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

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50523123]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] It's not impossible at all. There are a very few questionable parts that, even within that confusion, are pretty limited. The majority of it is very clear. It also helps that we have tons of other documents that clearly lay out the opinions of the founders, like, the Federalist Papers, for example. About them having better judgement: that's irrelevant. If you think we have better judgement, then they very purposefully put in the ability to change it through the amendment process. The problem arises for the left when they can't get enough agreement to amend it. So, instead, they change it with the so called theory of the "living" constitution.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;50523135]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. Basically, never underestimate human stupidity.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and I don't like her, but you're flat out making up worst case scenarios that won't happen because even if I think she's stupid, i don't think she's so stupid as to hamstring her administration should she win the presidency, and doing what you're claiming she'd do WOULD hamstring her whole administration and make her a super lame duck president.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523035]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] It's relevant because it has absolutely no effect on you, the funny thing is that the canadian government actually does as much as it can to [url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/protectionism/]keep canadians employed.[/url] where as our government does fuck all but sell us out to the lowest bidders for corporate profits. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523035]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.[/QUOTE] We wouldn't be removing them all, ideally we'd start the process of making them legal citizens and forcing the agricultural sector to start paying them fair wages, while curbing ongoing illegal immigration at the border. Or at least that's my take on how it should go. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523035]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] The jobs are in the U.S. , U.S. Citizens or legal immigrants should be doing those jobs. If they were paying them what the work was worth then you'd bet your ass people would move to get guaranteed wages. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523035]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] Prices would rise and the agricultural sector would have to innovate on efficiency to help keep prices competitive. encouraging a smaller more efficient work force. I think it would be a pretty cool thing to see our prices on shit like that actually rise with inflation the way it should be so that people have a perspective of what the hell's actually happening to their economy. I understand that it seems great to keep prices as low as possible right now but in the future it will continue the trend of outsourcing work or bringing in foreign labor to do jobs that american citizens can't live off of doing while our economy continues to fuck itself. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523035]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] Keeping them artificially low, it creates a precedent that Americans can't both create goods and afford to buy them which is a paradox that will bite us in the ass down the road. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50523035]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] If they were paying the wages that they should be, Americans would be happy to do those jobs. My best guess is that they would improve the sector's efficiency to maintain a smaller workforce that could do similar work with some investment in automation, employing americans and still keeping prices competitive.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50523141]It's not impossible at all. There are a very few questionable parts that, even within that confusion, are pretty limited. The majority of it is very clear. It also helps that we have tons of other documents that clearly lay out the opinions of the founders, like, the Federalist Papers, for example. About them having better judgement: that's irrelevant. If you think we have better judgement, then they very purposefully put in the ability to change it through the amendment process. The problem arises for the left when they can't get enough agreement to amend it. So, instead, they change it with the so called theory of the "living" constitution.[/QUOTE] the alternative is that you end up with indias situation where they amend their constitution constantly the advantage of a living constitution is that you don't have to make a trillion new amendments constantly - in a country the size and diversity of america this would be difficult plus there's the other argument that originalists use the "originalist" argument to push for rulings that their own personal biases are in agreement with just as much as the ones who support a living constitution

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50523204]the alternative is that you end up with indias situation where they amend their constitution constantly the advantage of a living constitution is that you don't have to make a trillion new amendments constantly - in a country the size and diversity of america this would be difficult plus there's the other argument that originalists use the "originalist" argument to push for rulings that their own personal biases are in agreement with just as much as the ones who support a living constitution[/QUOTE] A living constitution is essentially the same as constantly amending it. You are actively changing the meaning of the words of the constitution to mean what you think they should mean instead of what they actually mean. The only difference is that you don't have to get the consensus that an amendment would require.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50516238]You should watch the whole thing rather than falling for cherry picked lines. [video]https://youtu.be/GgRvYE2SQqE[/video][/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/jfwWdPm.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Judas;50523230][img]http://i.imgur.com/jfwWdPm.png[/img][/QUOTE] says the person that would most likely appoint a conservative-as-hell judge to the supreme court, and is part of the party that's notoriously evangelical and anti-LGBT

[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] See that still brings the point though, even using the actual number of voters, the subreddit still represents less than 1% of his actual voter base, so not really in any way something to base your opinion of "a great portion" of Trump voters on, especially because a sizeable of those users would most likely be bots, trolls and people arguing against Trump in there [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] So not much of an arithmatic error so much as using the wrong source.

[QUOTE=Levithan;50523293]says the person that would most likely appoint a conservative-as-hell judge to the supreme court, and is part of the party that's notoriously evangelical and anti-LGBT[/QUOTE] he's the person that also describes many people with the terms, disgusting and gross

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50519163]Some != all Gun control was effective in Australia. also I think guns are fun, I've never shot a rifle or pistol but I like shooting shotguns. Just you need more regulation, background checks and imo a gun owner database along with tracking gun movement. If a gun is found to have been used in a crime find the most recent owner and ask them why it ended up getting used there. There are ways round that but it would be a big step toward stopping this bs[/QUOTE] Was it now? It actually caused a spike in homicides shortly before and after it was introduced, which then relaxed down to about the same levels as pre-regulation.

[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck7xM0nUoAANVGi.jpg:large[/t] I'm glad Trump will protect me and my rights.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50523738][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck7xM0nUoAANVGi.jpg:large[/t] I'm glad Trump will protect me and my rights.[/QUOTE] *vomit*

[QUOTE=elowin;50523620]Was it now? It actually caused a spike in homicides shortly before and after it was introduced, which then relaxed down to about the same levels as pre-regulation.[/QUOTE] Nope [quote]At that time Australia's firearm mortality rate per population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate (pdf), according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. Today the rate is under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth the US rate (pdf). Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.[/quote] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives[/url] The rate per person went down so in the long term it's been highly effective. try a different, more honest argument for keeping guns - they empower me and I think they're cool. You don't even have to ban guns Just agree to background checks for banning assault weapons. Anything rather than blaming it something else, you can ban Muslims but you gun homicide rate will still be the highest in the developed world.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50524933]Nope [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives[/url] The rate per person went down so in the long term it's been highly effective. try a different, more honest argument for keeping guns - they empower me and I think they're cool. You don't even have to ban guns Just agree to background checks for banning assault weapons. Anything rather than blaming it something else, you can ban Muslims but you gun homicide rate will still be the highest in the developed world.[/QUOTE] See the problem is the way Britain enacted their gun laws lead to confiscations which is what the NRA has used as the "evidence" that it will happen in the US. The other problem is there are soooooo many guns that an AWB would cover that are out there now, if a ban were enacted they would have to be grandfathered in, which means the used market will just take up the slack

[QUOTE=Sableye;50524961]See the problem is the way Britain enacted their gun laws lead to confiscations which is what the NRA has used as the "evidence" that it will happen in the US. The other problem is there are soooooo many guns that an AWB would cover that are out there now, if a ban were enacted they would have to be grandfathered in, which means the used market will just take up the slack[/QUOTE] Perhaps make it so assault weapons need a license otherwise they must be kept inside gun clubs with certain security measures? So you can still own them but you're no so free to carry them around

[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] Not spending as much as you might think. NRA gets paid to fight battles, actually winning long-standing protections to firearms ownership would put them out of business. They've got to make some gains here and there, show they can get results, but losing battles keeps gun owners worried, keeps NRA membership up. Last time the NRA made significant gains their membership crashed, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50523738][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck7xM0nUoAANVGi.jpg:large[/t] I'm glad Trump will protect me and my rights.[/QUOTE] That is out of context thou, the "shocking decision" he is refering was that he wanted states to decide on gay marriage, that was before the SC decision too. Not to mention that the original quote, never had "gay marriage" either.

Hmm, well I also heard Howard Stern ask him about gay marriage on his radio show, and he said something seemingly of the same opinion in response.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50526167]Hmm, well I also heard Howard Stern ask him about gay marriage on his radio show, and he said something seemingly of the same opinion in response.[/QUOTE] I don't doubt that, but posting someone quote whch turns out is a mixture of missquoting and taking it out of its contex is pretty scummy.

I wasn't the one who made the picture so I didn't know it was a misquote.

[QUOTE=Psyke89;50526038][B]That is out of context thou, the "shocking decision" he is refering was that he wanted states to decide on gay marriage[/B], that was before the SC decision too. Not to mention that the original quote, never had "gay marriage" either.[/QUOTE] This is just as ignorant a position, however. The court's ruling was not a matter of state vs federal power, it was a matter of constitutionality. Banning gay marriage, and all the legal and personal benefits associated with it, is a basic suppression of constitutional human rights. The Supreme Court ruled on this decision because that is literally their job, and no state is exempt from the ruling because [I]all[/I] states are bound by the US constitution.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50526472]This is just as ignorant a position, however. The court's ruling was not a matter of state vs federal power, it was a matter of constitutionality. Banning gay marriage, and all the legal and personal benefits associated with it, is a basic suppression of constitutional human rights. The Supreme Court ruled on this decision because that is literally their job, and no state is exempt from the ruling because [I]all[/I] states are bound by the US constitution.[/QUOTE] But that's another debate thou, not what the missquoted intended to pass out.

[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] If they're going to raise terrorist children, sure.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50526351]How about no. How about there are next to no actual "assault weapons" on the streets, and it's already fucking expensive and hardly anyone owns one. How about if we're going to discuss effective ways of reducing crime, we start talking about banning weapons that are statistically more deadly: Pistols and shotguns. In the US pistols and shotguns cause far more death and destruction than rifles. I'm staunchly against such measures, but if we're talking about reducing crime, this is a way for me to take you seriously, it'd show that you can actually read statistics instead of "oh shit that gun's scurry, better ban it" And yet, they're "ok". So the people talking about banning "ebil assault rifles" don't want to reduce crime, they want to slowly but surely get you used to the idea that "oh you don't NEED this, and you don't NEED that"[/QUOTE] I believe you about pistols but shotguns? And I agree that the deeper causes should be addressed to reduce properly but restricting access to guns is limiting the damage, you can't do a mass shooting with a knife.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50526591]Shotguns, yes. FBI statistics suggest that even shotguns are used more than rifles. A proper solution to the US problem would be to properly address the issues of inner city crime and poverty. Rather than just pretend they don't exist. Notice that we'll get up in arms about a mass shooting, but ignore the hundreds of inner city deaths every day. I don't think we'll ever stop "mass shootings", but we can reduce our crime rate without pissing all over people's rights too (and in doing so improve their quality of life significantly)[/QUOTE] So solve crime and poverty, can't argue with that. Its a good cause, would be nice to minimise the damage while you fix it though. For mass shootings, I think you can stop (as in make them less frequent). US has more mass shootings per capita than other developed countries.

[QUOTE=Psyke89;50526492]But that's another debate thou, not what the missquoted intended to pass out.[/QUOTE] The highest jurisdictional body on constitutionality is the Supreme Court, not the president. That Donald Trump even thinks he [I]could[/I] overturn that ruling is evidence enough of his ignorance, nevermind whatever debate regarding gay marriage he may think is still worth having. The only body capable of overturning or reversing a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court itself. Trump clearly either doesn't understand the limits to his power as president, or thinks his supporters are ignorant enough not to.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50526689]Trump clearly either doesn't understand the limits to his power as president, [B]or thinks his supporters are ignorant enough not to.[/B][/QUOTE] Unfortunately, from what I have heard from my usual lunch bunch at work, that is definitely the case... God do I love the south, the food, the people, and everything else, but holy shit, there are some major idiots that ruin it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50526689]The highest jurisdictional body on constitutionality is the Supreme Court, not the president. That Donald Trump even thinks he [I]could[/I] overturn that ruling is evidence enough of his ignorance, nevermind whatever debate regarding gay marriage he may think is still worth having. The only body capable of overturning or reversing a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court itself. Trump clearly either doesn't understand the limits to his power as president, or thinks his supporters are ignorant enough not to.[/QUOTE] That quote was made before the SC ruling. His quote after is: [QUOTE]WALLACE: But, Mr. Trump, let's take one issue. You say now that the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is the law of the land and that any politician who talks about wanting to amend the Constitution is just playing politics. Are you saying it's time to move on? TRUMP: No, I'm saying this. It has been ruled up. It has been there. If I'm a, you know, if I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things. But they've got a long way to go. I mean at some point, we have to get back down to business. But there’s no question about it. I mean most -- and most people feel this way. They have ruled on it. I wish that it was done by the state. I don't like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state -- it should be a states' rights issue. And that's the way it should have been ruled on, Chris, not the way they did it. This is a very surprising ruling. And I -- I can see changes coming down the line, frankly. But I would have much preferred that they ruled at a state level and allowed the states to make those rulings themselves.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Psyke89;50527220]That quote was made before the SC ruling. His quote after is:[/QUOTE] which is basically saying to the gay community "Cya later, you're fucked in half the states". Treating it as states rights, as 'noble' as that would be, puts the lgbt community in a bad place.

[QUOTE=Psyke89;50527220]That quote was made before the SC ruling. His quote after is:[/QUOTE] Which of course brings us right back to the fact that this is an issue of constitutionality, not state vs federal powers, so Trump continues to be wrong about this and any desire to attempt to influence or change that ruling otherwise is extremely misguided and actively regressive and blah blah blah