Trump: Clinton Can't Protect LGBT Community While Importing Those Who Want To Oppress Them - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Streecer;50519485]"i do not know what representation is" [/QUOTE] It's abundantly clear that you don't. [QUOTE]I never claimed the_donald was a hivemind? maybe think next time before putting words into my mouth. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]the_donald isn't satire as much as they'd like to think it is, they genuinely believe everything that is posted there[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Secondly, how do you think reddit works? The reason many of those opinions are so prevalent is because they are common and upvoted by the community. The front page is a literal representation of what the popular opinion of a group of people is.[/QUOTE] The majority of the userbase don't vote at all. A post there might get 3-4k upvotes at most. [QUOTE]Oh yeah, not a hate group at all. If that isn't enough evidence I can always get more, tia.[/QUOTE] Lesbian jokes and "faggot" as a generic insult (both made by random users) = hate group. Got it. I bet I could find an example of a user here making a joke about Jews, and thus brand Facepunch as an anti-Semitic hate group. [QUOTE]it's just a word that also has connotations of discrimination and hatred, there is no "subjective" here, that is what the word represents and has always represented, please point out where anybody claimed that "faggot" had magical powers [/QUOTE] It's just a word. That is all that it is. It has the meaning you ascribe to it. Your claim revolves around the idea that "faggot" is, was, and forever shall be deeply offensive regardless of context. That is to say, you're claiming that "faggot" has magic powers. [QUOTE]so are you saying that "faggot" is totally cool to use now? why? what makes you think that calling somebody a faggot is acceptable?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying "faggot" is "totally cool to use now". I'm saying the meaning of words can change over time and context, a concept which you seem to have trouble understanding. [QUOTE]But he doesn't? He's been anti-gay marriage for years. [/QUOTE] You have continuously failed to prove this. Not to mention, Clinton has provably been against gay marriage. [QUOTE] traditional marriage has been used as an anti-LGBT stance for years, by lots of different people; this fake ignorance you keep expressing is not flattering in the slightest. the literal definition of traditional marriage is that it is traditional, ie. between a man and woman donald trump has come out in favour of traditional marriage, therefore he is not neutral just because he says so, in the most literal sense you can describe he is against gay marriage[/QUOTE] Traditional marriage means nothing. Donald Trump's statements imply that: - He may be personally opposed to gay marriage - However, he will not take action against married gay people - The meaning of marriage may be changing. That is to say, changing to include LGBT people where in the past it did not. [QUOTE]i'm done with you [/QUOTE] Good to know, I guess.

[QUOTE=Flug;50519526] It's just a word. That is all that it is. It has the meaning you ascribe to it. Your claim revolves around the idea that "faggot" is, was, and forever shall be deeply offensive regardless of context. That is to say, you're claiming that "faggot" has magic powers. I'm not saying "faggot" is "totally cool to use now". I'm saying the meaning of words can change over time and context, a concept which you seem to have trouble understanding. [/QUOTE] Ok but for now it's hate speech no matter how much you're trying to defend your relativism here.

[QUOTE=Flug;50519526] The majority of the userbase don't vote at all. A post there might get 3-4k upvotes at most.[/quote] So there are foul views trump espouses and they A) only appeal to that user base agrees with those views B) the rest of the voters aren't put off by those views. [quote] It's just a word. That is all that it is. It has the meaning you ascribe to it. Your claim revolves around the idea that "faggot" is, was, and forever shall be deeply offensive regardless of context. That is to say, you're claiming that "faggot" has magic powers. I'm not saying "faggot" is "totally cool to use now". I'm saying the meaning of words can change over time and context, a concept which you seem to have trouble understanding. [/quote] Its historically derogatory and remains to be so. I see your point that some people use it for fun "samefag" etc but thats not the case here, they're referring to the people killed in the gay club. [quote] You have continuously failed to prove this. Not to mention, Clinton has provably been against gay marriage. Traditional marriage means nothing. Donald Trump's statements imply that: - He may be personally opposed to gay marriage - However, he will not take action against married gay people - The meaning of marriage may be changing. That is to say, changing to include LGBT people where in the past it did not. [/QUOTE] Trump has shown support and opposition to gay marriage in the past. His true beliefs are... obscure. hillary has been shitty and remains shitty but thats not whats being discussed here. Onto trump. He has adopted some extreme conservative views (perhaps contrary to his personal beliefs) to appeal to hardcore republicans, they will expect him to follow through with those views; he says trust the states to decide - lots of the states are somewhat "anti gay". Further more he will have a very conservative, republican government. He will likely appoint a conservative supreme court who will go on to oppose gay marriage at the federal level. Hillary might be bad but that doesn't make trump good. Trump might hold personal beliefs but he has been inconsistent with his stances and since he's standing for the republicans odds are the US will have an anti gay marriage government going forward.

[QUOTE=Streecer;50519243] trump supporting communities have been [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4nt8ux/the_reaction_on_this_subreddit_to_the_orlando/d46pjk4"]rabidly homophobic[/URL] for a while now, liberally throwing around "faggot" becuase milo "i don't believe lesbians exist" yiannopoulos said it was okay, they are not a community which supports lgbt rights by any measure [/QUOTE] [B] Trump is a notably pro-LGBT candidate, especially for someone that's running as a Republican.[/B] [QUOTE]Trump has never hidden his support for gay civil rights laws. In 2000, he declared that [B]he supported gay anti-discrimination laws[/B] and[B] the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”[/B] He also advocated for “a very strong domestic-partnership [B]law that guarantees gay people the same legal protections and rights as married people[/B].” His book, released that same year, wistfully described his dream of an America “unencumbered by … discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.” The details of Trump’s gay rights views are even more impressive. Trump didn’t just want states to pass their own anti-discrimination laws: He [B]supported amending the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban sexual orientation discrimination[/B]. Like Trump’s other pro-gay positions, this stance was extremely liberal for its time. In fact, it’s strikingly progressive even today: For decades, Democrats have favored passing separate nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians, often riddled with exemptions, instead of granting gay Americans the full range of Title VII protections. Only this year has the party rallied around a bold Title VII fix. That Trump took this position in 2000 exemplifies his casual but consistent support for gay rights. [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/12/18/donald_trump_is_obviously_the_most_pro_gay_gop_candidate.html"]src[/URL][/QUOTE] Trump is far less homophobic than Clinton is, who actively fought against LGBT rights until she was essentially forced not to. He's also notably supportive of transgenders and generally the LGBT community as a whole. [B]Compared to Clinton in 2004, who said:[/B] [QUOTE]"I believe marriage is not just a bond but [B]a sacred bond between a man and a woman[/B]. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults." [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I"]src[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Flug;50519526]Lesbian jokes and "faggot" as a generic insult (both made by random users) = hate group. Got it. I bet I could find an example of a user here making a joke about Jews, and thus brand Facepunch as an anti-Semitic hate group..[/QUOTE] No, because we ban for that. By all means, though, refer to the victims of the Orlando shooting as "faggots" here and see how that works out for you! You'll really be sticking it to political correctness! :)

[QUOTE=Monkah;50519592][B] Trump is a notably pro-LGBT candidate, especially for someone that's running as a Republican.[/B] Trump is far less homophobic than Clinton is, who actively fought against LGBT rights until she was essentially forced not to. He's also notably supportive of transgenders and generally the LGBT community as a whole. [B]Compared to Clinton in 2004, who said:[/B][/QUOTE] You are misconstuing gay marriage and civil rights to try and create the narrative that Trump is more LGBT friendly when in reality Clinton was against those discrimination laws as well. This is why Trump gave money to Democrats. The only thing that has changed is that Clinton is for gay marriage while Trump only refers to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. When you say "forced to" do you mean when she proclaimed that "gay rights are human rights" at the UN in 2011? [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] With regards to transgenders rights lets not forget when Trump said they should use whatever bathroom they want then the next day said discrimination should be a states right

[QUOTE=Streecer;50519413]this is literally you denying reality. The_Donald has 160K users and you're telling me that they do not represent a significant portion of donald trumps popular support? the_donald isn't satire as much as they'd like to think it is, they genuinely believe everything that is posted there [/QUOTE] Now I'm not gonna claim to be a math genius here, but if the American population is 301.3 million and Trump really has that 36% of the American voterbase that gives him something like ~108.5 million voters. I'd argue that a reddit forum with about 1% of his voterbase isn't a sizable chunk. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] You idiots are constantly attack the opposition voterbase trying to bully them into joining your side.that shit isn't gonna work. Maybe show how Clinton competes with Trump on the issues that Trump voters are constantly bringing up?

[QUOTE=Flug;50519287]Second, use of the term "faggot" on r/the_donald is a protest against political correctness. It's not a serious insult, it's a matter of principle.[/QUOTE] Am i living in clownworld? The sheer mental contortions you have to go through for this is incredible

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50520250]Am i living in clownworld? The sheer mental contortions you have to go through for this is incredible[/QUOTE] Well since fucking Trump somehow became the GOP nominee, yes.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50519221]By all accounts, his religion had very little to do with his actions. At the end of the day, his pledge to ISIS was only used to give some sick sense of justification to his action, and has all the air of an afterthought. Investigators have thus far found no evidence that he had any ties to extremist organizations or ideology prior to the moment of the attack. His family, friends, and coworkers say that he wasn't very religious. He has a history of mental illness, a history of violence, a history of homophobia and racism, and perhaps most interesting of all he even reportedly was a regular customer at Pulse and used several gay dating apps. Everything points to Mateen being a closeted homosexual struggling with his sexual identity, mental illness, and anger problems who eventually snapped and tried to put to rest his confusion and insecurities in a final horrifying declaration of "masculinity." His being a Muslim is completely incidental to this story. He could have just as easily been Christian, or had no religious affiliations at all, and his motivations for committing this brutality would be unchanged. So, while it's TECHNICALLY true that banning Muslim immigration during his parents' generation would have prevented this specific person from attacking, it's no more effective a strategy for preventing mass shootings than simply throwing a dart at a list of names.[/QUOTE] Dude what? His mosque called him aggressive, every interview I read including his coworker said he was very religious and brought a prayer mat to work. His closeted homosexuality was a big influence but considering he also scouted Disney World he clearly had some other motives. He cheered on 9/11 and was raised by a fucking Taliban sympathizer, are we really pretending his religion had nothing to do with it? I'm not saying you have to go full anti-Islam but Jesus Christ, let's at least acknowledge he was a radical Islamist for fuck sake.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50520250]Am i living in clownworld? The sheer mental contortions you have to go through for this is incredible[/QUOTE] See dude I'm only calling black people "nigger" to protest against hate speech really

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;50520155]Now I'm not gonna claim to be a math genius here, but if the American population is 301.3 million and Trump really has that 36% of the American voterbase that gives him something like ~108.5 million voters. I'd argue that a reddit forum with about 1% of his voterbase isn't a sizable chunk. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] You idiots are constantly attack the opposition voterbase trying to bully them into joining your side.that shit isn't gonna work. Maybe show how Clinton competes with Trump on the issues that Trump voters are constantly bringing up?[/QUOTE] Not commenting on the rest of this thread but your attempt at math is atrocious. Around 120 million people voted in 2012. At 36% that gives 45 million. So The_Donald (assuming they're all american, and can vote which I doubt. There are very clearly a lot of 16 year olds) represents 0.33% of his voting base. I'd say that's a pretty big chunk to be honest but obviously you can disagree. I just wanted to point out that your arithmetic sucks.

[QUOTE=Dolton;50520405]Not commenting on the rest of this thread but your attempt at math is atrocious. Around 120 million people voted in 2012. At 36% that gives 45 million. So The_Donald (assuming they're all american, and can vote which I doubt. There are very clearly a lot of 16 year olds) represents 0.33% of his voting base. I'd say that's a pretty big chunk to be honest but obviously you can disagree. I just wanted to point out that your arithmetic sucks.[/QUOTE] One third of a percent is a pretty good chunk? Maybe you should focus more on what you're saying than criticizing someone for a trivial math error.

[QUOTE=Flug;50519448]Ok... First, he has received millions of votes thus far and many millions more have supported him in polls. 160k people is not a significant chunk of support. Secondly, how do you know that the_donald is a hivemind wherein everyone has the exact same opinion? Can you magically detect any disagreement or satire, and confidently tell me that, no, you don't detect any there? Thirdly, it's pointless to even argue about the_donald being representative of Trump supporters as a whole because they are not a hate group in the first place. You're acting delusional here. It is objectively just a word. It's not a dragon shout. "Faggot" doesn't have magic powers. Once upon a time words like "gadzooks" were considered horribly offensive. They aren't now, and that's because people used them and got used to them. No one said "u mad lol". I simply said to calm down a little bit before making an emotionally charged reply. This[I] is[/I] a conversation about Trump v. Clinton - read the headline. My argument, from the beginning, has been that Trump has a better record on LGBT rights than Clinton. Ah yes, I see you are the authority on defining the meaning of "traditional marriage". He explicitly stated that the meaning of marriage is changing, and that he would have no objections to LGBT couples - that he would have nothing at all to say. That he is neutral.[/QUOTE] It's like you aren't even listening to what you're saying, which would figure considering the mental dissonance it would take to support trump and think him a champion of tolerance. "He may have said that he's against gay marriage but what he really said was..." "he may have blamed mexicans and muslims for the problems our country faces but what he [I]really[/I] meant was..." Dude, being blatantly twofaced =/= being misunderstood, you and like a gazillion other people have repeated this same garbage about people cherrypicking comments time and time again because you don't want to admit to or are incapable of facing the fact that you support a racist bigot.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50518740]What he says makes a decent amount of sense, as much as I hate to say it. Suspending immigration from the middle east temporarily until effective checks can be put into place to keep people who have violent histories from entering the country. It would've kept this shooter's father out of the country because of his links to the taliban, and it would possibly have even kept the men who were responsible 9/11 out of the country. If we have to suspend immigration for a few years to reform our immigration laws and systems to make it so that -known taliban supporters- can't enter the country, then so be it, imo.[/QUOTE] What are you, some kind of [I][B]fucking biggot[/B][/I]? [sp]But yeah, our immigration system is totally fucked at the moment. They really need to fix that soon.[/sp]

[QUOTE=NiandraLades;50519142]Why do you say 'Suspending immigration from the middle east' instead of just suspending it entirely? Many US shooting tragedies in recent years have been from white people, such as the movie theater incident, Sandy Hook and Columbine. I'm not American so my perspective is different and I'm interested in what people have to say, however it feels kind of gross that many of those from the US want to focus on Muslims and immigrants when their own people do just as much, if not more, damage.[/QUOTE] Domestic problems require a very different method of fixing having to do with psychology. Easy fix to keep muslim extremists from committing terrorist attacks on american soil is to just not allow them into the country. Simple.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522133]Domestic problems require a very different method of fixing having to do with psychology. Easy fix to keep muslim extremists from committing terrorist attacks on american soil is to just not allow them into the country. Simple.[/QUOTE] Okay...but almost every single attack has been caused by a citizen themselves, Muslim or not, becoming radicalised through older generations of migrant or through Internet access. Barring an ethnic group (because lets be honest here, you cannot actually check the "Islam" status of a person at an airport, you're just gonna be banning people who fit the description of "brown and from somewhere not Europe") will not solve the issue of your actual citizens becoming radical.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522133]Domestic problems require a very different method of fixing having to do with psychology. Easy fix to keep muslim extremists from committing terrorist attacks on american soil is to just not allow them into the country. Simple.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling such a policy wouldn't be very simple to enforce.

[QUOTE=geogzm;50516082]can we have nobody be president and just all give up[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/[/url]

It's clear that most of this forum struggles to understand the concept of speech as protest. [QUOTE]"He may have said that he's against gay marriage but what he really said was..." [/QUOTE] He did not say he's against gay marriage. [QUOTE]"he may have blamed mexicans and muslims for the problems our country faces but what he really meant was..."[/QUOTE] He did not blame Mexicans and Muslims for the US's problems. [QUOTE]See dude I'm only calling black people "nigger" to protest against hate speech really [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Am i living in clownworld? The sheer mental contortions you have to go through for this is incredible [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Ok but for now it's hate speech no matter how much you're trying to defend your relativism here. [/QUOTE] I would like one of you to please explain how hate speech is a valid concept which should be law. I would like one of you to explain how "offensive" is defined. I would like one of you to explain how the concept of distasteful speech as protest is invalid. As of now, your arguments are entirely baseless. [QUOTE]No, because we ban for that.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ARwM5yW.png[/IMG] [url]https://facepunch.com/member.php?u=723799#vmessage541530[/url] A quick search reveals this clearly joking post which uses an anti-Semitic slur. Will you ban the poster? [QUOTE]By all means, though, refer to the victims of the Orlando shooting as "faggots" here and see how that works out for you! You'll really be sticking it to political correctness! :) [/QUOTE] Charming combination of condescension, veiled threats and placing words in my mouth.

[QUOTE=Flug;50522277]It's clear that most of this forum struggles to understand the concept of speech as protest. [/QUOTE] I think it's more an issue of struggling to understand the inner machinations of a genuine Trump supporter.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522150]Okay...but almost every single attack has been caused by a citizen themselves, Muslim or not, becoming radicalised through older generations of migrant or through Internet access. Barring an ethnic group (because lets be honest here, you cannot actually check the "Islam" status of a person at an airport, you're just gonna be banning people who fit the description of "brown and from somewhere not Europe") will not solve the issue of your actual citizens becoming radical.[/QUOTE] The ban isn't the solution. The ban is a temporary one meant to allow time for reform to allow for proper checks into immigrants past lives before they enter the country. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522418]The ban isn't the solution. The ban is a temporary one meant to allow time for reform to allow for proper checks into immigrants past lives before they enter the country. Wouldn't that be a good thing?[/QUOTE] Proper checks such as? Again. How are you going to actually implement a ban on "Muslims" when the number of countries that would actually state religion on your passport can be counted on one hand. Rectally probe all brown people until they tell you they're Muslim? Not be prejudiced fucks and rectally probe all people of all creed and colour until they tell you they're Muslim? It's a wholly unenforceable ban with no actual endgame (just a nebulous "until we can work out what the hell is going on" from the orange wigman himself) that relies on a prejudiced view of anyone who isn't "murrican". How does this stop your domestic terrorists? The ones actually performing these attacks?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522437]Proper checks such as? Again. How are you going to actually implement a ban on "Muslims" when the number of countries that would actually state religion on your passport can be counted on one hand. Rectally probe all brown people until they tell you they're Muslim? Not be prejudiced fucks and rectally probe all people of all creed and colour until they tell you they're Muslim? It's a wholly unenforceable ban with no actual endgame (just a nebulous "until we can work out what the hell is going on" from the orange wigman himself) that relies on a prejudiced view of anyone who isn't "murrican". How does this stop your domestic terrorists? The ones actually performing these attacks?[/QUOTE] Nobody (not even trump in the speech that was linked earlier in the thread) was talking about banning muslims. He was talking about the middle east as a whole. He's not talking about any ideologies or races, he's talking about a group of countries on a chunk of land that contain people who are known to have severe issues with integrating into western culture. Any kind of immigration reform is a good thing at this point, the system as it stands right now from almost every facet is broken anyways. It doesn't and isn't supposed to. They are a separate issue and should be treated as such.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50518223]so the idea is to punish people for the potential crimes of their potential future children??[/QUOTE] Hey I have to wait a week to pick up a hand gun I buy. We all have to stand in lines at airports for hours now and let strangers go through our shit. We all have to put up with some form of potential crime prevention. Barring people from entry with ties to terrorist groups seems fine to me

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522490]Nobody (not even trump in the speech that was linked earlier in the thread) was talking about banning muslims. He was talking about the middle east as a whole. He's not talking about any ideologies or races, he's talking about a group of countries on a chunk of land that contain people who are known to have severe issues with integrating into western culture. Any kind of immigration reform is a good thing at this point, the system as it stands right now from almost every facet is broken anyways. It doesn't and isn't supposed to. They are a separate issue and should be treated as such.[/QUOTE] Bruh Trump straight up said Muslims when he was talking about this blanket ban, that's the policy he ran with at the start of all this shit, that [I]is[/I] his policy. Again, how does barring everyone from the Middle East going to prevent terrorist attacks in the USA which so far, have been largely performed by citizens of the USA itself? This isn't a stepping stone to immigration reform, there's been no such hinting at that. Just blanket banning an entire ethnic group due to prejudiced fear. What the fuck sort of immigration reforms do you think are going to happen? People who are suspected of terrorist activities are pretty unlikely to get in already.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522565]Trump straight up said [b]Muslims[/b] blanket banning an entire [b]ethnic group[/b][/QUOTE] Pick one. Muslims are not an ethnic group.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50522591]Pick one. Muslims are not an ethnic group.[/QUOTE] If you'd like to not take my sentences out of context please and thank you you'd see that I wasn't claiming them to be the same thing. I brought up blanket banning Muslims alone in an earlier post, Usernameztaken moved that goalpost to "oh not he meant all Middle Easterns!!", so I brought up ethnic groups instead.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50522591]Pick one. Muslims are not an ethnic group.[/QUOTE] while technically true, it is but a mistake of semantics. bringing up proper grammar does nothing to address the fundamental argument. treating any group of people by something other than their individual actions is prejudice and wrong. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522418]The ban isn't the solution. The ban is a temporary one meant to allow time for reform to allow for proper checks into immigrants past lives before they enter the country. Wouldn't that be a good thing?[/QUOTE] you should be familiar enough of the US government to know that the US government can be depressingly untimely. Even if the ban on Muslims was actually "temporary" (and lets be honest, some people really mean it for it to be temporary, whilst others want the ban to be as close as permanent as possible), I do not put it past the US government to stall lifting the ban for a ridiculous stretch of time.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50522617]If you'd like to not take my sentences out of context please and thank you you'd see that I wasn't claiming them to be the same thing. I brought up blanket banning Muslims alone in an earlier post, Usernameztaken moved that goalpost to "oh not he meant all Middle Easterns!!", so I brought up ethnic groups instead.[/QUOTE] I didn't move that goalpost, Trump himself did. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=da space core;50522626] you should be familiar enough of the US government to know that the US government can be depressingly untimely. Even if the ban on Muslims was actually "temporary" (and lets be honest, some people really mean it for it to be temporary, whilst others want the ban to be as close as permanent as possible), I do not put it past the US government to stall lifting the ban for a ridiculous stretch of time.[/QUOTE] This is a fair point. But either way, it's either trump bans middle-easterneres or hillary bans the second amendment. I know which i'd rather have, as selfish as it is, there isn't much of a choice unless by some miracle Bernie wins the primary.