You are voting for them, so I "defriend" you

[Andara Bledin]

Hey, I never said that someone voting for Romney would actually get a better economy, just that it's what the RNC is selling.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

Hey, I never said that someone voting for Romney would actually get a better economy, just that it's what the RNC is selling.

^-.-^

Hey, speaking of which, I have this rock that keeps tigers away...=P

[smileyeagle1021]

The caveat being Romney's side can do shit and all for the economy and anyone that thinks otherwise obviously has no idea how the economy works.

Hell, even Romney has admitted (inadvertently) that he can't create jobs... I mean, he did point blank say "government can not create jobs"... well, if neither side can create jobs then my vote just became a whole lot easier.

Back on the original topic, I have only unfriended one person because of their support for Romney, and even then it was only indirectly because of their support of Romney, the way they supported him showed just how bigoted they were, her exact post was "Do we really want to trust 4 more years to a Muslim who is willing to destroy marriage to impress his daughters, or a good Christian who will defend the sanctity of marriage"
Yeah, let's break this one down, first, you can't criticize Obama for being a Muslim when 4 years ago you criticized him for having a radical black christian pastor, he can't be both radical christian and radical muslim at the same time. Second, yes, he did say that his views had changed after discussions with his daughters... and to be blunt, I would hope that at least some of his views changed after discussions with anyone, that is a sign of wisdom being able to recognize different perspectives and rethinking your own views because of it, and good perspective can come from anywhere, not just the elderly and experienced. And this person has before admitted on facebook that she has rethought things because of discussions with her niece, so yeah, pot meet kettle. Third, if you think that me being able to marry the person I love is going to destroy marriage, then clearly our differences are too great to reconcile.
Are all Romney supporters homophobic and bigoted like that? Not at all. Am I going to trust them nearly as easily not to be homophobic and bigoted? No, because no matter how you rationalize it, you are voting for someone who thinks I am inherently inferior, and I can forgive that not being your intent, but it will take more than your good word for me to believe that isn't your intent. Many of my friends and family who support Romney have shown that they truly are supporting him in spite of that, hence why we are still friends.

[LewisLegion]

This article and the suggestion that my vote somehow by default makes me for or against a particular topic is pretty offensive. Romney is pro-life. So if I vote Obama, regardless of my reasons, does that make me a baby-killer? Straw man anyone?

Your vote doesn't make you for or against any subject, but it DOES say which subjects you place more value on. You are choosing this person and choosing their very obvious and vocal stance on any given topic. You may decide that his claims on economics outweighs Obama's stance on equal marriage...and that's fine. But own it. You're not saying equal marriage isn't important to you, but you ARE saying that economics are MORE important to you.

If you (hypothetical) are pro-life, and candidate A supports everything you stand for except for the fact that he is pro-choice, and candidate B supports everything you're against but he is also pro-life, then you make a decision on what's more important to you...your stance on pro-life, or your stance on any of the other subjects. If your stance on pro-life is the most important for you, you'll vote for the pro-life candidate. If it's important to you but another topic is far more important to you then you'll vote for the pro-choice candidate.

By voting for Romney, a person is in fact saying that 'gosh, while I don't mind if my homosexual friends have equal rights, this darn economy is far more important to me than that. I think Romney will fix the economy, so I'm going to have to go with Romney.'

That's fine if that's what you believe, you're a human being with the right to have your own stance on the matter. But own it. Realize that is what you are, in fact, doing. And don't be surprised and offended when you are in fact called out on it. Someone who votes for Romney is telling me that my rights are less important to them then <insert subject here you think Romney will fix> Period. If that statement offends you, then it offends you.

[HYHYBT]

Your vote doesn't make you for or against any subject, but it DOES say which subjects you place more value on. You are choosing this person and choosing their very obvious and vocal stance on any given topic. You may decide that his claims on economics outweighs Obama's stance on equal marriage...and that's fine. But own it. You're not saying equal marriage isn't important to you, but you ARE saying that economics are MORE important to you.

Not necessarily even that. In addition to weighing candidates' positions on everything, there's the matter of what they're really going to push hard on if elected and whether they'll be effective at it. No candidate fulfills all his promises, the best don't get to everything, and many don't mean half of what they say to begin with. For example, it is possible to believe that Romney really would be great for the economy and totally ineffective on the marriage front, either for not really caring about it or because it's beyond his reach to stop. (DOMA challenges will probably be heard by the *current* court, and whatever the result, it will stand for at least a decade or two. A repeal through Congress isn't happening without a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate anyway, and a federal constitutional amendment doesn't go through the presidency.) I don't hold that combination of views, but it's not an entirely irrational one.

There are other possibilities. I can't see a rational person coming to this conclusion with the current candidates, but in some other election, if I believed the candidate in favor of marriage, ENDA, etc., was also going to get us into a full-on war with, say, China, and that the anti-gay candidate would avoid this, yes, I'd vote for the latter.

[Gravekeeper]

"Do we really want to trust 4 more years to a Muslim who is willing to destroy marriage to impress his daughters, or a good Christian who will defend the sanctity of marriage"

Fourth: Romney is a Mormon. >.>

Many of my friends and family who support Romney have shown that they truly are supporting him in spite of that, hence why we are still friends.

Considering Romney's rather despicable track record with gay rights and his personal feelings on the matter, I'm not sure "in spite of that" would do it for me if I was in your position. Nevermind Paul Ryan.

[LewisLegion]

"In spite of that" doesn't work for me, either.

I cannot imagine a friend or family member coming up to me and saying, "I know that he wants to take your rights away from you, but in spite of that, I'm voting for Romney anyway on the hope he actually keeps his promise and fixes the economy. We good?"

Yeah, no. We not good.

[Andara Bledin]

The sad fact is that the vast majority of voters never even get that far in their thinking.

They listen to a few talking points, decide which one they think sounds better on TV or the radio, or which one has people shilling for them that they like better, and maybe check a talking point or two, and then go vote.

Those who actually check the entire platform are likely few and far between. Most of them don't even get to the "in spite of that" part of the conversation because they're so disengaged, they don't even really realize that a vote for Romney is a vote for discrimination.

^-.-^

[AmbrosiaWriter]

And this is the EXACT reason why I never tell ANYONE outside of my very, very closest friends (whom I know have the same views as I do) who I am voting for. I also try to refrain from debates on politics outside of "That is factually incorrect, here let me find you a source for correct information."

Some people still claim that as being biased, but if they do I don't care. If they want to be ignorant while making their decisions fine, don't yell at me for trying to give you more power via more correct information to make decisions.