The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

If they voted Trump as a "**** you", then they're petty. If they voted Trump because they legitimately felt Hillary a legitimate concern, then since Gorbles is not the God-appointed judge of what's a legitimate concern, they're just a little bit idiotic for picking someone also at least a little concerning. If everyone would have picked someone who concerns them the absolute minimum, I doubt either candidate would have won. I'd have voted Sanders, Warren, Johnson, Stein... there really were a lot of options.

"feeling Clinton was a legitimate concern" falls under "hating Hillary", as far as I'm concerned.

Because, like you said, there were any number of other representatives to support besides the guy with no political experience and extensive conflicts of interest wrt. his business interests.

You have to dislike someone an awful lot to think voting for Trump was the better option. Hence why one of the options was "agreeing with Trump's party's policies", because that's the only reason that is legitimate as far as political beliefs go. I know plenty of people that voted for other candidates because they couldn't support Trump or Clinton. It's not hard.

remember! remember : douche and turd sandwich......

you're making alot of assumptions here

ERRRRRP!

wrong

Bernie was my horse in the race.

I know you're not unconscious of this, you know that and you're only pushing these falsehoods for me to bite onto because it paints a more favorable battlefield for you to defend your stance in and an overall better picture of your stance (really not all that favorable either.....) but in the end the roleplay only benefits my deconstruction of your argumentation so why not go along?

again this has been covered 10+ times in this thread but : because her agreements didn't outweigh Trump's agreements (on their own) + all the other craziness he added for good measure (climatosepticism, educationa-phobism, pro free-market, socialo-phobism, sexism, rasism to name a few)

Made that very clear.

Also, Trump's pretty nationalist, but not quoted on nearly as much racist, anti-semantic, or sexist stuff as Clinton. A few people, none by the name of Trump nor Pence, smashed some gravestones. A few people, none by the name of Trump nor Pence, said and are saying stupid anti-hispanic dribble. Obviously not the hispanic states-natives that support Trump, which totally exist and are not self-hating for the love of Jove. It's not like he doesn't have an African-American on his cabinet, eh?

If he was racist, sexist, or anti-semantic, or if any individual who didn't belittle Trump in casual conversation were racist, sexist, or anti-semantic... then it would be a lot more obvious than a "he didn't offer a reply to claims" (after making constant claims, how often does one have to say no before it's implied automatically when asked the very next day???).

If they say they aren't sexist, racist, or anti-semantic, they aren't. They'd be proud of it and own that ****, if they were. You can't be racist, by not being racist. By claiming to not be racist, you're being as not-racist as you can possibly be.

It's almost like I never said I was a deity.



But you keep on trying to do . . . whatever you're doing. You've segued into some rant about how there are racists that follow Clinton, and non-racists that follow Trump. Which is technically-possible on both counts, but then again yet another argument I never made.

If you believe the frontrunner for a party which is currently trying to remove the "T" from the "LGBTQ" from the face of the planet is better than any other candidate ever, then you are biased against those other candidates. For whatever reason. You're biased. I don't care what roundabout arguments you can use to say "hah but Hillary isn't a perfect LGBTQ supporter either" because that's not the argument I'm using.

The argument I'm using is that the Trump-lead GOP are a bunch of capitalistic bigots and that any alternative is a better alternative. Apart from perhaps Gary Johnson.

trust actions not words

If Trump wasn't homophobic would he have appointed america's quasi-most notorious homophobe as vice president ?

add homophobic to the list.

as for Hillary citations needed

Yeah transitivity bi***! Trump is also atheist, christian and jew all at the same time.

well .... yeah ... man

i mean fuckk, you don't support ideologists who's ideology you dislike do you?

I can hardly think up better "support" than appointing vice president. on the paygrade alone. if not for the platform, pedestal and power and the inherent green light to use them to spread and advance your ideology.

can't you admit you're willfully being obtuse there?

Are you saying you'd see no issue at all appointing an openly pedophile and pro-pedophilia man to vice president, for example?

I'm saying that what you call homophobic isn't even close to being pedophilic. As far as I know federal government can't do shait about homosexuals anyways, states allow or forbid gay marriage etc... I disagree with my communist friends but I would trust them my life.

way to dodge the question.

https://wearechange.org/wikileaks-leak-reveals-clinton-still-secretly-gay-marriage/

Should I prepare 159 other sources for you, should you "not like" that one? Or can you use Google?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html?_r=0

Everything is fine.

call me unimpressed.

I mean she's not my candidate but all i see in these articles is her being in cahoots with foreign leaders that have alot of money AND that happen to be anti LGBT (in Brunei what a shoker).

as for the article you personally linked it's utterly devoid of any evidence. they link to a twitter screenshot who's poster has been banned so you can't see it and their other links link themselves where they promise to include some anti-LGBT statements as part of the lot and again there is none.

I mean I'm perfectly willing to believe it since why not she's an old person with probably dated ideas but how can this possibly be the best evidence you've got?

I'm sure you're going to agree with me it's pretty darn miserable.

Middle eastern leaders are anti-LGBT. Pence is anti-LGBT. Tatsu, is anti-LGBT? I mean, everyone must be, because both sides are technically... what's that word? "Complacent"? ...to at least one anti-LGBT candidate? Which makes most the supportive LGBT community... what's that other stupid argument? "Self-Hating"?

OR! Or....? Maybe Trump just isn't Anti-LGBT? That Liberal logic of "self-hating LGBT, women, blacks, and hispanics" that support Trump, is actually pretty disgusting. It pisses me off that they demand a vote by color, THAT is racist.

oh please you know thats gonna bite you in the *** someday soon...

I don't like Trump and honestly I doubt he cares one way or the other.

My first guess, is that he doesn't care.

My second guess, is that it seems to me the popular and bipartisan opinion is in favor of same sex marriage, though some want to let people cop out of recognizing or supporting it, despite legalizing it. Really, it's hella-hypocritical of them, but maybe the satanist temples are the best way to approach it, by their members refusing service to Christians, and to legislate "christian" civil rights they have to word it to cover all and no religion.

They are less supportive of the Trans community, but even most people I'd easily say wouldn't want to prosecute them. At best, there's support for bathroom segregation, but that is double-edged because it's still segregation and women are still pseudo-privileged. Equality, would sensibly be to have single-occupancy stalls designed for actual privacy. Last I checked, it's a non-issue in Europe. It's an issue in America, because America really has fallen behind on the times, coming out of 2 out of the last 4 presidents being democrats. It's not like technology has fallen behind, it's that certain aspects of American culture have been preserved for sake of "status quo" where it has evolved in every other modernized nation.

That is what irks me, that not only would I like to end the argument of even possibly oppressing the Trans community, but also that it is only a thing because of poor adaptations in the areas causing grief.

If it does, look at the bright side. I'd no longer support him, not even in a curious or doubtful yet obligated manner. Not if it's specific persecutions of our own citizens. I'd guess he'd probably lose plenty enough of his support to lose congress in 2 years and his second term in 4.

That would be the silver bullet you'd need, is action rather than speculation, and if he's stupid enough to do it, then that quite simplifies the situation.

I find it simultaneously amazing to have found THE drop that would spill the glass and surprising that that be it but call me reassured.

I'm glad you have a sense of reason.

remember : Historically, in any totalitarian setup gays (any others deemed "deviant") always had a terrible time/were treated bad.

even today : look at Russia, Turkey, North Korea and many African countries.

China is weird because even though it's clearly very totalitarian and freedoms are pretty trim they do tolerate it (still can't marry though and a majority of people are against them)

The sins of the new left.