So Trump Just Went on Late Night With Colbert...

[Camul]

The thing that's great about America is that you can have different opinions. 

 

You see a privileged smug asshole and I see a confident businessman with a fiery attitude.

 

Political correctness has really gotten out of control and unfortunately I think my generation (Millennials) have largely bought into it.  

 

Not really. Everyone hates PC to the extent it becomes overcontrolling and rediculous. Sorry buddy, but you're just like everyone else.

 

Also, don't use the word 'millennials' and complain about your generation. It makes you look like an asshole. Also, being LGBT, I'm very happy that I did grow up in this generation and not the last one.

[as96]

Not sure if shitpost, or:

https://scontent-ord1-1.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/e35/11850189_682297555247874_1092048106_n.jpg

How did they manage to draw the wall and at the same time avoid the camera?

[STRMfrmXMN]

His hair is real btw...

Therefore justifying that hair...?

[Legion]

Yes I remember that, and as far as Paul he is a fake.  Up until these races he's been a Libertarian whereas Trump was a Democrat.

 

I was a liberal up until a few years ago. But I realized the left has become more bat shit with each passing day. 

As I've grown older I've found myself becoming more conservative I suppose where I'm going with this is people can change. Unfortunately with politicians we have to be more cautious 

[Volbet]

All of that's true, but I'm talking about the core beliefs of the Republican party. Rand Paul has noticed that doesn't exist anymore, or isn't a priority for them anymore. They have fallen too far.

 

If it means being able to call a terrorist a terrorist again, or being able to use pronouns again without causing world war 3, then it is what this nation needs. But I don't want to see it removed entirely, just brought back to a level of sense. I don't want to see anymore football teams be forced to change their name because someone's feelings got hurt...

Haven't there been several different versions of the GOP with very different core values?

For example, the GOP at the time of Abraham Lincoln was very different than the GOP was in the post-Reagan years, for example. 

The GOP especially changed right after the exodus from the Democratic Party in the 1960's: http://bynaryfission.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/02/3453250-the-ideological-shift-of-american-political-parties

We could also debate on whether or not Rand Paul is a good representation of the ´core values´ of the GOP. The libertarian position is very different from the polices of a man like Theodor Roosevelt, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Deal

Why does one of these men represnet the GOP polices better than the other?

 

I guess my kinda, sorta point is that the GOP is a political party, and as such, it not only should, but it has to change with the times.

We don't live in a static society, and politics have to change with them.

Therefor it will probably be very hard to identify a core value in a political party.

Ok first of all, it isn't disgusting because everyone is entitled to their own opinion not saying I'm agreeing with them or anything.  That said, I could say "What's disgusting is that many people wouldn't vote for him" See how that works?  There is no such thing as an opinion that is right or wrong, they are biased but according to the feelings, and rules of society those opinions will be judged and what would be considered correct is the one that is most morally just.

That sentiment is just so asinine. Of course there is such a thing as a wrong opinion.

If I hold the opinion that water is flammable, then my opinion is factually wrong. 

[Khajiit Dealer]

Not really. Everyone hates PC to the extent it becomes overcontrolling and rediculous. Sorry buddy, but you're just like everyone else.

 

Also, don't use the word 'millennials' and complain about your generation. It makes you look like an asshole. Also, being LGBT, I'm very happy that I did grow up in this generation and not the last one.

 

Millennials are my generation's name...would you prefer it if I used 'Generation Y?'

 

Personally, I don't care about sexuality but I do draw the line when someone's sexuality becomes the defining part of their being; e.g. constantly being obnoxious in public about it. The same can be said about straight people and PDA in general. 

[ahkenatan]

Kind of interesting that I didn't see anything specifically about LGBT people in this thread. Granted, I did skim all 7 pages, but that was just skimming so I could have possibly missed it. 

 

I know a lot of internet discussion about politics can get blind quickly, so I would really appreciate it, if you were reading my post, to really consider what I have to say and think about it deeply before responding. Try to put yourself in my shoes, and realize I've done the same.

 

As a person who falls under the LGBT+ spectrum, it gets really irritating when I have to constantly defend my existence, especially towards conservatives. The focus that republicans have put on trying to tear down "political correctness" in the 2016 campaign is honestly just disrespectful. Most LGBT+ people just want their identity to be respected, but instead, it's not. Most LGBT+ people also understand that cis/het people can say things that they don't realize are offensive, and at least in my experience, every time that a cis/het person has said something unintentionally rude, it's met with kindness and a will to educate instead of a will to throw hate back.

 

That aside, when being respectful towards someone's identity is dismissed as an effort to be "politically correct" or "pander to the LGBT+ population," from the perspective of every LGBT+ person, that dismissive attitude will always be seen as LGBT-phobic. While cis/het people may be attacked for being cis/het, there is no such thing as "heterophobia" or "cisphobia" -- there isn't a massive portion of the population that's against your rights and there isn't a history of violence against people like you. Additionally, if a cis/het person trying to defend themselves against an attack on their gender or sexual identity wouldn't be seen as "pushing the cis/het agenda" or "forcing political correctness," it would be seen as common sense (as it should be! I'm just saying it should be that way for LGBT+ people too).

 

Part of the reason I believe LGBT+ peoples' reactions to anti-LGBT+ attitudes can be so extreme is because a lot of LGBT+ people are just simply afraid of losing ANY rights we have. People have been jailed, raped, tortured, and killed for being LGBT+, and especially for transgender people, they still are, even in the United States. So next time an LGBT+ person offers you their opinion on something that affects them specifically for being LGBT+, please listen and consider what they have to say seriously and take the time to think about it.

 

Please note that in this post I'm not specifically arguing against one candidate or party, but rather the idea that "political correctness" has grown out of control. LGBT+ people are just sick of being disrespected, and I'm not saying that you -- the reader -- are disrespectful towards LGBT+ people, but rather I'm challenging you to really think about what a political candidate is saying when they talk about "political correctness" and how it really affects the daily lives of LGBT+ people.

[Khajiit Dealer]

Kind of interesting that I didn't see anything specifically about LGBT people in this thread. Granted, I did skim all 7 pages, but that was just skimming so I could have possibly missed it. 

 

I know a lot of internet discussion about politics can get blind quickly, so I would really appreciate it, if you were reading my post, to really consider what I have to say and think about it deeply before responding. Try to put yourself in my shoes, and realize I've done the same.

 

As a person who falls under the LGBT+ spectrum, it gets really irritating when I have to constantly defend my existence, especially towards conservatives. The focus that republicans have put on trying to tear down "political correctness" in the 2016 campaign is honestly just disrespectful. Most LGBT+ people just want their identity to be respected, but instead, it's not. Most LGBT+ people also understand that cis/het people can say things that they don't realize are offensive, and at least in my experience, every time that a cis/het person has said something unintentionally rude, it's met with kindness and a will to educate instead of a will to throw hate back.

 

That aside, when being respectful towards someone's identity is dismissed as an effort to be "politically correct" or "pander to the LGBT+ population," from the perspective of every LGBT+ person, that dismissive attitude will always be seen as LGBT-phobic. While cis/het people may be attacked for being cis/het, there is no such thing as "heterophobia" or "cisphobia" -- there isn't a massive portion of the population that's against your rights and there isn't a history of violence against people like you. Additionally, if a cis/het person trying to defend themselves against an attack on their gender or sexual identity wouldn't be seen as "pushing the cis/het agenda" or "forcing political correctness," it would be seen as common sense (as it should be! I'm just saying it should be that way for LGBT+ people too).

 

Part of the reason I believe LGBT+ peoples' reactions to anti-LGBT+ attitudes can be so extreme is because a lot of LGBT+ people are just simply afraid of losing ANY rights we have. People have been jailed, raped, tortured, and killed for being LGBT+, and especially for transgender people, they still are, even in the United States. So next time an LGBT+ person offers you their opinion on something that affects them specifically for being LGBT+, please listen and consider what they have to say seriously and take the time to think about it.

 

Please note that in this post I'm not specifically arguing against one candidate or party, but rather the idea that "political correctness" has grown out of control. LGBT+ people are just sick of being disrespected, and I'm not saying that you -- the reader -- are disrespectful towards LGBT+ people, but rather I'm challenging you to really think about what a political candidate is saying when they talk about "political correctness" and how it really affects the daily lives of LGBT+ people.

 

 

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the right of every American, regardless of whether or not one would interpret said speech as 'hate speech' or an expression as bigoted.

 

I may disagree with your opinion, but I will fight for you to be able to voice it.

I may disagree with your expression, but I will fight for you to be able to march.

I may disagree with your religion, but I will fight for you to be able to worship.

I may disagree with your publication, but I will fight for you to be able to publish it. 

[ahkenatan]

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are the right of every American, regardless of whether or not one would interpret said speech as 'hate speech' or an expression as bigoted.

 

I may disagree with your opinion, but I will fight for you to be able to voice it.

I may disagree with your expression, but I will fight for you to be able to march.

I may disagree with your religion, but I will fight for you to be able to worship.

I may disagree with your publication, but I will fight for you to be able to publish it. 

I understand that, and I completely agree with you, but citing freedom of speech when being disrespectful is childish. Yes, you have the right to be disrespectful, but it really discredits your opinions. I'm not going to argue because I've said what I have to say (and frankly I clearly wouldn't get very far and neither would you). I hope that you'll eventually be able to understand the perspective of LGBT+ people and be able to understand how voting for a political candidate can severely reduce the quality of life for many people.

[Khajiit Dealer]

I understand that, and I completely agree with you, but citing freedom of speech when being disrespectful is childish. Yes, you have the right to be disrespectful, but it really discredits your opinions. I'm not going to argue because I've said what I have to say (and frankly I clearly wouldn't get very far and neither would you). I hope that you'll eventually be able to understand the perspective of LGBT+ people and be able to understand how voting for a political candidate can severely reduce the quality of life for many people.

 

How would Trump reduce your quality of life? 

[ahkenatan]

How would Trump reduce your quality of life? 

Again, I wasn't specifically attacking Trump or the Republican party. However, it would both reduce and uplift my quality of life in different ways if Trump were to be elected. I'm specifically going to talk about his LGBT-related policies and attitudes.

 

One thing that I agree with Trump on is that people should not be fired for their sexual orientation. That stance is really refreshing coming from the religious-rights-favoring party, and is even refreshing coming from a politician in general. On the other hand, I'm worried that while Trump does support this viewpoint, he won't actively push or make an effort for his stance to become law simply because LGBT+ rights isn't one of the pillars of his campaign. 

 

One thing that I disagree with Trump about is his stance on same-sex marriage. While he does support a union for same-sex couples that he describes as being completely equal to marriage under the law, it's still not marriage. It perpetuates this idea that marriage is for straight people and same-sex marriage would ruin that, and it perpetuates this idea whether it says it explicitly or not. It implies that marriage isn't for same-sex couples, and I and many LGBT+ people find that stance to be condescending and downright rude.

 

To be quite honest, I'm not sure what Trump's stance on transgender people is specifically. While I do keep an open mind, the fact that Trump did not include gender identity when speaking about workplace discrimination is troubling. This is the extent of my knowledge on Trump's stance on LGBT+ issues, so if I misinterpreted something he said or he has updated or added to his policies let me know.

[Whorax]

-snip-

This picture is now my desktop background. Thank you.

[Albatross]

I understand that, and I completely agree with you, but citing freedom of speech when being disrespectful is childish. Yes, you have the right to be disrespectful, but it really discredits your opinions. I'm not going to argue because I've said what I have to say (and frankly I clearly wouldn't get very far and neither would you). I hope that you'll eventually be able to understand the perspective of LGBT+ people and be able to understand how voting for a political candidate can severely reduce the quality of life for many people.

 

Forgive me if I ramble and repeat or jumble up this post—it was pretty difficult writing for me. If anything is unclear or whatever, please just say so and I'll reply again.

 

I don't agree at all that it discredits their opinion. Someone can be the most hurtful and disrespectful person on the planet but it won't mean what they are saying is any less creditable or true.

That said though, I understand what you mean and I understand your worries. I just don't see how any of the (higher) candidates have expressed the interest of removing rights for LGBT peoples? They may be religious and that religion make them disagree with who you are (I don't think Trump is religious only Republican?), but I seriously doubt any of the candidates are so hard core religious they would start treating people like trash because of who they are attracted to or what gender they associate themselves to, nor would they think they could get away with it even if they wanted to do those things. There is a difference to disagreeing and then acting like a savage on that disagreement like an extremist would, and I don't think conservatives will react or condone the things you seem to worry about.

 

I know the conservatives and Christian/Catholics where I live may not agree with gays or gay marriage, but they certainly don't advocate treating them like trash or less than human. I'm sure there are those who do, of course, but they are not the majority.

 

I wish people would have thought about voting in Obama for a second time. Maybe some of the people I know that died from cancer could have lived or lived longer if they could still afford health care at the time. But poor people aren't really cared about in this country, so yea, I definitely understand your position. That's why I worry that not enough people will take this election seriously...this country can't afford another hit. We just can't. I pray the next person to lead this nation truly understands the burden of that position and will stand up for everyone's rights, not just those he's associated to or those related to propaganda.

[Camul]

Millennials are my generation's name...would you prefer it if I used 'Generation Y?'

 

Personally, I don't care about sexuality but I do draw the line when someone's sexuality becomes the defining part of their being; e.g. constantly being obnoxious in public about it. The same can be said about straight people and PDA in general. 

 

Say whatever you want, it was advice, not a demand. It makes you sound like you think your better than everyone. Talking about how shitty your own generation gives off that impression, so maybe just don't do it at all.

 

Also I don't know what you mean about someone being obnoxious about it in public means. Unless you're talking about pride? I also don't know why you think people holding hands or kissing in public is so bad.

[ahkenatan]

snip

In the past, Carly Fiorina has supported an amendment to the constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, but now opposes that amendment. She still says "marriage is between a man and a woman." She opposed the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would grant federal protection against workplace discrimination for LGBT people. She also said that she didn't have a problem with Indiana's bill that allowed businesses to not serve or hire LGBT people based on their religious beliefs.

 

Ben Carson is against same-sex marriage and has spoken out in support of firing judges who rule in favor of same-sex marriage. He also spoke out in support of Indiana's religious freedom bill, and dismissed outrage as "political correctness." He's previously said being LGBT was a choice because of prison, but later retracted this statement (although he was unclear as to whether he still thought it was a choice.) He doesn't support allowing same-sex couples to adopt. He's also compared same-sex marriage to bestiality.

 

Marco Rubio is opposed to same-sex marriage. He thanked John Boehner for spending money to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was a federal law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Along with Fiorina, he opposed the ENDA and even said that he'd oppose his own immigration law if it included same-sex couples, which is just truly cruel. He's helped raise money to support "conversion therapy" which the purpose of is to convert LGBT people to be cis/het people, and it's been proven to not only be ineffective, but can also cause mental harm to patients. He's also opposed to same-sex couples adopting.

 

Jeb Bush, unsurprisingly, is opposed to same-sex marriage. While he now says he supports workplace discrimination protections for people on the basis of their sexual orientation, he didn't mention anything about gender identity and, in the past, advised an LGBT employee to stay closeted. He has opposed the right of same-sex couples to adopt, but after it was made legal through a court decision, he said he respected the ruling. 

 

Ted Cruz is against same-sex marriage and even supported a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples. Cruz opposes workplace discrimination protections for LGBT people and has also opposed ENDA. He believes being LGBT is a choice.

 

As everyone probably knows from the recent hubbub caused by Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee opposes same-sex marriage. Like Ben Carson, Huckabee has said that judges that rule in favor of same-sex marriage should be impeached. He's argued against LGBT workplace discrimination protection, has supported conversion therapy, and said that two men or two women in a relationship has an "ick factor." He's also opposed the right of adoption for same-sex couples.

 

Rand Paul is against same-sex marriage. He's said he's committed to fighting against LGBT workplace discrimination protection. On Obama's executive orders that have provided LGBT workers with workplace protection, he's said he wants to repeal that. He's compared same-sex marriage to people marrying inanimate objects. 

 

Chris Christie opposes marriage equality. He has, however, spoken out in support of workplace and housing discrimination protection (yay!). Christie signed into law a ban on conversion therapy (yay!). He's said that sexual orientation is determined at birth, but made no mention of gender identity. He's actually pretty supportive for a republican.

 

I could go on, but every republican candidate is against marriage equality, and apart from Christie and Trump, pretty much all of them I listed oppose workplace discrimination with only Christie mentioning anything about housing discrimination. I'm sure you know, but just in case anyone reading this doesn't, LGBT people can be fired from their job in several states and can even be denied housing simply for being who they are. It's clear that many republicans want this to continue to be the law of the land. I would like to add that although the candidates who oppose marriage equality have not exactly said anything rude against LGBT people (besides Huckabee), it still implies that LGBT people are unwanted and seen as lesser.

 

While it may not appear that electing one of these candidates would be all *that* bad, it really is when you also consider the democratic candidate's positions. While Hillary has been opposed to same-sex marriage in the past (although she didn't want to go as far as a constitutional amendment), she now supports same-sex marriage and she would also like to grant LGBT couples workplace and housing discrimination. Even though she is the one most likely to be nominated as democratic presidential candidate, the next most likely (in my opinion) would probably be Bernie Sanders. He also supports same-sex marriage and discrimination protection. Compared to the republican candidates, the democratic candidates actually support LGBT people and aren't interested in squandering or preventing our rights.

 

 

I don't agree at all that it discredits their opinion. Someone can be the most hurtful and disrespectful person on the planet but it won't mean what they are saying is any less creditable or true.

That said though, I understand what you mean and I understand your worries.

Finally, I can see you're right. It is frustrating when someone dismisses your argument without addressing it and simply cites freedom of speech, especially when my life -- and all LGBT lives -- are literally hanging in the balance. Yes, while the US government would never (at least in this day and age) purposefully murder LGBT people, citizens can choose to ignore the law and purposefully harm LGBT people, and preventing LGBT rights is the first step to encourage people to do this. The US, whether anyone likes it or not, will also continue to set an example for the rest of the world and many other countries could follow in anti-LGBT footsteps that would create a world even more hostile than today's for LGBT people. People seem to forget the countless legal murders of LGBT people in other countries.

 

 

Forgive me if I ramble and repeat or jumble up this post—it was pretty difficult writing for me. If anything is unclear or whatever, please just say so and I'll reply again.

You did a great job! It wasn't rambly or jumbly at all. 

[TheGosuStandard]

Trump 2016!

[Albatross]

I was clearly not ready to have such an in depth response, but I sure do appreciate it! :lol:

A lot of the people you mentioned I can't defend and wasn't referring to because of how radical they are. When it comes to them, I understand fully. I fear for everyone if any one of those people became our president. They don't understand the values that built this nation, only self serving agendas. They scream "religious rights" and "give us our privacy/liberties!" but they seem to think that only comes to Republicans or Christians. Pathetic.
 
Well, as I said, beyond same-sex marriage disagreements, they aren't exactly going to start camps or anything (Sarah Palin might...). But apparently they are just about there with their beliefs. I haven't heard this kind of coverage on any of the news stations, not even CNN—and I would think they would jump all over that.  As for the rest, those are those people's rights, isn't it? If they own the business, can't they decide how to run it? You have think about it from both sides. I would hate it if I ran a clinic where we didn't offer abortions but someone came in and told me how to run it and to throw away how I feel by performing abortions on four month+ babies. Where would be my rights or my religious rights? This whole thing is complicated and isn't as black and white as the religious and non-religious make it out to be.

Although I did not know she opposed the ENDA. That's news to me! And very disappointing, because I was beginning to think she wasn't so bad.

And the judge is a sensitive case. She shouldn't be forced to give up her religious liberties, and she wasn't exactly refusing them outright from the possibility as far as I am aware of (you have good knowledge so please correct me if I am wrong!). She just didn't want to be the one to sign it, because it was against her beliefs. But the tricky part is that I wish Republicans (and Kim Davis) would just grasp, is that she works for the people (elected official) and so her personal beliefs cannot come in the way of her serving the people and doing her job. If she was in a private practice, she would have every right to practice on her beliefs. So yea, I agree, anyone of the people who would seriously defend her in this case is very questionable, especially when you look at everything else they also do or say!

That is surprising to hear against Ben Carson though. Could you link me to where he compares the two? I mean I knew he was against same-sex marriage and allowing same-sex couples to adopt, but that? Wow.

Ugh. I really dislike Marco Rubio. I was referring to the higher up candidates by the way, like the forerunners like Trump and Carson. I can't defend this scum as much as I can't for Sarah Palin. These people are terrible and I 100% understand the worry when it comes to the more radical people like them. I'll fight tooth and nail if they ever become president.

Jeb is sensible it seems. He's one of the people I was mentioning above. They may disagree, but they aren't going to do anything to change what has been or hurt people for being different, and if they try, they are out of the office quick as spit. About gender identity, well, I don't think he'd be against gender identity (what's the term?) if he's stated he is pro discrimination protection.
 
I dislike Ted too. I have nothing to say about him that is good. He's a radical and I agree entirely with your assessments of him. He would build a camp and kill everyone but straight Republican Christians if he could.
 
Mike Huckabee has been a disgrace to the planet. I'm sorry he is so popular because he has some really crazy ideas and I just know he would treat people like animals for their differences. This is the one person in the Republican race I fear the most, because he has the audience large enough to be a threat.
 

Rand Paul is against same-sex marriage. He's said he's committed to fighting against LGBT workplace discrimination protection. On Obama's executive orders that have provided LGBT workers with workplace protection, he's said he wants to repeal that. He's compared same-sex marriage to people marrying inanimate objects.

Being against same-sex marriage is one thing...but inanimate objects? I can't condone nor support that...so why are you ruining my favorite candidate? :unsure:

 

Can you link me to that by the way?
 

Chris Christie opposes marriage equality. He has, however, spoken out in support of workplace and housing discrimination protection (yay!). Christie signed into law a ban on conversion therapy (yay!). He's said that sexual orientation is determined at birth, but made no mention of gender identity. He's actually pretty supportive for a republican.

Yea, he's not so bad. I hope he's one of the sane people who will not treat people differently for his beliefs. I really don't like him as president material though, just doesn't seem like he can pull off the thing, but I sure am glad there is a Republican running that isn't make my comments look completely false. I really hate the loud majority.
 

I could go on, but every republican candidate is against marriage equality, and apart from Christie and Trump, pretty much all of them I listed oppose workplace discrimination with only Christie mentioning anything about housing discrimination. I'm sure you know, but just in case anyone reading this doesn't, LGBT people can be fired from their job in several states and can even be denied housing simply for being who they are. It's clear that many republicans want this to continue to be the law of the land. I would like to add that although the candidates who oppose marriage equality have not exactly said anything rude against LGBT people (besides Huckabee), it still implies that LGBT people are unwanted and seen as lesser.

No...no need to go on, you have pretty much hit the nail on the coffin. :laugh I was aware they felt this way. I was trying to argue that the higher up candidates, like Trump and Carson, may feel one thing but once in wouldn't act on them.

 

You have opened my eyes to a lot of new things and now I hope that Rand Paul will redeem himself, because if he doesn't...I have no one to vote for. I will not vote that piece of swine Hillary Clinton in either. I would rather throw my vote away to Batman.

 

Finally, I can see you're right. It is frustrating when someone dismisses your argument without addressing it and simply cites freedom of speech, especially when my life -- and all LGBT lives -- are literally hanging in the balance. Yes, while the US government would never (at least in this day and age) purposefully murder LGBT people, citizens can choose to ignore the law and purposefully harm LGBT people, and preventing LGBT rights is the first step to encourage people to do this. The US, whether anyone likes it or not, will also continue to set an example for the rest of the world and many other countries could follow in anti-LGBT footsteps that would create a world even more hostile than today's for LGBT people. People seem to forget the countless legal murders of LGBT people in other countries.

I hope we can continue to set that standard. The USA is so amazing because we have so many people fighting for their rights and those of others, so that anyone can live the life that they want without fear of the government or other peoples.

I don't forget them, like I don't forget the boys and girls being turned into sex slaves in Iraq and raped on American bases where the soldiers have to listen and do nothing. What happens across the seas worries me every day and it disgusts me so thoroughly that I become sick, because there is nothing I can do and I hate it. Now I'll be thinking about it all again tonight.
 

You did a great job! It wasn't rambly or jumbly at all.

 

haha good to know, I spent a while on that post. :blush:

[Guest Generallee]

AWW SHIT POLITICS THREAD

 

cant wait for russia to start world war 3 

[Khajiit Dealer]

AWW SHIT POLITICS THREAD

 

cant wait for russia to start world war 3 

 

[Admiral Naismith]

I'm increasingly becoming worried that people jokingly supporting this dumb*ss will change to people supporting this dumb*ss.

[Ekpyrosis]

Why should a Hearthstone streamer run for president?

[ahkenatan]

As for the rest, those are those people's rights, isn't it? If they own the business, can't they decide how to run it? You have think about it from both sides. I would hate it if I ran a clinic where we didn't offer abortions but someone came in and told me how to run it and to throw away how I feel by performing abortions on four month+ babies. Where would be my rights or my religious rights? This whole thing is complicated and isn't as black and white as the religious and non-religious make it out to be.

This comment is the one that stuck out most to me. I'm not against religion. People should of course have the right to believe what they want and practice that as long as it's safe and isn't "directly" harming other people.

 

Where the issue comes in is that LGBT+ people want to live their lives just like everyone else. Could you imagine working so hard in college and getting your degree, and maybe even being really good at what you do, only to have your application denied because you're transgender or married to a member of the same sex? Could you imagine trying to get groceries with your same-sex spouse and then the store manager tells you they don't want your kind there? This is an extreme example, but it is an example nonetheless and something that could happen if "religious freedom" was extremely favored. I do hear it from both sides, and I do understand that people's religious values are important, and I do understand that it is their business, but it is my life, and I should be able to shop and work where cis/het people do too.

 

 

That is surprising to hear against Ben Carson though. Could you link me to where he compares the two? I mean I knew he was against same-sex marriage and allowing same-sex couples to adopt, but that? Wow.

Looking this up, I forgot he also compared it to pedophilia. http://mic.com/articles/31809/ben-carson-compares-homosexuality-to-bestiality-and-pedophilia

 

Being against same-sex marriage is one thing...but inanimate objects? I can't condone nor support that...so why are you ruining my favorite candidate? :unsure:

Can you link me to that by the way?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/post-doma-rand-paul-fears-humans-marryi

 

I was clearly not ready to have such an in depth response, but I sure do appreciate it! :lol:

haha good to know, I spent a while on that post. :blush:

I was also not ready to have an in-depth response, but I appreciate it as well. It also looks like you spent a while on this post I really do need to thank you for being open minded though. It's really great.

[Albatross]

This comment is the one that stuck out most to me. I'm not against religion. People should of course have the right to believe what they want and practice that as long as it's safe and isn't "directly" harming other people.

 

Where the issue comes in is that LGBT+ people want to live their lives just like everyone else. Could you imagine working so hard in college and getting your degree, and maybe even being really good at what you do, only to have your application denied because you're transgender or married to a member of the same sex? Could you imagine trying to get groceries with your same-sex spouse and then the store manager tells you they don't want your kind there? This is an extreme example, but it is an example nonetheless and something that could happen if "religious freedom" was extremely favored. I do hear it from both sides, and I do understand that people's religious values are important, and I do understand that it is their business, but it is my life, and I should be able to shop and work where cis/het people do too.

 

 

Looking this up, I forgot he also compared it to pedophilia. http://mic.com/articles/31809/ben-carson-compares-homosexuality-to-bestiality-and-pedophilia

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/post-doma-rand-paul-fears-humans-marryi

 

I was also not ready to have an in-depth response, but I appreciate it as well. It also looks like you spent a while on this post I really do need to thank you for being open minded though. It's really great.

 

I know you aren't, I was just trying to play it from their sides too. I could actually imagine it and it sucks, but if they own that business, they have every right to run it as they see fit. It will hurt to be turned away from a store (I have) for who you are and you should be able to work where other people work...I'm just saying at that they will have lost their rights. I think the fair ground is that people can live the way they want.

 

Carson...why? I thought he was such a handsome, intelligent fellow who could hold his beliefs but not over American beliefs. Religious beliefs should not be so entirely inserted into politics. Now I can't vote for him for sure because I can't trust his apology or his explanation, it would seem like a ploy to stay in the game.

 

As for Rand Paul, I honestly didn't take that as him comparing the two just idiotically claiming allowing this will somehow allow animal marriage and the like in the future. An ignorant, conservative belief nonetheless, but I don't think he meant it that way. I mean, it would go against this:

 

"While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract." — Rand Paul

 

He's only ever been against it because he fears the government will force churches and religious people to go against their beliefs. He has also, for most of his life, believed that marriages should not be government related but state related, as he doesn't believe governmental involvement into personal lives like that is right. But a lot of Democratic news stations take his words to absolute extremes and out of context no less, to drum up hatred for him. However, I just found out he apparently thinks there shouldn't be special rights for people based on their sexuality. Whilst I hope he means "special" as in they get better treatment I know the chances of him meaning they shouldn't have rights protecting them for their sexuality or gender identity is very high. And that's really disappointing*.

 

Only a little while...the quote system got messed up so that took a chunk of the time away. :lol: And it is good to see an open mind as well, especially one so willing to discuss this like adults. You have no idea how hard that is for me to find on the internet, so I should say thank you.

 

 

*So that leaves the pool selection very small. I can't vote for Hillary, she's a monster in human skin (and a pathetic liar) and Bernie Sanders is anidiot who thinks the most socialist things are good (and that women and men fantasy about being raped or raping), so they are out. I definitely won't consider Biden, he's an idiot (and potentially a pedo), so this might be a throw away or "less evils" year. I hope I get sick so I don't have to go and disappoint myself with another involvement of a bad president.

[MblaZe7run]

Trump for President!  I'd enjoy the "show".

No. I'm sorry, I don't mean any offense, but when you have to live here, and be laughed at by numerous other countries for this baboon's actions, you'll change your mind pretty quickly. I'm legitimately leaving this country after college if this asshat gets elected.

[Albatross]

No. I'm sorry, I don't mean any offense, but when you have to live here, and be laughed at by numerous other countries for this baboon's actions, you'll change your mind pretty quickly. I'm legitimately leaving this country after college if this asshat gets elected.

 

At least he wouldn't murder children and deny their existence (or that of American citizens being murdered for just being Muslim). If you didn't want to leave this country after that, why would you just leave if an idiot got in?