Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Chart of 2012 contenders on LGBT issuesFollow

#1 Aug 16 2011 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Marriage Equality USA released a chart of where the potential Republican candidates (and Obama) stand on LGBT issues. It's interesting to look at, although not too descriptive on the "Maybe" categories (for example, Obama has come out and blatantly said "No" to *** marriage, but he's listed as a maybe on it).
Screenshot

The methodology was as such:
Quote:
Starting in August 2011, a survey was delivered to the office of each active, formally announced candidate via e-mail, web mail, and/or facsimile, and also via certified U.S. mail for which a staff member signed a receipt confirming the delivery. Each candidate’s survey showed his or her latest stand on each LGBT issue, based on speeches made, documents signed, and interviews given. All candidates were invited to notify MEUSA of updates to their positions as they occur, up through election day on 6 November 2012.


Only real surprise to me was how some candidates came out as strict "No"s on some issues, like repealing DOMA, foreign spouse citizenship, or adoption by LGBT couples. I wasn't sure if the foreign spouse citizenship was for *** marriage or marriage in general, as it doesn't distinguish between the two. I also wonder if some of the "No"s are because the candidates don't believe the federal government should have the power to influence the category, as opposed to their personal feelings; however, it seems unlikely that it's the case of the latter for most of them.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 9:50am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Aug 16 2011 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
(for example, Obama has come out and blatantly said "No" to *** marriage, but he's listed as a maybe on it).

He's said his views are "evolving" or somesuch which is political speak for "I ain't sayin' yes, I ain't sayin' no". I have the feeling that if, through a mixture of fairy dust and incriminating photos, Congress passed a bill allowing federally recognized *** marriage that Obama would sign it. On the other hand, he's not going to put a lot of effort into seeing that bill realized.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Aug 16 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,732 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He's said his views are "evolving" or somesuch which is political speak for "I ain't sayin' yes, I ain't sayin' no".
I always hate the safe answer.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Aug 16 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
It seems if you agree that same-*** relationships are as legitimate as opposite-*** relationships then all other responses should follow suit. If not, you're either being contradictory or discriminating.

I still think a lot of the deal with marriage versus civil unions is strategic semantics. If the state is going to bestow a license on two people that reads exactly the same whether it be called a marriage license or a civil union license it's silly redundancy but meaningless in theory. Calling the legal relationship something different is simply a tool to make folks feel better about their willingness to keep their noses out of other's business. It's politics, it's ignorant, but if it allows same-*** folks to live together with the same family rights and responsibilities then it's a worthwhile stepping stone to full recognition of same-*** marriages.




Edited, Aug 16th 2011 4:15pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Aug 16 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.

Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.
#6 Aug 16 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.

Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.


That was my philosophy. I know I wouldn't ever get elected because I would just keep it real and tell it how it is. That's ironic, because people complain about being deceived and mislead by the governemnt, but when people tell them the truth, THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH....Smiley: oyvey
#7 Aug 16 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,732 posts
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.
Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.
You really think that would be the issue that prevented me from elected office? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Aug 16 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I always hate the safe answer.
Welp, you'll never have to worry about being elected then.
You really think that would be the issue that prevented me from elected office? Smiley: dubious


*cough*
#9 Aug 16 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I'm guessing it'll more about the picture of him humping a My Little Pony doll after painting himself covered in rainbows and glitter.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10 Aug 16 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
How many votes does he gain by coming out for SSM: 0
How many does he lose: >0
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#11 Aug 16 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
How many votes does he gain by coming out for SSM: 0
How many does he lose: >0


I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here. They know that mostly it'll be other liberals and people who care about various *** rights issues who'll visit the site and see the chart. They presumably hope that the "maybe" for Obama will gain him votes among those people, while not losing him any among people who are unlikely to ever see it.

So they turn a lose/lose situation for Obama into a win/win.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Aug 16 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,526 posts
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#13 Aug 16 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You really think that would be the issue that prevented me from elected office? Smiley: dubious

It was more about prodding you for a comment about the nature of politicians. You seem to target them a lot, and I always think you're pointing in the wrong direction.

To somewhat agree with Alma, politicians only use the means they do to win elections because it works. Being a straight talker doesn't win votes for the most part, and as a candidate if you want to do anything beneficial for the country you first need to be elected.

When people value inconvenient truths over comfortable lies, then we'll get straight talkers. Politicians aren't the problem, people are.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 5:17pm by Allegory
#14 Aug 16 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
How many votes does he gain by coming out for SSM: 0
How many does he lose: >0


I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here. They know that mostly it'll be other liberals and people who care about various *** rights issues who'll visit the site and see the chart. They presumably hope that the "maybe" for Obama will gain him votes among those people, while not losing him any among people who are unlikely to ever see it.

So they turn a lose/lose situation for Obama into a win/win.


As I learned about it on The Blaze, Beck's flagship website... meh...
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#15 Aug 16 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
******
49,732 posts
Duh Locke, The Blaze is Liberal Main Stream Media Propaganda. EVERYONE knows that. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Aug 16 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think the more relevant point is that this is a liberal organization. They're providing political cover for Obama here. They know that mostly it'll be other liberals and people who care about various *** rights issues who'll visit the site and see the chart. They presumably hope that the "maybe" for Obama will gain him votes among those people, while not losing him any among people who are unlikely to ever see it.

Yeah, the repeal of DADT and the administration's stance on DOMA wasn't enough; people who care about it need a "maybe" to vote for him over Bachmann and a chart viewed by 250 people will do just the trick Smiley: rolleyes

Quick! A liberal conspiracy! Get it!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Aug 16 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.


Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Aug 16 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, the repeal of DADT and the administration's stance on DOMA wasn't enough; people who care about it need a "maybe" to vote for him over Bachmann and a chart viewed by 250 people will do just the trick Smiley: rolleyes


You tell me. Those other items also appear on the chart, right? So apparently they do think that a "maybe" in the Marriage column would help. Sure looks like they just didn't want to see a "no" anywhere next to Obama. Perhaps if I were wearing Liberal tinted glasses, I'd see things differently though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Aug 16 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
yeah it is sad that the right wing is willing to oppress people to score political points. It is even more sad that left wing politicians fall for it.


Wait! So any time a special interest group writes down a list of political changes they want, we get to say that any politician who disagrees with them is "oppressing people"? That's a funny bit of linguistic twisting going on right there!


I read that three times as "opposing people" and wondered what else you'd call them.
#20 Aug 16 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You tell me.

I did. I rolled my eyes and laughed at you.

Maybe the issue is that the laughter was implicit. Here ya go: Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Aug 16 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You tell me.

I did. I rolled my eyes and laughed at you.


I've noticed that this is your normal response when you realize you don't have a legitimate response.

As I said, those other issues are on the **** chart Joph. If, as you suggest, people would find that his positions on those things more than balance out a "no" answer on *** marriage, then that wouldn't be a reason to put "maybe" there, right? Your entire answer just makes no sense at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Aug 16 2011 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've noticed that this is your normal response when you realize you don't have a legitimate response.

I've noticed this is your normal response when you just said something stupid, got laughed at and then start to throw a princess hissy that everyone thinks what you said was stupid.

Then ***** about how you didn't get a "legitimate response" which only means "One where I'll agree that it was stupid but since I'll never do this, no response will ever be 'legitimate'."

Quote:
Your entire answer just makes no sense at all.

In the context of your liberal conspiracy hysteria? Of course not. When you all have is a tissue, every problem is a liberal conspiracy to cry about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Aug 16 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

I've noticed this is your normal response when you just said something stupid, got laughed at and then start to throw a princess hissy that everyone thinks what you said was stupid.

Then ***** about how you didn't get a "legitimate response" which only means "One where I'll agree that it was stupid but since I'll never do this, no response will ever be 'legitimate'."


This. So much.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#24 Aug 17 2011 at 2:07 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:

To somewhat agree with Alma, politicians only use the means they do to win elections because it works. Being a straight talker doesn't win votes for the most part, and as a candidate if you want to do anything beneficial for the country you first need to be elected.

When people value inconvenient truths over comfortable lies, then we'll get straight talkers. Politicians aren't the problem, people are.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 5:17pm by Allegory


Exactly...Furthermore, until that time comes, we will always be stuck with Republicans vs Democrats as a "real" 3rd party will never gain the amount of support to be competitive.
#25 Aug 17 2011 at 2:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Allegory wrote:

To somewhat agree with Alma, politicians only use the means they do to win elections because it works. Being a straight talker doesn't win votes for the most part, and as a candidate if you want to do anything beneficial for the country you first need to be elected.

When people value inconvenient truths over comfortable lies, then we'll get straight talkers. Politicians aren't the problem, people are.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 5:17pm by Allegory


Exactly...Furthermore, until that time comes, we will always be stuck with Republicans vs Democrats as a "real" 3rd party will never gain the amount of support to be competitive.


No. The rise and fall of parties comes independent of the change in human nature.

The change is slow though, typically taking more than a generation to form.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#26 Aug 17 2011 at 5:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At least in US history, the "change" in parties is a rapid upheaval where one party is largely replaced by another, leaving the country with a two-party system -- just one with a different party. Third parties don't work here because they take their voters primarily from one side or the other and voters typically decide that it's better to vote Republican than to split the vote with a Libertarian candidate and risk a Democrat taking the seat (or vice versa with the Green party and Democrats). There's no magical "Centrist" party that appeals equally to both sides of the divide.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 84 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (84)