Edited to add: Obama said in 2008: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” In 2012 he said, "I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Followed by, " I favor civil unions for same-sex couples"..

Which is why I am confused as hell as to why my friends that are gay and are staunch supporters of Obama at the moment are expecting him to do anything... Pretty sure it's not going to happen... sorry guys.

Edited to add: Obama said in 2008: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” In 2012 he said, "I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Followed by, " I favor civil unions for same-sex couples"..

Which is why I am confused as hell as to why my friends that are gay and are staunch supporters of Obama at the moment are expecting him to do anything... Pretty sure it's not going to happen... sorry guys.

Do you think Romney and Ryan are going to move the ball forward or backward? This next president will get to name one or perhaps two supreme court justices. Do you think that Romney or Ryan is going to put Justices in place that will support same sex marriage at a Constitutional level?

Edited to add: Obama said in 2008: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” In 2012 he said, "I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Followed by, " I favor civil unions for same-sex couples"..

Which is why I am confused as hell as to why my friends that are gay and are staunch supporters of Obama at the moment are expecting him to do anything... Pretty sure it's not going to happen... sorry guys.

Do you think Romney and Ryan are going to move the ball forward or backward? This next president will get to name one or perhaps two supreme court justices. Do you think that Romney or Ryan is going to put Justices in place that will support same sex marriage at a Constitutional level?

At this point... what difference does it make what direction the ball moves for a "favored" demographic... when the American people as a whole are being treated like chattel? I know I am answering a question with a question.... but I don't get it when people might elect others that may give their demographic rights and privilages... while that same elected official will be the same person at chipping away the rights of everyone.... including the "favored" demographic... So what difference would it make then? I would rather see someone be in office that will not only allow gays the right to get married or keep the right for women to have an abortion AND not treat citizens like common criminals over a juice box in airport terminals (or bus/train depots or major public events and so on and so forth)... and among other things.

So you are upset about security and see having your juice checked for bombs as an erosion of your individual rights? While I agree the TSA needs improvement and they should take notes from the British, I don't really see this as an erosion of rights.

Romney's foreign policy shortcomings alone disqualify him from holding any national office.

Because Obama had some many when he took office...

Obama was an experienced community organizer. It is ok!

Ah, but here is the trick. The running mate is supposed to fill in the spots that you don't have. So while, yes, Obama's foreign policy experience was weak when running for office initially, Joe Biden's foreign policy was quite strong. Who is Romney's foreign policy guru? Its definitely not Ryan.

You surround yourself with the expertise you need when you get in office. It's what Obama did and what every president before him did. Romney is as qualified if not more qualified then Obama was four years ago.

So you vote him in and hope he hires good people? Reagan had Bush Sr., Clinton had Gore, W had Cheney and Obama had Binden. I will ask again, who does Romney have?

Pretty sure I can find some Democrats that would find Bush Sr and Cheney worthless if not dangerous. Presidents get elected and then they surround themselves with advisers. There is really no argument here ;p.

btw.. what did Quayle bring to the table?

But they both had substantial foreign policy and armed forces experience. I don't disagree that it is important for a president to surround themselves with strong advisers but there has to be some foreign policy chops in the main ticket.

Dan Quayle was supposed to bring in the young vote as well as the female vote. Bush Sr. had foreign policy covered.

Edited to add: Obama said in 2008: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” In 2012 he said, "I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Followed by, " I favor civil unions for same-sex couples"..

Which is why I am confused as hell as to why my friends that are gay and are staunch supporters of Obama at the moment are expecting him to do anything... Pretty sure it's not going to happen... sorry guys.

Do you think Romney and Ryan are going to move the ball forward or backward? This next president will get to name one or perhaps two supreme court justices. Do you think that Romney or Ryan is going to put Justices in place that will support same sex marriage at a Constitutional level?

At this point... what difference does it make what direction the ball moves for a "favored" demographic... when the American people as a whole are being treated like chattel? I know I am answering a question with a question.... but I don't get it when people might elect others that may give their demographic rights and privilages... while that same elected official will be the same person at chipping away the rights of everyone.... including the "favored" demographic... So what difference would it make then? I would rather see someone be in office that will not only allow gays the right to get married or keep the right for women to have an abortion AND not treat citizens like common criminals over a juice box in airport terminals (or bus/train depots or major public events and so on and so forth)... and among other things.

So you are upset about security and see having your juice checked for bombs as an erosion of your individual rights? While I agree the TSA needs improvement and they should take notes from the British, I don't really see this as an erosion of rights.

If that is security then I don't want it...Statisically, any given person is not anymore likely to be on a plane used in a terrorist attack than they are to be hit by lightning... not once, but twice... that's even AFTER 9/11. Seriously, TSA lets guns pass through their security and they need to have a heads up that there is a test coming their way in order to pass it (that is not to mention those that steal things from people and other criminal acts). But this goes beyond TSA... this goes to being able to detain American citizens indefinitely, warzone or not, and refusing a trial... Things like NDAA, SOPA, and other things that are slowly chipping away at the rights of American citizens, even though all these acts look great on paper they have dire and hopefully unintended consequences.

But then hey, I would rather keep my (and everyone else's) liberty in lieu of security... because you know what they say about giving up liberty for security.

This basically shows that he is either pandering and will not follow through or he has no idea about how the international community works. Not to mention his entire "path to the sea" statement.

I don't know why, but I am always shocked when I see the candidate that conservatives supprort when it clearly violates their own values. While I find the dems hypocritcal, I stand in complete awe at how the conservatives cans so hate a liberal or democrat for something, and then completely ignore or embrace those same actions done by their own guy. Case in point, living in Indiana, I for years heard from the right nothing but hatred for Clinton because he had smoked pot and dodged the draft. Then they went and elected GWB and Cheney, a coke-head who had his daddy get him out of the draft and into the Air Guard where he more than likely deserted, and a 5 deferment draft dodger. I didn't think it could get any hilariously bad than that.

But low and behold, 2012, we are now seeing another Republicn nominee for president who conviently did a holy mission to france during Vietnam AFTER he picketed for it. Oh, and as head of Bain Capital he bought a bunch of bankrupt american companies, but instead of making them profitable with actual smart ideas, he fired all americans and outsourced those jobs to Mexico and the COMMUNIST Chinese. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, if you would have told me that the Republican candidate for president was draft dodger and outsourced our jobs to the commies, I would have had you isntituionlized right after I slapped you. But once again, cheating on your wife, drug use, draft dodging, corruption, commie loving.....it's only bad if you aren't a republican. See, as long as you say you'll lower taxes, believe in god, and wear a big enough flag pin on your suit...it all cancels out.

I don't know why, but I am always shocked when I see the candidate that conservatives supprort when it clearly violates their own values. While I find the dems hypocritcal, I stand in complete awe at how the conservatives cans so hate a liberal or democrat for something, and then completely ignore or embrace those same actions done by their own guy. Case in point, living in Indiana, I for years heard from the right nothing but hatred for Clinton because he had smoked pot and dodged the draft. Then they went and elected GWB and Cheney, a coke-head who had his daddy get him out of the draft and into the Air Guard where he more than likely deserted, and a 5 deferment draft dodger. I didn't think it could get any hilariously bad than that.

But low and behold, 2012, we are now seeing another Republicn nominee for president who conviently did a holy mission to france during Vietnam AFTER he picketed for it. Oh, and as head of Bain Capital he bought a bunch of bankrupt american companies, but instead of making them profitable with actual smart ideas, he fired all americans and outsourced those jobs to Mexico and the COMMUNIST Chinese. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, if you would have told me that the Republican candidate for president was draft dodger and outsourced our jobs to the commies, I would have had you isntituionlized right after I slapped you. But once again, cheating on your wife, drug use, draft dodging, corruption, commie loving.....it's only bad if you aren't a republican. See, as long as you say you'll lower taxes, believe in god, and wear a big enough flag pin on your suit...it all cancels out.

I wish our society would step out of the lemming stage. Why on earth we feel like we only need two candidates to choose from is beyond me. I mean, technically, I know why, but it's not logical.

If society really wants to run this country, then we need a revolution; and make it a good one.

ETA:: Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 46 states right now.

I don't know why, but I am always shocked when I see the candidate that conservatives supprort when it clearly violates their own values. While I find the dems hypocritcal, I stand in complete awe at how the conservatives cans so hate a liberal or democrat for something, and then completely ignore or embrace those same actions done by their own guy. Case in point, living in Indiana, I for years heard from the right nothing but hatred for Clinton because he had smoked pot and dodged the draft. Then they went and elected GWB and Cheney, a coke-head who had his daddy get him out of the draft and into the Air Guard where he more than likely deserted, and a 5 deferment draft dodger. I didn't think it could get any hilariously bad than that.

But low and behold, 2012, we are now seeing another Republicn nominee for president who conviently did a holy mission to france during Vietnam AFTER he picketed for it. Oh, and as head of Bain Capital he bought a bunch of bankrupt american companies, but instead of making them profitable with actual smart ideas, he fired all americans and outsourced those jobs to Mexico and the COMMUNIST Chinese. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, if you would have told me that the Republican candidate for president was draft dodger and outsourced our jobs to the commies, I would have had you isntituionlized right after I slapped you. But once again, cheating on your wife, drug use, draft dodging, corruption, commie loving.....it's only bad if you aren't a republican. See, as long as you say you'll lower taxes, believe in god, and wear a big enough flag pin on your suit...it all cancels out.

But the Dems do it too... I know you said you find Dems hypocritical as well... but where are all the anti-war protesters that couldn't wait until GWB got out of office? We aren't hearing too much about them lately.

But then, I'm not succumbing to either of these parties anymore and I wish more people wouldn't either... but alas, that is a pipe dream.

That has been one of the major complaints I have made about the anti-war movement. Now I can see giving Obama a year or two to get our ducks in order and have a systematic withdraw, but I don't think leaving in 2010 or 2014 is going to make much of a difference in Afghanistan. And I am sorry, but leaving 30,000 "advisors" in Iraq is not really ending the war.

Then again, call me crazy, but I think any Republican or Democratic candidate who tried to end the war has a magic bullet and a shy loner with three names waiting for them.

The Rest of the World, here, chiming in to agree with Azdak. Romney is too far out of alignment with the majority of the rest of the western world's leadership and priorities, both in economic and social policy terms, not to mention the prospect of US foreign policy a la Bush Mark 3 gives most of the rest of the hemisphere heebie-jeebies. It doesn't really say anything good about the man that Pakistan is the only one of the countries sampled where he is the favoured candidate...

Choking somewhat on the assertion that Europe "doesn't really do anything", but typing on an iPhone at nearly 1am is going to give me RSI if I respond to that one right now. In the morning, my time, I shall return.

Here's the problem, we lead, you follow. It may sound arrogant, but you know what? We earned it. With that out of the way, i could care less what Europe thinks of us.

However, if we reelect this clown, we will soon be the one's following.

I'm not just talking about Iraq though... I'm talking about Libya, Pakistan, yes even Afghanistan... and who knows where else... and I'm not just talking about now, I'm talking about the past even... and it's not going to change.

Isolationism is a terrible foreign policy.

And so is bombing our "allies"... and I don't remember hearing anyone talking about isolationism... pretty sure that is pratically impossible in this "global society" where everything and everyone is so intertwined with one and other.

Here's the problem, we lead, you follow. It may sound arrogant, but you know what? We earned it. With that out of the way, i could care less what Europe thinks of us.

However, if we reelect this clown, we will soon be the one's following.

You 'earned' it? You lead, we follow? Seriously? Quite apart from the fact that the modern US was essentially built by Europeans, which in my view constitutes both 'doing something' and 'leading', your perspective of the world is absurdly narrow if you truly believe this - though that does seem to be a common perspective among many Americans. My week has turned busy, and I haven't time right now to go into detail - it would take too long. America is undoubtedly a great country. However, may I suggest reading some non-US-centric/published history, or even current commentary. I think you'll find that Europe (in which I include the UK), Russia, Asia, even the Antipodes 'do' quite a bit, and have done for rather a long time.

I'm glad you "could care less" - that implies that you do, in fact, care for Europe's opinion. Under your present administration, that opinion is largely favourable, in the main. Under the currently-proposed alternative, I refer you to my first paragraph.