[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT
 

undeadsuitor:
.

Yeah. I have no idea why gay and trans people, when choosing political parties, choose the party that accepts them instead of the one that wants to sent them to reeducation camps.

I mean hello

Camps are fun

.
You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

TheIronRuler:

undeadsuitor:
.

Yeah. I have no idea why gay and trans people, when choosing political parties, choose the party that accepts them instead of the one that wants to sent them to reeducation camps.

I mean hello

Camps are fun

.
You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

Except that "libertarians" voting republican just helps the social conservative republicans infringe the rights of others, no matter how much you "dont care"

TheIronRuler:

You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

Of course you can. But "believing that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others" is so broad as to be nebulous without definition.

"Live as they wish"... within what parameters?

"As long as it doesn't infringe on which rights, defined how"?

TheIronRuler:

undeadsuitor:
.

Yeah. I have no idea why gay and trans people, when choosing political parties, choose the party that accepts them instead of the one that wants to sent them to reeducation camps.

I mean hello

Camps are fun

.
You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

If you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, you are against LGBT rights.

Silvanus:

TheIronRuler:

You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

Of-fucking-course you can. But "believing that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others" is so nebulously broad as to be pointless without definition.

"Live as they wish"... within what parameters?

"As long as it doesn't infringe on which rights, defined how"?

Not to mention one can spin any concern as "feelings" so easily that the definition of rights are pretty much on wheels. Also, what's the reaction when a right is officially removed? Does it then become ok to trample in what used to be others' right?

undeadsuitor:

TheIronRuler:

undeadsuitor:
.

Yeah. I have no idea why gay and trans people, when choosing political parties, choose the party that accepts them instead of the one that wants to sent them to reeducation camps.

I mean hello

Camps are fun

.
You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

Except that "libertarians" voting republican just helps the social conservative republicans infringe the rights of others, no matter how much you "dont care"

.
In this case I agree. It's a hard decision in the US, as I understand, since there are two major parties to choose from. However I do think that there is a spectrum on those parties, and you can vote for individuals which you agree with, or vote against those you disagree with... I'm not from that kind of system, I vote for whoever I most agree with, not for whoever is the least shitty. I dislike being somehow chained to a certain party because of who you are, and not what you believe in. 'Vote democrat because you're Jewish', not because you believe in their values, etc.
.

Silvanus:

TheIronRuler:

You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

Of-fucking-course you can. But "believing that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others" is so nebulously broad as to be pointless without definition.

"Live as they wish"... within what parameters?

"As long as it doesn't infringe on which rights, defined how"?

.
It isn't broad, it's very precise. This is my creed, I know it well.

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

undeadsuitor:
.

Yeah. I have no idea why gay and trans people, when choosing political parties, choose the party that accepts them instead of the one that wants to sent them to reeducation camps.

I mean hello

Camps are fun

.
You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

If you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, you are against LGBT rights.

Not necessarily. You can be pro-lgbt rights, but find them to be less important than other issues.

Say you're pro-lgbt, but also pro-life. I'm sure in that case you'll vote for whoever is the pro-life candidate, since the right to be alive probably trumps the right to get married or use a specific bathroom.

If you're in the middle in our political system and neither of the 2 political parties fully represent your ideals you're forced to choose which of your ideals are more important. Lgbt issues affect a much smaller population of people than issues with the economy, infrastructure, gun rights, abortion, healthcare, the environment, etc.

Just because someone is voting in favor of a candidate who is against lgbt rights it doesn't mean that they themselves are against lgbt rights, it can just mean that there are other rights that are more important to them. You are an lgbt person, so of course lgbt rights are really important to you, but they are also rights that don't affect the majority of the population.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

.
You can be a right-wing liberal (I think this is just libertarians in the US). You can have right-wing ideas and believe in liberty which means that every person is entitled to live as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (and no, your feelings or religious believes getting hurt doesn't count). That's my ideological niche.

If you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, you are against LGBT rights.

Not necessarily. You can be pro-lgbt rights, but find them to be less important than other issues.

Say you're pro-lgbt, but also pro-life. I'm sure in that case you'll vote for whoever is the pro-life candidate, since the right to be alive probably trumps the right to get married or use a specific bathroom.

If you're in the middle in our political system and neither of the 2 political parties fully represent your ideals you're forced to choose which of your ideals are more important. Lgbt issues affect a much smaller population of people than issues with the economy, infrastructure, gun rights, abortion, healthcare, the environment, etc.

Just because someone is voting in favor of a candidate who is against lgbt rights it doesn't mean that they themselves are against lgbt rights, it can just mean that there are other rights that are more important to them. You are an lgbt person, so of course lgbt rights are really important to you, but they are also rights that don't affect the majority of the population.

I repeat, if you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, YOU are against LGBT rights. You supported the opposition to LGBT rights, there is no excuse for it. You have decided to stand against LGBT rights. It doesn't matter that it is because you are more for another issue, you have thrown LGBT rights under the bus, and thus can NOT claim to be 'Pro-LGBT'.

Your actions in voting for someone against LGBT rights is thus against LGBT rights. You're not -really- disagreeing with me, you're just excusing the bigotry.

Human rights affect everyone. If you can throw LGBT people under the bus, you can throw anyone else too.

But hey, 'They came for the LGBT people, but I did not say anything cause I was not LGBT', right?

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
If you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, you are against LGBT rights.

Not necessarily. You can be pro-lgbt rights, but find them to be less important than other issues.

Say you're pro-lgbt, but also pro-life. I'm sure in that case you'll vote for whoever is the pro-life candidate, since the right to be alive probably trumps the right to get married or use a specific bathroom.

If you're in the middle in our political system and neither of the 2 political parties fully represent your ideals you're forced to choose which of your ideals are more important. Lgbt issues affect a much smaller population of people than issues with the economy, infrastructure, gun rights, abortion, healthcare, the environment, etc.

Just because someone is voting in favor of a candidate who is against lgbt rights it doesn't mean that they themselves are against lgbt rights, it can just mean that there are other rights that are more important to them. You are an lgbt person, so of course lgbt rights are really important to you, but they are also rights that don't affect the majority of the population.

I repeat, if you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, YOU are against LGBT rights. You supported the opposition to LGBT rights, there is no excuse for it. You have decided to stand against LGBT rights. It doesn't matter that it is because you are more for another issue, you have thrown LGBT rights under the bus, and thus can NOT claim to be 'Pro-LGBT'.

Your actions in voting for someone against LGBT rights is thus against LGBT rights. You're not -really- disagreeing with me, you're just excusing the bigotry.

Human rights affect everyone. If you can throw LGBT people under the bus, you can throw anyone else too.

But hey, 'They came for the LGBT people, but I did not say anything cause I was not LGBT', right?

Yes, you're right, whether or not 2 men living together get to have a tax break, or which bathroom a woman who used to be a man is asked to use should totally be more important to everyone than whether or not there's going to be another housing market crash in the next 5 years, or whether the planet is going to be inhabitable in the next 50 years, or whether defenseless unborn infants are being "murdered."

Of course I'm being factious here, but like I said before we have a really shitty political system here.

Just because someone votes for a politician that is anti-LGBT does not mean that they themselves are anti-LGBT (though they're probably pretty ambivalent), just like someone not voting for Hilary does not mean that they were pro-Trump.

The world is not black and white in the way that our political system likes to pretend it is.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Not necessarily. You can be pro-lgbt rights, but find them to be less important than other issues.

Say you're pro-lgbt, but also pro-life. I'm sure in that case you'll vote for whoever is the pro-life candidate, since the right to be alive probably trumps the right to get married or use a specific bathroom.

If you're in the middle in our political system and neither of the 2 political parties fully represent your ideals you're forced to choose which of your ideals are more important. Lgbt issues affect a much smaller population of people than issues with the economy, infrastructure, gun rights, abortion, healthcare, the environment, etc.

Just because someone is voting in favor of a candidate who is against lgbt rights it doesn't mean that they themselves are against lgbt rights, it can just mean that there are other rights that are more important to them. You are an lgbt person, so of course lgbt rights are really important to you, but they are also rights that don't affect the majority of the population.

I repeat, if you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, YOU are against LGBT rights. You supported the opposition to LGBT rights, there is no excuse for it. You have decided to stand against LGBT rights. It doesn't matter that it is because you are more for another issue, you have thrown LGBT rights under the bus, and thus can NOT claim to be 'Pro-LGBT'.

Your actions in voting for someone against LGBT rights is thus against LGBT rights. You're not -really- disagreeing with me, you're just excusing the bigotry.

Human rights affect everyone. If you can throw LGBT people under the bus, you can throw anyone else too.

But hey, 'They came for the LGBT people, but I did not say anything cause I was not LGBT', right?

Yes, you're right, whether or not 2 men living together get to have a tax break, or which bathroom a woman who used to be a man is asked to use should totally be more important to everyone than whether or not there's going to be another housing market crash in the next 5 years, or whether the planet is going to be inhabitable in the next 50 years, or whether defenseless unborn infants are being "murdered."

Of course I'm being factious here, but like I said before we have a really shitty political system here.

Just because someone votes for a politician that is anti-LGBT does not mean that they themselves are anti-LGBT (though they're probably pretty ambivalent), just like someone not voting for Hilary does not mean that they were pro-Trump.

The world is not black and white in the way that our political system likes to pretend it is.

I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

Next you're going to claim you can be a vegan and eat steak, or you can be a virgin and have sex. Ya can say whatever you want, wont change the truth.

Voting for Trump is being Pro-Trump. You're saying you can vote for Trump and not be Pro-Trump.

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
I repeat, if you vote for people who are against LGBT rights, YOU are against LGBT rights. You supported the opposition to LGBT rights, there is no excuse for it. You have decided to stand against LGBT rights. It doesn't matter that it is because you are more for another issue, you have thrown LGBT rights under the bus, and thus can NOT claim to be 'Pro-LGBT'.

Your actions in voting for someone against LGBT rights is thus against LGBT rights. You're not -really- disagreeing with me, you're just excusing the bigotry.

Human rights affect everyone. If you can throw LGBT people under the bus, you can throw anyone else too.

But hey, 'They came for the LGBT people, but I did not say anything cause I was not LGBT', right?

Yes, you're right, whether or not 2 men living together get to have a tax break, or which bathroom a woman who used to be a man is asked to use should totally be more important to everyone than whether or not there's going to be another housing market crash in the next 5 years, or whether the planet is going to be inhabitable in the next 50 years, or whether defenseless unborn infants are being "murdered."

Of course I'm being factious here, but like I said before we have a really shitty political system here.

Just because someone votes for a politician that is anti-LGBT does not mean that they themselves are anti-LGBT (though they're probably pretty ambivalent), just like someone not voting for Hilary does not mean that they were pro-Trump.

The world is not black and white in the way that our political system likes to pretend it is.

I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

Next you're going to claim you can be a vegan and eat steak, or you can be a virgin and have sex. Ya can say whatever you want, wont change the truth.

Voting for Trump is being Pro-Trump. You're saying you can vote for Trump and not be Pro-Trump.

Yes, you can vote for Trump and not be pro-Trump. Plenty of people voted for Trump specifically because they couldn't stand Hilary, not because they actually liked Trump in any way. That's the problem with a binary system, sometimes people aren't voting FOR something so much as they're voting AGAINST something. Some people hated Hilary so much that they would have voted for literally anyone else.

If you're voting between getting kicked in the nuts and raped in the ass, even if you vote for getting kicked in the nuts you're still probably not actually FOR getting kicked in the nuts.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Yes, you're right, whether or not 2 men living together get to have a tax break, or which bathroom a woman who used to be a man is asked to use should totally be more important to everyone than whether or not there's going to be another housing market crash in the next 5 years, or whether the planet is going to be inhabitable in the next 50 years, or whether defenseless unborn infants are being "murdered."

Of course I'm being factious here, but like I said before we have a really shitty political system here.

Just because someone votes for a politician that is anti-LGBT does not mean that they themselves are anti-LGBT (though they're probably pretty ambivalent), just like someone not voting for Hilary does not mean that they were pro-Trump.

The world is not black and white in the way that our political system likes to pretend it is.

I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

Next you're going to claim you can be a vegan and eat steak, or you can be a virgin and have sex. Ya can say whatever you want, wont change the truth.

Voting for Trump is being Pro-Trump. You're saying you can vote for Trump and not be Pro-Trump.

Yes, you can vote for Trump and not be pro-Trump. Plenty of people voted for Trump specifically because they couldn't stand Hilary, not because they actually liked Trump in any way. That's the problem with a binary system, sometimes people aren't voting FOR something so much as they're voting AGAINST something. Some people hated Hilary so much that they would have voted for literally anyone else.

If you're voting between getting kicked in the nuts and raped in the ass, even if you vote for getting kicked in the nuts you're still probably not actually FOR getting kicked in the nuts.

Yes, people who voted against people FOR LGBT rights are also anti-LGBT rights.

You just want to excuse bigotry. Clearly human rights weren't important enough to people if they can vote FOR someone who actively opposes them.

Anyone who chose Trump over Hillary did so for bigoted reasons.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/99574-we-must-take-sides-neutrality-helps-the-oppressor-never-the

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
- Elie Wiesel

Dirty Hipsters:
Some people hated Hilary so much that they would have voted for literally anyone else.

That's true, but hardly a defence. Clinton would have been an immeasurably better PotUS, no question.

If someone says "Yeah, I want to protect your rights, but not as much as I want Clinton to not be PotUS", it's fair to question how much they actually want to protect your rights.

Saelune:
I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate. Anyone who says that must mean I'm against LGBT rights can go take a long walk along a short pier.

undeadsuitor:
Poor people should just get a small loan of a million dollars from their fathers to stop being poor

Duh

Absolutely. Like Trump's a self-made man you know: the millions his dad lent/bequeathed him and all the business contacts and infrastructure from the old man's property firm had nothing to do with it.

In fact, which other supposedly famous entrepreneur was it I was reading about not that long ago who got his business bailed out from collapse by millions of his parents' dollars mid-career?

Agema:

Saelune:
I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate. Anyone who says that must mean I'm against LGBT rights can go take a long walk along a short pier.

It certainly means you care more about not murdering all Christians than you do LGBT rights. But according to Dirty Hipster, if you vote for the person in favor of murdering all Christians, it doesn't mean you're in favor of murdering all Christians.

So, everyone who voted for Hillary is also against LGBT as she spent a decade fighting against it and like Trump, only adopted a neutral stance to gain popularity?

After all, you are what you vote for.

Agema:

Saelune:
I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate. Anyone who says that must mean I'm against LGBT rights can go take a long walk along a short pier.

So, of course it doesn't mean you are against LGBT rights. As Saelune said above, it does show that not murdering all Christians is more important than LGBT rights to you. Considering none of the pro-LGBT candidates are for murdering all Christians, the hyperbole doesn't really do anything but distract from the issue.

The Lunatic:
So, everyone who voted for Hillary is also against LGBT as she spent a decade fighting against it and like Trump, only adopted a neutral stance to gain popularity?

After all, you are what you vote for.

Was waiting for this.

Hillary hasn't been anti-LGBT for atleast 10 years. 1996 Hillary Clinton wasn't running for President in 2016. But hey, she proves my point eh? If she is in her mind anti-LGBT, her actions, her votes have put her in the pro-LGBT side. Maybe she realized there is more important issues?

Trump did not adopt a neutral stance. He made Pence his VP. Pence is Trump's LGBT stance, which is vehemently anti-LGBT. (Plus ya know, his kicking out all the trans troops)

Avnger:

Agema:

Saelune:
I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate. Anyone who says that must mean I'm against LGBT rights can go take a long walk along a short pier.

So, of course it doesn't mean you are against LGBT rights. As Saelune said above, it does show that not murdering all Christians is more important than LGBT rights to you. Considering none of the pro-LGBT candidates are for murdering all Christians, the hyperbole doesn't really do anything but distract from the issue.

Not at all, Saelune initially claimed that if you voted against a candidate who's pro LGBT you're against LGBT. Such statement assumes that the reason you voted against that candidate is irrelevant. This includes the hypothetical scenario presented. For instance if someone were to vote against Hillary Clinton because they wanted to make clear to the DNC that they won't accept corporate stooges anymore, that is not showing an anti-LGBT stance. Its merely showing that you consider sending that message more important than voting pro LGBT.

Saelune:
Was waiting for this.

Hillary hasn't been anti-LGBT for atleast 10 years. 1996 Hillary Clinton wasn't running for President in 2016. But hey, she proves my point eh? If she is in her mind anti-LGBT, her actions, her votes have put her in the pro-LGBT side. Maybe she realized there is more important issues?

Trump did not adopt a neutral stance. He made Pence his VP. Pence is Trump's LGBT stance, which is vehemently anti-LGBT. (Plus ya know, his kicking out all the trans troops)

Trump also made it so mentally vulnerable LGBT people weren't forced to serve in the draft even though it was unpopular.

Hillary meanwhile, just went with whatever was popular at the time in a desperate attempt to get into the white house.

The history of LGBT rights is one that states that the best thing to do, may not always be the most popular one. We should judge people on what actions they do, and who they support against popularity. Hillary had every chance to aid the LGBT community when it was unpopular. She refused, and only did so when it was deemed socially acceptable. That's simply cowardice disguised as virtue.

The Lunatic:
So, everyone who voted for Hillary is also against LGBT as she spent a decade fighting against it and like Trump, only adopted a neutral stance to gain popularity?

After all, you are what you vote for.

.
I have something for this.

yOu aRe wHaT YoU VoTe fOr
.

Saelune:

The Lunatic:
So, everyone who voted for Hillary is also against LGBT as she spent a decade fighting against it and like Trump, only adopted a neutral stance to gain popularity?

After all, you are what you vote for.

Was waiting for this.

Hillary hasn't been anti-LGBT for atleast 10 years. 1996 Hillary Clinton wasn't running for President in 2016. But hey, she proves my point eh? If she is in her mind anti-LGBT, her actions, her votes have put her in the pro-LGBT side. Maybe she realized there is more important issues?

Trump did not adopt a neutral stance. He made Pence his VP. Pence is Trump's LGBT stance, which is vehemently anti-LGBT. (Plus ya know, his kicking out all the trans troops)

.
It's a good policy that transgendered are not eligible for military service.

Saelune:
...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

TheIronRuler:

It's a good policy that transgendered are not eligible for military service.

Why?

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
Was waiting for this.

Hillary hasn't been anti-LGBT for atleast 10 years. 1996 Hillary Clinton wasn't running for President in 2016. But hey, she proves my point eh? If she is in her mind anti-LGBT, her actions, her votes have put her in the pro-LGBT side. Maybe she realized there is more important issues?

Trump did not adopt a neutral stance. He made Pence his VP. Pence is Trump's LGBT stance, which is vehemently anti-LGBT. (Plus ya know, his kicking out all the trans troops)

Trump also made it so mentally vulnerable LGBT people weren't forced to serve in the draft even though it was unpopular.

Hillary meanwhile, just went with whatever was popular at the time in a desperate attempt to get into the white house.

The history of LGBT rights is one that states that the best thing to do, may not always be the most popular one. We should judge people on what actions they do, and who they support against popularity. Hillary had every chance to aid the LGBT community when it was unpopular. She refused, and only did so when it was deemed socially acceptable. That's simply cowardice disguised as virtue.

Citation needed. Though no one should be on the draft.

Hillary sided with the Democrats who are pro-LGBT, especially after Obama solidified that with pro-LGBT policies and saying while in office that he is pro-LGBT in no unclear words. But you don't care about that, and would not criticize Trump for the same thing even though he is desperately trying to appeal to the anti-LGBT Republicans while toting a defiled rainbow flag to virtue signal to LGBT people rather poorly.

Trump had every chance to aid the LGBT community, both when it was popular and unpopular, and at no point did he ever aid LGBT people, EVER.

Trump made Pence his Vice President and courted anti-LGBT Republicans. Trump's actions are decidedly anti-LGBT. And I know you know that.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

generals3:

Avnger:

Agema:

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate. Anyone who says that must mean I'm against LGBT rights can go take a long walk along a short pier.

So, of course it doesn't mean you are against LGBT rights. As Saelune said above, it does show that not murdering all Christians is more important than LGBT rights to you. Considering none of the pro-LGBT candidates are for murdering all Christians, the hyperbole doesn't really do anything but distract from the issue.

Not at all, Saelune initially claimed that if you voted against a candidate who's pro LGBT you're against LGBT. Such statement assumes that the reason you voted against that candidate is irrelevant. This includes the hypothetical scenario presented. For instance if someone were to vote against Hillary Clinton because they wanted to make clear to the DNC that they won't accept corporate stooges anymore, that is not showing an anti-LGBT stance. Its merely showing that you consider sending that message more important than voting pro LGBT.

Voting for Trump was voting for corporate stooges. His cabinet is almost entirely incompetent CEOs. I voted for LGBT-rights and against corporate stooges. Trump voters cant say the same. They do anyway, but they are wrong to do so.

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

It's a good policy that transgendered are not eligible for military service.

Why?

Because TheIronRuler is against LGBT-rights.

Agema:

Saelune:
I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate.

And that wasn't the case with Hilary (literally being in favour of murdering all the Christians). In fact, what exactly was what pushed people away? What quotes? Because I'm tired of speaking in hypotheticals, while the harm that Trump administration does is real and tangible.

TheIronRuler:
Secondly, transgendered soldiers are more susceptible to mental instability and more prone to suicide. Allowing them easy access to firearms is just irresponsible.

So you're a gun control advocate?

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:
Secondly, transgendered soldiers are more susceptible to mental instability and more prone to suicide. Allowing them easy access to firearms is just irresponsible.

So you're a gun control advocate?

.
It's not a relevant topic in the society I live in. The discussion there regarding gun control revolves around tighter regulation and enforcement for security-forces, since there had been cases of security personnel murdering their wives and then committing suicide with the firearm they've taken home after their shift. There should be much more oversight to prevent that kind of thing (for example, making sure they don't sneak off after their shift with their firearm). Secondly there's also the issue of illegal weapons stockpiled and held in Arab population centers, and their frequent use in crime (quite similarly to the previous issue, in honor killings).

I'm more inclined towards stricter control, but as you may notice this is a no-brainer...

TheIronRuler:

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

It's a good policy that transgendered are not eligible for military service.

Why?

.
Two off the top of my head. First is difficulties with facilities and unit cohesion. Transgendered soldiers will have it bad if they are found. It will undoubtedly make other soldiers uncomfortable in the shared facilities. It also marks them for harassment and rejection by soldiers from the unit. Secondly, transgendered soldiers are more susceptible to mental instability and more prone to suicide. Allowing them easy access to firearms is just irresponsible. Transforming genders is a very mentally challenging task, which can sometimes have long-term repercussions in terms of mental health issues... in short, they are more prone to suicide.

I see it as allowing them to get bullied and then kill themselves. I would rather they didn't experience that.
.

Saelune:

Kwak:

Why?

Because TheIronRuler is against LGBT-rights.

.
bEcAuSe tHeIrOnRuLeR Is aGaInSt lGbT-RiGhTs

I am sure people felt the same about ending segregation between races. 'Blacks should be separate for their own good'. Its a load of bigoted BS though.

I would point out that you're being uncivil by mocking me, but its only wrong to be uncivil when the left does it based on what I am often told.

CaitSeith:

Agema:

Saelune:
I repeat again, YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR! If you vote against LGBT rights, YOU ARE AGAINST LGBT RIGHTS. Its not complicated.

If the pro-LGBT rights candidate is also in favour of murdering all the Christians, I'll be voting against the LGBT rights candidate.

And that wasn't the case with Hilary (literally being in favour of murdering all the Christians). In fact, what exactly was what pushed people away? What quotes? Because I'm tired of speaking in hypotheticals, while the harm that Trump administration does is real and tangible.

I will give Agema the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they were just blowing off some built up steam. Agema has shown to be pro-equal rights and very smart. I know they know Hillary got a lot of undeserved shit. They certainly have been decidedly anti-Trump too.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here