The LGBT Vote

This seems like it’s in keeping with most recent elections. What’s always surprising is that if you read the LGBT media, or even just mainstream media, you couldn’t be blamed for thinking gay people were 99.9% big-government liberal-left progressives.

127 Comments for “The LGBT Vote”

  1. posted by Matthew on

    I’d like to see a breakdown of lesbian, gay, and bisexual voters by sex.

    Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    This seems like it’s in keeping with most recent elections.

    The percentage of LGBTs that vote Republican has remained relatively steady (20-25%) for the last two decades. I think that the only outlier was the 2016 election, in which the percentage dipped slightly below the normal range.

    What’s always surprising is that if you read the LGBT media, or even just mainstream media, you couldn’t be blamed for thinking gay people were 99.9% big-government liberal-left progressives.

    Maybe, but when I checked back this morning to look at the range in previous elections, I searched the Washington Post and New York Times online archives.

    I suspect that if you “couldn’t be blamed for thinking gay people were 99.9% big-government liberal-left progressives” it is because the only accounts you read are accounts from inside the paranoid conservative media bubble.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      You need to stop projecting your own paranoia onto the Regressive Left. I’m sick of hearing about the so-called Southern Strategy when Nixon’s competitor in 1972, George McGovern, went on to do more damage in Congress by enshrining criminally bad dietary advice into government food policy under Jimmy Carter.

      Conservative media is neither paranoid nor a bubble. No, it is bursting the bubble of the Regressive Left. It is they who have created a bubble for themselves in order to keep reality out. Right-wing is called right-wing because it is right and because the left is wrong. Or tell me about how the Soviet Union didn’t collapse, or about how people didn’t flee East Germany for the West Side when the Berlin Wall was up, or how Venezuela and Zimbabwe are economic powerhouses today, or about how many more civil liberties we have in North Korea than the US. Except none of those are true, and the Regressive Left is regressive because it not only refuses to admit that, but it wants to bring that here. The New York Times is also heavily invested in pushing pseudoscientific gay erasure in the name of the cult of jenn-durr, so that makes them a questionable source to begin with.

      Once again, too small a sample size and no breakdown of gay, lesbian, and bi voters by sex makes this data questionable at best. However, it does make me think more women (and by proxy lesbians) would support the GOP if it took an anti-trans pro-gay stance. Donald Trump’s actions have done that so far by demanding the removal of all this jenn-durr crap from government documents and policy while making gay appointments. As long as the Slaveocrat Party supports the cult of jenn-durr, then it remains a clear and present danger to gay rights, gay identity, and gay culture, not to mention women’s rights. This all-or-nothing crap has got to stop because it is putting gay people’s lives and hard-earned accomplishments at risk.

      Reply
  3. posted by JohnInCA on

    Pretty sure the reason to hear more about blue-aligned LGBT folk isn’t because of media conspiracy, but because red-aligned LGBT folk don’t like doing anything in public.

    Look at LCR. They tend to be more active in blue states then red states. And that’s still barely anything. And they’re the best that conservative/Republican LGBT folk have.

    So if it looks, in the media, like conservative gays don’t exist? It’s because they’re often *hiding*.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      The word is gay, you self-loathing quisling. Stop saying el-jibbity. Stop lumping gay people in with breeder sons of bitches LARPing as lesbians.

      “So if it looks, in the media, like conservative gays don’t exist? It’s because they’re often *hiding*.”

      Considering we are constantly subjected to hate speech and death threats for expressing our opinions, does that surprise you?

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Do you ever read anything LCR puts out? They’re RINOs. Somewhere along the line they metastasized into the right flank of the el-jibbity transcult shakedown network. An organization that was truly gay and truly Republican would have more influence in red states.

      Reply
  4. posted by Jorge on

    “Transgender Identification…. Voted Democrat: 58%”

    WhaAAAAT? Are they all late entries like Caitlyn Jenner? Obviously I do not understand the transgender community. Wait, actually that’s their regular complaint about LBTs.

    Pretty sure the reason to hear more about blue-aligned LGBT folk isn’t because of media conspiracy, but because red-aligned LGBT folk don’t like doing anything in public.

    Hmm, it might be the reverse for transgender people. Who knows?

    And they’re the best that conservative/Republican LGBT folk have.

    I disagree. Enough liberal and moderate gay and gay friendly Democrats exist to give political force to our gay-specific interests, while Republicans give force to our non gay-specific interests. The problem only arises when our interests are gay-specific and do not align with the Democratic party. In such situations we either need to stand with or influence the Republican party or strike out on our own.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      BRUCE Jenner was a RINO who turned Slaveocrat to become a foot soldier in the Slaveocrat Party’s War on Men.

      And the two resident LefTrolls continuously prove their bigotry by saying el-jibbity instead of gay, making us seem interchangeable in the minds of the stupid and gullible who, unfortunately, still have the vote.

      Slaveocrats don’t deserve our support. Not after all they’ve done to enable gay erasure. And no, the cult of jenn-durr is not welcome in the GOP. We don’t want you sick, self-loathing self-mutilating freaks and your depraved, misogynistic, and homophobic transpedo agenda dragging the GOP, the gay community, and the rest of society down any more than you already have. We want you out of every aspect of public and private life. You are no more welcome than Nazis or the Klan.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Stop.

        You have engaged in anti-PC offense against the LGBT community.

        Appropriate style when referring to a transgender person during the time they identified as the gender of their birth is to use the name they currently identify as.

        The same is true when referring to an ex-trans during the time they identified as the gender not of their birth.

        I will now punish you. I hand you a yellow LGBT Card.

        Anyway, Mr. Matthew I don’t understand what you’re still doing here after the election. Didn’t your contract with Putin end after the election?

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          “Didn’t your contract with Putin end after the election?”

          Fuck you, you antisemitic wetback. You still have yet to repent for your blasphemy against the Jewish God, much like the ones your ancestors committed against Jews in Spain.

          Reply
          • posted by Jorge on

            Mr. Matthew, I read you the first time, though not the second until today. We are in agreement that verbal retaliation is an appropriate response to a direct attack on one’s religion. I am certain not everyone here agrees.

            I have a better way with words than you do, and you are here on my watch: Consider your own example before making accusations against others that can be returned. Center your accusations against other groups around concrete examples. Give your opinion and accept others’. On occasion, praise what you like about your life and what you like about your fellow posters.

            Well, anyway, it looks like MR Bill thinks you’re not a spy, so I guess I can call myself convinced. How did the election turn out in your state?

        • posted by Matthew on

          El-jibbity is an anti-reality offense against the gay community.

          Reply
          • posted by MR Bill on

            I am skeptical of your apprehension of reality, as reflected in your jargon.

          • posted by Matthew on

            It is condescending to the point of being homophobic to reduce gays to a single letter in an acronym that keeps changing to lump us in with fetishes and perversions that have nothing whatsoever with homosexuality.

  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    A quiet note:

    As I look at additional exit polling data, I am beginning to suspect that the WSJ polling (conducted both before the election and after, according to the WSJ descriptor: “A pre-election and Election Day survey interviewed about 90,000 people who said they voted in the midterms or intended to.”) may be something of an outlier, and the actual percentage of LGBT votes for Republicans was smaller than reported in the WSJ article.

    The reason that I suspect that the WSJ numbers are off norm is that other reputable organizations are reporting exit poll (that is, polls of people who actually voted) percentages that are lower than the WSJ percentages.

    For example, the NBC exit polls record a 17% LGBT vote for Republicans, 82% for Democrats, a result up a few percentage points for Republicans over 2016, but still below the 20%-25% range that was normative in earlier elections. CBS, ABC and CNN’s exit polling show similar numbers, either 17% or 18%.

    I haven’t been able to find any additional polls breaking out transgender votes as a group (the ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC polls don’t break out transgenders as a group), but the WSJ 47% estimate strikes me as high, given the actions taken by the Trump administration. It just seems odd to me that transgender voters would flock to the Republican Party in such numbers. I wonder if the number of transgender voters included in the WSJ poll was too small to accurately reflect the voting percentage.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Thanks for proving your bigotry anew by saying el-jibbity and jenn-durr while refusing to #JustSayGay. Do you hate gay people that much? If you can’t say gay, then you’re not qualified to say anything on gay issues.

      And as for whether mainstream media can be trusted to report any aspect of gay life accurately, the answer is a resounding no. Why? Because they can’t be trusted to tell the truth about anything. NBC “News” enabled too many heterosexual male rapists to be taken seriously (not to mention the network itself hitching its future on one named Bill). C-BS (the name says it all) is so untrustworthy that Michael Mann made a movie about 20 years ago called THE INSIDER about 60 MINUTES lying to its audience. At least its former competitor on Sunday nights, THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY, can admit it deals in fairy tales; I just wish they hadn’t infected ABC, which, thanks to the Food Lion lawsuit, was already proven to be as trustworthy as Pinocchio before Disney bought them out. Camel News Network is a joke; who else would hire a blithering idiot such as Wolf Blitzer or a tool like Christiane Amanpour, or a terrorist apologist like Fareed Zakaria? MSNBC exists because of Bill Gates’ antitrust violations and lowers NBC’s low journalistic standards even further. That leaves Fox News as the least untrustworthy of all the news networks by default. If you have zero tolerance for hyperbole or sensationalism of any kind, then watch CSPAN although that’s only as good as what the contributors put into it at any given time. Years ago, they had a great debate that pitted Andrew Sullivan (when he was still a conservative in some meaningful sense) and pro-life libertarian lesbian Norah Vincent (whatever happened to her?) against gay leftists Richard Golstein and Urvashi Vaid whose attempts to refute them were as weak as the last cup of tea in the bag. Gay TV needs more of that and fewer Andy Cohens.

      There’s also the very high likelihood that separate polls polled separate people along with the equally high likelihood that a gay group is going to actively seek more gay voters and more likely to know where to find them. And at least LCR’s poll has the common courtesy to separate lesbian, gay, and bisexual votes from the bigoted transcult interlopers. I won’t give LCR a dime until they stand up to the transcult and banish it altogether. Spare me your “inclusion wins” crap because if that were true, the GOP would have held the house in addition to the Senate, and Pete Holmberg and Peter Boykin would not have had their respective races in NY and NC stolen from them by cheating breeder Slaveocrats. No election “won” by a Slaveocrat was ever won without widespread institutionalized fraud.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      There’s also the very high likelihood that separate polls polled separate people along with the equally high likelihood that a gay group is going to actively seek more gay voters and more likely to know where to find them.

      Ridiculous. The WSJ poll reports that 6% of the respondents were LGBT, which is the same percentage reported in the ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC polls.

      And at least LCR’s poll …

      The poll was conducted by the WSJ, not LCR. LCR latched on to the poll, probably because it was an outlier, but it did not conduct the poll.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Why should I believe an anti-gay bigot likes you who refuses to use the word gay and subjugates us into an acronym with sick self-mutilating freaks who rape women and children while they erase and appropriate gay culture and identity?

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        There is no such thing as an el-jibbity person. The word is gay. Say it, Krautboy. GAY. Gee-ay-why. GAY.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Why should I believe an anti-gay bigot likes you who refuses to use the word gay and subjugates us into an acronym with sick self-mutilating freaks who rape women and children while they erase and appropriate gay culture and identity?

        You shouldn’t believe me or anyone else. Check the facts. In this case it is easy.

        Statement: ” The WSJ poll reports that 6% of the respondents were LGBT …”

        Fact Check: Look at the graphic Stephen posted: “LGBT Identification – Yes 6% Share”.

        Statement: “The poll was conducted by the WSJ, not LCR. ”

        Fact Check: Look at Angelo’s tweet: “… yesterday’s @WSJ #ElectionDay exit polling …” or click the link that Angelo provided and take a look at the WSJ page reporting the poll.

        Incidentally, if you can rouse yourself to look at the WSJ poll results (requires a mouse click), you’ll find this at the bottom (requires scrolling) of the page:

        The survey is conducted by the NORC at the University of Chicago for the Associated Press and Fox News, with other media organizations subscribing. NORC at the University of Chicago is a nonpartisan research organization.

        Technically, the survey was conducted by NORC, and purchased by the WSJ. It is referred to as the “WSJ poll” because WSJ (and other organizations, such as the AP) paid for it.

        In any event, fact checking in this instance isn’t rocket science. Had you wanted to do a fact check, you could have done it in less time than it took you to write your comment. Or had your little brother (the one who knows how to use a computer, not the other one) do it for you.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          A. I don’t have a brother. If I did, I wouldn’t trust you around him nor any male relatives of mine under 18.

          B. Your sanctimoniousness misses the point as usual.

          C. Anything that claims that gays are less than 10% of the population is lying.

          D. The absence of a breakdown of gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters by sex makes the data incomplete.

          E. Percentages are useless unless you sample how many people you surveyed.

          F. Why should we even care about what the transcult thinks about anything?

          Reply
          • posted by Matthew on

            “E. Percentages are useless unless you mention how many people you surveyed.”

            Correction to the above.

        • posted by Tom Scharbach on

          As usual, you don’t have a clue and/or are too lazy to do the work to answer simple questions.

          C. Anything that claims that gays are less than 10% of the population is lying.

          The WSJ poll reports that 6% of its sample self-identified as “LGBT”. That says nothing — nothing at all — about the percentage of gays in the general population.

          E. Percentages are useless unless you sample how many people you surveyed.

          Follow the link to the WSJ poll results and you will find this statement at the top (no scrolling required): “A pre-election and Election Day survey interviewed about 90,000 people who said they voted in the midterms or intended to.

          “About 90,000 people” were included in the sample, and of that number, 6% (that is, about 5,400) self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.

          Reply
          • posted by Matthew on

            And as usual, you’re projecting your laziness onto me. Your questions are flippant and rooted in false premises, thus they answer themselves.

            90,000 people in a country of over 300,000,000 people is not very big, statistically speaking. I live in a town with more people than that.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            90,000 people in a country of over 300,000,000 people is not very big, statistically speaking.

            In a sample that is not statistically adjusted, that is certainly true. In statistically adjusted polls, the sampling is often much smaller (just a few thousand) and that is adequate.

            As an aside, I’m always a bit taken aback by the fact that the US population is now 300 million. When I was in school, it was about 150 million.

        • posted by Jorge on

          You shouldn’t believe me or anyone else. Check the facts.

          *SIGH!* I wish my subordinates would do that more often.

          B. Your sanctimoniousness misses the point as usual.

          I think Tom’s sanctimoniousness is exactly the point. You certainly like his going high better than when I kick. You actually say things to him.

          Reply
          • posted by Matthew on

            “You certainly like his going high”

            When has he ever done that?

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Not sure which direction this would skew things, but another thing to consider is that as more and more places adopt early and mail-in voting, “exit polls” will become increasingly detached from the electorate as a whole.

      Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        I don’t know, either, but I agree that “exit polls” will become increasingly detached from the electorate as a whole as increasing numbers of voters vote early or by mail.

        From what I’ve been reading, many people who study this think that early voters tended to skew Democratic in this election. Whether that was true in past elections or will be true in future elections I don’t know.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Percentages aside, how anyone can in good conscience vote for the Slaveocrat Party after the synagogue shooting and after the recent San Fernando Valley shooting by a Muslim?

          Reply
          • posted by JohnInCA on

            Clearly the only answer is that they all watched Netflix’s “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” remake and decided to sacrifice a goat and chant “hail Satan” on their way to the polls.

          • posted by Matthew on

            SABRINA is libfem handmaid propaganda. If you were any kind of progressive, you would be supporting #GetTheLOut along with other radical feminists.

  6. posted by MR Bill on

    “Democratic candidates enjoyed strong support from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters nationwide on Tuesday, according to the NBC News Exit Poll. LGBT people made up 6 percent of the electorate in the midterms, and 82 percent of them cast their ballot for their district’s Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, versus 17 percent for their district’s Republican House candidate. The exit poll also found LGBT voters supporting Democratic Senate and gubernatorial candidates in strong numbers.”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      NPCs downplay the number of gay people while pushing transpedo propaganda. Why aren’t you busy calling trannies Uncle Toms and Aunts Jemima for supporting the GOP?

      Allies say gay. Bigots reduce gay people to a single letter in an acronym made up by bigots to lump us in with perverts.

      Reply
  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Percentages aside, how anyone can in good conscience vote for the Slaveocrat Party …

    An interesting question, because so many people vote for Democrats.

    In 2016, for example, President Trump lost the popular vote by about 3 million votes, and in 2018, the popular vote margin in favor of Democrats was about 5 million votes by current reports.

    It sounds like you are among the frustrated.

    I’ve seen a lot of theories about why different demographic groups vote one way or the other, but the theories are often at odds with one another, and are at best speculation, so the question remains an open one in my mind.

    However, since you mention the synagogue shooting, I would like comment on Jewish voting patterns.

    Jews have voted heavily for Democrats (ranging from 70% to 85%) for many, many election cycles, dating back to the time of Al Smith.

    The standard conservative explanation for the consistent disparity in favor of Democrats was recently expressed by Pete Cohon (an American expatriate living in Tel Aviv) in an article in The American Thinker, “Why do American Jews vote for Democrats?

    Cohon’s theory posits that American Jews have an emotional attachment to left-liberal politics, dating back about a century, an attachment that has grown to the point where “Voting Democrat became a part of Jewish culture in America”.

    As time went by and the community became less religious, “progressive” politics replaced Judaism and God. Their new gods (idols, really) became Democrat leaders, and their new religion became progressivism. Emotionally, the community is still right where it was back in 1911, despite the fact that America has changed and the Democrats have really changed. Most of the Jewish community is now so identified with progressivism that 70 percent of American Jews now vote for Democrats. To do that, they have to deny the Democrats’ Jew-hate and Israel-hate, and so they do. Like all humans, they see what they want to see and ignore that which they don’t want to see.

    That’s why, if you ask a Jewish Democrat how he feels about the Jew-hate in the Democratic Party, he will probably scream insults at you but never touch the subject you brought up. (That’s happened to me numerous times.) These Jews just can’t let anything disturb the comfortable delusion that they inherited from their parents and grandparents that the Democrats are for the little guy, especially the Jews.

    But times have changed, and they are wrong. Today, the big issue is the survival of Israel, and it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are on our side.

    You seem to agree with Cohon along these lines (“The Reform and Reconstructionist movements are also hotbeds of anti-Israel sellouts who are usually the first to sell the Jews out to the Slaveocrat Party in order to appease the racist goyim.” – Comment 300257, “Embracing Hate Isn’t a Good Idea”, by Stephen H. Miller on October 22, 2018), so I’d like to take a closer look at that line of thought.

    I think that there is a grain (but no more) of truth in Cohon’s “emotional attachment” theory, but I don’t think that Cohon’s theory explains what is happening, or why.

    I think that Jewish preference for Democrats has much more to do with two other factors, both of which have to do with the present rather than the past:

    (1) Many American Jews believe that the Democratic Party’s positions on social justice issues align much more closely with Jewish ethical teachings and traditions than do the Republican Party’s positions on those issues.

    (2) Many Jews view the social conservative wing of the modern Republican Party (epitomized by Pat Buchanan’s loud polemics and the conservative Christian treatment of Israelis as pawns in their visions of End Times) as antithetical to Jewish self-interest.

    Balanced against those factors, however, is the issue of Israel, and that seems to me to be the divider in terms of political affiliation.

    The survival of Israel is an important issue for American Jews, but Jews of different religious traditions exhibit marked differences in approach, and vote accordingly.

    A large number of Conservative and Reform Jews think that the policies of the Netanyahu government are wrongheaded, endangering the survival of Israel in the long run, and reject the Republican argument that any deviation from support for the Netanyahu government’s policies is anti-Israeli. Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, tend to agree with the Netanyahu government and Republicans.

    The two blocs vote differently. According to the Pew Center’s 2013 analysis (“A Portrait of American Jews”, Pew Research Center, October 1, 2013), Conservative (73%) and Reform Jews (83%) tend to vote Democratic, while Orthodox Jews (57%) are more likely to vote Republican. Differing views on American policy toward Israel, and Israeli policy itself, seem to be largely responsible.

    As to Cohon’s claim that “less religious” (meaning, presumably, Conservative and Reform Jews, as well as the 30% of American Jews who are secular) Jews in our country have made “progressivism” their new religion, that’s bunk, a Jewish version of “When Progressive Politics Becomes Your Religion”, by Stephen H. Miller on October 12, 2018. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see a right-wing expat leveling that nonsense against other Jews, but it does surprise me and disgust me.

    … after the synagogue shooting …

    I can’t imagine why you think that the massacre in Pittsburgh would (or should) turn American Jews toward the Republican Party, given the facts that have emerged about the shooting.

    The massacre was carried out by a rabidly anti-Semitic man who appears (almost certainly, in fact) to have been provoked from words to action by twisted fear of the hyped-up “national emergency” posed by “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners invading our country”.

    The “national emergency” was an election ploy cooked up out of wholecloth by President Trump, intended to whip up the anti-immigrant Republican base. The “national emergency” has no (and has never had) any basis in reality.

    That the killer was goaded into action by the hype was undoubtedly an unintended result, but a result nonetheless. The President’s “national emergency” hype was unnecessary polemic that led to an unintended tragedy.

    Why would that cause any Jew not already aligned with the Republican Party to look favorably on the Republican Party?

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      I think that there is a grain (but no more) of truth in Cohon’s “emotional attachment” theory, but I don’t think that Cohon’s theory explains what is happening, or why.

      I think that Jewish preference for Democrats has much more to do with two other factors, both of which have to do with the present rather than the past

      Yes, I think “two other factors in the present feeds longstanding emotional attachments” explains much about why X traditionally Democratic (or Republican) constituency sticks with their party. The absence of this condition creates the condition necessary for conversion. I am constantly frustrated by the stubborn ignorance of people who refuse to see more than one of these simple facts.

      Oh, and now that I read them, you could probably mirror the themes of both your arguments into the reasons why African Americans and G, L, B, and Ts, heavily skew Democratic. There is a primary concern that is met by Democrats–ignore it at your peril. Each group’s right-wing positions are a secondary concern, better met by concessions from Democrats than by insincere vote-grabbing alliances from Republicans who otherwise speak (not merely act) against the group’s primary interests. Since Hispanics are not unified on whether the left- (racism, economy) or right- (social conservatism, public safety) issues are primary or secondary concerns, we are not unified on how strongly we vote Democratic.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        I’ve noticed that any culture that is predominantly Catholic is overrun with toxic jenn-durrism and the accompanying homophobia and sexism it entails.

        Only traitors and terrorists vote for the Slaveocrat Party. There is no reason for the gay community or the Jews to continue to support them. If Donald Trump and Mike Pence both converted to Judaism and American Jews still won’t support them, then that’s proof they care more about the Slaveocrat Party than upholding the Jewish God’s laws as stated in the Torah He gave us. Frankly, Israel has given the goyim more leeway than they deserve. As Jews, we are forced to tolerate other religions because we are demographically outnumbered, just as gays are blackmailed into tolerating the hetero oppressor class and their transcult enablers in order to be tolerated at all for similar reasons. It still is a form of blackmail. It is still more than gays can afford in the long run.

        And as I have said before, Oscumba stabbed not only Israel in the back with the Iran deal, but the gay community as well. Only terrorists and traitors support making a deal with a country where homosexuality is a capital crime. It is time for Jews and gays to #WalkAway from the Slaveocrat Party. The United States literally cannot afford another generation of their corruption, treason, and just plain incompetence.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Oh, and now that I read them, you could probably mirror the themes of both your arguments into the reasons why African Americans and G, L, B, and Ts, heavily skew Democratic.

      I think you are right, but with nuances.

      Gays and lesbians may be developing an emotional attachment to the Democratic Party, but I don’t think that it is as fully developed as the emotional attachment of American Jews, which is strong.

      After all, it wasn’t all that long ago (30-odd years) that either party could have drawn in gays and lesbians by supporting “equal means equal”.

      The Democrats, however haltingly, moved in that direction and now support “equal means equal”.

      The Republicans moved in the other direction after the 1992 Republican Convention, when the party firmly aligned itself with the anti-equality instincts/positions of conservative Christians, as expressed at that convention by Pat Buchanan. Within a decade, the Republican Party was sponsoring the anti-marriage amendments, and that pretty much cooked them with the majority of gays and lesbians, I suspect.

      So I don’t know about the strength of an emotional attachment to the Democratic Party, but I do think that a lot of gays and lesbians have a visceral emotional rejection of the Republican Party at this point. I know I do and most of my gay/lesbian friends seem to as well.

      I can’t speak to the experience of African-Americans. My grandmother was a mulatto, but I was raised as white and I’ve always thought of myself that way, so my experience with African-American concerns is second-hand experience, gained through knowing and working in politics with African-Americans during the 25 years I spent on the South Side of Chicago. That’s where I got to know Carol Moseley Braun, Al Raby, Valerie Jarrett, Tony Preckwinkle, President Obama and quite a few others from that period who influenced my thinking. But I don’t claim to have shared the African-American experience. The best I can say is that I listened and I hope that I learned.

      As I see things, the history of African-American attachment to the Democratic Party seems to follow a somewhat similar trajectory to the trajectory of gay/lesbian political attachment/rejection.

      Democrats began championing African-American concerns (think Hubert Humphrey) during the 1950’s, Democrats (think JFK and LBJ) were largely responsible for the Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s, and Democrats have been more or less responsive to African-American concerns since then.

      After Republicans executed the “Southern Strategy” and the worst of the Dixiecrats (think Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms) migrated over to the Republican Party, I think that African-American opposition to the Republican Party was more or less set in stone, at least for the generation of African-Americans who are my age.

      it isn’t helping that the most common conservative explanations (“plantation politics” and so on) come down, basically, to “African-Americans are stupid.”

      President Trump isn’t helping in that regard. According to Michael Cohen, President Trump opinied that “Black people are too stupid to vote for me.” And he seems to heap the “stupid” label on African-Americans (Maxine Waters and Don Lemon come to mind as particular objects of his contempt, and this week he managed a trifecta of Abby Phillip, April Ryan and Yamiche Alcindor, all respected journalists) with even more enthusiasm than he heaps the label on other groups that draw his ire.

      And, of course, the more or less open attempts to suppress African-American voters in the Southern states (think Georgia) in recent years isn’t doing anything to win African-Americans over to the Republican Party. African-Americans put blood on the ground to win the right to vote in Southern states, and Republican voter suppression efforts have really pissed them off by all accounts.

      There is a primary concern that is met by Democrats – ignore it at your peril. Each group’s right-wing positions are a secondary concern, better met by concessions from Democrats than by insincere vote-grabbing alliances from Republicans who otherwise speak (not merely act) against the group’s primary interests.

      I agree with you whole-heartedly.

      In recent elections, African-American support for Democrats has held steady in the 85-90% range, and gay/lesbian support for Democrats has held steady in the 75-80% range, and both groups have been voting in high numbers.

      I don’t see that changing any time soon unless Democrats ignore the concerns of those groups going forward. If Democrats do that, well, I think that we will watch the support drain away. It won’t be that African-Americans and gays/lesbians switch allegiance, but that they won’t show up in the high numbers that they’ve been showing up at the polls in recent elections, and that might lower the Democratic vote enough to allow Republicans to win.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “The Republicans moved in the other direction after the 1992 Republican Convention, when the party firmly aligned itself with the anti-equality instincts/positions of conservative Christians, as expressed at that convention by Pat Buchanan. Within a decade, the Republican Party was sponsoring the anti-marriage amendments, and that pretty much cooked them with the majority of gays and lesbians, I suspect.”

        So they voted for a different form of gay erasure instead by supporting the Slaveocrats and demanding unquestioning party loyalty even after Bill Clinton sold us out with DOMA and DADT while PIV-raping women other than his wife. And if white gay Regressive Leftist men would rather support transcultists than radical feminists, lesbians, and gay Republicans, then that proves that you’re the ones who are self-hating, not us.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Meanwhile, back in the real world, black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades.

        You disgust me. You really fucking disgust me. It makes me sick the way you think you can use the Jews and other minorities in order to support your own totalitarian end. I’m from the South. You know NOTHING about black people. Nothing.

        “(1) Many American Jews believe that the Democratic Party’s positions on social justice issues align much more closely with Jewish ethical teachings and traditions than do the Republican Party’s positions on those issues. ”

        Then they would be wrong, considering the Slaveocrat Party and the Regressive Left’s enabling of, if not outright support for, Pale-Swine-Nazi terrorism. You even started putting these pseudo-people in Congress!

        Some of the most homophobic teachings I ever got growing up were from my father, who is a Jew and a Democrat. The only gay sex education I ever got from him was “exit only,” and this is from an alleged man of science.

        Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        So I don’t know about the strength of an emotional attachment to the Democratic Party, but I do think that a lot of gays and lesbians have a visceral emotional rejection of the Republican Party at this point.

        Oh…

        it isn’t helping that the most common conservative explanations (“plantation politics” and so on) come down, basically, to “African-Americans are stupid.”

        President Trump isn’t helping in that regard. According to Michael Cohen, President Trump opinied that “Black people are too stupid to vote for me.” And he seems to heap the “stupid” label on African-Americans (Maxine Waters and Don Lemon come to mind as particular objects of his contempt, and this week he managed a trifecta of Abby Phillip, April Ryan and Yamiche Alcindor, all respected journalists) with even more enthusiasm than he heaps the label on other groups that draw his ire.

        And, of course, the more or less open attempts to suppress African-American voters in the Southern states (think Georgia) in recent years isn’t doing anything to win African-Americans over to the Republican Party. African-Americans put blood on the ground to win the right to vote in Southern states, and Republican voter suppression efforts have really pissed them off by all accounts.

        Almost all of which makes me come to the conclusion that it’s hard to develop a social value of anti-racism when the only credible source for it is the personal self-reflection of non-blacks on the experiences of blacks from 50-70 years ago. It took me a good 15 minutes to say this diplomatically. But the truth is it costs me far less to live in a shifting racial discomfort than it does for me to live in racial conflict. I want to win, of course, but I believe cannot do that without also losing at least some of the time.

        It’s a very hard thing: in order to win minority votes, you have to lie to them and refrain from telling them what you think, while you have to listen to them tell you what they think, and you have to play that game long enough to somehow cultivate a certain degree of trust and tolerance from the minority group, without blindsiding them. I think George W. Bush did a good enough job while he was the leader of the Republican party, but that wasn’t for long enough. Getting to a state of principled power-sharing with sincerity takes decades of institutional practice and investment–it’s one reason I like older Democrats much more than I like younger Democrats.

        Yes, Democrats are much better at this than Republicans. It’s not a lock, though. Democrats are better at color-conscious outreach and advocacy toward minorities, Republicans better at colorblind outreach and advocacy toward minorities.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          “Color-conscious outreach” is more white Regressive Leftist paternalism that demonstrates exactly what George W. Bush meant by “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

          Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Anti-zionist “Jews” are JINOs.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      A kraut like you has no business telling Jews who to vote for.

      The synagogue shooter was a Trump hater while the San Fernando shooter was a Muslim. If you can’t see that goyism is the root cause of terrorism, then you’re just another a terrorist enabler. JINOs projecting their own hatred of their own people onto Trump, along with decades of racist, antisemitic, and xenophobic hate speech against Israel (and by proxy the Jews) by the Regressive Left is directly responsible for these violent rampages by cracker breeder goy thugs. And Alec Baldwin is cut from the exact same cloth as both of them. He made Don Lemon’s point about white male terrorism all about himself, but Don should have qualified it by calling it “white heterosexual gentile male terrorism” because that’s what he REALLY means and you know it. Goyism is immoral.

      There is no effort to suppress the African-American vote by the GOP. That’s a Slaveocrat lie made up to disguise their institutionalized voter fraud. They’re the ones who gerrymandered California to a Slaveocrat monopoly. They and they alone are to blame for the crumbling infrastructure and obscenely inflated cost of living that is making employed people homeless!

      If it wasn’t for the GOP, we’d still have slavery and segregation in this country, and it would probably be a third-world country. Not one election “won” by a Slaveocrat was won fairly. They all cheated, from Oscumba all the way down the line. Even John F. Kennedy needed a little help from the Mafia friends of his rum-running Jew-hating father to get “elected” President. The Southern Strategy is just more Slaveocrat scaremongering to project their own prejudices onto the right. The Slaveocrats haven’t changed and they never will. You were traitors and terrorists then and you are traitors and terrorists now. Your 1/16th black blood does not trump the fact that one half of my family is Ashkenazi Jews. You’re whiter than I am! And since you helped enable Oscumba, the blood of every woman assaulted in a bathroom by a tr*ns-identified male is on your hands, not to mention the blood of every gay man killed by the Iranian government. And it isn’t period blood because, in the words of a man named Alice Cooper, only women bleed.

      Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Tom: The massacre was carried out by a rabidly anti-Semitic man who appears (almost certainly, in fact) to have been provoked from words to action by twisted fear of the hyped-up “national emergency” posed by “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners invading our country”.

        Matthew: The synagogue shooter was a Trump hater …

        The latter does not contradict the former or excuse the President’s recklessness.

        As an aside, the White House (and Republicans in general) seem to have gone silent about the “national emergency” since the election. Some “national emergency”.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Recklessness? Slaveocrats have been enabling any and all kinds of treason and bigotry in this country since at least as far back as they and they alone started a treasonous war of terrorism to own their black superiors as slaves. Then they banned cannabis despite a Republican NYC mayor proving anti-pot propaganda was and is total BS. And your beloved FDR cared more about interning Japanese-Americans than saving the lives of European Jews and homosexuals. And since the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, they tried to sell the West down the river in both the Cold War and the War on Terrorism. And it was Bill Clinton who signed both DOMA and DADT into law, bragged about it on Christian radio, and blamed everyone but himself. “The Devil made me do it” may have been funny on THE FLIP WILSON SHOW, but pulling that excuse in real life makes you look childish and irresponsible. Like a typical white heterosexual gentile male leftist.

          Reply
  8. posted by Jim Michaud on

    Hey Matthew, Stephen put “LGBT” in the freaking headline of this article. Bother him for a while. Why do you bother coming here anyway? You’re barely in control of yourself with each comment you make and appear to have more issues than a Times Square newsstand. You must be fun at parties. Get help. Seriously, dude.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Hey, Jim, shut the fuck up with your ableist hate speech. Why do YOU bother coming here when all you want to do is troll like every Regressive Left traitor and terrorist enabler everywhere on Earth does everywhere you are allowed to pollute the Internet with your vile bile. This is a gay conservative site, or at least it was during its inception in the early 2000s. We don’t need any more Regressive Left ghetto trash scum dragging the rest of us down to your level.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      I have condemned EVERYONE who refuses to #JustSayGay. There is literally no means of contact for this site other than social media and this, and I have condemned it and I will continue to condemn it, especially when it comes from an ableist bigot like you. “Get help” is not a helpful phrase; it reveals you to be little more than a Big Pharma shill.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        Everyone except Trump, that is. You refuse to apply your ridiculous standard to him for some reason that certainly has nothing to do with partisan politics.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Then set an example and #JustSayGay and demand everyone else do the same or you’re an enabler.

          Reply
          • posted by JohnInCA on

            Again, per your own ridiculous standard, you are now an “enabler” yourself because you don’t demand that Trump just says “gay”.

            And again, I do not accept your ridiculous standard, and do, in fact, refute it.

          • posted by Matthew on

            You first, quisling. You refuse to say gay, so you have no business holding Trump to a standard you yourself have failed to live up to.

  9. posted by Barryhed on

    Hy there, Look what we arrange looking in place of you! an well-connectedoffers
    Rightful click

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OUthG_KFmFuNbn7EJyXogEMXUeSKENuR/preview

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      FUCK OFF WITH THAT PIV-RAPE PROPAGANDA, YOU DIRTY BREEDER PIGS! HETEROSEXUALITY IS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN! BREEDER SCUM LIKE YOU ARE WHO HITLER SHOULD HAVE KILLED INSTEAD OF GAY PEOPLE!

      Reply
      • posted by Jim Michaud on

        Thanks for confirming my comments. And in a timely manner too, how thoughtful. Be sure to wipe the spittle from your keyboard.

        Reply
        • posted by Matthew on

          Shut up, you breeder-loving Uncle Tom quisling traitor. HeteroRAPEuality is a choice, a sin, and an excuse bigots make to commit PIV-rapes against women while cockblocking gay men. There’s no such thing as gay rape and no such thing as consensual breeder sex.

          Reply
  10. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades.

    If true, that isn’t showing up in votes. The WSJ exit poll linked to this post reflects a 90-8% African-American preference for Democrats. The ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC exit polls agree.

    That’s not statistically different that exit polls from prior elections:

    2018 – 90% D – 8% R
    2016 – 89% D – 8% R
    2012 – 93% D – 6% R
    2008 – 95% D – 4% R
    2004 – 88% D – 11% R
    2000 – 89% D – 10% R

    With the exception of 2008 and 2012, when an African-American (or Kenyan, I guess, depending on whether or not you believe the world is flat) was on the ballot for President, the percentages are more or less constant — about 90% Democrat — and mirror this year’s voting pattern.

    You have to go back a long time to find a significant difference in voting pattern among African-Americans.

    So what’s the evidence that African-American voting patterns are changing in any significant way?

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      No, that just proves the Slaveocrat Party has been getting more aggressive with its voter fraud after they almost got away with stealing the 2000 US Presidential election from George W. Bush.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Not to mention the Slaveocrat Party gerrymandering that enables them to do it.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Or, to put it another way, there isn’t any evidence that “black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades”.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Shcarbach on

      Fake news from an anti-GOP propaganda agency.

      Or, to put it another way, there isn’t any evidence that “black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades”.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Or to put it another way, the real way, Slaveocrats are willing to lie, cheat, steal and kill to continue to enslave black people under Socialist ponzi schemes.

        And between Alec Baldwin, Michael Avenatti, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, and the San Fernando shooter, the problem is not the GOP. The problem is anti-GOP white men.

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Or to put it another way, the real way, Slaveocrats are willing to lie, cheat, steal and kill to continue to enslave black people under Socialist ponzi schemes.

      Once again, you don’t present any evidence to back up your claim that “black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades”. I’m not surprised.

      Reply
  11. posted by David Bauler on

    The MODERN DAY Republican Party has nothing to offer voters who believe in civil rights.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      The modern-day “civil rights” movement is nothing but a network of shakedown organizations.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Who cares about the so-called civil rights of the oppressor classes? Who cares about the so-called freedom of a press that has lied through its teeth time and time again?

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      The Slaveocrat Party has never had anything to offer gay men and lesbians who don’t hate ourselves, and they never will. Likewise across the pond under a woman PM, the Labour Party in the UK is revealing its misogyny for all the world to see.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Freedom from Islam (and all forms of goyism), freedom from the transcult and the associated cult of PIV-rape (and all forms of sexual perversion of the gay and lesbian norm), and freedom from white male terrorists such as Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Michael Avenatti are civil rights.

      Reply
  12. posted by Matthew on

    The Slaveocrat Party: pro-slavery then, pro-slavery now. My oh my what a wonderful day it will be when you realize that.

    Reply
  13. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I’m from the South. You know NOTHING about black people. Nothing.

    As I said in another comment, my experience with African-Americans comes from a couple decades of political work on the South Side of Chicago. My only exposure to African-Americans from other areas of the country comes from serving with African-Americans, some from the South and others from everywhere else, in the military.

    Your 1/16th black blood …

    I was raised as white and consider myself white, with some African ancestry.

    My American ancestors lived in Minnesota and Wisconsin after immigrating in the 1830’s to 1850’s. None lived in the Southern states to my knowledge. So I don’t lay claim to sharing the Southern experience from either side of the color line.

    You’re whiter than I am!

    I don’t doubt that.

    As you know from my comments to an earlier thread, my genetic makeup links to the Balkins, Eastern Europe (presumably Ashkenazi), North Africa (presumably Sephardi), Nigeria and Scandanavia. Pretty much the standard, garden-variety American genetic melting pot.

    You’ve said that your father was a Jew and half your genetic background is Ashkenazi. What about the other half? Is your mother of Beta Israel, or is your maternal ancestry more typically African-American?

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      My mother converted to Judaism to marry my father. For all intents and purposes, she is a Jew. Deny that, and you are an antisemite. Deny the godhood of the Jewish God, and you are also an antisemite. Deny the right of Israel to do what it wants to fight the evils of goyism, and you enable those evils.

      “As I said in another comment, my experience with African-Americans comes from a couple decades of political work on the South Side of Chicago. My only exposure to African-Americans from other areas of the country comes from serving with African-Americans, some from the South and others from everywhere else, in the military. ”

      And yet you still managed to get absolutely everything spectacularly wrong.

      “I was raised as white and consider myself white, with some African ancestry. My American ancestors lived in Minnesota and Wisconsin after immigrating in the 1830’s to 1850’s. None lived in the Southern states to my knowledge. So I don’t lay claim to sharing the Southern experience from either side of the color line.”

      So you’re a Yankee and a honky. Figures a yammering little Kraut like you would cling to your white privilege at all costs. And as someone who dated a soldier and can tell you flat out that the removal of the DADT that Bill Clinton proudly signed into law changed nothing, you’re a disgrace to your uniform if you vote for any party other than the GOP.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      My mother converted to Judaism to marry my father. For all intents and purposes, she is a Jew.

      Upon conversion, your mother became a Jew. There is no “for all intents and purposes” about it. There is no asterisk by her name.

      You are a Jew because she is a Jew and you were born of a Jew. You have Ashkenazi ancestry through your father, but had your mother not been a Jew, you would not be a Jew by birth and would have had to convert to become a Jew.

      I gather that since your mother converted, she is not of Beta Israel, and your maternal ancestry is African-American.

      And as someone who dated a soldier … you’re a disgrace to your uniform.

      I served. You didn’t. I put my blood on the ground. You didn’t. I carry the marks of service on my body. You don’t.

      You have no business calling any veteran “a disgrace to your uniform”. If you want to judge veterans as veterans, then serve, become one and earn the right. Otherwise you are just another paper patriot shooting your mouth off.

      So you’re a Yankee …

      Yup. All four of my great-grandfathers served in the Civil War from Minnesota or Wisconsin regiments, and the three that were still alive joined General Sherman on the “March to the Sea”. Without them and hundreds of thousands like them, you’d be a slave. So look down your nose at “Yankees” all you want. Its your right as a freeman.

      … and a honky.

      That too.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “I gather that since your mother converted, she is not of Beta Israel, and your maternal ancestry is African-American. ”

        Who said my mother is black? You said that, I didn’t. I said that I reject any identification of Ashkenazi Jews with the white race on the grounds that their actions against Jews make their very existence beyond the pale.

        “I served. You didn’t. I put my blood on the ground. You didn’t. I carry the marks of service on my body. You don’t. ”

        You’re a babykiller. I’m not. You have blood on your hands. I don’t. You spilled the blood of people of color. I haven’t.

        “Without them and hundreds of thousands like them, you’d be a slave. ”

        There were slaves who were set free before the war and you know it, Krautboy. Meanwhile, the Civil War of Northern Republican Gallantry and Bravery against White Heterosexual Gentile Democrat Treason in the name of the Enslavement of the Superior Black Race did nothing to free black slaves in Indian territory. Only taking over their land did that. Manifest Destiny is for gays, Jews, and black people ONLY and is absolute and universal. That means the whole world belongs to us and not you, Krautboy. You’re white and not Jewish so you’re privileged over gays who are, so stop thinking you have the right to dictate to the rest of us how to vote like a typical Kraut fascist.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “You have no business calling any veteran “a disgrace to your uniform”. If you want to judge veterans as veterans, then serve, become one and earn the right. Otherwise you are just another paper patriot shooting your mouth off.”

        There’s that Kraut fascism goose-stepping its way up to the surface again after all your tediously pedantic and sanctimoniously stupid attempts to suppress it with Slaveocrat propaganda. Saying you can’t criticize soldiers unless you are one is basically fascism. Why don’t you just fucking be honest with yourself and others and admit it, you fucking Nazi kraut piece of shit?

        Reply
  14. posted by David Bauler on

    Hnmm

    Reply
  15. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    First: I presented plenty of evidence and you discarded it because it doesn’t fit your prejudices, you smarmy little Kraut.

    Then, a few minutes later: Nice try, Krautboy: citing a CNN article titled: “Trump has gained among black voters since the 2016 election”, dated August 18, 2018.

    And then, a few minutes after that: Krautboy is still a racist trying to keep blacks enslaved on the Slaveocrat plantation. citing a National Review article titled “President of All the People”, also dated August 17, 2018, citing the Rassmussen Tracking Poll showing that 36% of African-Americans approved of President Trump’s job performance, one of many similar articles touting the poll last summer.

    So finally, after a lot of goading, you come up with the evidence that you relied upon to support your statement that “black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades”.

    It is about time.

    I’m glad you cited the CNN article “Trump has gained among black voters since the 2016 election” because it takes a look at the Rassmussen poll and all the conservative hype that surrounded it, comparing it to other polls of the time.

    Let me quote from that article:

    Poll of the week: A new Quinnipiac University poll finds that President Donald Trump’s approval rating is 41%, with a disapproval rating of 54%. That’s largely consistent with live-interview national polling taken the last few months.

    When you break it down by race, Trump’s approval rating is 9% among black voters [emphasis mine]. His disapproval rating is 85% among them.

    What’s the point: There is another poll out in which more than 30% of black voters supposedly approve of Trump’s job performance. Trump’s biggest fans have trumpeted this poll as a sign that he is breaking through with African-Americans. The problem is the poll is almost certainly incorrect.

    The CNN article then goes on to look at other polls showing much lower percentages of support among African-Americans, concluding:

    It just seems that for whatever reason the President has picked up a small, but statistically significant, amount of support among African-Americans. The fact that he has done so while losing support among all other racial groups makes it that much more impressive.

    But then the article looks forward to the mid-term elections:

    Could it be that some African-Americans are saying they approve of the President but they won’t end up voting Republican in an election? Of course. Additionally, many black voters undecided on Trump may go with the Democrats in the end.

    And that, of course, seems to be what happened. African-Americans voted along historic lines in the mid-terms (actually below the historic trend line of 10-12%), despite the “small, but statistically significant” increase in African-American support for President Trump:

    2018 – 90% D – 8% R
    2016 – 89% D – 8% R
    2012 – 93% D – 6% R
    2008 – 95% D – 4% R
    2004 – 88% D – 11% R
    2000 – 89% D – 10% R

    In other words, the “small, but statistically significant” increase in support for President Trump (that is, from 8% in the 2016 election to 9% in the polls taken last summer), wasn’t reflected in how African-Americans actually voted in the mid-terms (8%). Nothing changed.

    I think that it is important to remember the initial exchange in this comment line:

    Matthew: Meanwhile, back in the real world, black support for Republicans is going up for the first time in decades.

    Tom: If true, that isn’t showing up in votes. The WSJ exit poll linked to this post reflects a 90-8% African-American preference for Democrats. The ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC exit polls agree.

    And that’s correct. Summer polling suggested a “small, but statistically significant” increase in support for President Trump (that is, 1% from 8% to 9%) but that increase didn’t show up in votes. The increase in “real world, black support for Republicans” didn’t actualize.

    It might, at some point, in the future. I won’t be at all surprised to see African-American voting patterns to return to the 10-12% range that President Bush enjoyed. But it hasn’t yet.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Anything that paints the Slaveocrat party in a positive light is by definition fake news, and any election not won by Republicans was stolen. You know it, I know it, so stop relying on falsified statistics to keep your happy darkies enslaved on the Slaveocrat Plantation, you fucking Kraut fascist piece of shit. Some of the biggest antisemites and homophobes I’ve ever met have been hetero black gentile Slaveocrats. And don’t forget about Amendment One in NC and Prop 8 in CA which got a majority of black supporters. You expect me to believe all of them were Republicans? If that’s the case, then that proves your statistics are a filthy lie like every single solitary that comes out of a Slaveocrat’s mouth about any given subject.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      The Slaveocrat Party is to blame for homophobia and don’t you fucking deny it, Krautboy. Don’t think Oscumba is ever getting off the hook for Donnie McClurkin and “God is in the mix” either, especially after he pardoned that lesbian-hating babykilling male traitor Bradley Manning.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Pro-GOP sources are the only trustworthy sources for anything anymore. Except for jenn-durr critical radical lesbian feminists, who were nicer to me when I came out than other gay men other than gay conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians.

      Reply
  16. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Pro-GOP sources are the only trustworthy sources for anything anymore.

    If you think that’s the case, you might want to stop linking to articles like “Trump has gained among black voters since the 2016 election”.

    Even a whiff of fact-based, objective rationality undermines your whole shtick.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      I’m not the one peddling shtick. I am correcting your lies. And you’re the one who’s being irrational in addition to outright lies in the defense of terrorists and traitors. And you know nothing about black people outside of a very narrow circle of shakedown activists whose livelihood would disappear tomorrow if racism disappeared today.

      Reply
  17. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Who said my mother is black? You said that, I didn’t. I said that I reject any identification of Ashkenazi Jews with the white race on the grounds that their actions against Jews make their very existence beyond the pale.

    So you consider yourself black because you are one-half Ashkenazi Jewish?

    That’s interesting.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      I never said I was black. You just assumed from my disdain of whites and my ability to acknowledge white inferiority to blacks that I was black. Nope, Ashkenazi Jews are neither white nor black. We are pink- and olive-skinned and resent being lumped in with the race that tried to kill us time and time again.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I never said I was black. You just assumed …

      That’s true. I did assume. So when you say things like “Only black Jewish gay Republicans should be allowed to vote …” you intend to disenfranchise yourself? I would not have guessed that.

      In any event, your explanation that you are not African-American explains comments like “Your 1/16th black blood does not trump the fact that one half of my family is Ashkenazi Jews. You’re whiter than I am!” which baffled me.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        Why should the Jewish people identify with a race that both hates us yet parasitically claims them as part of their race when they want to falsely claim our achievements as theirs?

        Reply
  18. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Except for jenn-durr critical radical lesbian feminists, who were nicer to me when I came out than other gay men other than gay conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians.

    Is that why you style yourself “RadFemGayMan” over on reddit? What caused you to start using “Matthew” here?

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Now you’re stalking me. Thanks for confessing to a crime. Shouldn’t you be busy harassing 37% of trannies for being Republicans?

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I came upon your Reddit “RadFemGayMan” personna shortly after you started posting on IGF. I was trying to figure out what “el-jibbity” meant, so I did a search on that term.

      I figured out that “el-jibbity” was a personal politically correct avoidance of the term “LGBT” (apparently used by you and you alone) could not help but notice the equivalence of the linguistic formulas used by “Matthew” on IGF and “RadFemGayMan” on.

      I read some (most) of “RadFemGayMan’s” comments in a number of subreddits, and decided, based on what I read, decided that you were not a Troll, and began to engage you on IGF rather than ignore you.

      Obviously, your postings here and your postings on Reddit are not identical.

      Reddit communities are moderated and members of most subreddits are required to observe the rules of Rediquette and conform to “basic human decency”, generally avoiding “racism, anti-semitism, Eurocentrism, ageism, ableism and generally denigrating the mentally ill” (to quote the rules of one of the subreddits in which you have participated). Accordingly, your comments on Reddit are much more tempered than your comments are on IGF.

      Another difference I noted is that your Reddit comments criticize Republicans like Orrin Hatch and others, while on IGF you don’t to that, focusing your attacks on Democrats. On Reddit you don’t discuss race (at least in the postings I ran across), let alone appear to fixated on the reverse-WI obsession with a “Master Race”, but your obsession with race comes across clearly on IGF. On Reddit you don’t engage in personal harassment, such as calling Jorge an “antisemitic wetback”, while on IGF that type of racial/ethnic harassment is standard fare. On Reddit, your comments are not Judio-centric, while on IGF they are. And on Reddit, you don’t make wild statements like “Only black Jewish gay Republicans should be allowed to vote …”, while those kinds of statements are as common as dirt in your IGF postings.

      IGF is not moderated, and is more free-ranging than Reddit, so that probably explains the differences.

      While I found your Reddit comments useful for the purpose of deciding whether or not you were a Troll, I’ve not followed any of the subreddits I ran across. I’m just not that interested in your formulaic opinions and word-avoidance.

      I can continue to try to engage you on IGF, commenting on those parts of your comments that raise substantive issues, or I can do what others are doing, dismiss you as a Troll, and ignore you. The choice is yours. Tell me to ignore you, and I will be happy to do so. I probably should, in any event, because a lot of others seem to think that is the wisest course.

      BTW, you might want to investigate the legal definition of “stalking”. In most states, stalking laws pertain to a clear pattern of conduct in which the offender follows, harasses, or threatens another person, putting that person in fear for his or her safety. The definition does not apply in this case.

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “I’m just not that interested in your formulaic opinions and word-avoidance.”

        You’re interested in it enough in order to stalk me. Is there no depth to which the white left will not stoop?

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “In most states, stalking laws pertain to a clear pattern of conduct in which the offender follows, harasses, or threatens another person, putting that person in fear for his or her safety.”

        Since doxxing is usually the next step, I have good reason to fear for my safety. Happy now, you filthy Kraut parasite? You are no Master Race, and your ancestors who fought for the Union would be ashamed to know you were now supporting the party of the Confederacy.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        You care more about stalking and harassment to support the Slaveocrat Party’s totalitarian means and ends than learning about violence against women and gay erasure at the hands of the transcult. You really are a bigot and a troll, and I can’t wait until we live in a Slaveocrat-free world.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        “Another difference I noted is that your Reddit comments criticize Republicans like Orrin Hatch and others”

        That’s because no one of either party who says el-jibbity instead of gay is an ally but an enemy, plain and simple, especially you, Krautboy. As long as you refuse to #JustSayGay and refuse to support #GetTheLOut, then I will continue to call you a Kraut.

        Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        […] based on what I read, decided that [Matthew was] not a Troll […]

        Wait, what?

        Take that back. I don’t want this world to be one where Matthew isn’t a troll, but is actually sincere about this nonsense.

        Reply
  19. posted by David Bauler on

    The Republican Party is gay

    Reply
  20. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As long as you refuse to #JustSayGay and refuse to support #GetTheLOut, then I will continue to call you a Kraut.

    You can call me whatever you want. That kind of bullshit works in conservative circles (look at the way that Candidate Trump mowed through the “best and brightest” of the Republican field in 2016 using nicknames like “Lying Ted” and “Little Marco”, no doubt smirking while the yokels lapped it up) but it doesn’t bother me. I’ve been called names all my life, mostly by morons with middle school minds. “KrautBoy” is a new one, though, a nice twist on “Jewboy”. You’d get points for that one if you were still in Middle School.

    As to #GetTheLOut, I clicked over to the Twitter feed to see what you were talking about, and it looks like #GetTheLOut is just the latest iteration of the long-running battle between gays and lesbians, which is a subset of the long-running battle between men and women. I’ve been watching the fight since the late 1960’s when I became an adult and became aware of the struggle for gay/lesbian legal equality, watching the ebb and flow as issues/times changed. But the battle was going strong long before Stonewall — the Mattachine Society and The Daughters of Bilitis couldn’t stand each other. Mars and Venus are just part of the human comedy.

    If you want to take sides in the fight, you go right ahead. But what a waste of time. The battle will be going on long after all of us are dead.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      ” I’ve been called names all my life, mostly by morons with middle school minds.”

      More projection from an inferior race and a treasonous political party. We took down your kind twice before and we’ll do it again.

      This is a battle that will be won in our lifetimes. And history will remember you as being on the losing side.

      Reply
  21. posted by Matthew on

    You really are one of the dumbest people alive if you think this battle is gays vs. lesbians. No, this is gays and lesbians vs. the ultimate manifestation of sexism and homophobia in the name of white heterosexual gentile male supremacy. You’re trying to drive a wedge between gay men and lesbians in order to help enable the transcult’s violence against women and undermine women’s rights as a whole, specifically women’s right to keep men out of their own personal spaces.

    Reply
  22. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    You really are one of the dumbest people alive if you think this battle is gays vs. lesbians. No, this is gays and lesbians vs. the ultimate manifestation of sexism and homophobia in the name of white heterosexual gentile male supremacy.

    From an interview with Angela Wild, one of the organizers of the #GetTheLOut protest at London Pride:

    The LGBT community does not represent nor does it advocate for Lesbians. As is always the case, when women organize in mixed groups, men’s issues take priority over women’s issues, men’s voices and concerns are centred, and women’s concerns are dismissed as irrelevant or secondary. Women have witnessed this on the left, in the anarchist movement, in the environmental movement, etc. Unsurprisingly, what is happening today in the LGBT community is no different.

    You’re trying to drive a wedge between gay men and lesbians in order to help enable the transcult’s violence against women and undermine women’s rights as a whole, specifically women’s right to keep men out of their own personal spaces.

    Nope. All I have done is observe two things, both of which you might note that Angela Wild also observed in the quoted language.

    (1) This new group, GetTheLOut, which styles itself as “a group of *Lesbian and feminist individuals and organizations who oppose the increasingly anti-Lesbian and misogynistic LGBT movement and the erasure of Lesbians”, is nothing new in the history of the gay/lesbian rights movement.

    (2) The long-term and more or less constant battle between males and females in the gay/lesbian rights movement is a subset of the battle between men and women in general.

    I have not done, and don’t plan to do, any further study of the #GetTheLOut movement. But from what I’ve read, I don’t see any evidence that the movement has anything to do with opposition to gentiles. I didn’t find any indications of that in the linked article, and I didn’t find any indication in the Twitter feed, either. What evidence do you have of that?

    Reply
  23. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    More projection from an inferior race …

    More racist dreck about superior/inferior races. Right out of 1950’s Mississippi. Yuk.

    Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      The only good thing about the Krauts is that they’re not Wops. It’s not racist to hate you. It’s racist not to. Fuck off, Naziboy. We kicked your worthless cracker goy ass in the two World Wars your “people” started, and if you start it again we will not be stupid enough to let any of you live. You are living proof of the inherent inferiority of the white gentile oppressor classes and that the Slaveocrat Party is still pro-slavery, just to different things.

      Reply
  24. posted by Mr Bill on

    Should one google “Matthew el-jibbity”, one will see a mass of internet comments that are widely mocked, and that Matthew Anscher is a well known troll. I’m not unsympathetic you you position, Tom, that he’s a fine specimen of the T Rump enthusiast, and shouldn’t be banned: but many sites have, with cause. He mean, incoherent, and systematically undercutting his own claims (I can’t call them arguments). Jorge, don’t take my name in vain: I never said he wasn’t a spy…if he is, he’s a peculiarly loud and incoherent one.
    And most black folks and LGBT voter here in Georgia voted for Stacey Abrams, because Brian Kemp has done everything to suppress voting, particularly for minority and poor folks. He’s stated he’ll oppose public accommodation of gay folks….that party Matthew calls Slaveocrat has been the people supporting nondiscrimination in employment and housing, things the Republican Governor elect has opposed…

    Reply
    • posted by Mr Bill on

      Oops, I forgot to give Matt a trigger warning for using the LGBT abbreviations..

      Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        You mean before you revealed your self-loathing bigotry against the gay community, you worthless stalking trash?

        Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Should one google “Matthew el-jibbity”, one will see a mass of internet comments that are widely mocked, and that Matthew is a well known troll.

      A brief look at the results from searching “Matthew el-jibbity” makes it clear that you are dead right and my conclusion that Matthew wasn’t a troll was wrong.

      I agree that Matthew is a troll and I won’t be responding to him going forward.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        A brief look at the results from searching “Matthew el-jibbity” makes it clear that you are dead right and my conclusion that Matthew wasn’t a troll was wrong.

        Oh thank goodness. Don’t scare me like that.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        More psychological projection on both your parts, especially you, Krautboy.

        https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/02/speech-to-the-faithful/#comment-70984

        No surprise; Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach sings right along with his owner Obama and makes a fool out of himself and gays and lesbians in the process.

        Great example? Obama shrieks and whines about booing gay soldiers — when he and his Obama Party, including his bundler Jodie Evans, pass government resolutions specifically calling for booing and harassing troops, branding them as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

        Where were you and Barack Obama then, Tom Scharbach? One would think if you cared so much about denouncing those who attack and insult American soldiers, you would have put out manifestos denouncing them, especially since they’re your fellow “progressives”, and praising the Republicans who denounced them.

        But you DON’T care. You’re just a puppet, a pathetic shill who, like your Barack Obama, truly doesn’t care about our troops. You are truly sick, given that you support your fellow “progressives” calling members of your own family baby-killers and murderers, harassing them, insulting them, and insisting they are not welcome in their own country.

        And why? Because you’re gay. Gays like you demonstrate that gays blindly support leftist beliefs, even booing, insulting, and slandering our troops, while hypocritically attacking Republicans. You use your homosexuality as an excuse for blatant and obvious hatred and bigotry toward Republicans, conservatives, and religious people.

        Why do you hate your child so much that you support those groups that call him a murderer and a baby killer, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach? Why do you insist that all gays must support these “progressives” who pass laws enabling the harassment and public insulting of our troops, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach? Will you lose your position as an Obama Party staffer if you criticize them, Tom Schatbach? Will “progressives” not support you if you criticize their attacking troops and demands to execute rich people, like your fellow Obama supporter Roseanne Barr is making?

        Wow, you even drove Roseanne Barr out of the party.

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        If you have the nerve to call me a bigot after this, you fucking Kraut, then you really do deserve everything bad that’s coming to you.

        Easy.

        1. According to Obama, failure to condemn immediately means you endorse and support it. Therefore, since Obama didn’t condemn it, still hasn’t condemned it, and has repeatedly endorsed the Occupy protestors and actions, insisting the he shares their values.

        No one expects a hypocrite like you to hold your Barack Obama accountable, Tom Scharbach. But you’re just making that fact more obvious.

        2. Your Obama Party doesn’t accept apologies and insists that they don’t mean anything. Furthermore, your Obama Party insists that the actions of one person, I.e. the booing, represent and are supported by all members of the group.

        Again, Tom Scharbach, no one expects a hypocrite like you to hold your Obama/Occupy party responsible. But you’re just making that fact more obvious.

        3. Again, see above. You generalize the actions of one person to the whole; hence, you are personally responsible for and support the actions of your party leaders and affiliates. Including their demands for Prosser to resign based on lies told about him by Obama Party partisans.

        Again, Tom Scharbach, these are all principles you support and assert. You’re just being held to the same rules you use on Republicans.

        Which also means you support and endorse snacking women who disagree with you around.

        https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/02/speech-to-the-faithful/#comment-73269

        Reply
      • posted by Matthew on

        https://igfculturewatch.com/2012/05/23/the-fight-within/#comment-103070

        Actually, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, what gay and straight Republicans know and have known for years is that your definition of “anti-equality” is based solely on party affiliation and has nothing to do with how people feel/act about gays. It’s merely an excuse you use to paper over your true motivations about using the government to carry out your revenge fantasies against churches and taking money from people who work so you don’t have to.

        Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Let’s see, you are guilty of:

      —PSYCHOlogical projection
      —hate speech (reducing gays to a letter in an acronym meant to accommodate perverts is always homophobic in ANY context)
      —cultural appropriation of the word “folks” which sounds racist and condescending when whites use it
      —misspelling of Trump’s last name for a juvenile ass joke (analphobia is never funny)

      Forcing gays to tolerate breeders and trannies is not “supporting nondiscrimination,” it’s capitulation to the enemies of the gay community. We should be advocating the end of heterosexuality, not tolerance of their perversion.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Meanwhile Mr. Bill just confessed to stalking, which is a felony.

      Reply
    • posted by Matthew on

      Self-loathing Slaveocrats like you don’t deserve legal protections.

      Reply
  25. posted by Matthew on

    Calling me a troll is the ultimate act of projection, you worthless Kraut piece of shit. Fuck off and die because no one likes you. You represent EVERYTHING wrong with this country today. You are a totalitarian bigot who thinks he’s entitled to take other people’s money by force of law.

    Reply
  26. posted by Matthew on

    And just look at what I missed:

    “Actually, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, it’s MORE wrong when Obama Party members do it, because their doing it demonstrates blatant and obvious hypocrisy, given that they supposedly support gay “equality”.

    What this demonstrates nicely is that Janet Howell is a fake and a liar: she doesn’t support “equality”, just an obedient plantation of gays and lesbians who do what Missus Janet says. She clearly sees gays as inferior, given how she smears and attacks any gay person who would dare challenge her.

    The hilarious part is how you sit here and spin and make excuses when this tactic used by a Republican would have proven to you that they were a vicious homophobe who was completely unsuited for public office. But as we’re all aware by now, Tom Scharbach, Obama Party staffers like yourself can interpret “pro-equality” and “equal means equal” to support and endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74212

    Reply
  27. posted by Matthew on

    Memories light the corners of my mind…

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74213

    But of course, we should also remember that Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach defines “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” based solely on political affiliation.

    Hence why he and his fellow Obama Party gays are systematically trashing Patrick Forrest as “anti-gay” while endorsing and supporting Obama Party candidates like Janet Howell who are running smear campaigns claiming that Forrest’s sexual orientation makes him unfit to serve, or demanding that Forrest kowtow to a website like “It Gets Better” whose founder has wished on national television that all Republicans were dead, or declaring that support of Federal marriage bans is anti-gay while insisting that giving money to such supporters is “pro-equality” and that they support “equal means equal”.”

    Reply
  28. posted by Matthew on

    Misty watercolor memories…

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74379

    “I can tell you exactly where Forrest stands on the issues that are relevant to Virginia.

    And I can also tell you where Janet Howell and her Barack Obama Party stand: “He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.

    That’s telling, Tom Scharbach. Forrest is focusing on issues like businesses, education, and the economy; Obama Party staffers and candidates like yourself and your Janet Howell are focused on warning people about the “homosexual agenda”, stating that Patrick Forrest is unfit to serve in office because he’s gay, and insisting that gay and lesbian people rape and molest children.

    After having previous meltdowns and insisting that any party, any candidate, who would say such a thing is homophobic to the core and is gay-baiting to win votes.

    Granted, I don’t expect you to tell off an Obama Party candidate, because you’d be slitting your own throat financially and socially if you did it, and because your Wisconsin Obama Party supports and endorses physical violence against apostates, like the candidate whose campaigns you managed Fred Clark threatening to “smack around” a woman who dared question him. But I am becoming curious as to just how desperately low you will go to please your “progressive” massas — especially since you blame your utter helplessness, dependency, and hypocrisy on your sexual orientation.”

    You haven’t changed, Krautboy. You’ve only gotten worse. That was 7 years ago.

    Reply
  29. posted by Matthew on

    …of the Way We Were (as in that movie about breeder perverts making excuses for Stalin)

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74213

    “But of course, we should also remember that Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach defines “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” based solely on political affiliation.

    Hence why he and his fellow Obama Party gays are systematically trashing Patrick Forrest as “anti-gay” while endorsing and supporting Obama Party candidates like Janet Howell who are running smear campaigns claiming that Forrest’s sexual orientation makes him unfit to serve, or demanding that Forrest kowtow to a website like “It Gets Better” whose founder has wished on national television that all Republicans were dead, or declaring that support of Federal marriage bans is anti-gay while insisting that giving money to such supporters is “pro-equality” and that they support “equal means equal”.”

    Reply
  30. posted by Matthew on

    You are moron, hear you bore:

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74213

    “Again, no surprise; you’re not actually going to read or research any of the articles and sources you are presented. You are a staffer for the Obama Party, and your social and political position depends on defending and supporting everything that your Obama Party does. You have to somehow spin around the fact that your Obama Party’s staffers and candidates are going around saying the sort of things that Imarti does, and of course, the first place you start is by attacking and blaming other gays who would DARE disobey or criticize an Obama Party member.

    This again is understandable. Obama Party members like your Fred Clark only like minority members who do as they say, and I have no doubt that you don’t want to end up “smacked around”, having calls made on Twitter for you to be punched, or having bomb threats sent to you like your Wisconsin Obama Party does to Republicans.”

    Reply
  31. posted by Matthew on

    In numbers small enough to ignore:

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74462

    Quality of life is not relevant to grievance groups, Jorge.

    The Obama Party is made up of grievance groups that all believe the same four things:

    1) We should receive special treatment because of our (insert characteristic)

    2) Everyone else should be forced to pay for our special treatment, regardless of cost

    3) No one should ever be allowed to criticize our behavior for any reason

    4) Government’s job is to make sure that numbers 1 – 3 are carried out.

    Hence the problem. In education, for example, Tom Scharbach is beholden to the other members of the Obama Party coalition, the teachers’ unions, who believe that by virtue of being teachers, they are immune to criticism, exempt from performance criteria, and able to lie with impunity. Thus, he can’t reform or criticize education; he can only demand more money, more special treatment, and more exemptions, even as student performance and test scores plummet.

    Reply
  32. posted by Matthew on

    And you don’t know much but boy you sure pretend:

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74388

    Well, Tom Scharbach, according to this article, it appears to be the Obama Party, given what its volunteers, staffers, and candidates are saying:

    “What my campaign is saying is here’s your Republican candidate. He’s a homosexual. Why would you want to vote for someone who’s a homosexual and is going to push his agenda in your schools?”.

    But you have stated here that such statements are “pro-equality” and said that the candidate whose campaign is making them is “pro-equality”.

    Since you fully endorse and support these statements as “pro-equality”, then what becomes immediately clear is that you are not acting on the basis of what people are saying, but on the basis of their religious beliefs and political affiliation.

    In short, you are a bigot.

    Reply
  33. posted by Matthew on

    Here’s the story of a jerk named Tommy:

    https://igfculturewatch.com/2011/10/22/whos-the-bigot/#comment-74603

    You didn’t say anything about that statement being wrong, Tom Scharbach.

    You blathered, as your kind do, but you never once said that this candidate, this volunteer, this Virginia Obama Party who were making that exact statement are wrong.

    In fact, you later said the exact opposite — that this campaign, this party, and this tcandidate whose campaign was making these statements was “pro-equality”.

    So yes, you are a bigot. You make lots of talk about how “wrong” something is, but when confronted with an example of your own party doing it, you won’t condemn it.

    That also makes you a hypocrite, for those who are keeping score.

    What has happened to you in the last several years, Dan? You used to write interesting, if edgy, comments about ideas.

    Ah yes, the old Obama whining about civility trick.

    I think Don Surber phrased best why that doesn’t work any more.

    You’re a lawyer, Tom Scharbach, or at least you allege to be one. Contracts, treaties, and agreements bind all parties involved; when one party in a contract, agreement, or treaty breaks it, the others are no longer considered to be bound by the terms.

    Since you and your Obama Party of Wisconsin want to send bomb threats to Republicans, tweet how people should “punch a Republican”, and threaten small businesses with your union thugs, you’ve broken the agreement. Since you and your fellow gays and lesbians want to sit here and whine about “gay-baiting” even as you endorse and support your Obama Party doing it, I no longer feel bound by it.

    So not only are you a bigot and a hypocrite, Tom Scharbach, you’re a cheat. You and your Obama Party want other people to follow the rules when you won’t. You scream and cry and demand that others condemn behavior, resign, etc., but you won’t. You want the benefits, but you don’t want to have to change your behavior or take responsibility for your actions.

    I tried being nice. Unfortunately, Tom Scharbach, you’re a worthless hypocrite, bigot, and moocher who only sees people who are nice as something to exploit.

    Reply
  34. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As a final comment on the aspects of this thread that related to the synagogue massacre, James Kirchick, with whom I don’t often agree, has written what I think is an excellent op-ed on the issue, “How much blame does Trump truly bear for the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting?“.

    Reply

Leave a Comment