Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Obama comes out in favour of gay marriage

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Denerick wrote: »
    Is that because of Obama's strengths or Romney's weaknesses?

    The economy has been getting better. The tea party has calmed down. That's pretty much it. Romney was never a good candidate, but he has gotten worse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭snow scorpion


    matthew8 wrote: »
    Last year I almost said he was sure to lose, I've completely changed my opinion, the ball's in his court now.

    We seem to be opposites. Last year I was sure he was going to win. Now, the tea leaves are looking bad for Obama. The last week has been a brutal one for him:
    • When the 8.1% unemployment rate was announced last week, even the mainstream media was quick to point out that the number is that low because so many people have given up looking for work. Put those people back into the calculation and the unemployment rate jumps to 11%
    • He launched his re-election campaign at Ohio State University to thousands of empty seats.
    • In West Virginia's Democrat primary Tuesday, Obama's opponent was a convict sitting in a prison cell and Obama could get only 59% of the vote.
    • And now he appears to be trying to shore up the gay vote with yesterday's announcement.

    The election is 6 months away and everyone know that's several eternities in the world of politics. But there's no denying Obama has had a very bad week.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,940 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    Which previous presidents had less experience than Obama when they took office?

    Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower or Lincoln.

    Don't know why you are so wrapped up in experience, its not like certain experienced presidents have covered themselves in glory once in office.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    jank wrote: »
    Such a narrow view of the right in fairness. Romney is a step in the right direction for the GOP.

    I don't have a narrow view of the right. There are plenty of honest, decent and well educated conservatives out there who I respect. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

    There is a growing extreme right to the Republican party, as clearly demonstrated by Santorums run. That is who I am referring to.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    MrMister wrote: »
    Romney is a corporate robot who flounders when taken off script. He opposes everything except tax cuts for the rich. Romney and his party have time after time demonstrated that they are not capable of seeing a point of view other than their own. A Romney presidency would be disasterous for the US as he would only cater to the far right in hopes of having a second term.

    And Sanatorum or Gingrich would be better? Romney has experience of running a business, a profitable one at that.
    Sure I would love if Ron Paul was the candidate but the US is not ready for that yet. So out of the other big 4 Romney is a step in the right direction. Is he perfect? No, not at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I don't have a narrow view of the right. There are plenty of honest, decent and well educated conservatives out there who I respect. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

    There is a growing extreme right to the Republican party, as clearly demonstrated by Santorums run. That is who I am referring to.

    And the fact that he didnt win should also give an indication of the GOP finally getting it. Stop the social conservatism bollox and get on with running the country in a fiscally common sense way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,931 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    We seem to be opposites. Last year I was sure he was going to win. Now, the tea leaves are looking bad for Obama. The last week has been a brutal one for him:
    • When the 8.1% unemployment rate was announced last week, even the mainstream media was quick to point out that the number is that low because so many people have given up looking for work. Put those people back into the calculation and the unemployment rate jumps to 11%
    • He launched his re-election campaign at Ohio State University to thousands of empty seats.
    • In West Virginia's Democrat primary Tuesday, Obama's opponent was a convict sitting in a prison cell and Obama could get only 59% of the vote.
    • And now he appears to be trying to shore up the gay vote with yesterday's announcement.

    The election is 6 months away and everyone know that's several eternities in the world of politics. But there's no denying Obama has had a very bad week.

    This probably belongs in the election super thread but here goes anyway.

    Obama could have an apathy problem in this election, the empty seats at OSU were an example of it.
    The sheen of the 'change we need is coming' etc has worn off,, not a whole lot has changed,
    Those that went out an voted for him in 2008, the minorities, the young, will likely sit at home and not bother this time, like they did in most elections pre 2008.

    The economy is 'sluggish', it is not powering ahead like it was for Regan in 1984 or Cliton in 1996, so the overused term ''it's the economy stupid" cannot be used in this case to argue why Obama will win.

    His support for gay marriage is an attempt to find a new demographic to support him.
    jank wrote: »
    And the fact that he didnt win should also give an indication of the GOP finally getting it. Stop the social conservatism bollox and get on with running the country in a fiscally common sense way.

    Totally agree.
    The rejection of the right wing and the tea party indicate that the GOP are not the 'crazy' people most around here try to protray them as.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭MrMister


    jank wrote: »
    Romney has experience of running a business, a profitable one at that.
    Romney made his fortune buying up companies (not, by the way, using his own money, but using the companies' own assets as collateral for the loans to buy them with). Then Romney fired many of the workers, making the rest do the extra work. He cut wages and benefits for the rest and then pocketed that money for himself. This is the guy who says that good wages and benefits is what puts companies out of business. In other words, Romney is saying that the problem with the economy is that we have a middle class. Romney wants America to be more "business-friendly". Outsourcing jobs to places where people don't have a say so they can't demand good wages, firing people and making them reapply for their jobs but at half the pay, gutting people's benefits, stripping companies, closing factories, stealing pensions, borrowing and pocketing... Locust capitalism. Chop shops. That's Mitt Romney's view of how to make money. Not the kind of guy I'd want running the country where you have to care about ALL members of society not just your rich shareholder buddies.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    jank wrote: »
    I don't have a narrow view of the right. There are plenty of honest, decent and well educated conservatives out there who I respect. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.

    There is a growing extreme right to the Republican party, as clearly demonstrated by Santorums run. That is who I am referring to.

    And the fact that he didnt win should also give an indication of the GOP finally getting it. Stop the social conservatism bollox and get on with running the country in a fiscally common sense way.

    TBH I don't think the GOP establishment ever lost it.

    Romney had to pander to the "social conservatives" to actually get the nomination. Reagan would never have been nominated if he was around right now as he would be seen as too liberal. George HW Bush either. 2 of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever.

    Fingers crossed Romneys pandering to the far right will sink him :).

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    MrMister wrote: »
    Romney made his fortune buying up companies (not, by the way, using his own money, but using the companies' own assets as collateral for the loans to buy them with). Then Romney fired many of the workers, making the rest do the extra work. He cut wages and benefits for the rest and then pocketed that money for himself. This is the guy who says that good wages and benefits is what puts companies out of business. In other words, Romney is saying that the problem with the economy is that we have a middle class. Romney wants America to be more "business-friendly". Outsourcing jobs to places where people don't have a say so they can't demand good wages, firing people and making them reapply for their jobs but at half the pay, gutting people's benefits, stripping companies, closing factories, stealing pensions, borrowing and pocketing... Locust capitalism. Chop shops. That's Mitt Romney's view of how to make money. Not the kind of guy I'd want running the country where you have to care about ALL members of society not just your rich shareholder buddies.

    He did all this because it was neccessary to do this to keep the businesses alive. Bain Capital has many success stories like Domino's pizza, staples, Dunkin' Donuts and Burger King. If Bain didn't invest (and no other venture capitalists did either) many of the businesses would've gone bust.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    TBH I don't think the GOP establishment ever lost it.

    Romney had to pander to the "social conservatives" to actually get the nomination. Reagan would never have been nominated if he was around right now as he would be seen as too liberal. George HW Bush either. 2 of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever.

    Fingers crossed Romneys pandering to the far right will sink him :).
    You don't get the republican base at all. If you're a moderate it doesn't matter. You just have to act like a conservative, and that doesn't even mean saying conservative things. Chris Christie is immensely popular among republicans despite being a social moderate.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    matthew8 wrote: »
    TBH I don't think the GOP establishment ever lost it.

    Romney had to pander to the "social conservatives" to actually get the nomination. Reagan would never have been nominated if he was around right now as he would be seen as too liberal. George HW Bush either. 2 of the most fiscally conservative presidents ever.

    Fingers crossed Romneys pandering to the far right will sink him :).
    You don't get the republican base at all. If you're a moderate it doesn't matter. You just have to act like a conservative, and that doesn't even mean saying conservative things. Chris Christie is immensely popular among republicans despite being a social moderate.

    I do get the Republican base. Why is everyone determind to miss my point.

    The far right is not the republican base, I know this. The problem Is that they have to be won over to win the nomination because they're such a large minority.

    Chris Christie is not a social moderate. He's just slightly leas right wing, which I suppose in US terms does make him moderate. The base loves him because he's a hard line fiscal conservative, just like Reagan. I don't think Christie would have won the nomination anyway, without a large swing right on social issues.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Hmmm... What really has President Obama done more than fool a select group of people into getting more donations to his relection campaign? According to him, the individual states can still do what they want, and he said he wouldn't use his power as president to stop others from banning gay marriage? So basically... nothing!

    As Joe Scarbough (R) said on his MSNBC show… "Do these progressive cheerleaders of the president realize that their hero has now adopted a position on gay marriage that is horrifyingly close to the views of Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and yes, even me."


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »

    As Joe Scarbough (R) said on his MSNBC show… "Do these progressive cheerleaders of the president realize that their hero has now adopted a position on gay marriage that is horrifyingly close to the views of Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and yes, even me."

    All of those Republicans (bar, perhaps, Reagan) were sane. At least by comparison. Though as a social liberal I'm quite biased as they were all (bar Reagan) libertarians.

    Can't say that for the modern party. Reminds me of Rwanda before the genocide.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Denerick wrote: »
    All of those Republicans (bar, perhaps, Reagan) were sane. At least by comparison. Though as a social liberal I'm quite biased as they were all (bar Reagan) libertarians.

    Can't say that for the modern party. Reminds me of Rwanda before the genocide.

    Didn't President Obama basically say the same thing Dick Cheney said a few years ago?

    "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

    “The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage”

    Perhaps Cheney has "evolved" faster than Obama. ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Amerika wrote: »
    Didn't President Obama basically say the same thing Dick Cheney said a few years ago?

    "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

    “The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage”

    Perhaps Cheney has "evolved" faster than Obama. ;)

    Cheney's daughter was a lesbian so Cheney didn't have the standard advantage of been capable of abstract bigotry. Since it affected him personally, he took a liberal stance. Its a very grim day indeed when a majority of Republicans are less enlightened than Dick Cheney. Otherwise known as the dark heart of Satan himself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,129 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You realize he has no heart don't you? Had to replace it with a mechanical implant last year, the original had become lifeless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    He should have said be before amendment one past in north carolina. I have a feeling even the wingnuts will be regretting that one soon enough once they realise the language bans straight civil unions too.

    either way, it's about time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    RichieC wrote: »
    ...it's about time.

    Umm, what are you on about? You do realise that Obama coming out of the closet changes absolutely nothing. It is up to each individual state to legislate on gay marriage.

    Why is one man's opinion such a big deal? Allow me to refer you to this thread. Obama is only one man. His opinion on gay marriage is no more valid than a lunatic's. The vast majority of the 50 states do not allow homosexuals to marry, despite what their president thinks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,129 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Umm, what are you on about? You do realise that Obama coming out of the closet changes absolutely nothing. It is up to each individual state to legislate on gay marriage.

    Why is one man's opinion such a big deal? Allow me to refer you to this thread. Obama is only one man. His opinion on gay marriage is no more valid than a lunatic's. The vast majority of the 50 states do not allow homosexuals to marry, despite what their president thinks.
    ..........All he said was "It's about time."

    I think you read into that comment way, way too much.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.

    Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    I'm glad obama supports marriage

    human's can achieve much in partnership

    let's not let it blind us to other issues



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    wasn't "the black vote" pretty instrumental in california and north carolina banning gay marriage?

    be interesting to see if the desire to vote for a black president is stronger than the desire to kill gay marriage in black churches across america.

    The Hispanic vote as well. California's Prop 8 passed (banning gay marriage) in a heavily Democratic-voting State. The timing couldn't have been worse for the Prop-8 opponents: Obama was very likely to bring out the rather socially conservative black and hispanics out in droves to vote for the man, but at the same time, while they were at the polls, they'd put their vote down -against- gay marriage. And they did.

    The news reports on the radio keep telling me that a slight majority of US citizens polled are in favour of gay marriage. This is, in practical terms, a useless statistic. What is far more important is what the US citizens, particularly independents, in swing States think of gay marriage.

    However, after a quick look...
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/11/poll-obamas-gay-marriage-push-hurts-him-with-independents/
    Gallup released a new poll on Friday showing that President Barack Obama’s controversial May 9 decision to back same-sex marriage is hurting his chances among independents.

    [snip]

    They’re small percentages, but more than enough to decide close races in critical swing states such as North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Florida.

    This is, of course, absolutely nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage is a good thing or morally acceptable. It's purely about getting the EC votes to win the election.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Umm, what are you on about? You do realise that Obama coming out of the closet changes absolutely nothing. It is up to each individual state to legislate on gay marriage.

    Though I would agree with you on the legislation point of things (though SCOTUS may have its own opinion on the Constitutionality of that legislation), the Feds are very much a part of the issue with the Defence of Marriage Act. It doesn't matter if, for example, Connecticut recognises gay marriage, a gay Connecticut resident won't get the federal spousal benefits.

    It's a bit like the issue right now with marijuana. The States can legalise it as they will, but the DEA can still come down on the pot growers.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    It won't be nearly as controversial as Time magazine's breastfeeding cover, but Newsweek's May 21 issue declares Barack Obama the country's "first gay president."

    2zf7bci.jpg

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/newsweek-obama-gay-marriage-cover_n_1512794.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    ^not quite the noble peace prize

    but he's already refuted that one


    __________________________________________

    Defense of Marriage Act. is a misnomer

    if Marriage is to be a promoted structure in human culture,
    the participation should not be limited

    __________________________________

    "Obama’s gay marriage push hurts him with independents"

    could this read ?

    "Obama's push for attacking other countries hurts him with independents


Advertisement