Open Call – It is Time to Fix or Replace the Republican Party

[Jhhnn]

If that is the only thing you can fault the dems for, then you are no better than the religious racists on the other side.

That is not the only time Hillary said it should be between a man and a woman only.



You can go back and see where many times she was against gay marriage. There is no context needed to my quote above. When public opinion changed, she did too. I can at least give her credit for finally pulling her head out of her ass, but it comes with a caveat, because she only did it to be popular.

I am not going to vote republican this election, and probably not for a while because they are pumping out religious racists and going dem is the less evil. But lets not pretend that the dems are good and the other side is bad. Both are shitburgers, its just that the dems come with some fries.

Get over this idea that dems are good except for trusting the republicans. That is grade A bull shit if that is the only thing you think the dems have done wrong.

Heh. That reeks of multiple false equivalencies, particularly the bit about how I'm no better than racist right wing haters, not to mention the bitter negativity of having absorbed too much right wing propaganda. When I offer that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you charge right in to assert that it really, really is.

Quotes need no context? Gawd. They def need to be sourced. When they're not, I'm always concerned about their honesty, accuracy & the lack of candor about the nature of the source. Kinev's quote is a great example, currently being trumpeted from every right wing source on the web in a manner intended to deceive.

Hillary has never suggested that gay couples shouldn't enjoy the same functional rights as straights. She suggested that we should just call it something else to mollify the irrational headsets on the right who def have opposed that equality at every turn.

She was willing to call it a po-tah-to rather than a po-tay-to in order to achieve that equality, avoid the touchy religio-emotional insecurity bullshit attached to the term "marriage" in the process. Now she doesn't need to do that. Dems in general are happily relieved of the burden of having to split that hair. Even those who didn't advocate gay marriage can readily accept it, move on from there.

 

[Moonbeam]

TheSlamma: Oh please I listed 3 things just as an example, none of which should be considered "pure ideology". You didn't want to quote them though cause you know yourself at least 1 or 2 should be attainable. You also dodged my quesiton of am I not supposed to vote for someone that represents what I want?

M: I didn't quote them because they are irrelevant. We could have identical political opinions, probably do way more than not, but that is not the issue. I can't waste a vote voting my ideals when my fears might win if I do. My moral duty is to vote the best I can to protect the nation within the limits of the system I am forced to vote in. You simply have other moral issues, voting purity, a conservative brain defective idea if I have ever seen one. Love to be with you on that bro, but maturity calls.

TS: You are telling me NONE of these are realistic and you are fine with that?

1: to not enable companies even more to send our jobs overseas to sweat shop labor, an activity that is illegal here in the US.
2: To not be spied on by the NSA
3: To not give out personal OR corporate welfare, give these people a means to get out of poverty already instead of an endless loop they can't get out of and corporations are NOT too big to fail.
4: Someone that nominates an AG that doesn't support Civil asset forfeiture and how about a reform on it while we're at it.
5: Someone that doesn't order drone strikes that kill innocents

M: I didn't say they were unrealistic. I said it's stupid to vote for those if by doing so you help the third candidate in the race who is a monster win. It's self destructive, eating worms, stabbing yourself in the eye, childish, immature, irrational, dumb, but very satisfying to an ego that can't stand to feel dirt on his hands. You are butterfly boy.

TS: I can't take how many times you are wrong about everything in life.. so I'm finally going to help you slow that trend, Nader didn't get my vote. There I did you a favor.. wrong about everything in your life minus 1

M: Wat? I would imagine that if I referred to you it was meant to mean all the 'yous' out there who vote third party and have in the past and gave us GB as one example as a result.

Maybe I can make it easy:

It's Hitler typical German politician 5 to 5 in the election with three votes for Stalin and one for God. Now are you going to vote for God or that typical German politician because in the run off it's going to be Hitler 8 to 7. Are you stupid enough to usher in Nazi Germany because you want to vote for God? I hear that German guy has warts and Lord knows what else since he dabbles in prostitutes. Not saying that part is typical of all German politicians, mind you.

 

[kinev]

Heh. That reeks of multiple false equivalencies, particularly the bit about how I'm no better than racist right wing haters, not to mention the bitter negativity of having absorbed too much right wing propaganda. When I offer that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you charge right in to assert that it really, really is.

Quotes need no context? Gawd. They def need to be sourced. When they're not, I'm always concerned about their honesty, accuracy & the lack of candor about the nature of the source. Kinev's quote is a great example, currently being trumpeted from every right wing source on the web in a manner intended to deceive.

Hillary has never suggested that gay couples shouldn't enjoy the same functional rights as straights. She suggested that we should just call it something else to mollify the irrational headsets on the right who def have opposed that equality at every turn.

She was willing to call it a po-tah-to rather than a po-tay-to in order to achieve that equality, avoid the touchy religio-emotional insecurity bullshit attached to the term "marriage" in the process. Now she doesn't need to do that. Dems in general are happily relieved of the burden of having to split that hair. Even those who didn't advocate gay marriage can readily accept it, move on from there.

Avoid it? She USED it.
"SACRED BOND BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN"

sa·cred
ˈsākrəd/
adjective
adjective: sacred

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

religious rather than secular.

synonyms:religious, spiritual, devotional, church, ecclesiastical

antonyms:secular, profane

But, I totally anticipated "the ends justify the means argument"

You don't realize that was snipped from a speech in which she opposed a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage, do you?

Apparently not-

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

Be careful of your sources.

Oh, I know exactly where it was from. Does that change what she said?

If she was even a little wishy-washy about her stance up until 2007ish, then, I could see her having a change of heart. But, the words that she used were so concrete, definite, and emphatic ("mists of history", "sacred bond", "fundamental bedrock principle") that even the most ardent Clinton supporter should question if she was being sincere then or just saying what would win her the most points at the time.

For the record, I believe that her stance now is more sincere than it was then (hence the amendment argument). Does that make it ok...? Everyone has to judge that for themselves.

In addition to her “sacred bond, mists of history” argument, she argued against amending the Constitution with the VERY SAME ARGUMENTS ROBERTS, SCALIA, AND THOMAS USED IN THEIR DISSENTS: STATES RIGHTS

Let’s play a game! Guess who said the following: Hillary Clinton or those evil, bigoted dissenters to the gay marriage ruling. Ready?

Round 1: “Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law”
Eh, that’s kinda easy because I left the “dissent” in there. Consider it a gimme; that’s bigot Chief Justice Roberts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Round 2: “...and maybe we can come to some agreement that the founders had it right and that the concerns that have been expressed about marriage will be taken care of as they traditionally have in the states, which have held the responsibility since before our founding as a nation.”
Well, that has to be a small minded SCOTUS judge, right? NOPE! Hillary Rodham Clinton
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

Round 3: "States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' 'reasoned judgment’”
A little harder now, isn’t it? Seeing as how Clinton was SO in favor of leaving the marriage issue up to the states; I’ll help out...that’s uber-racist Scalia.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Round 4: “we should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue that has been the province of the states since our founding”
Eh, context gives this one away, too. But, those words came from Hillary Clinton as well.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

But, not only was Clinton claiming that marriage was between a man and a woman and a “fundamental bedrock principle”, but she (much like the SCOTUS dissenters) argued specifically that it should be left up to the states to decide.

Again, people can change their minds, but to suggest that Hillary isn’t changing her “bedrock principles” for political expediency is either partisan blindness or pure denial.

Be careful of your biases.

 

[michal1980]

Obama has put up with bullshit from the first day he took office, someone yelling like this would have been called a traitor and hanged in the old days.

GOP Rep. to Obama: 'You Lie!'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro

Well Obama has always been a liar. Just like the democratic party.

They kept saying they were against Gay marriage, until the gay vote mattered more then the religious vote.

They kept saying they were for the middle class, until the illegal votes mattered more then the middle class. (liberals used to be against illegal immigration)

They kept saying they stood for the American workers, until foreign dollars mattered more (tpp).

At least with republicans you generally know were they stand. With liberals, they always lie.

You can have nickqt troll his 'socialism rants' all day long. But anyone with an open mind knows that liberals hate capitalism, and would do away with it if it was possible.

 

[realibrad]

Heh. That reeks of multiple false equivalencies, particularly the bit about how I'm no better than racist right wing haters, not to mention the bitter negativity of having absorbed too much right wing propaganda. When I offer that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you charge right in to assert that it really, really is.

Quotes need no context? Gawd. They def need to be sourced. When they're not, I'm always concerned about their honesty, accuracy & the lack of candor about the nature of the source. Kinev's quote is a great example, currently being trumpeted from every right wing source on the web in a manner intended to deceive.

Hillary has never suggested that gay couples shouldn't enjoy the same functional rights as straights. She suggested that we should just call it something else to mollify the irrational headsets on the right who def have opposed that equality at every turn.

She was willing to call it a po-tah-to rather than a po-tay-to in order to achieve that equality, avoid the touchy religio-emotional insecurity bullshit attached to the term "marriage" in the process. Now she doesn't need to do that. Dems in general are happily relieved of the burden of having to split that hair. Even those who didn't advocate gay marriage can readily accept it, move on from there.

With my next post, and the post by kinev you are likely not to touch this subject again, but if you do, it will be fun to see how you spin yourself.

If I fault Obama & my fellow Dems for anything, it was the foolish belief that Repubs might become partners in govt rather than bitter & spiteful saboteurs.

If that is the only think you can fault with the dems, then you are just as delusional as those on the right. I know your view of the right, and its not too far off from mine on how they are. But, the irony is that you cannot see that you are eating bullshit as well. Hillary was against gay marriage until she was for it. I am glad she changed her mind on it, but do not pretend that the dems are the bastion of equality, because they are not. Its not about a purity thing either. I can give the dems credit for being the party that changes its mind on equality and eventually comes around, which is far more than the republicans, but the dems are not even close to being for equality and freedom.

Now, you want some sources, well here is one from the NYTIMES that also has the sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...lary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/

1996: “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children,” Mrs. Clinton told The San Francisco Examiner.



2000: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Mrs. Clinton said while running for the Senate in New York.



2003: “Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,” Mrs. Clinton speaking to WNYC on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.



2003: “I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,” Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with CBS, on whether she still opposed same-sex marriage.



2006: “My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that,” Mrs. Clinton telling Gay City News that she would not block legislation supporting gay marriage in New York.



2007: “I am very much in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits,” Mrs. Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres, explaining that she still believed the decision should be left to states.



2013: “L.G.B.T. Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage,” Mrs. Clinton said in a video released by Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.



2014: “For me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had I fully endorsed the efforts by activists to work state by state. And in fact that is what is working,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview with NPR.



2015: “Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right,” Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Hillary for America, said while Mrs. Clinton was campaigning for the presidency in Iowa.

Again, shit choices, but so far Clinton is the least shitty option I see. I probably wont vote for anyone this round as they are just all shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Avoid it? She USED it.
"SACRED BOND BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN"

sa·cred
ˈsākrəd/
adjective
adjective: sacred

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

religious rather than secular.

synonyms:religious, spiritual, devotional, church, ecclesiastical

antonyms:secular, profane

But, I totally anticipated "the ends justify the means argument"



Oh, I know exactly where it was from. Does that change what she said?

If she was even a little wishy-washy about her stance up until 2007ish, then, I could see her having a change of heart. But, the words that she used were so concrete, definite, and emphatic ("mists of history", "sacred bond", "fundamental bedrock principle") that even the most ardent Clinton supporter should question if she was being sincere then or just saying what would win her the most points at the time.

For the record, I believe that her stance now is more sincere than it was then (hence the amendment argument). Does that make it ok...? Everyone has to judge that for themselves.

In addition to her “sacred bond, mists of history” argument, she argued against amending the Constitution with the VERY SAME ARGUMENTS ROBERTS, SCALIA, AND THOMAS USED IN THEIR DISSENTS: STATES RIGHTS

Let’s play a game! Guess who said the following: Hillary Clinton or those evil, bigoted dissenters to the gay marriage ruling. Ready?

Round 1: “Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law”
Eh, that’s kinda easy because I left the “dissent” in there. Consider it a gimme; that’s bigot Chief Justice Roberts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Round 2: “...and maybe we can come to some agreement that the founders had it right and that the concerns that have been expressed about marriage will be taken care of as they traditionally have in the states, which have held the responsibility since before our founding as a nation.”
Well, that has to be a small minded SCOTUS judge, right? NOPE! Hillary Rodham Clinton
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

Round 3: "States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' 'reasoned judgment’”
A little harder now, isn’t it? Seeing as how Clinton was SO in favor of leaving the marriage issue up to the states; I’ll help out...that’s uber-racist Scalia.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Round 4: “we should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue that has been the province of the states since our founding”
Eh, context gives this one away, too. But, those words came from Hillary Clinton as well.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

But, not only was Clinton claiming that marriage was between a man and a woman and a “fundamental bedrock principle”, but she (much like the SCOTUS dissenters) argued specifically that it should be left up to the states to decide.

Again, people can change their minds, but to suggest that Hillary isn’t changing her “bedrock principles” for political expediency is either partisan blindness or pure denial.

Be careful of your biases.

You do go on.

Why do you suppose that Repubs wanted a Constitutional Amendment denying SS marriage quite so badly?

Because they knew that the traditional legal definition wasn't really Constitutional. Setting aside religious belief, Gender equality dictates that if a woman can marry a man, then a man can marry a man & so on. They'd need to change the Constitution to deny it forever.

The Right has basically known this since the first legal SS marriages were performed in Ontario in 2002, then legalized all across Canada in 2005.

How did US advocates succeed in making progress back then? By working against such an amendment & putting it off to states' rights. It was obvious that some states would break with tradition before others, so extolling traditional marriage all the while but not speaking against gay marriage directly was a good tactic. Once a single State allowed SS marriage then the argument turned on equal protection & full faith & credit of the Constitution with Loving V Virginia as precedent, among others.

Sometimes, right wing rhetoric can be turned back against them as here & now wrt marijuana legalization as well.

The current raving & sputtering from the Right, particularly the 4 Justices attempting to turn back the tide of freedom?

I'll bet Hillary is having a good laugh, being among those who set the trap long ago.

States' Rights! Yeh, that's it, ya maroons.

Had the Right been serious about extending the same rights as straights to gays under a different name, they'd have made civil unions the law of the land when they had the chance, thus undercutting support for gay "marriage" per se.

Instead, they bet the farm & lost. Tears in my eyes as big as horse turds, I'm tellin' ya. Really.

 

[KK]

it is time for both parties to be labeled terrorist organizations and any one affiliated with them to be brought up on treason charges. both parties have been fucking over everyone in this country for way to damn long.

 

[nickqt]

With my next post, and the post by kinev you are likely not to touch this subject again, but if you do, it will be fun to see how you spin yourself.



If that is the only think you can fault with the dems, then you are just as delusional as those on the right. I know your view of the right, and its not too far off from mine on how they are. But, the irony is that you cannot see that you are eating bullshit as well. Hillary was against gay marriage until she was for it. I am glad she changed her mind on it, but do not pretend that the dems are the bastion of equality, because they are not. Its not about a purity thing either. I can give the dems credit for being the party that changes its mind on equality and eventually comes around, which is far more than the republicans, but the dems are not even close to being for equality and freedom.

Now, you want some sources, well here is one from the NYTIMES that also has the sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...lary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/



Again, shit choices, but so far Clinton is the least shitty option I see. I probably wont vote for anyone this round as they are just all shit.

Either HRC was pandering to nominally religious people and really believed that gay people should get to use the term "Marriage" for their contract rights (pandering to them), or she was actually against gay people using the word "Marriage" as a term for their contract rights, but still believed that the contract rights should exist, regardless of the term used for it (Marriage v. Civil Union) and then changed her mind.

If she was pandering, it simply means she was being a typical politician, and yet she wanted gay people to have contract rights, whether described as "Marriage" or something else.

If she changed her mind, it simply means that she was a typical person who believed one thing and changed her mind at a later date, perhaps the same way many Americans have changed their minds about gay marriage (See: polls of Americans in support of gay marriage, over time). Or, perhaps, she changed her mind because of the polls. Or perhaps she never changed her mind, but says she has, because of the polls.

Either way, HRC was never against gay people having the same rights. Nor was Obama, as far as I can tell. Instead, like typical successful politicians, they pandered to an audience in order to garner as many votes as possible. In one breath they supported gay rights, while in the next reserving the conjuring word "Marriage" for more traditional, perhaps religious voters. In this scenario, both politicians supported gay rights, yet weren't nearly as "hostile" to traditional/religious notions of marriage. Successful politicians have been doing this since humans have lived in groups of 2 or more.

Personally, since no one else's marriage in the universe affects me, I've always been for gay marriage. It doesn't mean a damn thing to me whether two men, two women, or "one man and one woman" are married, since I'm not a party to their contract. Of course, I've never been a politician trying to get elected.

 

[Jhhnn]

Either HRC was pandering to nominally religious people and really believed that gay people should get to use the term "Marriage" for their contract rights (pandering to them), or she was actually against gay people using the word "Marriage" as a term for their contract rights, but still believed that the contract rights should exist, regardless of the term used for it (Marriage v. Civil Union) and then changed her mind.

If she was pandering, it simply means she was being a typical politician, and yet she wanted gay people to have contract rights, whether described as "Marriage" or something else.

If she changed her mind, it simply means that she was a typical person who believed one thing and changed her mind at a later date, perhaps the same way many Americans have changed their minds about gay marriage (See: polls of Americans in support of gay marriage, over time). Or, perhaps, she changed her mind because of the polls. Or perhaps she never changed her mind, but says she has, because of the polls.

Either way, HRC was never against gay people having the same rights. Nor was Obama, as far as I can tell. Instead, like typical successful politicians, they pandered to an audience in order to garner as many votes as possible. In one breath they supported gay rights, while in the next reserving the conjuring word "Marriage" for more traditional, perhaps religious voters. In this scenario, both politicians supported gay rights, yet weren't nearly as "hostile" to traditional/religious notions of marriage. Successful politicians have been doing this since humans have lived in groups of 2 or more.

Personally, since no one else's marriage in the universe affects me, I've always been for gay marriage. It doesn't mean a damn thing to me whether two men, two women, or "one man and one woman" are married, since I'm not a party to their contract. Of course, I've never been a politician trying to get elected.

Too much nuance & sense for our right wing religious authority freaks, I'm afraid.

 

[werepossum]

Avoid it? She USED it.
"SACRED BOND BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN"

sa·cred
ˈsākrəd/
adjective
adjective: sacred

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

religious rather than secular.

synonyms:religious, spiritual, devotional, church, ecclesiastical

antonyms:secular, profane

But, I totally anticipated "the ends justify the means argument"



Oh, I know exactly where it was from. Does that change what she said?

If she was even a little wishy-washy about her stance up until 2007ish, then, I could see her having a change of heart. But, the words that she used were so concrete, definite, and emphatic ("mists of history", "sacred bond", "fundamental bedrock principle") that even the most ardent Clinton supporter should question if she was being sincere then or just saying what would win her the most points at the time.

For the record, I believe that her stance now is more sincere than it was then (hence the amendment argument). Does that make it ok...? Everyone has to judge that for themselves.

In addition to her “sacred bond, mists of history” argument, she argued against amending the Constitution with the VERY SAME ARGUMENTS ROBERTS, SCALIA, AND THOMAS USED IN THEIR DISSENTS: STATES RIGHTS

Let’s play a game! Guess who said the following: Hillary Clinton or those evil, bigoted dissenters to the gay marriage ruling. Ready?

Round 1: “Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law”
Eh, that’s kinda easy because I left the “dissent” in there. Consider it a gimme; that’s bigot Chief Justice Roberts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Round 2: “...and maybe we can come to some agreement that the founders had it right and that the concerns that have been expressed about marriage will be taken care of as they traditionally have in the states, which have held the responsibility since before our founding as a nation.”
Well, that has to be a small minded SCOTUS judge, right? NOPE! Hillary Rodham Clinton
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

Round 3: "States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' 'reasoned judgment’”
A little harder now, isn’t it? Seeing as how Clinton was SO in favor of leaving the marriage issue up to the states; I’ll help out...that’s uber-racist Scalia.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Round 4: “we should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue that has been the province of the states since our founding”
Eh, context gives this one away, too. But, those words came from Hillary Clinton as well.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage

But, not only was Clinton claiming that marriage was between a man and a woman and a “fundamental bedrock principle”, but she (much like the SCOTUS dissenters) argued specifically that it should be left up to the states to decide.

Again, people can change their minds, but to suggest that Hillary isn’t changing her “bedrock principles” for political expediency is either partisan blindness or pure denial.

Be careful of your biases.

Excellent post. But almost all politicians at the national level are saying whatever they need to say to gain and hold power, not just the Hildabeast. Our treatment of those few who say what they believe even when it hurts them - Dennis Kucinich and Gary Johnson immediately spring to mind - says a lot about us as voters. That's the beauty of democracy, we get the leaders we deserve.

 

[Zorkorist]

Nope, Democracy delivers Government for and by the masses.

A Republic, delivers a Government of and for the people.

-John

 

[nickqt]

Excellent post. But almost all politicians at the national level are saying whatever they need to say to gain and hold power, not just the Hildabeast. Our treatment of those few who say what they believe even when it hurts them - Dennis Kucinich and Gary Johnson immediately spring to mind - says a lot about us as voters. That's the beauty of democracy, we get the leaders we deserve.

The post ignores the substantive issue and focuses on semantics.

HRC has never been against gay people having the same rights that straight people have that are established as soon as people are legally able to enter into a marriage contract.

Instead, she qualified it as, "Marriage is something special" (i.e. a conjuring word that doesn't mean anything objectively) and should remain for traditional/religious reasons as defined by the states.

Maybe she never believed that and wanted gay marriage to be the law, but didn't have the guts to turn off a substantial amount of voters . Hell maybe she meant it then and changed her mind as did a lot of Americans over time - nah, that makes HRC seem like a human being. Much better to attach an animal term that makes her seem less human. Oh, I know, Hildabeast™!

Either way, it's just semantics. Supporting gay civil unions and supporting gay marriage is the same thing, minus some arbitrary phrase that creates more problems and costs if used. Not to mention, gay marriage will be as common as opposition to the death penalty in a generation or two, minus the typical right-wing holdouts in the middle east and africa.

And as I've said and you've said, politicians pander. They've done this since forever, and will continue to do so most of the time. Some candidates won't, and they're usually labeled as crazy or unserious by those people in charge of the status quo. But successful political candidates attempt to - gasp - get as many votes as possible. Hence, HRC supports gay rights, but hedges on using some arbitrary phrase to label those rights, because as a politician she - gasp - wants as many voters to choose her as possible.

In other words, a whole lot of nuthin', substantively. But hey, anything that allows criticism of the Hildabeast™ is a means to an end.

 

[Zorkorist]

Hildabeast.

I like that. Can we put her out to pasture?

-John

 

[nickqt]

Hildabeast.

I like that. Can we put her out to pasture?

-John

It's much better than running against her in the General!

 

[werepossum]

The post ignores the substantive issue and focuses on semantics.

HRC has never been against gay people having the same rights that straight people have that are established as soon as people are legally able to enter into a marriage contract.

Instead, she qualified it as, "Marriage is something special" (i.e. a conjuring word that doesn't mean anything objectively) and should remain for traditional/religious reasons as defined by the states.

Maybe she never believed that and wanted gay marriage to be the law, but didn't have the guts to turn off a substantial amount of voters . Hell maybe she meant it then and changed her mind as did a lot of Americans over time - nah, that makes HRC seem like a human being. Much better to attach an animal term that makes her seem less human. Oh, I know, Hildabeast™!

Either way, it's just semantics. Supporting gay civil unions and supporting gay marriage is the same thing, minus some arbitrary phrase that creates more problems and costs if used. Not to mention, gay marriage will be as common as opposition to the death penalty in a generation or two, minus the typical right-wing holdouts in the middle east and africa.

And as I've said and you've said, politicians pander. They've done this since forever, and will continue to do so most of the time. Some candidates won't, and they're usually labeled as crazy or unserious by those people in charge of the status quo. But successful political candidates attempt to - gasp - get as many votes as possible. Hence, HRC supports gay rights, but hedges on using some arbitrary phrase to label those rights, because as a politician she - gasp - wants as many voters to choose her as possible.

In other words, a whole lot of nuthin', substantively. But hey, anything that allows criticism of the Hildabeast™ is a means to an end.

Supporting gay civil unions and supporting gay marriage is not even nearly the same thing. One says we recognize you as equal to us; the other says here's a bone, now shut the hell up.

 

[werepossum]

Hildabeast.

I like that. Can we put her out to pasture?

-John

Given that she'll likely be our next president, probably not.

 

[realibrad]

Either HRC was pandering to nominally religious people and really believed that gay people should get to use the term "Marriage" for their contract rights (pandering to them), or she was actually against gay people using the word "Marriage" as a term for their contract rights, but still believed that the contract rights should exist, regardless of the term used for it (Marriage v. Civil Union) and then changed her mind.

If she was pandering, it simply means she was being a typical politician, and yet she wanted gay people to have contract rights, whether described as "Marriage" or something else.

If she changed her mind, it simply means that she was a typical person who believed one thing and changed her mind at a later date, perhaps the same way many Americans have changed their minds about gay marriage (See: polls of Americans in support of gay marriage, over time). Or, perhaps, she changed her mind because of the polls. Or perhaps she never changed her mind, but says she has, because of the polls.

Either way, HRC was never against gay people having the same rights. Nor was Obama, as far as I can tell. Instead, like typical successful politicians, they pandered to an audience in order to garner as many votes as possible. In one breath they supported gay rights, while in the next reserving the conjuring word "Marriage" for more traditional, perhaps religious voters. In this scenario, both politicians supported gay rights, yet weren't nearly as "hostile" to traditional/religious notions of marriage. Successful politicians have been doing this since humans have lived in groups of 2 or more.

Personally, since no one else's marriage in the universe affects me, I've always been for gay marriage. It doesn't mean a damn thing to me whether two men, two women, or "one man and one woman" are married, since I'm not a party to their contract. Of course, I've never been a politician trying to get elected.

Look at my post and look at the quote from 2003. She clearly said she thinks marriage should stay the way it had always been defined but she said she was for giving more rights that are equal to marriage but not calling it marriage. Again, at least she is now on the right side which is more than I can say for the vast majority on the other side. That puts her in the separate but equal argument which is bullshit, but still better than nothing. Either way it was still wrong.

Also, pandering is not the worst thing. What it really means is that she is doing what the majority want and that is pretty democratic. The issue is when popular opinion is not equality like civil rights. By all means HRC is a better choice, but let's admit when she is and has been wrong. So when johnny says stupid shit like the only mistake the dems have made is trusting the repubs it makes him sound like those on the other side who ignore reality. How can he expect the other side to do what is right when neither side can admit what is wrong?

Also she was not for equal rights is gay people could not have the right to get married because they are gay in the same way blacks did not have equality with separate but equal. Either you have equal rights or you dont. It just so happens the dems have been for more rights than the repubs have been willing to give. So for now vote dems when they are for better things than repubs but the vote should be about improvement not party promotion.

 

[nickqt]

Supporting gay civil unions and supporting gay marriage is not even nearly the same thing. One says we recognize you as equal to us; the other says here's a bone, now shut the hell up.

Supporting gay rights regardless of the term used to describe them is infinitely better than wanting one set of people to have less rights than another.

That HRC supported gay rights even with a different term to define them years ago, compared to a lot of people today who champion the cause to rescind gay marriage says a lot about why certain candidates are almost shoo-ins compared to other candidates who are acting like its 1961 and if they can just hold the line today and tomorrow, they'll be able to hold the line forever.

 

[werepossum]

Supporting gay rights regardless of the term used to describe them is infinitely better than wanting one set of people to have less rights than another.

That HRC supported gay rights even with a different term to define them years ago, compared to a lot of people today who champion the cause to rescind gay marriage says a lot about why certain candidates are almost shoo-ins compared to other candidates who are acting like its 1961 and if they can just hold the line today and tomorrow, they'll be able to hold the line forever.

Agreed.

The way many Republican politicians today are treating gay marriage even after SCOTUS spoke, one can't help but suspect they may actually be truthful in opposing it. That might be worse than opposing it for political expediency. (I vacillate on which is worse.)

 

[nickqt]

Agreed.

The way many Republican politicians today are treating gay marriage even after SCOTUS spoke, one can't help but suspect they may actually be truthful in opposing it. That might be worse than opposing it for political expediency. (I vacillate on which is worse.)

I'd argue that while pandering is pretty awful since you're in essence waving away integrity for a least-common-denominator appeal for votes, belief in something immoral is more noxious than trying to appeal to two diametrically opposed groups.

One set of beliefs is noxious and can divide people for profit/election, whereas the mealy-mouthed views of say HRC regarding gay marriage (assuming she didn't really change her mind "honestly", like, thousands/millions of Americans supposedly did) are, by their "understood" notion of pandering, rightly seen as pandering. For instance, as soon as Obama said that he believed that marriage should remain between a man and woman, many people with soapboxes said "bullshit". And hey, maybe Obama really did want gay marriage to be legal and was pandering. But that just makes it even more obvious that he was just trying to retain as many single-issue voters as possible; a trait of successful politicians since day 1.

Sure, people who want to divide us could quote Obama, but there would be people saying, "yeah right, he's just saying that". Whereas when Ted Cruz says that the decision to allow gay marriage is the "darkest 24 hours in our nation's history", he probably believes it, and is trying to divide people on the matter.

I'd argue that Ted Cruz's sincere belief is more harmful to the country than Obama or HRC lying about their true belief regarding gay marriage, while still arguing that the rights inherent in marriage should flow to gay people, just using a different term. (And that of course assumes they were lying, or only changed their minds because of polls. As much as I dislike politicians in general, they're people too. Often terrible people, but still people).

Anything that doesn't inherently affect anyone else negatively should not only be legal, it should be considered a right. In any political test that has 4 quadrants rather than the misleading 2 the media harps on about, I'm about as libertarian as you can get, though I'm clearly on the left side of that diamond.

More rights for individuals = more freedom. Especially when it's something like gay marriage, which is simply a secular contract between two people. Equal protection is the clear legal reasoning, but shit, how about simple contract rights? Lochner would be my go-to holding, and that is a fairly libertarian/conservative holding. How this issue defaulted to Democrats, to me, shows how out-of-touch many Republicans are with their historical roots.

 

[realibrad]

I'd argue that while pandering is pretty awful since you're in essence waving away integrity for a least-common-denominator appeal for votes, belief in something immoral is more noxious than trying to appeal to two diametrically opposed groups.

One set of beliefs is noxious and can divide people for profit/election, whereas the mealy-mouthed views of say HRC regarding gay marriage (assuming she didn't really change her mind "honestly", like, thousands/millions of Americans supposedly did) are, by their "understood" notion of pandering, rightly seen as pandering. For instance, as soon as Obama said that he believed that marriage should remain between a man and woman, many people with soapboxes said "bullshit". And hey, maybe Obama really did want gay marriage to be legal and was pandering. But that just makes it even more obvious that he was just trying to retain as many single-issue voters as possible; a trait of successful politicians since day 1.

Sure, people who want to divide us could quote Obama, but there would be people saying, "yeah right, he's just saying that". Whereas when Ted Cruz says that the decision to allow gay marriage is the "darkest 24 hours in our nation's history", he probably believes it, and is trying to divide people on the matter.

I'd argue that Ted Cruz's sincere belief is more harmful to the country than Obama or HRC lying about their true belief regarding gay marriage, while still arguing that the rights inherent in marriage should flow to gay people, just using a different term. (And that of course assumes they were lying, or only changed their minds because of polls. As much as I dislike politicians in general, they're people too. Often terrible people, but still people).

Anything that doesn't inherently affect anyone else negatively should not only be legal, it should be considered a right. In any political test that has 4 quadrants rather than the misleading 2 the media harps on about, I'm about as libertarian as you can get, though I'm clearly on the left side of that diamond.

More rights for individuals = more freedom. Especially when it's something like gay marriage, which is simply a secular contract between two people. Equal protection is the clear legal reasoning, but shit, how about simple contract rights? Lochner would be my go-to holding, and that is a fairly libertarian/conservative holding. How this issue defaulted to Democrats, to me, shows how out-of-touch many Republicans are with their historical roots.

The reason I call out HRC is because when I see bullshit I call it. I don't do it just against the dems either. You said that some people that point out Obama's statement that marriage should stay between a man and a woman could be to divide us. I am hoping that you do not mean that is an absolutist statement, because where would it leave us when our leaders do something wrong? I don't want to put words in your mouth here, but can you clarify here?

The fact that Ted Cruz probably does believe this has been the worst 24hrs in the nations history because he is a giant fucking religious idiot. The fact that, even if he were pandering he could overlook 9/11 or D day or countless other things shows he is a fucking moron. So when you hold HRC to that kind of stupid the choice becomes pretty clear to rational people. That does not then preclude pointing our when HRC has and is wrong. Just because someone else is worse than you does not mean everything you do is now okay.

Again, I would much rather a politician pander than have views that match the typical republican. If more politicians pandered we would have already passed gay right a long time ago. If more politicians pandered during the civil rights era then we would not have gotten civil rights as soon as we did, because it was not popular with the majority when it was passed. Because the south was so racist when the dems voted for it, it flipped the party roles. Democrats used to control the south, but when they pushed for civil rights, the south revolted as they tend to do and choose the part that was not pushing the issue. Republicans long ago stopped being the party of Lincoln's day.

You also said that Lochner is a libertarian/conservative view and that is not true. It is definitely a libertarian view, but not a conservative one. Conservatives not not libertarians, they just cherry pick libertarian arguments when it suits their agenda. Want to be discriminatory? You can if you argue that people should have the freedom to do so. Want to discriminate against Christians? Holy shit you cannot do that to Christians and we need the government to protect them.

The reason the gay rights issue went to the dems is because the republican party is having a schism. One part of the republican party wants to use government to force people to have its morality through government action, and that is the conservative part. Another part wants the government to do only the functions outlined by the constitution and that is the old school republican part. Because republicans took in the conservatives they created a inherent conflict. At a time when the religious saw their country becoming less Christian, they fought government from becoming more secular and joined the party that pandered to them aka the republicans. Now that the conservatives have gotten a lot of what they wanted, people are seeing what a world like that is and are pushing back.

The republican party is serving two masters that will eventually split it and we will be better off for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

So when johnny says stupid shit like the only mistake the dems have made is trusting the repubs it makes him sound like those on the other side who ignore reality. How can he expect the other side to do what is right when neither side can admit what is wrong?

And now, the false attribution. What did I say, exactly?

That the one thing I fault Dems for is the trust they had in Repubs back in 2009, for seeking consensus with spiteful radicals rather than stuffing the Dem agenda right down their throats when they had a filibuster proof majority prior to the death of Ted Kennedy.

The rest of what you offer is revisionist history. At the time, the country did not support gay marriage, but Hillary & Dems in general sought to extend equal rights to gays in a way that the country might accept. Meanwhile, Repubs offered vilification & a Constitutional Amendment to forbid gay marriage.

Which somehow makes both sides just as bad, right?

So where are we today? At worst, some Dems merely accept the SCOTUS ruling while many celebrate. Repubs still rave on about God's Law & want their Constitutional Amendment. One side embraces equality for gays, the other never will.

Dance around that.

 

[boomerang]

Fix the Republican Party?

Pin the Tale on the Donkey: The Democrats' Horrible Racist Past

 

[realibrad]

And now, the false attribution. What did I say, exactly?

That the one thing I fault Dems for is the trust they had in Repubs back in 2009, for seeking consensus with spiteful radicals rather than stuffing the Dem agenda right down their throats when they had a filibuster proof majority prior to the death of Ted Kennedy.

The rest of what you offer is revisionist history. At the time, the country did not support gay marriage, but Hillary & Dems in general sought to extend equal rights to gays in a way that the country might accept. Meanwhile, Repubs offered vilification & a Constitutional Amendment to forbid gay marriage.

Which somehow makes both sides just as bad, right?

So where are we today? At worst, some Dems merely accept the SCOTUS ruling while many celebrate. Repubs still rave on about God's Law & want their Constitutional Amendment. One side embraces equality for gays, the other never will.

Dance around that.

I am not going to vote republican this election, and probably not for a while because they are pumping out religious racists and going dem is the less evil. But lets not pretend that the dems are good and the other side is bad. Both are shitburgers, its just that the dems come with some fries.

Yep, just as bad.

I can give the dems credit for being the party that changes its mind on equality and eventually comes around, which is far more than the republicans, but the dems are not even close to being for equality and freedom.

Again, equal apparently.

Again, shit choices, but so far Clinton is the least shitty option I see.

Yep, equal.

Again, at least she is now on the right side which is more than I can say for the vast majority on the other side.

HRC just as bad again apparently.

The fact that Ted Cruz probably does believe this has been the worst 24hrs in the nations history because he is a giant fucking religious idiot. The fact that, even if he were pandering he could overlook 9/11 or D day or countless other things shows he is a fucking moron. So when you hold HRC to that kind of stupid the choice becomes pretty clear to rational people.

How could I have missed it?

How you can say that I am trying to say both are equal is both amazing and shows how wrapped up you are in political bull shit. If you honestly believe the only fault Obama and dems have during the gay rights issue during his term, you are blindly following your party. The best argument you can make is that Obama and the dems were just bluffing on gay marriage, that they really supported it, but had to hid it to build support.

Obama is a Christian and he would never have the guts to take a stand if asked the question if he thought the bible was wrong about homosexuality. Its very likely that he did not support gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. You add that with the statements where he clearly said that he thought marriage was between a man and a woman is was not for gay marriage and his religious views and its easy to believe he was telling the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

Again, I will say this one more time but you still may not get it. Republicans have stayed consistent in their bigotry so when you compare it to the dems change of heart on theirs, the dems win in terms of morality. When it comes to civil rights, the dems win flat out, no question, full stop. Just because the dems are better, does not make them good by any means though, it just means they are better than republicans. I could take a shit and put a flower on top and it would still be better than most republicans. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fix the Republican Party?

Pin the Tale on the Donkey: The Democrats' Horrible Racist Past

And? That got fixed when Repubs embraced Strom's Southern Strategy back in the 60's & ever since. Dems denounced their own racists who then migrated into the loving arms of the Repub party.

The allegiance of black voters changed as well. They're now overwhelmingly Democrat for good reason, obviously.