Uncle Toms? Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Romney – Politics Informer Video

“The Log Cabin Republicans announced Tuesday that they have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, a significant departure from 2008, when the group ran ads hitting Romney for his shift from moderation to severe conservativism and highlighted him as an example of what is wrong with the Republican Party. The organization, which calls itself “the nation’s only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans,” makes this choice despite Romney’s staunch support for a federal marriage inequality amendment and his steadfast opposition to LGBT equality.”* Cenk Uygur breaks down why it is counterintuitive to vote for a candidate who outwardly opposes giving you the rights afforded other Americans. *Read more from John Israel/Think Progress: thinkprogress.org Support The Young Turks by Subscribing bit.ly Support The Young Turks by Shopping bit.ly Like Us on Facebook: www.fb.com Follow Us on Twitter: bit.ly Buy TYT Merch: theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: www.current.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

14 Comments - Write a Comment

  1. Log Cabin Republicans do not represent the majority because they themselves are a minority (LGBT individuals.)

    Your point was moot the second you started writing it. Log Cabin Republicans are Conservative Republicans. And actually, I WOULD claim that the Dems are anti-LGBT.

    Obama supported Don’tAskDon’tTell for 3 years, until the issue of re-election started coming up. What a strange and deliberate coincidence!

    Obama has repeatedly stated he’s against gay marriage, since he’s a Christian.

  2. Log Cabin Republicans do not represent the majority of the Republicans. Not even close. Just like there are Democrats who don’t support gay marriage but you wouldn’t proclaim that the Democratic party is anti-gay based on this minority group.

  3. you stupid cunt, what was your talking point? Becaue you are responding to a comment i made that was not responded by you, so there is no way i can begin to find your dumbass talking point…

    NOw can we put the childish name calling aside, I am sure when the shoe is on the other foot you see how imature it is.

  4. Two states legalized weed and now the federal government wants to challenge and take it away. I’m curious as to where you stand on the tenth amendment on this one. Also, Obama extending what the Republicans started doesn’t nullify the fact that the Republicans are guilty of it, and you didn’t complain. I, on the other hand, have complained about Obama because I’m not a sheep. Drone strikes and his lying about how he’d handle drug laws are two examples. Continuing Republican policies, of course.

  5. @TYT


    “Republicans fought against gay marriage.” WRONG. The Log Cabin REPUBLICANS were the ones who filed the federal lawsuit against the United States to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It was the REPUBLICANS that crushed DADT, not the Democrats.

  6. Business

    The businesses demand for that job may be different at different times. They may pay more to hire someone now due to a sudden increase in their demand. The supply for that job may have also changed.


    In addition there are different variable’s affecting people’s demand for a job & and that job’s supply.

    The amount you get paid should be a combination of all these elements. Remember value itself is a subjective notion based on supply and demand.

  7. (Cont) have jobs with growth potential. There’s usually not a huge amount of that in smaller businesses. The point is Blacks and minorities have much more opportunity economically today than they did 50 years ago, and saying we were better off then because the unemployment rate for Blacks ages 16-25 was below 15% is an ignorant statement. But I digress. It’s clear neither of us will budge on this, so there’s no point in harping on it. I say we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

  8. (Cont) simply because stats say the employment rate was higher. Sure it was higher, but were any of them as prosperous as we are or can be now? No, and it doesn’t make sense to say otherwise. There’s important context, and your original and subsequent statements ignore it. That’s what this whole thing was about. And yes, things like affirmative action are aimed more for Corporations than small business because there’s more opportunity to work your way up in those jobs, and most people aspire to

  9. (Cont) than things like affirmative action) you can’t say anything about our past situation being better than what we have now. It would be the equivalent of saying that a group of people who now have the ability to be essentially whatever they want were better off in the past when they had very little opportunity outside of either owning a small business (that was not extremely lucrative, but sufficient enough to get by) or working as what many would equate to being a McDonalds cashier today,


Leave a Reply