Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People?

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

That funneling for many is the side effect of their goals and party leadership.  Party leadership is likely NOT the elected ones, but those who paid to get them elected (Big Pharma, The oligarchs).  But indeed there are a number of R's who are in it only for the $$, not for any social benefit save their own self interests.  There are others who were taught from babyhood that us queers are the evil ones, and hold onto that like their next meal depended upon it.

I'm not sure if you can separate party leadership - which are the elected officials who govern the party - and its funding base. The leadership accepts the policy goals of the funding base - big business and the very wealthy, basically - as policy goals for the party, whether formally and loudly or informally and quietly.

But the party leadership also knows that tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the working class are not popular even with their electoral base. So the party leadership manufactures divides on social issues - as I've noted, historically race-based, but also sexual orientation-wise and now trans rights. And almost always, it's in the name of protecting the children.

As in "Would you want your kids to go to school with one?" when it was black people in the 1950's and 1960's. Or "Would you want your kid taught by one?" when it was gay people in the 1970's and 1980's. And now it's "Would you want your kids to see these people in a library reading to your kids?" when it's trans people and drag performers.

The specific language keeps shifting, because as Lee Atwater candidly admitted in 1981, conservatives could say "N----- N------ N------" in 1954, but not in 1968, so they had to switch to code words like "forced busing" and "state's rights". And by the time of Reagan, they had to use terms like "welfare queen" and "cutting welfare fraud", but the underlying message was always "white supremacy". But it's always safer for them to hide behind "protecting children."

[BlackDude]

The Republicans openly say they aren’t doing anything for black people.

The Democrats practice a benign neglect policy against black people.

The republicans are hostile toward black voters.

The democrats bring in groups from other places to neutralize black voters

The Republicans want to erase blacks history

The Democrats want to minimize black history

The Republicans tell blacks people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps

The Democrats give non-black minority groups boot straps

The Republican LGBT community only cares for white gay men

The Democratic LGBT community uses blacks to get benefits for white gay men

I personally advocate for neither party. When I see the agenda, then make my decisions. 

 

[PozBearWI]

@BlackDude Yup I am there with you.  I don't support any political party largely for the reasons you list.  My personal motto is that I vote for people not parties.

[BootmanLA]

FWIW, I don't disagree with your approach in general, @JimInWisc, and I recognize the dynamics in play that you report, @BlackDude(though I would say that those generalities do not always hold true for the Democrats).

That said: elections are, in essence, a zero-sum game. In the end, one person wins, one person loses. More often than not, I'm not particularly inclined to vote for either candidate, regardless of party, but I do recognize that one of the two is going to hold that office when the dust settles.

And in every case, even if I can't find a reason to vote FOR either candidate, I can almost always find a reason to vote AGAINST one of the two candidates. It's rare that both candidates are equally bad, even if neither is someone I'd pick from an open field of thousands of possibilities.

[hntnhole]

Well said, BootmanLA

Sometimes we have to hold our noses and vote for the least-odious candidate, but we simply must vote.  Repressions of all kinds are being foisted upon the electorate now, it's only going to get worse for the next two years, and we simply must at least take part in the process.  Failing to vote against the repressions isn't all that far from endorsing them.

[BootmanLA]

16 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Well said, BootmanLA

Sometimes we have to hold our noses and vote for the least-odious candidate, but we simply must vote.  Repressions of all kinds are being foisted upon the electorate now, it's only going to get worse for the next two years, and we simply must at least take part in the process.  Failing to vote against the repressions isn't all that far from endorsing them.

Indeed.

Back in 2016, I was happy to support Hillary Clinton, even though I understand a lot of generally progressive people had issues with some aspect of her candidacy - issues that were largely ginned up by her opponents, rather than being true "issues". What I could never grasp is how so many people who ordinarily would have held their noses and voted for the Democrat anyway, failed to do so or in some cases even switched sides to vote for Mango Mussolini.

I did a lot of detailed analysis of the trifecta of states she lost that are widely considered to have tipped the election to Trump (WI, MI, and PA). The biggest takeaway is that a lot of Obama support simply failed to turn out to vote for Clinton. Partly that might be that people thought she had the election in the bag. Partly it may have been old-fashioned misogyny - people have hated her since her days in Arkansas as the governor's wife - because she was an ambitious woman.

But if anyone has any doubts as to how things would be different if she'd been president: We wouldn't have any of the three turds that Trump put on the Supreme Court, for one thing. I don't think even Mitch McConnell would have blocked a viable Clinton nominee for four years for Scalia's seat. Kennedy might not have resigned, but he was among the more tolerable conservative votes on the Court. And Ginsburg might well have resigned early enough that McConnell wouldn't have had to block her replacement. In other words, we might well have had Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and at least two, maybe three other progressives/liberals on the Court instead of six conservatives and just three liberals.

We wouldn't be wondering if these people were going to reverse Roe. We wouldn't be wondering if these people were going to reverse Obergefell. We wouldn't be looking at further gutting of the Voting Rights Act. We wouldn't be looking at gutting almost all firearms laws. And we almost certainly wouldn't be looking at the incredibly insane Independent State Legislature cases.

How anyone can justify failing to vote against this kind of crap is beyond me.

[PozBearWI]

20 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Indeed.

Back in 2016, I was happy to support Hillary Clinton, even though I understand a lot of generally progressive people had issues with some aspect of her candidacy - issues that were largely ginned up by her opponents, rather than being true "issues". What I could never grasp is how so many people who ordinarily would have held their noses and voted for the Democrat anyway, failed to do so or in some cases even switched sides to vote for Mango Mussolini.

I did a lot of detailed analysis of the trifecta of states she lost that are widely considered to have tipped the election to Trump (WI, MI, and PA). The biggest takeaway is that a lot of Obama support simply failed to turn out to vote for Clinton. Partly that might be that people thought she had the election in the bag. Partly it may have been old-fashioned misogyny - people have hated her since her days in Arkansas as the governor's wife - because she was an ambitious woman.

But if anyone has any doubts as to how things would be different if she'd been president: We wouldn't have any of the three turds that Trump put on the Supreme Court, for one thing. I don't think even Mitch McConnell would have blocked a viable Clinton nominee for four years for Scalia's seat. Kennedy might not have resigned, but he was among the more tolerable conservative votes on the Court. And Ginsburg might well have resigned early enough that McConnell wouldn't have had to block her replacement. In other words, we might well have had Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and at least two, maybe three other progressives/liberals on the Court instead of six conservatives and just three liberals.

We wouldn't be wondering if these people were going to reverse Roe. We wouldn't be wondering if these people were going to reverse Obergefell. We wouldn't be looking at further gutting of the Voting Rights Act. We wouldn't be looking at gutting almost all firearms laws. And we almost certainly wouldn't be looking at the incredibly insane Independent State Legislature cases.

How anyone can justify failing to vote against this kind of crap is beyond me.

Well said @BootmanLA.  I wonder though how other social and geopolitical fronts might have evolved?  We would still be in the Iran deal, and we would not have left the Climate Accord.  Had there been neonazi gatherings, the president would not be describing them as very fine people.  And I doubt Jan 6th would have happened.  The benefit of 2020 hindsight.  From that starting point though; what might have been the social direction?

While I don't want to condone slurs against me or anyone else; I certainly don't want to outlaw them.  I would rather be insulted than not be spoken to at all.  I don't want to elect someone because of their gender.  Or sexual orientation.  Or religion.  IMO many people believe in silly stuff (I am of no religion, nor party, I also don't believe in the Easter Bunny; until there is verification of life on other planets, I am content to just not know.)  But I certainly don't want to outlaw those.  But we we don't TALK; then nothing moves forward.  I would rather we truly explore our social challenges together.  We'll understand each other better.  We can choose not to demean each other; but when we do we can also choose to take that as information about ours or another's thinking.  Critical thinking might be a victim of our reactions to topics and words we find uncomfortable.  

[Guest]

Now leftists and trans/Trans rights ackkktivists hate anyone not trans, and really loathe bisexuals, and gay men and women, especially those of us LGB people who refuse to fuck, or date trans people or who are against children, teens, and mentally ill young adults manipulated into taking hormones and having an irreversible sex change surgery.

[BergenGuy]

On 2/23/2023 at 6:30 PM, BootmanLA said:

And in every case, even if I can't find a reason to vote FOR either candidate, I can almost always find a reason to vote AGAINST one of the two candidates. It's rare that both candidates are equally bad, even if neither is someone I'd pick from an open field of thousands of possibilities.

You're so right.  It frustrates me when someone says that there's no reason to vote because there's no difference between the candidates.  Of course there are differences!  No two candidates have the same experience.  No two candidates take identical positions on all the issues.  One candidate is always less objectionable than the other.  Vote for that one.

[submarriedhole]

🙄

[topblkmale]

7 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Now leftists and trans/Trans rights ackkktivists hate anyone not trans, and really loathe bisexuals, and gay men and women, especially those of us LGB people who refuse to fuck, or date trans people or who are against children, teens, and mentally ill young adults manipulated into taking hormones and having an irreversible sex change surgery.

I still don't understand this. I guess I'm transphobic since I refuse to date or fuck a trans individual (trans man/woman).

 

Democrats seem to be into some very weird things involving children at the moment. Sorry. ☑️

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Now leftists and trans/Trans rights ackkktivists hate anyone not trans, and really loathe bisexuals, and gay men and women, especially those of us LGB people who refuse to fuck, or date trans people or who are against children, teens, and mentally ill young adults manipulated into taking hormones and having an irreversible sex change surgery.

For someone who's demanding elsewhere that his account be deleted, immediately, you sure seem to have the need to post lots of opinions. Maybe the reason it's taking a while to delete your account is that it's hard to take your request seriously when you keep participating on the site.

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, topblkmale said:

I still don't understand this. I guess I'm transphobic since I refuse to date or fuck a trans individual (trans man/woman).

 

Democrats seem to be into some very weird things involving children at the moment. Sorry. ☑️

You're not transphobic just for refusing to date or fuck a trans individual.

You might be transphobic if you don't believe trans people deserve the same rights as you do. You might be transphobic if you decry trans identities as "made up" or "mental illness".

As for the part about Democrats - all I can say is that whenever a Republican or conservative accuses Democrats of something they cast as a moral issue, that's a huge red flag that said Republican/conservative is guilty of exactly that or worse, because projection is now an almost-required characteristic for the Republican/conservative mindset.

Is a Republican denouncing drag queens molesting children? Chances are excellent that he's cheating on his wife with a married woman (or a man), or molesting the campaign volunteers, or something like that.

Democrats aren't into "weird things" involving children. We're looking out for them, especially the "different" ones who need protection from right-wing phobes. Entire generations of gay men and lesbians were forced to hide their identities because of people like them, and god knows how many gay and lesbian kids committed suicide because of the way society, their schools, churches, and parents railed about homosexuality. That's the boat trans kids find themselves in today.

I can't really expect gay people who, in 2023, describe themselves as "discreet" and "conservative" and "non-gay scene" (ie closeted and judgmental and praying to God they keep "passing" as straight) to understand, but not everyone wants to live shut up in a little box like that. 

[topblkmale]

17 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Now leftists and trans/Trans rights ackkktivists hate anyone not trans, and really loathe bisexuals, and gay men and women, especially those of us LGB people who refuse to fuck, or date trans people or who are against children, teens, and mentally ill young adults manipulated into taking hormones and having an irreversible sex change surgery.

Collusion among big pharma, big tech, social media and other left leaning institutions. 

[hntnhole]

On 2/24/2023 at 12:36 PM, BootmanLA said:

How anyone can justify failing to vote against this kind of crap is beyond me.

Well said.  I simply don't understand it either.  Our system of Government depends on citizens exercising their right/privilege to vote.  If we don't vote, how can we be officially "heard"?  Complaining doesn't help.  Becoming involved, taking part in government is what helps.  

All elections are important, and these days, the local/State elections are even more important.  No political party offers a panacea of making everything perfect, but if we don't participate, who are we to bitch if we can't be bothered to vote?  A vote can be a positive gesture or a negative one, and both are legit.  Vote for someone you like, vote against someone who had demonstrated enmity to what you hold dear, but at least do one or the other.  

I don't get it either ...