Am I reading this comment the wrong way?

[stevenleser]

Its sounds pretty bad to me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2247265

[Warpy]

1. I think you might be

It looks like he's suggesting that human rights groups pool their money to compete with the 0.1% to buy the government. It's the only way we're going to see any positive changes in this horribly corrupt system, a bought government being impervious to marches, pledges, and prayers.

Sadly, he's probably right but there's no way we can compete with the 0.1%. They've stolen too much for us to be a threat to them.

[stevenleser]

2. No, I am not talking about that. I am talking about the specific accusation that LGBT groups bribed

politicians and media to get their rights. That isn't how I remember LGBT progress so far.

[Warpy]

5. "like the gays did?"

You might want to ask him for some proof of that.

Then you can laugh when he can't link "I heard it on the radio."

[riversedge]

3. I had to read it twice because during the first, my eyebrows went up--and was

wondering if I was reading it right. YES, I do think, that poster is saying that the gays bribed the media. --and politicians. Weird. just plain weird.

[stevenleser]

4. If only it had been that easy, right? Stonewall, Matthew Shepard, et al were not easy.

I know I am preaching to the choir but no one handed over rights to the LGBT community nice and easy for handing over a briefcase full of cash. And the fight continues.

[guillaumeb]

6. Reading left to right, and from the top down,

I see disillusionment and frustration. I hope that the poster is being somewhat hyperbolic, but the frustration is understandable.

And I hope that the poster is not really suggesting buying politicians. The 1% has far more money than the rest of us and if one plays the money game the ones with more money win.

Paul Wellstone won by organizing. And there are other similar examples. If everyone who marches understood that marching is only one tactic in a strategy that must also include consistent electoral engagement we would be in a more progressive place. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this.

If Democrats voted in every single election in the same manner as Presidential elections, there would have been no massive GOP gerrymandering subsequent to the 2010 election. The 2010 election was characterized as a reaction to Obama's overreach, but what it and 2014 really showed is that youthful voters are generally inconsistent voters. If President Obama had worked with a Democratic controlled Congress perhaps much more would have been accomplished.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. We have political leaders who erase our history so it is no surprise that some

straight Democrats believe a load of horsehit about LGBT activism and history. That poster is not really to blame.

I've been thinking so much about this need to erase our activism. I think it has to do in part with the fact that LGBT groups, particularly LGBT of color, have been protesting Trump very actively for decades, we've been telling everyone he's a bigoted predator while some have given him TV shows and legitimized him socially, been his golf buddy and suddenly out of the blue they oppose him. They seem to need to feign surprise at Trump's racism, and to do that they have to pretend there were not warned. But they were.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Let astrology be your guide.

You have the power! The answers are in the star(s).

[shenmue]

9. No, it's what you think.

[irisblue]

10. rancid comment by that one

Put that poster on ignore.