Does anyone here actually believe what Mitt Romey says?

@UltorOscariot:

1. You're avoiding what you originally said which is that Obama is responsible for the sluggish economy. Let's expand what you previously said to what you just said. Okay so if the government doesn't have the responsibility to oversee people or businesses then why are you blaming Obama for the economy?

2. All states require at the very least the ability to pay for the costs of the other persons damage(whether it be health or car) with most requiring at least liability. Can you afford to pay for the medical bills of another person and a new car? If not then where are you going to run. Yes, I know school is cheaper. If it weren't for grants and the public university systems that exist I would never be able to afford college.

3. You were pointing your finger at Obama and saying you would vote for another person because of it. So yeah, it is relevant.

4. Point being those products still have a finite supply.

5. Don't really need to respond to that considering PillClinton took care of that

In the end, you're promoting individualism to the extreme. Get yours and fuck everyone else. That is a lot more devastating to America or the world than having people have insurance.

Yes I do. I'll be looking forward to when he wins in one week.

@DriveupLife said:

Yes I do. I'll be looking forward to when he wins in one week.

Man, you're gonna be bummed.

@Bourbon_Warrior: I'm with you. But I live in the southeastern United States and this place is dominated by oblivious idiots. The stuff you see is probably via the internet. The problem with these rednecks is that they can't operate a computer, let alone read. They listen to Fox News all day every day.

politics...

Yep, what an douchebag. I will vote for Obama again. The guy is generally a laughing stock.

Nope, there's not a single president in history that has been honest with the American people. Manifest Destiny and all that.

Also, congress isn't doing their job.

@Milkman said:

@DriveupLife said:

Yes I do. I'll be looking forward to when he wins in one week.

Man, you're gonna be bummed.

might even say obummed.

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@PillClinton How on earth did you interpret that as an "attack?" Merely making the observation that Mormonism is no more or less ridiculous than any other religion.

Gah, sorry man. I'm just in 'defense mode' in these heated political threads, especially when I'm getting 5+ replies at a time, and to be fair, you have directly questioned my opinions and observations quite a few times--not that there's anything at all wrong with that, but I guess I just wrongfully interpreted that as maybe a little reflexive. My bad.

I feel bad saying this, but I'll probably vote for Obama just so Romney doesn't win. I don't care for either candidate though and don't thin either will fix anything. It's the lesser of two evils I suppose.

@TruthTellah: I think you bring up some good points. People do anything to discredit their opposition. It's like world war 2 propaganda, draw the japanese and germans like apes and they are easier to hate. I'd say I'm a pretty middle of the road person. Many social issues I'd say I'm sort of left on. Financial stuff I'm on the right. Some stuff has no easy answer to me. So when ever I hear people saying that people are hateful, irresponsible idiots ruining this country just for their beliefs I kind of loose respect for that person making that claim. People can have different points of view from you, but they are still people. What does name calling do other than try to discredit them?

Speaking of discrediting, another thing that the democrats have an edge on the republicans on is media. I feel like when a republican makes a dumb remark it is EVERYWHERE. When a democrat makes makes dumb remarks it doesn't get as much coverage. Maybe I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention in 2008, but apparently Barack Obama said he visited "57 states with 2 more to go." I do not recall anyone making a deal about that. But why do I, a person born in 1991, know who Dan Quale is just because one time he spelt potato with an E at the end? How come everyone knows the silly stuff Sarah Palin has said, but they never really mentioned the times Biden has put his foot in his mouth? There was a very recent situation that I think I saw once on Yahoo news. I know people like to make fun of the guy that blames thing on the "liberal media" but I do feel like people poke more fun at the GOP than the democrats.

I tried to ignore him for the longest time until this recent disaster and hearing he was talking about closeing up FEMA. Since I partly work for FEMA I really dont want his ass in office.

Politics? Can we make this vanish?

@Nottle: because Palin was being dumb and not realizing it, whilst biden was saying dumb stuff and then owning up to it?

@jaydark123: Well, thank you for the equally thoughtful response, save for finding the need to tell me I defeated my own argument, which I couldn't find more wrong, frankly. In addition, I'd like to think I'm not utterly ruled by my instantaneous emotional responses, allowing them to cloud my logic, reason, and overall judgment, so I find your patronage, well, patronizing at best. In my opinion, formed by my various observations throughout life, polygamy and polyamory inside a family when children are being brought up is, for lack of a better term, wrong. Again, I have no personal experience with said lifestyles, and even you pointed out you don't have children, thus, I'm supposing, no personal knowledge about polygamy's effect on the psychological health of children. To me, it seems like it would be confusing to young kids and inform their view of relationships in a negative way that's completely opposed to what their peers know. Look, I have a very live-and-let-live view of the world, but I do draw the line in certain places.

@Animasta: I suppose thats true. But didn't she also get a lot of flak for saying in regards to Russia that "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Then it was bastardized by SNL into "YOU CAN SEE ALASKA FROM MY HOUSE." Seems like a twisting of words. She didn't have to really make a correction there. What she said was the truth.

I don't really watch SNL but was there a recent sketch where they make a tasteless "did your son always have balls the size of cue balls" joke?

No. He was governor here in Massachusetts and he's a fucking idiot.

Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/us/politics/mitt-romney-often-away-when-he-was-governor.html?smid=fb-share

I really dont care who is President, all i care about is getting the 7 year/ unlimited term for congress, and life time term limits for the Supreme court changed.

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@PillClinton How on earth did you interpret that as an "attack?" Merely making the observation that Mormonism is no more or less ridiculous than any other religion.

Gah, sorry man. I'm just in 'defense mode' in these heated political threads, especially when I'm getting 5+ replies at a time, and to be fair, you have directly questioned my opinions and observations quite a few times--not that there's anything at all wrong with that, but I guess I just wrongfully interpreted that as maybe a little reflexive. My bad.

Biden's gaffes are more like the "goofy uncle" style where you know he is friendly and his heart is in the right place but when he shows up to Thanksgiving he probably will say something stupid because he loves everyone there and stumbles over his thoughts.

On the other hand, Palin was just stupid. Listening to her interviews and performance in debate was painful.

Speaking of which, Romney's gaffes are more interesting because he totally believes what he says but is unable to fathom why it sounds weird and irks people. He is proud of saving time and money on a trip by sticking his dog in a carrier and strapping it to the top of his car. And why he proudly proclaimed the "binders full of women" thing. Due to his background, he doesn't realize realizing normal people don't refer or think like that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FUCK NO!

I'm willing to give Romney the nod over Obama. Although we really need a leader like Ron Paul to get this country back on track.

Obama had a chance to do something, and all he did during his 4 years is bail out GM(and the bailout was ironically started by George W Bush) and kill Osama bin Laden. What about the budget? Guantanamo Bay? Why is he investing taxpayer money in energy companies that end up filing bankruptcy? Why is he wasting stimulus money? His spending is out of control. He spends like a 13 year old girl with her daddy's "Gold Card".

He refused to provide security to our embassy in Libya, despite numerous requests from the ambassador to get more security. Then he tries to cover up the terrorist attack on that embassy by telling us it's a reaction to a YouTube video, when it turns out he was watching the attack in the White House remotely from a drone. He lied to us several times on that.

So Obama's already proven he's incompetent to lead our country. Time to give someone else a turn.

Remember in the Superman comics when Lex Luthor was president? That was pretty awesome. Do that America! He's a patriot, a genius and if shit gets real he has his Warsuit.

I'm willing to give Romney the nod over Obama.

Obama had a chance to do something, and all he did during his 4 years is bail out GM(and the bailout was ironically started by George W Bush) and kill Osama bin Laden. What about the budget? Guantanamo Bay? Why is he investing taxpayer money in energy companies that end up filing bankruptcy? Why is he wasting stimulus money? His spending is out of control. He spends like a 13 year old girl with her daddy's "Gold Card".

He refused to provide security to our embassy in Libya, despite numerous requests from the ambassador to get more security. Then he tries to cover up the terrorist attack on that embassy by telling us it's a reaction to a YouTube video, when it turns out he was watching the attack in the White House remotely from a drone. He lied to us several times on that.

So Obama's already proven he's incompetent to lead our country. Time to give someone else a turn.

@Commando said:

I'm willing to give Romney the nod over Obama. Although we really need a leader like Ron Paul to get this country back on track.

Obama had a chance to do something, and all he did during his 4 years is bail out GM(and the bailout was ironically started by George W Bush) and kill Osama bin Laden. What about the budget? Guantanamo Bay? Why is he investing taxpayer money in energy companies that end up filing bankruptcy? Why is he wasting stimulus money? His spending is out of control. He spends like a 13 year old girl with her daddy's "Gold Card".

He refused to provide security to our embassy in Libya, despite numerous requests from the ambassador to get more security. Then he tries to cover up the terrorist attack on that embassy by telling us it's a reaction to a YouTube video, when it turns out he was watching the attack in the White House remotely from a drone. He lied to us several times on that.

So Obama's already proven he's incompetent to lead our country. Time to give someone else a turn.

Complaining Obama made bad choices seems like a funny complaint because the GOP made sure Obama couldn't enact much. Obama had a few months to fix all of that with a Dem majority in both houses before the GOP stonewalled even trivial stuff. When Obama can't even get low level confirmations to come for a vote, that is the opposition stalling not bad decisions.

Do you mean what he says first, or when he changes his position, or when he re-changes his position?

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Commando

I'm willing to give Romney the nod over Obama.

Obama had a chance to do something, and all he did during his 4 years is bail out GM(and the bailout was ironically started by George W Bush) and kill Osama bin Laden. What about the budget? Guantanamo Bay? Why is he investing taxpayer money in energy companies that end up filing bankruptcy? Why is he wasting stimulus money? His spending is out of control. He spends like a 13 year old girl with her daddy's "Gold Card".

He refused to provide security to our embassy in Libya, despite numerous requests from the ambassador to get more security. Then he tries to cover up the terrorist attack on that embassy by telling us it's a reaction to a YouTube video, when it turns out he was watching the attack in the White House remotely from a drone. He lied to us several times on that.

So Obama's already proven he's incompetent to lead our country. Time to give someone else a turn.

Yeah like the guy who was barely in his state when he lead it and when it was 47th in job growth. And giving GWB credit for GM is hilarious because GWB helped start the recession by never putting two wars on the books.

So you can blame Bush for the recession, but you won't give him credit for anything else he did? Sounds fair....

The recession has been in the works long before Bush was in office. Bush did not cause the housing bubble to burst. I suggest you look up the "Community Reinvestment Act" that started in the Carter administration and was further loosened by Clinton. It forced banks to give sub-prime mortgages.

@UltorOscariot: The health care act has tax to incentivise people to get health care insurance. You can choose any provider, no one is forcing you. This is the compromise to get rid of preexisting conditions. Without it someone could wait until their sick then get insurance knowing that providers would have to take them. I don't know about you, but I think that's better than preexisting conditions and also insuring millions of Americans. Studies also show that people having preventative care will save a lot in medical costs.

@TruthTellah said:

I think this thread itself represents something interesting about how people present their views and maintain gridlock in discussions.

As much as I generally don't like Mitt Romney, I can't help but be a bit more willing to give him a shot when people are such complete assholes toward him or anyone who might support him. I disagree with Republicans on a lot, but then, I'm less likely to identify with Democrats because most Democrats I have met treat Republicans as though they're inbred monsters and not real people with differences. This thread itself shows how dickish people seem to be about those they don't agree with or understand. This certainly isn't the sole domain of Democrats toward Republicans, but in the context of someone leaning toward Democrats over time, the general arrogance and dehumanizing going on toward Democratic opponents continues to turn me off to considering them much better. Even if someone's on the right side of an issue, they still seem to not choose the higher ground; in their disdain and dismissal of different people, they lower themselves to the level of those they dislike, sullying the fact that they may be right.

And then there are people outside of the United States weighing in on it, and for the most part, they act like condescending jerks just getting in their jabs on the country. It is amazing how people can think that treating others like dirt or insulting them will somehow ever encourage someone to listen to you. I do think the United States has a decent bit of problems, and hardcore Republicans aren't my favorite folks. But when you talk down to Americans or just shit all over the nation, you just become some foreign asshole. Instead, you could offer advice or show some consideration for those different from yourselves. You could treat Americans as fellow human beings and not just "those stupid Americans with their shithole country". People would be much more likely to give your thoughts a moment of their time if you treated them like fellow adults. I have rarely seen any foreign individual comment on American politics with some real consideration and respect, but when I have, I have greatly appreciated it. If it's important enough for you to spend your breath talking about it, you should at least give your thoughts a chance to actually be heard. Don't be a know-it-all asshole and people are far more likely to listen.

A big reason why people are willing to believe lies is because the people telling the truth often surround the truth with bullshit. We commonly sully the truth with how we share that truth, and if we want people to actually listen, we need to improve how we talk with others around us.

I think you might find this to be true because of the circles you walk. Video game sites tend to be more liberal. If you read some posts on a forum about hunting or guns and ammo or college football you might find yourself thinking quite the opposite. Have you ever read any Anne Coulter? Give her a shot. Doubt you'll come away thinking all the people on the right are saints either.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it exists in reverse as well.

Hmm, no. The problems with the economy were born in Bush era decisions although most were not attributable to Bush himself.

- The Bush Tax Cuts where basically a very expensive move that didn't improve the US economy or increase IRS revenue. Funny how someone is making this argument again.

- The Medicare Prescription changes, depending on perspective, increased the general cost of Medicare or adjusted it to the real level. Either way this was a big jump in the price tag that was covered in another unfunded mandate.

- Two wars. Another unfunded mandate since Congress just paid for them instead of adjusting expenses.

It is weird for people to say the GOP can balance the budget when it turns out the Dems were actually the closest to ever doing it. Clinton era almost balanced the budget and even toyed with the idea of eliminating the debt but decided against to stabilize world economy. Bush years completely erased it and dove into a giant hole Obama started in. I am confused why people believe the GOP knows how to save money.

@Barrock said:

@TruthTellah said:

I think this thread itself represents something interesting about how people present their views and maintain gridlock in discussions.

As much as I generally don't like Mitt Romney, I can't help but be a bit more willing to give him a shot when people are such complete assholes toward him or anyone who might support him. I disagree with Republicans on a lot, but then, I'm less likely to identify with Democrats because most Democrats I have met treat Republicans as though they're inbred monsters and not real people with differences. This thread itself shows how dickish people seem to be about those they don't agree with or understand. This certainly isn't the sole domain of Democrats toward Republicans, but in the context of someone leaning toward Democrats over time, the general arrogance and dehumanizing going on toward Democratic opponents continues to turn me off to considering them much better. Even if someone's on the right side of an issue, they still seem to not choose the higher ground; in their disdain and dismissal of different people, they lower themselves to the level of those they dislike, sullying the fact that they may be right.

And then there are people outside of the United States weighing in on it, and for the most part, they act like condescending jerks just getting in their jabs on the country. It is amazing how people can think that treating others like dirt or insulting them will somehow ever encourage someone to listen to you. I do think the United States has a decent bit of problems, and hardcore Republicans aren't my favorite folks. But when you talk down to Americans or just shit all over the nation, you just become some foreign asshole. Instead, you could offer advice or show some consideration for those different from yourselves. You could treat Americans as fellow human beings and not just "those stupid Americans with their shithole country". People would be much more likely to give your thoughts a moment of their time if you treated them like fellow adults. I have rarely seen any foreign individual comment on American politics with some real consideration and respect, but when I have, I have greatly appreciated it. If it's important enough for you to spend your breath talking about it, you should at least give your thoughts a chance to actually be heard. Don't be a know-it-all asshole and people are far more likely to listen.

A big reason why people are willing to believe lies is because the people telling the truth often surround the truth with bullshit. We commonly sully the truth with how we share that truth, and if we want people to actually listen, we need to improve how we talk with others around us.

I think you might find this to be true because of the circles you walk. Video game sites tend to be more liberal. If you read some posts on a forum about hunting or guns and ammo or college football you might find yourself thinking quite the opposite. Have you ever read any Anne Coulter? Give her a shot. Doubt you'll come away thinking all the people on the right are saints either.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it exists in reverse as well.

Unfortunately, that's a pretty common response, and it sidesteps the point. As I said, it isn't the sole domain of liberals; I was only focusing on liberals because I have found myself more agreeable to their positions in many cases. So, I see it more bothersome to have people poorly represent what I see as good arguments that I might otherwise agree with.

I frequent plenty of places with a wide variety of beliefs. I am friends with campaign workers for the Democratic Party and the head of the Dallas branch of the Tea Party. I have read plenty from Ann Coulter, as well, and while it's easy to harp on the idiotic public faces of political extremes in the nation, they generally do not reflect the people you actually interact with on a day to day basis. And even with foolish people, it is still unwise to betray your beliefs by simply dismissing others or talking to them as though you do. It does nothing for our arguments when we lower our words to condescension and rudeness.

People are so often more interested in crushing different views(even wrong ones) than actually convincing people, and this thread, as with most political threads on here, has shown how unfortunate it is that people represent superior arguments with disrespect, unkindness, and simple arrogance. These don't serve as conversations; they're just platforms for people to reassure themselves of what they already believe. That isn't meaningful discourse, and we shouldn't ever delude ourselves into thinking that it is. All we can truly control is how we specifically express ourselves, and when given the opportunity, we should consider representing our sincere beliefs in the best way possible where someone might actually give it a moment of their time. Otherwise, we just betray our beliefs time and time again, wasting our breath on meaningless drivel. For the sake of how important some topics of discussion can be, we should certainly attempt to do better.

@Milkman said:

@Commando I'll give Bush credit for wasting trillions of dollars by starting two useless wars and I'll give him credit for mismanaging one of the greatest natural disasters in America history. Also, if you want to somehow put the blame Obama for the attacks in Libya then I guess I could give Bush credit for 9/11 too. See, plenty of credit!

I suggest you read my post before you try to respond to it next time...

I never blamed Obama for the attacks on the American Embassy in Libya. I blamed him for ignoring their requests for security and lying to the American people after the attack...

I take every politician's rhetoric with a grain of salt, but with Romney, nothing he says can even warrant me giving a shit about him. He's proven to be a liar; an overly ambitious, power hungry opportunist, while simultaneously, he has no backbone and will compromise every single stance he has if it will get him a couple votes. If I had the choice I'd stop paying attention to him entirely, but you know...he's trying to be the goddamn president, so I never stop hearing about him.

Politics.

@Twoheadedboy said:

Politics.

chocolate cake

I honestly blame the people running his campaign as much or maybe more than I blame him. Yeah, he's not the most intelligent person, and he hasn't been consistent with what he's said, but, as we saw in the first debate, he has the ability to present himself in a way that isn't self-destructive.

@Mirado said:

@imsh_pl: If no peaceful alternative exists, would you be willing to point a gun at someone if it would save your life?

In self defence? Yes. In other cases? No.

Besides, there's always a peaceful alternative. That's a false dichotomy. If I'm sick I can seek help from my family and friends, private charities, or donors; I can try to find a job which doesn't require me to leave my house.

@Jazzycola said:

@imsh_pl said:

@Jazzycola said:

Second, if you believe that then you minus well go live in Antarctica cause that's what a government is. I don't like that my money goes towards the death penalty, but that's the way things are. It's the cost of having order rather than chaos.

Government is not a synonim to order.

and synomin is not synonyms. How do we create order? We create a system of laws and punishments to prevent or deter people from killing the other person for a piece of bread. Who makes these laws? People in control or people elected by other people. What do we call these types of systems? A dictatorship or a Democracy. And what does this describe? A type of...What? Government.

Edit for your edit: Wow just wow. I mean seriously that's what you think government means?

That's what the government is. The only difference between a government and a private organization is that the government can use force to get what it wants. They can tax you, you can't tax each other, you sure as hell can't tax them back. They cab throw you in jail for disobeying, you can't do the same to anyone.

If that's not what the government is then please define it yourself.

"We create a system of laws and punishments to prevent or deter people from killing the other person for a piece of bread."

You can have laws and punishment without the state. You can have order without pointing guns at anyone to fund your endeavour.

How do you, in your personal life, achieve things you want? How do you cooperate with people? Do you force your friends to spend time with you? Do you use violence to achieve your ends?

If not, then why shouldn't we extend this principle to the whole of society.

"Who makes these laws? People in control or people elected by other people."

Who will make sure that the people in controls won't be criminals who want to make their crimes legal? It's not like it hasn't happened in the past, and it's not like it isn't happening now, is it?

IMO Romney seems to lack soul; his record shows he's ruthless and personally driven, but apart from that, hes backed by big business lobbyist who funded his campaign; any decency he has will be sucked out of, he will be a puppet of corporate America who will continue to enslave the working class. Obama isnt perfect, but he's atleast willing to draw the line.

@lord_python said:

IMO Romney seems to lack soul; his record shows he's ruthless and personally driven, but apart from that, hes backed by big business lobbyist who funded his campaign; any decency he has will be sucked out of, he will be a puppet of corporate America who will continue to enslave the working class. Obama isnt perfect, but he's atleast willing to draw the line.

Are you aware that Obama has received campaign donations from 5 of the same corporations Mitt has, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley? And that he was for the bailouts?

@lord_python said:

IMO Romney seems to lack soul; his record shows he's ruthless and personally driven, but apart from that, hes backed by big business lobbyist who funded his campaign; any decency he has will be sucked out of, he will be a puppet of corporate America who will continue to enslave the working class. Obama isnt perfect, but he's atleast willing to draw the line.

Pretty ironic how you just described Obama.

HELL NO!!!

@me3639: same here. congress is the only people who count. the president doesnt have much pull. hes just a face.

@imsh_pl said:

@Mirado said:

@imsh_pl: If no peaceful alternative exists, would you be willing to point a gun at someone if it would save your life?

In self defence? Yes. In other cases? No.

Besides, there's always a peaceful alternative. That's a false dichotomy. If I'm sick I can seek help from my family and friends, private charities, or donors; I can try to find a job which doesn't require me to leave my house.

And that's an irrelevant conclusion. I'll make the scenario more explicit; if you could save your own life by taking "X" from someone else, where "X" is not something that, if taken from said other person, would cause their death, would you do so?

Whether or not a peaceful alternative "always exists" in the real world is irrelevant because we are dealing with pure hypothetical situations, i.e. you've committed a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. You're mistaking my abstract scenario for a real-world one.

I'm saying if you have no outs but to take from someone else, would you do so to survive or would you let yourself die?

No, I don't trust him either. My two cents is that people feel burned by Obama's unfulfilled promises he made 4 years ago and they want someone new to believe in, even if that is Romney. Personally I feel like it's fine if you change your stance on things (flip-flopping as people have called it), but at a certain point it just feels like they'll immediately change back after winning.

Basically I've been following politics closely this time around because it's the first time I'll get to vote, but goddamn, I hate politics after watching this crap.

@Mirado said:

@imsh_pl said:

@Mirado said:

@imsh_pl: If no peaceful alternative exists, would you be willing to point a gun at someone if it would save your life?

In self defence? Yes. In other cases? No.

Besides, there's always a peaceful alternative. That's a false dichotomy. If I'm sick I can seek help from my family and friends, private charities, or donors; I can try to find a job which doesn't require me to leave my house.

And that's an irrelevant conclusion. I'll make the scenario more explicit; if you could save your own life by taking "X" from someone else, where "X" is not something that, if taken from said other person, would cause their death, would you do so?

Whether or not a peaceful alternative "always exists" in the real world is irrelevant because we are dealing with pure hypothetical situations, i.e. you've committed a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. You're mistaking my abstract scenario for a real-world one.

I'm saying if you have no outs but to take from someone else, would you do so to survive or would you let yourself die?

Ok. So if I have a hypothetical situation in which I can either take someone else's property or die, with no possible alternatives, and without considering any of the decisions made by both parties which lead to said situation, I would probably do it.

I still wouldn't be morally justified in doing it though.

Besides, I see little sense in considering an impossible scenario and trying to use its outcome as a 'checkmate' to the real world usefuleness of a moral proposition (not necessarily saying you're trying to do it).

Saying that because violating someone's property in a one-in-a-million scenario destroys the concept that we should respect property rights is kinda like saying that a newly found cure for AIDS is worthless because it doesn't work if the virus arrives from a meteorite from Mars and is a lifeform based on the fusion of graphene and sodium.

No. Some like to compare President Obama's "evolution" of supporting gay marriage to Romney's constant flip-flopping, but it's a bad comparison, at least for me.

In the President's case, he never came from a starting position of hating gays or refusing them other rights and benefits, just not supporting gay marriage. I personally find his change to be in the correct direction as well.

Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on every issue multiple times throughout his political career, not just during this presidential run. That's not simply changing his mind, that's changing his position to pander for votes. And each time, he's ended up with a position I just don't support. Both Romney and Ryan have been lying, and not just the normal politicians' bending the truth a little, and have been called out on it numerous times by non-partisan fact checkers. They've both been caught staging photo ops.

Someone pointed out a picture with President Obama, along with Republican Governor Chris Christie, hugging somebody. That felt more like a real moment than anything Romey or Ryan have done, especially when you consider that the President didn't want reporters when he met with some FEMA responders or waited for photographers to leave during a visit to a shelter. Out in the open, he can't control who took that sincere picture.