Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«254 »
  • Post
  • Reply
ThatsSoNotPLUR
Nov 29, 2011



As much as Obama sucks sometimes, at points like these we can remember there are definitely happy little moments to be found.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Loving Life Partner
Apr 17, 2003

You want to file a WHAT!?

Will someone declare a WAR ON HOMOSEXUALS w/r/t the candidate's polarized stances?

Oh nevermind we already got that one going since the dawn of western civilization.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



I just realized this is the end of assholes saying "I have the same position as the President " while acting to specifically restrict the rights of gay couples.

Tatum Girlparts
Sep 8, 2011

More like Tantrum Girlparts!
I can't be smug if I never stop whining.



So this just happened to kinda make me do a double take.

My father, a lifelong Goldwater Republican, just called to say 'ya know son, I think I'm ok with this gay marriage thing'. In some bizarre way the Obama thing was whatever click he needed to either realize being apathetic/opposed was a losing battle, or somehow actually see that his side was the wrong side of it.

He's not gonna vote for Obama, he made that super clear, but he is going to start supporting marriage rights instead of deleting the emails I send him and all.

Obama's thing was about four years late, painfully wishy-washy, and an obvious move to keep gay donors above all else, but somehow it got at least one person to change his mind, so I guess I should step back and look at it through more than jaded eyes.

nebby
Dec 21, 2000
resident mog

Glitterbomber posted:

Obama's thing was about four years late, painfully wishy-washy, and an obvious move to keep gay donors above all else, but somehow it got at least one person to change his mind, so I guess I should step back and look at it through more than jaded eyes.
The way I look at it is just as much as it's four years late, it's also a bit of a surprise. You could have told me that we'd *never* see Obama take this stance, even if he were re-elected, and I wouldn't have considered it unlikely.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007



The Log Cabin Republicans’ R. Clarke Cooper was quick to try to discredit Obama’s announcement, calling it “cold comfort” and “offensive and callous” in the wake of the defeat in North Carolina yesterday. “This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short,” Cooper said.

That's pretty scathing.

nachos
Jun 27, 2004

Wario Chalmers! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


Does anyone even take the Log Cabin Republicans seriously?

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007



nachos posted:

Does anyone even take the Log Cabin Republicans seriously?

This doesn't take anything away from their argument.

Jayisspecial
Sep 15, 2006

Therock Obama

If Obama had come out as a show of support in NC, not only would the amendment have still passed, but it would look like he was on the wrong side of the people. The GOP would have had a field day lambasting him as a loser on the issue. How could that have ever been a net gain?

literallyincredible
Oct 23, 2008


Well, if nothing else this will at least cement Obama's legacy as the most LGBT friendly president ever, though that isn't saying much. But truth be told I don't think this will hurt him with anyone who would possibly have considered voting for him anyway, and it puts Romney in an awkward spot of sort of being forced to play culture warrior, which is where he's least comfortable. It shifts the terms of the debate, at least for a little while at least, and with the economy still pretty lovely that's useful.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007



Jayisspecial posted:

If Obama had come out as a show of support in NC, not only would the amendment have still passed, but it would look like he was on the wrong side of the people. The GOP would have had a field day lambasting him as a loser on the issue. How could that have ever been a net gain?

You know what, I'll just leave the Log Cabin statement be, it says enough.

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008



Yup.


Jayisspecial posted:

If Obama had come out as a show of support in NC, not only would the amendment have still passed, but it would look like he was on the wrong side of the people. The GOP would have had a field day lambasting him as a loser on the issue. How could that have ever been a net gain?

"Oh no, Obama would look bad if he endorsed basic human rights! " You do realize that that is what your argument boils down to, correct?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Nonsense posted:

This doesn't take anything away from their argument.

There's not really anything to take away from it, it's a bad argument. The Obama Administration has pushed gay rights incredibly effectively and the log cabin republican statement does very little to take away from a pretty fantastic record (and he just removed the only real blemish on it). Claiming that doing it right after the NC loss is "callous" is just sort of nutty.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

"Oh no, Obama would look bad if he endorsed basic human rights! " You do realize that that is what your argument boils down to, correct?

No it's not.

whydirt
Apr 18, 2001


Gaz Posting Brigade

I don't think the Log Cabin Republicans have any sort of moral high ground here, and their statement is petty at best.

gohuskies
Oct 23, 2010


The Log Cabin Republicans are more Republican than they are Log Cabin. They couldn't praise Obama if he got ordained and personally married every gay couple himself. Any way you slice it, Obama's public stance on LGBT rights is better than it was yesterday, and for people who care about advancing LGBT rights, that's a good thing. If the Log Cabin Republicans really cared about LGBT rights, they'd say something like "While we disagree with Obama on issues X, Y, and Z, we applaud him for his personal journey towards supporting marriage equality and we hope others will join him in making that journey and coming to support civil rights for all couples in America." But they didn't. They'd rather diss Obama for something, anything, bullshit or not, than ever praise him, deserved or not.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Nonsense posted:

This doesn't take anything away from their argument.
Except for the part where they complain about the President "manipulating LGBT families" because he endorsed marriage after the constitutional amendment passed by NC's first Republican majority in 100 years won in what was expected to be a major Republican primary.

LCR press releases are disgusting.

Check this outstanding statement from when New York failed to pass the marriage bill in 2009.

quote:

“We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality. Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens.”
"Those lying Democrats didn't have enough votes to make Republicans comfortable enough to vote against bigotry "

e: Harry Reid is kind of for marriage equality now.
So that's 33 Senators for DOMA repeal. 27 to go.

UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at May 10, 2012 around 01:36

f#a#
Sep 6, 2004

taming the wilderness


You can certainly call Obama's statement a political maneuver for the election, but the timing of it is what makes this so effective. Between Colorado, NC and Romney, it almost feels like the statement was designed to spark a real and immediate change, almost as if we're standing on a precipice witnessing history unfold. It's just a shame that the right sees that as declaring a war (oh man am I looking forward to the Freeper and Political Cartoon threads).

Jayisspecial
Sep 15, 2006

Therock Obama

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

"Oh no, Obama would look bad if he endorsed basic human rights! " You do realize that that is what your argument boils down to, correct?

No, you misunderstand. Perception is a big deal, and if Obama had come out and been ordained as the "gay rights champion," then he would have then suffered a large defeat. In essence, his first salvo would have damaged his credibility for the cause. The republicans would have made a giant issue out of the fact that the president himself tried to oppress the people of NC and the people fought back and won. The people do not support the cause, and Obama is a big bully. This would have not been beneficial for the cause of gay rights. It would simply have been ammunition. He would have less weight to throw around on the issue. Yeah, he could have started this support years ago, but this was the best way to do it at the present time.

nebby
Dec 21, 2000
resident mog

Jayisspecial posted:

Yeah, he could have started this support years ago, but this was the best way to do it at the present time.
Yeah this is the point people seem to keep missing. Everyone seems to be clamoring that he should have come out in support sooner, but there have been few times where doing so could have had as large an impact as now. Heck, most times if he had come out with a statement it would have had a *negative* impact since it could be portrayed as "distracting from the economy." By doing it now, as NC's vote forced the issue into the public conversation, he has the moral high ground and can energize the Democratic base. It's the type of political masterstroke that Obama is pretty loving good at.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002


Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

nebby posted:

Yeah this is the point people seem to keep missing. Everyone seems to be clamoring that he should have come out in support sooner, but there have been few times where doing so could have had as large an impact as now. Heck, most times if he had come out with a statement it would have had a *negative* impact since it could be portrayed as "distracting from the economy." By doing it now, as NC's vote forced the issue into the public conversation, he has the moral high ground and can energize the Democratic base. It's the type of political masterstroke that Obama is pretty loving good at.

Yeah he should have done it years ago, but this was a perfect time to do it this year.

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008



Yup.


Call me naive and idealist all you want, but timing your announcement about supporting basic human rights for maximum political impact is disgusting. A minor nuanced policy issue? Sure, go ahead and play your support for maximum timing. An issue where tons of people are having their rights violated daily? gently caress no, you need to throw your support behind it ASAP.

MODS CURE JOKES
Nov 11, 2009

OFFICIAL SAS 90s REMEMBERER


A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

Call me naive and idealist all you want, but timing your announcement about supporting basic human rights for maximum political impact is disgusting. A minor nuanced policy issue? Sure, go ahead and play your support for maximum timing. An issue where tons of people are having their rights violated daily? gently caress no, you need to throw your support behind it ASAP.

This is why you are not a politician, congratulations on your humanity and empathy.

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

Call me naive and idealist all you want, but timing your announcement about supporting basic human rights for maximum political impact is disgusting. A minor nuanced policy issue? Sure, go ahead and play your support for maximum timing. An issue where tons of people are having their rights violated daily? gently caress no, you need to throw your support behind it ASAP.
People can have whatever horrible motivations they like if it gets results.

Governors are now making great efforts to pass marriage laws.
The fact that it's good for their approval numbers just means it is easier to get more of them passed.

whydirt
Apr 18, 2001


Gaz Posting Brigade

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons isn't just for politicians - it's pretty basic human nature. Waiting for people to do the right thing for the right reasons is an exercise in futility, heh.

Shakugan
Dec 19, 2005
The All Seeing Eye

A few days ago, everyone was saying that Obama would never openly support marriage equality because it would hurt him politically. Now, some of the same people are claiming that this announcement was made for purely political reasons. Can't have it both ways.

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008



Yup.


Yes they can? They just have to have a different estimation of how it would affect his campaign than his campaign team does.

Dolash
Oct 23, 2008

Pickle: Inspected.


A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

Call me naive and idealist all you want, but timing your announcement about supporting basic human rights for maximum political impact is disgusting. A minor nuanced policy issue? Sure, go ahead and play your support for maximum timing. An issue where tons of people are having their rights violated daily? gently caress no, you need to throw your support behind it ASAP.

A not inconsiderable number of people in the country don't think it is an issue of basic human rights, and getting all of these people to live together under one roof is why we have politicians in the first place. You can think they're wrong, and of course they think you're wrong, and politicians are the ones we ask to reconcile the two. When an issue is particularly divisive and popular opinion is split, asking a politician to pick one side and demand that the other bow down in submission is extreme (and liable to hurt you later, when the tide shifts and you're not on the winning side of an issue).

It's pointlessly petty to rage at politicians for not simply supporting their causes and beliefs like a thundering train. Consider that just as supporting an issue strategically might be good for their approval numbers, it can also be good for actually, practically achieving results. A politician who just flatly insists on something they support might not manage to bring it about, while one who waits for when the public mood is right and the move can actually succeed will get results.

Then again I don't mean this to be a statement of outright support for how this issue or many others have been handled, but it doesn't really help anyone to just roundly condemn anyone who tries to be political in politics.

Unoriginal Name
Aug 1, 2006
I'm not a comedian. Don't expect comedy.

Shakugan posted:

A few days ago, everyone was saying that Obama would never openly support marriage equality because it would hurt him politically. Now, some of the same people are claiming that this announcement was made for purely political reasons. Can't have it both ways.

Hrmm, what has happened in the last few days... lemme think.

Fruity Rudy
Oct 7, 2008

Taste The Rainbow!


Shakugan posted:

A few days ago, everyone was saying that Obama would never openly support marriage equality because it would hurt him politically. Now, some of the same people are claiming that this announcement was made for purely political reasons. Can't have it both ways.

The point is that no matter what he does, Obama is always not doing enough.

Mercury_Storm
Jun 12, 2003

Internet is only an instrument and there is no ruling on it.



Seeing as how Obama didn't close Guantanamo when he said he would, allowed the extension of the Patriot act and tax cuts for the rich, pre-emtively caved in and put out garbage healthcare "reform" that was basically written by the for-profit healthcare industry, still has troops in Afghanistan and is bombing the gently caress out of middle eastern countries with flying death robots unmanned US military drones, and was the first president to ever assassinate an American citizen, yeah then he really hasn't done enough and is still terrible regardless of politicized declarations of support for something that should have been supported long ago.

Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at May 10, 2012 around 05:53

killer_app
Jan 22, 2009


Mercury_Storm posted:

Seeing as how Obama didn't close Guantanamo when he said he would, allowed the extension of the Patriot act and tax cuts for the rich, still has troops in Afghanistan and is bombing the gently caress out of middle eastern countries with flying death robots, and was the first president to ever assassinate an American citizen, yeah then he really hasn't done enough and is still terrible regardless of politicized declarations of support for something that should have been supported long ago.
Most of this comment is so ludicrous, unrealistic, hyperbole-filled, and laughable it sounds like the kind of YouTube comment that usually follows "flying death robots" with "Building 7!"

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



Fruity Rudy posted:

The point is that no matter what he does, Obama is always not doing enough.
This is true.
His and Senator Reed's new position had better be enough to change minds and pass marriage equality in Rhode Island in the next 30 days

Otherwise Colorado will have the last action on this until November, with a small chance of the New Jersey suit winning in the next few months.

Lemonus
Apr 25, 2005

Return dignity to the art of loafing.


nachos posted:

Does anyone even take the Log Cabin Republicans seriously?

Yes.

New York State did.

Federal Courts did re DADT.

Russell William Thorpe
Nov 18, 2004


Unoriginal Name posted:

Hrmm, what has happened in the last few days... lemme think.

A swing state that Obama won voted decisively against gay marriage, making this a politically risky time to give those voters a reason to oppose him?

CelestialScribe
Jan 16, 2008


killer_app posted:

Most of this comment is so ludicrous, unrealistic, hyperbole-filled, and laughable it sounds like the kind of YouTube comment that usually follows "flying death robots" with "Building 7!"

Could you explain what's wrong these statements? Allowing the tax cuts to continue is bad enough for me, but the rest of that is just icing on the cake. Obama has been a lovely president with no balls. Just because he supports gay marriage doesn't justify his other actions.

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008



Yup.


killer_app posted:

Most of this comment is so ludicrous, unrealistic, hyperbole-filled, and laughable it sounds like the kind of YouTube comment that usually follows "flying death robots" with "Building 7!"

Are you saying drones are a thing that doesn't exist?

Yudo
May 15, 2003

I create

killer_app posted:

Most of this comment is so ludicrous, unrealistic, hyperbole-filled, and laughable it sounds like the kind of YouTube comment that usually follows "flying death robots" with "Building 7!"

Nothing Mercury_Storm is particularly sensationalized. I would add that the healthcare bill and the lack of any real change to the financial system are also big disappointments (and no defenestrated Goldman execs? For shame).

UltimoDragonQuest
Oct 5, 2011



This thread is about marriage equality, not the President's entire record.

Here's the page for the Respect For Marriage Act in the Senate
Reed (RI) and Reid (NV) are on board so we're at 34 votes.

Collins and Snowe from Maine have supported every other LGBT legislation.
So has Lieberman but he's probably not moving on marriage.
Stabenow (MI) is in a close re-election campaign but reliable on these issues.
Not a lot of gettable votes left.

I'm not sure about most Senate candidates.
Warren (MA) and Murphy (CT) are definite yes votes.
Kaine (VA) is in favor of "equality" but won't specifically say marriage.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~
;3


A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

Are you saying drones are a thing that doesn't exist?

Oh no we killed a ~citizen~ with a drone. That's totally worse than killing literally millions of people with regular guns and drones that weren't citizens, in all of our unneccesary wars. Christ.

UltimoDragonQuest posted:

Here's the page for the Respect For Marriage Act in the Senate
Reed (RI) and Reid (NV) are on board so we're at 34 votes.

Collins and Snowe from Maine have supported every other LGBT legislation.
So has Lieberman but he's probably not moving on marriage.
Stabenow (MI) is in a close re-election campaign but reliable on these issues.
Not a lot of gettable votes left.

I'm not sure about most Senate candidates.
Warren (MA) and Murphy (CT) are definite yes votes.
Kaine (VA) is in favor of "equality" but won't specifically say marriage.

Oh hey, that's starting to get interesting!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«254 »