toldailytopic: Obama's new openly pro-same-sex-marriage stance: will it help or hurt

[annabenedetti]

toldailytopic: Obama's new openly pro-same-sex-marriage stance: will it help or hurt his re-election chances?

It's a win-win for him because he's just saying what we all knew anyway and now he can collect lots of money from rich donors happy with the announcement.

 

[WandererInFog]

I have to assume this means his fundraising must be going surprisingly poorly, as this annoucement gains him no new supporters and threatens depressing turnout among African-Americans, but with Romney's Super PACs waiting in the wings the money may be more important at this point. It also takes away a potential line of attack on Romney's various position shifts.

The only thing that helps him here is that he's facing a Republican candidate who has no chance whatsoever of being able to capitalize on this with socially conservative African-American & Latino voters as Romney simply isn't trusted by voters on social issues.

 

[annabenedetti]

I have to assume this means his fundraising must be going surprisingly poorly, as this annoucement gains him no new supporters and threatens depressing turnout among African-Americans, but with Romney's Super PACs waiting in the wings the money may be more important at this point.

You can bet it will help tonight - he's got the big George Clooney fundraiser in LA... He needs that Hollywood $$.

 

[drbrumley]

Obama, Gay Marriage, and Progressivism

Obama, Gay Marriage, and Progressivism

This about sums it up....

Obama, Gay Marriage, and Progressivism Posted by Bill Anderson on May 10, 2012 07:50 AM We are sure to hear the outrage (and support) of Barack Obama's newly-decided acceptance of gay marriage (as he put his wetted finger to the air, pretending to be principled), and I am sure that his hatchet man, Eric Holder, will be filing suit against states that don't permit gay marriage. However, there is a larger issue here that both Remocrats and Depublicans will ignore: the origin of marriage laws. The state laws defining and regulating marriage came about during the Progressive Era as an attempt to prevent black and white intermarriage, or what Progressives called "miscegenation." Before then, marriage was left either to the church or to common law. So, once again we see yet another legacy of that time when America's intellectuals declared war on the Constitution and on liberty itself.

 

[rocketman]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 10th, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: Obama's new openly pro-same-sex-marriage stance: will it help or hurt his re-election chances?

Shocking... one would have never guessed.

 

[drbrumley]

Here.

Good call Stripe. :chuckle:

 

[sky.]

He's a tool. There are enough useful idiots now days to get him elected again. Everything he has said he stands for from the beginning has been a lie. Why should he stop now?

 

[drbrumley]

Government just needs to get the hell out of marriage to begin with. This would be a non issue.

 

[drbrumley]

It's a win-win for him because he's just saying what we all knew anyway and now he can collect lots of money from rich donors happy with the announcement.

Thought you might enjoy this. Shares your view. Of which I agree.

The Real Reason for O-Bomb-Ya's Flipflop on Gay Marriage
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on May 10, 2012 08:56 AM

The network news reported this morning that the Obama campaign received over $1 million in new donations in the first 90 minutes after announcing the president's "support" for gay marriage. It's all win-win for the prez. He doesn't have to actually do anything to promote gay marriage and thereby incur the wrath (and lose the votes) of those who are opposed to it, especially a majority of the African-American community. At the same time he can collect millions from easily-duped, naive, and affluent gay people.

Taking their cue from the Lincoln propagandists of generations past, the "mainstream media' will now bloviate on about how much Obama has "grown in office." They said this about Lincoln and the issue of race, but of course we now know that up to his dying day Lincoln was plotting to deport all the black people, especially the soon-to-be-freed slaves, out of the country. (See the book, Colonization after Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page).

 

[annabenedetti]

Thought you might enjoy this. Shares your view. Of which I agree.

The Real Reason for O-Bomb-Ya's Flipflop on Gay Marriage
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on May 10, 2012 08:56 AM

The network news reported this morning that the Obama campaign received over $1 million in new donations in the first 90 minutes after announcing the president's "support" for gay marriage. It's all win-win for the prez. He doesn't have to actually do anything to promote gay marriage and thereby incur the wrath (and lose the votes) of those who are opposed to it, especially a majority of the African-American community. At the same time he can collect millions from easily-duped, naive, and affluent gay people.

Taking their cue from the Lincoln propagandists of generations past, the "mainstream media' will now bloviate on about how much Obama has "grown in office." They said this about Lincoln and the issue of race, but of course we now know that up to his dying day Lincoln was plotting to deport all the black people, especially the soon-to-be-freed slaves, out of the country. (See the book, Colonization after Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page).

That is interesting...and no, I hadn't read it before posting. I don't even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is.

Adding to this further, I believe this to be a diversion from other, more pressing concerns.

Watch the other hand...what else is going on while the press is hyper-ventilating over this non-news?

 

[drbrumley]

That is interesting...and no, I hadn't read it before posting. I don't even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is.

Adding to this further, I believe this to be a diversion from other, more pressing concerns.

Watch the other hand...what else is going on while the press is hyper-ventilating over this non-news?

Exactly! Watch that other hand. It's coming around to slap liberty minded Americans right in the mouth. :sigh:

 

[annabenedetti]

Exactly! Watch that other hand. It's coming around to slap liberty minded Americans right in the mouth. :sigh:

They won't see it coming - their eyes are closed.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm surprised anyone was actually surprised by this.

I'm not sure the effect it will have on his reelection.

"It's important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." ~President Barack Obama

This does not translate into:

"I support same sex marriage."

Um, yes it does; you drooling idiot.:

 

[Nick M]

Where does one send money for Obama's campaign? Can you provide a link?

You are a sick fag.

No, it changes nothing. He is trying to prove to his base he is the pervert they voted for in 2008.

 

[rocketman]

Um, yes it does; you drooling idiot.:

Here Here! :up:

 

[Sherman]

Where does one send money for Obama's campaign? Can you provide a link?

:flamer:

 

[Tambora]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 10th, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: Obama's new openly pro-same-sex-marriage stance: will it help or hurt his re-election chances?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

He's riding the losing horse!!!!!

 

[Eeset]

This is a non issue to me. I am not interested in marrying someone of the same sex. Like Whoopi Goldberg says.... If you don't like gay marriage don't marry a gay person.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is a non issue to me.

Me too. I oppose homosexuality as a whole; if I had my way this wouldn't even be an issue, because homosexual activities would be illegal.

 

[Delmar]

Agreed, but Republicans already hate the guy or at least oppose him at every turn, and Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney. This may galvanize the party bases for a little while but this election's going to be driven largely by the economy, not social issues. For independents who keep an eye on politics, this "announcement" doesn't amount to much...kinda like a "tell us something we don't already know" moment.

The issue forces Romney's hand and is a relatively low-risk move for the president. (The electoral map favors him now and he can afford to, say, lose a state like North Carolina and still be in good shape for re-election.) Romney will be under even more pressure to demonstrate conservative bona fides (I know, I know, I could barely write that). I think focus on the issue hurts him more than Obama, only because this is yet another issue where Romney's inconsistent track record will come back to haunt him.

I can't say I disagree much.