The GLBT and GSA Thread

[LtColCarter]

Will there be a ‘rainbow wave’? 4 things to know about LGBTQ candidates running for office this year.

Interesting...

[Falcon Horus]

A rainbow wave won't matter if the current administration continues to erode equality.

[LtColCarter]

A rainbow wave won't matter if the current administration continues to erode equality.

Things gotta start somewhere. And getting people elected could be the that start!

[jelgate]

I mean this in the nicest way. Im not going to vote for a person because of their sexual orientation. Just like I dont vote based on political party. im purely a platform person

[Annoyed]

I mean this in the nicest way. Im not going to vote for a person because of their sexual orientation. Just like I dont vote based on political party. im purely a platform person

Believe it or not, I'm the same way. I won't vote for a person based on their party alone, but you do have to look at the big picture, as well.

Here's a scenario for you. Suppose SCOTUS was 4-4 with an open seat, and both the White House and the Senate were up for grabs, even fight, either party could take either.

You have a Democratic Presidential candidate and both senators from your state up this year. You don't really like either the Democrat running for the White House or of the Senate candidates, but they are known to be solid liberals, anxious to tilt SCOTUS to the left.

Do you hold your nose and vote for the Democrats, even though you're not fond of them in order to increase the odds of getting a SCOTUS you like, or do you abstain or vote for the Republican, and risk putting the most powerful branch of govt. into Republican/Conservative hands?

Sure, every politician's position on various issues is important, but sometimes, the big picture is more important, and you vote party line.

[Gatefan1976]

Believe it or not, I'm the same way. I won't vote for a person based on their party alone, but you do have to look at the big picture, as well.

Here's a scenario for you. Suppose SCOTUS was 4-4 with an open seat, and both the White House and the Senate were up for grabs, even fight, either party could take either.

You have a Democratic Presidential candidate and both senators from your state up this year. You don't really like either the Democrat running for the White House or of the Senate candidates, but they are known to be solid liberals, anxious to tilt SCOTUS to the left.

Do you hold your nose and vote for the Democrats, even though you're not fond of them in order to increase the odds of getting a SCOTUS you like, or do you abstain or vote for the Republican, and risk putting the most powerful branch of govt. into Republican/Conservative hands?

Sure, every politician's position on various issues is important, but sometimes, the big picture is more important, and you vote party line.

That's voting for the LGBT person just because they are LGBT, the exact opposite of what Jel was saying.

[jelgate]

I dont believe for a second that Annoyed doesn't vote on parties. His actions contradict his words and

[Annoyed]

That's voting for the LGBT person just because they are LGBT, the exact opposite of what Jel was saying.

How the heck did LGBT issues come into this? I wasn't even remotely talking about that issue.

[Annoyed]

I dont believe for a second that Annoyed doesn't vote on parties. His actions contradict his words and

But how do you vote in the scenario I posted?

[Falcon Horus]

I mean this in the nicest way. Im not going to vote for a person because of their sexual orientation. Just like I dont vote based on political party. im purely a platform person

Neither do I, cause that would have meant voting for the Flemish National party and that's not happening... in this life or the next. Their mayoral candidate is a gay man, happily married with three kids (2 adopted and 1 of their own). Instead, I voted along party lines, for the socialist muslim. Mo will be great as the next mayor.

Things gotta start somewhere. And getting people elected could be the that start!

Yes, but it sure feels like an uphill battle, no matter who is elected. There better be enough progressives elected to not go downhill again.

[Gatefan1976]

How the heck did LGBT issues come into this? I wasn't even remotely talking about that issue.

They don't.
It's just an example of voting party (or in this case, social) line.
Vote for X because you are afraid of Y, no matter what they do or say.
Your "big picture" is merely a cop out excuse to ignore the bad stuff X does because "Y is worse"
I "have to vote the LGBT candidate, cause it's a big issue for me"
"but they want to destroy XYZ, or do stuff I don't like"
Doesn't matter, "big picture" says I have too.
That's why no one buys for a single second you would ever vote anything but republican, on any candidate because the "big picture" excuse allows you to ignore anything but the issue you place highest.
Thus, the exact opposite of what Jel was saying.
Jel would vote for anyone who he feels would be best, but he leans right. I would do the same, but I lean left.

[Annoyed]

They don't.
It's just an example of voting party (or in this case, social) line.
Vote for X because you are afraid of Y, no matter what they do or say.
Your "big picture" is merely a cop out excuse to ignore the bad stuff X does because "Y is worse"
I "have to vote the LGBT candidate, cause it's a big issue for me"
"but they want to destroy XYZ, or do stuff I don't like"
Doesn't matter, "big picture" says I have too.
That's why no one buys for a single second you would ever vote anything but republican, on any candidate because the "big picture" excuse allows you to ignore anything but the issue you place highest.
Thus, the exact opposite of what Jel was saying.
Jel would vote for anyone who he feels would be best, but he leans right. I would do the same, but I lean left.

Ok, so what do you do in my scenario?

Here's a scenario for you. Suppose SCOTUS was 4-4 with an open seat, and both the White House and the Senate were up for grabs, even fight, either party could take either.

You have a Democratic Presidential candidate and both senators from your state up this year. You don't really like either the Democrat running for the White House or of the Senate candidates, but they are known to be solid liberals, anxious to tilt SCOTUS to the left.

Do you hold your nose and vote for the Democrats, even though you're not fond of them in order to increase the odds of getting a SCOTUS you like, or do you abstain or vote for the Republican, and risk putting the most powerful branch of govt. into Republican/Conservative hands?

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, so what do you do in my scenario?

You vote policy, left or right.
Your very scenario proves you don't care about policy, just what your "big picture" goal is. A leftist candidate could reduce your debt, increase your wage, get you better healthcare etc etc.
Do EVERYTHING to make your life better.
But if they want a centrist or leftist SCOTUS judge, a position that quite frankly has absolutely zero impact on your life, you will sacrifice that better life for not just you, but for everyone else.
Before you claim that the SCOTUS is the most important thing, it really isn't, and it's designed not to be. It is supposed to be the last bastion of legal impartiality, the final say so that cares more about the law than anything else. The SCOTUS appointments are also not supposed to be political, but merit based and before you go on AGAIN about Bork, he got Borked based on his own actions, and if RBG did the same as Bork, she should have never had a seat either.
But she didn't.

[Annoyed]

You vote policy, left or right.
Your very scenario proves you don't care about policy, just what your "big picture" goal is. A leftist candidate could reduce your debt, increase your wage, get you better healthcare etc etc.
Do EVERYTHING to make your life better.
But if they want a centrist or leftist SCOTUS judge, a position that quite frankly has absolutely zero impact on your life, you will sacrifice that better life for not just you, but for everyone else.
Before you claim that the SCOTUS is the most important thing, it really isn't, and it's designed not to be. It is supposed to be the last bastion of legal impartiality, the final say so that cares more about the law than anything else. The SCOTUS appointments are also not supposed to be political, but merit based and before you go on AGAIN about Bork, he got Borked based on his own actions, and if RBG did the same as Bork, she should have never had a seat either.
But she didn't.

I see.

You seriously underestimate the importance of the courts and SCOTUS. Although they were not intended to be such, the reality today is that they are by far the most powerful branch of govt. by a long shot.

[LtColCarter]

Yes, but it sure feels like an uphill battle, no matter who is elected. There better be enough progressives elected to not go downhill again.

I agree...it will be an uphill battle. I also didn't mean to imply that one should vote for a person who is LGBTQ just because he/she is LGBTQ. A person's sexual orientation is a small part of their makeup. I look at a candidate who's stance on various issues are similar to mine.