Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Tammy Baldwin: first openly-gay member of the United States Senate


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-22 of 22 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 7, 2012 3:25:22 AM PST
AxeGrrl says:
Woooooo hooooooo! :)

and one of the best things about this is that according to campaign watchers, the race/win was "rooted in voter issues, not sexual orientation"

a candidates' sexual orientation being a _negligible_ issue is precisely how it should be :)

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 3:41:42 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
And if pandering to religious bigotry isn't working for them any more, where will the Republican Party turn next?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 3:43:25 AM PST
AxeGrrl says:
And if pandering to the 'get tough on immigration' crowd isn't working for them either.......

let's just say that the Reps _really_ need to learn from these results.

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 3:52:32 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
And of course, they won't. They'll decide that their only mistake was not being radical and extremist ENOUGH, just like they did after McCain lost.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 4:01:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2012 4:02:34 AM PST
AxeGrrl says:
Brian Curtis wrote: "And of course, they won't."
~~~~

Then they'll probably suffer the same result the next time.

They _completely_ lost the Latino vote (in a huge way) and their immigration talking points probably had a lot to do with that.......ALL of the marriage equality ballot questions demonstrated that the tide has turned on the same sex marriage issue......the "rape comments" candidates were utterly rejected.......marijuana was declared legal in 2 states (ALL marijuana use, not just medical).......and the first openly-gay senator was elected.

This is the current snapshot of America today, Republicans. Accept it and learn, or doom yourselves to another election result like tonight.

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 5:02:40 AM PST
I live in Wisconsin and had no idea she was gay until last night! That's how much it was a non-issue here, as it should be. It's a candidates's platform that matters, not what gender their beloved might be.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 5:08:21 AM PST
AxeGrrl says:
That's wonderful to hear, Gaelic :)

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 5:43:04 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 7:13:14 AM PST
Amon says:
WINNING.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 7:32:35 AM PST
Dean says:
Let's hope they don't learn, and keep losing.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 7:39:25 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
I see that somebody's bitter. Which is HI-LARIOUS!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 12:11:19 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
Ultra-Marxist? In what ways does Baldwin outdo even Lenin and Stalin? Is she planning to nationalize industry? institute central planning? do away with the banks? Please be specific.

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 1:43:24 PM PST
Ariex says:
What about Barney Frank? He's been openly gay for years.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 4:10:02 PM PST
Astrocat says:
I am delighted with the gains by the GLBT community, and by women in general during this election. And, as you say, Grrl, with the diminishing attention it's getting. Soon it will be just as commonplace in the minds of most people (never all, of course) as marriage between "blacks" and "whites" has become (in most areas).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 4:11:59 PM PST
Astrocat says:
There've been some interesting shows on the radio today (public radio, of course), on just that topic, Brian. Most, even the most adamant conservatives, like Ruben Navarrette, were very candid in what the Repubs did wrong, and how they've been aiming their message at straight, white men for too long and are going to have to change their direction.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 10:13:09 PM PST
AxeGrrl says:
Ariex wrote: "What about Barney Frank? He's been openly gay for years."
~~~~

He's not a senator, is he? I thought he was a congressman......but indeed, he's definitely been openly gay for _years_ :)

Posted on Nov 7, 2012 10:25:39 PM PST
Robb says:
House of representatives

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 7, 2012 10:54:48 PM PST
AxeGrrl says:
I'm Canadian, so I'm not entirely familiar with such details of US politics......but is being in the House of representatives _different_ than being a congressman?

This website refers to "Congressman Frank" repeatedly.

http://frank.house.gov/

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:01:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 12:05:04 AM PST
Bubba says:
It is confusing. The US Congress is bicameral, there are 2 legislative bodies in the US Congress; the House of Representatives (aka the "House") and the Senate. The House has 435 voting representatives, with the number per state being proportionate to the population of the state (it is actually a bit more complicated than that), and the Senate has 100 members, with two per state. The District of Columbia has one non-voting member in the House of Representatives; the US Constitution didn't provide for the District of Columbia to have any Congressional representation.

DC residents do pay income taxes and they are being taxed without representation in government; as DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republicans like it this way and fight even any mention of a US Constitutional amendment to give DC representation. There was no income tax at the time the US Constitution was written, so there was no irony at the time.

Due to the Senate having far fewer members, but being equal in power to the House, individual members of the Senate (Senators) are more "powerful" than individual members of the House (Congressmen, sometimes called "Congresscritters").

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:14:48 AM PST
Bubba,

Do you know if the Democrats in DC are still fighting for representation?

As all residents in DC are without representation, how can they (and the country) put up with this anomaly?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:22:25 AM PST
Bubba says:
The question is relatively moot because it would require a Constitutional amendment and the Republicans would fight that tooth and nail. The situation is very unfair and very ironic, but there is nothing that can be done about it due the Republicans obstructing any change to the situation.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 12:34:22 AM PST
Thanks, Bubba. As the situation is unfair, it will probably be cleared up one day.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  22
Initial post:  Nov 7, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 8, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions