Can't wait for the debate!

[easleygrls]

We just moved so far out in the country we don't even get cable. So I was surfing the satellite channels and was surprised to find out I get Logo. Call me a nerd if you must, but I am so excited to be able to see the debate coming up on Thursday!!

I don't consider myself old, but I remember a time (and it wasn't too long ago) when no political candidate would even say the word 'gay' out loud, let alone debate gay issues in a televised event! Tooo bad no Republicans had big enough ones to come on too, but since I won't be voting for any of them anyway I guess it won't affect my decision anyway.

 

[Sparx]

I don't get logo, but I'm going to be watching it from the website. I'm excited for it.

 

[TinkerValkyrie]

I just discovered we actually get the LOGO channel today... even though the website says we don't. We're looking forward to the debate as well

 

[tiggr33]

I'm watching now. Although I am very glad this "debate" is happening. I am very disappointed in the format. There is no debate. Way too much time is being allowed for the candidates to think out an answer. I was hoping for, I don't know an honest debate. I was expecting more from this, but I guess it's a start. Very, very disappoining. I did not read HRC's website on this debate, so maybe the format was announced.

 

[Si'sAm]

I agree with you Tigger. I think that this format gives them too much time to think about what we want to hear and maybe not how they really feel.
Though to even have an oppurtunity to hear them talk about these issues is amazing.

 

[easleygrls]

I agree; I was surprised at the format. I was hoping to see more head-to-head sparks flying.

I thought it was interesting that Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson all made a point of saying they could 'relate' to the oppression gays face because they are ________ (black, hispanic, southern, etc) yet none of them actually support gay marriage. Only Kucinich and Gravel didn't pretend to know what it's like to face this discrimination, yet they both support marriage.

I know there are other important issues too, and Hillary was the obvious crowd favorite. I think Richardson looked pretty bad, and I never was impressed with Edwards.

And OT, those CBS/LOGO reporters might have been nice eye candy (if you're a boy!) but they were awful!

 

[Si'sAm]

Good Point easleygrls the reporters were awful, they kept saying how DADT was disscussed at great lengths. I totally disagree I think that was one of the least spoken about thing. Yes we know you are going to repeal it, but how!? It seemed like anytime there was a question that was tough or that they hadn't rehearsed they dodged the question.

It is hard to think that the two canidates who seemed the most honest have no chance of making it through the primaries. I really wish the format would have been different so they would have had to actually challenge each other. We will se what will happen during the next few months and how many of them change their opinions. I will probably try and watch it again online...

 

[TinkerValkyrie]

I actually liked the format of the debates. In the other debates you get sound bites since they aren't able to go into detail. With this format they could elaborate more... which helped some, and hurt others. Sure, they had time to think about what people want to hear, but in the other debates they only try to say what people want to hear anyway.

I've liked Kucinich through all the debates. It's a pity he doesn't have a chance. My hubby had liked Richardson, but after last night he's not so sure.

 

[easleygrls]

You could tell they had been pretty well-rehearshed in hitting the "talking points". Especially Edwards, who when asked a question about up to 50% of black gay inner city men having HIV instead luanched into a touchy feely story about meeting homeless gay teens at the LA center.

 

[skyhawk]

Tooo bad no Republicans had big enough ones to come on too, but since I won't be voting for any of them anyway I guess it won't affect my decision anyway.

I don't want to start an argument or anything, but you seem a bit close-minded. I'm so tired of the "Evil Republican" bias. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is very supportive of Gay rights.

 

[Rence]

I don't want to start an argument or anything, but you seem a bit close-minded. I'm so tired of the "Evil Republican" bias. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is very supportive of Gay rights.

I used to agree with you, was brought up in a very Republican household and was a Republican for most of my adult life. I agree that there are gay-supportive Republicans - but the party as a whole is very anti-gay. In state after state the Republicans have pushed the anti-gay marriage amendments in the hopes of getting out the bigot vote which they know will go overwhelmingly Republican.

Here in Wisconsin we have some moderate-talking Republican legislators, but when push comes to shove, they toe the party line and vote against us on issue after issue.

I figured a few years ago that I had wasted my life supporting Republicans who may talk moderate on gay-issues but then never deliver a damn thing. So I quit the Republican party and joined the Democrats.

 

[PghLybrt]

I don't want to start an argument or anything, but you seem a bit close-minded. I'm so tired of the "Evil Republican" bias. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is very supportive of Gay rights.

You mean sort of supportive don't you?
He will not offer us the same rights as straight citizens by supporting same sex marriage, he has said many times that we should not disrupt the military in times of war (meaning do not repeal the Don’t ask Don’t tell). He was in part responsible for cutting AIDS funding. His stance on anything that has to do with the trans community is very unclear (and very important to me).

I do not think really many candidates are very supportive of any of our rights.

So he has appeared in drag, he has gay friends, that does not make me think he values us the same as others.

(Although I will give you this republican is less evil then the one we have now )

 

[Si'sAm]

It seems to me that if the Republicans wanted to explain their points and decisions over the years and maybe enlighten those of us who believe that they have and can do nothing for us,they should have shown up to talk to our community and explained to us how they are willing to change and maybe go against party lines. By them not choosing to accept the invitation shows me that they don't want to hurt their chance with their constituants and believe that our community is a lost cause when it comes to donations and votes. Why would I support someone who does not take the hour to try?

 

[ILuvDVC2]

And OT, those CBS/LOGO reporters might have been nice eye candy (if you're a boy!) but they were awful!

Um... yeah. I think they are terrible reporters who know more about how to look great on camera than they do about the topics they cover. Some of their interviews are insipid. I guess CBS News doesn't care about the quality of the reporting on LOGO.

 

[easleygrls]

you seem a bit close-minded.

To recap my post that you quoted:

Too bad no Republicans had big enough ones to come on too, but since I won't be voting for any of them anyway I guess it won't affect my decision anyway.

No Republicans accepted the HRC/LOGO invitation to discuss LGBT issues. That's true. Doesn't that make them close-minded?

I will not be voting for any Republican, so the fact that they either were too scared to appear to their core constituents that they are 'gay-friendly OR really just don't care about gays at all will not affect the way I vote. That's true. That is my choice (for many reasons, not just LGBT issues). Your perception of my choice is your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled (IE, Evil Republican bias). There are also some people with Evil Democat bias and Evil Libertarian bias.

But...did you watch the debate? That is why I started this thread, because I wanted to discuss the Democratic candidates' performance. BTW, there are a few of them I'd never vote for either.

 

[travelmaniac02]

you just cannot expect Republicans to think the same way as the Democrats do. Avoiding LGBT issues is like a trademark for the Republicans. it's a good to know that there are still people who like to watch debates... like me.

__________________
Hey guys! I'm learning Moroccan History!
The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page. ~ St. Augustine

 

[skyhawk]

To recap my post that you quoted:




I will not be voting for any Republican, so the fact that they either were too scared to appear to their core constituents that they are 'gay-friendly OR really just don't care about gays at all will not affect the way I vote. That's true. That is my choice (for many reasons, not just LGBT issues). Your perception of my choice is your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled (IE, Evil Republican bias). There are also some people with Evil Democat bias and Evil Libertarian bias.

But...did you watch the debate? That is why I started this thread, because I wanted to discuss the Democratic candidates' performance. BTW, there are a few of them I'd never vote for either.

All I meant was that shouldn't we vote for the person (not the party) that best represents our views? To make a blanket statement that you will not vote for any Republican just seems - yes, I'll say it again - closed minded.

 

[easleygrls]

All I meant was that shouldn't we vote for the person (not the party) that best represents our views? To make a blanket statement that you will not vote for any Republican just seems - yes, I'll say it again - closed minded.

I have read and listened to all of the Reps & Dems in the 2008 race, and also seen a couple (of BOTH parties) in person. NO Republican represents MY views. Hence, I will not be voting for them. My 'blanket statement' was made after much research, and was not a knee-jerk, 'closed-minded' decision.