Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People?

[BergenGuy]

4 hours ago, PupLucca said:

The real problem is republicans don't want to do anything that would actually benefit the people of this country. So to distract from that they have to create villains and the homosexuals  are always a popular group among their followers to hate on

Yes.  This comment multiplied by 1000!  DQSH isn't new ... it has been a "thing" for years.  Most of the books that right-wingers complain about have been in libraries for years, if not decades.  What's new?  Now that Roe has fallen, the right-wing needs a new target for its hate to distract from the fact that it has no solutions to the problems facing Americans.  No solutions for affordable housing shortages, unaffordable healthcare, declining education outcomes, international competitiveness challenges or climate change.   But, it has managed to convince the MAGA crowd that none of this matters as long as gays are kept in their place and away from "normal" people.

[topblkmale]

On 2/22/2023 at 10:12 PM, BlackDude said:

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. 

 

Smart man. One year ago, you accurately predicted February 2024. 
👍🏾👍🏾

 

[BootmanLA]

On 2/15/2024 at 1:23 PM, topblkmale said:

Smart man. One year ago, you accurately predicted February 2024. 
👍🏾👍🏾

As I say, over and over and over, voting is not electoral masturbation. It's not designed to make you feel good.

It's designed to choose between the choices offered.

Smart voters understand that not all choices are viable - that there is no way Jill Stein, or Robert F Kennedy Jr., or Ralph Nader, or any other third-party candidate is going to get 270 electoral votes, or anywhere close to it, or (most likely) ANY electoral votes at all. Smart voters understand that means choosing between a Republican and a Democrat.

Smart voters also understand that in most states, where one party has a significant edge in membership and where the state's entire electoral slate is awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state, that their individual vote doesn't affect the outcome, but it CAN affect the perception of the winner. (Ronald Reagan got 525 (or 98% of the) electoral votes, from everywhere except Minnesota and DC, but he only got 58% of the popular vote. So while it appeared virtually everyone approved of him, in reality more than 40% DISapproved of him.)

Smart voters also understand that, if you DO live in a state where the balance of voters means the state could go either way, it's important to vote, and if you dislike both major party candidates, to vote for the one you dislike LEAST. Because not voting means one less bit of support on the "less horrible" side to offset a bit of support on the "more horrible" side. (If the same number of people who voted for Obama in 2012 in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had simply turned out to vote Democratic again, we'd never have seen a President Trump - it's not that Obama voters switched sides, it's that they didn't bother to turn out.)

Smart voters can look at things like @BlackDude's comparison chart and EVEN THOUGH it (rightfully, in some cases) points out flaws in the Democrat's history, it CLEARLY shows that voting for a Republican isn't going to result in a better country. Minimizing black history (which I dispute, but for the sake of argument) is better than erasing it or banning discussion of it. For that matter, I'd dispute most of the assertions about the Democrats he made, but in every case, nonetheless, he points out how the Republicans are worse. WHY anyone would actually consider voting for the WORSE platform, the WORSE party, the WORSE candidate, is beyond me.

And likewise, I can't imagine how anyone who claims to care about the results could withhold a vote for the faulty but less bad option, knowing full well from recent experience that this can lead to the election of someone worse.

Sadly, though, not all voters think like this. Too many think that their vote has to be courted, and if the two major candidates don't kiss their ass enough, they just won't vote. They're the ones who, as I call it, love electoral masturbation. 

[PozBearWI]

Indeed, in primaries I typically vote for the one I want; although I've found myself voting for "least worst" in primaries at times as well.  

[BlackDude]

On 2/17/2024 at 9:40 PM, BootmanLA said:

As I say, over and over and over, voting is not electoral masturbation….Sadly, though, not all voters think like this. Too many think that their vote has to be courted, and if the two major candidates don't kiss their ass enough, they just won't vote. They're the ones who, as I call it, love electoral masturbation. 

Voting without demanding anything is political masturbation. Politics is the science of determining how resources will be allocated. 
 

Voting by itself is a symbolic act. The purpose of voting is to determine how resources will be allocated. Yes, I expect my vote to be courted. And if you will not be allocating resources to me, or my group, then I will not be voting for you. You will not receive my vote (which is an endorsement of you being in power) so you can benefit others without benefiting me also.

And fortunately, many more black voters, particularly male, are thinking, just like me. We will no longer be told what our issues should be or debate about them. we know what is best for communities and what harms our communities. And if you are candidate who chooses to practice outright racism, or benign neglect that’s fine. If both parties choose to do so, we will vote for neither. Many of us are no longer interested in being political slaves, meaning voting to get people in power, and getting nothing out of it.

instead of shaming people for not voting, why not shame the politicians for not offering anything for that voting block?

[BootmanLA]

On 2/25/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlackDude said:

Voting without demanding anything is political masturbation.

By all means, demand what you want. But withholding your vote if you don't get what you demand? Again, that's masturbation, because the voting outcome affects everyone, whether your "demands" are met or not.

On 2/25/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlackDude said:

Politics is the science of determining how resources will be allocated. 

Agreed, and those who won't vote, or who throw their vote away by voting for someone with no chance of winning, clearly don't give a fuck about how those resources will be allocated - and absolutely need to shut the fuck up when they aren't allocated to their liking if they didn't vote in a meaningful way to affect the outcome. Because again, doing anything BUT voting for someone with a chance to win is exactly like masturbation - self-pleasing but ultimately wasted effort.

On 2/25/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlackDude said:

Voting by itself is a symbolic act. The purpose of voting is to determine how resources will be allocated. 

These two things are diametrically opposed. If voting is only symbolic, then it doesn't determine anything. And if voting DOES determine how resources are allocated, then it's anything BUT symbolic.

On 2/25/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlackDude said:

Yes, I expect my vote to be courted. And if you will not be allocating resources to me, or my group, then I will not be voting for you. You will not receive my vote (which is an endorsement of you being in power) so you can benefit others without benefiting me also.

On its face, this sounds fine. But it ignores a basic fact: one of the two candidates is going to be better for you, and the other is going to be worse for you, and refusing to vote for the "better for you" one because he's "not good enough" means you deserve whatever the fuck you get if the "worse for you" guy wins.

Voting is more than an "endorsement of you being in power". It's also very much a means of preserving the system long enough for things to get better, as opposed to electing someone who's going to blow it all up.

And frankly, if you don't think that there have been benefits to you from the current administration, compared with the prior one, then I'm not sure there's any hope for you understanding any of this.

On 2/25/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlackDude said:

And fortunately, many more black voters, particularly male, are thinking, just like me. We will no longer be told what our issues should be or debate about them. we know what is best for communities and what harms our communities. And if you are candidate who chooses to practice outright racism, or benign neglect that’s fine.

Again, on its face, fine. But when one party produces (at worst) benign neglect and the other produces outright racism, I would think the intelligent thing to do would be to support the former. I backed a number of candidates in the past who were, at best, wishy-washy on LGBT issues, but they were far better than the ANTI-LGBT opponents they faced. And in my experience, sometimes benign neglect, while certainly not advantageous, gives one the breathing room to make further advances in the future. Having to fight losing battles against committed opponents is exhausting. Your mileage may vary.

 

On 2/25/2024 at 11:49 PM, BlackDude said:

Instead of shaming people for not voting, why not shame the politicians for not offering anything for that voting block?

I'm all for pushing politicians to do better. But we won't GET politicians who do better if we keep letting the racist, misogynistic, homophobic right win elections simply because we fail to sufficiently support the only real alternative to that. 

[hntnhole]

On 2/26/2024 at 12:49 AM, BlackDude said:

instead of shaming people for not voting, why not shame the politicians for not offering anything for that voting block?

Of course.  The one goes hand-in-hand with the other.  I also participate on a "general" political blog, and do my part there.  It's not anywhere near as much fun as BZ though ... 

[Guy4GuyCoSpgs]

Keep in mind the Log Cabin Republicans...the group is mostly gay and they don't hate gays.  

I am a republican and I don't hate gays...I am gay myself.

Good discussion!

[topblkmale]

20 minutes ago, Guy4GuyCoSpgs said:

Keep in mind the Log Cabin Republicans...the group is mostly gay and they don't hate gays.  

I am a republican and I don't hate gays...I am gay myself.

Good discussion!

 

But do you identify as LGBTQ+?

 

[Guy4GuyCoSpgs]

Yes I do.

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, Guy4GuyCoSpgs said:

Log Cabin Republicans

In my experience (back in Chicago), the LCR's are concerned more with "assimilating" more than anything else.  There was a neighbor (member)  who invited me, and I went to a few meetings as his guest.  All I heard were cautionary comments about not pissing off this straight group, that straight group, and for heavens sake not that straight group either.  And no, I didn't sneak in a fuck with his hotttt boyfriend .... really really really I didn't .... 😇

I don't even know if there's a chapter here in Ft. L.  

Edited February 28 by hntnhole
phrasing

[Guy4GuyCoSpgs]

That's interesting and thank you for sharing your experience.

[BlackDude]

On 2/27/2024 at 3:30 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'm all for pushing politicians to do better. But we won't GET politicians who do better if we keep letting the racist, misogynistic, homophobic right win elections simply because we fail to sufficiently support the only real alternative to that. 

I would call giving the eulogy for Strom Thurman, a stun crow segregationist and then the affiliated with the Klan, pretty racist, but hey that’s just me.

[BootmanLA]

On 2/28/2024 at 10:53 PM, BlackDude said:

I would call giving the eulogy for Strom Thurman, a stun crow segregationist and then the affiliated with the Klan, pretty racist, but hey that’s just me.

If that's the criterion we're going to use for racism - giving a eulogy for someone who was a friend, even if he differed dramatically from you politically (and bear in mind, Thurmond joined the Republican Party in 1964, at the very bleeding edge of racist white flight from the Democrats), then there's an awful lot of today's Republicans who need to be labeled racist - because they go a lot farther than giving such a eulogy. And yet you seem happy to lick their boots for some reason.

[BootmanLA]

On 2/28/2024 at 9:32 AM, Guy4GuyCoSpgs said:

Keep in mind the Log Cabin Republicans...the group is mostly gay and they don't hate gays.  

I am a republican and I don't hate gays...I am gay myself.

Good discussion!

They may not officially hate gays. But they're happy to back Republican officials who do. They were absolutely giddy over all of Trump's nominees for every position in the federal government, despite how clearly homophobic many of those nominees were.

There's an old phrase from antebellum daysdescribing some of the Black persons kept in slavery, which I won't repeat here, that aptly describes the LCRs.