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

Novack, that's way over the line but I won't report because I want people to see how bigoted you are over people with faith. I made it clear in 2 posts I am not with the fundie/hard-evangelical/extremist/conspiracy theory views of a handful of Republicans. I even called them idiots and maniacally conservative. And said I support Obamacare and civil gay marriages. I am only just Republican between the two parties, there are things I prefer the Democratic view on.

I don't believe in a medieval theocracy. That line is just a stupid one. You complained about negative campaigns, well we aren't running for election here, why make extremist negative lines about me just because I'm conservative on certain things? that is hypocritical. Oh and why did you not use the words BEATING HEART or HEARTBEAT, bringing up "rapist's child" (it's the WOMAN'S child), calling a state of the US bound by the Constitution a Mormon theocracy- OBVIOUS bullshit, mocking right-to-life which sets up the false dichotomy that we can care about born AND unborn humans and every single pro lifer I know does so.

Tell me to move to Afghanistan? That is so outrageous I don't know where to begin. Rupert Murdoch? I support the family values, not the owner and his misogynist page 3. I do NOT support FOX NEWS, notice how I said it was too extreme, as with MSNBC (too liberal). So there was no grounds for you to bring him up. Cheap Old Testament shots? Check. Putting me in with murdering woman hating terrorist backward scum? Check.

Gun deaths are not "needless", gang violence comes from people either choosing to lead an evil lifestyle or being drawn into it by desperate circumstances. Armed people save the day frequently, the more gun-friendly environments there are the better for that. Ideally I'd prefer no guns but once they are widely dissipated as in the US the government shouldn't come for them. There are other ways of solving the violence problem without gun control.

Armed people do not save the day which is why 9 innocent passers by were shot by the NY police tee other day. Tests have freqentely shown that the concealed carry person who draws at a shootout invariable either gets shot first or by the arriving law enforcement as a suspect.

There is no audible heartbeat until around 9 weeks and then only if you use doppler which is why the forced vaginal probe to image inside a blob of cells that is a pinprick size but blown up to full A4 to play on an emotionally vunerable victims mind.

I know about rape figures. I'm a pro-life feminist, ffs I have studied plenty about rape and the misogynist culture that encourages it. I have demolished pro-rape comments IRL and online about 20 times in the past couple of weeks while the Akin/Galloway etc controversy was being spoken about a lot. But those stranger rapes still add up to a lot, more than the 16,000 a year even. And after any rape a woman can feel so terrified she won't go out. Here in the UK women who would feel secure enough to lead a normal life if they could carry a concealed gun end up on the scrapheap due to rape trauma. That's what this country condemns them to with an absolute handgun ban and five-year prison terms for breaking it. I'm not just talking about strangers here. There are women in their 20s and up, living alone terrified of their fathers or uncles coming back to hurt them the way they did in their childhood. Terrified their ex will get "revenge" for being dumped and decide he doesn't need consent because hey, they've done it before, so that's okay. These women should be able to defend themselves. Frequently advocates are asked questions about self-defence, they are forced to explain about "reasonable force" which is a dodgy standard and that the victim can't carry even a can of pepper spray. This law is hardly going to reassure them.

If you want a low sentence over here, better to sodomise a string of 10 year old girls than actually sell a few guns to people or convert blank firing ones to live ammunition. That should outrage anyone who cares about girls and women.

Incidentally since the level of gun ownership is directly proportional to suicide rates aroudn the world and twice as many people die needlessly die to suicide by gunshot than do homicide by gunshot per year in the USA surely the church who view suicide as a mortal sin should be out and out against aiding and abbetting by gun ownership. Glad to see your compassion for all those who died and are shot by drive bys or in a cinema, campus on the wrong day etc was because they are evil.

Taliban in Afghanistan are not considered a terrorist organisation by the US State Department, of course you knew that right?

www.nctc.gov/site/groups/taliban.html

National Counter-Terrorism Center. Well understood to be terrorist even if not on the official state department list.

Gun ownership doesn't aid and abet suicide. That reminds me of the argument I once heard that all road-use cars should be restricted by a mechanism to 70mph and unless and until this happens, car manufacturers are aiding and abetting speeding and causing death by dangerous driving. It also trivialises suicide.

Massacres are a whole different thing to gun violence in gangs which is what I keep hearing about when I read pro-gun-control material. Every so often like after Aurora a massacre will be spoken of. The rest of the time it's always about gangs and shootings in inner-city areas. The mighty and influential Children's Defense Fund, who are officially bipartisan but in practice Democrat because they support big-government solutions to child poverty (which I would consider case by case), love the idea of gun control and were a byproduct of the civil rights movement and so filled with people of color who opposed Republicans outright due to the Southern Strategy, produces its "protect children not guns" report every year hectoring lawmakers about gang violence. This is what I said should be remedied by tackling the deeper roots and not just trying to restrict the weapons.

Could you please stop spewing anti-conservatism hate and overloaded rhetoric? You're not Rachel Maddow are you? I am not speaking like Rush or Hannity- largely because I don't have their extremist, blinkered cast of mind and OTT approach to life. Please respond in the same respectful way.

Nooka -- excellent posts.

Would like to add that there is a strong sense of persecution on the part of some sections of the Right, a sense that there is an Establishment that the country needs saving from.

And some people with some mighty strange ideas about what the lives of women in their 20s and up in Britain are like.

You're funny, Extrospektiv.

Gang violence doesn't matter to the pro gun lobby because it is blacks and hispanics who get killed in huge numbers -- and they don't matter to the NRA and the Gun Owners of America because they are not white.

Great thread, really informative. Thanks for all your posts.

Of course Republicans aren't racist. Apart from those thrown out of the convention for throwing peanuts at a black camerawoman. And for saying "this is how we feed animals around here".

What Nicholas said!

This is fantastic, thank you all for posting. Keep them coming

Haven't read all of this yet, but just got to the bit where the term "professional" is used as an insult by a republican.

I don't know whether the correct response is to laugh, cry or be very scared indeed. All three probably.

Oh, Extrospektiv you're still here, good!

Please could you explain to me why on earth you have a problem with professionals?

"This is everything I'd expect from Mumsnet though, A.K.A. metropolitan elite liberal feminist professional pro-abortion pro-gay marriage pro-mandatory sex ed pro-redistributive taxation pro-state funded healthcare anti-gun anti-austerity set."

I can understand you are opposed politically to the rest, but professionals?

You mean like doctors and teachers, right? i.e. anyone with employment based on professional qualifications.

This thread is brilliant. I studied American politics as part of my degree, so although I know how the mechanics work, its fascinating to see how/what American's think about the parties/candidates/policies.

For me, I just don't think I will ever understand the mindset of Republicans. I don't know if its just the UK Media but Romney/Ryan seem pretty fecking scary! I have a friend in America and he will be voting for Romney as he thinks Obama is too inexperienced and just hates him. His only problem with Romney seems to be that he's a bit cheesy .

What I really don't understand though, particularly with republicans, is how can they be anti-govt intervention in healthcare, except in the cases of women and their bodies? Apart from being utterly wrong (IMHO) its also extremely hypocrticial!

With respect Extrospetiv, when you said "This is everything I expect from Mumsnet", well yes exactly because its a British based website and frankly some of the stuff you yourself have come out with a lot of Brits would consider pretty unacceptable and dated in 2012. It just shows the difference in culture and the face that we understand each other a lot less than we think we do. This thread is aimed at a British audience and to explain US politics in terms we understand and can compare to things we know.

I am well aware that Romney isn't one of the extreme members of the Republican party; but his party does have a lot of members who do come out with remarks that would get you arrested in the UK. And they have been elected into office. Whether or not that is reflective of the party or not, they are tolerated by mainstream Republicans and that in itself would not be acceptable to Brits and within British politics.

This comment has really made me laugh really hard
This is everything I'd expect from Mumsnet though, A.K.A. metropolitan elite liberal feminist professional pro-abortion pro-gay marriage pro-mandatory sex ed pro-redistributive taxation pro-state funded healthcare anti-gun anti-austerity set.

Well yes because they are all mainstream British values! They are very central to our national identity and love of democracy and tolerance.

We are different as nations and we, and most of the rest of Europe, simply don't have the same kind of politics and we struggle to understand a lot of American values as they totally conflict with the ones we are brought up to cherish and consider most important.

It doesn't mean I don't like Americans. It doesn't mean I don't have Republican voting friends. What it does mean is I struggle to understand is views that we actually find offensive and are still tolerated in mainstream politics in the US. Which is why actually the BNP analogy isn't that far wrong - because the BNP sit on the very edge of what we consider acceptable in British politics and the Republican Party do come out with things that fall slightly beyond that limit.

There is no way, that if we had a black Prime Minister you would have vocal, well respected politicians and businessman (Hello Mr Trump) making remarks about where he was born and how he needed to show his birth certificate. It just would not be accepted. Not even if a remark was made in jest. (Hello Mr Romney).

We have different standards and different limits of what is acceptable and what isn't. We are two different worlds.

"Blacks were never denied membership in the Mormon church. The early mormons suffered a great deal of persecution, in part, because of their anti-slavery views."

I don't know if that is true, but I know mormon faith teaches black are black because God punished them for their sins. I do know however that Utah's main iniversity didn't allow black players in their basketball teams at least until the 1980s.

I have to say that at some point in my life I have been tempted to join that faith but have not been able to go pass by their very racist slant.

With regard to Mormons and racism. Lets not dwell too much on the past. If racism did exist, and things have moved on since then, is it fair to keep dragging it up for the sake of an argument?

I don't know what the current position is with the Mormons but thats the relevant point, not what it was. Thats what you should be looking up and finding out.

If you look back to 1978 within British politics and culture are we squeaky clean? The answer is very definite no. Maybe better than the US overall, but it was certainly very much institutionalised. So ask yourself why is this being dragged up? Its part of trying to make a candidate look bad...

Hmmm, how dare you say 'if racism did exist', the whole of american society was built on racism that they still have not gotten over yet. if you don't know your past you can never improve and do better in the future.

there are lots of americans who want obama out because he is black, they want 'their' country back.

the past is brought up to show what is going on with a candidate, romney's speeches over the last few months are not his whole persona. he will say anything to get elected. his career was built on putting americans out of work. people should know that and judge him on that. that is his whole economic experience, impoverishing others to make himself rich. will that make him a good president?

creighton thats not what I'm saying. I personally think that Romney IS racist and that a lot of Republicans ARE racist.

My point was to say that, you shouldn't say that Mormons are racist based on stuff from 1978 as people in this thread have suggested. I think thats just as ignorant and I think his religion is being used against Romney, which again is wrong and doesn't help. Even if Romney IS a racist.

It would be wrong to do that if a candidate was a British Muslim, so why is it ok to do it if its a white Mormon? There is a double standard going on here.

In short, judge someone as an individual based on their personal track record rather than just the general views of their religion. To do otherwise is very often equally discriminatory.

I think a lot of people in this country would very upset if they were called homophobic because their church didn't support gay marriage and would say that didn't represent them, even though they were members of the church.

I also think you need to credit organisation which do make changes, rather than continually beat them with a stick about it.

Like I say, I don't know what the position is with the Mormons, but I am deeply uncomfortable with using remarks about a religion as a whole to attack an individual.

I always smirk at UK reporting/comment on American politics (particularly the Republicans).

Here's the news guys: they absolutely do not give a fuck that you think they are a bunch of primitive reactionaries. In fact they don't even know, and don't understand your thinking.

Just because they speak the same language doesn't mean they share your culture.

I would not assume a Republican was racist. I would, however, assume a racist would vote Republican.

(I'm American and have not yet been proven wrong on this.)

It is a big reason for my visceral dislike of the Republican Party.

Mardyfish what a strange thing to say. Who is assuming they have the same culture? I'm not sure anyone thinks that, do they? And who is assuming Americans are bothered what we think about them either?

Just because people here take an interest in/comment on something that very much affects the rest of the world doesn't mean they are assuming Americans will take note of those viewpoints! I certainly wouldn't assume that, and the fact that many Americans show little or no interest in the rest of the world is something to comment on in itself, IMO.