If you're voting either (R) or (D) for president...

[zsdersw]

Governor Romney actively worked against LGBT rights in Massachusetts:

Repeating the same irrelevant information doesn't make it relevant.

You keep saying and trying the same things over and over, expecting a different result. That's one of the definitions of something, for sure.

 

[lotus503]

Repeating the same irrelevant information doesn't make it relevant.

So if I may summarize your position.

You dont really factor either candidates position as they are only positions for votes and not trully refelctive of the candidates positions?

If thats the case wouldnt you choose the candidate whos base more lines up with your values related to the issues?

Id much rather get behind the guy (No Pun Intended) who has to pander to a positon i agree with than a guy who panders to a postion I dont.

 

[zsdersw]

So if I may summarize your position.

You dont really factor either candidates position as they are only positions for votes and not trully refelctive of the candidates positions?

Correct.

If thats the case wouldnt you choose the candidate whos base more lines up with your values related to the issues?

Id much rather get behind the guy (No Pun Intended) who has to pander to a positon i agree with than a guy who panders to a postion I dont.

That would be relevant if GLBT issues were the most important ones (to me). As far as the POTUS is concerned, they're not. State and local races are another matter.

 

[lotus503]

Correct.



That would be relevant if GLBT issues were the most important ones (to me). As far as the POTUS is concerned, they're not. State and local races are another matter.

I kind of figured figured that was the case, so you view the GLBT issue as really not important nationally. I agree, the candidates will support the will of the people eventually (Pander) and there is substantial evidence the country is moving towards equality here.

But I think Mitt is probablly the first candidate in a while that actually believes and lives his faith and wont support equality no matter what.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You started with the thesis that there was no difference between R and D politicians. When obvious and clear differences are pointed out, you say those don't count because those differences are only due to politics.

But positions held by politicians are by definition influenced by politics. Thus, D and R are the "same" only because you've defined "difference" in such a way that it must be the null set.

Whatever floats your boat.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

A new Public Policy Polling survey in Maryland finds a significant increase in support for same-sex marriage among African American voters following President Obama’s historic announcement two weeks ago.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/maryland-polling-memo.html

On the plus side, I'm starting to get an insight into the sort of denial that is necessary for the "Log Cabin Republicans" to exist.

 

[zsdersw]

I kind of figured figured that was the case, so you view the GLBT issue as really not important nationally. I agree, the candidates will support the will of the people eventually (Pander) and there is substantial evidence the country is moving towards equality here.

But I think Mitt is probablly the first candidate in a while that actually believes and lives his faith and wont support equality no matter what.

We'll see, I suppose (assuming he wins). No matter what I don't think Romney will make any difference on GLBT issues.

 

[lotus503]

We'll see, I suppose (assuming he wins). No matter what I don't think Romney will make any difference on GLBT issues.

I dont think Romney will matter over the long run if he wins, he will most likley delay progress on GLBT issues during his term. But hey good news is we will have a big fat wedge issue for 2016 if thats the case. cant have campaigns without wedge issues.

 

[zsdersw]

You started with the thesis that there was no difference between R and D politicians. When obvious and clear differences are pointed out, you say those don't count because those differences are only due to politics.

First, you framed the situation incorrectly. The title of the thread is about the POTUS, not all R and D politicians.

Second, you talked only about GLBT issues.. at which point I mentioned that their differences are driven exclusively by political needs when those needs arise.

But positions held by politicians are by definition influenced by politics. Thus, D and R are the "same" only because you've defined "difference" in such a way that it must be the null set.

Whatever floats your boat.

Positions held by politicians aren't necessarily influenced by politics. There is this little thing called "one's own beliefs".

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/maryland-polling-memo.html

On the plus side, I'm starting to get an insight into the sort of denial that is necessary for the "Log Cabin Republicans" to exist.

Great, and thanks to Romney's half-hearted (re: political pandering only) attempt to create conservative credentials for himself so he could run for president, GLBT residents in MA can still get married. His proposed amendment to set marriage as one man one woman failed legislatively.. by quite a wide margin. If he didn't see that coming he's a very poor politician. Seems more likely he did see it coming and pushed for the amendment just so he could get some credibility with conservatives nationally in preparation for a presidential run.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

First, you framed the situation incorrectly. The title of the thread is about the POTUS, not all R and D politicians.

And that's what I've been talking about.

Second, you talked only about GLBT issues.. at which point I mentioned that their differences are driven exclusively by political needs when those needs arise.

Does that mean you are conceding that your claim that there are no differences between the candidates was incorrect?

Great, and thanks to Romney's half-hearted (re: political pandering only) attempt to create conservative credentials for himself so he could run for president, GLBT residents in MA can still get married.

Gays can get married in MA because of the Democratic legislature and the MA Supreme Court. Romney did everything he could to stop it, including digging up an obscure century-old law.

It's sad, because I used to like your writing, but in this thread you've revealed yourself to be thoroughly intellectually dishonest.

 

[zsdersw]

And that's what I've been talking about.

No, you said in the previous post "R and D politicians". Not just POTUS candidates.

Does that mean you are conceding that your claim that there are no differences between the candidates was incorrect?

No. It was not an incorrect claim.

Gays can get married in MA because of the Democratic legislature and the MA Supreme Court. Romney did everything he could to stop it, including digging up an obscure century-old law.

If Romney couldn't see the writing on the wall about his proposed amendment, he's a very poor politician. Its far more likely he did see it, and knew his amendment was DOA.. which means the only reason to propose the amendment is to gain street cred with conservatives in preparation for a run at the presidency.

It's sad, because I used to like your writing, but in this thread you've revealed yourself to be thoroughly intellectually dishonest.

The violin playing for you is microscopic. If it makes you feel any better, though, we'll always have Paris.

 

[PJABBER]

If it makes you feel any better, though, we'll always have Paris.

LOL!

 

[zsdersw]

I dont think Romney will matter over the long run if he wins, he will most likley delay progress on GLBT issues during his term. But hey good news is we will have a big fat wedge issue for 2016 if thats the case. cant have campaigns without wedge issues.

I don't expect progress on GLBT issues no matter who wins in the presidential race.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No. It was not an incorrect claim.

So, first you say there is no difference between the candidates. Then you say there is a difference but it doesn't matter because it was based on political motivation. Then, when asked if this means you were wrong when you said there was no difference initially, you say no.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. What a buffoon.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't expect progress on GLBT issues no matter who wins in the presidential race.

If Romney wins, there will be regression. DADT will return and DOMA will be here forever-- especially once Mitt puts his judges on the Supreme Court

 

[zsdersw]

So, first you say there is no difference between the candidates. Then you say there is a difference but it doesn't matter because it was based on political motivation. Then, when asked if this means you were wrong when you said there was no difference initially, you say no.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. What a buffoon.

Personal positions != political positions.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Personal positions != political positions.

You're a liar, plain and simple.

 

[zsdersw]

If Romney wins, there will be regression. DADT will return and DOMA will be here forever-- especially once Mitt puts his judges on the Supreme Court

Unlikely. Either Obama or Romney will most certainly have a divided congress; one part under the control of each party.

 

[zsdersw]

You're a liar, plain and simple.

Incorrect.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Incorrect.

You made an initial claim. You then revised that claim but refused to admit that the initial claim was wrong.

You're a liar. Period. Deny it a thousand times if you want, it's all here in the thread.

I find it incredibly ironic that you're holding out for your mythical "ideal candidate" who will be perfectly honest and only vote based on his true core beliefs, but you're too insecure to even concede a point on a discussion board.

 

[zsdersw]

You made an initial claim. You then revised that claim but refused to admit that the initial claim was wrong.

You're a liar. Period. Deny it a thousand times if you want, it's all here in the thread.

No revisions were made.

You're incorrect. Period. Deny it a thousand times if you want, it's all here in the thread.

I find it incredibly ironic that you're holding out for your mythical "ideal candidate" who will be perfectly honest and only vote based on his true core beliefs, but you're too insecure to even concede a point on a discussion board.

Concession not needed, nothing to concede.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I believe Obama and Romney are exactly alike on gay rights.

Then, after I point out NUMEROUS differences in stated policy and actual actions -- Obama eliminating DADT, Romney trying to block gay marriage in MA...

Everything you say they've done that is different is entirely motivated by immediate political expediency.

You're rapidly entering cybrsage territory.

 

[zsdersw]

Then, after I point out NUMEROUS differences in stated policy and actual actions -- Obama eliminating DADT, Romney trying to block gay marriage in MA...

You're rapidly entering cybrsage territory.

What part of "political positions != personal positions" don't you understand? This has never been about political positions they've both had to take to satisfy a political need. It's always been about what they personally believe.

 

[bfdd]

Same sex marriage is a right protected by the 1st amendment, the only candidate who is able to see this clearly is Gary Johnson. If one truly cared about the subject enough for it to lead their opinion on which candidate to vote for, then clearly Gary Johnson is the only candidate. Obama doesn't really care just like with cannabis.

 

[jackstar7]

What part of "political positions != personal positions" don't you understand? This has never been about political positions they've both had to take to satisfy a political need. It's always been about what they personally believe.

You know what lurks in the hearts of men? YOU are The Shadow? This whole time?!

 

[zsdersw]

You know what lurks in the hearts of men? YOU are The Shadow? This whole time?!

Pragmatism is very easy to identify.

Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot, those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged.