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

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

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

Kwak:

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:
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.

.
Read up on the conditions set for accepting transgendered citizens into service when it was legal. Address the argument. I hate arguing with you because you resort to racism arguments every single time without fail - this is no exception, as you've been quoted above.

edit: You're being uncivil for shitposting me and saying I don't care about rights of non-heterosexuals. I don't need you to speak for me, speak for yourself.

Saelune:

CaitSeith:

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.

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.

If it looked like I wanted to give to put Agema on a hard spot, I apologize. My question is open to everyone. Maybe I should make my own thread with a more attractive title:

Hilary did nothing that made her supporters vote for Trump. Change my mind.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

.
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.
.

.
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.

.
Read up on the conditions set for accepting transgendered citizens into service when it was legal. Address the argument. I hate arguing with you because you resort to racism arguments every single time without fail - this is no exception, as you've been quoted above.

I am not resorting to racism arguments, I am pointing out that your views are anti-LGBT, or more specifically anti-Trans rights. You are by your own admission, opposed to the right of a transgendered person serving in the military. That is an objective fact that YOU need to justify. The problem with your so-called justification though is that it is overly broad and ignores all the context of trans rights and issues. Trans people would have way less mental problems if we weren't constantly oppressed and constantly put down for standing up for ourselves.

Instead of understanding how I might feel as a trans person, you put me down.

I dont resort to calling out bigotry, I just make it a habit to call it out. I didnt resort to it in the topic about creators owing fans, cause it was not relevant. It is absolutely relevant int the topic of LGBT rights.

Its not my fault that your views are what they are.

TheIronRuler:

edit: You're being uncivil for shitposting me and saying I don't care about rights of non-heterosexuals. I don't need you to speak for me, speak for yourself.

I AM speaking for myself, by making it bluntly clear what your intentions are. I am tired of people trying to lie and mislead about their intentions.

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.

C'mon now. Similarly voting for anything else than the complete withdrawal of all US armed operations abroad makes you a killer because that's what you voted for.

With a similar train of thought in our Parliamentary election this April you would run into a dilemma: are you for the policies the party you voted will realistically put forward or for their politics as a whole if they somehow got 100% of the votes?

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:
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.

.
Read up on the conditions set for accepting transgendered citizens into service when it was legal. Address the argument. I hate arguing with you because you resort to racism arguments every single time without fail - this is no exception, as you've been quoted above.

I am not resorting to racism arguments, I am pointing out that your views are anti-LGBT, or more specifically anti-Trans rights. You are by your own admission, opposed to the right of a transgendered person serving in the military. That is an objective fact that YOU need to justify. The problem with your so-called justification though is that it is overly broad and ignores all the context of trans rights and issues. Trans people would have way less mental problems if we weren't constantly oppressed and constantly put down for standing up for ourselves.

Instead of understanding how I might feel as a trans person, you put me down.

I dont resort to calling out bigotry, I just make it a habit to call it out. I didnt resort to it in the topic about creators owing fans, cause it was not relevant. It is absolutely relevant int the topic of LGBT rights.

Its not my fault that your views are what they are.

.
This is a racism argument. Just because they are similar to you does not mean they are the same thing.

"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."

You haven't asked me to elaborate or justify my claims, you've decided to call me out for being anti-LGBT. No discussion. Merely accusations. I can back up what I've written, and some of it from personal experience. I haven't even done so, and you already have problems with it. Overtly broad? Transgendered are much more susceptible to mental illness and succumb to suicide more than the general population. Their condition is very taxing on the mind. You don't want to talk context, all I've read from you is projecting your personal issues on this.
.
EDIT:

Saelune:
.I AM speaking for myself, by making it bluntly clear what your intentions are. I am tired of people trying to lie and mislead about their intentions.

.
Dafuq are my intentions you're reading into.

TheIronRuler:

undeadsuitor:

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.

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.
.

Except youre doing exactly that. Voting for who you are (a conservative) over voting for what you believe in (that people should be free to live how they want)

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

TheIronRuler:

.
Read up on the conditions set for accepting transgendered citizens into service when it was legal. Address the argument. I hate arguing with you because you resort to racism arguments every single time without fail - this is no exception, as you've been quoted above.

I am not resorting to racism arguments, I am pointing out that your views are anti-LGBT, or more specifically anti-Trans rights. You are by your own admission, opposed to the right of a transgendered person serving in the military. That is an objective fact that YOU need to justify. The problem with your so-called justification though is that it is overly broad and ignores all the context of trans rights and issues. Trans people would have way less mental problems if we weren't constantly oppressed and constantly put down for standing up for ourselves.

Instead of understanding how I might feel as a trans person, you put me down.

I dont resort to calling out bigotry, I just make it a habit to call it out. I didnt resort to it in the topic about creators owing fans, cause it was not relevant. It is absolutely relevant int the topic of LGBT rights.

Its not my fault that your views are what they are.

.
This is a racism argument. Just because they are similar to you does not mean they are the same thing.

"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."

You haven't asked me to elaborate or justify my claims, you've decided to call me out for being anti-LGBT. No discussion. Merely accusations. I can back up what I've written, and some of it from personal experience. I haven't even done so, and you already have problems with it. Overtly broad? Transgendered are much more susceptible to mental illness and succumb to suicide more than the general population. Their condition is very taxing on the mind. You don't want to talk context, all I've read from you is projecting your personal issues on this.
.
EDIT:

Saelune:
.I AM speaking for myself, by making it bluntly clear what your intentions are. I am tired of people trying to lie and mislead about their intentions.

.
Dafuq are my intentions you're reading into.

I don't need to formally ask you to justify it. If you want to prove me wrong, it is up to you to do that. You opened up with supporting kicking ALL trans people out of the military. Your first move was to speak against trans people's rights to equality. That is what YOU did. You don't even want to give trans people the chance to prove they can be fit to serve. You just want to blanket ban them. Same happened with women for a long time. Do you think women should not be allowed even the chance to serve in the military?

Being mad at me for pointing out what you said wont change that you said it.

Saelune:
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.

Your argument is: You are who you vote for.
Hillary has a track record of being against LGBT rights and has no history of changing that for anything other than popularity.
As such, according to your logic, if you vote her, you yourself are against LGBT rights and will simply use the LGBT community as a shield to avoid unpopularity.
By your logic, everyone should have voted for third party candidates who were actually in favor of LGBT rights, why didn't you?

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
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.

Your argument is: You are who you vote for.
Hillary has a track record of being against LGBT rights and has no history of changing that for anything other than popularity.
As such, according to your logic, if you vote her, you yourself are against LGBT rights and will simply use the LGBT community as a shield to avoid unpopularity.
By your logic, everyone should have voted for third party candidates who were actually in favor of LGBT rights, why didn't you?

Because Hillary voted for the pro-LGBT side, becoming pro-LGBT and never betrayed that. I voted for pro-LGBT Hillary.

Your argument is that Hillary is anti-LGBT, and Trump is pro-LGBT, but the facts do not support these claims, as their actions have proven the opposite of your claims, especially their actions over the last decade.

Feel free to give me a challenge though. These have been easy.

Saelune:
Because Hillary voted for the pro-LGBT side, becoming pro-LGBT and never betrayed that. I voted for pro-LGBT Hillary.

Your argument is that Hillary is anti-LGBT, and Trump is pro-LGBT, but the facts do not support these claims, as their actions have proven the opposite of your claims, especially their actions over the last decade.

Feel free to give me a challenge though. These have been easy.

It's simply denying reality to not accept Hillary's history of being anti-LGBT.
I never said Trump was Pro-LGBT. Just that he has enacted a few things that are.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
Because Hillary voted for the pro-LGBT side, becoming pro-LGBT and never betrayed that. I voted for pro-LGBT Hillary.

Your argument is that Hillary is anti-LGBT, and Trump is pro-LGBT, but the facts do not support these claims, as their actions have proven the opposite of your claims, especially their actions over the last decade.

Feel free to give me a challenge though. These have been easy.

It's simply denying reality to not accept Hillary's history of being anti-LGBT.
I never said Trump was Pro-LGBT. Just that he has enacted a few things that are.

Denying reality? Right-wingers sure do like to project.

You're going to need to provide evidence to support your claims.

undeadsuitor:
.
Except youre doing exactly that. Voting for who you are (a conservative) over voting for what you believe in (that people should be free to live how they want)

.
Allowing Transgendered to serve puts them and their fellow soldiers at risk and hurts the overall strength of the unit. In my nation's military, transgendered require very specific and special conditions for their healthy integration into military life. They are integrated, but their care is delicate and personal. I would prefer to save them the hardships they would endure during it. I do not think the US army is capable of handling this and I can easily imagine this doing more harm than good for the enlisted soldier and their unit.

I oppose lowering physical requirements for roles open to both genders because fewer women than men can withstand them. This is also why some roles are not open to both genders. Do not compromise the integrity and quality of the role for the sake of equality. This however does not mean that you could not create new roles for women to participate in, which for example exists with mixed infantry battalions. However they are designed to not be used in the front during warfare, in contrast to male-only infantry battalions, which would supposedly preform similarly.
.

Saelune:
.I don't need to formally ask you to justify it. If you want to prove me wrong, it is up to you to do that. You opened up with supporting kicking ALL trans people out of the military. Your first move was to speak against trans people's rights to equality. That is what YOU did. You don't even want to give trans people the chance to prove they can be fit to serve. You just want to blanket ban them. Same happened with women for a long time. Do you think women should not be allowed even the chance to serve in the military?

Being mad at me for pointing out what you said wont change that you said it.

.
You don't need to formally request whatever... I've made my claims.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/
There have been attempts to gauge the rate of suicide and attempted suicide in the transgender community through sex-change clinics monitoring the progress of their patients. The data cannot be scientifically conclusive because of the small sample size (not many people go on and preform sex-change operations, and transgendered make up less than .5% of the general population), but you can see that the rates of suicide and attempted suicide are much higher than the general population. There are many different factors which cause this. I can quote a relatively recent study regarding teenagers, but I don't think it's very relevant, if only to gauge the relative size of this phenomenon.

I can speak from personal experience that LGBT people will find common living spaces challenging. A childhood friend of mine would go on to serve in a very simple role because he could not stay in the living quarters (he was a homosexual). I've been to boot-camp with another trainee which was outed during the training, and it was not a good experience for him. He later transferred to a non-combat role as a fitness trainer. I haven't stayed in touch with him.

I'm frustrated at you, not mad. I'm not against you, I want to tell you my opinions because I'm interested in a discussion... You often shut me down without one.

TheIronRuler:

undeadsuitor:
.
Except youre doing exactly that. Voting for who you are (a conservative) over voting for what you believe in (that people should be free to live how they want)

.
Allowing Transgendered to serve puts them and their fellow soldiers at risk and hurts the overall strength of the unit. In my nation's military, transgendered require very specific and special conditions for their healthy integration into military life. They are integrated, but their care is delicate and personal. I would prefer to save them the hardships they would endure during it. I do not think the US army is capable of handling this and I can easily imagine this doing more harm than good for the enlisted soldier and their unit.

I oppose lowering physical requirements for roles open to both genders because fewer women than men can withstand them. This is also why some roles are not open to both genders. Do not compromise the integrity and quality of the role for the sake of equality. This however does not mean that you could not create new roles for women to participate in, which for example exists with mixed infantry battalions. However they are designed to not be used in the front during warfare, in contrast to male-only infantry battalions, which would supposedly preform similarly.
.

Saelune:
.I don't need to formally ask you to justify it. If you want to prove me wrong, it is up to you to do that. You opened up with supporting kicking ALL trans people out of the military. Your first move was to speak against trans people's rights to equality. That is what YOU did. You don't even want to give trans people the chance to prove they can be fit to serve. You just want to blanket ban them. Same happened with women for a long time. Do you think women should not be allowed even the chance to serve in the military?

Being mad at me for pointing out what you said wont change that you said it.

.
You don't need to formally request whatever... I've made my claims.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/
There have been attempts to gauge the rate of suicide and attempted suicide in the transgender community through sex-change clinics monitoring the progress of their patients. The data cannot be scientifically conclusive because of the small sample size (not many people go on and preform sex-change operations, and transgendered make up less than .5% of the general population), but you can see that the rates of suicide and attempted suicide are much higher than the general population. There are many different factors which cause this. I can quote a relatively recent study regarding teenagers, but I don't think it's very relevant, if only to gauge the relative size of this phenomenon.

I can speak from personal experience that LGBT people will find common living spaces challenging. A childhood friend of mine would go on to serve in a very simple role because he could not stay in the living quarters (he was a homosexual). I've been to boot-camp with another trainee which was outed during the training, and it was not a good experience for him. He later transferred to a non-combat role as a fitness trainer. I haven't stayed in touch with him.

I'm frustrated at you, not mad. I'm not against you, I want to tell you my opinions because I'm interested in a discussion... You often shut me down without one.

A discussion? Why should I have a discussion with you? You believe that 100% of Trans people are automatically unworthy of serving in the military. You are the one unwilling to have a discussion.

You want to know why so many LGBT people end up in the military? Cause they are kicked out of their homes, they are fired from their jobs, abandoned and left with little to no support, the exact kind of people militaries, especially the US love to prey upon.

If you think people who cannot mentally handle service should not be allowed to serve, ok, but it should be on an individual by individual basis, not a blanket ban on all trans people.

You're against me and you're virtue signaling to pretend you arent.

edit: f*ck it. Derailed. Redacted. Left this.

Saelune:

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
Because Hillary voted for the pro-LGBT side, becoming pro-LGBT and never betrayed that. I voted for pro-LGBT Hillary.

Your argument is that Hillary is anti-LGBT, and Trump is pro-LGBT, but the facts do not support these claims, as their actions have proven the opposite of your claims, especially their actions over the last decade.

Feel free to give me a challenge though. These have been easy.

It's simply denying reality to not accept Hillary's history of being anti-LGBT.
I never said Trump was Pro-LGBT. Just that he has enacted a few things that are.

Denying reality? Right-wingers sure do like to project.

You're going to need to provide evidence to support your claims.

Below are a collection of quotes from Hillary Clinton, which if you voted for Clinton, you must 100% believe and support.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
This is before we even get to the awful things she's said about AIDs and HIV.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:

The Lunatic:

It's simply denying reality to not accept Hillary's history of being anti-LGBT.
I never said Trump was Pro-LGBT. Just that he has enacted a few things that are.

Denying reality? Right-wingers sure do like to project.

You're going to need to provide evidence to support your claims.

Below are a collection of quotes from Hillary Clinton, which if you voted for Clinton, you must 100% believe and support.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
This is before we even get to the awful things she's said about AIDs and HIV.

Citation needed. I want proof, and dates.

Trump in 2000:

Trump 2016:

I honestly think donald would have been president if the internet was more powerful in the early 2000s.

Saelune:

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.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Schadrach:

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.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
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.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Nah, you were making up a bunch of hypotheticals to change my point because the reality of the situation isn't one you want to acknowledge. You were the one trying to move the goalposts and I put it right back.

Make your choice.

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:
Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Nah, you were making up a bunch of hypotheticals to change my point because the reality of the situation isn't one you want to acknowledge. You were the one trying to move the goalposts and I put it right back.

Make your choice.

Please tell me in what way my hypothetical changed your point? No goal posts were moved.

I've been saying all along that different people have different issues that they may find more or less important to them, and that when they vote they will vote for whatever politician best represents their most core issue. Sometimes other issues that are also important to them will not be represented by that politician.

All that my hypothetical situation did was remove your bias against Trump, who I know you would never vote for, and instead add a candidate that campaigns for racial equality, something that I know you do advocate for. This creates the situation I described previously in this thread, having 2 sides which are both issues that you care about, but having to only support one issue. How do you choose?

You yourself said that anyone who votes against pro-LGBT candidates is actively against LGBT rights, "you are what you vote for." One can easily say the same is true with racism. Anyone who votes against a candidate whose platform is based on racial equality is a racist.

Between these 2 platforms which would you choose, and would making a choice between them cause you to be labeled a bigot because you would be showing that you care about one of these platforms less than the other?

I know answering this question makes you uncomfortable. That's entirely the point, because it's something that voters like me have to deal with every time we vote. You're completely in the democrat camp, but I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and when choosing between a democrat or republican candidate exactly half of the platforms I care about get screwed regardless who gets elected. That doesn't mean that I don't care about those platforms, but I don't get to have my cake and eat it.

I didn't change anything about your point except give you two positions that you care about and tried to force you to pick between them, because that's the reality for most people during elections.

So now by your own logic you have the choice, you can be a homophobe, or you can be a racist, or you can admit that people are more complex than which political party they vote for in any particular election.

Yes, the Trump administration's attacks on trans people (or LGBT people in general) is reminiscent of attacks on PoC, using the same arguments and based on the same motives.

Yes, voting for Clinton would be voting for someone who'd expressed very anti-LGBT sentiments in the past. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, given it was sometime ago. You expect progressives to progress, even the best candidates who are of a certain age have skeletons in their closets.

A more interesting question would be did voting for Obama mean you support drone strikes? I'm going with "yes" with that, at least to an extent. Mind you, assuming GOP politicians would do the same, you've little choice in the matter, but there is some responsibility that goes with that vote.

The Lunatic:

Below are a collection of quotes from Hillary Clinton, which if you voted for Clinton, you must 100% believe and support.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
This is before we even get to the awful things she's said about AIDs and HIV.

Right, yes, but these are all from... over a decade ago, right?

Her presidential campaigns, and recent history, are supportive. There's no reasonable case to be made that the two candidates in the 2016 election were equivalent on this issue.

Dirty Hipsters:

Saelune:

Dirty Hipsters:

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Nah, you were making up a bunch of hypotheticals to change my point because the reality of the situation isn't one you want to acknowledge. You were the one trying to move the goalposts and I put it right back.

Make your choice.

Please tell me in what way my hypothetical changed your point? No goal posts were moved.

I've been saying all along that different people have different issues that they may find more or less important to them, and that when they vote they will vote for whatever politician best represents their most core issue. Sometimes other issues that are also important to them will not be represented by that politician.

All that my hypothetical situation did was remove your bias against Trump, who I know you would never vote for, and instead add a candidate that campaigns for racial equality, something that I know you do advocate for. This creates the situation I described previously in this thread, having 2 sides which are both issues that you care about, but having to only support one issue. How do you choose?

You yourself said that anyone who votes against pro-LGBT candidates is actively against LGBT rights, "you are what you vote for." One can easily say the same is true with racism. Anyone who votes against a candidate whose platform is based on racial equality is a racist.

Between these 2 platforms which would you choose, and would making a choice between them cause you to be labeled a bigot because you would be showing that you care about one of these platforms less than the other?

I know answering this question makes you uncomfortable. That's entirely the point, because it's something that voters like me have to deal with every time we vote. You're completely in the democrat camp, but I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and when choosing between a democrat or republican candidate exactly half of the platforms I care about get screwed regardless who gets elected. That doesn't mean that I don't care about those platforms, but I don't get to have my cake and eat it.

I didn't change anything about your point except give you two positions that you care about and tried to force you to pick between them, because that's the reality for most people during elections.

So now by your own logic you have the choice, you can be a homophobe, or you can be a racist, or you can admit that people are more complex than which political party they vote for in any particular election.

When voting between two options, you have to decide what you are more for and more against. It is that simple. If both options are so heinous, then you need to do something else to oppose both, but most people wont.

If it was between voting for killing all black people, or voting against LGBT in the military, I wont sacrifice black people.

But no one voting for Trump is pro-LGBT rights, because voting for Trump is voting for bigotry, cut and dry. Because it wasnt between two bad choices. It was between one bad choice and one good one.

So unless you're going to work to overthrow the entire system, make your choice.

Thaluikhain:
Yes, the Trump administration's attacks on trans people (or LGBT people in general) is reminiscent of attacks on PoC, using the same arguments and based on the same motives.

Yes, voting for Clinton would be voting for someone who'd expressed very anti-LGBT sentiments in the past. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, given it was sometime ago. You expect progressives to progress, even the best candidates who are of a certain age have skeletons in their closets.

A more interesting question would be did voting for Obama mean you support drone strikes? I'm going with "yes" with that, at least to an extent. Mind you, assuming GOP politicians would do the same, you've little choice in the matter, but there is some responsibility that goes with that vote.

Voting for the American President is voting for military attacks on other countries. Bernie wasn't going to change that. He might have tried to make effort to change that, but then so did Obama. Obama's support of Drone Strikes was Obama's opposition to endangering more American Soldiers. Trump on the other hand just made it more dangerous for soldiers of both sides.

Saelune:

But no one voting for Trump is pro-LGBT rights, because voting for Trump is voting for bigotry, cut and dry. Because it wasnt between two bad choices. It was between one bad choice and one good one.

You know this and similar items were stupidly popular during the 2016 election cycle, right? Your opinion is not fact, and there were people across the spectrum that saw the way you do, that but inverted, and thought that both big candidates were actual garbage.

Leg End:

Saelune:

But no one voting for Trump is pro-LGBT rights, because voting for Trump is voting for bigotry, cut and dry. Because it wasnt between two bad choices. It was between one bad choice and one good one.

You know this and similar items were stupidly popular during the 2016 election cycle, right? Your opinion is not fact, and there were people across the spectrum that saw the way you do, that but inverted, and thought that both big candidates were actual garbage.

Fact: Trump is a bigot who ran on a platform of bigotry, and people were willing to vote for him anyways.

Marik2:
I honestly think donald would have been president if the internet was more powerful in the early 2000s.

Didn't he try to get on the democratic ticket in like 2004?

Silvanus:
Right, yes, but these are all from... over a decade ago, right?

Her presidential campaigns, and recent history, are supportive. There's no reasonable case to be made that the two candidates in the 2016 election were equivalent on this issue.

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.

The Lunatic:

Silvanus:
Right, yes, but these are all from... over a decade ago, right?

Her presidential campaigns, and recent history, are supportive. There's no reasonable case to be made that the two candidates in the 2016 election were equivalent on this issue.

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

MrCalavera:
And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

Most politicians don't have the poor history Hillary does in regards to LGBT issues.

But, in general I'd say expecting people who have believed things for 50+ years to suddenly have seen the light, and yet still keep making gaffs in regards to the issue is being unrealistic.

 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