What Were They Watching?

[Sally]

I will admit from the beginning that I did not watch all of any debate - I get frustrated or bored very easily with politicians and campaigning in particular-but I was able to stay awake through a good deal of them.

Enough to know that one candidate was putting forth the same plans and goals in all three debates while the other changed his not only from debate to debate but almost mid sentence (a comic exaggeration).

In spite of this the polls are now the closest ever - what were they listening to?

The really frightening part of this is that according to Stephen Colbert, "History indicates that in case of a tie George Bush becomes President."

Who runs this country for the next for years matters - who runs Congress matters even more - if you make less than $250,000 a year, are female, gay, lesbian, bi or transgender and vote Republican I would just like to remind you that if you do so to somehow punish yourself - remember we will all suffer.

This is the time where the community needs to show its solidarity and stand up for ourselves - Vote - Vote your conscience - Vote your heart - Vote for the people who acknowledge us as human beings.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

The Republican voters were watching Barak Obama and remembering how much they hate the fact that a man with such a great suntan is in the whitehouse. They prefer a pasty skintone. The Republicans could have run Daffy Duck and they'd still vote for him over Obama. There is a hate there that transcends common sense.

[Guest KimberlyF]

What were they watching?

I'd guess they were watching two unqualified people stretch the truth and be uncivil towards each other while talking of unity, just like just about any other debate.

[Guest Jenni_S]

The Republican voters were watching Barak Obama and remembering how much they hate the fact that a man with such a great suntan is in the whitehouse. They prefer a pasty skintone. The Republicans could have run Daffy Duck and they'd still vote for him over Obama. There is a hate there that transcends common sense.

Thank you. I have voted Republican in the past, and may again in the future. But good to know I'm racist and practice blind hatred. After all, that's all i see, is the color of one's skin, right? Is that really what you're saying?

It never ceases to amaze me. Here we are, a group of people with something in common, we all are trans, and in the group we have diversity of all sorts as well. We all think differently, have different talents, have our own ways of expression; the list goes on and on. But we all come together on this thing we all have, here. We decry being stereotyped, the intolerance some of us have faced, the injustices that have occurred. We say we want that to stop.

And yet, time and again, there is no problem with shouting out stereotypes at anyone else. Don't agree with someone? They're racist, phobic, stupid, ignorant, uninformed; again, the list goes on and on. The amount of "Do as I say, not as I do" that permeates the trans community is getting to be, quite frankly, laughable.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Jenni,

Do not google Mann Coulter to see how some liberals or progressives think Trans is a joke or a reason to mock someone. Instead just assume its all of them.

[Guest LizMarie]

Jenni, most Republicans are not racists. But do you know what the Southern Strategy is? It was brought to life by Nixon's primary campaign advisor, Kevin Phillips. It was continued by Lee Atwater for Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. Karl Rove has admitted that it's a core part of how GW Bush got elected, how McCain ran his campaign, and how Romney is running his campaign now

Here is Lee Atwater's own words about the "Southern Strategy":

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "black person, black person, black person." By 1968 you can't say "black person" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "black person, black person."

This is a clear admission that certain policies, while sounding fiscally conservative, are also designed to be codified for a specific voting bloc - white southern racists (not all southerners are racists but there are some). Thus, this is a clear admission that Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr, McCain, and now Romney run their campaigns using tactics that are specifically designed to appeal to a particular racist voting bloc.

Does this make all Republicans racist? No. What it does mean is that when the Republican Party continues to engage in these same behaviors, decade after decade, and members of the Republican Party do not publicly disavow themselves from publicly admitted racist behavior that they are silently giving assent to that behavior.

I worked for many years inside the Republican Party trying to turn this racism around, reduce it and hopefully eliminate it. Instead it has gotten worse, not better. I began by not voting Republican at the national level back in 2000. I've reached the point where, after 37 years of being a registered Republican, that I will re-register independent after this next election. And no, I will not vote for Mitt Romney, purely because of his constant lies and flip-flops.

P.S. Atwater was actually using the "N" word, not "black person" but the forum word filters are changing it. That's how blatant this strategy is among top Republicans. They know exactly what they are doing.

[Sally]

The fact is what we were watching was two people trying to get the same job - and both trying to figure out how to do that.

On the last debate one was more dominant and the other decided to jump onto the more successful band wagon to get votes - nothing said in a debate has anything at all to do with the future policies - Presidents do not have unlimited power - there is still Congress and a Supreme Court - it is called Checks and Balances and after seemingly endless campaigning you can clearly see the need for them.

Some people do vote by skin color and gender -admit it most of us tend to want someone most like us to be in charge - you would be knocking down the doors to vote for a Transgender candidate - it is not really racist until you vote only on skin color - ignoring qualifications and past histories becomes racist.

The Race Card is often played when it is not appropriate or needed - let's keep that one back in the deck for now and vote for the man who has already helped us and will most likely continue to do so.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest Jenni_S]

Does this make all Republicans racist? No. What it does mean is that when the Republican Party continues to engage in these same behaviors, decade after decade, and members of the Republican Party do not publicly disavow themselves from publicly admitted racist behavior that they are silently giving assent to that behavior.

I worked for many years inside the Republican Party trying to turn this racism around, reduce it and hopefully eliminate it. Instead it has gotten worse, not better. I began by not voting Republican at the national level back in 2000. I've reached the point where, after 37 years of being a registered Republican, that I will re-register independent after this next election. And no, I will not vote for Mitt Romney, purely because of his constant lies and flip-flops.

You've missed the point of my post. It's unfair to paint all Republicans as racist, just as it's unfair to go around saying "all those transpeople are freaks." How would the crowd in here react to someone coming here saying that?

We hammer it all the time. Tolerance. We want tolerance. And yet we toss out ad-hominem attacks the moment we perceive ourselves being wronged. Transphobic! Hater! Ignorant! We don't want to allow a differing opinion, it seems, but we require everyone's opinion to agree with ours, even if they have a differing one. That seems awfully intolerant, to me. How can we be taken seriously, if we can't even practice what we preach?

I don't care how anyone is voting. Your vote is your business, and my vote is mine. We all decide on how we think, believe, and make our choice. But I'll say this, whoever shouts the most epithets the loudest isn't going to convince me of anything, except that they have nothing better than epithets to shout in the first place. And I do believe you'll find that plenty of people do disavow plenty of abhorrent behavior by their predecessors, if given the chance, rather than dismissed because of a label.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Welcome to the world of politics where everyone is seen as a box. Obama admitted in a debate during the Dem primaries in 2008 back when Hillary Clinton had a lot of the black vote that his people started rumors of Bill and all being racist. It turned the election. It was a major impact on how super tues played out.

http://m.lvsun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/

RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina — four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.

***

By the time the smoke cleared, the Clinton camp would never do well with black voters again. But Obama was sorry. Strike those comments from the record!!

[Guest Lacey Lynne - Free Spirit]

Go to Google. Do a search for the book "Robots' Rebellion" in PDF format by British Author David Icke. He puts these out there for us to read. Start reading. Just look at the chapter of contents.

Then, go to YouTube, and watch George Carlin's videos and routines WHEN HE'S AN OLD GUY socking it to everybody and telling the plain truth.

Lastly, go to YouTube, and watch Bill Hicks videos too.

Some of you have seen the move "V for Vendetta" and, most likely, "got it" and its intended message. Most folks don't; however, we transgendered are a bright lot, right? Sho' 'nuff! Is there even any need to mention The Wachowski Brothers' surpassing superb movie "The Matrix" which is right on the money as to what's going on?

Folks, we're being had! Doesn't matter who wins. Nothing important is going to change. Sally's right, by the way. We're screwed.

Crazy Lacey Lacey Lynne

Smart like a fox, baby! Whoowee! Power to the people, right on!

[Guest]

In my lifetime I have seen the complete degradation of politics into a constantly attacking mud sling. Now all candidates use a 100% negative campaign tactic. That is our saddest commentary of our voting system. I wish there was a grass roots way to turn that around, something like if you use negativity instead of your own merits you loose votes. The computer age affords us all the ability to look at candidates track records, That makes electoral college obsolete. Yet it is the trump card that is still used as a device to take the power away from the voter. There should be transparency instead of lobbying and dirty deals behind closed doors. There is so much farce in out political system it is heartbreaking to admit we are not the great country and humanitarian world examples we used to be. The greed exceeds the needs. Jody

[Carolyn Marie]

I don't believe that people should vote for a presidential candidate based on one issue. There is a lot more at stake in this, nationally and internationally, than who likes transfolk better. Should it be a factor, sure. Should it be the only factor, I don't think so.

The folks at Fox News seem to think that half the country, the half that vote Democratic, are crazy America-haters who are communists, socialists and slackers. I wouldn't want to be accused of the same kind of vitriol towards Republicans than those folks spew at Democrats.

There are good people on both sides of the isle, and once upon a time, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress actually worked together to get things done. There is a reason that several moderate Congress members and Senators have left office in dismay. Working across the isle appears to be the kiss of death to a political career these days. We the People need to elect members to Congress who do want to work together. We only need to look in the mirror, if we want to find someone to blame.

HUGS

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Lacey Lynne - Free Spirit]

In my lifetime I have seen the complete degradation of politics into a constantly attacking mud sling. Now all candidates use a 100% negative campaign tactic. That is our saddest commentary of our voting system. I wish there was a grass roots way to turn that around, something like if you use negativity instead of your own merits you loose votes. The computer age affords us all the ability to look at candidates track records, That makes electoral college obsolete. Yet it is the trump card that is still used as a device to take the power away from the voter. There should be transparency instead of lobbying and dirty deals behind closed doors. There is so much farce in out political system it is heartbreaking to admit we are not the great country and humanitarian world examples we used to be. The greed exceeds the needs. Jody

Agreed, Jody!

You may want to read something by somebody with gilt-edged credentials who writes about these very issues. Go to the AMAZON website, choose the BOOKS category, and then search for books by author David C. Korten, especially "Agenda for a New Economy" which details exactly what you're talking about. I have that book and have read it through 5 times. His other books are well worth buying too.

I stand my my assertion that voting is fundamentally cosmetic. It makes SOME difference, but not nearly enough. The true ruling class will have their say and their way. Elected officials take orders. Just my opinion.

Peace & Joy Lacey Lynne

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

I'd guess they were watching two unqualified people stretch the truth and be uncivil towards each other while talking of unity, just like just about any other debate.

Now it's unfair to call them unqualified. The do meet the Constitutional requirements after all. Unless you beleive Donald Trump.

What they were watching was the equivalent of a pair of show dogs who were trained to do a number of tricks. Every word, every movement, every gesture was choreographed by a team of profesional marketing people. If there was any real diffferance it was in who had the better trainers...

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

There is so much farce in out political system it is heartbreaking to admit we are not the great country and humanitarian world examples we used to be.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a biography of Jefferson "Thomas Jefferson, Authorof America" and he often comments on the lowered quality of our presidential stock. On the subject of the election between Adams and Jefferson he says, "Adams, for example, was a founder of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Jefferson served as president of the American Philosophical Society. Compared to politicians of today, standards seem to have slipped."

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

You've missed the point of my post. It's unfair to paint all Republicans as racist, just as it's unfair to go around saying "all those transpeople are freaks."

The subgroup of Republicans we are talking about are the ones who can watch Mitt Romney be a flip flopping fool who hasn't stood firm on a single announced policy and still tell a polster with a strait face that they are going to vote for him. The only reason left is they don't want Obama in the White House. Now why would that be? Could it be his golf game sucks? Maybe it's because he can't dance? Could it be that they don't like the fact that we haven't spriraled into economic doom yet? I have my doubts about those. I suspect it's because he doesn't sunburn. I'll tell you why I think that. I've got some freinds who joined the Republcian party to support Ron Paul for President. They were working the caucus system. After a day of dealing with a bunch of old Republicans at these caucuses they felt the need for a shower. Phrases like "we gotta get that (n word) out of the white house!" were said frequently without anyone complaining. Seems to me that if the bigots were a minority the leadership would call them out on the carpet for giving the rest of them a bad name. But they don't. That is rather telling.

I'd say the Republicans who aren't bigoted are either sitting this one out, voting Libertarian or holding their nose and voting for Mitt because they are geneticly incapable of voting for anyone but a Republican. I can't see why any free thinking person with modern values would be voting for Mitt after all the two faced, backwards and plain stupid things that have come out of his mouth. I say this as someone who wont vote this year because I can't stand any of them. I just think Mitt is far more repulsive than Obama but I won't vote against someone just to keep the other out. I don't accept the logic of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[MaryEllen]

Oh would some power the gift give us, To see ourselves as others see us. (Robert Burns) Bigotry abounds here as well.

MaryEllen

[Guest KimberlyF]

Dont quote me on this, but I read somewhere that Republicans hystorically vote for the Republican candidate. I think this trend pre-dates Obama by a few elections.

After 8 years of Bush, at least 30% of the country would have voted for him again because of the ®.

Obama and Romney are fighting for the 40% in the middle.

And before anyone mocks Republicans that Im sure would vote for a third Bush term, Jesse Jackson Jr.(D) is up by 31 points in the last poll. He has not campaigned a single day. He's been in and out of the Mayo clinic being treated for bipolar disorder and there are pending Federal investigations coming his way.

Party trumps policy even though they work together on more than they don't. It's just on issues like congressional pay raises and naming days after people.

[Sally]

I hope that some day there will come a time where the person running will be more important than the party affiliation and the actual issues will be the center of the campaign not their looks or background and certainly not bank accounts.

In most elections the taller man won - not a great way to choose but it certainly did explain why Dukakis showed so poorly against George Bush in 1988.

We are apparently that superficial a people - never voting for the best candidate, just the better looking - Kennedy was seen as too young without enough experience to really do the job and he was Catholic (which at the time was not in his favor either) but he looked so much better than the incumbent Vice- President, Richard Nixon.

This was the first Televised Debate, 52 years ago - it changed politics in the US forever (maybe not for better).

Love ya,

Sally

[Charlize]

I just hope that whoever wins we can have healthcare fro everybody in a rational fashion. I would prefer it if we could stop burning as much to power our bloated lifestyles and do some more alternate power. NJ was doing great until our nationally popular Gov. took the programs apart. Do we really need to have a military that is bigger than the next 15 countries? Could we start to think that we have lost the war on drugs just like we lost the war on booze? Maybe we don't need to have so many in prison. Can we worry about how sending jobs away to the rest of the world doesn't help anyone but the folks with all the $. If you make your money in China live there and stay there with their laws and system and environment.

Sorry i didn't mean to kick the hive. Its just hard not to be frustrated. We all have different opinions. I'm not the king of the forest! Or queen for that matter. Thank goodness.

Hugs,

Charlie

[Guest Eliza_S]

Thanks, Charlie. Well said.

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

Bigotry abounds here as well.

I think calling every judgement of a group bigotry diminsihes the value of the word. If someone judges a group of people based on things they have no control over such a skin tone, sexual orientation, gender issues or handicaps then that deserves a strong word like bigotry. If someone judges a group of people based on their voulentary assoications then it's differant. People who are voting for Mitt chose to associate with a group that has a very high percentage of real bigots. Pointing that out isn't bigoted.

If it is bigoted to say that about the GOP then we can't say bad things about cup cakes or Klansmen either because it would be bigoted to say they are all bigots. My grandparents met at a Klan meeting when their parents took them. My grandfather was a genius and he had no problem with anyone the Klan was against. My grandmother was the kindest woman you will ever meet and she too had nothing in common with the ideals of the Klan. Yet if you look at a picture of a Kansas clan meeting in the 20's you will see them in the picture. How many more were at the meeting for networking opportunities or that killer potato salad that Mrs. Henderson brought every time? Clearly not eveyone at the meetings is a bigot. So when we say bad things about the KKK are we bieng bigots? I don't think so, enough of the membership are pig ignorent bigots so it's ok to say it's an organization of bigots.

[MaryEllen]

It's obvious you missed my point.

MaryEllen

[Guest KimberlyF]

This thread is stuffed with awesome! So today's lesson is it's OK to have potato salad w/the clan cause lots of sweet kind people will be there, but some can not understand how anybody with a brain would vote for Romney unless you're a hardcore Republican or a bigot. One has to wonder since both candidates are evil, which I agree with, do people who vote for Obama fall into the hardcore Dem or bigot camp??? Every day is an education.

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

No, I got your point. My statement about Republicans may be a generalization, but sometimes generalizations are right. Women have breasts. Mostly true. Some percentage have bilateral mastectomies so its not 100% true but it's generaly true in the vast majority of cases. Men hate asking directions. Again, in most cases it's true. Children are full of energy. Dogs will eat anything. Cats wont play fetch. All true in the vast majority of cases. So generalizations have a value, not all are evil. The question then is at what percentage does a generalization have to be wrong for it to shift into bigotry of some sort? Blondes are stupid. Wrong. Plenty of smart people are blonde and plenty of stupid people aren't blonde. Mexicans are lazy. Wrong again. There are going to be lazy mexicans just like there are lazy people in all groups. There is no proof they are more lazy than any other group.

So we get to the generalization that started this dustup. Republicans are bigots. I think for the majority it is true. Their stated ideology attracts that kind of person. Gutting the social welfare programs sounds good to your typcial white power guy because he thinks it's only african americans and hispanic americans who are using the programs. The Drug War sells real well to that crowd because they know it is unfairly enforced against minorities. The list goes on. Very few planks of the Republican platform would offend a Neo-cup cake or KKK member. I seriously doubt you will find many of those bigoted types voting for Democrats with their support of affirmative action, integration of schools, support of GLBT rights and social welfare. So while not all Republican voters may be bigots, all bigots are likely voting Republican...

Sure there are those who came for the small government rhetoric and stayed for the lower taxes line. But they make a minority. You can tell because the Republicans spend very little effort on those things and instead keep trying to gut any program that might help an african american male to get a good education so they can join the workforce at something other than a worker at McDonnalds. Instead of moving the Log Cabin Republican agenda forward they continue to block any attempt to decriminlaize marijuana which would take away the best weapon in the bigots arsenal to marginalize african american males. One bust for pot and in a third of the states you can't vote for the rest of your life. Pretty simple way to keep them out of voting booths.

If the majority of Republican voters weren't bigots then they wouldn't run these guys who sound like throwbacks to the 1940's. They would run a more muticultural group of people. They don't because the base won't vote for anyone who isn't a pasty faced guy. Heck, putting Palin on the ticket all but guranteed Obama a win. Enough of their base balked at the idea of a woman in the Veep seat that they didn't cast their votes. They learned and now they are running two of the pastiest faced guys they could find. If the Joker was real I swear they would have run him.