I'm being a turd in a punchbowl but (DADT)

[salinen]

Could it be that one reason DADT was repealed was that the rich don't care and neither do corporations? I say we can have these types of victories, but not any that may effect the bottom line for the capitalists.

Am I nuts?

[xchrom]

1. neo-liberalism can certainly contain notions that appear progressive.

corporations don't care about antiquated notions around lgbtiq people.

they've been to college/university -- have a sophisticated understanding of society.

they still want to take the wealth of the people and siphon it upwards -- and have a happy workforce.

[Kali]

11. I doubt if a happy workforce is a concern

trapped, complacent, and not angry to the point of rebellion is fine

[xchrom]

14. shrug -- 6 of one --

i wasn't really talking about an economic happiness that our parents knew -- just not rocking the boat.

[LibDemAlways]

2. I agree that this is not a big issue for a

guy like Donald Trump. The super wealthy and corporate CEOs probably could not care less who chooses to join the military. It simply doesn't affect them.

[Lorien]

28. I would think that they'd want as many bodies for their wars as possible

they still won't allow gay and lesbian marriages, or adoptions in some States, so full equality is still a long ways away.

[rucky]

3. They shouldn't care.

It's the ones that somehow find a way to give a shit about something that doesn't affect them (but hurts other people) that bother me, in this case.

The rich are amoral, and they kill from neglect. The culture warriors are immoral, and they hunt what they kill.

[salinen]

You're being kind to the rich.

But right on otherwise.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Some rich are that way.

But others... well, let's just say you find sociopaths everywhere, but large amounts of wealth increase the power of sociopathy exponentially.

Not to mention the fact that, all else being equal, sociopathy may actually help you get rich.

[divvy]

4. I wonder if it will lead to same-sex government benefits.

I believe that it should (lead to same-sex couples benefits) as this is the core economic reason for the discrimination. Maybe corporations did not oppose it because they would not have to treat same sex couples the same as heterosexual ones today. Butt, I am curious about tomorrow.

[Exilednight]

5. Yes. It's exactly the reason, but they had to put up the appearance of a

fight to appease people like freepers. In reality, they people at the top of the Republican party do not care. Gay people die just as well as straight people, and that is all that matters to right-wing policy makers.

But I look at this way, let's take the victories where and when we can get them.

A wins a win.

[UTUSN]

6. Rethugs never stop pitting one Dem group against another: viz, DREAM Act n/t

[zeemike]

7. Actually I predicted it many months ago.

And they don't care as long as they get their tax cuts...which they did...and that is why they let it go through.
That and the fact that they will use it against the Dem's with their base next election, and use it now to distract from attention being drawn to the tax bill....a win all around if you are a Conservative.

[Lorien]

30. Their distraction techniques work so well now

with every media outlet timed to the same news cycles. The people focus on what they want them to focus on WHEN they want them to focus on it. Two days ago their was rising rage about the vast inequalities between rich and poor in this Nation. Today there is rejoicing because they finally gave us a win that cost them nothing. Will GLBT people be allowed to wed and adopt across the Nation? Of course not; they won't allow full equality because they need their wedge issues. It would cost them nothing to allow full equity for all Americans. But hey, if we have to keep fighting hard for things that matter to us but don't matter to them, then they can keep distracting us from the things that DO matter to them. It's all an ugly, cynical game that they've learned how to play very well since repealing the Fairness Doctrine and wholly owning our media.

[galileoreloaded]

8. Ask yourself, "how much disposable income do LBGT have?"---There is your answer... n/t

[ldf]

18. sigh. i so enjoy being part of the "cool" group...

even if i have to live on the fringes of the "cool" group.

i am fringe because i live paycheck to paycheck. that is the only way to live in nyc if you are making under 120,000. i can't afford to be fabulous.

but for whatever fucked up reason it passed (the rich continue to keep theirs), i'll take this victory. the rich can hire battalions of accountants to write off everything, anyway, legally (another whole issue). they BENEFIT from this country. their assistance in helping to pay for it is minuscule, relatively speaking. the rest of us help pay for it.

this win, for whatever reason it passed, will be a basis for other advances.

any military bigots who fight this should be kicked out of the military. they are the antithesis of our constitution.

the irony of pampering the bigoted and prejudiced, so they will fight to protect the freedoms of equality, is totally ludicrous.

of course implementation will be dragged out, and much political hay will be made off it, but it is a step forward.

[justiceischeap]

34. The "LGBT disposable income" myth

Actually, the gay community having disposable income is quickly becoming a outdated stereotype. It may have been true 2 decades ago but same-sex couples are having kids now and our income isn't as disposable as it once was. You also have to keep in mind the cost of HIV meds, and statistically (I was talking to a friend who works at HRC, so she's the source of my next statement) same-sex couple have a lower per capita income than straight, married couples.

I think there are several reasons that DADT passed. One, the climate has changed. We're becoming "normal" in the majorities eyes. The second is the Bush taxes. Nothing happens in DC without some sort of political price and I think extending the Bush tax cuts gained the DADT repeal some votes.

[treestar]

9. Yes.

Why crap on everything? Who are "the rich" and "the corporations?" specifically? The people you work for? The people many LBGT people work for? Or own?

[salinen]

12. Good points.

This nations obsession with the warrior/hero, especially for the conservatives, is going to confuse them. Can an LBGT be a warrior/hero? Watch out for exploding brains.

[slackmaster]

10. I agree. They don't care who gets shot at.

:hi:

[stray cat]

13. There was opposition - there was a reason why it wan't repealed already

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. You'll see the amount of force against it was noticeably lower.

Hence, it passed and other things didn't.

[TheKentuckian]

15. It is about the money...Always

Those that hold the real power care nothing about who gets to play cannon fodder.

[bemildred]

16. You are not nuts, but I'll take the win anyway.

They are throwing us a bone, in hopes it will quiet things down, but it's a good meaty bone.

[Bumblebee]

17. You do have a very black-and-white view of the world.

Even Marx was much more nuanced.

[obxhead]

19. The Pentagon asked for it to be repealed before the courts could

rule it unconstitutional. That is the only reason Congress/Senate got motivated to do it.

[kestrel91316]

20. Sadly, I have to agree. The big money didn't have a dog in this fight.

[DirkGently]

21. Fighting progressive social change is cheap, costs liberals time & money & ultimately doesn't

matter to wealthy interests. After all, repressing gay people isn't actually profitable, and if / when progressives win, the conservative base is more fearful / angry / entitled than before.

It's become a no-brainer for Powers That Be to simply oppose any kind of social good. They're maybe not that concerned about the outcome.

But at the end of the day, good is good. And I can't help thinking that social justice is infectious.

[Capitalocracy]

22. That and it's actually good for our imperial army. nt

[QC]

24. Sadly, you are probably right. If the ruling class had opposed the repeal,

it would most likely not have happened.

But the ruling class is sometimes cool with progressive social change, as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

[Lorien]

26. Not at all. They had to throw Democrats a bone

after throwing us under the bus time and time again. The timing was perfect too; tax breaks for the rich and unprecedented military spending? Forgotten!! All is forgiven.

[Vickers]

27. Props for an accurate thread title. n/t

:P

j/k

[LWolf]

29. No, you're not nuts. Some victories keep us pacified. nt

[MineralMan]

31. No. That's not one reason. The main reason is that the public

made it clear that they wanted it repealed. Those Republicans who voted against it are voting against their constituents, and may have to pay for that in the future. Corporations had absolutely nothing to do with this. It was the constant push by President Obama, combined with Congress and the will of the population that caused this repeal.

Not everything is corporate, despite your apparent belief to the contrary.

[RegieRocker]

32. Ayep

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Who fucking cares?

Even if your claim were true, what fucking difference would it make?

Some people can't win for losing.