Nancy Pelosi to make LGBT Equality Act top priority if Democrats take House - Polidicks

do you even understand how many people are LGBT? Do you understand that people have concerns beyond the scope of their own lives? Do you understand empathy at all? LGBT rights are basically my top priority when it comes to reforms right now because my life is under so much direct threat. Empathetic people see this and recognize its importance.

How a bill becomes law in the US: A congressman introduces it Goes to committee and conference committee if required Gets out of committee and then passed in identical form by the House and Senate Signed by the President This bill could be at any stage of this process and other shit could be talked about or done in the Capitol while this is happening. Agendas usually have more then one item.

Who here wants to sign my petition to make a new rule that allows bullying reactionary dullards like this into not posting on this site anymore so we stop having threads upon threads of people explaining simple concepts like "compassion" and "humanity" to them. You ghouls offer absolutely nothing to political discussion, just go back to the games subforum so you can complain about the new season pass for Dr. Mario or whatever.

That's not really necessary - time as already shown that simply proving them wrong, expecting decently factual and reasonable responses, and calling them out as sociopaths when they act like self-centered assholes, is enough to get them to run to other sites and cry about how mean and close-minded we are. And then, usually, leave. The only ones left are the exceptions, the ones who decide to stay no matter what, despite crying about how bigoted we are against rightwing opinions. Sure, there are trolls, but they're easy to point out and tend not to last too long.

There is an unfortunate sense in which I think Boilrig is right here (perish the thought), which is that I don't think this is a key platform issue that is going to win over fence-sitters. This just looks good to people who are already part of the base, and Republicans may largely be actively opposed to this. Now I totally agree that this should be a major concern, and change should happen now (because you shouldn't have to wait for basic human/civil rights until the time is right for the public to hear it) but the general public does not think on this level, and tactically this is concerning. It seems to be a theme with rightists that they think money is all that matters, and I think what's going to win people over is that despite the fact that money is all that matters to them, the right fucking sucks at economic policy (except for the rich, in the short term). Dems need to be pressing that issue to win, I think.

I don't like him that much either but you all are misconstruing him saying "I think economics are more important thank this" to "human rights don't matter at all period" and its really filthy he's obviously wrong because obviously they aren't saying that it's the only issue that matters and they aren't saying it's the one issue they'll focus on first. Shit, just chill out. I've even stated before myself I want economy over identity.

you got to be trolling, no way you can be so dense, because then nasa would have snapped you up and used your skull for testing the next space ship exterior

I guess this situation is pretty much between a rock and a hard place. I fully agree that human rights should be a top priority. But we're stuck in a country with a chunk of the voter base thats more worried about economic reforms and policies. Guess the idea would be to have your party focused on Human Rights, but should attempt to sway that chunk of the voter-base with economic policies. So when they do vote, they indirectly lead towards better laws that protect certain minority groups such as the LGBT community.

24 hours ago: trump threatens to erase a bunch of lgbtq people’s identities today: democrats say they will protect lgbtq minorities and make it one of many goals if they win majority ”why they prioritizing this”

I think Democrats should move towards policies that directly impact the population in a positive way. This is like, one step in that direction.

It seems to me the only thing Boilrig is saying, as much as I dislike him and really do believe he is incapable of any real empathy whatsoever, is that the moment one puts an issue that concerns a minority of voters - pressing as it obviously is, considering the recent statements - as a top concern, it is unlikely to increase votes in a sufficient way to help actually bring forward the stated goal (a thing I can understand the logic of), and might even cause less people to vote due to feeling neglect (a thing he is yet to demonstrate). He does not seem to state himself as having problem with them making it a priority at all (even though given prior posts by the guy, I do believe he does have a problem with it), only stating that it is their top priority - being, as it is, an issue that concerns a minority. a two party democracy is necessarily vote whoring, and all that.

Boilrig I have no clue how you've (un)intentionally came to be a shittier version of Tudd posting on every single political topic but you have achieved the wildest expectations and dreams that we'd never be nuisanced by somebody of Tudd's caliber again. Whenever you post you seem to take the most contrarian stance that pulls paper-thin points and other topics that seem to have almost little to no bearing on the actual subject at hand and, whenever you do try to address the subject you tend to misrepresent it and ignore the actual meaning and intent behind actions, speech, and mentality behind every figure whether it be individual actors or a group. In essence I think you're being intellectually disingenuous and that it's intentional. Any attempt to argue or debate people has left with you either spouting one-sentence euphemisms or two paragraphs at most on what you think of the topic. With your ability to continually repeat yourself as you throw the train off the track when people try to earnestly inform you and educate you on things you might not know about. However if you are being intent on trying to demean sexuality-related and gender-related minorities by saying that it hurts the Democratic party and their appeal to voters then I think you're abhorrently wrong. As others have said you're blowing this out of the water and making something inconsequential to the greater sum of the party's goals to be the defining goal of the party. Especially when it's so easy to do research yourself that this is only one (greater) part of what the Democrats aim for. You seem to make it out to be something that people would take offense to, and more importantly that it would be such a travesty that said people would turn around and vote Republican. If those people exist - if they do - then I genuinely believe that said group of people had no actual wont to vote Democrat, and are instead republicans trying to point and stir drama over and then walk back to the republican line claiming all the way that they're doing this because Democrats did "X".

Nice gesture but a terrible choice to campaign on. Identity politics didn't win them the election in 2016, they sure as hell won't now. They could make the environment or the economy top priority, but no, it has to be a divisive issue that does not affect the majority of voters. They wouldn't even be able to pass anything with Trump having the veto so I don't know what they are making big promises for.

This is civil rights not identity politics you fuckin turnip

As a general rule, you don't use 'top priority', or anything else that signals that concerns are higher than others when you have an ever increasing list of problems like the US does. You have priorities, that you want to pass. When the average voter reads the headline that an LGBT Equality Act is of 'top priority' to the Democrats, you've automatically put everything else as 2nd or 'further down the list of concerns' even if you didn't mean to, because people aren't going to read into the article, and are usually just glancing at the article in passing. If the Democrats want to appeal to voters, it needs to not have a 'top priority' policy, you are inadvertently alienating your own voters who believe that its time and energy in the house will now be spend trying to pass that single bill. tl;dr I don't have an issue with the policy itself if that wasn't clear, I have an issue with the way this policy is presented in the cringe way as of being above others to the voting base.

Why are you reading into it so literally, and why do you think the rest of society shares your cognitive issues? It's pretty much just you. Because you value semantics over reality.

Identity politics and civil rights are not mutually exclusive. The dictionary definition even states that it is political activity based on catering to the interests of a specific group of people, identifiable by a social, gender or cultural identity. Equal right for LGBT members absolutely fits into that definition, and I'm not trying to say it's bad. But it's not going to make the Democrats win anywhere other than with those people who were already going to vote for them anyways. It's essentially preaching to the choir.

I'm amazed you think so much of the voting public, especially how the people on this forum have treated them in the past. But suddenly they are smart enough to read/believe there is more to the headline.

what the fuck does cringe have to do with the fact the heightened sense of urgency is warranted by the actions of this presidency? to claim it isnt a smart move politically is different from calling it, as you do, "cringe". way to fucking show your cards, how do you manage to make me regret clarifying what you intend to say to people every single time, real talent there

Either cringe or bad. One or the other.

different things one can be an objective statement as to the effectiveness of the move in the game of politics and the greater end of getting elected necessary in order to enact them the other is a thinly veiled claim their concerns arent real and arent a priority because theyre a minority and they should suck up before the needs of the majority

Urgency or not, it is a bad political move to declare top priority. If they want to internally have it as a priority, that's fine, but for a party that wants to go out and win, they are just making it harder for the average voter to understand their policies and where political power will be spend if one or few are listed as a 'top priority'.

sure, but your choice of words betrays your unspoken beliefs on the matter

You are projecting your own made up concerns so that you can argue about semantics and feel like you're "winning" the argument you invented. What is the point?

Dictionary definition doesn't mean much in this context, "identity politics" has been co-opted as a buzzword by the alt-right to shut down and delegitimize any discussion of LGBT rights they find inconvenient.

I'm trying to figure out why someone who has held nothing but contempt for the Democrats and their platform is suddenly pretending like he cares about how they perform in the midterms.

You are under the wrong impressions if you think I hold contempt for the Democrats.

spot on, thanks for explaining it like this

I'm amazed you think the voting public is going to read this article. The only way republican voters will ever hear of this is if FOX talks about it. They then get to do their own spin at that point, and the original speech won't matter.

Look, I get what you are saying Boilrig. Promising that helping LGBT people out is a top priority plays into conservative narratives that the Democrats don't care about anyone who isn't a special snowflake minority. While I don't believe you are being entirely honest with your intentions here on account of the fact you have already shown a staggering lack of empathy for my countrymen across several dumb Brexit arguments, leading me to believe you are just concern trolling here- I do think your point is worth responding to. So, I want to respond by saying, who cares? that narrative is bullshit anyway. LGBT people are being prioritised because the hatred directed at them from the Trump administration has demonstrated that they need greater protections yesterday. It's not the Democrat's fault that ~voters~ might be too stupid to understand that it's possible to tackle more than one issue at a time and perceive support from a political party as a zero sum game. Why should they throw LGBT people under the bus for a political advantage? And besides, this just looks like another case of something only being bad when the left does it. Republicans want to invest however much time, attention, and money, it takes to oppress minority groups out of spite : A-Okay. Democrats want to invest money time and attention ensuring those same groups are adequately protected from discrimination: "GOD, *THIS* IS THEIR FOCUS??????? ARE THEY FOR REAL???!!!! DON'T *I* MATTER??????!"