The Democrat Thread

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

What are you even talking about?

 

I have clearly supported gay marriage, I didnt do it to get money or to help my polling, I did it because I believe in equality.

 

Where have I said "If they have no standards, why should I." Ive never even suggested such a position.

 

Just more obscuring and smokescreen.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

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.

 

His previous position was in favor of civil unions. If gay rights were a scale from 0 to 5, he's been roaming around between 4 and 5 during his political career. He hasn't been "all over the place".

[StrangeSox]

His previous position was in favor of civil unions. If gay rights were a scale from 0 to 5, he's been roaming around between 4 and 5 during his political career. He hasn't been "all over the place".

 

Yeah, this is distinctly different from, say, the Family Research Council coming out in favor of gay marriage. Obama may not have been the LGBT community's biggest friend, but he was far from an antagonist.

[Soxbadger]

Once again to recap, if you have 2 options:

 

Option A- Flip flopping liar who does not support my position.

 

Option B- Flip flopping liar who does support my position.

 

The option is B, they are both flip flopping liars, so that being equal, you go with the person who has the BEST chance of doing what you hope for.

 

In this instance, there is 0 chance Romney will support equality, so it just doesnt matter why Obama did it, because there isnt another legitimate option who is doing it for more altruistic reasons.

[southsider2k5]

His previous position was in favor of civil unions. If gay rights were a scale from 0 to 5, he's been roaming around between 4 and 5 during his political career. He hasn't been "all over the place".

 

Except when it was that marriage was only between a man and woman.

[southsider2k5]

Once again to recap, if you have 2 options:

 

Option A- Flip flopping liar who does not support my position.

 

Option B- Flip flopping liar who does support my position.

 

The option is B, they are both flip flopping liars, so that being equal, you go with the person who has the BEST chance of doing what you hope for.

 

In this instance, there is 0 chance Romney will support equality, so it just doesnt matter why Obama did it, because there isnt another legitimate option who is doing it for more altruistic reasons.

 

Option C would be to have some personal standards support neither.

[Jenksismyhero]

Except when it was that marriage was only between a man and woman.

 

But SS2k5, he didn't really MEAN that.

[Soxbadger]

Except when it was that marriage was only between a man and woman.

 

And he admits he was wrong and he changed his mind.

 

So what, have you never been wrong before, have you never changed your mind? Do you believe we have to stick to every single original position we ever take regardless if the facts or circumstances changed?

 

Because its just so tiresome to care about flip-flopping, I dont care at all. Every politician is a flip flopper, probably every person in the world has flipped on a subject at one point.

 

If you actual care to learn and educate yourself, you are bound to one day change your opinion. Thats not a bad thing, hell Ive always said one of the bravest things any President has done was George Bush Sr., when he raised taxes even though it went against his position. .

 

It seems you want to live in an Utopian world where we have Philosopher Kings who run the US out of kindness instead of greed and self-motivation.

 

That just isnt reality, and while it may be great to be idealistic, if you want results, you cant live in a dream.

[Soxbadger]

Option C would be to have some personal standards support neither.

 

Right, you are trying to argue that the best position for gay people is to do nothing, which will result in them getting no rights.

 

Do you not see how that is so backwards?

 

I expect you will never vote again, so basically your voice will never be heard.

 

If you prefer that, that is your call, but it just seems silly.

 

(edit)

 

Here is an example of your position:

 

Im waiting on the side of the road because my car broke down. A car stops and offers to help, but the only reason he is offering to help is for self-gratification. I turn down his offer for help because I am looking for someone who only wants to help me out of kindness and does not want any reward.

 

I guess its just better to sit there on the side of the road forever, then get help from someone else for the wrong reason?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Right, you are trying to argue that the best position for gay people is to do nothing, which will result in them getting no rights.

 

Do you not see how that is so backwards?

 

I expect you will never vote again, so basically your voice will never be heard.

 

If you prefer that, that is your call, but it just seems silly.

 

I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly.

[CanOfCorn]

I can't believe this argument...

 

"A waffling politician?" *GASP*

 

"A politician using an issue for political gain?" *DOUBLE GASP*

 

Bottom line...as has been said, the United States is about freedom for ALL people. The President of the United States said one of, if not THE last, remaining groups are allowed the same rights as everyone else. Not everyone is going to like his statement, but he represents ALL Americans, INCLUDING liberal democrats, blacks, Jews, the Christian right, the Tea Partiers, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc...and yes, EVEN the LGBT community.

 

So, I agree with Balta...in this case, I dont' care if he did it for political gain or if it's because Biden said something over the weekend or if he really, truly believes it. It's the first time the Most Powerful Man in the World has actually supported gay rights 100% and for that, I commend him.

 

And honestly, it's rather insulting that you just automatically assume that people on this board can't figure out that this may be a politicized statement. I think most of the people on this board can figure out that there might be more than one result from this action.

[southsider2k5]

I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly.

 

And I would prefer people support candidates who actually support their positions, and not just when it is politically useful.

[CanOfCorn]

I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly.

 

Then you don't support politics.

[StrangeSox]

I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly.

There's some amount of pragmatism that has to come into play for most people, though. Even if Obama's stated support is entirely political and not his actual beliefs, aren't the interests of the LGBT community better-served by someone making that a central platform of their party than by someone running openly against gay marriage?

[southsider2k5]

Then you don't support politics.

 

Call it what you like. I'd rather support someone I disagree with and can trust, versus someone like this.

[Soxbadger]

I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly.

 

So you dont support any party or candidate in the United States.

 

Great, but dont keep preaching at the rest of us who live in reality and understand that not everyone will take such a pragmatic stance, and therefore we have to choose between the options given.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

There's some amount of pragmatism that has to come into play for most people, though. Even if Obama's stated support is entirely political and not his actual beliefs, aren't the interests of the LGBT community better-served by someone making that a central platform of their party than by someone running openly against gay marriage?

 

They would be best supported by supporting candidates who actually support their beliefs.

[southsider2k5]

So you dont support any party or candidate in the United States.

 

Great, but dont keep preaching at the rest of us who live in reality and understand that not everyone will take such a pragmatic stance, and therefore we have to choose between the options given.

 

Again, you can lower your standards as much as you like and call it whatever you want.

[StrangeSox]

They would be best supported by supporting candidates who actually support their beliefs.

 

Yes, they would, but if your interpretation is correct, that's not an option.

[Soxbadger]

No I am asking you to name the party or candidate you have voted for who never was hypocritical in their life.

 

Its so easy to just sit on the sidelines and claim you are the most pragmatic person in the world, I am asking you to prove it. Because from what I have read you have supported or voted for a candidate before, and I would basically bet every penny my entire family has that I can find them being hypocritical at some point.

 

Which in turn means your just lowering your standards and as hypocritical as the rest of us, you just refuse to admit it.

[StrangeSox]

Call it what you like. I'd rather support someone I disagree with and can trust, versus someone like this.

 

Is there any possible way you'd ever believe Obama had a sincere, heart-felt change of opinion on this (assuming his 2007-08 positions were his true feelings and not his mid-90's non-national-spotlight statements)?

 

Unwavering conviction isn't a positive trait.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, they would, but if your interpretation is correct, that's not an option.

 

Only because instead they support Obama because they think they have to do so. There are plenty of Democrats out there who actually supported Gay Marriage. If people really cared that much about this, they could have voted for another candidate. Being a slave to the two party system isn't a decent excuse IMO.

[Soxbadger]

Only because instead they support Obama because they think they have to do so. There are plenty of Democrats out there who actually supported Gay Marriage. If people really cared that much about this, they could have voted for another candidate. Being a slave to the two party system isn't a decent excuse IMO.

 

This is your opinion. I dont think they support Obama because they think they have to, they do it because they choose to, huge difference.

 

Furthermore if you actually read people's posts, you would have noticed many people did say they did not vote for Obama in the primary etc and voted for another candidate who was more in favor.

 

But in the Presidential election, there will not be another Democrat who is stronger in support of gay rights, who has a chance to actually win.

 

Id rather be the winner then the guy with the most pragamatism points. Whats the reward for that? s***ty life being treated unequal, but knowing you stood by your principles.

 

Pass.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Rex Kickass]

Call it what you like. I'd rather support someone I disagree with and can trust, versus someone like this.

You say this like you don't think that a politician could ever have a change of mind or change of heart on an issue. That's a pretty high bar to live up to. People do change and their views do too. I don't doubt that a big part of his views are shaped by polling numbers. You could argue that's pandering. And its true if the views change with every audience. Something candidates like Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent, John Kerry were very good at - as well as Abraham Lincoln, actually. However, if your views change because society changes, and your governance reflects the people you represent - that's not pandering, that's properly representing the people who elected you.

[StrangeSox]

e.g. while I'm sure Byrd still held some bigoted/racist views, I don't doubt that he repudiated the open racism of the klan in his heart.