I have a political question

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 9:43 PM GMT
    Since it seems to be a popular subject, I'll ask my question.
    What candidate (Republican, Democrat, Independent, So on and so forth) is going to do the most for us?
    Who, and WHY?
    I did not vote for the last elections because they both seemed unfit, but I think Kerry would have at least gotten us rights.
    So, who do you think?
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16461

    Dec 07, 2007 9:55 PM GMT
    Well I think clearly the democrats would be more open and would certainly listen as the gay block is a group that generally supports them. Republicans are engaged in gaining the support of those who are opposed to "gay anything", so I doubt that they would be encouraging to the homosexual cause.

    A couple of things I'd want you to consider. First, we have "rights" as people. Kerry (or any individual)
    probably wouldn't be able to get "special rights" for any group, but rather, would draw attention for the need for additional antidiscrimination laws, hate crimes, etc. Any changes like that would have to be proposed by congress and passed by both houses. After the Matthew Shepard beating in 1998, Clinton encouraged legislation.. and Edward Kennedy championed the "hate crimes" bill, but it didn't pass.

    Secondly, don't base your vote on one thing. I support a political candidate based on a number of considerations, not just one. The right wingers support their candidates many times based on one point... anti abortion, etc. Don't turn this into that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 10:31 PM GMT
    Check out this website: http://glassbooth.org/

    You can rate your political priorities, and it will give you the top three candidates that match your beliefs.

    I got Kucinich, Gravel, and Clinton.
  • metta

    Posts: 52242

    Dec 08, 2007 1:39 AM GMT
    Dennis Kucinich




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 1:54 AM GMT
    2008 is about winning the war. It is the last battle in a war that has been going on since the Southern Baptist Convention merged with the Republican Party.

    I could care less which Democrat is elected as along as it is a Democrat. The most supportive of the Republicans, Rudy Guliani, sated he would nominate Supreme Court Justices.....like Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. They are all bad apples.

    I personally do not believe any single Democrat running for President would nominate someone as dangerous as these four.

    Don't believe me? Vote Republican and we'll find out.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 2:15 AM GMT
    Twomack is right, this is the final battle in a war that started at the Democratic Convention of 1968...FORTY YEARS AGO.


    But you can't have "peace" with these people. As Grover Norquist noted (without irony) bipartisanship is equivalent to date rape. So...the only answer is to rout them completely. A filibuster-proof Senate, huge House majorities, and the Presidency for 20 years. That will kill them off for good.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 2:42 AM GMT
    ^ aka one party rule.

    (Insert political correct personal deity) save the Queen!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 3:35 AM GMT
    No, Trance, we would still have two parties. And once the Republicans learn to behave themselves, people might actually contemplate voting for them again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 5:30 AM GMT
    Twomack said it quite well; this election's about winning the White House for any candidate that will be friendly to gays. In this case, that means the Democratic candidates, because not a one of the Republicans can be trusted to pass gay friendly legislation.

    So, while Kucinich or some other far lefty might be good in principle, there's no way in hell that they're going to get elected. That alone means that they're worthless when it comes to gay rights. I personally am a Clinton fan, but as long as a candidate makes it through that stands a good shot at winning in the general election, then that's what matters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 5:34 AM GMT
    Unfortunately, when looking at a candidate, you also have to look at their electibility. Though Kucinich may seem the best on paper, the likelihood of him winning the Democratic nomination is negligible. You then have to look at the other top-tier candidates: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and decide whom you trust more and who will be able to get things done once in office. Each have made several gaffs as far as GLBT issues are concerned. Obama and Edwards have both admitted to having religious upbringings that are incompatible with homosexual unions, lifestyle, etc.; and Hillary (her husband's DATL policy aside) is a bit of a loose cannon in terms of selling her allegiance to the highest bidder. Personally, I'm hedging towards Edwards, who has at least admitted that his religion has influenced his view on gay issues; but that being said he has also clearly stated that it is a view that is open to change, and that it will not affect his decisions regarding equality for all people, gay or straight (a clear division of church and state in my opinion); furthermore his wife, Elizabeth, is an outspoken proponent for gay equality and has called him out on these views (behind every good man is a woman...or another man...lol). Just my opinion. Like the above guys have stated, just getting a Democrat elected is a win. I think we have a group of solid contenders regardless of their nuances.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Dec 08, 2007 11:26 AM GMT
    Issues matter more than personalities.

    Healthcare, while not specifically a 'gay' issue, since it effects everybody, is more important to gays because of the current health crisis.

    While no health insurance system is perfect, the best solution to the health crisis from a gay perspective is not-for-profit national health insurance, like the Canadian system, since:

    1) it covers everybody,

    2) it gets superior results, based on published statistics such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates, and

    3) it costs less, since its administrative costs are much lower.

    The Canadian system's administrative costs are 3% of their health care dollar, while in the U.S. it is 18%. Why is the U.S. administrative cost so high? Because there are thousands of different health insurance plans, from hundreds of different health insurance companies. Each company has its own overhead, its own regulations, its own sales force, its own advertising, its own lobbyists, and, of course, its own need to show a profit. Private insurance profits increase when people are denied coverage and when people with very high medical costs are dropped from private plans.

    The U.S. has had some government funded health care since 1792 (when George Washington was president) when the U.S. Public Health Service was founded to cover merchant seamen. Over the years, government coverage has expanded to include veterans, the elderly (Medicare), and the extremely poor (Medicaid.) Most AIDS patients wind up on Medicaid, but only after the government required impoverishment reduces their assets to below $200.

    Kucinich supports a true not-for-profit national health insurance program like the Canadian system. Edwards, Clinton and Obama would all keep the current broken health care system, and encourage or mandate Americans to buy health insurance.

    Support for Kucinich keeps the option of a true national health insurance system in the debate. And if enough people start supporting true not-for-profit national health insurance, then watch Clinton, Edwards and Obama support it. Conversely, if Kucinich drops out, watch the Clinton, Edwards and Obama positions move to the right and become more like the Republican position on health care, which is to maximize the profits of doctors, hospitals, and drug companies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2007 2:59 PM GMT
    I think health care is the most important issue, too, and I agree with twomack that, in the end, any Democrat is going to be immeasurably more responsive to the average American's needs than the average plutocratic Republican deist.

    Nonetheless, it's interesting to watch what's been going on with Barack Obama pertinent to health care. NY Times columnist Paul Krugman has been following the "evolution" of his thinking and it's disappointing: