Feeling Like I Voted For Those Who Will Contribute To My Peers & My Oppression
by: Autumn Sandeen
Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:45:00 AM EDT

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17879/feeling-like-i-voted-for-those-who-will-contribute-to-my-peers-my-oppression

This election more than ever, I felt as if I were voting for those who would repress my peers and me. It's not that I didn't vote for a few local candidates I was pleased to vote for, but I also felt there were Democratic candidates I voted for that I didn't get my vote because I was happy to vote for them, but instead because I felt they would repress me less than the Republican candidate running against them.

Examples of candidates I was pleased to vote for were Toni Atkins for my State Assemblywoman, and Steven Whitburn as my local County Supervisor. Back in 2003, when Atkins was a City Councilwoman, she introduced the proposed ordinance that actually did change San Diego's Human Dignity Ordinance to provide citywide employment protections based on gender identity. Whitburn was active in San Diego's Democratic Club, working to see that ordinance passed into law.

Same here, since I've started my transition I've realized that the folks I used to vote for don't have my concerns at the top of their list.  Definitely had an impact on who I voted for yesterday.


Jamie

I'm registered as an independent but this time I voted a complete Republican ticket. One of the things I've realized is that it is very unlikely any candidate will share 100% of my views. The Democrats tend to be more vocal about claiming to support GLBT rights but other than talking little to nothing gets done. Sadly many Republicans are not supportive of these issues or are at best neutral on them. In the rare case a GLBT-related bill does surface the T is the first thing that is dumped so I'm not convinced that Democrats are the best hope either. While trans issues are extremely important to me, economic issues and basic Constitutional freedoms are also extremely important. That is why I voted the way I did. I'm not going to vote for a party that is paving the way to socialism just for a mere remote chance at gaining some trans rights. I'm going to keep my money (less taxes), my guns (right to keep and bear arms), and my ability to utilize the free market as I see fit (no forced healthcare). I'm not voting for supporters of trans rights if that includes less money in my pocket because I have to pay more taxes to go to welfare recipients including illegal aliens who don't want to work, I'm not turning in nor am I registering my firearms or surrendering my basic human right of self-defense, self-sufficiency, and self-preservation, and I'm certainly not going to allow the government to customize my life for me by forcing me to have certain healthcare or in any other form being told how to live my life and how to spend or save my money.

Most GLBT people seem to be liberal and obviously I'm quite conservative. Of course most of these people seem to be focused solely on the GLBT issue ignoring the large picture. What good is equal rights when it means having an equal status in the same line going into the poor house? Socialism doesn't work and it has been proven time and time again. I think there can be more freedom in a free market self-serving society with limited government than in a society where money is forcefully redistributed and government is increasingly involved in more aspects of people's private lives. That's my two cents.

QuoteSocialism doesn't work and it has been proven time and time again.

Straw man. U.S. Democrats aren't socialists. They're not even social democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The economic platform of the U.S. Democratic party is regulated market capitalism.

QuoteWhat good is equal rights when it means having an equal status in the same line going into the poor house?

I don't know, you tell me? The Republicans drove us into this recession that we're trying to claw our way out of, with their policies of deregulation that allowed trillions of dollars of outright fraud to go undetected on the "free market."

QuoteI'm not voting for supporters of trans rights if that includes less money in my pocket because I have to pay more taxes to go to welfare recipients including illegal aliens who don't want to work

Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare in any state. Welfare is a microscopic element of the federal budget, completely dwarfed by military and education spending. And chances are extremely high that your taxes went down under this most recent Democratic government; you'd have to be making over $100,000/year to have seen a federal tax increase.

Quotebasic Constitutional freedoms are also extremely important.

So what's your stance on the PATRIOT Act? Warrantless wiretapping? Torture? Habeas corpus? Government establishment of religion? Privacy rights? Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Or does your concern for Constitutional rights only extend as far as your guns and your pocketbook?

QuoteI'm not turning in nor am I registering my firearms

Fine. Just as there are LGBT people in the Republican Party, there are gun owners in the Democratic party. More pro-gun Democrats run every year, and the party is coming to realize that gun control isn't a winning issue even on the left. Have you actually investigated your Democratic candidates' stances on gun control? You might be pleasantly surprised.

I won't address the healthcare issue because I honestly can't defend the health insurance bill in good conscience. It ended up being pretty much the worst of all worlds: an individual mandate without cost controls or a public option. Some small good may come of the regulatory aspect of it, but overall, it was a fiasco that made nobody happy except for health insurance companies.

It's emotively inappropriate and technically incorrect to call democrats socialists if you adopt that position you ought to also call republicans Nazi facists. Whitch is just as twisted and wrong.

Sounds sort of familiar actually.   
Australia has a lot more protections in  law both Federal and State, but Labor are just as opposed to same-sex marriage law changes as the Liberals and Nationals, who at least are allowed a conscience vote on issues.  Nobody dare cross the floor in the Labor Party.
The Greens have progressive policies in the GLBTI area, but most of their other policies are just plain loopy.
The Democrats have just shrunk out of sight, so it looks like the Australian Sex Party is the next best choice.  Seriously, they do exist!  and actually have some sensible policies outside their main libertarian planks.

You could always write " You are all wankers" across the ballot paper like happens here!

I'm not a fan of Democrats or Republicans. I do think there is way too much military spending, the wars should end, and the Patriot Act was wrong. Bush was in office for eight years and continued to screw things up. Then the country believed falsely that a Democrat President would be the solution to all this. They bought all of this hype about "change we can believe in." I'm not stupid and I saw what a fraud Obama was long before he got elected and therefore didn't vote for him. Turns out I was right. In mere months after his election, his approval rating started taking severely. As to GLBT issues he made all these promises about ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repealing ENDA, etc. not one of which he has done. At a time when the #1 issue for virtually everyone is the economy he kept ramming healthcare down everyone's throats and passed this horrible healthcare bill that clearly the majority of the American people were against. Even most of Congress was against it but somehow they voted for it (likely there were implied threats and bribery involved).

I don't believe in complete anarchy but I do believe in limited government. Democrats and Republicans both often cause government to get larger not smaller. Republicans tend to do this with their military spending and wars whereas Democrats do it through social programs. I felt it was wise to vote a straight Republican ticket this time to enforce a power balance against the President. Most of the country is not at all happy with the type of "change" the President is interested in not to mention his already failed policies. Having a Republican controlled House and a nearly split Senate against this excuse for a President is much better than a complete Democrat government which is only putting us even further in debt and problems than the previous Republican one did.

Most Democrats don't consider themselves socialists but many of their policies and programs are socialist in nature. Any program that requires Americans through tax dollars or other means to fund and support other Americans is socialist/communist by nature. It is a redistribution of wealth. Examples of this include social security/medicare, public schools, welfare programs and disability assistance. The worst example recently were these trillion dollar bailout programs virtually none of which went to "We the People" but instead went to big banks or otherwise just disappeared (i.e. went in their own pockets." Obviously you have to have some public programs (i.e. publically funded roads) but they should be limited and few and far between. So again they might not call themselves socialist but when the bulk of their policies include support for more government controlling more aspects of people's private lives then that is what it is.

I don't want forced healthcare and I don't want the government to tell me how I can spend money on healthcare or which provider I go to.

I don't want my tax dollars being used to pay for people who don't want to work, have child after child, etc. Let private charity help those who truly are in need and for those who just don't want to get off their behind and take care of themselves, then tough luck.

I don't believe in corporate welfare either. Just as much as I don't want my tax dollars going to an illegal alien who got pregnant in the U.S. with eight kids (who would now be citizens) receiving free money (and yes this happens all the time--come to Arizona or California), I don't believe in bailing out large banks either. Nobody should be forced to support anyone else. That isn't freedom.

I do not want the government telling me I don't have a right to protect my home and person. Obama has one of the worst voting records and positions on gun rights than any President in U.S. history.

Simply put the government needs to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It is far from it. People were fed up with Bush and the Republicans so they put Obama and the Democrats in office. Now they have screwed up big time so the people put Republicans back in. What this means is that as the people get smarter and have less tolerance for this (especially when their bank accounts are hurting) they will keep voting them out every two years. It would be more effective if the U.S. could get some larger third parties but we aren't there yet.

As to GLBT-rights, they are an important issue but a relatively small issue compared to the overall big picture in my opinion. So what if the government said "Hey great, we support you for being trans and will even pay for your SRS (with someone else's tax dollars)." If that involves having the rest of my Constitutional rights stripped away and somehow even less money in the bank, etc. it is no good. GLBT rights are worthless if you are being told to "take a number" to try to get bed #38 in the poor house. Enough said.