Gays used by Democrats once again

[maxiep]

No, but you are dumb enough to use this tactic multiple times. Like that thread where you and some others tried to get gays to focus on the POC voters in California who voted against gay marriage. Or that thread where you tried to tell us gays that Obama has done nothing for our kind (I understand maybe you think using Dan Savage logic will work, but not all gays will ignore how Obama has done more than any other sitting President for queer federal employees or the transgender community - which Savage and many others in and outside the community like to throw under the bus so they may convince the privileged hey, we deserve to be privileged too HAHA LOOK WE THREW THE TRANSGENDERS UNDER THE BUS).

And thank you for saying you're using logic and reason, you're so kind, the great privileged one, to show us little non-logical gays the true way. We can't be logical on our own, it's far too complex for us.

As if those of us who vote democratic do so because "OH MY LAWD AND SAVIOR NEIL PATRICK HARRIS, I bet if we vote for this democratic nominee they will just always stick to their word on gay marriage, or gay rights, or any gay matter. They will not, like most other politicians before them, bow down to the discriminatory masses of the United States of America to ensure they do not alienate any future voters."

No. If you think gay people go in voting for a democratic nominee with that as their logic, or their primary concern, then this post is even more insulting. I don't recall you ever making a post here titled "Homophobic bigots used by Republicans once again" for our resident homophobes like *Deleted*. Then again, I mean, you have our well-meaning in mind, right? You're just trying to explain the idea of political nominees making promises to people and then breaking them as if this is some new and complex political process. I mean, it's in a long line of defending and watching out for the gays ideology you've exhibited here.

Like that time when *Deleted* suggested all gay men and transgenders were pedophiles, a thread you participated in. ..oh, wait. No, you didn't. In fact, for as much as you want to make this thread look like you're looking out for gay people, pointing out how the mean democrats are using us and well, at least the republicans are honest that they want you to burn in hell.. you never do much to speak against the actual homophobes on this board.

But thank you for teaching us about logic and reason in voting. You knew we were far too busy thinking about fashion than silly politics that help shape our quality of life. So kind!

Gotta run now, absolutely fabulous special on Elton John coming up. He's got an outfit that is to DIE FOR, girl!

No tactics here, dear. I just post when I see hypocrisy. What's sad is you can't even address the issues at hand. When he ran for President I said he doesn't give two shits about gay people; it was clear from his political affiliations on the South Side. And once again he's trying to screw gay people over. As an American, any time I see people not treated equally, it pisses me off. But you keep defending the Democrats while they continue to treat gay people like second class citizens.

At least when the GOP went on their spending binge in 2004 and 2006 people who cared about limited government kicked their asses out of office by not supporting them. It took a few years, but now there's a contingent of new Congresspeople who are actually changing the debate from lessening the increase in government to actually decreasing it. Clearly, overwhelming support of gay voters for these Democrats have gotten the gay community jack squat. Rather than try the same thing over and over again, how about trying a different strategy?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/17/california.pride.parade.military/

Military members march in San Diego gay pride parade

CNN) -- Roughly 200 active-duty and retired U.S. service members marched in the San Diego gay pride parade Saturday, marking the first time in the parade's history that a military contingent took part. The service members were not dressed in uniform. Instead, they wore T-shirts to indicate which branch of the military they were affiliated with. Each branch of service was represented.
"This is a dream come true," retired Marine Capt. Kristen Kavanaugh told CNN affiliate KGTV.


"It's the beginning of something where we can be proud about who we are and about the job that we're doing to help this nation."
The march took place one day after a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving in the military, but prohibited the services from investigating or discharging anyone under the rule.


The 9th U.S. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in California issued the order late Friday after the administration of President Barack Obama asked it to reconsider its recent order temporarily blocking the policy.
U.S. officials have been moving ahead with dismantling "don't' ask, don't tell" but objected to having the courts force the government to officially repeal it at this time.
"As we're coming to such a close end of 'don't ask, don't tell,' I think the timing maybe just worked out well," said Frank Sabatini Jr., media coordinator for San Diego LGBT Pride, which organizes the parade, about the military contingent.


He said Saturday marked the first time in the parade's 37-year history that service members took part as an organized group.
"As soon as they turned onto that parade route ... arms all over the place went up and you heard a roaring applause," said Sabatini.
Video broadcast by CNN affiliate KFMB showed parade-goers waving American and rainbow flags as onlookers cheered.
"So many people are fighting for freedom and fighting for rights and they don't have those rights themselves," Staff Sgt. Jose Navarro told KFMB.
"I think it's just the honorable thing to do -- to allow them to be open and live for the freedom that they're willing to die for."

 

[maxiep]

I hope those servicepeople are protected if and when the policy changes. These people volunteered to defend our country and we're concerned about with whom they like to fuck? I say thank you for your service.

 

[barfo]

Rather than try the same thing over and over again, how about trying a different strategy?

If a Big Mac isn't nutritious enough, why not try poison?

Give it up, no one is buying what you are selling.

It's possible that you limited government types might actually be better for gays than democrats, but until you get out of bed with the homophobes and the religious right, no one can trust you on social issues.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

How about these threads:

"Christian Right for Jesus used by pro-war Republicans once again"

"Tea Party used by corporate Republicans once again to cut taxes for the rich"

The point is that in a 2-party system, factions who should dislike each other are forced to ally. In Europe, each faction just forms its own little party.

 

[maxiep]

The responses to this thread have been interesting. There has been no outrage nor even disappointment from supporters of this Administration over privately reversing their position on a public stance abandoning support for gays. Instead, the responses have been about how "Republicans are worse" and "Republicans do it too" and personal attacks about how pointing how the poor treatment of gay people by this Administration is some is some kind of "tactic" based on "emotion". Nowhere in this thread was there the suggestion that people who want equal rights for gay people should vote Republican, yet that's been the assumption.

All I recommended was that if people who are left-of-center oriented, that they rid their party of representatives that just pay lip service to equal rights for gay people, by removing their support for them and instead support people that will actually do what they say. I guess if those people choose to vote the same way, they can expect the same results. That's a shame.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html

Anderson Cooper Calls Out Obama's Gay Marriage Flip Flopping

Anderson Cooper called out President Obama on his Tuesday show for flip-flopping on gay marriage.

Obama is under increased scrutiny about his "evolving" views on gay rights in the wake of the battle for gay marriage in New York. Obama will be in the state on Thursday to attend a high-priced fundraiser with gay donors.

In his "Keeping Them Honest" segment, Cooper said, "New questions are being raised about what the president actually believes about gay marriage and whether his public opposition to it is real or just political posturing."

He then ran through the by-now familiar tale of President Obama's stance on gay marriage, from his initial written support for it in 1996 to his stated opposition to it when he began running for national office. (Obama advisers recently told The Huffington Post that his current position on the issue is that it should be left up to the states.)

Cooper played footage from the recent Netroots Nation Conference, where White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was grilled about Obama's shifting statements about gay marriage.

"Hard to see how the president's position has changed so much," Cooper said. "The only thing that has changed is his need for a wider audience to vote for him."

Cooper then brought on gay rights activist Cleve Jones and Democratic strategist Paul Begala to discuss Obama's flip-flopping. Jones called the president's moves a "political calculation, and sadly, I think it's the wrong one."

"You know, Paul, Democrats attack conservatives for being hypocritical on issues that they're hypocritical about," Cooper said to Begala. "But I don't hear a lot of Democrats attacking their own president for hypocrisy."

 

[julius]

All I recommended was that if people who are left-of-center oriented, that they rid their party of representatives that just pay lip service to equal rights for gay people, by removing their support for them and instead support people that will actually do what they say. I guess if those people choose to vote the same way, they can expect the same results. That's a shame.

If they were to "get rid" of the party reps who say one thing and did another, and tried to replace them with people who backed their ideals, chances are they'd be called socialist/commie/leftist and wouldn't get elected. Not necessarily because it's "against what the country wants" but because the people who are against certain things have an incredible amount of power, not on par with the support they have for said movement.

btw, that statement (what the country wants) tends to be used by both sides of the spectrum to back what they want to spin as being correct. Even if it's flies in the face of the other side using the same tactic, OR in some cases, flies in the face of reality.

For the most part, we live in a very lemming society, especially when it comes to politics. People who post here might be on the higher end of the spectrum, but for fucks sake, in the last 2 elections, people willingly voted against candidates who went against their ideals BECAUSE of the name of the party.

As in, in 2008, some Republicans lost their seats to Democrats, because they were Republicans (and the same thing happened in 2010).

The Tea Party people voted for people who said they would do XYZ but in reality, they're not going to be able to do XYZ. They either don't have the power, don't have the seniority, or don't really stand a chance in hell in passing some of the legislation they promised.

 

[maxiep]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/anderson-cooper-obama-gay-marriage_n_882075.html

Anderson Cooper Calls Out Obama's Gay Marriage Flip Flopping

Anderson Cooper called out President Obama on his Tuesday show for flip-flopping on gay marriage.

Obama is under increased scrutiny about his "evolving" views on gay rights in the wake of the battle for gay marriage in New York. Obama will be in the state on Thursday to attend a high-priced fundraiser with gay donors.

In his "Keeping Them Honest" segment, Cooper said, "New questions are being raised about what the president actually believes about gay marriage and whether his public opposition to it is real or just political posturing."

He then ran through the by-now familiar tale of President Obama's stance on gay marriage, from his initial written support for it in 1996 to his stated opposition to it when he began running for national office. (Obama advisers recently told The Huffington Post that his current position on the issue is that it should be left up to the states.)

Cooper played footage from the recent Netroots Nation Conference, where White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was grilled about Obama's shifting statements about gay marriage.

"Hard to see how the president's position has changed so much," Cooper said. "The only thing that has changed is his need for a wider audience to vote for him."

Cooper then brought on gay rights activist Cleve Jones and Democratic strategist Paul Begala to discuss Obama's flip-flopping. Jones called the president's moves a "political calculation, and sadly, I think it's the wrong one."

"You know, Paul, Democrats attack conservatives for being hypocritical on issues that they're hypocritical about," Cooper said to Begala. "But I don't hear a lot of Democrats attacking their own president for hypocrisy."

Good for Anderson Cooper.

 

[maxiep]

If they were to "get rid" of the party reps who say one thing and did another, and tried to replace them with people who backed their ideals, chances are they'd be called socialist/commie/leftist and wouldn't get elected. Not necessarily because it's "against what the country wants" but because the people who are against certain things have an incredible amount of power, not on par with the support they have for said movement.

btw, that statement (what the country wants) tends to be used by both sides of the spectrum to back what they want to spin as being correct. Even if it's flies in the face of the other side using the same tactic, OR in some cases, flies in the face of reality.

Absolutely right. It drives me nuts when people claim that mantle. The only way to find out what the country wants is for each elected official to honestly state their case as to what they think. If they get elected, then the aggregate votes and then we find the country's will. Until then, stop with the false backstopping. Just make your best case. If you lose, at least you can look yourself in the mirror.

For the most part, we live in a very lemming society, especially when it comes to politics. People who post here might be on the higher end of the spectrum, but for fucks sake, in the last 2 elections, people willingly voted against candidates who went against their ideals BECAUSE of the name of the party.

I think voting for Obama became a fashion statement for many people, just as voting for Bush became a way to show you were a good Christian or patriotic. BTW, those were intentional strategies created by Plouffe and Rove. I wish people would think for themselves, but largely I think you're correct.

As in, in 2008, some Republicans lost their seats to Democrats, because they were Republicans (and the same thing happened in 2010).

Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they spent like Democrats and lost their fiscally conservative base. George W. Bush--while I applauded his prosceution of the War on Terror--was a nightmare for many on the Libertarian-leaning right. He believed in Big Government AND wanted to intrude in our personal lives. I live my life like a social conservative, but I don't think it's my right to tell others how to live their lives, and it certainly doesn't belong in the sphere of public policy.

The Democrats were wiped out in 2010 largely as a result of the loss of the independents. Candidate Obama ran as a uniting centrist, but President Obama has governed as a partisan leftist. Hell, it was the policies of the Obama Administration and the Pelosi/Reid Congress that created the Tea Party. Tea Partiers are so bad at politics because is largely comprised of people who tried to avoid politics, but finally found it was intruding too much into their daily lives.

The Tea Party people voted for people who said they would do XYZ but in reality, they're not going to be able to do XYZ. They either don't have the power, don't have the seniority, or don't really stand a chance in hell in passing some of the legislation they promised.

The Tea Party thus far has been an enormous success. It has completely changed the debate on not just spending, but the proper role of government. They may not get everything they want, but they're making a huge difference. Also, it's just been one election. It will take two to three election cycles to fully evaluate the impact of the Tea Party.

I may not agree with everything you wrote, but thanks for the thoughtful post. Repped.

 

[julius]

changed the debate, but they're still debating over the wrong thing and the wrong way, imho.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Why I'm simply pointing out that any gay person that votes for a Democrat based on the hope they'll do something substantive on gay rights is fooling themselves. Clear enough, dear?

You are acting like gay people vote Democrat only because they only want gay rights legislation. Maybe more gay people are liberal? And the Democratic party is more liberal than the other choices?

 

[maxiep]

You are acting like gay people vote Democrat only because they only want gay rights legislation. Maybe more gay people are liberal? And the Democratic party is more liberal than the other choices?

I think that's a fair point (although I wasn't "acting" as if the gay community voted only on gay issues, just that if one is voting on gay issues, the current Democrats may not be the best bet).

 

[STOMP]

I think that's a fair point (although I wasn't "acting" as if the gay community voted only on gay issues, just that if one is voting on gay issues, the current Democrats may not be the best bet).

the other option/party may be the best bet for their interests then??? The one who's frontrunner has gone on record claiming the gay community is "part of satan"? Thats who you're suggesting might support them best on gay issues?

no matter what political stance a party takes, it's going to turn off some groups of people. Today's Cons pander to factions extremely opposed to the gay community (among others). The Dems don't deliver on all their rhetoric to any group (just like no party does), but they don't hate them as part of their uniting core values.

STOMP

 

[maxiep]

the other option/party may be the best bet for their interests then??? The one who's frontrunner has gone on record claiming the gay community is "part of satan"? Thats who you're suggesting might support them best on gay issues?

no matter what political stance a party takes, it's going to turn off some groups of people. Today's Cons pander to factions extremely opposed to the gay community (among others). The Dems don't deliver on all their rhetoric to any group (just like no party does), but they don't hate them as part of their uniting core values.

STOMP

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. My suggestion is to dump the current crop of Democrats (taking a step back) and support people who will actually do something for the gay community (taking two steps forward). Look at what the Tea Party did with the Republicans that spent like Democrats. That pathetic group is gone, replaced by people who actually refuse to overspend.

And please don't talk about Bachmann like she's going to be the GOP candidate. She's Howard Dean.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's clearly tough to be a gay person. Who signed DOMA? Clinton. It was passed 85-14 in the senate and 342-67 in the house. Shame on all of them.

Black folk don't approve of gay marriage, according to the polls. This is consistent with Obama's statements all along - like that he favors domestic partnership.

For the most part, the republicans are no better. They pushed DOMA in the first place, and make "one man, one woman" marriage a campaign issue.

Republicans have the LCR, and Democrats seem to be coming around on the issue.

Neither party's a winner for gay people and their rights.

 

[STOMP]

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. My suggestion is to dump the current crop of Democrats (taking a step back) and support people who will actually do something for the gay community (taking two steps forward). Look at what the Tea Party did with the Republicans that spent like Democrats. That pathetic group is gone, replaced by people who actually refuse to overspend.

oh please, there are still plenty of entrenched Republicans that overspend. It's a matter of what who you represent values. More tax breaks for the rich is costly for everyone who isn't rich. Etc... here's another example that no tea party folks opposed

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-17/...s-prices-maine-s-olympia-snowe?_s=PM:POLITICS

if the Cons are to kneel to the demands of the tea party sect, I expect them to be marginalized and then absolutely trounced in the upcoming election. The GOP has an in-party civil war going on that is hardly settled history. The big business/banking faction they count in their corner wants different things then the tea party. No matter which candidate the party settles on in the end it will be a compromise much of the party will be uncomfortable with, but my bet is on Big Money winning out. In the same way, if the Dems were to bow to the gay communities wishes (or one of their many factions) they would alienate more voters then they would endear.

Party election strategy has long been to promise a lot of things to various groups and then deal with the governing after-words as best they can. The various groups know they aren't going to get everything they want but will keep pushing for as much as they can get today in hopes of eventually getting their goals. I really don't think the gay community is big enough to drive an election or the Democratic party... hell, despite being very politically organized and active they don't get all they want in the Bay Area. But while they don't get everything they want, through the Democrats they are attaining some progress.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8250671

And please don't talk about Bachmann like she's going to be the GOP candidate. She's Howard Dean.

I agree that her campaign will probably flame out as her massage/history is way too at odds with those of the American public. But there is no denying she's the frontrunner today or the darling of Tea Party (who's value to the GOP you were just espousing) and there is no denying that some of her appeal to the base is her evangelical condemning views on gays. Those views reverberate within the GOP. I think it's better for the Cons to have those sorts of views implied then out in the open. By implying them they enliven their base, out in the open it enlivens the Dem's.

STOMP

 

[maxiep]

oh please, there are still plenty of entrenched Republicans that overspend. It's a matter of what who you represent values. More tax breaks for the rich is costly for everyone who isn't rich. Etc... here's another example that no tea party folks opposed

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-17/...s-prices-maine-s-olympia-snowe?_s=PM:POLITICS

if the Cons are to kneel to the demands of the tea party sect, I expect them to be marginalized and then absolutely trounced in the upcoming election. The GOP has an in-party civil war going on that is hardly settled history. The big business/banking faction they count in their corner wants different things then the tea party. No matter which candidate the party settles on in the end it will be a compromise much of the party will be uncomfortable with, but my bet is on Big Money winning out. In the same way, if the Dems were to bow to the gay communities wishes (or one of their many factions) they would alienate more voters then they would endear.

Party election strategy has long been to promise a lot of things to various groups and then deal with the governing after-words as best they can. The various groups know they aren't going to get everything they want but will keep pushing for as much as they can get today in hopes of eventually getting their goals. I really don't think the gay community is big enough to drive an election or the Democratic party... hell, despite being very politically organized and active they don't get all they want in the Bay Area. But while they don't get everything they want, through the Democrats they are attaining some progress.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8250671


I agree that her campaign will probably flame out as her massage/history is way too at odds with those of the American public. But there is no denying she's the frontrunner today or the darling of Tea Party (who's value to the GOP you were just espousing) and there is no denying that some of her appeal to the base is her evangelical condemning views on gays. Those views reverberate within the GOP. I think it's better for the Cons to have those sorts of views implied then out in the open. By implying them they enliven their base, out in the open it enlivens the Dem's.

STOMP

It's been one election. Talk to me in 2014.