds of Irish women making their way eastwards across the Irish Sea for abortions as you sail west.

I think you would have to have very little faith to be fazed by commentators who are opposed to religion. They are entitled to their opinions. Sometimes critics turn out to be right - look at Sinead O'Connor. 'A prophet is never welcome, etc..'

IdPreferNot, I keep on agreeing with your posts. Add the farm subsidies to business subsidies.

I am a registered US Voter also.
Have voted in the last three US General Elections and am taking care to read up carefully on this one so that my vote is appropriate for my home state.

I know that Exaro's words are VERY representative of a significant part of the US population
which is one of the reasons I have chosen to make my life here.

I disagree with ALL of Extro's views, but at least s/he can articulate things clearly and engage with other views without completely demonising them.

Most discourse in the USA is blind name-calling.

Also American. I just want to address Extro's claim that she would be a moderate in the US, because while she might be considered so in, say, Alabama, her views would definitely be considered very right-wing on the East Coast.

Extro -- this is not to say I don't find your views very interesting! (while disagreeing with them completely ) But I think you would be misleading the Brits on here to suggest you would be completely mainstream everywhere in the US.

What makes someone right-wing to me is a certain lack of pragmatism when it comes to policy and the desire to extend that to everyone, whether they agree with you or not. Take abortion. If you are really opposed to abortion and think it's murder, then it makes sense you would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. But pro-lifers are also usually against contraception, sex ed, all the things that help reduce pregnancy. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

FWIW I went to Catholic school and they had lay people come in and teach proper sex ed. You want to promote abstinence? Show a bunch of 14 year old girls a full-on close-up film of a baby being born (oh the screaming). Show photos of syphalitic genitals. And also, teach them about birth control, so if they do have sex, the least amount of harm will occur.

A lot of us on the East Coast would be quite happy to secede (maybe we can join the EU? ) Then the East Coast Republic wouldn't have to worry about Republicans forcing us to teach creationism, making abortion and contraception illegal, denying climate change, making all guns legal, reinstituting the death penalty, deporting migrants, giving tax breaks to the rich while axing benefits for the poor, etc and so on.

It is a real question whether the US will still be one country 150 years from now.

It is a real question whether the US will still be one country 150 years from now.

Honestly? I sincerely doubt it.

I was thinking about the idea of teaching creationism, and trying to force schools to say that evolution was a theory, just one idea among others.

I was considering the idea that there was a religion who felt that their faith required them to believe that the earth went round the sun and the earth was flat. This religion could punish or excommunicate any of its adherents who said otherwise (believe it or not, this has happened).

Now suppose that this religious group had enough inflience to insist that the heliocentric, round-earth theory was not to be taught as fact. How would a geography teacher, or a school of navigation, cope? Could a class be taught about the projection of maps, or astrophysics?

To me, it seems incomprehensible that a publicly-funded school could be forced to obey the desires of the religious group. Would it be possible in America?

sun went round the earth ffs

I doubt it too Hmm.

Piglet, there is indeed a lot of tension between religion and state in certain parts of the country when it comes to education.

I don't think it's impossible for religion and science to coexist in state schools -- they do in England, right? I have to say, as an American, it was really surprising to find out that state schools in England can be CoE or Catholic and exclude local pupils for not being religious enough basically. That would be complete anathema in many parts of the US! Legally, state schools are not supposed to have a religious character.

But I gather they still teach science properly in those schools? My US Catholic school also had no problem teaching physics, biology, etc., we learned evolution was correct.

The problem is that in some areas, you do indeed have people who want the entire curriculum to conform with the Bible. Their efforts usually get challenged legally, so most of these people end up home schooling.