Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: CNN's Town Hall LGBTQ event tonight

  1. #11
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,038
    Why? Aren't candidates invited all the time to speak to different communities, such as unions?[/QUOTE] Thank You, Tybee. Rob

  2. #12
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    A forum to invite candidates to speak on their positions for a small community (Lgbtetc) seems self aggrandizing.
    This, in a nutshell is one of the core differences between the democratic party and the republican party. The democrats understand that various minority groups gave specific needs and concerns that the majority may not have and the republicans prefer a one size fits all approach.

  3. #13
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,038
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    One Candidate’s narrowly focused speech to — your example, unions – is not broadcast in entirety by legacy media to the entire world, pre-empting regular programming. Not regularly, anyway. Although granted, CNN is becoming more and more of a niche News outlet. So maybe that’s how I need to view it, a small news company broadcasting an unimportant political event.

    If that is marginalizing the event and the audience and the content, so be it. I would argue that the participants marginalized themselves by being ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    This, in a nutshell is one of the core differences between the democratic party and the republican party. The democrats understand that various minority groups gave specific needs and concerns that the majority may not have and the republicans prefer a one size fits all approach.
    Yes! Yes! YES! Thank You. jp1. You get it. And put it into easy to understand words. Rob

  4. #14
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife View Post
    We represent more disposable income on average than straight people do - supposedly, though in my life I have not always seen this to be the case. Those with money tend to not be afraid to show their support of pro gay anything via consumer spending or voting or donations. It's not entirely virtue signaling but cold blooded economic common sense for Democrats. Rob

    It may be true that cisgendered straight households have more less disposable income than other households but show me those numbers.

    I vaguely remember stats that show two gay men have a DINK income that is significantly more than a household of two gay women. I don’t know how offspring come into the picture but it is an easy assumption that the cost of raising children has something to do with it.

    In my neighborhood of many many gay households, I can think of one set of male friends who produced children via donors. Another gay man here donated sperm to a gay woman here. Other gay men have children from previous marriages to women.

    In general in my neighborhood which I consider to be representative of stable and kinda staid gay partnerships, small children and their upbringing are very rare.

    edited for clarity

  5. #15
    Senior Member gimmethesimplelife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,038
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    One Candidate’s narrowly focused speech to — your example, unions – is not broadcast in entirety by legacy media to the entire world, pre-empting regular programming. Not regularly, anyway. Although granted, CNN is becoming more and more of a niche News outlet. So maybe that’s how I need to view it, a small news company broadcasting an unimportant political event.

    If that is marginalizing the event and the audience and the content, so be it. I would argue that the participants marginalized themselves by being ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    It may be true that cisgendered straight households have more disposable income than other households but show me those numbers.

    I vaguely remember stats that show two gay men have a DINK income that is significantly more than a household of two gay women. I don’t know how offspring come into the picture but it is an easy assumption that the cost of raising children has something to do with it.

    In my neighborhood of many many gay households, I can think of one set of male friends who produced children via donors. Another gay man here donated sperm to a gay woman here. Other gay men have children from previous marriages to women.

    In general in my neighborhood which I consider to be representative of stable and kinda staid gay partnerships, small children and their upbringing are very rare.
    This last of yours I will agree with. One of the reasons for more disposable income is the tendency not to raise children. That much is true. Rob

  6. #16
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    10,821
    Good grief--we have cable with hundreds of channels broadcasting 24 hours a day, surely we can occasionally present something more compelling than endless home dec shows and old movies to provoke a national discourse.

  7. #17
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,912
    I am not sure if I should be mad glad or sad that I cant think of any isms I need the Democratic party to address for me personally.

    I can think of things I’d like them to stay the **** away from, you know, like just drop their hovering interest in, so I suppose that is the reverse of finding out what Presidential Candidates will do for me but in the same universe.

    When someone sets it up, I will tune into a teevee broadcast of the candidates speaking only on the topic “Here is what I will NOT do when in office because that is not the role of the Federal government.” What a breath of fresh air that would be.

  8. #18
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,828
    IL, be glad you dont have an ism other than being an ordinary american. The candidates will by default focus on a lot of your concerns. Of course if you were a large corporation ‘person’ with unlimited lobbying money you’d probably get better actual results, but that’s a whole other problem.

  9. #19
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    IL, be glad you dont have an ism other than being an ordinary american. The candidates will by default focus on a lot of your concerns. Of course if you were a large corporation ‘person’ with unlimited lobbying money you’d probably get better actual results, but that’s a whole other problem.

    But even this special targeted audience forum didn’t make everyone happy. According to Vox “lesbians were completely ignored.” There was somebody screaming about black trans women being ignored. There was the protest by trans people that interrupted the forum.

    The LGBTQ community wasn’t taking very good care of its members in this display.

    Probably another debate featuring mini micro issues of micro communities is called for. I’m glad I’m not Senator Warren who actually has responsibilities for serving in the Senate that she was, you know, elected to do. Another round of podium appearances for the lgbtq etc community before moving on to many other marginalized communities and their dissected sub-groups and sub-sub groups seems called for.

  10. #20
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    Good grief--we have cable with hundreds of channels broadcasting 24 hours a day, surely we can occasionally present something more compelling than endless home dec shows and old movies to provoke a national discourse.

    Well you said it. If CNN is only one of hundreds of channels, Kamela Harris can hope all she wants to that by speaking on LGBTQ issues she will receive the name recognition that the Property Brothers have. But I doubt it, because it just isnt appealing.

    What I am saying is ultimately micro issues in front of micro audiences delivered from micro channels will not accomplish “Provok[ing] a national discourse” about that which people do not care. That’s why we have remote controllers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •