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

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522710]I didn't move that goalpost, Trump himself did. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] 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.[/QUOTE] She's not going to bad the second ammendement you're literally fear mongering over an impossibility You'll ban all muslims because you're 1) racist 2) afraid and 3) ignorant of the alternative

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522735]She's not going to bad the second ammendement you're literally fear mongering over an impossibility You'll ban all muslims because you're 1) racist 2) afraid and 3) ignorant of the alternative[/QUOTE] There's a very real possibility that a left dominated supreme court will take away personal gun rights by reinterpreting the 2nd amendment. Had the court been left dominated during McDonald vs. City of Chicago the states would have already had the ability to take that right away. The joys of a "living" constitution.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522710] This is a fair point. But either way, it's either trump bans middle-easterneres or [B]hillary bans the second amendment.[/B] 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.[/QUOTE] Imagine taking in pure propaganda and not even taking the 2 seconds to consider how absolutely absurd it is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50522763]There's a very real possibility that a left dominated supreme court will take away personal gun rights by reinterpreting the 2nd amendment. Had the court been left dominated during McDonald vs. City of Chicago the states would have already had the ability to take that right away. The joys of a "living" constitution.[/QUOTE] I mean I really don't know how to argue against this in this situation. Is Trump worth guns? What's the likelyhood of hilary actually doing that without committing full on political suicide?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522791]I mean I really don't know how to argue against this in this situation. Is Trump worth guns? What's the likelyhood of hilary actually doing that without committing full on political suicide?[/QUOTE] All she would have to do is put leftist supreme court judges up, which she almost certainly will do no matter what. The rest would be up to them and prosecutors.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522791]I mean I really don't know how to argue against this in this situation. Is Trump worth guns? What's the likelyhood of hilary actually doing that without committing full on political suicide?[/QUOTE] Zero. Absolutely zero. The NRA keeps pushing this narrative that guns are only one measure away from being banned while at the same time spending God knows how much on lobbying in Washington to make sure that never happens.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522735]She's not going to bad the second ammendement you're literally fear mongering over an impossibility You'll ban all muslims because you're 1) racist 2) afraid and 3) ignorant of the alternative[/QUOTE] I'm not fear mongering, Hillary is and has been one of the first and foremost people to support the outright ban of firearms. You're right, we won't likely see the outright ban on firearms, but we'll likely still see the rest of the country becoming more and more strict with firearm laws akin to California. There's a candidate that doesn't support that and a candidate who does. It's my rights as an American versus whose rights? Some guy from saudi arabia that doesn't like what HIS religion has done to HIS country? It's not my problem, and it doesn't need to be my problem. Our country is fucked enough as it is, and it needs to be fixed before we let in anyone who even possibly could maybe on the off-chance one in a million pull off a shooting, likely while providing nothing for its economy except another mouth for our welfare to feed. So what if there are a load of good people who could contribute to our economy? There are plenty more who just want to be leeches, or try to force their values on us, or even kill us for providing them with a safer place than what they came from. I shouldn't have to pay the burden of someone else when I can barely pay my own.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522805]I'm not fear mongering, Hillary is and has been one of the first and foremost people to support the outright ban of firearms. You're right, we won't likely see the outright ban on firearms, but we'll likely still see the rest of the country becoming more and more strict with firearm laws akin to California. There's a candidate that doesn't support that and a candidate who does. It's my rights as an American versus whose rights? Some guy from saudi arabia that doesn't like what HIS religion has done to HIS country? It's not my problem, and it doesn't need to be my problem. Our country is fucked enough as it is, and it needs to be fixed before we let in anyone who even possibly could maybe on the off-chance one in a million pull off a shooting, likely while providing nothing for its economy except another mouth for our welfare to feed. So what if there are a load of good people who could contribute to our economy? There are plenty more who just want to be leeches, or try to force their values on us, or even kill us for providing them with a safer place than what they came from. I shouldn't have to pay the burden of someone else when I can barely pay my own.[/QUOTE] Your nation literally relies on immigration, foreign workers, and the ideas those people bring with them. How do people like yourself even manage to convince yourselves of your confusing world views? You are fear mongering. She won't be able to do that. Literally, this is a fucking fact. White people commit the VAST, VAST majority of mass shootings that make it into the news. And you're worried about one muslim dude doing what white dudes in America have made a fucking past time. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50522803]All she would have to do is put leftist supreme court judges up, which she almost certainly will do no matter what. The rest would be up to them and prosecutors.[/QUOTE] And even in the political climate of the US, she'll get away with this without it being political suicide? It would be suicide. She won't do it. She'll put a very left leaning judge up, but she'll be the one to bear the burden of the political suicide of trying to remove the second amendment. It won't happen. I don't have a crystal ball, it just won't happen because it's not going to be politically expedient for her.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50522763]There's a very real possibility that a left dominated supreme court will take away personal gun rights by reinterpreting the 2nd amendment. Had the court been left dominated during McDonald vs. City of Chicago the states would have already had the ability to take that right away. The joys of a "living" constitution.[/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure the constitution was explicitly designed to be "living" regardless how else are you meant to interpet it? it was written in a agrarian society of a (predominantly) few hundred thousand semi-literate white english people. today it has to serve as a constitution for an industrialized superpower of a third of a billion diverse humans. trying to look at it like you are a judge from the 18th century is a ridiculous concept

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522817] Literally, this is a fucking fact. White people commit the VAST, VAST majority of mass shootings that make it into the news. And you're worried about one muslim dude doing what white dudes in America have made a fucking past time. [/QUOTE] It's a separate issue with a very different solution. When white people commit shootings, they do so because they are mentally unstable. They can be helped. Someone who came across the ocean on an airplane, drove a car to europe, or whatever and wherever else, for the sole purpose of killing westerners? There's no psychological help for that person, because their issue isn't psychological, it's ideological. Why should we refuse to fix what we can now? Why should we allow more people to die just to allow people into our country that may be ideologically incompatible with it? We have our own problems and needs that should come before the rest of the world right now. People are very quick to forget that the United States is still a few trillion dollars in debt, and how would allowing more unskilled laborers who likely will never find a job in the first place fix that?

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522885]It's a separate issue with a very different solution. When white people commit shootings, they do so because they are mentally unstable. They can be helped. Someone who came across the ocean on an airplane, drove a car to europe, or whatever and wherever else, for the sole purpose of killing westerners? There's no psychological help for that person, because their issue isn't psychological, it's ideological. Why should we refuse to fix what we can now? Why should we allow more people to die just to allow people into our country that may be ideologically incompatible with it? We have our own problems and needs that should come before the rest of the world right now. People are very quick to forget that the United States is still a few trillion dollars in debt, and how would allowing more unskilled laborers who likely will never find a job in the first place fix that?[/QUOTE] Because you're in need of low skilled workers more than ever in so many ways right now...? Not to mention this guy wasn't ISIS and to use this tragedy to racial restrict immigration is nothing but political opportunism

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522904]Because you're in need of low skilled workers more than ever in so many ways right now...? [/QUOTE] ??? We have millions of unemployed who would like a word with you on that.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50522923]??? We have millions of unemployed who would like a word with you on that.[/QUOTE] who won't take certain jobs because they're beneath them? Trump wants to remove all the mexican illegals, you don't have enough low skilled workers willing to take those jobs, nor do those jobs exist in the same areas, and you want to restrict immigration further? Yeah, you will be needing more low skilled workers. Are you taking Trumps word for Unemployment in the country or are you taking a real number into account?

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;50522885]It's a separate issue with a very different solution. When white people commit shootings, they do so because they are mentally unstable. They can be helped. Someone who came across the ocean on an airplane, drove a car to europe, or whatever and wherever else, for the sole purpose of killing westerners? There's no psychological help for that person, because their issue isn't psychological, it's ideological. Why should we refuse to fix what we can now? Why should we allow more people to die just to allow people into our country that may be ideologically incompatible with it? We have our own problems and needs that should come before the rest of the world right now. People are very quick to forget that the United States is still a few trillion dollars in debt, and how would allowing more unskilled laborers who likely will never find a job in the first place fix that?[/QUOTE] And Mateen was a mentally ill homosexual-in-denial who had fairly weak religious convictions before the Pulse shooting. I don't see how this event signals anything different than any other mass shooting by a mentally ill individual. Religion was an instigator, no doubt, and that's a problem with Islam that I'd like to see rectified through modernist interpretation of religious text (which is already done in many places in the US). I also don't see how Islam is any more "ideologically incompatible" with Western culture than Christianity. They have both criminalized homosexuality for the majority of their existence, yet apparently only one of them can exist in Western society and nobody's calling for it to be banned. Christians in Africa persecuted and executed homosexuals on a scale much, much higher than any sovereign Muslim-majority state has for the last several decades. Why don't we ban them?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522931][b]who won't take certain jobs because they're beneath them?[/b] Trump wants to remove all the mexican illegals, you don't have enough low skilled workers willing to take those jobs, nor do those jobs exist in the same areas, and you want to restrict immigration further? Yeah, you will be needing more low skilled workers. Are you taking Trumps word for Unemployment in the country or are you taking a real number into account?[/QUOTE] I'm honestly really tired of hearing this bullshit from people who don't even live here. The reason Americans won't take those jobs, is because companies won't pay them anywhere near what those jobs are worth. Illegals are willing to work much cheaper than Americans because they're willing to live as second-class citizens for a while until they have enough to try elsewhere. Why the fuck would Americans go work in a field in California for less than what they make working at a fast food joint? The problem there is that we have a second-class group of literally non-citizens who are willing to do that work well below what any american would reasonably work for. They aren't doing work that Americans aren't willing to do, they're working for less than Americans are willing to work for. There's a significant difference there, and that's a problem. Of course California's never going to change that on their own because having a class of people that are practically the modern-day equivalent of slave laborers is too beneficial to their agricultural sector for them to vote against that, and we have to deal with all the problems that comes with it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50522834]i'm pretty sure the constitution was explicitly designed to be "living" regardless how else are you meant to interpet it? it was written in a agrarian society of a (predominantly) few hundred thousand semi-literate white english people. today it has to serve as a constitution for an industrialized superpower of a third of a billion diverse humans. trying to look at it like you are a judge from the 18th century is a ridiculous concept[/QUOTE] It was written in a very generalized way on purpose. They left much of it open to interpretation, but that doesn't mean that everything is supposed to be up to interpretation. The intent was not to have future generation reinterpret the words to say whatever they want them to say, but to allow modification through the amendment process.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50518516]We already have an enormous population of them in this country. Unless you're suggesting we also evict every single evangelical anti-gay Christian in the United States? Many have quotes far worse than this man's father.[/QUOTE] I would support doing this tbh.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50522963]And Mateen was a mentally ill homosexual-in-denial who had fairly weak religious convictions before the Pulse shooting. I don't see how this event signals anything different than any other mass shooting by a mentally ill individual. Religion was an instigator, no doubt, and that's a problem with Islam that I'd like to see rectified through modernist interpretation of religious text (which is already done in many places in the US). I also don't see how Islam is any more "ideologically incompatible" with Western culture than Christianity. They have both criminalized homosexuality for the majority of their existence, yet apparently only one of them can exist in Western society and nobody's calling for it to be banned. Christians in Africa persecuted and executed homosexuals on a scale much, much higher than any sovereign Muslim-majority state has for the last several decades. Why don't we ban them?[/QUOTE] Said religion had a radical imam not far away from Orlando who openly called for the murder of homosexuals a month before the shooting. Said imam is now about to travel to Australia to inspire even more of those terrorists. The shooter's father was a hardcore Taliban supporter. Some acquaintances of said family joined ISIS and blew themselves up in the Middle East. But sure, let's still pretend that the most devout islamic countries aren't sentencing homosexuals to be publicly executed too. Let's still pretend that they are so tolerant of others. Wake the fuck up. We can't pretend that there is absolutely nothing wrong. It's a massive issue that needs to be addressed properly, we can't afford to look away and pretend that everything is still fine. And it is about the goddamn now. That Europe used to do awful stuff to homosexuals as well centuries ago doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia or those other totally-not-terrorist-financing countries get a free pass, especially when they directly fund the source of terrorism in western countries. Refuse to take in refugees themselves, yet offer to fund even more radical mosques all throughout Europe, the fucking dirtbags.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50522988]I'm honestly really tired of hearing this bullshit from people who don't even live here. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but is this the fucking 1920's? No, it's not. My knowledge of another area isn't significantly limited by my not being there physically. I'm fucking sick of this argument because it is utterly baseless. [QUOTE] The reason Americans won't take those jobs, is because companies won't pay them anywhere near what those jobs are worth. Illegals are willing to work much cheaper than Americans because they're willing to live as second-class citizens for a while until they have enough to try elsewhere. [/QUOTE] And just removing all the illegals and foreigners is going to do what exactly...? It's going to do what? It's not going to raise the price of labour, it's just going to cripple your economy. The jobs that exist are not where the people in the US are, so are those people going to move to those new areas when they're already impoverished? No, not likely. [QUOTE]Why the fuck would Americans go work in a field in California for less than what they make working at a fast food joint? The problem there is that we have a second-class group of literally non-citizens who are willing to do that work well below what any american would reasonably work for.[/QUOTE] Again, removing them is going to do what? It's going to raise the prices of...? Produce, agricutural products, and when the minimum wage won't change under Trump, you're going to do what to make ends meet when those prices have jumped through the roof? [QUOTE]They aren't doing work that Americans aren't willing to do, they're working for less than Americans are willing to work for. There's a significant difference there, and that's a problem.[/QUOTE] Source? And that effects the prices how? Keeps them nice and low, doesn't it? So, now you're going to be jacking those prices right up, but not really fixing the other end of the equation? [QUOTE]Of course California's never going to change that on their own because having a class of people that are practically the modern-day equivalent of slave laborers is too beneficial to their agricultural sector for them to vote against that, and we have to deal with all the problems that comes with it.[/QUOTE] And I fully appreciate that and understand that but to simply say those jobs would be done by americans if they could be, isn't exactly true.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50522963]And Mateen was a mentally ill homosexual-in-denial who had fairly weak religious convictions before the Pulse shooting.[/QUOTE] Where are you getting this? Firstly, there's no evidence that he was mentally ill. Secondly, no one knows if he was actually homosexual. And Thirdly, he was known for having strong religious beliefs before the attack.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50523038]Where are you getting this? Firstly, there's no evidence that he was mentally ill. Secondly, no one knows if he was actually homosexual. And Thirdly, he was known for having strong religious beliefs before the attack.[/QUOTE] Everything I've read said he didn't have very strong religious beliefs before according to his coworkers.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522735]She's not going to bad the second ammendement you're literally fear mongering over an impossibility[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50522765]Imagine taking in pure propaganda and not even taking the 2 seconds to consider how absolutely absurd it is.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50522804]Zero. Absolutely zero. The NRA keeps pushing this narrative that guns are only one measure away from being banned while at the same time spending God knows how much on lobbying in Washington to make sure that never happens.[/QUOTE] Yeah because it's totally not possible for people to strong-arm legislation in the dead of night with voice only vote and just flat out ignore any objections. Also the chairman/chairwoman can't just arbitrarily rule in favor for or against a motion on the floor right? [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTYofCuQ02g"]Oh[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1518696&highlight=nevada"]wait[/URL]...

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50523058]Yeah because it's totally not possible for people to strong-arm legislation in the dead of night with voice only vote and just flat out ignore any objections. Also the chairman/chairwoman can't just arbitrarily rule in favor of or against a motion on the floor right? [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTYofCuQ02g"]Oh[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1518696&highlight=nevada"]wait[/URL]...[/QUOTE] What is "Political Suicide" for 500 Alex?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523071]What is "Political Suicide" for 500 Alex?[/QUOTE] Well that certainly didn't stop them from doing it in the first place, now did it? The damage is already done, and it almost certainly cannot be fixed now.

Basically you think that Clinton will force that through, in order to get her ideological goal of removing guns done. But you haven't thought for one second, about what that does to the rest of her term time. She wouldn't have any political power to make anything happen at that point. She'd have burnt every bridge, and would become a utterly ineffectual president. Yeah, that's what Clinton wants, right? [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50523073]Well that certainly didn't stop them from doing it in the first place, now did it? The damage is already done, and it almost certainly cannot be fixed now.[/QUOTE] I'm not about to defend Clinton more than I have, I don't like her and I don't want her elected but to believe she'll really shoot her own feet off to spite you is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Jordax;50523023]Said religion had a radical imam not far away from Orlando who openly called for the murder of homosexuals a month before the shooting. The shooter's father was a hardcore Taliban supporter. Some acquaintances of said family joined ISIS and blew themselves up in the Middle East. But sure, let's still pretend that the most devout islamic countries aren't sentencing homosexuals to be publicly executed too. Let's still pretend that they are so tolerant of others. Wake the fuck up. We can't pretend that there is absolutely nothing wrong. It's a massive issue that needs to be addressed properly, we can't afford to look away and pretend that everything is still fine. And it is about the goddamn now. That Europe used to do awful stuff to homosexuals as well centuries ago doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia or those other totally-not-terrorist-financing countries get a free pass, especially when they directly fund the source of terrorism in western countries. Refuse to take in refugees themselves, yet offer to fund even more radical mosques all throughout Europe, the fucking dirtbags.[/QUOTE] Find me the last time a sovereign nation (not ISIS) has executed someone solely for being homosexual. It was decades and decades ago. I agree that treatment of LGBT individuals in Muslim nations is absolutely abhorrent and needs to be fixed, but there hasn't been a public execution of a homosexual in a sovereign Muslim nation in a very long time. Iran banned the death penalty for homosexuality 4 years ago, and almost never actually enforced it before that. Most punishments for homosexuality are extralegal, carried out by mobs and sharia enforcers who aren't government employees. I agree that the treatment of LGBT individuals in Muslim countries is a major human rights issue - but pretending that it's somehow an issue with only Islam is just blatantly wrong. There's an enormous amount of LGBT hatred in Africa in Christian-majority countries. It's not that "Europe used to do it," it's that Christian today are also doing it. It doesn't make it any less unacceptable, it just shows that Muslims are hardly the only religious groups persecuting gays. If we're going to ban all Muslims, let's ban all African Christians as well. Because some of them kill gays, too, so get rid of them all, right? Do you see why people think this logic is flawed?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523047]Everything I've read said he didn't have very strong religious beliefs before according to his coworkers.[/QUOTE] From what I've read, only the Father said he wasn't religious. His ex-wife said he was religious, he prayed regularly at his Mosque, he has connections with other Islam radical terrorists, he was previously investigated for connections to Islamic terrorists organizations that his co-workers had reported, he was known to watch videos from radical Islamic teachers, and I'm sure there's more that will come out later. There's no reason to think that he had some quick religious belief that worked to justify his hatred of gay people. ([URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/omar-mateen-everything-we-know-so-far-about-orlando-gunman/[/URL]) [URL]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/source-orlando-attacker-s-ties-to-american-suicide-bomber-in-syria-deeper-than-thought.html[/URL]

[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] Oh my god.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50522999]It was written in a very generalized way on purpose. They left much of it open to interpretation, but that doesn't mean that everything is supposed to be up to interpretation. The intent was not to have future generation reinterpret the words to say whatever they want them to say, but to allow modification through the amendment process.[/QUOTE] there's also the difficulty that it's impossible to interpret them according to the original intent of the framers due to time displacement. it's difficult to understand what they would even think of a modern issue today, and even then it's questionable as to why we should rely on their judgement as being necessarily betterequipped than our own

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523080]Basically you think that Clinton will force that through, in order to get her ideological goal of removing guns done. But you haven't thought for one second, about what that does to the rest of her term time. She wouldn't have any political power to make anything happen at that point. She'd have burnt every bridge, and would become a utterly ineffectual president. Yeah, that's what Clinton wants, right?[/QUOTE] Have you even been paying attention to the stupid shit she's thrown herself in front of lately? She's kinda been on a roll with doing things which should make her less popular with the general public. Considering all the things she's been allowed to pretty much get away with so far, I don't see her stopping until it actually comes back to bite her in the ass. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523080] [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] I'm not about to defend Clinton more than I have, I don't like her and I don't want her elected but to believe she'll really shoot her own feet off to spite you is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Yes it is fucking stupid, but someone should probably tell her that.