The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

I think you meant to say "trumps" but the typo is oddly appropriate.

 

Oh no, that was quite on purpose knowing the story

[Rex Kickass]

Oh no, that was quite on purpose knowing the story

All will be revealed in January to those wondering.

[southsider2k5]

All will be revealed in January to those wondering.

 

He will still hunt you down. Barney is that kind of a badass.

[Rex Kickass]

Really interesting argument from Slate that basically says that race plays into the calculus of coming out for gay marriage. The argument? A white Democrat could never have successfully made this choice.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol..._couldn_t_.html

 

Anti-gay-marriage whites are not voting for Barack Obama. Forty-nine percent of white folks oppose gay marriage, but 74 percent of Republicans oppose gay marriage. And the Republican Party is almost entirely white. Where are the 48 percent of nonwhite voters who oppose gay marriage? Where are almost all nonwhite voters? In the Democratic Party. Even if every single black Republican is anti-gay, there simply aren't enough of them to account for all the black anti-gay voters. Therein lies the danger for a Democratic candidate supporting gay marriage: that voters otherwise disposed to him will not support him because of his stance on gay marriage.

And here is where Obama is different. If the black community doesn't flood the polls, Obama will lose in November. But he’s the first black president of the United States. Black voters are sticky with Barack Obama in a way no white president could dream of. For whites, a white president is the natural order of things. For blacks, it was the miracle of Grant Park. Once the Iowa caucus happened, even Hillary Clinton, the wife of the “first black president,” could not stem the tide. As black houses went into foreclosure after 2008 and the unemployment rate went through the roof, Obama’s support among blacks stayed amazingly firm. As the election approaches, his support is at the same level as in 2008.

[southsider2k5]

Really interesting argument from Slate that basically says that race plays into the calculus of coming out for gay marriage. The argument? A white Democrat could never have successfully made this choice.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol..._couldn_t_.html

 

IIRC, the biggest opposition group to gay marriage during the California vote was Mexican Catholics.

[Rex Kickass]

IIRC, the biggest opposition group to gay marriage during the California vote was Mexican Catholics.

African American churches also could have been the difference maker as well.

[Soxbadger]

In case anyone didnt get it, heres Barack's email:

------

 

 

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

 

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

 

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

 

http://my.democrats.org/Marriage

 

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

 

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

 

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

 

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

 

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

 

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

 

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

 

Thank you,

 

Barack

 

Edited May 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

What an outrage! They should give him a polygraph test to make sure he's sincere.

[Jenksismyhero]

Frank Rich on the Obama flip-flop.

 

 

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/frank...as-evolved.html

 

Isn't this Kap's point? The fact that people are applauding Obama for finally seeing the light when it's so clearly obvious that he did it not because of some new understanding of the issue, but just to get $$? I mean, I agree with those that say regardless of how he did it, the end result is the result they wanted. But i'm not sure how you can't also look at Obama a little differently - someone without much of a backbone and who will whore himself out to win votes.

 

Edit: though really that's almost by definition of what a politician is these days so....maybe it's not that big of a deal, even though it should be.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

But i'm not sure how you can't also look at Obama a little differently - someone without much of a backbone and who will whore himself out to win votes.

 

What if you always looked at Obama and every other politician this way?

 

It really doesnt change anything if that has been your perspective all a long.

 

If he had a backbone and didnt whore himself out to win votes, he wouldnt have been President, he wouldnt have been a Senator, hed likely just be some random guy arguing on the internet like we do.

 

I guess thats the part Kap seems to be missing, that I never trust or believe politicians in the first place.

 

Or bah bah bah.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Ha damn your edit hit exactly on the point I was making.

[southsider2k5]

What if you always looked at Obama and every other politician this way?

 

It really doesnt change anything if that has been your perspective all a long.

 

If he had a backbone and didnt whore himself out to win votes, he wouldnt have been President, he wouldnt have been a Senator, hed likely just be some random guy arguing on the internet like we do.

 

I guess thats the part Kap seems to be missing, that I never trust or believe politicians in the first place.

 

Or bah bah bah.

 

If you are willing to lower yourself to "they have no standards, so why should I" level, that is fine. I'm not really interested.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you are willing to lower yourself to "they have no standards, so why should I" level, that is fine. I'm not really interested.

 

That's part of the problem too. People just accept that as par for the course.

[BigSqwert]

If you are willing to lower yourself to "they have no standards, so why should I" level, that is fine. I'm not really interested.

My standard is making sure the gay community has equal rights. No issues here on my end with the President's announcement. I could care less about the motive in this case. I'd feel the same way if Romney or any other politician did the exact same thing.

[southsider2k5]

My standard is making sure the gay community has equal rights. No issues here on my end with the President's announcement. I could care less about the motive in this case. I'd feel the same way if Romney or any other politician did the exact same thing.

 

My standard is to elect people who are honest and trustworthy.

 

I'd rather sit here and argue with you for the rest of my life, and know that you honestly believe what you believe, versus one day you coming in here and switching to my side to impress people. If a person is willing to compromise their core beliefs for personal gain, they aren't worthwhile, even if they do end up agreeing with me. It is why I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney.

[GoSox05]

It's not like Obama has been totally against gay rights and all of the sudden switched to other side. He was against DOMA. He got rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". He has been pretty consistent on gay rights. He has stated for years that he fought with himself on the idea of gay marriage. It's not really surprising that he changed his position.

 

Who did he sell out to? The people? Better than selling out to a corporation.

 

Oh wait, never mind. Those are the same I forgot.

[BigSqwert]

My standard is to elect people who are honest and trustworthy.

Apparently you rarely vote if that’s your criteria. And how do you fully know if any of them, including Ron Paul, are honest and trustworthy? There’s no fool proof way of knowing.

 

[southsider2k5]

Apparently you rarely vote if that’s your criteria. And how do you fully know if any of them, including Ron Paul, are honest and trustworthy? There’s no fool proof way of knowing.

 

One great indicator for me is guys who are willing to change their core positions as the polls change regarding them. It tells me that they will sell out on anything if the reward is right.

[StrangeSox]

One great indicator for me is guys who are willing to change their core positions as the polls change regarding them. It tells me that they will sell out on anything if the reward is right.

I don't now that it is fair to say that he changed his core position here. I may be wrong, but in the past he didn't advocate for gay marriage. That is different from actually opposing it, even if it is still a bad position. As was pointed out, he ended doma and dadt. On the other hand, his wh just recently delayed implementing a non-discrimination policy for federal contractors.

[BigSqwert]

I don't now that it is fair to say that he changed his core position here. I may be wrong, but in the past he didn't advocate for gay marriage. That is different from actually opposing it, even if it is still a bad position. As was pointed out, he ended doma and dadt. On the other hand, his wh just recently delayed implementing a non-discrimination policy for federal contractors.

Exactly. He was 90% there and yesterday he took that last step. It's not like he was advocating mandated gay conversion across the country on Tuesday and did a complete 180 yesterday.

[southsider2k5]

I don't now that it is fair to say that he changed his core position here. I may be wrong, but in the past he didn't advocate for gay marriage. That is different from actually opposing it, even if it is still a bad position. As was pointed out, he ended doma and dadt. On the other hand, his wh just recently delayed implementing a non-discrimination policy for federal contractors.

 

I think it is. There are plenty of quotes out there floating around that have him clearly against gay marriage and defining marriage as one man and one woman.

[Rex Kickass]

Isn't this Kap's point? The fact that people are applauding Obama for finally seeing the light when it's so clearly obvious that he did it not because of some new understanding of the issue, but just to get $$? I mean, I agree with those that say regardless of how he did it, the end result is the result they wanted. But i'm not sure how you can't also look at Obama a little differently - someone without much of a backbone and who will whore himself out to win votes.

 

Edit: though really that's almost by definition of what a politician is these days so....maybe it's not that big of a deal, even though it should be.

 

I actually just thought the first couple paragraphs were witty.

[Rex Kickass]

I think it is. There are plenty of quotes out there floating around that have him clearly against gay marriage and defining marriage as one man and one woman.

There are also statements dating back to 1996 saying that he supported marriage equality.

[southsider2k5]

There are also statements dating back to 1996 saying that he supported marriage equality.

 

Yep. All over the place, and changing his position based on the tides. I'd bet if the country were against it in five years, he'd change again.

[StrangeSox]

Yep. All over the place, and changing his position based on the tides. I'd bet if the country were against it in five years, he'd change again.

 

IMO he was too big of a coward to openly support it in 2008 for political reasons. Which is still s***ty, but it doesn't mean his convictions are actually changing all that much.

 

edit: it's not like support was strong in the mid-90's. It's only increased over time.

Edited May 10, 2012 by StrangeSox