Any LGBT+ Republican individual out here?

[tallslenderguy]

Personally, i don't see Trump as one putting on calculated heirs and acts. i think he's a loose cannon and that he shoots from the hip.  I think what we see with him is what we get.  But some of his supporters try to present him as calculated, and i wonder if that is why there are intelligent people who support Trump? Because they believe he's not a loose cannon, but a calculated, well aimed gun? 

Here's an example to me of attempt at reasonable explanation for another 'shot' from Trump which some see as from a "loose cannon" and others explain as a 'well aimed gun' ( using my analogy):

"In remarks the Times said were not part of Trump’s planned speech but which did repeat a story he has often told, the former president said: “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’

“I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You’ve got to pay your bills. And the money came flowing in.”

Amid fierce controversy over remarks the Biden White House called “appalling and unhinged”, another Republican hawk in the Senate, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told the Times: “Give me a break – I mean, it’s Trump.”

Graham, who has vacillated from warning that Trump will “destroy” the Republican party to full-throated support, added: “All I can say is while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point here is to, in his way, to get people to pay.”"

[think before following links] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/12/trump-nato-russia-comments-republicans

[tallslenderguy]

22 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

... many vote... have an almost knee jerk reaction to say... _________.are worse, but rarely have actual policies, positions, or actions (stated in context) that backs their claim... people who scream [and]... rarely think past cultural biases....

^^This^^ (i hope it's okay that i targeted/quoted, what to me, was a central point?)

This, to me, identifies a major cause of our polarization  that seems to be becoming more extreme in our country.  We've reduced ourselves to "red" or "blue," when i suspect the vast majority of us have points of agreement with either side.  

For instance, this thread was started by a person who identifies as "republican" and "gay."  He obviously has that in common with many of us. What i'd like to know and understand is the reasons why those who identify and vote as republicans choose to do so?

i'd also like to know and understand their process of choosing what's more important?  Clearly, there is a very strong element in the republican party that is anti gay, and i cannot help but assume gay republicans know that,  so i'd like to understand what policies  gay republicans have that keeps them voting republican?  

i do not love or agree with everything the democratic party does by a long shot, but as one who has been arrested for being gay and prosecuted as a felon using a 100 year old sodomy law by a republican politician, i know first hand what that kind of policy can mean.   

[tallslenderguy]

Sorry, my mind is in a whirl over this election and the general state of the world, so i keep thinking about this stuff and want to put it out there as well as i can, engage, discuss. Social discourse is a factor of social change, so i think what we are doing here is important.

One of the dangers i see when society starts dividing into emotionally based generalized groups like "red" and "blue" is i think it helps foster, nurture and sustain the delusion of absolutism. i think one of the ways it does that is by keeping it hidden as a source of extremities like war, genocide, enslavement, etc.. 

i think strongly held differences and convictions can be a source of individual and social growth if and when we eschew a generalized emotional disposition of absolutism.  i think one can be an absolutist anything, religious, political, moral. i think when we lose the ability to say: "i strongly believe_____________, and these are my reasons, but i know it's possible for me to be wrong, so i'm listening (i.e., i am open, not an "absolutist").  

That doesn't mean one is without strongly held convictions that motivate one's choices and actions in life, but it does mean one is open to correction, and i think more importantly, open to compromise.  It's an ongoing difficult and complex proposition to "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

 i think he's a loose cannon at best

Given that the last proper name preceding this ^ phrase is "Biden", do you mean you think Biden is a "loose cannon at best"? 

I definitely agree that older men running for President should submit to tests like you describe, and I'm assuming that these "signs" of impairment can begin to become apparent earlier, to a professional's eye before it becomes evident to the non-professionals.  

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

What i'd like to know and understand is the reasons why those who identify and vote as republicans choose to do so?

So would many of us.  We're here at the table, nibbling on croutons, but the entree has yet to arrive,  Appetizers are ok, I suppose, but where's the meat of the discussion?  

I doubt I'm the only one that's still waiting for some measure of an understandable, reasonable answer.  But then, maybe we're still waiting because there simply is none to be had.

[hntnhole]

42 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

It's an ongoing difficult and complex proposition

You're right, as I see it, and the complexity is not only the virtue, but the stumbling block as well.  As different issues wax and wane in importance to the general welfare, obviously differing pathways to remedy also appear or fade.  

What worked in addressing x issue two generations ago may not work at all today.  What didn't work back then, may work now. Addressing the complexity of identifying, then correcting national issues needing correction is tough work, and no one single person, let alone one political leader, has all the answers. 

But arriving at all the answers isn't the point, which is (as I see it) "building" a more (not completely, but more) perfect Union. 

It's this Nation's lovely, hard, tough, beautiful, amazing, yet nearly impossible Task, and I don't think it will ever be completely finished.  The work, the building, the progress, always continuing, is the whole point.  

[tallslenderguy]

45 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Given that the last proper name preceding this ^ phrase is "Biden", do you mean you think Biden is a "loose cannon at best"? 

I definitely agree that older men running for President should submit to tests like you describe, and I'm assuming that these "signs" of impairment can begin to become apparent earlier, to a professional's eye before it becomes evident to the non-professionals.  

Maybe i misunderstand Your question? This is what i wrote: "Personally, i don't see Trump as one putting on calculated heirs and acts. i think he's a loose cannon and that he shoots from the hip."  i meant i see Trump as a loose cannon at best, not Biden. 

Possibly a cognitive assessment should be part of any medical examination for someone running for office.  i was pretty stupid at age 21 lol.  There is a common misconception that age is a cause of cognitive decline. While age is not an uncommon correlation it is not causative.  There are 80 year olds who can run circles around 30 year olds and vice versa (consider Professor Noam Chomsky, still an intellectual giant at age 95... i sure wouldn't want to match wits with Him. It's an ageist cultural stereotype. 

[hntnhole]

It was from an earlier one ... maybe I'm the one that needs a test or three ... 😉

[viking8x6]

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

i do not wonder about the other three being sociopaths, but i do with Trump. i'd like to see  him evaluated and i'd also like to see Biden evaluated for cognitive decline.  i think he's a loose cannon at best. But that's me.

Here's the bit you were thinking of, I believe.

[hntnhole]

Thanks - that's the one.

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

Thanks - that's the one.

 

 

1 hour ago, viking8x6 said:

Here's the bit you were thinking of, I believe.

lol, yeah, shoulda been clearer on that one

[BigBearSean]

On 2/14/2024 at 4:43 PM, hntnhole said:

One particular failed US policy stands out to me:  I simply cannot understand why Biden lets Netanyahu push him around, along with Blinken and all the rest.  How can the US allow itself to be so closely associated with what amounts to genocide of innocent kids, families, starving for the barest of necessities.  More, where are all the hundreds of thousands of these unfortunates - herded South - supposed to go when the IDF determines it's time to blow up all the refugees too? 

I know that the election is coming up.  There are about 6.5 million Jewish folks in the US, and about half that number of Arabs, I know Biden needs the liberal Jewish vote, and maybe he can figure out a way to win MI, which is home to many of Arab descent. 

But really ... Clearly Nettie believes that the Trumpanzee will give him all the rope he needs to lay waste to half the Levant unless he's voted out of office in Israel first.  I don't understand what appears to be Biden's "kid-glove" handling of the ongoing and expanding crises in the Middle East. The current state of affairs in that area is - to my mind anyway - simply inexcusable, and our diplomats do not seem able to wring one scintilla of cooperation out of the Israeli War Cabinet.  

 

First, Biden's a racist.  Honestly.  Look at 54 years of immigration policy that he's co-sponsored or voted for.  Look at his public statements and speaches.  His tone is VASTLY different when discussing European or even African immigrants verses Latin American or Asian.  He routinely votes to make it harder and harder for Central and South Americans to immigrate while routinely voting to simplify European and Canadian immigration practices.  He is a racist.  Not lying.  He may argue otherwise, but few other politicians have his length of time in office.  Just look how he voted.

Secondly, he's a staunch catholic and zionist.  No, he's not following the Pope's orders or any dumb shit like that.  But he STRONGLY believes, truly, actually believes, biblical nonsense about being in the End Times and that it's happening NOW.  Ongoing.  So he furvently believes he must secure Israel to help secure his "god's" claims on the End Times.  He'll never risk that.  Never back muslims over jews, and never support Palestinian over Israel because he was trained to believe insanities since his childhood when Israel was forcefully reconstituted.  He's that damn old.

Finally, Israel, for reasons I can't fathom, is allowed to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into our elections without being called out as a foreign entity seeking manipulate American elections.  Trump tried to extort Ukraine to manipilate our elections and got impeached.  How the fuck Israel can dump money into our elections and not be stopped is beyond me?  But Biden is a money backing Democrat and will ALWAYS follow big money over bigger ideas.

So between being a silent racist, a pronounced zionist, and a bought politician, Biden won't ever reject Israel and the Holocaust they are enacting against Palestinian.

[hntnhole]

First, thanks for sharing your views on these important issues.

17 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

Look at 54 years of immigration policy that he's co-sponsored or voted for.

I would be interested in knowing your sources proving your point.  I could find none. 

 

17 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

He routinely votes to make it harder and harder for Central and South Americans to immigrate

He recently endorsed a bill (which, as you know, no President can initiate - that must be done by Congress) giving the Republicans in the HoR everything they wanted.  Yet, at the last minute the former President quashed the deal, although he has no executive power now.  The President relinquished a number of his plans to ameliorate the current mess at the southern border, and allowed virtually everything the (proposed) House bill demanded.  Yet, thanks to one statement from a disgrace of a man to the contrary (apparently so he can use the issue in his campaign against the President), the House refused to accept everything they had wanted.  How, pray tell, is that making it "harder and harder" for our neighbors to the South to emigrate? 

Your commentary relating to "the end times" would definitely apply to some members of the House (particularly Mr. Johnson), but Government Policy endorses no religion at all.  Everyone is allowed to believe in the religion of their choice (or no religious belief at all), as long as they don't foist their beliefs on others.  I happen to believe that the "end times" have nothing whatsoever to do with some deity - we humans are perfectly capable of bringing that to pass completely on our own.   More, the President - like very other citizen - is entitled to believe in whatever religion he chooses - or none at all, for that matter.

18 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

Finally, Israel, for reasons I can't fathom, is allowed to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into our elections without being called out as a foreign entity seeking manipulate American elections.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this statement, but it really should be supported by some evidence.  Please provide the evidence to back up your statement. 

 

18 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

But Biden is a money backing Democrat and will ALWAYS follow big money over bigger ideas.

It seems you may be misconstruing the former President with the current one.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoints.

[hntnhole]

20 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

lol, yeah, shoulda been clearer on that one

❤️

[tallslenderguy]

18 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

First, Biden's a racist.  Honestly.  Look at 54 years of immigration policy that he's co-sponsored or voted for.  Look at his public statements and speaches....He may argue otherwise, but few other politicians have his length of time in office.  Just look how he voted.

One of the things i despise about politics in general is pandering for power. Very few elected on either side of the divide are immune, more often than not it seems their compass and tiller follow the wind that fills their sails. People from either 'side' can come up with plethora examples where an elected official does not represent them, even if they voted for them. i sure can. Politics, and people, are not simply blue or red. i really do believe that most politics come down to voting for the person who at least leans towards some of ones individual ideals, and/or against ideals one may find unacceptable, or even reprehensible. 

i'm not voting for Joe Biden (i think the democratic party could offer better), i am voting against Donald Trump.  

i wish things were more simple, clear cut. They are not. Since BZ is a largely gay forum below is an offering of evidence substantiating how Biden came out in favor of gay rights... and also notes how he apparently, priorly, opposed them. Biden's length of time in office covers a time span where homosexuality went from being listed as a psychological disorder by the APA in 1973.  It's noteworthy that our national (political) legal system took another 30 years to decriminalize homosexuality through a supreme court decision Lawrence vs Texas. It took almost 40 years for that to translate into equal rights.  

One could argue that Biden was a hypocrite, or one could argue that Biden changed along with society... that he actually was a representative of gay people in this respect. i lean towards the latter. But either way, i have rights today that i didn't have, and he supported those rights at the highest level. 

"Few living Americans have spent as much time under the cameras of political talk shows as Joe Biden, but no pre-presidential broadcast appearance of his is as memorable as one visit to NBC’s “Meet the Press” ten years ago this week. Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.”

The world took notice in a way it rarely does when a vice president speaks. Biden told Gregory he was not setting new White House policy, but regardless, what he said appeared to undermine his assertion in a 2008 vice presidential debate that “Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.” Now as the two men sought reelection, Biden had placed the ticket in a vise with no appealing escape. Obama could force Biden to back down from heartfelt comments made on national television. He could embrace the position his running mate had intrepidly staked out first on his own, at the risk of appearing he was following rather than leading. Or he could acknowledge that he was at peace with the idea of his governing partner being to the left of him on the era’s most fraught social issue."

[think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/joe-biden-gay-marriage-00030367