LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The First Gay Green President

4

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
...

Mr. Obama is pandering to gays with his marriage switcheroo for two reasons: 1) money; 2) onground support.

Gays aren't a large cohort in the U.S., despite misconceptions and propaganda. For years, it was in wide circulation that gays constituted 10% of the U.S. population. A May 2011 Gallup poll claims that Americans, on the whole, perceive that gays are about 1 in 4 Americans. Not so. Gays are more like 3.5% of the nation's citizenry.

Yet gays have a disproportionate influence in politics. That's because many gays are upwardly mobile and affluent; they have disposable incomes because they tend not to have families. Gays have time to devote to political causes as well. And gay voters are concentrated in larger urban areas (like San Francisco and Atlanta), where their votes can make a difference in local and some state elections.

According to BuzzFeed, an online journal:

Already, gay donors, mostly men, reportedly constitute 1 in 6 of Obama's top fundraisers known as bundlers. And in the first 90 minutes after the news broke Wednesday, the campaign received $1 million in spontaneous contributions, a Democrat told BuzzFeed.

Most observers think of the Obama campaign as cash-flush, but campaigns -- particularly failing ones -- tend never to have enough money. And if Mr. Obama's fundraising network includes more than a few gays as bundlers, it doesn't hurt to energize these super-activists.

Moreover, the gay marriage issue resonates throughout liberaldom. And young people are more inclined to support -- or tolerate -- gay marriage. Hence, the president is hoping for ancillary benefits from flipping and flopping.

One interesting note from the Washington Post after the 2010 midterm elections. Jonathan Capehart reported that, per exit polling, 3% of the ballots cast in 2010 congressional elections were cast by gays. Nearly a third of the gay vote went to Republican candidates. That represented a 4% increase in support by gays for Republicans from 2008 (and an 8% increase from George Bush's 2004 tally).

In other words, the trend line, however modest, has favored increased support for Republicans from gay voters. Gays care about jobs, the economy, and government debt, too.

That slippage in gay support for Democrats was noted at a lesbian online journal back in December 2011, which anticipated Obama's gay marriage about-face.

The article, entitled: "Pro-Gay Vote Might Be Democrats' Secret Weapon in 2012 Election," said this:

But not everyone thinks that Obama's administration will go gentle into that good night and remain silent on the issue of marriage equality before what could potentially be his last term as President. There are those, like Richard Socarides, a former political strategist on gay issues for Bill Clinton, who think that we could see Obama taking a public stance for marriage equality.

"It works for the White House on several levels, particularly in an election year," said Richard Socarides, a Democratic political strategist who advised former President Bill Clinton on gay-rights issues. "Gay voters will be more enthusiastic for him than we would have been a year ago..." "My core argument is that you've got a lot to win and not a lot to lose," said Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry, a group that advocates for marriage rights. "It would remove a constant irritating false note, and it would allow him to tap into an unmitigated good stream of energy."
Click to expand...
Unless the Obama-Romney election is extremely close in battleground states, gay votes won't be pivotal in the outcome. But the money and the activism that gays bring to the Obama campaign do count. Always follow the money (and the shoe leather)....
Click to expand...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/for_obama_gay_is_green.html
 
The Gay Divorcees
By Charles C. W. Cooke, NRO
May 15, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Announcing the results of his long-term “evolution” on the subject last week, President Obama revived the debate over gay marriage. In the widespread discussion, however, there is one question that’s rarely asked: How interested are gay couples in getting married?

Heretofore at least, the answer seems to be “not really.” Since 1997, when Hawaii became the first state in the union to allow reciprocal-beneficiary registration for same-sex couples, 19 states and the District of Columbia have granted some form of legal recognition to the relationships of same-sex couples. These variants include marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships; and the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them — equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States. This number does not appear to be low because of the fact that only a few states have allowed full “marriage”; indeed, in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state.

This dearth of early adopters is not peculiar to America. Research conducted in 2004 by Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Sweden’s Stockholm University, seems to confirm the trend. Anderson looked at legal partnerships in both Norway and Sweden and found that in Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, only 1,300 homosexual couples registered in the first eight years, compared with 190,000 heterosexual marriages; in Sweden, between initial passage in 1995 and a review in 2002, 1,526 legal partnerships were registered, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity: 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 — the year it was legalized — and that number dropped to 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, less than 2 percent of marriages in the Netherlands were between same-sex couples.

Controlling for the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals does little to explain the enthusiasm gap. For rates to be similar, we would have to pretend that only 0.5 percent of the population of Sweden, 0.7 percent of the population of Norway, and less than 2 percent of the population of Holland is gay. In fact, the numbers tend closer to an average of 4 percent, which suggests that heterosexual couples are up to eight times more interested in registering their relationships than homosexual couples. It is, of course, possible that the estimated number of homosexuals is wrong, but, if anything, gay-rights groups tend to argue that the projected numbers are too low, and statistics show that the numbers of self-identified gay citizens are going up in every Western country.

Enthusiasm for marriage is somewhat lopsided by gender. Divorces, too. According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples in the United States are lesbian. (Solely on the “marriage” front, in Massachusetts’s first four years, this statistic was 62 percent.) While data in the United States are clearly limited, Scandinavian countries have been at this a little longer. Denmark was the first country to introduce recognition of same-sex partnerships, coining the term “registered partnership” in 1989. Norway followed suit in 1993, and then Sweden in 1995. Again, Stockholm University’s study seems to confirm the American trend. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men. This should not be surprising: In the United States, women request approximately two-thirds of divorces in all forms of relationships — and have done so since the start of the 19th century — so it reasonably follows that relationships in which both partners are women are more likely to include someone who wishes to exit.

The debate over marriage does not necessarily hinge on its popularity among the eligible, and advocates of gay unions would no doubt assert that “equality” is not a numerical proposition as quickly as their opponents would aver that the very idea is a hopeless category mistake. But it is nonetheless worth noting that there is no particular groundswell — even in states and cities that have both legal gay marriage and significant numbers of homosexuals — and that, when gay couples do decide to get married, they are more likely than their straight equivalents to change their minds later.
Click to expand...
 
Democrat pollster Pat Caudell says Obamas campaign is burning cash like the space shuttle burned gasoline, and the supply is low.
 
just another obama disappointment, Michelle has been disappointed in bed for years.

now she knows why, obama is gay
 
Obama has gone from this:
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.
Click to expand...
to this:
I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.
Click to expand...
Why is that called a "switcheroo"?
 
phrodeau said:
Why is that called a "switcheroo"?
Click to expand...
Because anybody who actually thinks about things and maybe changes their mind (or expands their belief) based on additional evidence or talking to others is a flip-flopper.
Politicians should form opinions and never change them, no matter what.
 
Newsweek has published this hideous looking cover in an effort to sell their sad magazine.

Gays like all other power interests groups, unfortunately have the right to lobby like anyone else who can afford to.
 
Joeybagadonuts said:
Newsweek has published this hideous looking cover in an effort to sell their sad magazine.

Gays like all other power interests groups, unfortunately have the right to lobby like anyone else who can afford to.
Click to expand...


and here comes the corrupt government worker from NJ who did his best to steal money from the pension system.

and they wonder why NJ is broke, just look at this fool from NJ
 
about_average said:
Because anybody who actually thinks about things and maybe changes their mind (or expands their belief) based on additional evidence or talking to others is a flip-flopper.
Politicians should form opinions and never change them, no matter what.
Click to expand...
Obama went from "civil union legally identical to marriage" to "marriage". That's the only change in his policy.
 
phrodeau said:
Obama went from "civil union legally identical to marriage" to "marriage". That's the only change in his policy.
Click to expand...
Yup, he expanded his opinion, IMO.

Contrasted with Romney, who thinks civil unions are fine, but only if they don't have the same rights as married couples. :rolleyes:
 
phrodeau said:
Obama went from "civil union legally identical to marriage" to "marriage". That's the only change in his policy.
Click to expand...


Republicans are going around now touting complete inflexibility and closed-mindedness as good leadership qualities. And they wonder why educated people vote Democratic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Martles
Giving massage as a practice
Replies
8
Views
456
Gingersnap15
G
H
Choosing a story to read
Replies
7
Views
167
StillStunned
StillStunned
FiveInch033
Real economics....not the bubble Marxists live in..
2
Replies
30
Views
490
RightField
RightField
LovelyLadyBits
Anyone else feel trapped in your marriage?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
SirSparky
S
B
Need for Critical Thinking
Replies
14
Views
373
bookworm69
B
Back
Top