• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

And_Gignac

Member
ivysaur12 said:
It's super easy. While there's a bit more triangulation than she's let on, DOMA was a defensive measure after it looked like Hawaii could legalize gay marriage. Yeah, it was homophobic, but without realizing the context (as Bernie just happens to forget) ignores the reality of the situation.

DOMA was a shitty law. You know what's worse? If a Federal Marriage Amendment passed. The votes were probably there in Congress and there were enough state houses to vote for it. Is that what you would've wanted? DOMA was bad for married gay couples from 2004-2013. A FMA would've been bad for gay couples for generations. The bill would've become law with or without Bill's signature, and it's pretty bizarre that gay rights activists are shouting that the FMA wasn't introduced until 2002. You're right, because DOMA passed, and thus it was felt that a FMA was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I dont want to continue with this meme of me being the personal spoke person for Sanders but he is not forgetting the context.

And I get the politics behind it. It doesnt make the vote any less reprehensible or retroactively right, even more so when you take into account that a FMA wasnt a real threat. It was a possibility used to justify the vote. It was political convenience and pragmatism in its grossest form what moved the vote for DOMA. Clinton and House Dems who voted for DOMA had the historical opportunity to rise agaisnt human rights deniers, and they chicken out. But thats 90s "new left" for you, concession after concession.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Sea Manky said:
iz9s4ieareep_q3xhp2edg.gif


Hah, we got married in 1992, before it was cool. <puts on hipster glasses>

Still appalling to think it was illegal just a couple years before we were born. Long way to go yet.
Click to expand...

While the "racism over" BS has to stop, there are times when I've gotten grief for talking about how much better things are now than when I was a kid.

Institutional racism is a huge issue. It beats what we had before by a log ways though.

What this all shows is how far in the hole we started, that things are still as bad as they are despite huge strides.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Bam Bam Baklava said:
What did they see in Huckabee and Santorum?



It's strange because as he's losing Iowa, he's building bigger leads in NH and SC.
Click to expand...
What I heard is that the Evangelical voteshare is frontloaded during the primary season; most of the voteshare is in Iowa and continues to get smaller per state as the season goes on.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Melkr_ said:
I dont want to continue with this meme of me being the personal spoke person for Sanders but he is not forgetting the context.

And I get the politics behind it. It doesnt make the vote any less reprehensible or retroactively right, even more so when you take into account that a FMA wasnt a real threat. It was a possibility used to justify the vote. It was political convenience and pragmatism in its grossest form what moved the vote for DOMA. Clinton and House Dems who voted for DOMA had the historical opportunity to rise agaisnt human rights deniers, and they chicken out. But thats 90s "new left" for you, concession after concession.
Click to expand...

I've seen that clip from Sanders. I wouldn't have said that he's forgetting the context if I hadn't. Only 27% of the country was for gay marriage in 1996. There was no Neil Patrick Harris. No Ellen. No Will & Grace. No Modern Family. You were just coming off the AIDS crisis and the political goodwill that was completely evaporated after the DADT fight. The electorate was not where it was needed to be. A Federal Marriage Amendment was a very real possibility and was placated by the passage of DOMA. And it would've passed.

I don't know what else to tell you. If you really think this, I'm sorry that you completely don't understand the context of the 90s and the reality of gay rights then. The fight for gay rights then, as it was until very recently, about the necessity of concessions to avoid something worse while also educating at the same time. Sometimes -- sometimes -- blindly fighting your principles can backfire.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Melkr_ said:
I dont want to continue with this meme of me being the personal spoke person for Sanders but he is not forgetting the context.

And I get the politics behind it. It doesnt make the vote any less reprehensible or retroactively right, even more so when you take into account that a FMA wasnt a real threat. It was a possibility used to justify the vote. It was political convenience and pragmatism in its grossest form what moved the vote for DOMA. Clinton and House Dems who voted for DOMA had the historical opportunity to rise agaisnt human rights deniers, and they chicken out. But thats 90s "new left" for you, concession after concession.
Click to expand...

ivysaur12 said:
I've seen that clip from Sanders. I wouldn't have said that he's forgetting the context if I hadn't. Only 27% of the country was for gay marriage in 1996. There was no Neil Patrick Harris. No Ellen. No Will & Grace. No Modern Family. You were just coming off the AIDS crisis and the political goodwill that was completely evaporated after the DADT fight. The electorate was not where it was needed to be. A Federal Marriage Amendment was a very real possibility and was placated by the passage of DOMA. And it would've passed.

I don't know what else to tell you. If you really think this, I'm sorry that you completely don't understand the context of the 90s and the reality of gay rights then. The fight for gay rights then, as it was until very recently, about the necessity of concessions to avoid something worse while also educating at the same time. Sometimes -- sometimes -- blindly fighting your principles can backfire.
Click to expand...

This line of discussion illustrates my frustration with Sanders supporters and their unwillingness to accept that progress usually happens at a painfully slow pace.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
BertramCooper said:
This line of discussion illustrates my frustration with Sanders supporters and their unwillingness to accept that progress usually happens at a painfully slow pace.
Click to expand...
Not understanding that Perfect is the enemy of good sums up the vast majority of the Bernie movement pretty well.

Pushing for everything results in nothing.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
BertramCooper said:
This line of discussion illustrates my frustration with Sanders supporters and their unwillingness to accept that progress usually happens at a painfully slow pace.
Click to expand...

Bam Bam Baklava said:
"Progress should be as fast and as easy as posting on Twitter/Facebook." - 18 to 29 year old Sanders supporters.
Click to expand...

Cheebo said:
Not understanding that Perfect is the enemy of good sums up the vast majority of the Bernie movement pretty well.

Pushing for everything results in nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes but that is why "we need a revolution"

#feelthebern
#shillary
#specialinterest
#youngwhitemalecollegestudent
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
NeoXChaos said:
Yes but that is why "we need a revolution"

#feelthebern
#shillary
#specialinterest
#youngwhitemalecollegestudent
Click to expand...
I like the idea that voting Bernie somehow counts as a revolution.


Also am I crazy or did Melkr throw his hands up post debate/hearing and agreed Hillary was the nominee. How did he become full on Bernie-Stan again?
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
We literally moved as fast as we could as a country on gay rights, which is unbelievable given how long it took this country to move on civil rights. The speed at which gay rights took hold in America is unprecedented.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Lindsey Graham on GOP field: ‘How am I losing to these people?’

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham says he cannot fathom how real estate magnate Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are dominating the GOP presidential primaries.

Graham provided cutting assessments of their lack of political experience, foreign policies and overall temperaments during a wide-ranging interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday.

“On our side, you’ve got the No. 2 guy [who] tried to kill someone at 14, and the No. 1 is high energy and crazy as hell. How am I losing to these people?” he said.

The Republican presidential candidate, who has been struggling in national polls, was referring to the time when Carson stabbed one of his high school classmates, an incident he has discussed openly.

Toward the end of the interview, Graham joked that he should start moving up in the polls because he — unlike Carson — has never tried to kill anyone.
Click to expand...

hqdefault.jpg
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
We literally moved as fast as we could as a country on gay rights, which is unbelievable given how long it took this country to move on civil rights. The speed at which gay rights took hold in America is unprecedented.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the Clintons suck because they didn't make gay marriage legal nationwide in 1993. What corporate shills they are.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
A deal between the White House and congressional leaders that would raise the debt ceiling and include two-year spending legislation could be announced as soon as Monday evening, anonymous sources told The Hill.
Click to expand...

The New York Times also has reported on the deal discussions and said "officials briefed on the negotiations said the emerging accord would call for cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits."
Click to expand...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/white-house-congress-budget-debt-ceiling

"Maybe they'll like me now"
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
dabig2 said:
Yeah no, Clinton is not receiving a pass for DOMA because it was less apocalyptic than the alternative. When you find the public against you, maybe you need to spend the time educating the public and actually arguing for your beliefs and views.

What happened after Clinton signed DOMA if I may ask? Cause what I remember as a kid was Clinton triumphantly praising his DOMA legislation during his election year. I remember the ads on Christian radio. And I also remember a decade later Clinton was still pushing DOMA with his advice to John Kerry (according to some insiders). Clinton wasn't the only failure of progressive ideals here, most other prominent Dem members were also resigned to defeat when it comes to gay marriage (and a host of other things).

But I sure as hell am not going to give liberals a pass for shit like that.

tn7tbbP.jpg
Click to expand...

I mean this Captain America quote is awesome and all, but im pretty sure that people who oppose gay marriage, and attend confederate flag rallies and all the other nonsense we see from the right believe that it applies to them as well. The "No I refuse to concede my values regardless of how much everybody else tells me I am wrong" mentality isnt something that helps achieve progress when everybody thinks that way
 
B

bodyofanamerican

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
I mean this Captain America quote is awesome and all, but im pretty sure that people who oppose gay marriage, and attend confederate flag rallies and all the other nonsense we see from the right believe that it applies to them as well. The "No I refuse to concede my values regardless of how much everybody else tells me I am wrong" mentality isnt something that helps achieve progress when everybody thinks that way
Click to expand...

Yup, very good point.
 
A

And_Gignac

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I've seen that clip from Sanders. I wouldn't have said that he's forgetting the context if I hadn't. Only 27% of the country was for gay marriage in 1996. There was no Neil Patrick Harris. No Ellen. No Will & Grace. No Modern Family. You were just coming off the AIDS crisis and the political goodwill that was completely evaporated after the DADT fight. The electorate was not where it was needed to be. A Federal Marriage Amendment was a very real possibility and was placated by the passage of DOMA. And it would've passed.

I don't know what else to tell you. If you really think this, I'm sorry that you completely don't understand the context of the 90s and the reality of gay rights then. The fight for gay rights then, as it was until very recently, about the necessity of concessions to avoid something worse while also educating at the same time. Sometimes -- sometimes -- blindly fighting your principles can backfire.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Birch was head of the largest LGBT organization during that time. If you read this article by her maybe you will understand a little where I am coming from. DOMA was an unnecessary panic attack by the feble new left.

BertramCooper said:
This line of discussion illustrates my frustration with Sanders supporters and their unwillingness to accept that progress usually happens at a painfully slow pace.
Click to expand...

You need a couple of loud, idealists voices here and there to spread a message.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Thanks for the periodic reminder that yes, Lindsey Graham is still in this race.
Click to expand...
He will probably outlast Jeb, hilarious.

Melkr_ said:
You need a couple of loud, idealists voices here and there to spread a message.
Click to expand...
The President can't be that one though. Because when they go for perfect and it blows up in their face due to lacking of taking it slowly it will set back whatever the movement happens to be. A President can't be the over the top purist. The position does not work in that way. If Bernie wants to be that his best place is in the senate. Because what his supporters want is not a President capable of governing.
 
N

noshten

Member
Big Green Anus said:
What's wrong with Debbie Wasserman Schultz? I've been hearing negative things about her from here, but I don't know why,
Click to expand...

Putting herself and her agenda as priority

In 2012, Wasserman Schultz attempted to get the DNC to pay for her clothing at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, multiple sources say, but was blocked by staff in the committee’s Capitol Hill headquarters and at President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign headquarters in Chicago.
Click to expand...

DNC policy is not to accept donations from lobbyists. However, her own DWS PAC accepts lobbyist money. Wasserman Schultz says this has never been a problem. “DWS PAC is a separate entity,” she said, denying that the initials have any relation to her name, although her father used to be its treasurer and it’s run day-to-day by Jason O’Malley, whose salary is split between the DNC, DWS PAC and Wasserman Schultz’s congressional campaign committee. He works out of a cubicle in the finance department at DNC headquarters.
Click to expand...

Wasserman Schultz has brought in four senior staffers to the DNC, including, for four months in 2013, a ghostwriter for her book, “For the Next Generation.” All four are now on the DNC payroll full-time or split between her congressional office, PAC and congressional campaign committee.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077_Page2.html

Feuding with fellow DNC members:

A top Democratic official has accused DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of lying, and is openly questioning her fitness to lead the party.

In an interview with The New York Times, DNC vice chairman R. T. Rybak attacked Wasserman Schultz for saying that she had not banned Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from attending the first Democratic debate after Gabbard called for more Democratic debates. Rybak said he was flabbergasted that she was saying something “flat out not true” about another Democrat.

“In the days before and after the debate I kept my mouth shut,” Rybak also told Bloomberg Politics. “But I’ve begun to deeply question whether she has the leadership skills to get us through the election.”

“This is not just about how many debates we have,” the former mayor of Minneapolis continued. “This is one of a series of long-running events in which the chair has not shown the political judgment that is needed.”

Rybac said he was “very close” to calling for Wasserman Schultz’ resignation. “I’m not quite doing that yet, but unless I see some significant shift in the way she’s going to operate and see that she has some ability to reach out and include people who disagree with her, then I seriously question whether she’s the right person to lead us.”
Click to expand...

Cheebo said:
Bernie-stans think she is in the tank for Hillary I have noticed. Newflash, the entire DNC organization and leadership is in the tank for Hillary.
Click to expand...

That isn't my problems with DWS, the fact that she stands for everything I can't stand in a politician is more of enough reason for DNC to loose credibility by choosing to have her as chair.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Melkr_ said:
Elizabeth Birch was head of the largest LGBT organization during that time. If you read this article by her maybe you will understand a little where I am coming from. DOMA was an unnecessary panic attack by the feble new left.



You need a couple of loud, idealists voices here and there to spread a message.
Click to expand...

No. She's absolutely incorrect, and it's exactly the type of 90s-esque gay rights revisionist history that's taken hold when it comes to the Clintons. "There was no threat of a FMA until 2004!" she screams, forgetting that the actual FMA was introduced into Congress in 2002. And what would've happened in DOMA didn't pass, or was never introduced? "Clinton must be lying because FMA wasn't introduced until 2004 2002!" is a terrible argument, because that does absolutely nothing to refute the claims by both Hillary and Bill that there were talks of a FMA and that DOMA was used as a compromise. A FMA wasn't introduced until 2004 2002. No one is denying this. The actual argument that Clinton is putting forth is that there was talk of introducing this legislation because of Baehr.

Also, if you want to see why "educating" the populace on his convictions would have been a terrible idea:

(In 1998, even after DOMA was signed into law, HRC would continue the battle in Hawai&#8217;i, alongside local community leaders, spending some $1.7M unsuccessfully fighting a state constitutional amendment that barred gays from obtaining marriage licenses).
Click to expand...

"True leadership is timeless" is a nice piece, but also is a fucking terrible piece of policy when it comes to gay rights in the 90s that forgets the context of the time, something that it's pretty standard when it comes to gay rights advocates of the era.

This is the type of arguments by Sanders supporters that drives me a fucking wall. No, Clinton should've vetoed DOMA, hugged the nearest queer person, and demanded that gay marriage is the law of the land and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe That would've worked.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
A

And_Gignac

Member
Cheebo said:
I like the idea that voting Bernie somehow counts as a revolution.


Also am I crazy or did Melkr throw his hands up post debate/hearing and agreed Hillary was the nominee. How did he become full on Bernie-Stan again?
Click to expand...

Sanders will be unable to win. October sealed the candidacy for Clinton. I still want to discuss the primary and its likely outcomes, though (even when those outcomes do not favor Sanders as the candidate). Its kind of fun and addictive.
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Melkr_ said:
I dont want to continue with this meme of me being the personal spoke person for Sanders but he is not forgetting the context.

And I get the politics behind it. It doesnt make the vote any less reprehensible or retroactively right, even more so when you take into account that a FMA wasnt a real threat. It was a possibility used to justify the vote. It was political convenience and pragmatism in its grossest form what moved the vote for DOMA. Clinton and House Dems who voted for DOMA had the historical opportunity to rise agaisnt human rights deniers, and they chicken out. But thats 90s "new left" for you, concession after concession.
Click to expand...

I just want to say because I know many people complain about the "new left" and their willingness to make concessions.. But honestly that willingness to concede and be pragmatic is exactly why the country is moving the direction we want it to. If the Democrats win this upcoming election, that means they'll have won the past the past 5/7 presidential elections. 6/8 if the incumbent wins re-election. The new left approach is actually working. a big difference from the 60s up until the 90s when the dems would implode every time they sent up a far left candidate and insisted on fighting losing battles. It's absolutely insane after all the nonsense that happened in the Republican Party with Nixon and ford pardoning him, Iran contra, etc all we got out of it was 1 term of jimmy carter.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
I just want to say because I know many people complain about the "new left" and their willingness to make concessions.. But honestly that willingness to concede and be pragmatic is exactly why the country is moving the direction we want it to. If the Democrats win this upcoming election, that means they'll have won the past the past 5/7 presidential elections. 6/8 if the incumbent wins re-election. The new left approach is actually working. a big difference from the 60s up until the 90s when the dems would implode every time they sent up a far left candidate and insisted on fighting losing battles. It's absolutely insane after all the nonsense that happened in the Republican Party with Nixon and ford pardoning him, Iran contra, etc all we got out of it was 1 term of jimmy carter.
Click to expand...

exactly. Carter never made a SC appointment so Clinton was the first to appoint one since LBJ. The Republicans made 11 appointments(includes 2 SCJs) in that time frame.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
I just want to say because I know many people complain about the "new left" and their willingness to make concessions.. But honestly that willingness to concede and be pragmatic is exactly why the country is moving the direction we want it to. If the Democrats win this upcoming election, that means they'll have won the past the past 5/7 presidential elections. 6/8 if the incumbent wins re-election. The new left approach is actually working. a big difference from the 60s up until the 90s when the dems would implode every time they sent up a far left candidate and insisted on fighting losing battles. It's absolutely insane after all the nonsense that happened in the Republican Party with Nixon and ford pardoning him, Iran contra, etc all we got out of it was 1 term of jimmy carter.
Click to expand...

More like 6/7 if you go by popular vote.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
That's why Sanders fan purity tests annoy me. Whoever becomes president in 2017 will make three, possibly four SC picks. RBG is on her way out, it is imperative that a democrat pick her replacement or else we could be looking at conservative dominance of the court for a generation.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
Reading that politico article on Christie and I'm still amazed the whole Bridge Closure debacle never sunk him completely. At best he's an incompetent leader who fostered a personal identity and work culture that implied this sort of thing was perfectly acceptable to him. But no, him hugging Obama is the real scandal to voters apparently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom