Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.
The gay vote has nothing to do with this.
The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.
I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.
-spence
|
"I really don't know what a fact means to you."
Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.
"Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters."
You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.
So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?
Jamie: voters in NC rejected gay marriage this week.
Spence: That's old news, that position is now dated by independents.
Spence, I get that you really, really hope independent voters are swooning about how forward-thinking and enlightened Obama is. I understand you really, really want that to be the case. But that hope does not trump the reality of what happened in NC a few days ago.
That's the difference between us. I agree with you that gays should be able to marry. Unlike you, I recognize the reality that most people (or at least most people who vote) don't feel that way. I react to reality, you base your existence on what you wish reality looked like.