Oh yes, enact "green" policies that cause electricity projects to necessarily sky rocket. I believe that is a direct quote from our commander in chief. I hope to God electricity bills don't climb. Besides, many people forget that if the ice caps melt that will disrupt the fragile jet streams and actually cause the temperature of most of Europe and parts of North America to drop at least 20 degrees like it did at the start of the last glaciation. It's a repeating cycle of course.
One, icecream, Romney is a Mormon. If you didn't know that, you're stupid. Two, it is not irrelevant. His religious views shape his ideology as for anyone else. It is against his creed to support same-sex marriage, and that is not a farfetched position whether you agree with it or not. I don't equivocate disagreeing with that and the rejecting of human rights of gay people. America has the best tolerance for gay people in the world. Most other countries would have such people stoned believe it or not. So, enough with that. Like with all other social changes in America, it will take time for the society accept those changes. It may not be for another 30 or so years, but you can't rush things through because that would cause unnecessary social stress.
Apparently this place is full of liberals. However, this place is about Japanese, which I would rather it just be about. I watch, read, and listen to both sides and have come to my own conclusions. If you don't do the same, then your opinions are less credible.
1． Mitt Romney is not an evil man. He is a very devout member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and these people are by far the most moral people you can find. Whether you agree with their doctrine or not, they raise good families and make sure their families and businesses prosper. His family lived in Mexico for some time, and so he has been able to see what it is like on the other side of the poverty line. He was almost killed in a horrible car crash in Paris while he was serving his church, like all Mormon do in or right after their freshmen year of college, and came back in America into the business world where he has done his jobs ethically, legally, and properly. Whether we like what he did as a job is an individual position that should be respected but at the same able to be probed and debated.
2. Mitt Romney, as well as Barack Obama, are not psychopaths. Rather, they are the results of two different people of two different ideologies that came from the same integrated society we call America. Not only have they been the result of this system, but we are all, in regards to Americans, and we all are different in ideologies.
3. The Republican party, for the most part and for what is in the actual platform, is not in support of active legislative movements to right into law social regulations. The Constitution has never been used--except prohibition--been a document to limit the rights of anyone. So, whether it be a Republican, Democrat, or third party controlled Congress, no new amendments will reach finalization that would even touch sensitive social issues. These social issues will be resolved by the people.
4. Women's rights is an issue that is brought up all the time. Yet, it is a fallacy to say that there is a war on women. There are just as many liberal women as there are conservative women, and when a liberal says the conservatives are waging a war on women, they are lying and insulting the other 50% of women on the other side of the fence. Rather, the issues are two that are based on one's personal moral beliefs. There really isn't much that can be done about this, and party affiliation actually determines little on whether you are pro-life or pro-choice or whether you are an activist for either groups. Many Republicans do happen to be pro-life, as myself, but not all Republicans seek reform to turn over Row vs Wade. This issue, though, is not to be contended in any new session of Congress any time soon. If you think so, you're worrying over nothing. Look how little gets done anyways. Contraception is another issue, and it is true that there are health benefits aside from contraception itself that such things provide, but again, when you do have a large portion of the country that do not agree with this on moral grounds, you can't force those people to support it via their money because that would be infringing on their liberties.
5. Liberty is not infinite. There is positive and negative liberty. During the course of American history, one side gained more support than the other. This balance of power would eventually cause the Civil War and all other strife in our nation's history as will be the case here on out.
6. The UK got itself in shit because you guys don't know how to quit spending money you don't have like every other European country. You guys should have started having more children earlier on to fund the programs for the aging population. Japan's finding that out the hard way.
7. Bush's foreign policy record is not the best, but we've had far worse presidents in this area. Here are some issues where Obama has done poorly.
1. Senkaku Islands
2. Libya
3. Afghanistan withdrawal strategy. I personally wouldn't announce to everyone when we'd leave even if it did get leaked eventually.
4. Touting there is no more problem with Al Qaeda just because Bin Laden is dead.
5. Giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.
6. Not meeting with Israeli Prime Minister on several occasions.
7. etc.
8. The list of Bush may very well be lengthy, but many of the reactions of 9/11 were supported by the American majority, and as a president, governor, mayor, or any similar leader, should try to do if at all possible what the masses want done, and most people were convinced of things such as "weapons of mass destruction". I contend that those weapons could have easily been hidden in many locations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and many other nations hostile.
9. The Middle East is never going to like America Ice Cream. It is the intent of the extremists in these regions to destroy Western Civilization altogether from within, and that includes European targets as well. Iran wants to kill all infidels, and we both are considered one. This ideology, which not all Muslims adhere to do be fair, is propagated throughout the region and it is this that has led to the strife and attacks at our embassies that have been going on way before both administrations being discussed here thus far. Things have not improved in the Middle East for American relationships anyways. If anything, they have only gotten worse. The society there has to change for that to happen, and these dictators are only being replaced by religious factions. The developing new governments, with exception to Libya, are not becoming secularized as we had all hoped.
10. Now I will try to the best of my ability lay out in a fair and balanced way what I think is awesome and bull shit about the Republican ideals that Mitt Romney is running on.
1. Corporate income tax. As we know, Mitt Romney only pays 14% in taxes. However, he is technically unemployed and he gets money off of bonds and what not that he received from previous titles, and this is the law of the land, and he is only doing what he has to like all other rich people, well people for that matter because I haven't met a person in my life that pays more in taxes than they have to.
America already has the largest corporate tax rate in the world. It is one of the primary reasons why so many jobs are outsourced to competitors like China. China is our biggest rival. The problem is more complex than just business people having to pay more to hire workers in America. China manipulates her currency and work force to make it produce to its maximum. America was like this not so long ago during the Industrial Revolution. Your large corporations do have a moral problem for wanting to go where the money is, but that's really what people have done since society began. So, again, the society would really have to change to change this problem of wealth. Yet, it is in theory possible for any man or woman born in America to rise to this position, and it does happen all the time. Many people do get left behind, and as a society, America is quite philanthropic. Yet, people still get left in the cracks. But, what can you really do? No candidate will be able to fix THIS issue.
Concerning corporate income tax again, I would leave it as is. If we lower it like Romney wants, it is undeniable that some businesses will begin to add more jobs into America, and many businesses promise to do so if such legislation goes through. So, during this time when 15% of the able bodied population doesn't have a job, that is good for the country in the short term. The revenues won't change that drastically anyways if it was lowered even just a few percent points because the added growth of the job market and the rise in population will sustain the initial technical drop in funds.
This is their thinking, and it does have sound economic basis even if you disagree with it because there is no right answer in economics because you really don't find out until it's already happened.
When Republicans say they want to get rid of regulations, they aren't talking about the regulations that were put in place in the Progressive era that provided us safe meat, the beginnings of safe air policy, etc., they are talking about regulations that do stifle growth that many people on both parties agree are unnecessary. What Republicans want to do, and some Democrats as well although perhaps not to the same degree as Republicans, is go through all of the federal codes and see what is truly ridiculous and get rid of them. There are some regulations that are business in nature but actually hurt individual Americans, and documentaries are talked about all the time. For example, there is an agriculture district in California that is being killed by the government not allowing water to channeled there due to the risk of causing a local lizard from being extinct. People should come first instead of lizards. I'm sorry. 99% of all existing species on the Earth have died out, and we're next anyways so it doesn't matter.
Republicans also, despite what Democrats normally say, do want to add more regulations and reform, just in different ways. However, despite what Republicans say, for what I have seen and can't elaborate without making fallacies until more further research is done, is that they are not completely different philosophies. After all, the positions of both parties do not differ that much at all, considering for the fact that most people of both parties are not ideologues but moderates.
There is Libertarian wing of the Republican party you know. These people do have some influence on the party, but normally in matters of foreign policy do they ever get attention. The legalization of drugs and the removal of troops in foreign countries. These are shared by many progressives alike. As part of the actual Republican platform, that hasn't happened yet. However, it does not stray from "individual freedoms" that the Republican party has stood for since its conception.
As I prefaced this, there is a balance between positive and negative liberties. Mitt Romney is of a Christian faith that does not condone same-sex marriage, but I don't believe he would actually as president would make that law. After all, he was the governor of Massachusetts. Rather, these social issues will become pocket issues. The Supreme Court has already technically legalized same sex marriage anyways. He has already said, as is a concept originally created by the Democratic party, that these issues should be handled by the individual states. He personally would like those states to reconsider because his personal opinion on the issue, which anyone of that like mind would agree and those that don't should agree that those people have the right to think so. However, no president, Obama or Romney, is going to anytime soon tread on states' rights issues.
11. Other issues. I will bring up gun rights since it was alluded to by a European user. My roommate is Norwegian and he asked me my opinion on guns. Although personally I too would like guns to be gone and have them only accessible for hunting and those limited as well, as the Constitution has it, we are allowed to have them. So, I will stand by the law of the land. I understand why that right is there because we live in a society were guns aren't going away. There are too many of them, and there's really no plausible way to change that. In European countries where many weapons were destroyed or confiscated after WWII, such no-gun policies are very plausible and very effective. However, there are many Americans that believe it is for the best interests to have a gun for self-protection. It does save innocent people from senseless death all the time. Do people kill others with guns? Yes, that's what guns were invented for after all. However, if people want to really kill others, they'll find other ways to do it. Shooting someone is actually the easiest way to do without torturing them.
This should not be equivocated with "moral relativism". No killing of a human being should be tolerated, but we do live in a world of 6 billion people and of many different backgrounds, and we don't have the capability to make man work only for his better good yet. So, they're here to stay for now.
12. Karl Rove may indeed use the points, but as a political science professor said on campus the other day, both sides do it everyday. Some of the attacks on both sides are absolutely true, and it's a shame that the public doesn't have the guts to call them out on it to make true change. Rather than recognizing those faults, both sides continue on believing their side is completely perfect.
13. I have heard Karl Rove several times, but I don't consider him totally radical. His takes on why things are may definitely be extreme and often actually are, but the underlining problems are often real problems, just not the severity he makes them out to be.
14. Surreal, although you and I may definitely disagree on things, your last comment was brilliantly written.
15. Manufacturing of fear, I think the liberals are more guilty of that to be honest. The war on women, which I discussed earlier, the war on latinos, etc. Many people, not just Republicans, think that things are going to continue to get worse. I don't believe it's even possible for America to deteriorate to "The Great Depression"-like conditions, so that is a proper critique of my party.
16. Again, this thread is meant to political, but I don't think anyone would should leave this thread hating me or anyone else. I've been honest, tried to be fair and balanced, and I personally think my party is dead wrong on handling social issues. I just find a lot of the rest of their ideas better. However, no matter who becomes president, not much is going to change in either direction so we all shouldn't worry that much.
On a last tidbit, I am finally having my site proofread by natives and have already made tons of changes and added tons of notes and approved, checked, example sentences. I'm still trying to major changes to it. I never forgot your great help IceCream! I'll always be thankful for it. So, I'll leave you guys with that.
** added more
![[Image: 3dxUT.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/3dxUT.gif)
![[Image: tumblr_m9pc4elItO1resz14o1_400.jpg]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9pc4elItO1resz14o1_400.jpg)