Nurses, how are you going to vote? 2012 US Presidential Election

dirtyhippiegirl, BSN, RN · Nov 9, 2012

Americans have been moving more towards "issues" rather than "party" when it comes to politics and voting for quite some time. This is going to be a problem for both democrats and republicans as time moves on.

Agree with this post 100%.

As a liberal and Democrat myself, I think it's incredibly unwise to paint the Republican party as a single homogeneous group. The splintering of the Republican party in the last few years - with the emergence of the Tea Party, the resurgence of the Libertarian movement - only goes to highlight how un-homogeneous the Republican party really is. It will definitely be interesting to see if the rift between "old school" fiscal conservatives and whatever passes for the Moral Majority these days grows deeper. The loss of the likes of Akin, etc. highlights this rift although I doubt that these same voters are crossing party lines to vote Democrat -- most likely not voting at all.

re. Democrats -- hell, Clinton saw the splintering of single-issue voters when he sought to solidify the Progressive base during his second term. Although, I do think that single-issue voters tend to have a fairly long-lived tenacity. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 but, on the other side of the fence, you still have plenty of people who continue to vote for pro-life candidates. And certain groups - gay rights, immigration issues - are still "new" enough in the public eye that small victories such as having someone campaigning against DOMA is enough to spur on voters who might otherwise easily become disillusioned.

DoGoodThenGo · Nov 9, 2012

Agree with this post 100%.
As a liberal and Democrat myself, I think it's incredibly unwise to paint the Republican party as a single homogeneous group. The splintering of the Republican party in the last few years - with the emergence of the Tea Party, the resurgence of the Libertarian movement - only goes to highlight how un-homogeneous the Republican party really is. It will definitely be interesting to see if the rift between "old school" fiscal conservatives and whatever passes for the Moral Majority these days grows deeper. The loss of the likes of Akin, etc. highlights this rift although I doubt that these same voters are crossing party lines to vote Democrat -- most likely not voting at all.
re. Democrats -- hell, Clinton saw the splintering of single-issue voters when he sought to solidify the Progressive base during his second term. Although, I do think that single-issue voters tend to have a fairly long-lived tenacity. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 but, on the other side of the fence, you still have plenty of people who continue to vote for pro-life candidates. And certain groups - gay rights, immigration issues - are still "new" enough in the public eye that small victories such as having someone campaigning against DOMA is enough to spur on voters who might otherwise easily become disillusioned.

Problem with issue voting blocks is once their needs are satisfied they may or may not hang around for the next election. Their votes essentially are up for grabs with each election cycle.

Don't like saying this but one knows plenty of conservative/republican gay males who quite frankly are no different than their straight counterparts. That is the only thing AA's,Latinos and other minorities can do for them is clean their homes, prepare and serve their food and so forth. By virtue of their class and wealth whatever discrimination that often faces gays they are immune. Enough how ever want gay marriage enough to "hold their noses" and support BO. However make no mistake, and have heard this more than once, after DOMA is gone, so will they.

Latinos want immigration reform. If that happens on any large scale there is nothing binding the current or future beneficiaries of such actions to the democratic or any other political party.

The real sad thing is both groups seem to have studied the African American civil rights struggle and while each of the above groups are using lessons, laws and techniques that group employed, they are also learning from their mistakes.

African Americans have had almost forty years of backing democrats in hopes of "civil rights" and for awhile it succeded, but over the past ten or so years whatever gains AAs made post 1960's have begun to backslide. Yes there is a half AA man in the WH, but the country as a whole is more segregated by race and class than it was during the 1950's. Many of the low skilled jobs that once helped sustain and even in some cases pull African-Americans out of poverty are either gone or taken by immigrants.

Once thought to be the path to a secure economic future AA's also invested heavily in gaining and keeping public sector government jobs. Now as federal, state, and local governments cut back on spending those jobs are going away, many not likely to return.

As for the "Moral Majority" and the republican party, that gig is slowly coming to an end. If Maryland supposedly the "state of churches" and one of the most religous can approve *gay marriage*,and Wisconsin elect an openly lesbian to the US senate, it shows the number of states giving cover to extreme religous views is decreasing.

gypsyd8 · Nov 9, 2012

As a registered Libertarian for twenty years, I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that Libertarians are not Republicans. Libertarians are not even "conservative" in the currently used sense of the term. We are not "far right." We believe in Liberty. That vast majority of us agree with limited government, but not for the same reasons given by the GOP. Please do not conflate the two.

The GOP would never support our stances on issues like foreign non-interventionism, immigration, marriage equality, or decriminalization of narcotics to name but a few glaring differences.

I am personally quite progressive. I have major ideological, philosophical, and political differences with some fellow Libertarians, but unlike the currently elected leaders of both major parties we are able to use reason to discuss our differences.

You are right the the GOP has completely lost touch with its own principles in favor of pandering to the American Taliban - it obviously did not work. If true conservatives are looking for a new home - we would be more than happy to have them. However, they should know that we will not compromise our principles for votes.

If you are curious as to what Libertarians stand for, go here: Platform | Libertarian Party

Thank you.

Agree with this post 100%.
As a liberal and Democrat myself, I think it's incredibly unwise to paint the Republican party as a single homogeneous group. The splintering of the Republican party in the last few years - with the emergence of the Tea Party, the resurgence of the Libertarian movement - only goes to highlight how un-homogeneous the Republican party really is. It will definitely be interesting to see if the rift between "old school" fiscal conservatives and whatever passes for the Moral Majority these days grows deeper. The loss of the likes of Akin, etc. highlights this rift although I doubt that these same voters are crossing party lines to vote Democrat -- most likely not voting at all.
re. Democrats -- hell, Clinton saw the splintering of single-issue voters when he sought to solidify the Progressive base during his second term. Although, I do think that single-issue voters tend to have a fairly long-lived tenacity. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973 but, on the other side of the fence, you still have plenty of people who continue to vote for pro-life candidates. And certain groups - gay rights, immigration issues - are still "new" enough in the public eye that small victories such as having someone campaigning against DOMA is enough to spur on voters who might otherwise easily become disillusioned.

DoGoodThenGo · Nov 9, 2012

As a registered Libertarian for twenty years, I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that Libertarians are not Republicans. Libertarians are not even "conservative" in the currently used sense of the term. We are not "far right." We believe in Liberty. That vast majority of us agree with limited government, but not for the same reasons given by the GOP. Please do not conflate the two.
The GOP would never support our stances on issues like foreign non-interventionism, immigration, marriage equality, or decriminalization of narcotics to name but a few glaring differences.
I am personally quite progressive. I have major ideological, philosophical, and political differences with some fellow Libertarians, but unlike the currently elected leaders of both major parties we are able to use reason to discuss our differences.
You are right the the GOP has completely lost touch with its own principles in favor of pandering to the American Taliban - it obviously did not work. If true conservatives are looking for a new home - we would be more than happy to have them. However, they should know that we will not compromise our principles for votes.
If you are curious as to what Libertarians stand for, go here: Platform | Libertarian Party
Thank you.

Personally think those pushing "marriage equality" may sooner or later open up a huge can of worms that in the end will cause some segments of society more harm than good.

There are few if any good reasons today for most if not all the benefits handed out to married persons versus singles on the federal level. Indeed some of them including the tax code and SS cause more problems than they solve.

IMHO the US should join Canada and whole host of other countries and stop promoting marriage as the be and end all cure for society's woes. If the idea is to provide for children and or the poor (whom in the United States are most likely to be either female or children), there are otherways of going about it.

Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP · Nov 9, 2012

As a registered Libertarian for twenty years, I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that Libertarians are not Republicans. Libertarians are not even "conservative" in the currently used sense of the term. We are not "far right." We believe in Liberty. That vast majority of us agree with limited government, but not for the same reasons given by the GOP. Please do not conflate the two.
The GOP would never support our stances on issues like foreign non-interventionism, immigration, marriage equality, or decriminalization of narcotics to name but a few glaring differences.
I am personally quite progressive. I have major ideological, philosophical, and political differences with some fellow Libertarians, but unlike the currently elected leaders of both major parties we are able to use reason to discuss our differences.
You are right the the GOP has completely lost touch with its own principles in favor of pandering to the American Taliban - it obviously did not work. If true conservatives are looking for a new home - we would be more than happy to have them. However, they should know that we will not compromise our principles for votes.
If you are curious as to what Libertarians stand for, go here: Platform | Libertarian Party
Thank you.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! :yeah:

I don't march entirely in lockstep with the LP, but I voted libertarian in both the presidential and gubernatorial election this year.

It drives me batty when people say libertarians have 'something for everyone' because they tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. No, it's not about that at all. It's about preserving liberty.

Even worse is when people tell me, as they did this year, and it was multiple people from multiple parties, that my vote was a wasted one. What?! I'm not the one who voted for someone they really didn't like just because he's not the other guy!

dirtyhippiegirl, BSN, RN · Nov 9, 2012

As a registered Libertarian for twenty years, I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that Libertarians are not Republicans. Libertarians are not even "conservative" in the currently used sense of the term. We are not "far right." We believe in Liberty. That vast majority of us agree with limited government, but not for the same reasons given by the GOP. Please do not conflate the two.

Eep. I'm sorry for offending. :/ I didn't really mean to conflate Republicans with Libertarians because they obviously aren't the same. However, many *fiscal* Republicans that I know strongly identify with Libertarian beliefs -- small government (I will admit to not knowing why Republicans favor small government vs. Libertarians), limited taxes. Definitely hugely different from the far right which advocates homophobia, anti-choice, pro-war, etc. etc.

dirtyhippiegirl, BSN, RN · Nov 9, 2012

IMHO the US should join Canada and whole host of other countries and stop promoting marriage as the be and end all cure for society's woes. If the idea is to provide for children and or the poor (whom in the United States are most likely to be either female or children), there are otherways of going about it.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Many countries have legalized same-sex marriage. This doesn't stop promoting marriage as the be and end all cure of society's woes. (??) It merely segregates Christian Biblical literalism from the governmental act of joining together in marriage.

DoGoodThenGo · Nov 9, 2012

This makes absolutely no sense.
Many countries have legalized same-sex marriage. This doesn't stop promoting marriage as the be and end all cure of society's woes. (??) It merely segregates Christian Biblical literalism from the governmental act of joining together in marriage.

If you tie greater benefits to marriage regardless of whomever at the expense of singles it does create distortions.

In the United States, the tax code and SS are geared to benefit a 1950's type of family. That is married where usually one spouse works (the husband) and the wife remains at home either unemployed or makes so much less than her husband that the *marriage penalty* does not kick in. To compensate for this even though singles and married persons pay the same in SS payroll taxes married persons gain greater benefits.

A spouse can collect the greater of SS payments between her husband or her own, even if she has never worked. In contrast a single woman who has worked all her life often collects less on average than her married sister. Surviving spouses also collect benefits while co-habiting/common law surviors do not. And so on and so forth.

Canada, Sweden and many other OECD nations either ended or never had joint taxation, that is tax status based upon marital one. Women keep their given names for tax and other government benefit purposes all their lives and everyone pays taxes on their own income. Usually there is a separate part dealing with the household situation and that is where deductions for home, children and so forth come into play.

In many of these countries the goal is less about pushing marriage but making sure children grow up in stable homes regardless.

mariebailey, MSN, RN · Nov 9, 2012

If we're now apologizing to terrorists, and announcing to them our exit dates from countries on the verge of civilization, why don't we just add then to the national debt too, and send them some foreign aid while we're offering all the support-as well as shrinking our military in a time where our enemies are increasing there's-including nuclear?
What is the motivation to work hard, struggle through school while working 40 hours, and achieve independence and autonomy if you can sit at home, jobless, free family healthcare, free phone, and get more money for making more dependence and dependents on an already indebted government?Which outcome makes our country government stronger, giving to it in federal taxes, or taking from it in the form of welfare (with a healthy body that could be at work)?If all those freebies don't come from taxpayers, then what would happen if we all were dependent on government for our incomes? Healthcare? Phones? Birth control? Would God and Obama open their wallets to us for being such great stewards of this Awesome and once Great country?(in that event I couldn't call it a great country.)
How can ALL of take out more than we give, and not collapse this thing?If I'm wrong for questioning these things, the rest of the world must have been too when they downgraded our credit rating for the way OUR government was spending without a way to PAY?
Why are people who live in socialized countries trying so hard to get out attention that social policies such as increased entitlements, stifle economic growth, raise taxes for All (who pay them), and still always fail to make a one class system? (I.e. Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Nazi Germany- can anyone thank of a post USSR satellite that hasn't at one time been crushed by Socialism? And boy how they thrived when they were opened up. (I.e. Slovenia)
I think my questions are shares by many, but I understand why things are the way they are. One guy is saying I want to give you this, and I can do it by taking extra from the rich, and the other is talking about a job for you, or perhaps an education and high skilled/high paying job that you can earn(personal responsibility), which sounds easier? What are people going want, freebies, or earning a paycheck paying 15-40% for the others to get those freebies, while they wait until 65 to get any help at all from the govenment(buy actually money back they earned).
It's obviously unpopular, but I do care. I want to earn my way, I want to help those who need it temporarily- not lifelong while we reward laziness, dependence, getting more money by having more babies=viscous cycle.
How would this make us Great Again?"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, give him fish everyday, better hope the fewer and fewer fishing don't get tired of having their hard caught fishes taken, or somebody is going to HAVE to learn how to get up an go a fish'n! Or Hopefully "God and Obama" will pull of the loaves and fish thing again, and surely on a daily bases I hope for those waiting on the fish!

Some of the richest, healthiest countries in the world also have the highest tax rates & socialized medicine. Take a look at Northern/Western Europe (Denmark is a great example) Comparing the former communist bloc to the current administration's policies is a quite far-fetched. Have you ever looked into how federal discretionary spending is allocated in the U.S.? The majority of your tax $ go to defense spending, not to social or health services for the unemployed or underemployed. My mother grew up in poverty in the Deep South and her family relied on food stamps & commodities during difficult times when she was a child. Her mother had a hard time finding work. I think I'll call her & let her know she was lazy & dependent.

ArrowRN, BSN, RN · Nov 9, 2012

Getting back to topic...in Kenya a lady gave birth to twin boys and named them Barack Obama and Mitt Romney...what should we learn from this mother? Its time to end our differences and work together as one America, one Family.

Kenyan Mother Names Twins Romney and Obama | TIME.com

Susie2310 · Nov 9, 2012

Not even stating a position here, because inflammation won't help anything-as we know as nurses.But my rhetorical questions are simple, and they stick with me because there has been no good answer from our leadership in years. I charge the lack of reaching across the isle to BOTH parties. As I said, there is so much more we all have in common, than separates us.
How can we spend our way into prosperity, printing money and credit we have no foreseeable way to pay back?
How can a moral wrong be a civil right? Take that at face value.
If the sanctity of marriage that has been naturally between one man and one women is to be done away with, why stop at same sex- there's a man in Iowa who wants to marry his Ford Mustang(how would that hurt us?)
If we're now apologizing to terrorists, and announcing to them our exit dates from countries on the verge of civilization, why don't we just add then to the national debt too, and send them some foreign aid while we're offering all the support-as well as shrinking our military in a time where our enemies are increasing there's-including nuclear?
What is the motivation to work hard, struggle through school while working 40 hours, and achieve independence and autonomy if you can sit at home, jobless, free family healthcare, free phone, and get more money for making more dependence and dependents on an already indebted government?Which outcome makes our country government stronger, giving to it in federal taxes, or taking from it in the form of welfare (with a healthy body that could be at work)?If all those freebies don't come from taxpayers, then what would happen if we all were dependent on government for our incomes? Healthcare? Phones? Birth control? Would God and Obama open their wallets to us for being such great stewards of this Awesome and once Great country?(in that event I couldn't call it a great country.)
How can ALL of take out more than we give, and not collapse this thing?If I'm wrong for questioning these things, the rest of the world must have been too when they downgraded our credit rating for the way OUR government was spending without a way to PAY?
Why are people who live in socialized countries trying so hard to get out attention that social policies such as increased entitlements, stifle economic growth, raise taxes for All (who pay them), and still always fail to make a one class system? (I.e. Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Nazi Germany- can anyone thank of a post USSR satellite that hasn't at one time been crushed by Socialism? And boy how they thrived when they were opened up. (I.e. Slovenia)
I think my questions are shares by many, but I understand why things are the way they are. One guy is saying I want to give you this, and I can do it by taking extra from the rich, and the other is talking about a job for you, or perhaps an education and high skilled/high paying job that you can earn(personal responsibility), which sounds easier? What are people going want, freebies, or earning a paycheck paying 15-40% for the others to get those freebies, while they wait until 65 to get any help at all from the govenment(buy actually money back they earned).
It's obviously unpopular, but I do care. I want to earn my way, I want to help those who need it temporarily- not lifelong while we reward laziness, dependence, getting more money by having more babies=viscous cycle.
How would this make us Great Again?"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, give him fish everyday, better hope the fewer and fewer fishing don't get tired of having their hard caught fishes taken, or somebody is going to HAVE to learn how to get up an go a fish'n! Or Hopefully "God and Obama" will pull of the loaves and fish thing again, and surely on a daily bases I hope for those waiting on the fish!

Yes, the poor rich. I feel terrible that they are going to be made to contribute a little bit more. I feel terrible for single people earning over $200,000, $250,000 for couples, who are going to be paying slightly higher taxes towards the ACA. It's so unfair to take from the rich so that more people can have health care. The rich don't get any personal tax breaks, no corporation tax breaks, they get nothing handed to them and they support everyone else. Yes, the solution is personal responsibility, work harder, pull yourself up by your boot straps, work hard, struggle, and die. Absolutely, thank you for guiding us to a more moral and productive life.

BlueDevil,DNP, DNP, RN · Nov 9, 2012

7:22 am by Aurora77

Quote from Butterfly6890

To put it simply for my family: I am a diabetic who has health insurance because of Obama. If it wasn't for him, I don't know how I'd even BEGIN to afford all the hospital visits, endocrinologist visits, urgent care visits, doctor's visits, prescriptions and their refills, pump supplies, etc.

Actually, you should be thanking the people who pay for these things for you, not the President. Unless he personally buys your supplies, he actually has nothing to do with it. He simply took one person's money and gave it to you.

Hey mayahp22,

I just wanted to say a sincere, "You're welcome." I think there is a pretty good chance my spouse and I pay far more in income and property taxes than any of the people being unkind to you in this thread, are very happy to do so and would pay more for you and others to have good health care. We would be thrilled for the privilege to pay as much as the French in return for health care for all as good as theirs, not to mention public transportation and wine and cheese that fine as well!

Aurora and Bortaz, et al are welcome for the interstate system, national parks, national security, food safety and subsidies, and heck even big bird that I helped pay for for them too. I don't mind, I'm a giver like that. It's the liberal in me.

Nurses, how are you going to vote? 2012 US Presidential Election

Nurses, who are you voting for in 2012?