I have often called it one of the greatest grassroots movements in history. This movement toward a more just society has more often than not forged the way on their own. Relentlessly while keeping sight of the goal.

Along the way they don't forget others who are oppressed as well.

Because of this prolonged tenacity and pretty unified goals, the people's minds have dramatically changed. The rest of society took a while and are late to the game, but they have arrived. I expect the actions of the more aggressive bigots to escalate as their numbers dwindle even further. As usual, congress lags behind the will of the people.

One party currently seems to have its ass in gear. Not to say there isn't room for improvement.

Amazing grassroots effort.

I think bluenorthwest would have liked this.

and yeah I think bluenorthwest would have liked this as well.

I never understood why that positive change over the years was seen as a negative by some.

Many of us have learned and grown over the decades. That is a good thing.

I, too, will never go back. Thanks for this, DSC.

is puzzling. I think that there are people who don't actually follow history or bother to educate themselves, they just feel something and that's enough for them.

Makes no sense. Growth is good.

The GOP had made anti-LGBT hatred part of it's official platform. In January of 2016 they posted a directive on their website. It commanded all GOP politicians, at all levels of government to enact any anti-transgender laws they could, as quickly as possible. A month or so later North Carolina's legislature pushed HB2 through in a special session. A bit later 21 states were crafting their own anti-trans (& LGB) laws and suing the Obama administration for a letter sent by the Dept of Ed and the Dept of Justice advising them that enough lawsuits had been won & they should really consider protecting trans kids from bullying.

After the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell, the GOP needed a new "gay marriage" issue around which to rally the troops, get out the vote and raise donations. They chose to do so by attacking trans children.

That was the environment going into the debates. It was manufactured by the GOP. Questions in the debates about such a fundamental civil rights issue facing the nation?

Zero.

In the very last debate Clinton mentioned,

“We need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community [...] it is important that we not reverse marriage equality".

Later Trump attacked the Clinton Foundation by asking how she could take money from donors in countries “that push gays off buildings.” Clinton countered by praising the Clinton Foundation’s efforts in getting 11 million people HIV/AIDS treatment.

And have been given the moniker progressive?

I don't know his gay rights record but his abortion rights record is in favor of outlawing from 20 weeks on.

I will read up on him.

with all the legislation he's sponsored and voted for. I pasted all the abortion stuff, would you like me to find it for you?

It's a lot of bills, and the objectionable ones on the abortion issue anyway, in mixed in.

He was also pro-Keystone, that's not on that page though.

...plug your nose and vote for the Democratic candidate. We live in a two-party system - any support for third party candidates would be counter productive.


Unfortunately we have a similar problem with our here in San Antonio... an incumbent anti-gay Democratic mayor . There are luckily for us other Democrats running, but it might split the vote too much.

in point of fact it is a rule that I have followed, but that isn't what we are seeing from a fairly large part of the party and posters here. We are seeing candidates with spotty records on abortion, guns and gay rights called progressives while those who have great records in those regards are called establishment candidates who are unworthy of support. That is rather the opposite of this rule.

I don't have a problem with the consistent application of a rule that says vote for the Democratic candidate, but that isn't what Sanders did. He is perfectly happy to endorse, profusely, candidates who don't support social issues but refuses to endorse candidates whose economic policy he doesn't like. He has every earthly right to do that but I have every earthly right to say that isn't acceptable without having my posts distorted by others.

It reads a lot like the article about people who loved Hillary endorsing Tim Kaine as VP, but hate Sanders endorsing Mello. I'm not the one posting that you must ignore social issues in order to acknowledge economic issues or vice versa.

If anything, I've seen the Democratic party over the last 20 plus years ignore economic issues(purchasing power wages stagnant at 1970's level or in decline), environmental issues(can't ban fracking), lgbtq rights (more the courts than the national party) minority rights (allowing race to be removed as a factor in admissions to higher education, voter suppression), law enforcement homicides and intimidation of suspects into making false confessions, etc.

Democratic Representatives aren't idiots, I expect them to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Economic issues, human rights issues, environmental issues. Making America a better place to live in for all of us.

He apparently voted for closure on ENDA in Nebraska but nothing else is stated.

He says nothing at all on this website and there was no real info on project vote smart. But that said, I admitted in the post I didn't know his record but people with the record he has on abortion tend to have bad record on gay rights to go with it.

so no edit needed.

I suspect I may be a decade or so younger, but that's irrelevant.

I've been proud of our social advancement over my lifetime. We've worked hard, really hard to create change, and we've actually seen the fruit of our works. Some of the things we've fought for were long term goals, and we were dealt a lot of short term set backs during those fights. We persisted and in the end we won. Until now. I'm not sure how things will flesh out in this current conservative culture. Yes, I'm concerned. Call me whatever names you'd like, but I, worried for all I've fought for with my whole heart.

As an active person for the past almost 30 years I don't see this as a potential turning point for the better. We're more than likely potentially moving backward, not forward, and I'm deeply concerned. I'm borderline panicked even.

We did everything right here. We worked our butts off and won the two races we could (governor and supreme court). Then stunningly, we got stabbed in the back on the repeal. Very disappointing.

We also did the work economically. That's our ace in the hole, and yet we were ultimately still screwed over. I don't know what to say about it beyond I'm worried what it means for the future.

but we pretty much got nothing in return for ending the boycott. Our only hope at this point is that some state with a basketball powerhouse refuses to send it to tournament games in NC. I know that for women it could happen as CT is a perennial powerhouse on the women's side but for men the only place I can think of is UCLA or maybe Washington but neither are Kentucky or Villanova or UNC

What we got was a crap sandwich, with a side of FU.

You make some good points as to the (hopeful) potential holdouts still, but other RW states are now embolden as it sets. If NC doesn't feel the pressure, which is much less likely, were all moving backward now.

We're back to one step forward and two back. Which I never thought I'd see again in my lifetime. My fault I'm sure, I let myself believe we were evolving as a society, which was my mistake. All my years of hard work feel like they've been all but erased. My causes, my beliefs, my life's work is all sequestered to the sidelines again by many. I'm deeply hurt and angry.

this was written before the election this past week. but article of ossoff's support of lgbt rights.

http://www.projectq.us/atlanta/jon_ossoff_stirs_lgbt_excitement_in_georgia_special_election?gid=18324

vs someone who has been in politics for years as the guy in Omaha was. But it is troubling when his full, out front, progressive positions on issues such as LGBT rights and abortion are ignored in order to pretend he isn't a progressive.

economic issues.

The parties have sorted themselves more on abortion than they ever have but there are still pro choice Republicans. Collins in ME and Martinez in NM to name two.

They tolerate them.

but I bet neither want anybody. Both are more popular in their states than any GOPer who is in office outside of their states and thus have no desire to see them on the ground.

Democrats saying anything like "no identity issues" ever.

There were certainly some that didn't want to fight for LGBT rights or some that didn't want to fight for women's rights etc., but I never saw folks wanting to abandon the entire social/civil rights justice part of the Liberal/Democratic viewpoint.

I find it revolting

Thank you!

and others who would be marginalized by the forces of "economic populism." How can anyone possibly think they can fight for economic justice without acknowledging that these issues are also minority issues and women's issues.

********QUOTE*******

[font size=5]FRANKFURTER (re Pius XII, FDR on Holocaust) :

“Fluctuations of historic judgment are the lot of great men, and Roosevelt will not escape it … But if history has its claim, so has the present. For it has been wisely said that if the judgment of the time must be corrected by that of posterity, it is no less true that the judgment of posterity must be corrected by that of the time.”

- Felix Frankfurter[/font]

********UNQUOTE********