Trump SCOTUS pick would have gays jailed

[BlaqJezus 1,027]

1 hour ago, SKANK said:

 

When it comes to LGBT Rights Trump's personal beliefs are historically liberal for a Republican president. Period.  How appointed members of his administration or how his appointed Supreme Court Justices use their position of power to negatively impact LGBT Rights is another conversation.

Not all gay people are single issue voters, not all gay people cast their vote with the sole intention of bettering their own lives. Voting against your own best interests can be an act of selflessness.

 

 

Yup, there are about a dozen states that keep unenforceable anti-sodomy laws on the books. Mississippi only just ratified the 13th Amendment banning slavery.

Though I agree with you here in part, voting against who you are, and who your community is...that's not selfless. You don't have to be a single issue voter to still avoid voting for Trump. Through his cabinet potential picks, and his flip flop on issues, or really any amount of study of him on the campaign trail, there were plenty of reason not to vote for him. He is so far one of the most vitriolic candidates ever to run. His views, whatever they are, don't matter in the face of his actions and words so far. When you speak to the country, you have a responsibility to uphold the manner of the exchange. To be welcoming and gracious to the people who are part of the union you wish to have a say in. That's not what Trump was about.

There may be selflessness found in voting for economic changes, or healthcare reform, religious freedom instead of religious tyranny, but you weren't born of these things. You may have been born into them, but not of them. Being gay, or being black, or Native American, or Persian, or any race or orientation isn't a choice, and therefor single issues don't apply. Voting against your own foundations to further the foundations of those who are against you, is neither selfless nor intelligent choice. It is literally the meaning of ignorance. To ignore rational thought and past experience in the face of morality, that is what voting against your self and your people is.

I sincerely hope that you didn't vote for Trump, but I suppose it wouldn't surprise me. Voting seflessly in this case, would have been voting against the verbally violent person boasting the voices of White Christian US, and for that matter alone, no one will tell me that Hillary Clinton would have destroyed this country. Those who cast their vote in the name of the billionaire who "speaks for the working class Americans", can reap what they've sewn, and if they end up liking it, then we will know where the real distrust lies in the end.

[SKANK 14,288]

3 minutes ago, BlaqJezus said:

Though I agree with you here in part, voting against who you are, and who your community is...that's not selfless. You don't have to be a single issue voter to still avoid voting for Trump. Through his cabinet potential picks, and his flip flop on issues, or really any amount of study of him on the campaign trail, there were plenty of reason not to vote for him. He is so far one of the most vitriolic candidates ever to run. His views, whatever they are, don't matter in the face of his actions and words so far. When you speak to the country, you have a responsibility to uphold the manner of the exchange. To be welcoming and gracious to the people who are part of the union you wish to have a say in. That's not what Trump was about.

There may be selflessness found in voting for economic changes, or healthcare reform, religious freedom instead of religious tyranny, but you weren't born of these things. You may have been born into them, but not of them. Being gay, or being black, or Native American, or Persian, or any race or orientation isn't a choice, and therefor single issues don't apply. Voting against your own foundations to further the foundations of those who are against you, is neither selfless nor intelligent choice. It is literally the meaning of ignorance. To ignore rational thought and past experience in the face of morality, that is what voting against your self and your people is.

I sincerely hope that you didn't vote for Trump, but I suppose it wouldn't surprise me. Voting seflessly in this case, would have been voting against the verbally violent person boasting the voices of White Christian US, and for that matter alone, no one will tell me that Hillary Clinton would have destroyed this country. Those who cast their vote in the name of the billionaire who "speaks for the working class Americans", can reap what they've sewn, and if they end up liking it, then we will know where the real distrust lies in the end.

 

I totally agree with everything you said, which is why I voted for Hillary Clinton.

[BlaqJezus 1,027]

47 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

 

I don't need a semantic dissection of your post, you literally said that you don't care what he has to say. If what you said isn't what you meant than just be more clear in the future. 

As your avatar, signature, and posts have suggested, you are not interested in having honest and rational political conversations. Which is perfectly fine, but not my bag. Enjoy your night Bebe.

 

But the thing is, defending Trumps views on the matter of gay rights, does little to nothing in the face of his potential choices for cabinet. He so far, has chosen big bankers, the same violent conservatives who propped him up during his campaign trails, white nationalists, and at least two total nutjobs. If he was all about this "shake up" of Washington, and being okay with gay rights, he would have chosen totally different and various people.

I don't know what you see, but I see a man who has very little direction and is taking his cues from people cannot be trusted. And I see a big fight on our hands, that alone is oppressive to my state of being at this point.

[President Trump 3,508]

Any Republican pick is going to be anti-gay. The entire party is anti-gay by nature, but that's changing sort of, now. Nobody knows anything about these justice picks other than yes gay or no gay. And every single person Trump will ever appoint, to anything, will have an anti-gay story attached to them, because that's the entire Republican Party.

 

So, good. F**k them! I genuinely mean that. They should be held responsible, and the entire Republican Party should be held responsible for EVERY anti-gay measure they have ever taken.

It's our time, hennies. 

[juicyjuicy 2,006]

WOw

[SKANK 14,288]

14 minutes ago, BlaqJezus said:

But the thing is, defending Trumps views on the matter of gay rights, does little to nothing in the face of his potential choices for cabinet. He so far, has chosen big bankers, the same violent conservatives who propped him up during his campaign trails, white nationalists, and at least two total nutjobs. If he was all about this "shake up" of Washington, and being okay with gay rights, he would have chosen totally different and various people.

I don't know what you see, but I see a man who has very little direction and is taking his cues from people cannot be trusted. And I see a big fight on our hands, that alone is oppressive to my state of being at this point.

 

Trump's personal views on gay rights are noteworthy. It's important to represent them honestly when we speak about how gay rights will be effected under his administration.

Conceding that he is a Republican with progressive views on LGBT Rights is not a defense of his future appointments to the Supreme Court or to his cabinet.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

Trump's personal views on gay rights are noteworthy. It's important to represent them honestly when we speak about how gay rights will be effected under his administration.

Conceding that he is a Republican with progressive views on LGBT Rights is not a defense of his future appointments to the Supreme Court or to his cabinet.

 

This is the important part. We can recognize them honestly; Trump is not as homophobic as the rest of his party, that's nice. Everyone heard? Good. But there is a substantial case to be made that it is so much more important to note his actions in this scenario. In fact, repeatedly "admitting" that yeah, hes kind of pro-gay or at least not anti-gay in the face of enacting anti-gay legislature or enabling anti-gay policy, practice, etc. would be entirely inappropriate and maybe even derailing the topic/task at hand; how to preserve gay rights.

Some people probably will call him a homophobe during his 4 years, especially if things go south policy and protection wise, but the thing is they wouldn't be far off. I can say I love black people all I want, but when I take steps to oppress and marginalize them, I'm the opposite of an ally, and i'm more than just complicit, I'm directly responsible for harming them as a community. It would be appropriate to say that I'm contributing to racism, (or to exit this comparison, contributing to homophobia) and in a sense "racist" (homophobic)

His words and actions so far indicate that there will be little to no connection between how he views gay rights and what he plans to do about them. So far, hes shown no reason that he might go directly against his party on any issue, let alone this, but he has shown repeatedly that he is willing to take steps in the opposite direction of expanding gay rights. Sure, its still possible for him to be like "nah, I won't", but so far every step hes planned on taking, and some steps hes actually taken check him in the category of "my views on gay rights are not going to affect how I govern"  

That was all a really redundant set of paragraphs, but yeah.  

[Mary Jane Wayne 1,997]

This has to be the best tweet ever 

[SKANK 14,288]

18 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This is the important part. We can recognize them honestly; Trump is not as homophobic as the rest of his party, that's nice. Everyone heard? Good. But there is a substantial case to be made that it is so much more important to note his actions in this scenario. In fact, repeatedly "admitting" that yeah, hes kind of pro-gay or at least not anti-gay in the face of enacting anti-gay legislature or enabling anti-gay policy, practice, etc. would be entirely inappropriate and maybe even derailing the topic/task at hand; how to preserve gay rights.

Some people probably will call him a homophobe during his 4 years, especially if things go south policy and protection wise, but the thing is they wouldn't be far off. I can say I love black people all I want, but when I take steps to oppress and marginalize them, I'm the opposite of an ally, and i'm more than just complicit, I'm directly responsible for harming them as a community. It would be appropriate to say that I'm contributing to racism, (or to exit this comparison, contributing to homophobia) and in a sense "racist" (homophobic)

His words and actions so far indicate that there will be little to no connection between how he views gay rights and what he plans to do about them. So far, hes shown no reason that he might go directly against his party on any issue, let alone this, but he has shown repeatedly that he is willing to take steps in the opposite direction of expanding gay rights. Sure, its still possible for him to be like "nah, I won't", but so far every step hes planned on taking, and some steps hes actually taken check him in the category of "my views on gay rights are not going to affect how I govern"  

That was all a really redundant set of paragraphs, but yeah.  

 

The mind set that you are "admitting" something by accurately representing his positions is the problem.

Two days ago Trump said the issue of marriage equality is settled, our last Republican President actively sought a constitutional amendment which would ban marriage equality.

We are deeply in uncharted waters.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

7 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

The mind set that you are "admitting" something by accurately representing his positions is the problem.

Two days ago Trump said the issue of marriage equality is settled, our last Republican President actively sought a constitutional amendment which would ban marriage equality.

We are deeply in uncharted waters.

I don't think anyone here doesnt or can't understand that Trump is the more progressive Republican President on gay issues  

The problem is that in light of threats to people's existence, rights, whatever, this isn't a time where this fact deserves being mentioned. If he does something "pro-gay" in his 4 years? Then yes, we can look back and say "Well, I guess he really did have our backs, sucks to be a woman or immigrant or person of color though~" If you want to separate it from the reality of potentially a regression in gay rights and just acknowledge it as a fact, then sure, we can all do that, but it doesn't mean much at all. Unless you are arguing that this has significant relevance to his trajectory as president (as in, arguing that hes not likely to do anything anti-gay, say anything homophobic on live TV, or appoint or surround himself with people who will (too late for that one  ) etc, what's your point? It's taken, now what? Several people have already made the case that even if he were openly PRO gay, it looks like it will have no effect on his governance. What does this observation do for anyone who isn't a poli sci major or historian trying to extrapolate facts from their context after the fact?

Does this necessarily mean that next potential Republican candidates may be more free in being openly pro-gay?  I would argue that this media cycle was particularly interesting, but homophobia is still widely popular and its still a very successful way of garnering votes and support. If anything, Trump's win has reignited, re-emblazened some bigoted lines of thinking in this country. In 2008 and even more 2012 the idea of running on a massively homophobic, racist, sexist campaign was sure to lead to the defeat of any candidate for President but now?  

What is your point.

[John Slayne 4,154]

14 hours ago, Goosey said:

"Nude photographs of federal judge Bill Pryor appeared in the 1990s on a gay ****ography Web site, a Legal Schnauzerinvestigation shows.

The photos appeared in 1997 on badpuppy.com, which was in its online infancy, having debuted in mid 1995. Based in Cocoa, Florida, the site has morphed into one of the largest gay **** sites on the Web.

Images obtained by Legal Schnauzer show Pryor posing completely nude, staring into the camera and sporting a noticeable erection. We see no indication that the photos were taken surreptitiously, without Pryor's knowledge. Sources say Pryor was college age when the photos were taken."

 

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/nude-photographs-of-federal-judge-bill.html

[Bleachella 2,932]

THIS KID GOES TO MY HIGHSCHOOL ALSJALFJAKRF

[SKANK 14,288]

9 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think anyone here doesnt or can't understand that Trump is the more progressive Republican President on gay issues  

The problem is that in light of threats to people's existence, rights, whatever, this isn't a time where this fact deserves being mentioned. If he does something "pro-gay" in his 4 years? Then yes, we can look back and say "Well, I guess he really did have our backs, sucks to be a woman or immigrant or person of color though~" If you want to separate it from the reality of potentially a regression in gay rights and just acknowledge it as a fact, then sure, we can all do that, but it doesn't mean much at all. Unless you are arguing that this has significant relevance to his trajectory as president (as in, arguing that hes not likely to do anything anti-gay, say anything homophobic on live TV, or appoint or surround himself with people who will (too late for that one  ) etc, what's your point? It's taken, now what? Several people have already made the case that even if he were openly PRO gay, it looks like it will have no effect on his governance. What does this observation do for anyone who isn't a poli sci major or historian trying to extrapolate facts from their context after the fact?

Does this necessarily mean that next potential Republican candidates may be more free in being openly pro-gay?  I would argue that this media cycle was particularly interesting, but homophobia is still widely popular and its still a very successful way of garnering votes and support. If anything, Trump's win has reignited, re-emblazened some bigoted lines of thinking in this country. In 2008 and even more 2012 the idea of running on a massively homophobic, racist, sexist campaign was sure to lead to the defeat of any candidate for President but now?  

What is your point.

 

That statement runs contrary to nearly every conversation I have in the past year discussing Donald Trump, both on and off this forum. And that, is my point. 

You and I have had this exact same conversation in the past. My thoughts have not changed, so I don't feel the need to rehash them here. Check them out below if you feel the need.