A Diversity Of Opinions For The Election Season

September 24, 2012

There is an old axiom that says the quickest way to lose friends is to have a discussion about politics or religion (which have become more and more intertwined). But the internet has given us a less-threatening way to share that dialogue, and this polarizing election season is the perfect time to air some of these POV's. The opinions shared below are not necessarily those of management - and in some cases definitely are not.

AAA: Unless one party has a majority in Congress, and the White House, we will likely see four/eight more years of stonewalling and demagoguery, as we have seen for the past four years.

BBB: There will likely be a recession next year no matter who wins, but a long term cure will more likely be put in place by Romney. There is absolutely no chance of a return to growth policies by Obama. There might be pain in that, and the Dems will demagogue, and may do well enough in the 2014 midterms to take back the Congress.

AAA: Elements of the GOP also demagogue as well. Frankly, the whole political scene sickens me. I watch FOX, and also check in on the Obama media. Each side attacks the other's "failed policies" - but they never enumerate which policies, and why they are failed. The networks present "fair" discussion with a moderator, and one or two guests, for 6-8 minutes or 2-4 minutes per person. It's all surface stuff.

CCC: The people are just as much to blame in their ignorance of history, falling into emotionalism, and not even a rudimentary understanding of anything economic. Smarter, sharper people, would make all the difference.

AAA: The people will never become better educated because we can't trust the media - left, right, or otherwise - and there are no more "facts", only spins. "Experts" have totally opposite explanations and criticisms of everything. Demagoguery has replaced explanations, issues are so complex, and people have pretty much given up trying to understand most things, so they choose a candidate based on one issue that resonates with them. How many Santorum backers understood his foreign policy plan? I'll bet 100% understood his stand on abortion. How many minority supporters of Obama really understand the economic issues of the country (not just their own needs)? "Activist'' judges are the ones who make a ruling you don't like. But you expect the electorate to make an informed, reasoned choice?

DDD: There will be 3 determinants of the victor. The debates, the debates, and the debates. Reagan was trailing Carter until the debate in 1980. And we know he won in a landslide. So Romney cannot implode, or have an Akin moment, in mid-October.

EEE: Mitt better be practicing his "I'm one of you" demeanor, which, unfortunately for him, is his weak point, and Obama's strong point. Both candidates will tell the people how their plans will fix our issues, but until those plans are successfully put into practice they are just promises. 99% of the electorate has no concept of our true problems, and the effect of the proposed fixes. They are mostly single-issue voters - taxes, abortion, immigration, race, party affiliation. Debates are beauty contests for speaking and demeanor, answering only "who do you trust?" for the undecided.

FFF: If we continue down this path, it will not be without awful consequences. The social meltdown has started, and I'm afraid nothing will stop it. Crime, drugs, unrestrained sexual values in public, entitlements, litigiousness, divorce, children born out of wedlock, 50 million abortions since Roe, and on and on it goes. I'll take the pre WW2 society with the great depression and their social problems over what we have now. Even black families under Jim Crow were far more intact than today (though I certainly am not for segregation). Gay marriage is in defiance of 5,000 years of western civilization, and for good reason.

GGG: Slavery was part of the world's culture for thousands of years, but that didn't make it right. Women didn't have the right to vote in the U.S. until 1920, but that didn't make it right. Western civilization has a long litany of one nation conquering another - think Rome, England, France, Italy, Russia, Spain, Netherlands, Germany - but that doesn't make it right. They are all simply examples of the powerful setting the agenda for the weak, or minorities.

FFF: Just one anecdote: A University of Texas professor did a study this year that concluded children of gay parents had a higher incidence of depression, failed relationships etc than kids with heterosexual parents.

GGG: The study was funded by the ultra-conservative Witherspoon Institute, and the conclusions were roundly rejected by the scientific community because the researcher (who was not a full professor) defined "homosexual" as any person who, at any time in his/her life, even for one day or night, had a single-sex relationship (even it was 20 years prior to parenting, or 20 years after). And, FFF, you bash "liberals"?

But regardless, what gives one group the right to deny equality to another because that group might have more depression and failed relationships? If Methodists, or Vegetarians, or Cherokee Indians, were found to have the same problems, should we prevent them from marrying or having children? The Nazi philosophy was to eliminate "imperfections" in the human race. What you are suggesting - denying rights based on what someone labels as an imperfection - sounds dangerously like that.

AAA: Our country was founded by white Christian men, who, naturally, proclaimed it in the image they knew. But they also recognized that the country would evolve and change, which is why the Constitution was left very vague, and the Bill of Rights was created a few years after. The definition of "citizens" today, and the rights granted to them, are far different than in 1787, not in opposition to our founding fathers (no mothers), but BECAUSE of their foresight.

GGG: Gay marriage was not in the lexicon forty years ago, but it is today because we are evolving, just as equal rights for non-white, non-Christian, non-males have been slowly recognized over the years. It took about 120 years to grant equality to women (even though they were slightly more than 50% of the population). It took almost 200 years to grant meaningful equality to blacks, despite the opinion of some people that it was a perversion of nature to do so (read the anonymous blogs online about Obama). Today, 11 countries, and several US states, allow gay marriage. Even more permit civil unions, which also wasn't in the lexicon until rather recently. 100 years from now there will be many more. That is the direction it is headed worldwide, and these equality movements never look back.

FFF: Societies do evolve, but not all evolutions are good. Fascism, Statism, and Communism were the all the rage of the left in the 1930's. As for our Constitution, it allows for changes through a process (amendment), and it's been amended 27 times, with about half a dozen amendments just on voting rights (woman, and minorities). Taking the woman thing, it was done when all, or enough of, society was ready for it, and done properly through the amendment process.

GGG: WHAT? Society was ready to allow women to vote? You can't be serious. You really mean that male-dominated legislatures finally buckled under the pressure from suffragettes, who rallied for what they should have had back in 1787. It's that same misogynistic attitude that keeps the anti-abortion cause alive. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

And that, children, is how we elect a president.