U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Callace]

And the notion that the GOP can't stop actively trying to make lives worse for gay people will stop them from actively doing nothing about the economy is pretty laughable.

I don't know, passing the Ryan bill in the house is arguably worse than actively doing nothing.

[Wells]

I don't know, passing the Ryan bill in the house is arguably worse than actively doing nothing.

Fair enough.

[Meleti]

I'd rather live in an equal society in squalor than an oppressive prosperous society

There really aren't a lot of "equal [societies] in squalor." Even under traditional examples like the Soviet Union and China, things are vastly more unequal there than they are in the US. While the average citizen is poorer, the elites are much much richer than anyone else around them. This was true for the Soviet elite, and it's true today for the scions of the revolution in China.

But it's all pretty much a non-point, as you can't really associate neoliberalism and inclusive economic institutions with one party or the other any more. Republicans have distorted the free market into "no taxes" and policies that favor established corporations.

[Callace]

Depends on your perspective

It really does, but my own reasoning is that cutting entitlement programs has never resulted in an improved economy in US history. I have nothing against welfare reform for things like medicare and foodstamps, but cutting those programs is going to hurt the people that are actually trying to find work more than it will help those who are not. The decrease in Pell Grant subsidies especially is a slap in the face. Those only benefit people that are trying to better themselves to actually do something productive in society. China gets their payoff slightly quicker though. Oh well.

[Bobdoletoo]

I would like to ask everyone who is "celebrating" the position they are taking, Why wait till after the North Carolina vote? Why not come out and try to help them? They are having their convention there later this year, why not help them? Is it because he knew it would fail even if he backed it?

I would also like you to ask most gay men which they would rather have: more jobs or the ability to marry?

What is more important, the economy or every groups issues we can get to vote for us? This is all smoke and mirrors to distract. I understand the importance of the issues, but they are not what matters to most of the United States.

[Dacien]

The government and the people who operate it aren't children. They can deal with more than one thing at a time.

Well the GOP certainly aren't gung-ho about gay rights, nor have they ever been. So what are you saying here?

Especially since the GOP actively works to limit gay rights and freedoms so if you were really serious about the economy being the most important issue you'd be furious with that they're doing.

Can you clarify what you're saying here for me? What does gay rights and freedoms have to do with the economy, other than employment equality, which we already have?

[eriseis]

I would like to ask everyone who is "celebrating" the position they are taking, Why wait till after the North Carolina vote? Why not come out and try to help them? They are having their convention there later this year, why not help them? Is it because he knew it would fail even if he backed it?

I would also like you to ask most gay men which they would rather have: more jobs or the ability to marry?

What is more important, the economy or every groups issues we can get to vote for us? This is all smoke and mirrors to distract. I understand the importance of the issues, but they are not what matters to most of the United States.

More jobs don't have a chance of being a constitutional amendment. What's more important for the GOP, gays marrying or the economy?

[Dacien]

I'd rather live in an equal society in squalor than an oppressive prosperous society

I'm for gay rights, they just aren't at the top of my priority list. If I were gay, I imagine that would be different. I'm sorry.

[Bobdoletoo]

More jobs don't have a chance of being a constitutional amendment. What's more important for the GOP, gays marrying or the economy?

The economy is something that affects everyone. Most people do not care if gay people can marry, that does not affect their everyday lives, the economy does. If it was that important, where was Obama before NC voted on it? Why did he not affect change there? Where was his leadership to help them?

[eriseis]

The economy is something that affects everyone. Most people do not care if gay people can marry, that does not affect their everyday lives, the economy does.

If most people don't care, why is the GOP so entrenched in making policy on it? Believe me, as a gay man I could give two shits about gay marriage being legal in times of recession, but not when the GOP decides to actively push back on it. The economy is much more subjective (we'll never agree on good policy or bad policy) than an issue that could lead into a constitutional amendment.

If it was that important, where was Obama before NC voted on it? Why did he not affect change there? Where was his leadership to help them?

Red herring.

[Wells]

Well the GOP certainly aren't gung-ho about gay rights, nor have they ever been. So what are you saying here?

You're saying the GOP can't do anything about gay rights because the economy should be a bigger priority. I only wish the GOP was doing nothing, but what they're doing is actively working to stop the spread of gay rights. You should be livid if you're honest about your priorities.

Most people do not care if gay people can marry

Most people want gay people to get to get married.

[Bobdoletoo]

Red herring.

So you think the President of the United States advocating gay marriage means nothing in a state where they are voting on the topic?

I guess he has absolutely no influence over the people. You seem to think this issue is so important, more important then the economy....so important, that you advocate the President doing nothing to help it in a state putting it in their constitution.

[Wells]

Obama wasn't needed for NY to pass their gay marriage legislation.

[Bobdoletoo]

Most people want gay people to get to get married.

I disagree. Not with the concept, I could care less about gay marriage. But most polls and most state votes have shown that they do care , and negatively towards it.

[Dacien]

You're saying the GOP can't do anything about gay rights because the economy should be a bigger priority.

No, that isn't what I said. I said the economy is my number one issue, and I think Republicans are better equipped to meet that issue. I never said they can't do anything about gay rights. But good luck getting them to.

I only wish the GOP was doing nothing, but what they're doing is actively working to stop the spread of gay rights. You should be livid if you're honest about your priorities.

I'm not excited about it, but:

I'm for gay rights, they just aren't at the top of my priority list. If I were gay, I imagine that would be different. I'm sorry.

[eriseis]

So you think the President of the United States advocating gay marriage means nothing in a state where they are voting on the topic?

I guess he has absolutely no influence over the people. You seem to think this issue is so important, more important then the economy....so important, that you advocate the President doing nothing to help it in a state putting it in their constitution.

I don't quite get where you're going...you mean a logical pattern of behavior would be being a fanatic of gay marriage like the GOP is fanatic about whatever they think the Bible says?

I really don't quite understand what you're trying to disprove here...I mean, really, can you be more concrete? It seems you're just trying to build an abomination.

[Bobdoletoo]

Obama wasn't needed for NY to pass their gay marriage legislation.

My whole point is that he did not do it earlier or go against it in NC because he knew , no matter what he said, it would be passed through and he did not want to be on the losing side.

[eriseis]

My whole point is that he did not do it earlier or go against it in NC because he knew , no matter what he said, it would be passed through and he did not want to be on the losing side.

You're going on a slippery slope faster than the speed of light.

[Wells]

I disagree. Not with the concept, I could care less about gay marriage. But most polls and most state votes have shown that they do care , and negatively towards it.

You're wrong

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Ha...-Marriage.aspx

No, that isn't what I said. I said the economy is my number one issue, and I think Republicans are better equipped to meet that issue. I never said they can't do anything about gay rights. But good luck getting them to.

But shouldn't they be spending less time on blocking civil rights for gay people? And the GOP has a fucking awful record with the economy in the whitehouse.

[Bobdoletoo]

I don't quite get where you're going...you mean a logical pattern of behavior would be being a fanatic of gay marriage like the GOP is fanatic about whatever they think the Bible says?

I really don't quite understand what you're trying to disprove here...I mean, really, can you be more concrete? It seems you're just trying to build an abomination.

I don't care about the GOP, I don't care about their views, I am talking about a man who comes out for something after a state bans it when a real leader would have tried to help. He would have failed , but he did not even try because he did not want to be on the losing side of something during an election.