.
Election 2012: The husband-wife divide
A couple listens to Republican candidate Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.
November 1st, 2012
10:39 AM ET

Election 2012: The husband-wife divide

By Lisa Desjardins, CNN

(CNN) – Loralee Choate and her husband, Jonathan, just had what Loralee believes is the biggest fight in their 14 years of marriage. And it was about politics.

Loralee Choate, wife, mother and left-leaning voter:

[1:45] "I would say the biggest arguments in our marriage have been political."

She is a strong supporter of the Obama health care law, whose passionate blog about her life once got her and her husband invited to the Obama White House to talk policy.

Loralee swings left in other ways as well. Personally, she says she wouldn’t ever consider getting an abortion, but she doesn’t want lawmakers making that decision for other women. And she thinks government should assertively try to help the unfortunate.

Her husband Jonathan, is a libertarian who disagrees starkly, especially in his overarching view of government.

Jonathan Choate, husband, father and conservative voter:

[2:24] 'I believe the reason we got to be a country that has all these things that we now want to distribute is by having free markets and it being the responsibility of individuals and charity organizations to take care of people.'

Jonathan runs his own business and co-hosts a political radio show called "For the People" on local station KNVU.

He and Loralee grapple with a real-couple example of a political divide that has shaped American politics since the 1980s.

And this year, polls indicate the gender gap could be historic. We've certainly heard about how the Obama campaign is counting on, possibly depending on, a large margin of victory among female voters. (An informed Obama campaign official told CNN  that they believe the have a double-digit lead among women.)

But what's fueling that gap? Loralee and Jonathan may shed some light. Her priority issues include gay rights and health care. Jonathan has only one top issue: the economy.

That same divide, over which issues matter the most, has shown up repeatedly in national 2012 polls, including Gallup's.

Editor's note: Listen to the complete story in the player above  to hear how Gallup looks at the gender gap and whether the male/female divide is solely an American phenomenon.

soundoff (640 Responses)
  1. Patrick

    The reason we have a strong country is not because of unabashed capitalism, it's because we had a strong government which created the infrastructure this country needed to grow: roads, electricity, schools, etc. The middle class would have never existed had the government and unions not kept greedy capitalists in check. Guess who bought their products? (HINT: The middle class!) When we work together, we all thrive. Libertarians just can't see beyond their checking account.

    November 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • KJ

      I don't usually speak in religious terms, but your post deserves a big fat "Amen" after it.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Fred Evil

    Libertarians == Selfish b1tch#s

    November 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Julian

    Do people really want charities to be the main force helping people? The problem with that is that they basically then all compete for funding, meaning we'll be continually hounded by people asking to support their causes. Furthermore, the popular causes will get disproportionate help - little kids with cancer will get everything, but middle-aged mentally ill people won't get anything. Also, many charities have a catch - like religious affiliation. Lastly, the charities themselves aren't always what they seem, can be essentially scams or inept, and then they need oversight and a huge amount of education for donors to shop around. I prefer a one-stop shop for helping people - just pay taxes, don't get hassled every day for donations, don't have to "shop" for a worthy charity, and be assured that even unpopular causes like old people on the street will get some portion of the funds.

    November 1, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • independentjim

      I agree not all causes are gut wrenching but they are still worthy .. who would give 10 bucks to save a homeless black man from starvation.. when they can give that 10 bucks to support a child in the hospital faceing cancer

      November 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mem

        excellent observation and a substantial reason that charitable giving will not help in many causes.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Interesting

      Don't they basically all compete for funding already (from food banks to school fundraisers to cancer causes)? Is it theoretically divided up fairly now or are the more popular ones still funded heavier to build a bigger political base? While many charities may have a catch, many do not. Some charities may be inept but whose to say some govenment programs or government-funded charities are not as inept. Government needs oversight too and a huge amount of education for people to understand where the tax money is going.

      Your post makes it sound like you've picked a place to donate and you feel that government sponsored programs are the best choice (and hassle free) so you are going to pay taxes (not that you have the choice). Are you going to "donate" more than you are required to pay? What about those that are willing to shop around and find "worthy" charities? I guess they can do that; but they are going to still pay taxes too. The main advantage the governement "charity" has over other private charities is that it does not request your donation, it mandates the "donation" (at the level other people want you to pay.)

      November 1, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Report abuse |
  4. enuftrashtalk

    Corporations and the wealthy go out of their way to "re-distribute" wealth everyday. The difference is, they don't want to re-distrubute it to someone else. They want it concentrated in the hands of a few. If having weath were the only reasonable measure of success in this country, then Al Capone would be a national hero. So don't pick on the government, it's going to be one power or the other.

    "redistribution of wealth" and "socialism" are just verbal slings thrown around by people who secretly and culturally have a problem with a black president, but just don't have the guts to say what's *really* on their mind.

    And if your #1 issue really *is* "the economy" and you expect the likes of Mitt Romney to create a surge of new growth in the US, you are clueless and should consider staying home November 6th. There's a difference when people want power for power's sake vs. those you have an agenda for the greater good. It couldn't be more stark in this election.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Schmedley

      How enlightened of you... Basically, if people don't agree with your *opinion* they should stay home.

      I'm not wealthy by any means, but I don't resent wealth. You just resent wealth because you have no clue what it takes to get there. True, some are lucky and born to it, but if you've ever built a business from the ground up, you'd be a lot less willing to redistribute all of what you worked for.

      Can it be more fair? Perhaps. But as it is today, 70% of the income tax burden is paid by just the top 20% of the earners. And you want to make that higher?

      November 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Brooke

        We need to increase taxes on everyone by letting all the Bush tax cuts expire. And we also need to cut spending. We need more revenue and less spending to come up with a REAL solution to our deficit problem.s

        November 1, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Thinks2010

        The top 300,000 families in the U.S. earn approximately as much as the bottom 150 million families each year.

        The top 20% of households own 85% of the total net worth in the U.S. (which leaves the other 80% of households with only 15%), and the top 20% of households own 97% of financial wealth (which leave the other 80% of households with only 7%). The top 1% of households own just under 35% of the net worth and just under 43% of the financial wealth). Considering that, they are hardly being over taxed.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        You can't possibly think that Romney's 1-year payment of 15% and multiple years of 2-3% tax payments is fair. No one resents wealth. They resent people who game the system so that they don't have to pay their fair share. Romney doesn't pay his fair share. Neither do the other 1%. Let the "temporary" tax breaks for the wealthy expire. Keep the "temporary" tax breaks for the middle class in place and then do some government cutting. That's how it needs to work. Obstructionist Republicans don't want to let that happen. Any sane person knows the budget needs to be balanced with a mix of program cuts and tax increases.

        November 3, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
        • Gordo24

          The tax rate for investment capital gains is 15% for all USA citizens people, including Obama. That is the tax code. In theory monies invested have already been taxed at the much higher rate. I just cannot believe some people on here are upset with Romney paying 3 million in taxes in addition to paying 3 million to charities. Wow, simply wow.

          November 4, 2012 at 12:56 am | Report abuse |
    • CanOnTo

      @enuftrashtalk. Very well said.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Forever Alone

    the waifu is always right. he will be in the dog house

    November 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • MamaG

      The husband is a libertarian, not a Republican which means he's for far more civil rights than any Democrat, notably the POTUS who signed off on NDAA, kept GITMO open and upped the drone strikes.

      This woman will be voting for real choice which means voting libertarian and Gary Johnson. I'm rather insultted to be constantly thought of as the sheepish member of a group that can only think of helping others through gov't force or who votes according to her lady parts. Some of us have brains too.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Some of these comments are scary. Democrats care more for people. Please. People need to wake up. Both partys are in it for the money and their backers. Idealism is nice but not with money at hand. Until people understand this it will never change. The policiticians and the people that finance them know this. Life is alot less stressful when you understand what is going on.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mem

        A Politician may be in the game for ego, power, whatever... but as a citizen and a voter I have no other agenda than trying to put into office the person who I believe will best represent and push for legislation of my views, even if their belief in those views is contrived. In the end I will find myself supporting someone I feel represents my interests.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Laura

    The reason for the gender gap in politics is obvious; sexism. Woman are still – still! – wildly discriminated against in this country, and that translates to their political choices. Their first priority is to defend their own human rights, and that means voting for the Democratic party.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunya

      I don't know what country you live in, but it can't be the United States of America. My wife and I have good paying jobs in the same field. To be honest, she always asks me for help on things she's working on. Honestly (truly honest and objective here), I know a bit more than she does in our profession...

      She makes more $$$ than I do – thousands more.

      What 1950's show are you talking about – because it isn't Real Life.

      Other important factors: we graduated together from the same school, same degree, same year, similar GPAs, similar backgrounds, same race (if it's gender we're talking about, it's important to note as being the same) ... etc.. etc.. etc...

      So if you would, please take your DNC propaganda and peddle it some place else. It has no place on a news site.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • San

        Tell that BS to Lily Ledbetter.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • novajoshy

        Cheers to Nunya. Jeers to laura.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Texan with a Brain

        Oh, thanks for sharing that ONE, personal example to show how the entire country is over the gender divide. I mean, one three hundred millionth is pretty representative, right?
        And FYI, your personal background is what has no place on this NEWS site. Idiot.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          Texan, please USE your brain. From what other "personal experience" am I supposed to comment from? What the heck do you think a person's estimation and analysis of the world is based on? (hint: personal experiences)

          As for my personal background not being pertinent to Laura's comment: please see the USE your brain portion, just above. Laura's wild assertion completely off the mark. My personal background is the perfect example of how WAY off her personal belief is from Real World facts. My wife and I are the exact opposite to her blanket statement. The level of generalization in her comment that such "inequalities" are so far biased against women simply isn't true. So coming 'round to it all:

          My personal background, as it pertains to my wife and I being married, in the same profession, and on [almost] equal footing with each other explicitly contradicts Laura's wild and completely wrong belief.

          As for the 'idiot' comment.... wtf dude? you don't like facts so you insult the messenger? I gotta say, your word is describing you pretty well, right about now...

          November 2, 2012 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
      • Thinks2010

        Your wife probably asks you for your "help" to boost your ego since she out earns you. Women frequently pretend to need their husband's or boyfriends "help" to make them feel needed and loved.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          LOL! I could only wish my wife would do that for me! No, unfortunately that's not the case. We both work as IT professionals / programmers / sys. admins. I would LOVE not being asked repeatedly about networking issues (when she works from home, usually). We took the exact same courses – some of them we took together. She even got the better deal as far as the teachers when we weren't in a class together.

          As for her stroking my ego – HAH! My wife is quite bright, but for reasons I can't grasp, she doesn't apply her brilliance. Whenever I have to troubleshoot our home network, or retrieve corrupted files, or do whatever else for her, I just do it. I wish she'd work through it herself sometimes, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not really a big deal.

          My wife and I have a pretty good relationship I think, and the basis of it is honesty – which sucks sometimes because I really would like to have my ego stroked every once and a while, but that's not how we work. We're brutally honest with each other and that works for us – most of the time. 😉

          While I do know what you mention exists, Thinks, ... it doesn't exist for us.

          November 2, 2012 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
  7. jloren

    Wife sounds reasonable. Husband sounds like an asshole. The wife considers things that impact others, such as choice. Husband has one interest only, the economy. The economy is only a fraction of this nations richness. We have an environment, we have people, we have families, and we are effected by the world economy and wars.

    Think people. Obama is the only choice.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Aerin

      Precisely!

      November 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Report abuse |
  8. anonymous

    Her husband might want to give this a little thought. If you cut benefits to huge numbers of people who depend on them to one degree or another for survival, there will be ramifications. Not all of these people are taking "hand outs". The GOP makes it sound like they get huge amounts of money on demand. It's simply not that way.

    Most of these people are the working poor. Without food stamps they would starve. They need medical care and in some cases, supplemental income for housing. Take all that away and they will have to go looking for more money. That translates into crime. Tens of millions of people, and if even half of them turn to crime then we are in big trouble. This nation will be unfit to live in. Romney offers no detailed job solutions. It's like he never gave the possibility of rampant desperation and crime a second thought.

    I guarantee you that elevated violent and property crime levels will become unmanageable millions of people are affected.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunya

      anon, you highlight a valid point and a major issue Conservatives have with the current setup – not only did it cause the scenario you mentioned to become possible, but it also perpetuates it and aggravates it. Eventually what you mention will happen, either due to fixing the system or due to its eventual failure. Socialism doesn't work. It can't – not over the long-haul. I don't like the scenario you paint, but what would happen if we all waited 'til the number of people in your scenario reached the 10's of millions... the 100's of millions... possibly 1 billion? I don't think we'll ever get past the 100's of millions – I expect systemic failure before we get too far past the first 100-150 million "freeloaders". (yes, note that term is in quotes – for a reason.. not to be taken literally nor with any adverse connotation associated with it)

      The problem with our current setup is that more than 1/2 of your taxes go to the government (of some form – federal, state, county, city). There always exists some "neutral" point of income / spending where income equals spending. Anything above that and you can save. Anything below that and you fall – and keep falling. The problem middle class America (and lower class / the poor) has is that this neutral point keeps getting higher and higher and higher as taxes grow and grow and grow.

      Picture yourself chained to the floor of a pool as someone is filling it up. As long as the water is below your mouth, you can breathe and breathe easy – but as soon as it goes above your mouth, you're done for. So the current thinking is to .... put buckets over people's heads and pressurize them with air (other people's tax money) ... instead of draining the water. And by displacing that water, you make it rise faster and farther for others who wouldn't have needed their own air bubbles, but now do. Keep in mind that some people are naturally taller than others ( different "lots in life" w/ regards to money) ... but keep filling the pool up and EVERYONE will be underwater... then what? There's another problem too – the Air Suppliers get to tell you where to go and what to do, now – the opposite of freedom.

      Not the best analogy, but if it gets the point across to just 1 person, it'll have been worth writing.

      For those who understood that analogy, keep in mind how simplistic it is – there ARE true, legit expenditures the government needs taxes for. Social programs just can't be one of them – they just cause more people to need them.

      What the solution is, I'm not certain of, but what needs to happen is a gradual phasing out of people's reliance on those programs. That phase out would probably need to occur over the same period of time it's taken to get to this point (well over 50 years...)

      Chime up: who understood the analogy?

      November 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        doh! "... 1/2 of your taxes goes to government" should have been:

        "1/2 of your income goes to government"

        November 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Walter

    Ever notice the chicks who make the most noise about "choice" and "abortion rights" are usually the ones who have the absolute least to worry about in that regard?

    November 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • darchie

      @walter...my gosh, Walter. You are such a winner. Your man is lucky to have you.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Report abuse |
  10. nelsonleonard

    My husband is a very good man but we do not discuss politics in our home. I am proObama and usually vote Democratic and he is GOP all the way. The strange thing is we agree on certain issues such as protection for the environment is very important and women should be able to make their own reproductive health care decisions. I could never have an abortion myself and he sees no reasons women should not be able to. I go to church weekly and he is not very religious at all. I do get frustrated with the fact that he only watch one news outlet (FOX) out of the 7 we can get and he never reads about issues.
    If he received his info from more than FOX I would feel his decisions were more informed. I will not change him and vice versa so we hold on to the values we do share such as the "Golden Rule" and similar ethical standards.

    November 1, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mem

      I think I'm living your life. My husband is a very good man. He's the religious one (very Catholic) I'm not, but we both feel strongly about helping our fellow man out. Only thing is, he never listens to anything other than Fox News and will only read the Wall Street Journal, I on the other hand am a political junkie and read and listen to everything... from the New York Times (love Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins), Mother Jones, Harpers, to the National Review and pundits from the Heritage Foundation... I try to be open-minded but the older I get the more I realize that bad, very bad crap can befall a person through no fault of their own... and there should be some safety nets. We are not in this alone... the human condition can be one of great happiness and dare I say it? Pure luck. But it can also be full of tragedy and misfortune. I don't believe in supporting those who make no effort, but if I have to support some people who don't deserve it in order to aid those who have been dealt a bad deck of cards, I'm perfectly willing to see my tax dollars go to aid them. Charity alone will not cover all the cracks people can fall into. I'm amazed at the so-called Christian right who believe if you have faith and pray God will handle it and if he's not helping you out, it's merely because you're undeserving. Bullshit... Some us have been blessed with an abundance of brains, or money, or a bulging trust fund, but the vast majority are dealing with autistic kids, parents with Alzheimers, unemployed kids, rising college debt, divorce, illness and disability, unemployment, lack of healthcare, lowered wages, my God the list can go on. There but for the grace of God go I and I applaud a government who looks after it's most vulnerable.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        Mem, I'm what I would call a Left-Leaning Conservative. A number of the things you mention us (yes, I'm in the middle w/ most everyone else) are things that have plagued mankind forever. It's only Now, that we can do some – limited – things to mitigate those tragedies. I was completely with you all the way 'til your last line. I do NOT think looking after everyone CAN be the responsibility of the government. Simply put, gov't agencies are too inept to trust or rely on for those services. Those socialist needs are best served by individual organizations. Yes, I state those as being socialist because they are. Unlike most Conservatives, I'm more than willing to take an objective look @ things. Humans EXIST in a state of socialism. It's a huge part of the reason we exist as the most successful species on the planet, but there's a caveat to that statement: Socialism ONLY works on the "small scale". It does not scale up – unfortunately. Think of the family unit – it's socialistic. Think of the extended family unit – it too is socialistic, but not as much. Think of the community you live in – it too has some socialist attributes about it.... but not nearly as many as either of the two examples just stated. Now think of the state you live in. Now the nation. Now the continent. Now the world. Did you notice how your emotional ties shrank and shrank and shrank as we zoom out, into the bigger picture?

        To put it simply:
        Socialism is based on Emotional ties – the ones we have with other beings.
        Capitalism is based on Resources – the ones we need in order to exist.

        Humans are peculiar beings – we need BOTH. So here's where the beauty of the hierarchical structure of our current government is:

        The Federal Level should be just about as capitalistic as possible (within some obvious boundaries of Reason). That is to say treat people as large groups. This necessitates fewer laws, and ones that aren't too overly-explicit in who they do and don't apply to. (they should apply to everyone, equally)

        Next, we have the State Level. This should start to treat people as "regional entities"... a bit more individually based than the Federal Level.

        Now, move on to the County Level: This should treat people as .... let's call them "Local Entities". There will be people whose names will stand out as individuals here.

        Next, the Community Level – the last level: People are individuals. They are people. They should be encouraged to work together – without violating their individuality.

        That is how our system is SUPPOSED to work. What a lot of us Conservatives don't like is the Central Planning approach that is growing in our country right now. It's the completely backwards direction to True Progress.

        Life will NEVER be "fair". The only chance we have to make it more "fair" is to act as individuals and groups of individuals. Overarching Socialist programs will never retain the individuality needed to succeed in remedying these socialist needs of our society. THAT is why we can't afford to have a Socialist Government – we need the one written down over 200 years ago – it's the only thing that's proven it can work on both fronts, simultaneously, over the long-haul.

        November 2, 2012 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        @Mem. I am impressed. That was simply so well said and even-minded I feel like it should be copy-pasted into every single politics-related thread on CNN just to make sure people see what it looks like to be a reasonable human being. Well done!

        November 3, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • CanOnTo

      I don't think I would be able to date someone who has very different political persuasions. Politics is not just politics for me, it's more than that – it's about life philosophy. I could never date someone who is anti-gay, anti-women, bible thumper, who thinks that we should live in some type of Wild West society where the strongest survive and screw the rest. You can be the hottest girl in the Universe, but tell me you watch Fox News and/or vote Republican and it's end of story.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mem

        I'm guessing you're young. People grow up and change and they don't always change in the same way. We stick together because despite differing opinions we value each other. And in the end we just don't talk politics.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • CanOnTo

          Actually, I am middle-age, 44 y/o (I guess I should've said "woman", not "girl"). I think it's exactly because of my age that I am set in my ways and that political determination would a play a role too when finding a partner. But that's not to take away anything from your opinion – it provides a valuable insight. Things change and the efforts to keep the marriage successful are commendable.

          November 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Onlyonetime

        I'm a woman and I would be with someone who has different political views. I'm not anti-gay, anti-woman, or bible thumping. I am an independent and this year maybe voting republican-only because of the mess of the economy right now. My views on politics change from time to time, depending what I think the direction should be of this country. I can typically see both side of an argument. I don't think though I would be with someone with extreme views such as what you are describing.

        November 1, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Bookenz

    It never ceases to amaze me that the people that are anti-choice are the ones who also wouldn't lift a finger or give money to help support these children.

    November 1, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Walter

      See and what always amazes me about liberals is that they claim to want to help children ... and they're the first ones to want to legalize killing them, all the way up through the ninth month!

      (By the way, I'd bet ANY amount of money that most conservatives give FAR more to children than you do.)

      November 1, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Francesca

        Where do you think federal assistance programs go? To families with kids, the federal programs like Food stamps means kids do not need to rely on the whims of the local charities and can instead know that they will have a set amount each month to buy food. The government assistance programs give a lot more to kids and families than I can as an individual and it is guaranteed that the money will be there while a local church might not have gotten donations that month. Giving to charity is a good thing, but making sure there is constant reliable assistance for families is much more important.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mem

        Conservatives give more to support children? Where in the hell is the evidence for that statement? It's such a prejudicial conclusion with no statistical merit. I'm willing to bet a person's political affiliation has little reflection on their charitable giving, but I'm also willing to bet that your small-minded, judgemental view proves you give to no one unless you deem them acceptable.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • CanOnTo

        Walter, killing children and abortion is not the same. Maybe you could think before you post here.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          In what world do you live in? Here in the Real World, intentionally and permanently halting all biological processes of another entity is called killing.

          Tell me abortion doesn't halt an otherwise normal, natural biological process involving another entity's existence.

          Of course, if you should choose to state that, you'd better be able to back up your claim with scientifically verifiable facts.

          November 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mark

          Her definition of "child" is different from your definition of "child". Based on your response, your definition of a child is "the biological process of an entity" so by your definition squirrels are children, bugs are children and and probably vegetables are children. I'm not sure that your definition is the "Real World" viewpoint you were shooting for.

          November 3, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          @Mark

          Killing a squirrel is killing. I'm not too concerned about squirrels, though – nor am I worried about bugs. At no point did I say anything about children. My point was simply to highlight that killing is killing. I don't think it reasonable to have human laws regarding the killing of non-humans. I DO think it reasonable to have human laws that concern killing humans.

          I do not think of bugs as children. I'm confused how you could misconstrue that, but to set it straight, when I say "children" I mean human youth. If you'd like a legal definition, then impose a 18 year old limit on "young". To be quick and blunt, that aspect of what a child is doesn't really matter much w/ regards to abortion being killing.

          The quick and short of it is: Abortion is killing.

          The long of it stems from Real World complications to the Killing-Humans-Is-Wrong value most of us hold:
          Sometimes it is better to kill one life, to save another or others – that depends COMPLETELY on the specifics of the killing scenario in question. ( in abortion terms: when the life of the mother is in 'extreme' danger ) Yes, 'extreme' is arbitrary, but as it pertains to the over-arching topic of abortions being killings, its definition doesn't pertain nor matter.

          There's no reason to confuse "killing" with "children". Those are two different topics that only intersect w/ each other as it pertains to killing children. Abortion IS killing. That was my point. Whether killing children is right or wrong – that's a slightly different topic. (although still pertinent to the Abortion topic)

          November 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jake

      It ceased amazing me long ago. They're all hypocrites. "Protect life!" but after you're born, you're on your own, freeloader.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Danp76

    I think we are screwed as a country no matter who win! Just my two cents.

    November 1, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • J.R. Thiel

      You got THAT right! This is one of the most intelligent statements made on here. Thank you.

      November 1, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunya

      Yep! I 2nd that! (or 3rd that, I guess :-p )

      You gotta remember.... we're all voting between two POLITICIANS........ just about the lowest form of human life...

      oh well... vote for the smallest loser. :-\

      November 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gordo24

      You might be right on that comment. Our society has peaked in my mind and has started to digress. You should read the book "A Nation Of Moochers". It talks about corporate greed and what is wrong in the entitlement demographic in America. I will leave with one quote in the book, "what we define as poor in America, over 50% own flat screen TV's, have cable TV, and own cell phones". What some countries consider a luxury is a necessity in the USA.

      November 4, 2012 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
  13. Lisa Desjardins

    Hey all, thanks for the very good comments.

    I've just posted some responses, including to maltesefalconx9, sharon and others. So check below.

    My apologies but I have to jump offline again. Headed to election study session.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • GIS4STL

      Lisa, is your husband voting for Gary Johnson? His politics line up pretty much with the Libertarian candidate, definitely not Mitt Romney.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Qk response but the man in the story is not my husband. To be honest I don't know for whom my husband voted. I havent asked him. We talk about the news but I don't tell anyone for whom I vote (I try not to think about that as much as do my job and see both sides fairly).

        November 1, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
  14. MB

    My wife and I differ on choice for President. I support Obama. She supports Romney. However, she pretty-much supports Romney mainly because her father does. Voting a certain way because a parent votes that way is just stupid. She is pro-choice too which really makes it difficult to understand how she could vote Republican. Also, not to single anyone out in these comments, but one can be Pro-child, Pro-family and Pro-choice!!!

    November 1, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • philliesphan1975

      of course. I'm pro-choice and also pro-CHILD...you know...want to see actual children who were born into this world with no love get the love they deserve. The right doesn't strike me as "pro-life"...more like "pro-birth". I have a friend who was a born again christian, but was still pro-choice. This was one of the reasons he told me he had to leave his church. He said all they wanted to talk about was fighting "baby killers" and getting right wing looney tooneys into power (he said that he knew he had to leave when they told him to keep his mouth shut when he suggested they concentrate on helping children who are already born and have nothing).

      November 1, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anchorite

      Yep. I would venture to say that the vast majority of both male and female abortion doctors (gynecologists) are Christians who themselves have children. They have their beliefs, and but they feel very strongly that everyone has a right to their own choices. That was a running theme with our Founding Fathers and everyone who came here seeking to do what they felt was right.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • pazczyk

        abortion doctors = gynecologists??? you're an idiot.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • rs

      MB, you mean "...one can be Pro-child, Pro-family and Pro-KillingBaby."

      Stop beating around the bush and deluding yourself.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jake

        Shut up.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mem

        If the woman having that baby is financially incapable of taking care of her child and the father is unwilling or unable to provide are you ready for the government to provide funds to support this precious life? Or do you subscribe to the notion that God will provide? Because He won't and a republican, tea-party-based populace sure as hell won't. So we're left with a societal problem that you might not want to encounter, but must be addressed. What happens to this baby?

        November 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          Mem, the biggest reason against killing anyone (born or unborn) is wrapped up entirely in one small word you used:

          IF

          The fact is none of us know the future. what if she can't afford to take care of the kid.. what if the kid grows up to be a drug-addict, what if ... what if ... what if...

          what if she wins the lottery 3 days after having the child, because she happened to be @ the right place @ the right time due to having the baby..

          what if she meets Mr Right and everything works out perfectly?

          What if ... what if ... what if...

          Since we don't know the future, it seems extremely unreasonable to kill a human entity (a completely irrevocable action) because someone is afraid of "What If..." Assuming fear isn't the motivating factor, then there's still the fallback position of arrogance. It is the height of arrogance to think you know the future and thus know what is best for the world by killing a human entity. Because the "What If" game starts all over in that scenario:

          What if he/she cures cancer? What if he/she founds an organization that truly succeeds in solving world hunger? What if he/she cures AIDS or whatever future Super-Diseases we may come across..? what if?

          Unless you KNOW FOR SURE that killing something will benefit the world... I can't see justifying that irrevocable action.

          November 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bookenz

      Your wife is an idiot.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Walter

        And you're a douche bag.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thinks2010

      I don't know how old you and your wife are. It's possible your wife will grow out of voting the way her parents do.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
  15. maltesefalconx9

    Hopefully, I have done absolutely nothing to "serve" your dirty, rotten government, Bozo.
    And if you don't like it, DROP DEAD. November 1, 2012 at 4:22 pm |

    November 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Johnny Holmes

    In situations like this, you know your votes will just cancel each other out. Why not just not vote, not listen to commercials, and live blissfully without worrying about the whole popularity fanboi contest? It's not worth squabbling about between husband and wife.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • James, AL

      Johnny, I totally disagree with you. Every person who is voting age should exercise their right to vote and that includes couples with differing political views. YOu should not let your political views dictate policy within your relationship. Respect each others opinion and move on, but by all means don't fail to vote.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • loralee

      If only it were that simple. Jonathan co-hosts a political radio show and is well known where we live. Our situation received a lot of attention when we went to The White House and also? We are both passionate about politics. The things we debate and argue about are not theories....we LIVE them. My sister who has been with her partner should be allowed to marry. Proposition 8 tore our family apart. I have HUGE medical bills and have spent the last year almost bedridden. So, I apologize, but yes...it is something we don't have the luxury to NOT discuss.

      November 6, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Aaron Poscovsky

    Crazy how many women think it is okay to kill babies. Just because they had sex with some guy, but do want his child.
    Killing a baby is still killing in my eyes.

    If you do not want the child, talk your church leaders to see if they can help found someone that does want to have a child, but can't.
    KILLING is KILLING end of story!

    November 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • adrrrrea

      @ Aaron Poscovsky
      As a victim of rape/incest that became pregnant at 14 because my uncle raped me I would like you to understand that abortion is not always about killing babies. Also based on your testosterone loaded, insensitive, and completely out of touch response I assume that you are a man and you are not a rape, incest, or sexual assault victim so you have absolutely no idea what it is like for tens of thousands of women across the world who become pregnant as a result of rape and incest. Take your pro life bullshit to a support group for young girls and women who have had to abort fetuses as a result of incest and rape. I attend one weekly and members of my group include an 11 year old girl, two thirteen year old girls, and even a woman in her fifties. Try telling an 11 year old girl whose father raped her that she is a baby killer for aborting a fetus that her own father impregnated her with.

      AND YES THOSE STATISTICS ARE ACCURATE: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

      In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped in the Unites States.8 According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.

      And and as a child protective services social worker I can assure you that these numbers have nearly doubled since 2005.
      God help us that there are people like you living in our country.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • davidw

        I'm sorry you went through that adrrrea. Thank you for sharing your story and perspective on this difficult issue.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andie Moen

        Thank you for sharing your story with us. My sister was raped and had an abortion. I support her in her decision. I support all of my "sisters" in these tragic situations. There are some who do not understand and don't want to. But that does not discount your honesty, clarity and strength of spirit. Bless you for saying what is right and true.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Walter

        You were probably asking for it.

        I'm only sad he didn't strangle you and bury you in a blanket in an unmarked grave down by the river.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mem

          Walter, It's a terrible thing to have to say, (and I shame myself for even thinking it) but perhaps you should have been aborted

          November 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Report abuse |
        • techmaster

          I agree with Mem – you should have been aborted Walter. The world would be a much better place. What a jerk you are! Go back to your cave you moron.

          November 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          Holy crap dude! WTF is wrong with you? I disagree with abortion on moral grounds complemented by scientific facts... but you on the other hand.... WTF is wrong with you?

          I've had to re-write the following portion of this comment 7 times, because I don't think you deserve an emotional response.

          You are a waste of a human life. Your mother chose to have you. She chose for you to live so that a Greater Good could be achieved. You have sold her out, you B@$T _ _ D! You have taken her dream of giving birth to the highest form of life on this planet (human) and you have desecrated it with your disgusting, foul remark.

          I extend my sorrow to any and all mankind who have ever known you – including everyone on this comment chain. I should hope you would mend your ways and find a way to breathe life into your parents' Dream of Humanity and of a Greater Future for mankind – but the extreme language you have demonstrated makes me doubt your ability.

          Please prove that doubt wrong by either posting worthwhile viewpoints in the future, or by abstaining from any words at all.

          November 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • philliesphan1975

      not that I think you'll change your mind, but you're a man...(as am I)...we'll NEVER KNOW what it's like to have a living being growing inside us. My wife and I have had this talk many times since our son was born and she said something that really stuck with me. To tell a woman that she HAS to go through with the whole pregnancy to just give it away is SO EASY for a man to suggest. Let's just say abortion becomes illegal tomorrow, right? Every poor woman who had access to an abortion will now have to have the baby because people like you say she has no choice. The VAST majority will not give their baby away. It's too much. Of those babies that were only born BECAUSE abortion is illegal, the majority will grow up in homes unloved, neglected, ignored, abused, exploited, etc. To me...THIS IS FAR WORSE then abortion. I love my son more then ANYTHING IN THE WORLD and it BREAKS MY HEART to think there are toddlers his age that get no hugs, no one reading to them, no one playing games with them, going to bed in a homeless shelter, hungry, forgotten...

      November 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • al in memphis

        So if you gave the child a choice of no hugs versus death, which do you think that child would choose?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
        • philliesphan1975

          oooo, you are a clever one al. Well, I'm obviously not as holy as thou, but to answer your question, yes. I do think it;s better to not come into this world then live a horrible desperate life with no love and no one looking out for you.

          November 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          phillie, I have to disagree with you. To pretend that a human being will never find a reason worth living for requires a bit of arrogance. That arrogance being borne from the assumption that you have a decent knowledge of the future. You NEVER know whether a person will grow out of a bad situation into a good one or not... it's a complete unknown. Sure there are statistics that indicate it to be unlikely, but without actually knowing the future for that one individual baby requires an arrogant assumption on your part.

          I to have a son and think about what you mentioned as well. It breaks my heart too, to think about it. But I know for a fact that where there's life, there's a chance of a good life. It might not be a likelihood, but at least it's something. Where there is no life, there is no chance of a good life – only death.

          November 2, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anchorite

      They're not children, they're globs of a few thousand cells of flesh. We have proof they don't even have nerve cells until after the 3rd trimester starts. Once the become children, in the 3rd trimester, not even pro-choice people support abortion. If you learned anything outside of your circle of rabid self hating misogynists you'd know that.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        to take your angle on what it means to be alive.... You are just a glob of a bunch of cells... That's it. So is all killing justifiable now?

        Simply put, killing is the permanent halting of all biological processes of a given organism or entity, such that the entity is no longer able to continue its existence.

        Sounds to me like we have a word to describe this separate entity: fetus.
        Sounds to me like we have a word to describe stopping all its biological processes: killing

        ... is that really so hard to comprehend..?

        Some additional information pertinent to the abortion discussion: Human beings do not have a fully formed hippocampus until we are between 2-3 years old.

        So then killing a 2 year old isn't really murder – it's just a delayed abortion...... At least that's where the "logic" of your comment leads to...

        Not that appealing now, is it?

        November 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • DC10

      Pro choice vs. Anti abortion battle will continue no matter what since this is comparing apples vs. oranges. The only way that this battle will be resolved if the conversations are directed towards Pro choice vs. Anti choice or Pro abortion vs. Anti abortion and let people argue their reasons.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Interesting

        DC10 I think you hit the nail on the head. A large point in the argument is to misdirect the conversation. In my opinion, the basis of the debate is at what point in the human life cycle does the government recognize (grant) the right to life. Most pro-life people place the granting of this right to life earlier in the life cycle. Most anti-life (and I risk the wrath of commenters by keeping the same language here) place the granting of this right later in the life cycle. Anchorite gives an example of this argument (along with derogatory comments).

        The misdirection I see in a lot of posts are as follows:
        Pro-choice: My interpretation of this misdirection (in the context what I define as the basis of the debate) is the woman should be able to define (grant) the rights during the life cycle. Essentially, pro-choice says individual women are the granters of this right and government that grants it earlier is interferring. By the same token, perhaps women who kill a new born may also argue the same point of being able to define when the right is granted; however, most would side with the government having granted the right to life already. This particular misdirection is played up and primarily framed by characterizing anti-choice supporters as misogynistic and women-controlling men; therefore energizing "free-willed" women.

        Aborted children are better than unwanted children: This misdirection suggested that right to life should be granted based on whether the child will be well-cared for and wanted by the parent(s). Based on this misdirection, an unwanted child should not have the right to life or at least protection of that right to life is questionable.

        Pro-life vs. pro-birth: In this misdirection, a conflict is often presented along these lines "pro-life supporters should be called pro-birth because they want to enforce the birth but do not want to help after that". The misdirection indicates that if you are willing to stand up to protect the right to life, you must then provide for the life. (Similar to a sit-com where Person A saves the life of Person B and now has to provide for Person B for the rest of their life.) The providing for the life is also usually expected to occur through support of government sponsored programs (in the form of voting not necessarily finanaces).

        Exceptions (i.e. rape, endangerment of mother): Misdirection is used by pointing to several exceptions which indicate the extreme view points of some pro-life supporters (no exception); however, by the same token, these several exceptions are not contrasted with the other extreme (any reason is acceptable). Therefore those that allow no exceptions are painted as extremist and those that support abortion for any reason painted as mainstream.

        November 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thinks2010

      Killing a baby is terrible and is a crime. Aborting a fetus, though regrettable, is a whole other matter and is legal up to a certain term. In either case, I'm sure most women give a lot of heartfelt thought before deciding to have an abortion. As much as members of the anti-choice movement would like to equate aborting a fetus with killing a baby and would like everyone to think that women who decide to have an abortion are thoughtless sl0ts who do so lightly, I think they are wrong.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Lew

    @IraqVeteran
    Thank you for your service to our country. I salute you. CPT USAR Ret

    November 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
  19. maltesefalconx9

    Could the admirals who caused the hurricaine with secret weather conrol technology be executed for treason?
    Hahahahahahahahahaha. Live on CNN international television.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  20. hemusbull

    Wow! For the first time US cpies the countries of communist Eastern Europe. Divided is the new status quo within many many families!

    November 1, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Hugh Jass

    " 'I believe the reason we got to be a country that has all these things that we now want to distribute is by having free markets " Believing stuff doesn't make it true, unless you are a libertarian. My opinion of them has dropped from positive to way below negative in six months; they believe wild stuff that isn't even half true, and they wouldn't mind wrecking the country just to try them out.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Guest

      Care to list any examples or are you just going to paint a huge group of people with one broad, ill-informed stroke?

      November 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Kris

    In general, women tend to be nurturers and men tend to employ the "tough-love" methodology. It seems that their behaviors support this convention.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      And where exactly did you get your PhD in sociology O' wise one?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Derek

        LOL@ you supporting his point entirely. Women (generally speaking) don't come online just to prove they can insult each other for no reason whatsoever (because that "no reason" is just male testosterone stupidity.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  23. maltesefalconx9

    Service in the US military does not give men insigt into the causes of war.
    It turns them into brainwashed, knee-jerk, zombies who mindlessly support any ludicrous rule the world conspiracy hatched by the Pentagon/CIA/WhiteDump/Exxon.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bobbo

      ...and you've done what to serve your country? You anti-military-types continue hiding behind your mother's skirts.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • IraqVeteran

      As someone who was deployed three times to Iraq, and served in the Army for over 10 years I think I know a little more about the causes of war then some like you. Not looking to throw insults back and forth but people like you that insult the people that protect your freedom should be sent to Afganistan. Maybe then you would appreciate what we do for you every day. It makes me sad that as a country people that have your mind set even exist. Furthermore, it makes me feel sad that I risked my life so you could have the freedom to say stupid things.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • maltesefalconx9

        How many people did you kill, scumbag? Too bad you survived. Like to kill me, wouldn't you?
        See, you are garbage.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jake

          Not a subtle troll, are you?

          November 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
        • LUIS

          YOU ARE MIGHT BE LIKE DICK CHANEY WHO DEFFERED 5 TIMES NOT TO GO TO VIETNAM. MAYBE YOU A RICH DADDY AND PEOPLE LIKE US WHO SERVED OUR COUNTRY SO PELPLE LIKE TO CAN TALL S-

          November 1, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • ReximWi

        Well said IraqVetern! Thank you for your service!

        November 1, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • maltesefalconx9

        You joined the US army to kill people that you hate in foreign countries.
        Animals like you have never protected my freedom in any way whatsoever. You are a filthy rotten liar.
        And an Amerikan policeman, as well.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • Guest

          Stop feeding the troll, folks. His parents' house probably just got power back after the storm and he's just overflowing with his need for your attention.

          November 1, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Anchorite

        Even the president who sent you there admitted he'd made a mistake. What freedoms were you protecting? You were just living on the gov't teat for another four years instead of actually getting a job and making this country what it is like I did. I have Iraqi friends who fought against Saddam but when you came in, you just killed their cousins and brothers as innocent bystanders. Don't you dare tell me you did a service for anyone except your own ego.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        Thank you for your service. I disagree with the decision to invade Iraq. I mourn the lives lost.

        I also know there are many out there who hate us for being free. They hate us for all we stand for: Freedom.

        Please try to disregard the bizarro comments you see here – the validity of your service is summed up best by those comments' existence. In other parts of the world, those comments would have been permanently removed – as well as the people who made them.

        As for the rest of us: Thank you and welcome home.

        Always remember that even the worst our nation has to offer (see others' comments above) only HIGHLIGHTS your achievement in protecting our freedoms.

        Thank you.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Strategic Bob

      actually, falcon, you are wrong. the military's senior service schools study both the causes of wars, in order to avoid them, and how to win them, if you can't avoid them. I wore the uniform for 34 years and it is the people in uniform who have the best understanding of what war really is.

      rather, it is the never-served chickenhawks (e.g., Bush 43, Cheney, Rumsfled, Romney, etc., etc.) who are the most trigger-happy. moreover, not only are the chickenhawks trigger-happy, they want to be sure that it is the children of the middle and lower class who do the dying and the bleeding, and whose futures are hobbled with debt, while their own children are exempt from service and their own taxes are lowered.

      there is a parallel in history. Ben Franklin ultimately opted for independence from Great Britain over the way in which the small landowners and merchants of Pennsylvania had to do the actual fighting in the French and Indian War, as well as pay taxes to pay ALL of hte taxes to support it, while the Penn family, that owned almost 90% of the colony, exempted themselves from both fighting to protect their land and from paying for the war to protect their land. that is also why Ben Franklin, the wisest of our founding fathers was in favor of very steep estate taxes – to prevent the emergence of a heriditary plutocracy that usurped political power to force others to subsidize their own deaths to protect the wealthy.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • maltesefalconx9

        William Penn was exempt from military service because he was a Quaker.
        They were still exempt in the Vietnam War.
        You don't need millionaires in your thug army.
        You need to fight fewer wars and do more negotiating through the United Nations.
        If you don't get what you want, tough.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Mark

    Obama's gift to America - husband-wife divide! Family divide! Nation divide! Racial divide! Class divide! Social divide! JUST DIVIDE! DIVIDED WE STAND .. good luck USA!

    November 1, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • some chick

      You sure do think President Obama has ALOT of power.

      Read up on how the process works. You might learn something.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Beverly

      What a stupid comment by Mark. It is the GOP and its radical right, religious zealots and Tea Party punks that have divided this country. Also, the blatant racism that causes so many to think that the white, no-talent Romney is a better candidate than the brilliant President. The GOP won't take the blame for the mess it created and the refusal to help get important legislation passed, but wants to blame the President for the actual results of the GOP greed, close-minded policies and stubbornness. And you wonder why thinking people want to throw up their hands...

      November 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • klur

        Agreed. Most of the world can not understand why anyone in the US would even consider voting for Romney.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
        • Softship

          You're so rightt!!!

          November 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
        • Terry

          All of us in the US couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks when it comes time for us to vote. "All of us in the rest of the world"...who gave you the right to speak for them?

          November 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer

      Apparently you missed the part of the article that said this has been going on since the 1980's...

      November 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • klur

      Yes, just ignore the Republicans who declared the minute Obama took the oath of office that they would do anything to get him out of office or the part of the Republican party that got elected on a "no compromise" platform.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vad

      I think it's more the media that wants a divided America. After all, conflict is good for ratings!!!

      November 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • notea4me

      Most men don't give a dam about women's issues and rights, that's why you have the current voting divide.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        BS. I'm a man and a husband. I think this country would be much better off if at least one parent could be with each of their children in their first year of life. As circumstances happened, that ended up being me with our firstborn. I spent 13 months w/ our little guy. We're expecting our 2nd and I'll be quitting my job to spend with that child for at least a year. My wife was a little bit jealous that I got to spend so much time with our firstborn. As finances are, I'm the one who'll be quitting my job in another 6 months – she wishes it could be her and so do I. Baby-raising is TOUGH! "Workin' for The Man" is WAY easier than raising a child – at least for me (and as it seems, most men too).

        She's a Dem, I'm mostly Conservative. I evaluate all topics according to my own metric – no one else's. Both my wife and I are anti-abortion. We also see the numerous benefits of having a stay-at-home parent for at least the first year or so of a child's life. Those two topics usually fall under the "Women's Rights" banner. To be blunt, she's better at child rearing it than I am. If we could have her stay home instead of me, we'd do it in a heartbeat.

        So as for men not giving a damn about women's rights... load of BS.

        November 2, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Mark

    Obama's gift to America - divide women from their husbands and family - great job, Mr President of dividing and destroying not only the families but the nation.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • MrvV

      No Mark: It's attitudes like yours that divide the nation.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Softship

      Are you ever mislead!!!
      I think you watch too much Faux.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        Why is it so many CNNers blame objective viewpoints on Fox ? I'm not saying Matt's right / wrong... What he said is correct, but misleading. It's not just Obama, but a lot of the Socialist Left – he's just 1 cog in that wheel.

        And here's a news-flash for most of you... There're Socialists in the Rep. party too... Take a look at some U.S. Government records regarding the stated goals of the Communist Party:

        Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35, January 10, 1963: Current Communist Goals

        Look that up some time. Pay special interest to Item 15. (while you're at it, glance over all the other items and tally up how many have already come to pass... interesting, don't you think?)

        This isn't just about Obama – he's just the latest, boldest entity working to destroy the fabric of the US.

        As many soldiers have noted from their travels and deployments: There truly are people out there who HATE us because we value Freedom and Liberty.

        Interesting how people think "It can't happen here" - to which I ask simply: Why not?

        November 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
  26. u.s1000

    youths, women and senior citizens should vote for Obama for their economic and social benefits, so that they sustain and advance easily as a nation and america asa leading country in the world. vote for Romney will have negative effects in their life from every angle because corruption will go up and opportunities will be less for people because it is based on "hit and miss method" and imaginary method. only few will get richer at the cost of others. Obama's plans offer basic security to sustain and advance with certainty and corruption free. surety in today's world, hit and miss method will not work for america because rising powers like russia, china, EU and others. Romney wants to apply america's old method of"hit and miss", which will not work in today's technological world, where quality, transparency and competition are required. Obama's method will bring progress for all americans and americans to lead

    November 1, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  27. deme Joseph

    P.S. if the females ruled, Romney would be seen for a lying jack rabbit long time ago. Women can see things men avoid all the time.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
  28. Wow

    All I can really say is WOW !!!

    November 1, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  29. deme Joseph

    After what I saw Romney do and say about FEMA and now trying to avoid questions about – How can anyone vote for that man. He is a YO YO. He has no idea what it takes to get this country up when it has fallen as the matter of the Storm. He was passing out can goods, these people need help man, the Red Cross is giving them food. He is a fool

    November 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      He was helping stack canned goods. What did you do?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Robert

        Actually he was holding a publicity stunt trying to reverse the damage of his 47% comment which painted him as an uncaring person. Also please remember his own words that he would do away with FEMA and send it back to the states. Even better he said if it was sent back to the private sector. I don't think the state of NJ has the means to handle what just happened without the help of the federal government.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          We'll never know, will we? NJ's portion of FEMA money never stayed and accumulated in NJ, did it? Nope, it all went straight to the Fed. Gov't.

          As for privatizing FEMA's current responsibilities – stupid idea.
          Giving it primarily to the states – brilliance.

          I think there should be some sort of monetary fund available for FEMA related disasters, which every state would chip into (a little bit) and be able to get back from in time of need, but for the most part... Nevada doesn't really need the overhead associated with Hurricane Disasters... Florida and Hawaii don't need the overhead of having disaster plans, in the event of a blizzard...

          just HAVING those plans in place costs overhead...

          Just making some sense here, people.

          November 2, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
  30. maltesefalconx9

    Here are some facts you may not have encountered.

    The smartest person in the United States (by 25 IQ points minimum) is female.
    55% of the voters as a national average are female.
    As a percentage of the national legislature, the number of women in the U. S. Congress ranks Amerika #70 out of 200.
    Women, on average, utter 5000 words per day; men 50% of that.

    You're big Amerika. And you are threatening. But are you good? No.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Norps

      If you are going to talk about how smart some are in relationship to others than you should at least learn to spell the name of the country you are saying those people live in. Its spelled America, unless you are talking about some fictitious place, of course.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • maltesefalconx9

        Nope.
        Amerika, Amerika, Amerika, Amerika, Amerika, Amerika, Amerika.
        The other reference is to the propaganda, schoolbook,JohnWayne-movie concept of what we are supposed to believe your country is. The real country with the thug-police, heroin addicts, police-controlled prostitutes, brainwashing, torture and the rest of the crap you mature adults think is necessary to protect a country with actually very little freedom is

        AMERIKA.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
        • Andrew James

          Actually America is a concept, an idea of freedom. Our forefathers created freedom on earth here and it has now spread to whatever country you hail from. Most likely American blood was spilled there. Your ability to spill this vomit is most likely based on something America has done for you. You know nothing of my country. We are not perfect, but at least we try.

          November 1, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
        • LUIS

          YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOUR WIFE IS SMARTER THAN YOU. IF YOU HATE THIS COUNTRY SO MUCH MOVED TO CUBA AND FIDEL WILL GIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR $125.00 PER MONTH AND GUESS WHAT NO FOOD STAMPS

          November 1, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
  31. law

    mitt has 5 sons,NONE have served their Country's military.I wonder WHY...?

    November 1, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charles Homme

      Your point?

      November 1, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • maltesefalconx9

      1. Doesn't pay enough.

      2. Maybe they would feel guilty about murdering another human being.

      3. The uniforms are dull, dull, dull.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Llandru

      That's a dumb comment. His kids have the same right as everyone else, to enlist or not. How could his children's choice of profession reflect AT ALL on his ability to lead this country?

      November 1, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarylandBill

      Not exactly fair. Neither Obama nor Romney haver served.. and no, Romney's sons have not served and I doubt Obama's daughters will (in the military). George H Bush was the last President to serve and I suspect that will remain true for some time.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kapt Amerika

        Instead of a "serving" debate let's talk about deferments; Rmoney 4, Obama 0, GWB – AWOL

        November 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • philliesphan1975

        I still find it strange that an actual war hero (John Kerry) was belittled and told that his heroics in Vietnam were lies by supposed conservative military loving people, when he was running against a man who joined the national guard to get out of fighting in the war. Could you imagine what they would have said if the roles had been reversed??

        November 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • LUIS

        BILLY, GEORGIE DID NOT SERVED IN THE REAL MILITARY, IS YOUR IMAGINATION HE WAS IN THE BOY SCOUTS .

        November 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill D.

      Umm, they don't care to?

      November 1, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • some chick

      They learned from their Dad.
      Dad Mitt slinked out of America to avoid going to Vietnam.
      romneys dont get their hands dirty , thats beneath them.
      Hard work is for low to middle classers like us and our kids.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Norps

        No, you have this wrong. In Mitt's vision of America, the low class people live in government funded apartments eating awful cookies they bought at the 7-11 with their government check. The only people who work are those in the middle class starting at the top 48-98%. Everyone else sits around in their section 8 housing waiting for the ambulance to come take them to emergency rooms where they can get the care they cant afford and leave the bill for people like him.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Better idea

      And what percent of adult males enter the military? Better yet, what percent of upper-middle class males enter the military? I bet you would find that something you argue should be a sure thing is probably not that likely to happen, even with a sample of 5 with the pool I described. So next I ask, if its so bad no Romney served, then why is it okay for Obama to never have served? Thank you for playing the "how can I make inane assertions without statistics to back anything up" game.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Thinks2010

        Personally I hope that one day we will only have Presidents who never served because we have not been involved in any wars in their lifetimes. I do have a problem with Mitt Romney, though, because he led pro-Vietnam War rallies while he was in college but never enlisted. He is the very definition of a chicken hawk. He is all for other people risking their lives for what he believes but is unwilling to put his skin in the game. I respect both those who support a war and serve, those who do not support a war but serve and those who do not support a war and do not serve (when serving is voluntary). I have no respect for those who are gung-ho in their support of a war and are perfectly able to serve but who have never served and opt not to serve in the war they advocate.

        November 1, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
  32. Uri Nation

    If mine and my wife's political views had such a wide gap, we would have never married.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • LUIS

      I GUESS YOU DON'T THE MEANING OF DIVORCED

      November 1, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Report abuse |
  33. ConvenientFace

    " Personally, she says she wouldn’t ever consider getting an abortion..." Why not? Consider the consequences of everyone practicing only a personal morality. For example:
    Personally I wouldn't ever consider murdering someone, but I don't want lawmakers making that decision for other people.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Uri Nation

      Read the Bible. The decision not to murder was made long ago and I don't understand why humanity doesn't abide by it. Those who don't will someday face their maker.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • 4moreyears

        That's the point not everyone believes in the same bible. You can shove your believes down another persons throat and think its right even if it is. No everyone serves the same GOD. Sad but true. What you are basically saying is that you want government to tell people what they should and shouldn't believe and if they don't then its against the law. Your bible and mine says it's a sin not a law. Stop interpreting the word to benefit you. Believe what you want but others should not be forced to your believes and yes I am a christian but I don't place judgement on any one.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Strategic Bob

      Your comparison makes no sense. A closer comparison, which also makes no sense but in a different way, would be a law which punishes attempted suicide by hanging. In fact, that used to be the law in England many years ago. But it also used to be the law in England that the punishment for stealing an apple or a loaf of bread was death by hanging. Even if the criminal was only a hungry child. Which only proves that the law can sometimes be an ass.

      The real issue in all of this is that the government has no right to pass laws that force some people to obey the dictates of a religion they don't profess. Laws which make it illegal to commit murder do not rely on religion for their basis – natural law is sufficient. Natural law is silent on the issue of abortion. And if you want to base your argument on religion, well the relevant commandment is "Thous shalt not kill." As worded, this is an absolute prohibition on killing. There is no asterisk which permits killing in self-defense or in defense of another or to defend your country or in punishment for a crime (or just for the hell of it if you live in Texas where the US Supreme Court-blessed attitude is "Innocent, schminnocent. The paper work is in order. Fry his ass!")

      Mankind, on the other hand, has found it necessary to carve out these kinds of exceptions to what appears to be an absolute god-imposed ban on killing. Man has also found it necessary to create "Just War Theory" to help differentiate between acceptable (to mankind but not to god) acts of war and those that are unacceptable.

      Mankind's rules for human behavior need to be workable in the real world, not based on your personal beliefs about what someone else should or should not do based on your belief in an imaginery god that is different than that other person's imaginery god.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • 4moreyears

        I totally agree with you. That's what's wrong with this country.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Norps

        Wow, good post, Bob. I couldn't have said it better.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        Bob,

        As usual a good post. I do take one exception to your posting though:

        "Natural law is silent on the issue of abortion."

        I have to disagree. I feel a pretty good definition (enough to suffice for objective discourse) would be:

        The abnormal and permanent termination of all biological processes of a living organism or entity.

        Stemming from that, we get to what an abortion is: Permanently halting the biological processes of a living entity that would otherwise continue.

        By taking direct action to alter the normal processes of that entity, we abnormally terminate that organism. That IS killing – just a different form. This would mean abortion falls under the same provisions as Killing.

        (as a side note: contraception is different. If a process hasn't started, it can't be stopped, can it? )

        November 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • loralee

      I can tell you why I said it and why I feel that way. Our baby boy, Matthew, died of SIDS at 3 monthsin 2003. It nearly destroyed me and our family. I do not look at it as quite the same thing but there is NO WAY I could terminate s pregnancy outside of rape or life threatening conditions. It is my choice and so I also can't see me making that decision for another women. Also, it may put light on all the commentary about why we stay together if we are so different and vocal about politics. For one *I* changed parties and many of my beliefs since we married....it happens. We're supposed to ditch our family for that? Nah. Also? I guess when you've faced the hell of burying a tiny and much loved baby in the groundand still made it out of the worst thing a parent can face and you're still together, disagreements about politics are just less daunting. If we can make it through that (and the considerable fallout) we can wade through anything....even politics. Thank you all for the interesting conversation....it's been pretty respectful for a news forum and very interesting. Happy election day! Loralee Choate

      November 6, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
  34. BinaryTooth

    I call BS on this article. Total BS.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      Hi BinaryTooth, This is Lisa Desjardins who wrote the story. Could you be more specific?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Softship

        Oops – I bet nobody was reckoning with the author responsing.
        Love it!!!
        But I bet you won't get an answer.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
  35. USMCvet

    Republicansforobama dot org
    Where 30% of republicans are voting for Obama.

    Semper Fi

    November 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charles Homme

      If 30% of republicans are voting for Obama how many democrats are voting for Romney? 30% seems exceedingly high considering Romney leads in most likely voter polls.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • LUIS

        I GIVE YOU A HINT MAYBE 5%

        November 1, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • usmcmom

      Yea – right... Romney carries 356 endorsements by the retired veteran general to Obama's 5 endorsements... Sure.... 30% of the republicans are voting for Obama... maybe 30% of Obama's 5 military veteran endorsements that is. The rest of us who have sons fighting in Afghanistan would not trust obama to shine our boys shoes, much less care about their lives. Lybia is not the only place where he has denied help when our guys are under fire.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dane

        Obama didn't deny help....it was the do nothing Congress that sat on the funding for embassies and refused to vote on it, so they could continue their march to pass the most extreme anti-woman, anti-child, anti-education bills in history. And a vote for Romney is going to put us in a ground war in Iran (most likely with Russia, since they said they would back them). In the debate he kept repeating 'centrifuges' over and over..just like Bush did with his 'case for war'.

        November 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Robert

        Thanks to your son for being in our military. I am proud of our troops. I also want them to come home just as I am sure that you do more so than many others in this country. I trust Obama to not prolong the war and also not start a new one. Can you say the same about Romney?

        November 1, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • LUIS

        YOU FORGOT WHO FOUND BIN LADEN A REAL COMMANDER IN CHIEF NOT THE BOY SCOUT WHO WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • JohnCRoberts

      Really, how about Semper Veritas.

      30% really? nice one, nice try. Maybe you should count it after the election.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
  36. East Coast

    I am so glad that we don't argue at all, let alone about politics. How stupid.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  37. USMCvet

    Exactly. It's Kevin (and his ilk) who doesn't get it. Well said.

    November 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Kapt Amerika

    This is why we should end women's suffrage NOW!

    November 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Democrat and Proud of it.

      It is attitudes like yours Mein Fuherr that are sinking this country.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sum1234

      Maybe you should look up the definition of suffrage

      November 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charlotte

      Kapt, you want some ketchup with them billy goats?

      November 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Naomi Wolf

      Repeal the 19th Amendment! Women "think" with their hormones. They are toxic to democracy.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Strategic Bob

        women think with their hormones? well, that would put them at least two up on Republican men, who don't think at all!!!!!

        November 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • CheckMate

          If you were so stratigic, you would have noticed that without the Republicans taking the house and keeping Reed, Pelosi and Obama from the spending spree they were on, we would be $20 Trillion in Debt! You idiots on the left think money grows on trees. This country is going to be in the same boat as Greece one of these days and people like you will have no where to run and will have to face the facts of the need to balance the check book!

          November 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          Bob... come on now, this is below your usual posting quality.

          btw, I'm a man, voting Republican this year... I wouldn't say I'm a Republican Man – but your comment hits a little too close to home, this time – not on the thoughtlessness, but rather the target it's aimed at. I'll let you read over my other posts and determine how long and deep my thoughts are on everything – I expect them to hold up to decent scrutiny.

          November 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thinks2010

      Considering what a pathetic job the majority male Congress is doing, maybe we should end suffrage.

      November 1, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Thinks2010

        Typo alert–I meant to say " . . . end male suffrage." Does that idea sound stupid? Yes, just as stupid as saying women should not have the vote.

        November 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Judith

    I came from an extremely impoverished background, but all four of us siblings have always worked hard and provided for our families, but we are all strong Democrats, so it's an utter myth that we all depend on the government. However, we see Republicans standing with the rich and Corporations with little or no concern for ordinary workers. I am also female and though I never had an unintended pregnancy or abortion, I agree with the woman in the article that the choice belongs to the woman not to Republican men, so I could never vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • ImIrish

      Judith – I am a Conservative woman. I don't care one bit what you do with your body, but I do care about the baby you may carry.

      This election isn't about women's "rights". It's about the economy. If you want to get back on track, vote for Romney. Obama will continue to ruin our economy.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • AMW

        I'm female, hispanic and voting republican. I agree, this election is about the economy.... not about abortions.

        November 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
        • Free Thinker

          The economy will recover. We'll be living with the next president's Supreme Court appointees and their interpretation of the Constitution FOREVER.

          November 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • A Godbodian

          If you are going to say that abortions have nothing to do with the economy that's YOUR right... but just because IT'S a right does not make you CORRECT.

          Children are the most significant expense any individual can undertake roughly costing the average parent $8,000 a year per child. Now the FACTS are that regardless of race children born out of wedlock are rarely that parent's last child. So that $8K that's works out to be $240K over 20+ years USUALLY gets doubled so that's a half of a million dollar liability per person that has the average of children.
          We all know our population is broken up into those that can afford and those that can't. The safety net we provide as a country is for ALL it's inhabitants because trust when Republicans are in trouble they know PRECISELY where to get "assistance". Mr. Romney, Republican Presidential candidate is the product of welfare. Google welfare and his father.

          My point is that if you force irresponsible people to be responsible with no room for error you in the long run cost yourself more than if you overtime initiated them into your system.

          It's Economics 101. All of the issues are connected and tied to one another in synthesis.

          November 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mandy

          Yeah right, Romney has changed his views a hundered tiimes...therefore you are voiting for someone who is lost and confused...such as yourself

          November 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
        • 4moreyears

          I sure hope you are an American Citizen bc if not be prepared to self deport. Don't forget about the getting rid of the Dreamers Act it's a goner also. Don't you know you are part of the 47% and the fact that the man lies and can't stick to one position in a day doesn't bother you is scary.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • Softship

          The economy is already recovering. It will continiue to recover under Obama. Just as it would under Romney.
          Only Obama will care about 100% of the country while Romney will forget about at least 47%, if not 99 % of it.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jim

        Since you care about her hypothetical baby will you be paying to raise it, educate it, and feed it too?

        November 1, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jo

        The economy? You must be kidding! What will happoen to the economy when families can't afford to pay for birth control and it is not offered through their employers? What are the increased number of unplanned children in this country going to do to the economy? The economy does much better when women are able to plan their families. This is not only a women's issue – it is a men's issue also.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • some chick

        Thats the trouble with conservatives.....ALWAYS telling people what to do, how to
        vote..ect......
        Mind your own business , ImIrish, quit forcing your beliefs on others.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • 4moreyears

        Yes it is about women's rights and its part of the economy story. What is wrong with you. Don't you know that a woman having the right to make choices for herself plays a roll in what type of job she will have. What about equal pay?? We give all that up and guess what we have employers not hiring us because we want to have children or maybe not wanting to pay us what they pay a man even if we are more educated and highly qualified. Most of the time more qualified then a man. So for you to say it's not about a women's right YOU ARE SO WRONG. WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU LIVING IN?????

        November 1, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
        • Equal Pay for Equal Work

          There are 6 figure jobs available without any experience or education pumping oil in North Dakota. Any woman that would like to take an equal job and receive equal pay is welcome to do so.

          November 1, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Free Thinker

      ImIrish – So a woman is only a vessel for carrying a baby and has no say over what happens to her body? Explain to me again how Republicans want smaller government. Forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby is the ultimate intrusion of government into an individual's private life. If we have no control over our own bodies, then we have no rights AT ALL. If science can figure out how to separate an embryo from a woman and make it viable without her support, great. Until then - no one tells me what to do with my body. You'd better believe that if men were the ones who could become pregnant, this would not be an issue. Birth control would be handed out free on street corners and abortion would be accepted without a thought.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • khekking

        "Forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby..." well, since you phrase it that way, how about trying to see it THIS way: why should a woman CHOOSE to become impregnated (let's omit pregnancy due to rape, the statistics on that are negligible) and then EXPECT paid-for health services, DEPEND ON federal funding if she decides to have an abortion, and DEMAND the right to terminate the human life growing within her without any consideration of the rights of that individual?

        November 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jennifer

          Oh yes, because these women are 'choosing' pregnancy all by themselves, right? Where is the rage for the men that just get on the move. Let me guess, you are male and there is 100% chance you will never be pregnant. That means you don't have a dog in this fight, so politely piss off. Thank you.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
        • adrrrrea

          @ khekking
          As a victim of rape/incest that became pregnant at 14 because my uncle raped me I would like you to understand that abortion is not always about killing babies. Also based on your insensitive and completely out of touch response I assume you are not a rape, incest, or sexual assault victim so you have absolutely no idea what it is like for tens of thousands of women across the world who become pregnant as a result of rape and incest. Take your pro life bullshit to a support group for young girls and women who have had to abort fetuses as a result of incest and rape. I attend one weekly and members of my group include an 11 year old girl, two thirteen year old girls, and even a woman in her fifties. Try telling an 11 year old girl whose father raped her that she is a baby killer for aborting a fetus that her own father impregnated her with.
          AND YES THOSE STATISTICS ARE ACCURATE: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

          In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped in the Unites States.8 According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.

          And and as a child protective services social worker I can assure you that these numbers have nearly doubled since 2005 so lets not "omit those numbers because they are so negligible"
          God help us that there are people like you living in our country.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • jloren

      Irish and Judith,
      Irish, abortion and birth control are economic issues. If you do not understand that, read up on Octomom. How many children a woman has, whether with a partner or not, has a huge economic effect on her life.
      I was raised in East LA, worked hard and have a very nice life, but with that said, I didn't build it myself.
      With that said, I have grown a great distain for the Republican ignorance, talibangelical ideologies, their love for big business and distain for normal people.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Report abuse |
  40. DMJ

    WOW! Am I really that terrible? I am a female Republican. I am a Gulf War veteran who put herself thru college while serving. I was permanently injured while serving my country (So selfish of me!). I am adopting 2 kids from foster care because I believe in helping those that cannot help themselves. I donate my money and time to clothing drives, hospice, and women's shelters. (Such a heartless republican demon!). I help with my brother's utilities because he is too poor to pay them. Yes, I believe in God. I do not want to impose my religion on others, but I strongly object to others imposing their beliefs on me or my church. I think that everyone should take personal responsibility and not expect others to bail them out. Therefore, I believe that if you choose to have sex, you also choose to accept the risks, whether that be disease or pregnancy – the result of your choice is your financial responsibility, not mine or the Governments (Is this really so unreasonable?). I believe that parents must teach their children ethics, morals and responsibility thru example (Is this belief antiquated?). I believe that if one person has to follow rules, everyone must follow the rules – so if someone from Asia/Europe has to wait 3 years to get a work visa to the US, then everyone, regardless of race, gender or nationality, should have the same wait – so unfair, I know. I believe that paying a fair share means paying the same percentage regardless of income – which DOES means those who make more pay more, BTW. I recycle as much as possible. I think owning a gas-guzzling SUV when a car will do is economically and environmentally irresponsible. I believe in paying one's debt. I believe in being prepared for emergencies, so I'm a member of my community emergency response team. I have friends who are democrats – I love them, I just don't agree with them. I have friends whose lifestyle choices I don't agree with (straight and gay) – I still love them, and would never shun them or call them names. I have family who truly need help – I help them. I have family who are able to help themselves but want a handout instead – I choose not to enable them (There I go being heartless again!). Again, back to personal responsibility. And despite most posts on this blog, I believe it is possible to have a political discussion without calling the other person names.

    I also believe that insulting people just because they disagree with you makes you a bully.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • MGW

      Well said DMJ. I wish more Americans would be like you.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Goodguy6410

      Perfectly stated. Honestly, I don't how or why people could argue with this simple and sensible vision of how we should act and treat others. But somehow, they do.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      If everyone was like you we'd be in pretty good shape without big government. The reality is their not. It's our collective responsibility to feed & house the poor. At least that's what Jesus said.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        exactly. it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY – not Big Government's. Cut out the taxes I have to pay into social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc... and I'll donate most of that to charities – because I'll be able to AFFORD to. And by donating to American Red Cross, Catholic Charities, United Way, Habitat for Humanity, and many more, I'll be donating to more efficient social care organizations than our wasteful Big Government – so that money will go farther and help more people. That's a WIN – WIN!

        November 6, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • K-one

      Honestly, based upon your description of yourself, you should be voting for Obama. Perhaps you should look into whether Romney really stands by your views, (although it's difficult to tell since he lies and waffles so much). I think you would find that he does not– especially not the part where those who make more give anymore or where we should be charitable to the less fortunate.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charlotte

      Wow, someone is suffering from delusions of superiority.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        what part of that is "superior"? Are you trying to say you fall so far below that reasonable expectation for all citizens?

        November 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • javaleo

      You believe “that everyone should take personal responsibility and not expect others to bail them out.” Yet you also believe in “helping those that cannot help themselves.” OK. Who decides who is someone that “cannot help themselves” and someone who wants a “handout”. You have to be fair in the choice, and government tries to, it is not perfect, but it is better than letting someone who “may” feel like helping. You help your bother because “he is poor”. Why? Maybe he just wants a “handout”. Only you know. That model doesn’t work for the country as a whole. What about people who have no family to help them? What about people who’s whole family is poor?
      I don’t disagree with most of your statements.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • DMJ

        I help my brother because he is mentally handicapped, and unable to get any job over minimum wage. I also help those who don't have family, thru my donations and charity work by giving food and clothes. If I understand you correctly, you expect Government to take the roll that was traditionally held by religious institutions – that of providing charity to the poor. I don't mind that you disagree, but I notice you really didn't give me a reason why you disagree.

        Plus, I think you missed my main point – Republicans are not all self-centered heartless capitalists who care nothing about themselves. Many are good, caring people who just have a different point of view.

        November 1, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
        • klur

          I absolutely believe that Republicans are not selfish, heartless demons. I used to be a Republican. Unfortunately, your Republican candidate for president promotes selfish, heartless policies in the guise of being against "big government" while they are promoting intrusive legislation that will influence our personal decisions.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • some chick

      anything else dmj ? What about your favorite color?

      Me me me , I I I , all bout you . Self centeredness at its best.
      Everyone in the world has their own opinion. None of us are alike.
      Yes, you too have your own thoughts and beliefs....congrads.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer

      Here is the rub: No matter how much you lecture, no matter how you "think" the world should be, it will never be the way you want. People are free to make their mistakes no matter their leanings. You can not legislate morality. If you do, we are no longer a democracy, but a theocracy. Painting all girls that become pregnant is perpetuating a tired stereotype. As a woman, you should know better. I am an Independent voter, but I realize that some people do not have the resources that others do. That is what the social safety net is for. And if a woman makes a mistake (because you know, even so-called "moral" women make mistakes every now and then), they should have the right to make a choice over their body and future. America does not state only freedom for the moral, only freedom for the financially sound, but rather freedom for ALL.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • some chick

      brag much?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bentley

      DMJ, I agree with you in so far as we should all be responsible citizens. I feel that this is a great theory but, not always reality. I support equal rights, note that equal rights are not always the same rights, I support same sex civil unions not same sex marriage. The financial and tax benefits are the same but, the church has a right to marriage. I don't think anyone should be on welfare longer than 4 yrs.That is plenty of time to get a trade, vocation or degree. I think a 10% flat tax for all is fair. Many Americans are passionate regarding their right to carry weapons that can kill fellow humans, I am passionate about carrying a health card that can cure fellow humans. I might have an abortion under certain circumstances....I really don't know but, I wan't that choice for myself, my daughter and grandaughters.We don't sterilize "dead beat Dad's" although maybe we should.......can you imagine the uproar from the male population if the government interfered with their bodies??? I think we need a leader that has the compassion, kindness and empathy required while having a backbone of pure steel so I will vote for President Obama. May we all enjoy good health and prosperity.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      I certainly don't think you're a bad person, but you are young and overly confident and foolish. You served your country, became disabled and are now getting a check each month, and your healthcare paid for. You, my dear, are part of the 47% dependent on our taxes. The children you adopted are living off of them as well. I believe you deserve your check, but don't think it is not a wefare check paid by the people. Under Romney, you and many others covered under disability, could face huge cuts. The VA is slated for massive budget cuts, and you will have voted for it.

      November 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Jim

    We gave woman the right to vote, so my women vote the way I say. 🙂 I wish, she actually tells me and then we choose on our own. haha

    November 1, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  42. maltesefalconx9

    Furthermore, Amerikan men are garbage. Go ahead and vote Republican. Who cares.
    Your country is worthless garbage. You are torturing, murdering scum.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Goodguy6410

      If our country is worthless scum, then why are you reading our news articles? You must see some value. Personally, I think you are a provocateur looking for a reaction. You must have a lot of time on your hands.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
  43. sajj

    All I hear is Lberal and Conservative from people and the media. What about the rest of us. There may still be a few people like the simpleton label liberal or conservative. Alot of times it is used in a derogatory way. It makes the hair on the back of my head stand up when I here those words. Maybe I don't have a strong need to identify myself, or maybe I am just a lone voice.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
  44. wizard

    "Personally, she says she wouldn’t ever consider getting an abortion, but she doesn’t want lawmakers making that decision for other women." By that logic, one can say "Personally, I would never own a slave, but I don't want lawmakers making that decision for other men." Remind you of any arguments someone may have used about...oh, say 150 years ago?

    November 1, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Denise

      Not even close! One has everything to do with my own body, the other has to do with someone else's civil rights

      November 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • USMCvet

        Exactly! Instead of trying to reason with these kinds of guys who don't seem to get it, ask them if they want women to start controlling their bodies and their reproductive organs and see how much backlash you get. They just can't seem to grasp the concept of dirty ol' white men who want to control women's bodies, but not give thought to how men would feel if women controlled men's bodies. That should shut 'em up!

        November 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • wizard

        The problem with your statement, Denise, is that there are TWO bodies involved. The fetus should also have civil rights. You're choosing to say that a person doesn't have civil rights unless they reach a certain age (~40 weeks after conception). What if I choose to say that civil rights should only extend UP TO a certain age (maybe 80 years)? I now have the right to kill anyone over 80...especially if they inhibit my right to "happiness". BTW, I like the fact that you replied to my statment without resorting to name-calling and childish antics, unlike Jiml777. Gracias por la etiqueta, amiga :-).

        November 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • CharlesJR

        OK. Try this one: "I would never personally shoot drugs into my veins, or sniff it up my nose, but I don't want the government telling OTHERS what they can and can not do to their bodies."

        Be kinda fun to see the argument be just as passionate on THAT front.

        November 1, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jiml777

      Terrible analogy! She wouldn't do something, but respects other peoples freedoms and your comparison, she respects an individuals freedom, but not freedom for all people. Where were you educated, if you were educated at all? Are you sure your handle is complete, shouldn't it be Grand Wizard?

      November 1, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • women matter

      The part you seem to be missing is that a fetus cannot survive on its own until somewhere during the third trimester. Until then, it is completely dependant on the body of the mother to survive. This means that a woman carrying a pregnancy to term that she does not want or choose, makes her nothing more than an incubator. (Perhaps you can see why your slavery comparison doesn't really make sense). To suggest that the growing fetus is more important than the physical and emotional health of the woman carrying it is insulting and disturbing. I also am not a fan of abortion but so long as our society places ALL of the burden of an unplanned preganancy on the woman, I too will continue to support CHOICE. At the end of the day, that decision is best left up to a woman, her doctor and her God.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Farmwife1974

        Amen! Very well stated!!!!!!!!! If men want to tell us what to do with our bodies, maybe women should have the right to tell them to have vasectomies. No one has the right to dictate what a woman does with her body. It is between her and her God.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        then why do we arrest people who kill babies? A baby can't take care of itself for at least the first 18 months of life... so up to that point is fair game for baby killing? You're a sicko if that's your metric.

        "our society places ALL of the burden of an unplanned preganancy on the woman" .... what are you talking about? Never heard of PATERNITY tests and child care support? I work with a guy who's had a rough go of it because his girlfriend stopped her birthcontrol and punctured their condoms, just to keep him. he's in a SH _ _ HOLE because of her and it's his word vs hers.... so he pays the child care support which includes her rent and the rent of her boyfriend AND their child's child care.... neither one of them work – and the whole of society burdens women? you are completely wrong.

        November 6, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • wizard

      All I'm saying is the logic of that argument is flawed. It's incomplete. The use of the idea that we shouldn't have laws that tell other people what to do is ludicrous. Murder is a perfect example. There is no basis for the idea that murder is wrong. It's simply a consensus that our society has adopted. I think it's time to sign off though. I'll leave you with a hypothetical conversation and see if any of you can draw the connections.
      Person 1: I think those shoes are too big for you.
      Person 2: Yes, but the sweater has no sleeves.
      Good day :-).

      November 1, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Francesca

        Murder is illegal because a society does not work if people kill each other, same can be said about stealing and most laws that protect people and property. These cases are not legislating morality simply setting rules that make it so a society can function. Abortion is a different issue, because no matter what side of the issue you fall on the fact remains that a society does not stop functioning if abortion is legal as shown by many countries that have legalized it.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          society wouldn't stop functioning if people killed each other. The fact is that it happens every day, multiple times, the country wide. and yet our society is still "functioning". You have completely missed the point. You are so far off that I question whether your ignorance is willful or not – because your statement is completely and unequivocally wrong. Anyone who has ever seen a news report in the last [how many decades] knows you are wrong.

          November 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Softship

      A woman should also have a say in what happens to her body. Hence, no comparison works.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Cowboy

    I am pretty open-minded generally. I voted for Obama last time around, but I'll be switching to Romney this time. Mostly because neither is totally in favor of getting the government our of our business–Romney on personal and social issues, Obama on freedom in the marketplace. Therefore, a wash there. The important aspect I see in the next 4 years that must be addressed are fiscal in nature–e.g., dealing with the deficit, job creation, and taxes. These issues will necessarily involve significant investment by whomever is in charge of dealing with them. I do not see the kind of dedication from Obama on these issues that I would see, for example, in the health care context. I think Romney has the capacity and passion to deal with those issues head-on. Just my thoughts.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • USMCvet

      With the Senate going to the Democrats, even if Romney is elected, he won't be able to do anything. Your optimism of what Romney will be able to accomplish giving he would govern a divided government is confusing.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      I thnk that "capacity and passion" would not compell me to sell a stock that I purchased four years ago that has just started to generate ROI. But that is my thoiught. The pragmatist in me says that Mr. Romney is a hi risk albeit possible hi yield investment, the junk bond of american politics so to speak. I'll play it safe in these uncertain times and stick with the path set on 4 years ago.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • JamesB

      I am pretty open minded also, but I take issue with your logic because I see Romney as unreliable based on his shifting positions, as well as his lack of concern for "normal" people. I'm a republican. I'm not part of the 1%, but am educated and well compensated. I like what General Colin Powell said when he endorsed President Obama in the 2012 election in a Thurs. Oct. 25 CBS This Morning interview with Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell. In revealing his decision, the former Secretary of State under Republican George W. Bush, and retired four-star general spoke at length on his reasons for making the decision as well as offering his assessment of the President’s first term in office.
      “I voted for him in 2008 and I plan to stick with him in 2012 and I’ll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month.”
      Powell explained his choice to Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell:
      When he took over, the country was in very, very difficult straits. We were in the one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression. The fiscal system was collapsing. Wall Street was in chaos, we had 800,000 jobs lost in that first month of the Obama administration and unemployment peaked a few months later at 10 percent. So we were in real trouble. The auto industry was collapsing, the housing was start[ing] to collapse and we were in very difficult straits. And I saw over the next several years, stabilization come back in the financial community, housing is now starting to pick up after four years, it’s starting to pick up. Consumer confidence is rising.”
      Summarizing the past four years under Obama, Powell said “Generally we’ve come out of the dive and we’re starting to gain altitude.” He acknowledged that problems remain, saying “The unemployment rate is too high, people are still hurting in housing but I see that we’re starting to rise up.”
      In my opinion, this accurately and appropriately sets forth a reasoned decision to stay the course. I will vote for Obama, and ask you to reconsider in light of Colin Powell's reasoning.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • ImIrish

      Yep, sorry we don't believe that you are a Republican.

      I am a Conservative, and both my husband and I are voting for Romney. This country is a mess in so many ways.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • USMCvet

        When did the mess start?

        November 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          arbitrary question. Things started back in the 60's (if history has any accuracy to it). A great deal of the collapse of our current economy is due to the Housing Bubble – which was caused by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Clinton's administration).

          But depending on what you mean by your question... you could be referring to the polarization of our political system. If so, that was caused by Newt...

          so depending on what you mean, there's plenty culpability to spread around between both parties. (note that both the FHEFSSA and Newt issues cited occurred in the early to mid 90's... but there are other issues that go back further)

          I know it's a 1/2 hearted response, but it's a question with so many esoteric answers...

          November 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • John

        Question is if it became a mess because of Obama, now I can believe that the carter years were a mess: hostage situation, stagflation the mailaise speech etc. but I can't say the same for this president..

        November 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • USMCvet

        republicansforobama dot org.

        And I misspoke. It is closer to 30% of republicans are voting for Obama.

        READ. LEARN.

        November 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Democrat and Proud of it.

        Didn't the mess begin under a Repukelikan?

        November 1, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
        • Strategic Bob

          Yes. And it was because that Repukelican stuck close to Republican ideas about the role of government. Next question.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          Nope. Bill Clinton is a Democrat.

          The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 was passed during Clinton's time in office.

          November 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • katroxx

      Cowboy, please consider how intertwined the economy is with issues that some consider "social" .... my husband and I own a small business and our biggest expense is healthcare. It is sucking all our disposable income from business investments like more computers and office renovation. Obama is the first President who has addressed this issue and the next phase of the new healthcare legislation will finally introduce some real competition into the health insurance marketplace here in Minnesota by enabling 2 nonprofit health insurers to sell insurance here. Currently the 6 or so companies doing business here fix their pricing, and our health insurance premiums have gone up over 500% since we started our business in 1999. It is no coincidence that CEOs like the one at United Healthcare take home pay packages of 100million plus. Lack of competition has enabled the insurance companies to grab us all by the throat. That is bad for all business, because they take a disproportionate amount of money out of the economy for their own profits. That's money we can't spend elsewhere with other businesses. What will happen if Romney/Ryan is elected? The repeal of Obamacare (to us that's a positive term) and the status quo remains: no competition in the health insurance marketplace and no end in sight for the outrageous growth of healthcare costs. Romney does not grasp the fact that not addressing healthcare is the biggest disaster for our economy and our future. It's certainly hurting our business. And putting people back to work? We see that issue very clearly too, because our success has come from constant learning of new technologies. The only solution to unemployment/underemployment is education because the economy has changed radically in the past decade and people must learn technology or face a future with no economic security. We are voting for Obama, and I hope you reconsider and vote for him too.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
  46. USMCvet

    I'm a republican and a 3rd generation US Marine. I am voting for Obama. My wife is also voting for Obama.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • wizard

      Nobody really believes you're a Republican or a Marine...not if you're voting for Obama. That's like saying you're straight but you're having an affair with another man. There's nothing wrong with being either, but don't try to misrepresent yourself. If you're voting for Obama, then you are a Democrat...at least at this point in time.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • PJ

        There are those in the military supporting President Obama – I know because we have one in our family, and another veteran in our family who will be voting for President Obama. We have Republicans in our family voting for the President but no Democrats voting for Romney.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
        • USMCvet

          LOL! First of all I could care less what other people think. LOL!! They don't know what war is and never have. They don't put food on my table or support my family. Why should I care what someone on here thinks? Second, apparently these same people on this board have never gone to republciansforobama dot org to find out that 20% of republicans are voting for Obama.

          Thanks for playing!!!!

          Semper Fi

          November 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • thry56

        I am a veteran and am voting for Obama and voted for him the last election. Half of the people I served with are also voting for Obama. When Romney says he is pro-military, he means he is pro-war. When Obama says he is pro-military, he introduces legislation to help veterans with PTSD and supports funding for helping women veterans. I was and am more than willing to serve and die for this country but I will be damned if I will support a man like Romney who is willing to sacrifice me for more money.

        November 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
        • Serious Person

          I commend you for pointing out the distinctions in military support. Sure Romney wants to pour more money in to the military, but that money will go to his buddies, the private contractors and businesses, not the enlisted. There is a big distinction that many miss there. All military spending is not the same and it's a key distiction.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Strategic Bob

        wizard, I wore the uniform for 34 years and I am voting for Obama. or more correctly, I am voting against the anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-truth, anti-responsible government joke that the Republican party has become. I have voted for Republicans in the past, but not again until the brain-dead elements of the party have been banished.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • B nutty

      Please don't call yourself a Republican if you plan of voting for the someone who is completely the opposite of what republicans stand for. It makes you look like a idiot.

      November 1, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Report abuse |
  47. Houston

    Just voted and came. I voted obama and my wife voted for republicans. Her logic give other liar a chance as we already gave one liar one chance. Well I guess i cannot disagree with that argument

    November 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  48. Martin Walters Seattle

    I am grateful that Mitt Romney's wife has had access to healthcare for her severe chronic illness. I am NOT going to vote for her husband who will take my healthcare access away by killing Obamacare. I have a wife too. Under Obamacare, private healthcare insurance is accessible.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • ImIrish

      Romney will not take away your access to health care, but keep lying. Somebody might believe you.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
  49. dotdashx4

    Bear in mind, the husband in question is not conservative, he is Libertarian. That means he will be voting for Gary Johnson, not Mitt Romney. This article is poorly written.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • kidding right?

      quite the assumption you are making. even though he is pictured at a Romney Rally.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      Hi dotdashx4,

      This is Lisa who wrote, edited and reported the story. Actually Jonathan told me that he had not made up his mind 100%. He is Libertarian and he is leaning toward Gary Johnson. But it would not have been accurate of me to say that he had made up his mind and was voting Johnson. I conveyed what he told me.

      In addition, I asked him how he would vote if he were in a swing state, where his vote for Johnson would more clearly hurt Romney and help Obama. He answered that in that scenario, he would definitely vote for Romney.

      November 1, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Danny

    I'm very moderate. I see valuable opinions from both sides, as well as some lousy ones. But, I feel that the Republicans that were in the House when Obama was elected should be considered traitors to the USA. Why? Because on day 1, they said " we will do everything in our power to make him a 1 term president". Where I come from, that would be considered premeditated. No jail or any other corporal punishment though. Just get them fired and loose their benefits.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • single mom

      Kind of hard to be part of the process when the newly elected president tells you "I won, you lost, we don't need you.' Then blocks you from any talks or participation on health care, budget, etc.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Too True

        Not to mention the health care law that Obama shoved down the throats of all Americans while exempting all politicians. I guess what is good for all Americans is not good enough for any politician.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jackson

        To Single Mom:

        Obama has never said that. This is the problem with republicans. They attack a "make believe Obama' and if you don't take the time to check the facts, then you will be fooled as well and this is exactly what the republicans are counting on ..... they want you to be uninformed. My wife and I are republicans, but we read the facts and have already voted for Obama! You should as well!

        November 1, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • BAMAWIL

        You are wrong. Obama tried to get support from the other side but they didn't want to help. Thats what took the bill so long to go through because he was trying to get support instead of pushing down their throats

        November 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tired of the falsehoods

        Source please. The constant and deliberate misinformation is a major part of the problem. If you won't be part of the solution, at least stop causing problems.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gerry

      President Obama had two years to get stuff done for this country. He made a lot of promises and didn't keep them He promised the hispanic voters that he would solve the immigration problem for all of the illegals in this country. He had two years with the democrats having control of both the House and the Senate. He did nothing until here recently, with his reeltion coming up when he made it possible for the illegal students going to college to stay. Perfect timing don't you think? Where are the notes from his meetings regarding how to create jobs? He has none. His own cabinet members say that he has held none for a while. I think it was for the last 6 months. Can we afford another 4 years with the same do nothing leadership? Let a businessman run the country. Maybe is should be run somewhat like a business, with a budget.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Erica

        Actually, the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof majority during Obama's term. Just because they had a majority did not mean they could push through anything they wanted.

        Republicans filibustered CONSTANTLY. It was all over the news during the first two years... how is it that so many people don't remember this?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • RapidOne

      Very well said.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
  51. watchman247

    Do you know what will have the biggest impact on your future regardless of who wins this election? YOU. Work hard, live on LESS than you make and save. When it comes to policy, just make sure the policy in your own home works for your family.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gerry

      My policy is work hard for what I have. My parents couldn't afford to pay my way through college. Instead of complaining and asking the government and others to help, I worked 37-40 hours aweek, every week through college. My first BA in took me 5 years to accomplish in 1985. During that time I got married and we had a baby girl. My 2nd BA in education took me another year and a quarter. I took out a few student loans. I am not wealthy, but I am not poor. Five years ago, while I taught full time I also went to college for my Masters of Education. If people want to go to college there are always ways to do it. AQll we need to do is work hard.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Bob

    I'm a republican white male. I'm voting republican and I've ordered my wife to do the same.

    After she cooks my dinner.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • P Mille

      If you told me that you might want to reconsider eating that meal! Your right to vote your conscience does not supersede hers to do the same.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • USMCvet

        I would not order my wife to cook me dinner; or anything. I have 1/2 a brain. I respect her as a woman and the mother of my children. She also knows how to use a gun...as she TOO is a US Marine.

        Semper Fi

        November 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
        • wizard

          Glad you two know how to use guns. If Obama is elected, there's a good chance you won't have access to them unless you're still in the military.

          November 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • RapidOne

          Says wizard - another bigot with no proof or substance for what he says. Disgusting–doesn't even know how asinine he is.

          November 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tired of the falsehoods

        Sometimes my wife likes it when I issue an order...

        November 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • ModernMan

      Atta boy Bob!

      November 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Democrat and Proud of it.

        Your name should be Neanderthal Man(or I think that is beyond your lexicon). Go back to your cave!!!

        November 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Democrat and Proud of it.

      You are a PIG!!! Actually, I am insulting hogs. They produce delicious ham, bacon, and sausage. You are SICK!!!

      November 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Madeline M.P

    This sounds too familiar. My parents were faced with the same political situation as the couple in the article. My father would vote conservative while my mother voted more liberal. They would get into arguments any time politics was discussed with my dad trying to convince my mom through the logic of religion (imagine that!) how important it was to vote with Republicans. Since my mom was fiery-tempered, these conversations would be followed by prolonged periods of silence when neither one wanted to talk to the other. One time, mom told me that she never told my dad how she voted so that they didn't get into more arguments. She just didn't want to waste a good, solid family disagreement on back & forth political drivel.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Get_Real

    Economy is more global than ever before and goes in cycles. You want to create jobs, create demand for services and products. What's the cost of a full time position with a decent wage/salary/benefits and can you get there with a tax cut? Why would a business hire someone full time if there's no demand for their product/service even with a tax cut? If I'm running a business, I'm worried about profit, that's the bottom line – a concrete, objective measure of success. I would just say thanks and pocket the money. The wealthy is not hurt by the economy, the middle class has. Give a tax break to the middle class and they're more likely to spend it and keep it in the country.
    People talk about regulations. Don't forget most of those regulations are/were reactions to to adverse events. Check out the history of FDA. If all the businesses did the right thing and didn't cut corners for the almighty profit, may be we could get by with lot fewer regulations. Unfortunately, people being people, the almighty dollar stands in the way of ethics, morals and principles.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
  55. Matthew

    My future wife is a more of a Romney fan than I am so not all girls lean left. I live in the south though and a lot of women here are anti-abortion and anti-gay rights because of religious values. I think this country is very divided on region. I do also notice that the Democrats tend to be anti-Southern and anti-Protestant by their nature.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • helicohunter

      ...Except for all of the Protestants who live in the South! Large southern cities are full of non-evangelical Democrats, both protestant and Catholic.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Matthew

        My state, Tennessee, is not even up for grabs for Democrats and we have Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga, all decent sized cities. It is so bad in my area (which is a county of over 100k citizens) that people have stopped even running as Democratic candidates. For the State house, the Republicans were unopposed.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Matthew

        I have lived in Alabama and Georgia as well. Only Miami and Atlanta out of the big southern cities are heavily Democrat. However, the statement about big cities is correct because if you go anywhere in the country including New York and California, the rural and suburban areas are usually Republican and the Urban areas are usually Democrat. Kind of interesting.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rednip

      Why do 'conservatives' make these outrageous claims about 'what liberals think'? Such talk is a basic logical fallacy.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • wizard

      So...if I'm "anti-murder", I must be religious, huh? There is no logical reason for murder to be illegal. Actually, killing a lot of people might save some of those trees about which the liberals are so worried. I mean, why would we want to save an actual human life when we can spend that energy on saving a tree or a polar bear? BTW, I'm not particularly religious...nor am I anti-religion. I accept that people have their beliefs, even the so-called atheists; I have my beliefs and they are not subject to any particular book.

      However, we have laws that state we should not kill innocent human beings. Humans are defined by a particular DNA; therefore, a human fetus is human. Since the fetus has not performed any type of illegal acts, it is innocent. Thus, killing a human fetus is killing an innocent human being. That is logic, not religion.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Erica

        Unfortunately, it is not so cut and dry.

        A human fetus completely relies upon the body of another to survive until at at least 27 weeks, last I checked. (And even then, very dangerous).

        Pregnancy and Labor are also very dangerous, despite what many think. Pre-eclampsia, lifelong diabetes, heart problems, aneurisms, surprise bleeds, etc.

        So the law has to weigh the rights of the mother (I.E. her right to determine how much danger she is willing to accept) vs the rights of a clump of cells that may or may not be able to self-sustain. *Miscarriage is VERY common, as are sudden natural abortions* When you take the emotional pull out of the situation, logic states that the woman should have control as it is her body, and her lifelong health affected. NOT the man's.

        Most Pro-Choice women will not choose to have Abortions. Fact. 70% of women who have abortions already have children and state they cannot fiscally support another. FACT.

        In times of economic good-health, abortion numbers actually go down. Abortions are not 'popular' until the economy drops, in which case women realize that financially a child would be disastrous. Not just to her, but to the family she already has. What's more important? The children already born, or the 'possible child' that is only a clump of cells with a heartbeat and rudimentary brain?

        THAT is why the issue is not black and white. There is very little 'right and wrong' when it comes to abortion, ethically speaking. When society is willing to pay those women to carry those children they don't want, when society is willing to pay the health bills for all of the lifelong problems that can arise from a pregnancy gone bad... THEN society can tell a woman that she loses bodily autonomy. And only then.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Report abuse |
  56. jackson

    The right is a bunch of paranoid delusion idiotic az holes... the asinine belief in the 'liberal media' is partial proof. I could care less how liberal a reporter is, editors and publishers are the ones who decide what goes out. and editors and publishers are business men. how is it that the right don't seem to understand that, unless its because they just want to live in a fantasy world where they're beset by all kinds of adversaries? Only in the USA could the rich feel they are the oppressed. ridiculous.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • B nutty

      No Jackson, you just agree with all of the liberal coverage so you don't notice, probably b/c you are too busy calling people "az holes" and assuming all people that are on "the right" are rich. You yourself would have to agree that Fox is not conservative, in order for you to not be a hypocrite. Plenty of posts from "the right" don't get posted on these comments, the "await moderation" and never get posted, or perhaps that almost all of the posts on here pro-obama just makes you think that everyone agrees with you and that you are a genius. I promise that is not the case. Do a little research "az hole".

      November 1, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Report abuse |
  57. John

    If I know anything and this goes for most husbands out there, if they want to "get laid" again they'll vote for Obama. : )
    and please don't freak out Romneyites.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matthew

      Not the case in the South. Most women are pro-Romney. Nearly all the Republican candidates for both State and Congress in my district are women. See my post. Heck, many African-Americans are voting Republican now because of the Matthew Sheppard law and the pro-gay policy of the Democrats have pushed many preachers to the right that would normally be Democrat. However, that is the South. I know when I go up north everyone leans left on the social issues.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • USMCvet

        But this is not sustainable. Number one, the right is losing 3% of it's base (white males every 3 years). The GOP is primarily based in the South. You can't keep winning major elections winning one region with outdated policies. Add to that, that republicans like me are having a hard time, staying with the party because it has become unbearable. The racism is so rampant in the GOP, it makes me want to vomit. As I see it, the GOP will either have to (continue) steal elections or stop alienating moderates. This "it's our way, or the highway" and "damned be anyone who disagrees with me/our party", is so very childish. I remember when my kids were very small.....this is how third graders act.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • John

        Wait Having a law criminnalizing beating up or killing a person because he or she is gay is a bad thing in the south? Wow!

        November 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • JJ1982

        Leave it to the south to lead the oppression of a fellow citizens civil rights and freedoms! Hmmm... seems like that has happened before? Only back then it was because the Bible said slavery was ok. Now its because the Bible condemns homosexuality.

        November 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tired of the falsehoods

      In the voting booth?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Mike

    Hello.

    In thinking about your question, it seems several others have already pointed out potential flaws in it (the gender gap exists for the Democratic party, too.) but I will give you some other thoughts. No such divide exists in our home, as my wife of 22 years and I share not only religious belief (practicing Catholics) but also what I call basic American fundamentalism. Definition: our families came from nothing, lower middle class with virtually nothing in the bank, but worked hard at their jobs and built equity in their homes, investments for their children and retirement. We owe our parents and grandparents a great deal. I can't ever remember a situation despite job loss and even serious illnesses where our family bemoaned some social program to rescue us from the street. Ever. I grew up in a four room apartment in Brooklyn NY and can't remember starving, ever. The food for thought here is we are in reality a middle class family of two parents and three kids, with an income bracket oddly teetering on what the POTUS and the Democratic party call "rich". Keep in mind we have three kids to put through college. Fortunately the first worked his tail off to earn a full scholarship, we have NOT applied for education loans, and will not. Yet for some reason the Democratic Party views my family as "the enemy" for earning too much money, and the remedy is to take more of my hard earned money away. The government's ever increasing size somehow always justifies more money to be appropriated from the private citizen to fund the public government's insatiable appetite for more tax revenue. The Democratic party should consider the strategy is fundamentally flawed. Why? The middle class is shrinking. The citizen families earning between $70K and $250K are leaving states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in droves, and have since 2006. Why? The tax base in those states has continued to soar, especially property taxes. Those states cited above are losing huge chunks of tax revenue because those families have judged (correctly) they will have more disposable income in states more business friendly, less regulated, and not overly taxed. their job prospects are about equal since even with lower population the business already looking to move there have eyes on the same conditions good for the families themselves. Example: Boeing moving operations to South Carolina. Keep in mind those states have to find more tax revenue to close budget deficits. Will more money flow from the federal government? Perhaps but not likely, as the trillions in federal deficits don't bode well to provide relief from those shortfalls. I've droned on long enough, but I think your article makes some assumptions that don't necessarily hold. One is that every married couple in America fights over politics. True in some cases, but not necessarily the majority, as much as the Democratic party might enjoy hearing. In fact, if that assumption was correct, why has Mitt Romney closed some of the so-called gender gap in the past 60 days? Does reproductive health and abortion define every woman's entirety of thought prior to voting? Last I looked women are heads of lots of households, business owners, professionals like physicians and attorneys, etc. Surely they have similar concerns their male counterparts do with respect to a stalled economy and a healthcare plan set to bankrupt the country. Surely they have concerns about their job stability, how their employers will react to a new round of elevated taxes on businesses and choking regulations like the President pencil whipped through and single handedly murdered the coal industry. Surely the wives of those men losing their jobs have opinions about the Democratic party irrespective of the favorite topic in the public narrative, sexual health. Lisa I could go on and on, but will leave you with this last thought: I have more than one friend who is gay, and they have confided to me privately that they despise what this POTUS and the Democratic party platform is trying to do: manipulate people's fears that their rights will be violated if a new President is elected and the economy somehow improves and is fixed. How that translates into jeopardizing civil rights and/or liberties is a non-sequitur. They see right through the so called main stream media attempts to defend this Party and their President at all costs. They know, and they recognize insincerity and pandering when they see it. So do many women whom in my judgment are actually being grossly underestimated and disrespected by the Democratic Party narrative and campaign ads.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • TomGI

      This is too long winded for this forum.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brent

      Can you add chapters and versus?

      November 1, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      World's longest paragraph!

      November 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gerry

      Well stated!!!

      November 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • phil crawford

      wow mike. i only read the first 2 or 3 sentences but i'd guess your wife is a very patient woman. do you talk that much around her. Are you sure she is listening?? uh hummmm. yes dear....

      November 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        or more likely she's quite intelligent and probably could keep par with him on in-depth topics... sounds like you could learn something.

        also, something that's bugging me: Why do you assume his wife isn't intelligent enough to keep pace with him? Shouldn't you be a bit more aware of how many intelligent women there are out there?

        November 6, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Francesca

      I am glad your family has been able to support itself and does not need help and congratulations on your kids scholarship, but ask yourself do children unable to get full scholarships from families without your financial security deserve a chance? Federal loans exist to even the playing field for young adults who had the misfortune to be born into families that cannot support their dreams. And as a woman my healthcare is an economic issue, if I do get a job with equal pay but have high out of pocket expenses than I might as well be paid less than my male counterparts. The economy matters to me and I want to vote for candidates that will make a society that works for everyone. Finally, Romney support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, not propaganda it is on his website.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        It would depend on what you mean by "deserve a chance." The chance already exists, as Mike stated. If you instead take "deserve" to mean "entitled to aid" then no. No one should be Entitled to anything. That's the whole point of a capitalist economy: "deserving" something is defined by Earning it – precisely what Mike has said.

        The question at hand is whether giving handouts to everyone is somehow a better way of defining "deserving".

        My vote is on NO. You deserve what you earn.

        November 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
  59. DJR

    The thing here not pointed to is that Obama has divided the house hold. If you see the cosmic center as the home, then you can see that center as HOME, (the USA.) The left seems unwilling to accept that the present leadership only divides. so at the heart of that is what? Not leadership. Not profitable. Not progress. Division, unhappiness, in-fighting. And thats what we have, thats what the administration wants. Whats that all about?

    November 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • USMCvet

      ...and how does this work when a republican president is in office? The very same way!! Your post honestly makes no sense whatsoever. Bush divided households, states, and countries. And he is still wanted for treason in Switzerland. What baffles me is this: The policies that Romney wants to put in place are the same policies Bush used. We saw what happened when Bush got elected. It brought this country to it's knee and damned near destroyed us. It got us hated all over the planet. We were in unsolicitous wars fighting against a country, who posed no threat to us and who had NO WMD...trust me....I was there – 14 times! We were attacked when a republican was in the White House too. That is UNSAT. What republican voters don't seem to get is this: Democrats tax the rich and spend on programs. Republicans tax the poor and spend on wars. Most of you have no idea how much ABSOLUTE waste is spent on the defense spending and what it goes to. But the media won't cover it. We could cut our defense budget like crazy and not be in as much money strapped situations. Republicans also seem to forget that Ronald Reagan was not only in a union, he was a leader of a union. Limbaugh is also a member of a union. Reagan raised taxes 12 times to pump trillions into the economy, and all of a sudden that's not an option? I don't understand why republicans don't see the hypocrisy in that. Finally, republicans want in our bedrooms. I thought the whole idea was that the GOP was supposed to stay out of our private lives; but instead, they engage in divisive issues like abortion and gay rights. But if someone goes near the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, then they get all up in arms. The hypocrisy makes no sense. Romney destroyed his records as Massachusetts governor. He fired people, shipped jobs overseas and made millions off of the working man's back. Worse, he is a key figure in the Mexican drug cartels and now, he refuses to let us see his taxes. Enough. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. This man is a liar at the highest level. And this is coming from a lifelong, white, male republican.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • RapidOne

      You don't seem to understand that it's your bias that says that the current administration is the one that 'divides'. History and the actions by Republicans over the last 4 years is against your narrative. You speak with such confidence about something which is completely off in regards to your perspective. You've been brainwashed. But you will never understand that because it doesn't fit those you listen to for your confirmation bias. The truth is right there in the transcripts of the life of our everyday country–in past news articles, etc. You will never ever try to see that though, will you?

      November 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
  60. kidding right?

    at this point, that is fine. i used to have great health insurance and every year for the last 20 it's gone down hill. at this point, i feel like it's just catostrophic coverage. and i work for a large corporation. and as we go, the rest will go.

    November 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
  61. joe

    Easy dispute. Easy answer.

    Get over yourselves. No really, get over yourself and move on. Each of you is worth one lousy vote. One vote. Same as the bum on the park bench down the street. Do you argue over him? These politicians talk and talk and talk–both sides–and they haven't ever and won't ever back up their talk. Take Obama's last campaign promise to cut the deficit in half. What a joke! And Romney won't be able to do any better than Obama has done. They aren't dictators they are executives who carry out the will of the Congress.

    And unless you happen to be in a tight swing state vote, the reality is your vote doesn't even count. Your state will go one way or the other by millions of votes irrespective of how you vote.

    And if people didn't tell you you who was in the white house you would never know who it is just based on your life. It's that far removed.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ron

      AGREED – 100%

      November 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
  62. Kevin

    Loralee Choate did not get it. Her priority issues include gay rights and health care ARE SECONDARY ISSUES compare to the economy aka JOBS, without JOBS, our country will be next in line to GREECE and SPAIN. OUR GOVERNMENT CANNOT KEEP BORROWING MONEY FOREVER AND CREATE JOBS. GOVERNMENT IS NOT IN BUSINESS TO CREATE JOBS BUT TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WEATHER BUSINESS TO CREATE JOBS, NOT MORE BURDENT TO BUSINESSES. NO JOBS, NO FOOD ON THE DINNING TABLE. I HOPE ONE DAY THOSE PEOPLE WILL GET IT. Loralee wakes up and gets it.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • e$

      You spelled "Dining" wrong!

      November 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • whorhay

      The economy is very important, no doubt about it. But that doesn't mean it should trump everything else. In fact the reason we have a government is to handle all these issues becausethey are impractical for the individual citizen to manage. I don't want my government to focus just on one issue at a time, we need balance. Gay Rights is just another flavor of Civil Rights, and why should any of us put up with a system that deliberately treats some people as second class citizens when they have commited no legal wrong?

      Universal healthcare isn't as obviously clear cut. But there are a number of other nations with substantially weaker economies that have implemented it successfully for several decades now. Hell Romney even championed such a program at the state level as Governor and the law that Obama pushed through is nearly identical to a law that the Republican party authored previously.

      In the end none of these issues exist in their own cloistered boxes. They are all tied together in ways we aren't even aware of, and each makes the others worse. Saying we can fix the entirety of our problems by focusing on just one issue is like trying to put out a fully involved house fire with a super soaker squirt gun.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
  63. Holden

    She doesn't work, of course she's for Obama.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • rstlne

      Nowhere in the article does it say she doesn't work. You are jumping to an unfounded conclusion because you choose to be judgmental.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Fedup

        It's not an assumption. The article specifically stated the husband's employment and left hers conspicuously absent because she is a full-time mother and blogger (check out her blog, a self- involved diary where she details her day-to-day existence). She has three living children – two teenagers and a 2-year-old – and the two teenagers look just thrilled in yesterday's photo as they pose for Halloween pics with electronic gadgets in hand.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brent

      But all he does is listen to the right's lies. Too many pants on fire on Politifact for anyone who really cares.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      I work and I support him too. Try again.

      Maybe if the "small-government" Republicans keep government out of individual's lives and focused on the economy, I would think about voting for them too. Until then, no.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Madeline M.P

      She's also a mother which means she works. Unless you want to accept the fact that Ann Romney, mother of five, never worked and has no business telling women how to live their lives. According to your logic, Ann Romney should vote for Obama.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
  64. houbie

    The reason there is such a divide between men and women on this issue is because for a woman, all that matters is doing the right thing. For a man, it's also about how to pay for it.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • phil crawford

      that is kind of funny houbie. Many cultures espouse gender differences in everything including societal units.(like in the Spanish language)

      the same could be true for democrat and republicans... PERHAPS, democrats are the party of feminine and republicans are the masculine party.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • kidding right?

        phil, what in the world are you talking about? you are the perfect example of an american right to free speech and the ability to prove how foolish someone is. and if the republicans are the "masculine" party, how many war medals did cheney receive again?

        November 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • Veritas

          As many as Obama.

          November 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
        • phil crawford

          dude. i was not serious. lighten up. peace.

          November 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • JT

      Hi Houbie,
      That is such a deep thought :-). I mean you kind of rolled philosophy and economics into one!

      November 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rahel

      Your comment actually made me think – thanks!!! Its historically been that men provide food (material needs) and women provide everything else. But things are changing, aren't they?

      November 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rahel

        Sorry, I just had to complete the thought (from my previous comment): things are changing and so women will become more like men like and men more like women... true meeting of the minds and no more conflict in the world, best case scenario. Lets stay positive 🙂

        November 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
  65. are122

    She is a strong supporter of the Obama health care law <~~ Oh goodie. Kindly pay my new tax for me.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • kidding right?

      your new tax? it's only a tax if you do not have health insurance and are a "freeloader" who goes to the ER without it. basically, you need to learn the law before you can complain about it.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Veritas

        Or if your company decides it's cheaper to pay the penalty (it is) than pay for your healthcare anymore.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ron

        I don't think he's kidding at all. The fact is, even if we have our own health insurance, our increased tax dollars (as if we have more to increase) will go to help pay for those "deadbeats" you are describing. Furhter, I am still trying to figure out how I am supposed to help pay for someone's abortion when I am categorically against it. I guess that's supposed to be a part of what "freedom" is. We aren't free to say no to supporting abortion but they are free to take our money and kill babies with it.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
        • Erica

          Lies. Legally, federal money CAN NOT go to voluntary abortions. They CAN go to abortions done to save the mother's life, but those are actually rather rare.

          Planned Parenthood shows very clearly where the government funding goes. Mostly mammograms and pap smears.

          November 1, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • FatSean

      Charity doesn't work. Even with tax incentives. When the recession hit, charitable donations stayed flat when charities desperately needed more funds.

      Government assistance is what helped Americans who were out of work and money.

      Libertarians are children. Read the Libertarian Party's take on the Environment if you want a good laugh.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • mateo_luiz

        Wrong....try again.

        Libertarians believe that personal responsibility trumps social justice.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
  66. houbie

    Politics, just another reason to get kicked to the couch tonight.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  67. maltesefalconx9

    Does the man usually order the wife on who to vote for? Yup, that's how much freedom there is in that country.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  68. Lisa Desjardins

    Hi guys, this is Lisa Desjardins, who wrote the story. I actually didn't think about this until after starting on this piece but my mom and dad are now polar political opposites too. And both are very opinionated (my mom is a fiesty redhead who will call me if she hears sees one of my stories and thinks I got something wrong).

    Now, excuse the flared text coming. I'm not yelling. Just highlighting.

    QUESTION FOR YOU ALL: why do you think there is such a gap between how men and women have voted in the past 20 years?

    That was one of the main subtexts of the story, trying to get to what's driving this.

    What do you think?

    November 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • phil crawford

      because democrats have become and are experts on exploiting victimization and division wherever they can in order to gain power.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • are122

        Well said Phil. If you were Bill Clinton I'd say give the man a cigar!

        November 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • maltesefalconx9

        Great example of a Republican accusing Democrats of doing exactly what they themselves do. A typical liar's strategy.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • RapidOne

          phil is a brainwashed hypocritical political bigot.

          Sums it up just about right.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • FatSean

      Because women are actual victims of Conservative policies. Not just Abortion and Birth Control.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • phil crawford

        point proven. thank you.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • kidding right?

          huh? i think it's time to wrap yourself in the flag and take a nap.

          November 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • phil crawford

          hey kiddingright... typical lib response.... a personal attack or name calling. see ya on the 7th

          November 1, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
        • Veritas

          But Phil, ad hominem attacks are all the libby's have, there are ENTITLED to it!

          November 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • phil crawford

          Ahhhh @Veritas... libs and entitlements. lol

          November 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      Lisa,

      It is a very similar situation in our household. After seven years of marriage, we have both moderated a bit. However, we still tend to weight our decisions based on different factors. I have transitioned somewhat from a traditional conservative to more of a libertarian but am a fiscal conservative and tend to place the highest weight on economic factors, followed by national security before moving on to other issues. My wife agrees with many of my economic and national security arguments, but places the greatest weight on social issues when placing her vote. Perhaps the country could benefit from a third party or better ability for politicians to meet in the middle ground as we do in our own households. In the meantime, it makes for a healthy debate and the opportunity to cancel out each other while both executing our civic duty to place informed votes.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Hi Kevin,

        That was a really good post. It is interesting and important to think about whether the gender divide would be so great if there were more options to choose from in the first place. This gives me the idea for a possible story down the road, possibly as the new Congress comes into session. Thanks for this.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • maltesefalconx9

      Amazing. I have never seen the actual CNN reporter who wrote the article actually respond to any comments.
      The men want the wars because of influences like football in high school and all that group conformity stuff. I think the government has mad a big effort behind the scenes to encourage the male half of the population to develop those violent attitudes. For some reason they seem to have left the women out of that. A big female singer like Taylor Swift has 95% female fans. So the women are developing the empathetic side of the emotional personality, not so much the men. Also there is the divide-and-conquer strategy of trying to split the voters up into as many groups as possible. The split screen interview on TV where they keep interrupting and talking over the other person's statement helps keep that going. Any anti-war people ever on CNN? No.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        You raise a good point as well. First, though, sorry I left you hanging. I was in a briefing on the Senate elections and couldn't check comments.

        But back to your points. I remember that CNN used to have Dennis Kucinich on quite a bit, among other anti-war voices. I think since the troop withdrawal in Iraq, we and others have done far less reporting and coverage of both pro-defense industry groups and anti-war movements, you're right. I cover Congress and politics, so I don't make broad coverage decisions, but I think that this is in large part due to the economic crisis overtaking both Iraq and Afghanistan as concerns for the American people at this moment.

        I'm not trying to blow smoke, but I think this is the honest answer.

        On your thoughts about men vs women and the idea that voting patterns may be the result of community, school and cultural signals we send to kids. I think that's interesting. Let me chew on that more. It's interesting.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • rstlne

      One of the main reasons is that women in this country are still mainly responsible for birth control. Men seldom wish to take control of that themselves, yet many of them still want to dictate just how women are allowed to handle the issue of birth control. Also, women are generally considered more responsible when it comes to handling family finances. That is why so many of the new micro loan issuers grant their loans mainly to women; in general they care more about what happens to their children, their elders and their community than do men. I initially found this difficult to believe, but world wide it is proving to be true.

      Therefore while men are still very big on pride issues – one reason why so many are for an ever bigger and stronger military – women are apparently becoming more and more involved in social issues. Men are more likely to say "I've got mine, get yours on your own and don't ask me for a dime." Women are more likely to view a situation and wonder how it would or could impact their children or their parents or their friends.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      I think a big part of the disparity in the past 20 yrs (and bigger if you extrapolate the timeline) is due to one thing and ONE thing only. Education and by proxy women's rights. As more and more women become more 'educated' entered the workforce and becoming more independent (of their husbands) it is only natural that collectively they begin to form new opinions for themselves and their own self interest. In the past women played more of a seritude role and more likely to conform to the husbands views on most things including political biasness.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jean Malloy

      As far as I can tell, women have stopped critically thinking for themselves. They have decided to buy into every bald-face lie given to them–like this BS about birth control. Although I am no longer child-bearing age, when I was, birth control was not my main concern, but jobs, the economy etc. As far as Family planning–It's been around for ages (the 1970's as far as I can remember) Even then, I though it was pretty pathetic. I went there to accompany a friend, All I say were LOSERS. They are the ones that still ended up with a house full of children by Tom, Dick and Harry that became permenent government money takers and abusers , who produced MORE like themselves. What truly tipped me off that they were LOSERS, there was a sign in the waiting room that read: PLEASE TAKE A BATH BEFORE COMING TO YOUR APPOINTMENT" Need I day more????

      November 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa

        Completely and 100% wrong. Women are thinking quite critically, for ourselves, and refuse to believe what Republicans tell us. How can you possibly call it BS when Mississippi and others are trying to pass "personhood bills" for fertilized eggs, or Virginia is forcing women to have unnecessary and invasive procedures before they are allowed to CHOOSE a LEGAL procedure?

        Seems YOU are not thinking criitically, Jean!

        November 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • mrscmj

        100% right, Jean. Time for the freeloaders to get a grip and pony up the $ for what they want. If you want bc, you and/or the guy you're sleeping with should foot the bill. I paid for mine when I didn't and did have health insurance, it's my body, I'll regulate it how I see fit, and it's a whole lot cheaper than having a kid. And never in the 18 years I've been on it has someone prevented me from obtaining it. Once my hubs and I started dating and I relied on it to prevent pregnancy (I previously took to ease cramps), I told him him if I'm taking it, you're going to pay for it, and he was 100% A-OK with that. Any man worth a damn would agree to that.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bruce Herring

      It is a fact of nature, I believe. The female is the nurturer and the care taker. It is why a sick child seeks out its mother for relief and not its father. The other side holds true for the male of our species as well. It falls to him to supply security, support and to bring sustenance to the table. The rolls have blurred somewhat in recent times, but I still believe them to be the core values of each gender. Therefore females look to care for the needy while males look to protect their own.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      The Republicans are – to some of us – the equivalent of the Taliban or Saudis, the party of men. They want to control women, our bodies, our health care, our work (yes pay!). Women, rightly, are't going to accept that so we vote Democrat/Independent.

      I USED to vote moderates of any/all parties but the Republicans have gone nuts socially the past few decades. If they back off telling us how to live our lives (abortion, birith control, health care in general, gay marriage), I would vote for them again.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • phil crawford

        lisa you have proven my point again! the libs have developed a 6th sense for finding "victims" and exploiting their emotions for political gain. You – yourself have become their victim (they now own you with your permission). interesting that the democrat party has it's base as a base of victims but have actually become the victim(s) of the the neo liberalism which of course gets it's script right out of communist doctrine manuals such as "Rules for Radicals"

        November 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
        • phil crawford

          i say again. the democrat party has become the party of victimization.

          Create victims and borrow/print money to "fix" the problem. The process will work only as long as you can continue to find victims and continue to borrow print/ money. the fabrication of new victims is just incredible and has almost become an art form.

          November 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • maltesefalconx9

          Re: "vicimization"
          That's what I say, Crawford. Who cares about the World Trade Centre. Stop being victims! The fools who worked in that goddam monstrosity had it coming to them. You are the ones who used nerve gas on Washington's Birthday 1991 and you only have yourselves to blame for that. If you don't like getting bombed, too bad. It goes with the territory. Grow up!

          November 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lisa

          What crap Phil – I don't consider myself a victim at all. I am a highly educated woman with a great job who pays her own way. All I ask is the Republicans stay out of my life. Pray tell, how is that "victimization"?

          November 1, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jean Malloy

        Now, there you go sounding like some one on some SERIOUS DRUGS!!! You and other like you don't know squat...well except you want life with out any boundaries–do what ever make you happy. This is what causes civilization to end!!! This Talaban crap needs to stop, If you all really knew crap sbout the Talaban and Al Quaeda you'd know that they are also for Sheria Law. YOU ALL WOULD BE BEHEADED FOR THINKING THE CRAP YOU PROMOTE, NOT TO MENTION DOING THEM. Pathetic.....simply pathetic!!!!!!!

        November 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lisa

          And you Jean just haven't been paying attention. The taliban think women are second class and don't deserve the same rights as males. How are Republicans any different?

          "You and other like you don't know squat...well except you want life with out any boundaries–do what ever make you happy." I find it incredibly ironic that the so-called party of small government wants to control our lives. Yes, I do believe people can do whatever they want within their own lives without boundaries from government, whether it's gays getting married or a woman choosing an abortion. You, and the government, have no right to tell them they can't.

          I think Republicans who talk about "legitimate rape" and want to force women to have vaginally ultrasounds are pathetic.

          November 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • The American Taliban

        I agree with you 100% Lisa. All the women (eleven old enough to vote) are voting for President Obama. Even the two that are pro-life. That's how much they despise Romney.

        November 1, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Madeline M.P

      My parents were faced with the same political situation. My father would vote conservative while my mother voted more liberal. They would get into arguments any time politics was discussed with my dad trying to convince my mom through the logic of religion (imagine that!) how important it was to vote with Republicans. Since my mom was fiery-tempered, these conversations would be followed by prolonged periods of silence when neither one wanted to talk to the other. One time, mom told me that she never told my dad how she voted so that they didn't get into more arguments. She just didn't want to waste a good, solid family disagreement on back & forth political drivel.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sharon

      Lisa,
      You could have written this article about me and my husband, verbatim. We are precisely this couple. We've lived harmoniously for 20 years, yet we can't even have a civil conversation about politics this year. In past years, we were far more polite, making allowances for our very distinct opinions. We laughed that our votes would cancel each other out.

      This election, he has actually said, "I don't care about x, y, or z on Obama's agenda. ALL I care about is the economy and fiscal responsibility. This is what is wrong with a two party system.... yada yada ... Ben Franklin.... yada yada ... Framers... yada yada.... $XX Trillion in debt..... yada yada Thomas Jefferson... yada yada entitlements ... yada yada support two other families in what we pay in taxes.. yada yada... neither party has a suitable candidate... yada yada must all be narcissists to even want that office..." and he goes on in rapid fire form rarely seen from my kind, gentle, thoughtful, insightful even-tempered husband.

      Yes, I think this election, in particular, is polarizing. And yes, I believe moreso than in the last 20 years.

      Not to get off topic, but I implore you to research and write an article about what our teens and college-aged students believe their futures hold. Every parent and grandparent, neighbor, teacher, friend should sit down with someone of the next generation and ask the student about their goals and concerns. Our young people very articulately convey that they are aware, informed and are afraid. They are concerned about careers, debt and opportunities. I don't remember thinking that way at that age.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sharon

        I failed to answer Lisa's question as to "why" politics is so polarizing these days as opposed to prior elections. I do think it has to do with "moderate" being a dirty word. Neither party is willing to produce a candidate with anything but either extremely conservative or extremely liberal points of view.

        Even some of the more moderate candidates in the last election changed their stripes when it came to presenting a party platform. What feeds this? Mostly money, but an underlying belief that the 19th Amendment should be repealed. That way, those working women who need legislated employment accomodations will get home on time to cook dinner.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Thanks for such a thoughtful response, Sharon.

        I'm putting a reminder on my calendar for the middle- to end- of December to look into that story about teens and young people. It feels like it might be a great piece for the time around New Year's and the opening of the new Congress.
        If you have anything else to add to this story and are on Twitter, tweet me @LisaDCNN so that we can communicate more.

        November 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sharon

          Lisa,

          Thank you for your time and responses to this post. Your contribution has made for some very responsible journalism on this site.

          I will make note of your twitter address and will watch for an article. I do have some thoughts and support for a teen's concerns about their futures – our own three teens are rather insightful and rather than get off topic here, I'll save those thoughts for later.

          Sharon

          November 5, 2012 at 9:19 am | Report abuse |
    • single mom

      It's a different mind-set. This generation in general (born post 1980) has more freedoms – legally and morally, more technology and more, well, everything. Now, it has to accept the responsibility for all that – including the fact that the former gender roles don't apply anymore because of societal pressures. There is more to me than reproductive organs, just as there is more to a man than his. But the press and both political parties seem to want to divide the genders. What's the point? What do they accomplish? I'm concerned with two things – national physical security and national fiscal security. If we don't have those, the rest doesn't matter.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Heather

      I think the reason for the divide is the social issues. For decades, scientists have been pointing out that women – from girlhood to adulthood – are more empathetic. Men are more practicle. They focus on issues they can solve. If you can't solve it – don't deal with it. There are more personal political issues affecting women – contraception and abortion. Issues such as health care and gay rights are issues that tug at our conscience. My sister and her family live in Ohio. Their oldest daughter is gay. My sister will vote Obama, my BIL, Romney. Personally, I just can't understand how her father can vote for a man that will actively work to deny my niece her rights because of his religious views.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • PJ

      In my experience, women talk to each more about personal issues and hear about the complexities of trying to get pregnant, worried about being pregnant, side effects of birth control, friends/family members who suffer sexual assault, difficulties of child birth, etc. Women know that dealing with these issues are often not simple and resist having laws passed that interfere with women making choices with their health care providers on how to respond to difficult situations.

      And for women, access to health care and other services have a profound impact on women being able to participate in the economy. In the not too distant past, women had limited options in preventing pregnancy. When I was young, being pregnant meant losing your job, even if you were married. We have made tremendous strides but it all rests on women being able to make decisions on childbearing without interference from others.

      The Republican point of view is only relevant for women who are married to men who make a sufficient income to support a family without her working and for women who want to devote their adult lives to raising a family and taking care of the home. For others, which would include me, we want more options. We may want to stay home with kids, we may want to build a career, we may not want kids, we may want to become involved with politics, we may want to start a business....I don't feel like Republicans think about my plans very much. They would only pay heed to my husband's and son's plans.

      November 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Ken

    Why is it that the liberal media only ever talk about the Republican party candidate's "gender gap among women", but they never, ever talk about the Democratic party candidate's "gender gap among men"?

    November 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      What Liberal Media? It's all owned by large Conservative companies like Murdoch.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      Hey Ken, I can only speak for myself but note that I never said nor wrote that Romney has a gender gap issue with women. In the copy above I did point to the Obama's camp's hope that they will win by winning a big margin with women.

      But that said, you are 100% right that the gap goes both ways. And in fact, there was a point where men were moving much more quickly to the Republican side then women were moving to the Democratic.

      In the audio story I never referred to it as a women-only gap. I tried to convey it only as what it is a "gender gap".

      You raise a good point in general.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ken

        Lisa,

        Thanks for your note. I think it would be refreshing to see issues such as the gender divide handled more evenly by the media. If we're going to mention one side of the issue, we should mentioned the other as well. I've noticed a disturbing tendency among all media (not just CNN) to only mention one side. When it is done on a consistnet basis and nearly always favors one political end of the specturm at the expense of the other, it begins to move from the realm of journalism and into the realm of advocacy.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • are122

      For the same reason they never quote Obama like in his first election he said, "Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." Funny CNN don't put that up. After all, Obama was right!!

      November 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • FatSean

      Some wage-slkave making 30k/year and voting GOP so he can get a $100 tax cut in exchange for defunding social services is no American.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
  70. ItzMtsp

    I didnt even realize that my husband and I WERE divided on this issue until yesterday. He's leaning towards Romney thinking he will be better for the economy based on his answers in the debates. I was undecided until I heard all the "slip ups" from Romney's side about rape and abortion issue. I was really shocked that so called educated politians that Romney endorses and he himself could be so callous and ignorant and just plain abomniable with their thoughts on women's reproductive rights and issues. Its ok though, my husband doesn't plan to vote. I do.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Dave

    The founders wrote "promote the Public Welfare" into the Constitution. All made more notable by the lack of the word "God" anywhere in it. We had just fought a war against the Conservative British and no one wanted to go there again. George Washington praised our nation as "liberal" and hoped we "would ever be at the forefront of liberality". So we feed the poor, forge tax structures to run the government "FOR THE PEOPLE". Anyone notliking this arrangement is invited to move to Russia where fascism is King.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • phil crawford

      oh yea, thanks dave. obama is also dividing Americans on God and "Religion"

      November 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        Hardly, Phil. You listen to too much propaganda on Fox Noise.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • kidding right?

        phil, you definitely need to put down the sean hannity pom pom's. try not to chew on you own hate.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
        • phil crawford

          typical lib response.... a personal attack or name calling. see ya on the 7th

          November 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
  72. ray

    It is because some people think their rights go past the end of their nose, when in fact they don't because sombody elses rights start there. But they would deny you your GOD give right to chose for yourself . Lots of them are religeous fanatics and political rightists.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
  73. FedUp

    I can't understand why the focus is on abortion at all!! A woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her body. As a taxpayer, I don't want to have to pay for her abortion!! We have far to many issues that concern our country (economy, border security, trade, etc) that the feds should worry about, not a individual choices!! I've taught my children to make a top 10 list of things that concern you, and compare your feelings to the candidate, and vote that way. To vote just because a candidate is pro or con this or that is not the ideal way to vote!! Think and reasearch before you cast that vote!!

    November 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jane

      Nobody asked you to pay for any woman's abortion. Then again did anyone asked if you you were going to pay for a $40K hammer or $30,000 toilet seat? How about paying $1 trillion for military projects and equipment the Pentagon themselves said they don;t need? or a $300 million bridge in Alaska to some remote village that no one even uses?....Looks like you have to listen to your own advise and do more research.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • FedUp

        I should have explained my position better. I'm not supporting or denying abortions to anyone, but the author focused on abortions as did many of the people commenting as one of the most critical issues in the election!! Is that really the most important issue of our day?? If it is, I certainly think one should seriously re-prioritize how one votes!! There are more important issues of the day. As far as military spending is concerned we could spend years debating good and bad. The bridges that go no where....blame the elected dofus' and hold them accountable!! We elected these clowns and hold a certain level of responsibility as well. Impeach them or recall them or call them out, but never vote for them again.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      The baby's DNA is different than that of the mother's. All of medicine recognizes DNA as the unique identiifer of and individual. So does law enforcment, who use DNA to identify persons. When she is pregnant, a mother therefore is not controlling just her body, but that of the baby, as well as (vicariously) that of the man.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carol

      Actually the tax payers DO NOT pay for any abortions for anyone, its actually against the law. That is a GOP led misconception. They want all their sheep misinformed so they will vote for them. Again, do your own research and get educated on the real facts in this election.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • FatSean

      As a tax payer I don't want to pay for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Pakistan..etc...

      November 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sheila

      No one has the right to do what they want with their own body. If they did, I could sell a kidney. Or commit suicide when I want to without being committed to a mental health ward. Or help someone else commit suicide if they wanted to – after all, it's their body. That line has just got to stop.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Andrew

    this election is very simple. Forget Romney, forget Obama. Look at their advisors. 17 of the 24 Romney advisors are former Bush advisors and out of the 17 about 12 of them are very very hawkish!!! they are in bed with defense contrators/companies and borderline warmongers.
    Regardless of what you think Romney's economic plans are it will be USELESS if we get into another major war which WILL COLLAPSE the economy. Mark my words! If Romney gets elected we WILL GO TO WAR!!

    November 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      If Obama wins we will continue to be the world's bi#c#! Apologizing for things that our FREE SPEAKING citizens say or do.

      You are right though. It is not about Obama or Romney. It is about 4 of the worst years in American economic history continuing. He has had his chance. He had 4 years to overcome the mistakes that Bush made, but he FAILED! So, it is time for some new advisers and a different leader.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Smallville Girl

        So, because Obama didnt fix it "fast enough" in 4 you want to give Romney & Ryan 8 to 12 years to fix the economy? Makes total sense.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • ItzMtsp

        OMG.. you must have forgotten what it was like under the BUSH regime!

        November 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
  75. Phil

    Gay rights, Abortions all take a back seat to the economy and the deficit. If we are broke then no one is happy. Fix the economy get us out of the deficit, then we can talk about the luxory's that accomidate lifestyle.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Smallville Girl

      I'm sorry but taking away my rights as a woman and my friends rights trumps your economy any day. The economy will eventually fix itself under either party. If you take away my rights I lose them forever and that is unacceptable.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      Incredibly stupid observation social issues (liberal ones that is) help expand the economy, Gay marriage equality means dollars spend on weddings, larger homes etc, even Michael Bloomberg Mayor of New York knew that allowing Gay marriage in NY would be a boon to the economy, as for Family Planning that results there should be obviouls. why is it that the poorer states are the red ones because the top echelon of the GOP is relying on ignorance and in some cases racial hatred to keep it in power, religion worked during the feudal system glen Becka and Rush limbaugh work today.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Francesca

      I would rather be in a struggling economy and poor with my rights than be wealthy without them.

      November 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm | Report abuse |
  76. Mike

    Any woman who votes republican must not read too much. Nothing like a bunch of old right wing men telling everyone what is best for a woman. Like they know......they must have so many secrets etc. etc. that they would never communicate let alone know how to communicate to a woman. Woman better wake up. Sure tell your husband that you are voting Republican....but if you are smart vote Dem. in the booth. And BTW.....the economy is not tied to the President....so don't think for a second that the world is gonna change with a President Change. Obama came in like a rock star with all the support in the world.....and Politics won the battle.....think Romney can overcome Politics without the Rock Start status?? THINK AGAIN.......THINK!!!

    November 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ben

      Mike = woman

      November 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • phil crawford

        Mike = nancy polosi

        November 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • BaltoPaul

      Mike:

      I'm not taking a side on your comments regarding politics and women's issues. I'm just going to point out that making a blanket statement about what is best for "any woman" in a complex political environment is ridiculous, and can't possibly be taken seriously.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • single mom

      There's more to a woman than her reproductive organs. I'm insulted that anyone, man or woman, assumes that's all that determines my thinking.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • mrscmj

        THANK YOU! I'm more than just a uterus, and I wish the Dems would start seeing that. Out of the 2 parties the Dems are the ones objectifying women. That "first time" ad is beyond insulting to any smart women and makes us seem myopic and hypersexed.

        I've been on the pill for 18 years ... in the early years I was not insured, for most of them I've had employer-provided insurance, and guess what – no one has ever prevented me from getting it. And guess who paid for it before I got married to him ... my husband. That's who should foot the bill for bc. Remember, nothing in life is free. Free=taxpayer subsidized. So if you're a working stiff, you foot the bill. Your bc is your responsibility. This notion of giving it away is absurd ... should we give "free" Robitussin to people w/ colds? Where do you draw the line? If meds are given away, how do the drug cos. make $ to pay the genuises who devise the formulas for these meds, and who have bigass student loans from their biochem degrees to pay off? See how this great Obama social medicine mess screws up the whole system? The man's gotta go. Vote him out.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
  77. Tony

    Same exact divide in my marriage. We just agree to not discuss politics.

    November 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
  78. wardenhallis

    I genuinely feel sorry for middle aged and older white men in this nation. Their women and wives will guide them. That's the fortunate thing in all this.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  79. phil crawford

    obama – the great divider... race division, class warfare, generational warfare, and of course marital warfare.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Randall "texrat" Arnold

      what a crock of crap.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • larpeido

      Yes and he was the shooter of Archduke Ferdinand and caused WWI. Payaso!

      November 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • AJ in VA

      Oh, poor Phil. Those are terms created by Republicans based on their insecurities and anger towards having to help others in need. You really need to think about what Jesus would do. I'm pretty sure you are a God-fearing Christian who attends church. Do you think Jesus would agree with you? I know he wouldn't.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • AmesIA

      Really? REALLY? The man has been labeled some cross between Hitler, Stalin and the Anti-Christ – no other POTUS has endured more demeaning attacks with such calm resolve. As a block the entire GOP congressional delegation has made it their #1 goal for four years to stonewall and block anything the President hoped to accomplish even when it was repackaged GOP ideas. The country was held hostage and credit downgraded while Boehner and company got "98% of what we wanted". Devisive how? Indeed – I didn't think so.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Eric

        Once again we have the Republican President is to blame (Bush) and Congress (Democrat at the time) was innocent. Put a Democrat in office (Obama) and Congress (Republican) is to blame for everything.

        Either blame CONGRESS or blame the PRESIDENT! Stop being anti-party, either direction. Neither party is worth anything morally or ethically. They are both corrupt and their aspirations towards money and power is evident. And yes Obama is rich too people, he isn't an some innocent lower or middle class person that moved up the ladder.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lisa

          When have you had an elected representative of either party say his number one goal was to make sure the president was not re-elected? That has been said by Republicans. Never a Democrat for any president. And, sadly, Democrats worked with Bush for too much when I would have hoped they voted no – Iraq, "Patriot" Act, etc.

          November 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      What a crook of crap. It is the GOP and their stooges in Congress that are the great dividers. Rove, Adelson, the Kochs, Limbaugh...these are the rot in our society that seek to keep everyone at each other's throats.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  80. chris

    Seems to me with the jobs market improving and new housing numbers improving and no indication that Romney has any real plan with any real numbers, the guys would be voting for Obama anyways.

    Homophobia is so last century.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
  81. obsthetimes

    I'm with Jonathan on this one. Get me a job first and take a smaller slice of my taxes.
    Loralee is right on abortion. Women should make that decision for themselves. Loralee you're wrong on welfare!
    I pay at least 25,000 in taxes each year. That's a lot of money to spend on the less fortunate. I'm less fortunate as well. Give me back some of my cash.
    The piece didn't say what these guys felt about wars. Stop wars and quit taking my money.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      Greedy and shortsighted. Romney will continue the GOP destruction of the middle class and the poor will have even less reason not to mug you in the street. Are you actually buying into Romney's lies? Do you really think he'll do anything other than ship more jobs overseas and start a war with Iran?

      November 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      Welfare is a very small piece of the budget! While I am not anti-Welfare, I actually believe in supporting and helping others less fortunate, I also believe quite strongly in you have to do your best.... so yes welfare to work. But I totally agree we need to stop wars – that is the majority of our budget (besides SS and medicare). CUT the PENTAGON

      November 1, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • single mom

        Lisa, welfare benefits in fiscal year 2012 topped $1trillion. Millions more on food stamps. etc. More dependent on the government. Rome fell in this way, to paraphrase Cicero.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
        • single mom

          cut the Pentagon? That's one of the few parts of federal government actually in the Constitution. How about everything in federal government that's not put back to the states, including the revenuve taken from states in the first place?

          November 1, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lisa

          You think the miltiary / pentagon "works"? No. huge amounts of waste and obscene spending and spending on our so-called allies who can darn well pay for their own defense. Our military budget is over $600 BILLION , the number can find for welfare is $59 Billion , no where near a trillion. Where do you get that number?

          And our miltiary budget is the largest in the world, TEN times what number 2, China spends, only $60 billion. That sure was never intended by our founding fathers. The ONLY people that benefits is military contractors.

          November 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lisa

          And while Rome was decadent and spent too much, their military spending and expansion are equally to blame... all problems we have, huh? Maybe we should stop trying to have empire?

          November 1, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Barbara

    This will be the second time in Politics that my husband and i are on opposite sides. We reallly get into a political war, and the TV. Yes he likes watching Fox news and I like CNN. Even though we have our differences, we are diffenently strong in our marriage and comment to each other. Thats one thing I can't understand about about this we stand strong with each other but our goverment can't do that they are so divided its not only effecting our lives but out country. SO SAD.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
  83. Rahel

    Exactly same in our house – the joke is that our bumper sticker should be Obama | Romney 🙂 I think Obama has shown competency in several areas especially in stabilizing the economic nose-dive; my husband's top issue is taxes.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      Hey Rahel, this is Lisa, the reporter who wrote this story. I'm curious, what's your top issue? What do you think of the argument that "women's issues" (abortion, contraception especially) are affecting votes this year? I've heard strong arguments both ways – that that's overblown and that it's true. What do you think?

      November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rahel

        If forced to pick one, it would be social justice, not abortion: affordable healthcare for all, creating and enforcing rules in several areas especially commerce that prevent exploitation. I think Obama is a sensible and competent democrat with practical middle-of-the-road solutions, not a wing-nut on a mission to create a welfare state.
        The fault lines and arguments in the abortion debate has been no different in this election cycle but since it has been more discussed (why?), it results in some women realizing where they stand on it. I have bothered to read more about the abortion issue in the past few months because of the volume of stories on it – as a result, I am more informed. I am personally opposed but lean pro-choice.

        Its very perceptive of you to ask... i spent quite a few minutes thinking about my "top" issue before deciding on a general statement... good story, Lisa.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • V

        I think Obama is a big weenie and not the type of leader AMERICA needs or wants. He is definitely no George Washington. For his physical size (Obama), he has not proven or shown that he is a strong leader that other countries should fear. I'm a woman voter, and this election for me is not about a woman's right to birth control or abortions. I want whoever is in charge to take care of things. The way Obama handles things, as of late the attack in Libya in particular, shows me that he is weak and a coward, PERIOD.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jim

          V, Obama is a coward and a weenie? Lets look at the facts. George Bush deposed of 2 regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and it cost us thousands of lives, billions of dollars and our reputation worldwide. Obama helped depose 2 dictators in Egypt and Libya and it cost us 4 lives,almost nothing financially, while restoring our reputation around the globe.. It was a terrible tragedy, but the weenie no one is afraid of got the job done with minimal loss of life. Oh and the weenie also got Osama Bin Laden. Obama is a master statesman. Only the weak wish to be feared.

          November 3, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  84. erth

    isn't it interesting that the gop wants smaller government, but they still want to tell women what to do. please make up your minds... either you want a government to help people, or you want to get out of the way. you cannot have both, or at least you shouldnt.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Seyedibar

      The GOP only supports states rights and "small government" because they can't get their religious aims past federal laws.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • AmesIA

      What the GOP really wants is crony capitalism. Look at history – they pass sentencing guidelines for small time drug offenses to fuel the private prison industies profits. They keep 1800's vintage mineral rights laws in place for their oil & gas friends. Now watch what they want to do with FEMA – Jeb Bush has a for profit disaster recovery company starting up. This Hurricane brought to you by Enron...nothing like a natural disaster to pad the bottom line.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
  85. J.R.

    Voting for Obama is women's way of admitting that they really aren't as capable as men, and need a big strong man (or big strong government) to provide for and take care of them.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • PVS

      what a Romney thing to say...Signed A woman from Romneys binders 🙂

      November 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Langor

        PMS, you don't really understand what a binder is in context with Romney's statement do you? You'd much rather poke fun, because it is so much more ignorant than say, oh, a beer summit.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
        • PVS

          I do understand that it was misphrased unintentionally...but all his other efforts do confirm otherwise...and offcourse I dont understand being confined to a binder and all... oh and the beer summit defense really? peace!!

          November 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Seriously?

        "Confined to a binder"? If someone were seeking to fill an important position, and asked for qualified candidates, I'd be pleased to find that my resume made the cut, even if that meant that my resume was "confined to a binder" with the resumes of the other candidates who were deemed qualified.

        Some people will find a way to twist anything to their purposes. You weren't in any binder. You weren't qualified. Get back under your rock.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
        • PVS

          Seriously? have you been under a rock?

          November 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • MagicPanties

      Voting for Romney/Ryan means telling women that the government can and will force them to carry the baby of a rapist.

      Yeah, Romney says he's not that extreme, but he lies and he picked Ryan (ultra-anti-choice) for VP.
      He also said he'd sign a personhood amendment, and that is the GOP platform.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      Quick check, J.R.: do you know any women?

      November 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Erin

      You're a complete moron aren't you?

      November 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • DC10

      Dude, I understand that you are against Obama, as am I, however, show some respect...

      November 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • AJ in VA

      Good luck, JR, in finding an intelligent woman who wants to spend quality time with you. My guess is that you pay for your women.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vanna

      I don't think Obama is taking care of anyone. I'm a female voter. He didn't take care of Libya last month. A real man like my husband handles things at home. AMERICA is suppose to be his home and he is abusing it. Obama does NOT make me feel any safer living here.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
  86. Susan

    A vote is a private issue between ONE person and the voting booth. My husband and I totally disagreed on political choices for years, but......he didn't dare tell me how to vote, not would I have listened if he had. People, even married people, have different ideas and should always, always vote their own conscience.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
  87. johnnystop

    My wife and I have the same divide – she is a Democrat and I a Libertarian. I just happen to see the Republicans being as socialist as the Democrats with the added problem of the Republicans messing around in our private lives. Romney's clear ignorance of foreign affairs scare the hell out of me. I'm sticking with Obama – maybe not ideal but better than the alternative.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      That's interesting. The man in my story, Jonathan Choate, talked with me about what he sees as a Libertarian divide over abortion. He's pro-life and wants Roe v Wade reversed but is well aware that that is a split among Libertarians. Do you see that same split?

      November 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pizen

        It's difficult to fathom a Libertarian who supports more restrictive abortion laws. I lean Libertarian, and I am generally leery of any government intrusion that doesn't address my life, liberty, or property rights.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
  88. On Streetwise

    Look up the original definition of "libertarian" or, "libertinism"... You'll find that certain brand of conservative idealism runs complete counter of our Founder Father's ideologies, our Bill of Rights and every American Value we hold dear in this nation.
    Money does strange things to people... it clouds the mind and turns their hearts to stone.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pizen

      I think this comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what libertarianism comprises. And perhaps a misunderstanding of the morphing of classical liberalism from pre-New Deal to now. You might be surprised how much in agreement some libertarians are with the so-called new liberals. It's foolhardy to paint any group with a broad brush, but that's what the popular media today do because it's simpler and the masses are often content with sloganeering politics and perjorative labeling.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
  89. DC10

    What is all boils down to is 'DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUPPORT SOCIALIST OR CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY'?

    I am a firm believer in you pay for what you get and vice versa. If you believe in the government to support you, repay it by giving all your earnings for the services. The problem with today's society is that majority of the people think they are entitled to all sorts of things and getting things free for nothing... and the Democrats know this and have hooked majority of people on this entitlement drug that will bring the US to its knees.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • gmat74

      Sandy Katrina Mortgage fraud Savings and loan scandal WMD Stock Market crash Three mile island Yucca Mountain oh yas your so correct items like these are easily controlled and require a small government so lambs like yourself can feel powerful in your vast cellular construction consisting of mostly water and some solidity.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • DC10

        What the heck are you talking about?????

        November 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • gmat74

          Build a massive over populated group and then reduce government to historical records and expect functional progression. What a cute thought, It is a relief you do not think like myself. What a greal advantage a broader picture and a full cup lead to origional thought and effective delivery however when stifled by ignorance and lack of intellect I often communicate over your level, I do apologize.

          November 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • idiophobia

      your right the governments job is to protect what you have, not give you everything that you don't

      November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Smallville Girl

        You're wrong. I've paid into taxes since age 17 and I am just as "entitled" to unemployment benefits, school loans, and if I need food stamps those are mine also.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • TomNPitt

      Boy – until your last sentence i thought you were talking about the Republicans!! They're the ones who don't want to pay for anything! Hate to say it, but look at this storm on the east coast. Nobody called any companies or private individuals to help them out. It was automatically the governments job to fix this – and right now!! I just listened to KDKA complaining that the states should have a better plan in place so people will be able to vote on Tuesday!! Even Chris Cristie said he could care less about the election, but people always want to complain about the government. How about the oil spill in the gulf? The government comes in and gets things done. The complaints from the people at the government trough here was, they didn't open up the gulf for drilling fast enough, and they didn't get people their "expected" money to bail them our of their problem.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • gmat74

        Thanks for clearing up my garbled rant your point is what I deseperatly attempted to describe. Thanks

        November 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Seyedibar

      We're the United States. Our government is both capitalistic and socialistic. So is every other successful first world nation.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • AmesIA

      So if I understand you correctly you want a toll booth on every street corner, fee-for service fire departments, self policing food and drug safety, home schooling...

      November 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
  90. BillyD1953

    Marriage is hard enough as it is. I can't imagine being married to a Libertarian or a Republican. I still don't see how a liberal could have a deep, long term relationship with a conservative. They are two fundamentally different types of people. Liberals care about poor people and the disadvantaged. Conservatives resent those people and blame them for their predicament. Liberals are not racist. Liberals believe in real freedom. Conservatives do not. Liberals are free thinkers. Conservatives are narrow minded dogmatists.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Idiot

      Semi-biased on that view there Billy Boy?? WOWsers. I'm guessing you believe in allowing women to kill babies right? You may not agree with it yourself but you think women should be allowed to legally choose to kill a baby. I see where you stand.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • adrrrrea

        @ Idiot:
        As a victim of rape/incest that became pregnant at 14 because my uncle raped me I would like you to understand that abortion is not always about killing babies. Also based on your testosterone loaded response I assume you are a man so you have absolutely no idea what it is like for tens of thousands of women across the world who become pregnant as a result of rape and incest. Take your "women killing babies" rant to a support group for young girls and women who have had to abort fetuses as a result of incest and rape, I attend one weekly and members of my group include an 11 year old girl, two thirteen year old girls, and even a woman in her fifties. Try telling an 11 year old girl whose father raped her that she is a baby killer for aborting a fetus that her own father impregnated her with.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Smallville Girl

        I've never saw a name so aptly apply to a person. And to think you gave it to yourself.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Langor

      What bullcrap. Thanks for posting your narrow minded view.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anna

      Your post shows how "open minded" and "compassionate" you are. It is absurd to suggest that all members of a political party, regardless of which party you are talking about are racist, uncaring, rich, greedy, or anything else for that matter. I am conservative. I believe in working hard, being responsible, helping others who can't help themselves (unborn babies), and not having the government run everything in our lives. I feel sorry for you that you are so narrow minded.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Erica

        Color me bad then, because frankly... I think the mother is more important than a small clump of cells *first trimester*. That clump of cells has no higher brain function, and could be 'lost' at any time due to any number of reasons, PH instability being one of them.

        The law as it stands now is the most fair in regards to rights of maternal body autonomy vs rights of fetal life. Until science advances or we find ways to cheaply move embryos into a vat to grow, what we have now works. Why mess with it?

        November 1, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • TomNPitt

      Billy Boy,
      I'm the guy you're talking about. My wife is a Right Wing Wacko Republican. When we got married we were both Republicans. I'm now a Registered Independent, probably more Libertarian. There is no talking to her about anything. She likes to tell me how dumb I am. When I try to discuss it with her, she says "I don't want to talk about it, you're wrong". The answer to this is simple: we don't discuss anything about the Government, politics or world events. Someone in the Republican hiearchy decides what side of every event the Republicans are supposed to follow. It's hard to know what side of the street to watch because there's no consistancy. One thing I do know – never say anything positive about a black person!!

      November 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Hey TomNPitt, this is Lisa Desjardins, the story authoor. First a dear member of my family just moved to Pittsburgh and my sister went to Duquesne, so I'm a fan. Second, wow. Is your wife's family also conservative? Did she move right? Or was it more just that you moved left? That sounds pretty difficult.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lili

      All conservatives are not racist. As far as not being concerned about the poor and disadvantaged,the taxpayer dollars help pay for them. It is that "entitled" crap that makes my blood boil. My husband and I agree that the Economy is the number one issue and this country needs Jobs, Jobs, Jobs so people can work and not have to rely on the government for assistance. It is one thing to seek help, it is another to make goverment assistance a way of life.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • JCKerr

      While we are on the topic of sweeping generalizations, I will make the sweeping generalization that everyone named BillyD1953 makes sweeping generalizations

      November 1, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  91. Cole

    The United States should provide services to the rest of the world. We are already a tertiary economy. Why not provide defensive military support for any country who asks us for it. We would not need to deploy throughout the world, just the thought of attacking any nation that we are protecting would be enough in most cases. These agreements could pay a significant portion of our military budge which is our largest expenditure. Britain, Canada, Europe, Israel should already be paying for the protection we have provided them since 1941. Japan and Taiwan as well. The fact is those nations are allied with us now and benefit from our powerful military that we keep standing at incredible cost. Nobdy has ever looked across the Atlantic and said "man, we could totally take out the US, but then France is going to whoop up on us." Our alliances are not beneficial to us. If we are going to continue to field such a large military we need to make it work for us.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • TomNPitt

      That's interesting you want to spend our bounty on selling weapons and fighting other countries wars.
      I'll bet you hate the Government giving Americans food and shelter. And then when they're old, giving them the money they gave the government to hold and invest for them. Haven't seen a war where we made any money back. Not even the oil war in Iraq. Dick Chaney said we'd be awash in all that stuff!!

      November 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Devil'sAdvocate

      Half the point of having a large military and agreeing to protect another nation is so that nation does not build their own army. This benefits the US by basically not letting them have a large impact on any war (should there be one). For instance, Japan is under our protection. They are no longer a threat to the US military. This benefit outweighs the cost of the military especially considering that regardless we would still fund our own military.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
  92. Kingfisher

    Ladies, take your men to bed Nov5 and caution them to act as presbribed the next day.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Langor

      Men, just pay for it elsewhere and tell the ladies to kiss off if that is the cost of sex with your wife.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Smallville Girl

        Paying for it is probably the only way you get it.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
  93. gmat74

    This is how America became so divorced and adulterous people getting married not to someone much like themselves but rather choosing a spouse as they do cars or political canidates. If it looks good today and smells new Ill ride it for a while but when shows signs of wear ill just trade or drive another.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • yoyoyo

      Ha! I love this and couldn't agree more! Both of my grandfathers, Four of my uncles, and my own Father have chosen to "ride in newer vehicles" if you know what I mean 🙂

      November 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Smallville Girl

      Or we could just choose to not get married. For some people its not even legal and even as far back as recent years it was illegal to marry if you were black and the other white!

      November 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
  94. Texan4Hunstman

    On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney wants to have his cake and eat it too. "Governments do not create jobs," a stern Romney told CNN's Candy Crowley twice during the second debate. Here in Wisconsin, however, he is running ads promising to "crack down on China" and create 12 million new jobs.

    "Bainport"When attempting to square the circle, a look at Bain Capital's investment strategies might be helpful. In 1984, Romney co-founded Bain Capital, a spin-off from Bain & Company, a global management consulting firm. A new accounting details Bain Capital's history in shipping some 15,865 manufacturing jobs overseas. Using a conservative multiplier, which takes into account other jobs in the supply chain or community dependent on those manufacturing jobs, Bain is responsible for some 31,730 lost jobs.

    Bain's recent decision to close the Sensata Technologies plant in Freeport, Illinois is particularly galling. The plant, which employs some 170 workers, is high-tech, highly profitable, and efficient. It makes sophisticated sensors needed for vehicles including domestic General Motors and Ford cars. In 2011, the company had a net revenue of $1.8 billion and adjusted net income of $355 million. This represents "record levels for the company," Sensata said in a financial report.

    But blockbuster profits are not good enough for Bain who apparently can make more money by shipping the entire firm overseas. So they are.

    Piece by piece, Sensata's equipment is being dismantled, crated and shipped to Jiangsu Province, where the Chinese government has built a new plant. (Maybe governments can create jobs after all?) Not only are Sensata workers being forced to train their Chinese counterparts, who reportedly flew into this small town near the Wisconsin border and took down the American flag, they have been ordered to dismantle the equipment's safety functions because it slows production and the new Chinese bosses didn't want it.

    The kicker? The plant is closing November 5, the day before the election.

    Romney says he gave up control of Bain prior to the 2002 winter Olympics, but when it comes to his personal wealth, "Mr. Romney never left Bain," says the New York Times. In 2011, Romney reported Bain holdings between $12.4 million and $70 million on federal disclosure forms. He also has a lot of money invested in China through Bain. He has refused to respond to communications from Sensata workers.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick Digger

      nobody will read this

      November 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Wrong! So cynical. I'm not expressing an opinion here but I'm the writer, reporter behind this story and I'm definitely reading these comments, including all of what @Texan4Huntsman wrote.

        November 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • On Streetwise

        @Nick Digger: "nobody will read this"... just did! LOL

        November 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Smallville Girl

        I read the whole thing. Twice. But there were parts I already knew and a bit I found eye opening. Taking down the American Flag for instance would have resulted in me leaving the job immediately. And yes, I did it once before when a company wanted me to train my eventual replacement and I have done it 2 times since. If you are not promoting me then I wont train anyone to replace me. Let them sink or swim.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • DC10

      Government does not directly create jobs, it creates the environment in which jobs are created by the private sector.

      If you want a socialistic society, vote for Obama. If you want a capitalistic society, vote for Romney. Simple as that!

      November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • On Streetwise

        I support a balanced business/socialist government, therefore, I'm voting Obama/Biden... I stand against a plutocracy/oligarchy government, therefore, NO vote for Romney/Ryan... PERIOD!

        November 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • DC10

          I don't know if you noticed but about 43% of congress are millionaires (INCLUDING OBAMA, in fact, he became a millionaire due to politics).

          November 1, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Report abuse |
  95. NorCalMojo

    Women think with their vaginas. Men think with their heads. Every "woman's issue" is about their sex lives.

    Of course there's a disparity.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • DC10

      Dude, I understand that you are against Obama, as am I, however, show some respect.....

      November 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • single mom

      That's what you think? You need to meet some more women.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • kiptonia

      When there is a war on women and what they can and cannot do with their genitalia – yes, we think with our vaginas. Meet more women, learn why these are important issues in a social context – in the meantime try and remove your sexist tendencies. Until then, you don't get an opinion.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      If men actually think with their heads *highly debatable, but we'll let that go* then why are THEY so obsessed with woman's body parts ? Why so many bills and laws about our vaginas and uteruses?

      November 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        Lisa, while I can not speak for all men, I'll at least shed some light on why I think this is such an important topic.

        In my estimation, the reproductive abilities of women are nothing less than miraculous. If you truly think about how a pregnancy progresses, it is nothing short of a miracle that humans exist at all. Also, I think about it this way: Women carry the entire future of the whole of our species for the first ~9 months of all human lives ever will exist. That SHOULD floor you. That is HUGE. Think about it – the whole existence of human life relies on how well women take care of themselves.

        Personally, I think human life is an amazing oddity in this world – primarily due to our intelligence. (Life in general is an amazing oddity in this galaxy / universe). So, as it all comes together: I care deeply about the future of human life – of the next generation, the one after that, the one after that .... etc. ad infinitum.

        This is the only rational reason I can express regarding the existence of laws and precepts that concern women's reproductive capabilities. It completely boils down to laws and precepts that directly affect the future of our ENTIRE species. That's something I think everyone gets to have a little bit of a say in. I'm not saying it's 'fair' ... after all, that phrase "With great power comes great responsibility" isn't exactly a fair one... unfortunately though, it really does apply here.

        We are talking about laws that concern MIRACLES here. Expect us mere mortals to be ill equipped to get it right, first time 'round. (or 2nd, or 3rd, or ...)

        Hope that at least helps shed some light on why some of us men feel we have a say in the future of our species. Since no one really knows why we're all here, we usually express the validity of our existence in terms of making things better for the next generation(s).

        Not only is this an issue about responsibility with regards to species propagation... it's also directly tied to the validity of our own personal existence. Those are two very important things to men and women alike. Combined, it's really hard not to expect everyone to have a take on the topic.

        November 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
  96. GIMME

    GIMME MY FREE STUFF!

    OBAMA 2012!

    November 1, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunya

      LOL! (at least you're honest :-p )

      November 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
  97. John Kaufman, Oceanside, CA

    A much bigger issue for these two is the financial future of this country. Neither of these candidates have any clear, well defined, easy to comprehend plan to begin the long climb out of this country's financial mess. It is the continued over spending, no budget, no financial responsiblity, cotinued borrowing, contined printing of funny money with no backing, and the ambigious comments as to what each will do to fix this delemia we are all in. I have yet to see a chart as to what this govt takes in as taxed revenue, what goes out in costs, and to whom in percentages, how much of that pie is short and what is needed to cover overriding costs and from who it is borrowed from? If you ran your life as the govt did you would be in jail or in the streets with NOTHING!

    November 1, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • ItzMtsp

      How can they? No matter who wins, we will be economically challenged for generations to come. People still live as though they never heard of a recession/depression. I work full time, take care of my kids, pay taxes, pay for my hown health care, am a 3rd generation decedant of a so called immigrant and I'm a woman. Romney does NOT fit my ideals, needs, thoughts or beliefs period. That is why he won't get my vote.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ron

      This is a link to an explanation to the problem with charts to detail the problem. Cut and past this to see the best explaination I have seen. http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

      November 1, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
  98. Nick Digger

    Obama will carry the single mom vote. He's the sugar daddy to millions of women and their spawn.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • keith

      Please cite a SINGLE piece of legislation from the Obama presidency which would suggest he's made life on welfare any easier or more tenable. I'll give you a hint–there isn't any. But thanks for the quasi-racist assumption that a black president must be a fan of growing welfare.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Nick Digger

        You're welcome.

        November 1, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jen L

      Try being informed and accurate in stating facts rather than a lying misogynist.

      If you want children to suffer, just say so.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ami

      Where is the low life father of these spawn. There's probley a man that got her pregnant. Creep!

      November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Becky

      Single moms with kids wouldn't need help if fathers either stuck around or paid their child support.

      My middle of the road answer is you get one mistake of a pregnancy when you are on welfare. Then you are on birth control if you expect to receive assistance. Have another child? You get fixed. And I mean men and women. If a man fathers more than one child who is on welfare, he gets snipped. I would far rather there were less children to have to care for in the first place. I stopped at 2 kids because I could not have properly afforded school, etc for more. It's the only responsible thing to do...oh and I'm an Independent and I was undecided til the NRA called to push for Romney...now I'm voting Dem. If the NRA likes Romney, I do not.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lisa

        Totally agree with all that Becky

        November 1, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        yep, mostly agree. I think it'd be far better for the father to stick around than to just send money.
        As for the NRA part though – I find that reason to choose Obama to be a bit lacking. The only reason we're not British is because our fore-fathers had weapons that equaled Britain's at the time. (no – of course WMDs and the like shouldn't be allowed for private citizens).

        There are many examples throughout human history where a government has repressed its people because they couldn't adequately fight back. The most recent one I can think of is Syria.

        The rest of your comment – while borderline inhumane – is probably a practical solution. :-\

        November 2, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Serious Person

      Well, I might add, if all you "dads" were paying for and supporting the children emotionally and financially that you helped create, the government would not NEED to pay for them, now would they? Isn't there a happy medium between, "Sorry, not my problem" and "You owe me because I have less than you"? I want THAT candidate. Where is HE?

      November 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • nunya

        Sorry to be cynical, but I expect the real reason is: He/She is too smart to.

        Voting Romney this time, but I do hope someone better than him pops up next time – closer to what you expressed. For now, I see Romney as the smaller loser of the two.

        November 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • single mom

      Not this single mom. I hate being stereotyped.

      November 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
  99. tumar

    No divde in our house. Since we are educated we both voted early for Obama.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • scrabster

      I know a number of folks like you. Well educated with the common sense of gravel.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Clete

        I know a number of folks like you...morons.

        November 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
        • John

          Yeah all Democrats are poor like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. and all us poor people on the East side of manhattan! Why is it that so many republicans that have abosutely NOTHING to gain from the Republican agenda continue to vote GOP? Is it because you have been lead to believe the falshood that the Democratic party is the welfare party the tax and spend liberals, wake up you are being bamboozled! You vote of out hate thinking upper income democrats vote out of pragmatism.

          November 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • tumar

        I know people like you, you mow my lawn right?

        November 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • gmat74

          I trim your wifes grass while you co mingle and grab ess at the office yes I have lots of free family time. If you were at home after work and not sniffing the bosses shorts for a fraud based bonus at your bank you might get some lawns mowed as well. Saving for vavation while hiring me to mow your lawn what an undereducated voting against yourself pretending puppet of wealthy society. Ill be fishing when I finish up my seasonal profession yielding larger income than your loan officer prison cell carreer

          November 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • John

          Keep thinking that illusion if it makes you feel better why is it that uneducated lower income white's are considered the base of the republican party? While "Yuppies" in my neighborhood The east side of Manhattan are all voting for Obama?

          November 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gary

        @scrab You know a number of folks lke you, you claim, that makes you the odd bal amoungst your friends.

        November 1, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • gmat74

          I married someone who is fundamentally objective that way when im rejected due to my tiredness from work and exhaustion from beers with co workers Ill feel like its my decision.

          November 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Walter

      Voted for Obama? Then your screen name is perfect. "Tumar" indeed. A cancerous "tumar" on this nation.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
  100. Steve

    It may be simplistic but boiling down the parties concerns in this article points starkly to the divide between the parties...

    Democrats care more about people than money and Republicans care more about money than people.

    November 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Unleashed

      True. However, when everyone currently alive is dead, how much they were cared about will matter less than how the world's economic resources were allocated, in terms of quality of life of the human species.

      November 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • gmat74

        How cute!!! When money gathers in the future to determine how so many humans died and suffered it will refer to the images on the front of itself for historical information and reasoning. How cute!!!! My nine year old says his surviving piggy bank will want to be included in these future forums as well.

        November 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Not quite true. Democrats care about people and money. They throw a few hundred million at people. Republicans care only about themselves. They throw trillions at tax cuts, worthless wars, and subsidies for their pals.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Seriously?

      The Democrats want to give you a handout in exchange for your vote. Don't think money doesn't figure into their plans.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • John

        Dumb observation why is it that the wealthiest areas in the union New York, Connecticut, Silicon Valley etc. contnue to vote Democratic, simple because they know that the idea of pressing the reset button on social programs (or Starving the Beast) will end up in a disaster must the nation really go back to the 1930's for it to realize that the republcans want to advance an idea that is no longer relevant in this century?

        November 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scotchguard

        I didn't get a handout for my vote. LOTS of people in the 53% are voting for Obama.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
        • nunya

          You don't get tax returns? Sorry guy... but if tax cuts for the middle class (or whatever economic class you're in) had any bearing on your vote – you got swindled. You had your vote purchased WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!

          Big Gov't: "You owe me $$$$$"
          Politician wanting your vote: " I'll give you $$$ back in tax cuts if you vote for me."
          Other politician wanting the same: " Oh yeah, well I'll give you $$$$ back, if you vote for me."

          .... and so the Minion Game continues... doesnt' anyone want a simple, straight forward tax code? At the very least, it'd flush out all the garbage politicians have shoved in there over the last [who knows how long – decades? Centuries?].

          November 2, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Fred Evil

        Not me. I'm too busy paying to bail out Texas' fire damage after they cut their firefighters funding.

        November 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Interesting

      I would disagree with that statement.

      First, Democrats care more about people than other people's money. If they cared more about people than money, then an increase in taxes (even on the middle class) to pay for the social programs that benefit people would not be such a big issue; but since this is such a big sticking point, it is obvious that they do care about their own money more than people. It is a lot easier to to be in favor of "caring" for people over money when the money isn't yours.

      Second, to equate caring for people only with the support for enforced government collection (taxes) seems off to me. In discussing the caring for people more than money, we would have to include charitable donations (time and money) that are provided to privatized orgainzations to improve society and care for people in the same manner as the government programs. We would also have to have a good understanding of the motivation in giving the contributions (tax write-off, etc.) The downside of the non-government funded organization is that they have to rely on donations from willing (caring) individuals as opposed to government organizations that enforce "caring" through enforced "donations" called taxes.

      November 1, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • DemocratsLovingSpendingOthers$'s

        ALL the Democrats in our family tree ONLY CARE about using other peoples funds. They are well known for giving the crap gifts over my time period of knowing them for 30+ years, inviting others to their social affairs but it's buy your own meal deals. They spend it all on themselves and are the first to go looking for $'s from relatives when the going gets rough. They join social/civic organizations and use these organizations travel expenses as their own personal vacations, they join civic groups to help the poor.....but hell would freeze over before they helped their own mother. Thank goodness the elders in the family tree have now passed on and we no longer have any reasons to be around those that live a double standard life.

        November 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
        • gmat74

          Sounds lke they have your material needs understood and are still willing to continue carrying on like family regardless of political agendas. I would be proud of your liberal fami,y and embrace the unfamiliar mindfullness they seem to represent.

          November 1, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
        • DemocratsLovingSpendingOthers$'s

          gmat74...Did you not read my post. They have nothing to do with family unless they WANT something. As far as my material needs... our side of the family tree is well off and we are the ones that were left to take care of the elderly in our family...NOT THEM!! The only time anyone sees them is when they want or need something. They borrow and never return items (they sell other peoples possessions), they invite family to their events and don't respond in kind, they DO NOT attend family members funerals...the list goes on and on. My post was about the DEMOCRATS in the family tree only know how to take.........not give.

          November 1, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • Kate

          Your family problem is about character, not politics.
          I come from a family of Republicans, as does my husband... and we're the black sheep Democrats. My kin are very 'showy' people. They always have to brag about how much everything costs...from homes and vacations to tools. However, they don't give to charities. They don't go out of their way to help other people (only their kids). They cheat on their taxes whenever and however they can. They're racists and bigots. I have as little to do with them as possible.

          November 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
        • Furby

          Sounds like my Republican relatives; you sure about their political point of view???

          November 1, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Walter

      And boiling your argument down even further reveals that you're an idiot. You shouldn't be wasting good oxygen that could be used by something with more brain cells. Say, an amoeba.

      November 1, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mem

        Walter, I would think being so pro-life you would not consider any human consumption of oxygen a waste and you would certainly not want an amoeba to be provided life in exchange for a human being. Or are you just embryo obsessed?

        November 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Report abuse |
1 2