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

@fridakahlo
You say that like it's not a bad thing!

For those who believe that the baby boomers went too far off course on a whole bundle of issues, for conservative parents who wish their children to pick up conservative values, it is.

Because math brought up "commie Jews" which was a stereotype from that time period, I was showing how outdated her reasoning was in why modern Republicans use phrases like "metropolitan elite liberal" to attack their opponents or would equate "professional" with Democrat supporter. I was trying to shut down the ridiculous Jew-baiting after the even worse race-baiting pro-Obama comments were made several times before today.

I would love to say that your right and that I completely respect and accept your opinions (cos I'm tolerant like that, something to do with being liberal ) but while you support the dictating of what women can and can't do with their OWN bodies , then nope sorry I can't.
By the by, the term is pro-choice, NOT pro-abortion.

To falsely accuse the NRA and other pro-gun groups of racism for example was way below the belt.

If you'd prefer to support PFAW, PNHP, ACORN, NEA, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Center for "Reproductive Rights", that thing Maria Wright Edelman's into, Sierra Club and the many other anti-conservative lobby groups that's up to you. Just don't make lying race-related allegations against a group when you happen to disagree with their gun politics. Play fair...

Oh yes, I see Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler continued propagating them long after they had been discredited. Are you thinking of the 1920's or the 1930's?

1920s for Protocols as a US issue, apart from in the minds of fevered extremists, but right up to the 1950s McCarthy witch hunt and attempts to interfere with the NAACP through commie spy charges it may have been a reason why the (radical, Bircher/Strom Thurmond) Right would have used words like elite or professional to describe their political opposition.

Still the point stands, there is a perfectly good reason to use those terms in the fifty years passed since then, continuing today, without any connection to Jew hatred or commie fear. I challenged the point because I found it to be yet another attempt at slandering conservatives as bigoted.

Yes, there was a groundshift in Catholic/fundamentalist relations after Roe v Wade. But anti Semitism and anti Catholicism and suspicion of African Americans are always there under the surface. Nothing ever really goes away.

The outlook of the John Birch society is reflected in much of what Ron Paul proposed and in a lot of the Tea Party platform, which in turn is influencing more mainstream Republican policies; the GOP ignores the Tea Party at its peril. On issues like immigration and the proper role of the UN (see the career and views of John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN under GW Bush) there is little difference between it and mainstream Republicans. The general 'Patriot' groups and the John Birch Society and the Tea Party have many areas of overlap both wrt positions on various economic issues (trade and globalisation) and in tone (mortal danger to the US posed by too much integration into the rest of the world politically and economically, too much federal power threatening state rights). The labels may change but the sentiment remains.

Nixon has a lot to answer for. He appealed to the sense of many voters that the world had spun out of wasp control and popularised and normalised kneejerk reactionism by calling it the sentiment of the silent majority, with the implication that silence was bred of fear and a sense of solid middle class decency in the face of long haired radicals -- he summoned forth people motivated by fear to vote for him.

Reagan in his turn pushed the envelope that little bit further with the 'welfare queens' and the Willie Horton elements of his election campaign against Dukakis, both crude appeals to pure racism. The Reagan presidency saw the last hurrah of the Cold War but the fear that was instilled in American society from WW2 onwards continues to find expression in the anti-European and anti-any-whiff-of socialism- let-alone communism element of political discourse. Even Newt Gingrich, during the Republican primaries, sought to discredit Romney by revealing that he gasp spoke French. He could have accused Romney of shirking his national duty to go to Vietnam (and could possible have made much more political capital) but interestingly chose to attack Romney on his alleged cultural affinity to Europe instead.

I think Republican voters remain basically motivated much more by various fears than Democrats.

I don't think you can say with any certitude at all that the higher up the income scale you go the less likely people are to attend church services of whatever kind. My own observations of churches in a strikingly 'liberal' and very well off suburban area in the US midwest contradict your assertion. There was one particular street that I recall that had at one end a Catholic church, further on an Episcopalian and further on again an unaffiliated Christian church, and on any given Sunday morning driving on that street was impossible because of the vast numbers of parked cars of congregants. The three Jewish temples spread over two neighbouring suburbs had large congregations and they also stopped traffic, but on Saturdays. All the parked cars for all the congregations tended to be newer models, oodles of SUVs, lots of expensive European brands. Churches of all kinds all over the US tend to be much more full than in Europe.

I don't know where you are getting your widely acknowledged facts about who is a member of the Democratic party, and you are forgetting about the huge amount of urban poverty. There are states that are predominantly rural that vote Democratic and some that are swing states. There are states that have a large urban population and also a large rural one like Illinois. Maybe Minnesota too..

'and hating those who support their main ideas is exactly what liberals would want them to do so as they'd lap up the split vote and win all their electoral campaigns.'
This is conspiracy theory talk.

We have guns and are not racist. :o

The gun thing is complicated...I am one of those, like Bohemian said, from a rural background where guns just are . Everyone's got 'em, no one shoots people with them. My friend's eight year old daughter has a rifle!

It's not as easy as splitting the country via religious/not religious, either. I am a devout Christian, but I am a Democrat and a liberal because I believe that Christ would want me to care for the sick and the poor.

I don't really follow your point. You accuse Math of bringing up the Protocols, although she didn't, because you think that is an example of US right-wing bigotry that you think she might have had in mind?

And yes, Math is right about Minnesota. :)

No, I never said she'd brought it up... she had mentioned commie Jews so I used it to make it clear that I didn't believe such conspiracies (well debunked in the case of the Protocols) have anything to do with the way Republicans use language in today's political climate.

I cannot say and have not said that no Republican has ever been racist, just that I don't see bigotry as a core value of the party or anywhere near that level.

I wish that the Blue Dog Democrats, Bart Stupak for example (cop-out :( ) would take over the party and make it pro-life, pro-family. Then if the same party opposed killing the unborn and subverting family values as cared more for the sick and the poor, all Christians pretty much could vote for them.

I have been speaking to a few Catholics in various states, none that are tossups though so no difference to the election result: they are desperately torn at the moment. They don't want abortion on demand, gay marriage or subversion of family values in schools. They DO want the ACA upheld minus the contraception requirement, are antiwar and to a reasonable extent pro-welfare. Which puts them between a rock and a hard place.

Oh for a truly compassionate conservative or a truly moderate liberal... someone who would paint the town purple, for social justice, not just partisan red or blue. With the horrifically polarised system that currently exists I hold out little hope... I can pray for such a leader to reveal him/herself.

Church attendance correlated with income is susceptible to anecdotal evidence or even whole pockets of inapplicability but is a statistically significant relationship in the country as a whole.

"subverting family values" is not a phrase we use in my country. What does it mean?

When you say "Church attendance correlated with income ... is a statistically significant relationship" you mean there are reliable, unbiased statistics published that show this relationship, in a large enough sample to make them meaningful, right? Where can I see them?

I see Math referred to the concept of "commie jews" as an example of right-wing US bigotry under the heading of "historical undercurrents"

Are you saying that it is not part of a historical undercurrent, as she suggests, or are you just saying it in not part of contemporary right-wing thinking?

"subverting family values in schools" is a fact, not a country-specific piece of political jargon. It's where the school jumps a mile over the boundary between "pastoral care" and the realm of the parents, family, or medical profession. Which of course is useless for parents with conservative values!

In England it has recently included schools doing the following: referring a girl of 15 for an abortion without ANY parental notification; having the deputy principal of a >80% POC/Muslim establishment keep secrets for sexually active pupils; use sex education materials that are explicit and fail to cover moral issues adequately, even as an end run to parents who object to classroom teaching; fail to mention words such as marriage, chastity, abstinence and fidelity when sex is brought up; fail to disclose pregnancy tests to a parent/guardian for no good reason; teach that traditional values are wrong, unjust, bigoted, immoral or any combination of other "boo words".

WRT that church-income increase link: High levels of religiosity negatively correlated (-.51) with upward economic mobility in June this year, source: Pew. Perhaps I got confused between regular church attendance and self-identification as "highly religious" which are not always coterminous groups.

I am saying it's not contemporary
in order to defend my use of the words she mentioned as being tainted by that undercurrent in the present day

Back to the original subject...

What is the significance of white American political activists, at a major political event, throwing nuts at black American workers?

Significance? Haters gonna hate... :P

A few racists out of thousands of people, not as if everyone was applauding them. Same as Akin and rape, his insensitivity to rape survivors and ignorance of reproductive biology doesn't extend to the whole party.

"subverting family values in schools" is a fact, not a country-specific piece of political jargon

I disagree.

It is, as you used it, jargon, and its meaning is not intrinsic from the words. Hence I asked what it meant (implying, when you use it)

Some families use violence on their children; is that a family value? If other citizens try to discourage or prevent this violence, or punish it, would that be subversion? Some families support forced marriages. Is that in your view a "family value?"

Some families seek to prevent their youngsters learning facts, for example about sex and relationships. Is ignorance a family value?

From your perspective, how do you identify a family value?

I don't know the significance of throwing nuts. It is not a practice I am familiar with. What does it signify?

I would guess that it is a reference to the commonly held belief by white people who have racist viewpoints , that black people are equivalent to monkeys. How one can hold such views in a modern western society is beyond me.
When I look at people, I see a person, not a skin colour, gender, religion or other noticable difference.

Because that's how people traditionally fed animals at the zoo.

Hateful, ignorant assholes.

Ohh I thought you meant "significance" as in whether that isolated racist incident was, in my opinion, an unveiling of their real principles or just a few hateful fools who happened to be there, so I went for the latter.

I thought you would understand that nuts and monkeys went together and that it was therefore a racist gesture in the same vein as monkey noises made by football hooligans at Black players. As you do seem to be well-informed in general from your discussion on this thread. Sorry for the presumption.

Violence and ignorance aren't family values and forced marriage is an unjust, misogynist cultural practice which girls and women deserve to be shielded from. Educating Muslims in a pro-woman reading of Islam could help; I get suspicious when it's all white non-Muslim liberals trying to change the culture for the better, it can be seen as imperialism and that does not foment good inter-communal relations. I'm not being PC-gone-mad; in any individual case I support appropriate legal and other action being taken to stop the forced marriage. To see change fostered from WITHIN the community and not only forced from outside it will be a better solution if available.

Some parents believe in innocence (i.e. not disclosing too much about sex until around the age of 12, when the classical model posits they leave the latency period) rather than ignorance . This may be problematic now because of girls starting to menstruate before 12 and not knowing what is happening to their bodies but school can teach this and not go into any of the wider "sex" context without parental approval.

Extrospektiv

You do realise that girls starting to menstruate before 12 is not a new phenomena at all and has been going on for time in memorial. Claiming that you are protecting innonce by not giving sex eduation is just ignorance.

According to the Centre for Disease control children in who receive comprehensive sex education are 60% less likely to have a teen pregnancy.

States with abstinence only programs had no effect on abstinence rates in other words the kids were still getting jiggy with it but just uneducated on the risks or STI's and contraception.

The only reason the religious are pro abstinence pro ignorance, anti education and anti abortion is that they want a bigger congregation.

There would be far fewer teen pregnancies in those bible belt states if they were more tolerant of gay marriage.

Some one standing in front of kids saying sex is a wonderful gift from god and then the school only being able to say, don't have it, is never going to work.

Which is why Mississippi, abstinance only ,has more than 3 times the teen pregnancy rate of New Hampshire which has comprehensive sex ed.

far better to say sex is awesome and there are 127 odd diseases you can catch from it and here is how to protect yourself, because if you do get pregnant the right wingers will force you to give birth whether you like it or not.

None of those groups you demonised are 'anti conservative' lobby groups. They all have their own reasons for existence, their own pet projects if you will.

The Sierra Club for instance was founded in the 1890s and it is an environmental group with an educational mission.

The ACLU's mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It did commit the cardinal sin of participating in the Scopes trial on the side of the right to teach evolution so I can see how that would irk some on the right, but I do not see how its general mission could be interpreted as 'anti-conservative'. Do people have rights in the US? Have there been times when those rights have been threatened?

PNHP is Physicians for a National Health Program. Self explanatory.
What is unclear is how it is an 'anti conservative' lobby unless 'conservative' means 'insurance company', and also unclear is why under the constitution it can't lobby for something it believes in; surely one of the fundamental pillars of conservatism should be the constitution that guarantees the rights of expression, etc...

PFAW (People For The American Way) has the following mission:
'People For the American Way is dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American: Equality. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right to seek justice in a court of law. The right to cast a vote that counts.
Our vision is a vibrantly diverse democratic society in which everyone is treated equally under the law, given the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams, and encouraged to participate in our nation?s civic and political life. Our America respects diversity, nurtures creativity and combats hatred and bigotry.
We believe a society that reflects these constitutional principles and progressive values is worth fighting for, and we take seriously our responsibility to cultivate new generations of leaders and activists who will sustain these values for the life of this nation.
Our operational mission is to promote the American Way and defend it from attack, to build and nurture communities of support for our values, and to equip those communities to promote progressive policies, elect progressive candidates, and hold public officials accountable.'
...The context in which the organisation and its mission originated was the increasing din from the right during the 1980s of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

The mission sounds like the Declaration of Rights..

How could any conservative be opposed to a group choosing to participate in a democratic way in the public life of the US? Does opposition to the 'conservative agenda' (aka in this case the agenda of Falwell and Robertson) automatically turn a group into a crowd of Bolsheviks?

The NEA is the National Endowment for the Arts. Yes, I can see how the NEA would be very obviously an anti conservative lobby . Obviously not just a hotbed of commies but probably gay commies because it is well known fact that artists are all gay..

ACORN -- Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now is no longer in existence. It was hounded out of existence by two right wing activists and their supporters who produced dubious films purporting to show ACORN reps advising people how to secure public housing and carry on their 'business' of prostitution. ACORN was cleared of wrongdoing by the General Accounting Office and various attorneys general but the shit stuck nevertheless.
Some of the issues ACORN had grappled with up to the time of its destruction by right wing zealots included:

• Predatory lending practices (sub prime lending -- remember that disaster? We are all living in the post sub prime lending world)
• Campaigning to allow people to remain in their homes and not be thrown out upon foreclosure by mortgage companies. Prescient of them to sense the coming storm.
• Affordable housing - how is this ant-conservative?
• Katrine Relief - to the extent that this embarrassed tha Bush government I can see conservatives being annoyed..
• School Improvement -- a pet project of conservatives is the disbandment of government schools. ACORN pushed for improvement of schools, better parental involvement, even setting up of charter schools to replace failing schools, but clearly this wasn't enough.
• Voter Registration -- registering the wrong people is a no no apparently. Meanwhile voter identification legislation proposals on the part of the right demonstrate the need for advocacy on the issue.

Planned Parenthood provides contraception and abortion services and other services to women such as mammograms. Abortion is legal. Contraception is legal. Many people do not approve of them and hold dear their beliefs that these things are wrong. But PP is still not an anti-conservative lobby. It lobbies to keep the services it provides legal just as tobacco companies and gun manufacturers lobby to keep their products legal and available and affordable. If lobbying is objectionable to conservatives then they shouldn't lobby either. If it is not lobbying per se but what an organisation is lobbying for that conservatives object to then conservatives need to read the constitution again

NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League is a lobby group. It is as its name suggests a group that lobbies to keep abortion legal and fight encroachments on the right to abortion and reproductive rights that have been declared by the Supreme Court.

The Center For Reproductive Rights seeks to support legal reproductive rights for women around the world and in the US including abortion rights. There are other groups out there that seek to further an opposing agenda. All part of the give and take of debate.

Maria Wright Edelman, graduate of Yale Law School, was the first black woman admitted to the Mississippi Bar. What's not to like about a woman who has devoted her life to speaking out on behalf of poor, minority and disabled children through the Children's Defence Fund? What could conservatives possibly find objectionable in an organisation that seeks to help prevent teen pregnancy, promotes the transmission of positive values through families, seeks the protection of children from violent images in the media, and advocates for prenatal care and childcare? The CDF also seeks to protect children from abuse and neglect. That all seems very pro life to me. Its motto 'Leave No Child Behind' was lifted by GW Bush for his education legislation..

People have a right to opinions. People have a right to put their money where their mouths are. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are 'individuals' for the purposes of free speech and financial support of causes and candidates, a pet conservative issue. You should make it clear whether you oppose lobbying in general or just the message of specific groups who lobby. Whatever way you decide, it might be a good thing to acknowledge that lobby groups are not anti-conservative lobbies but pro or anti various issues -- I am sure you would not wish to characterise the gun lobby as an anti liberal lobby.

I wasn't thinking specifically of the 'Protocols' and that is why I didn't mention it, but rather of the generalised, casual anti-semitism of the US (without which the Protocols couldn't have been taken seriously and to which the Protocols gave momentum, in a circular dynamic) as expressed by opponents of the New Deal such as Fr. Coughlin supporters. It was very much a feature of many other countries too I'm not singling out the US here for anti-semitism but the US was the topic of discussion. Anti semitism and racism lingered longer in the US, and under different circumstances from those of western Europe they flourished. 'Metropolitan elite liberal' is a slightly more polite way to say 'Commie Jew' but that is what it means all the same, and the term comes from fear of the alien, fear of the person who is 'not like us' the same place where it always came from.

What a fun thread. Romney will lose the election. The economy and healthcare should have sunk Obama, despite the facts that the economic situation is largely not his fault and the healthcare proposals are a step in a right and necessary direction.

Whatever. Romney is a middle-kingdom kind of Republican, theoretically the right sort to take the centre voters and win. But the Republican party is in the midst of a dark night of the soul, with fiscal conservatives and wealthy self-interests sitting next to right-wingnut religious fundamentalists and small-government libertarians. It won't wash.

His choice of Ryan was poor - he's photogenic and energenic, but he's an Ayn Randist, leave-the-poor-to-their-fate, abortion-opposing nutjob. It's a choice to energise the Republican 'base', but the Republican base is all over the place at the moment. Romney needed the strength of character to stand as the former governor of Mass., the guy with the healthcare plan and the record on abortion rights who kept his religion out of his politics. Obama would have lost to that guy: the Republicans would vote for him because who else would they vote for? Many Democats would have voted for him because they're disappointed by Obama.

Romney should have stood up and said: I'll keep the healthcare element. I did it in Mass. and it worked. He would have neutralised all opposition and he could have hammered Obama relentlessly on the economy. Now he just looks like a flip-flopper with no ethical centre. And a wealthy one who off-shores his income, to boot.

Four more years of opposition, I think, for the Republican party to decide who they want to be.