Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;51366918]People who worry that a conservative government could step on them when the Vice President is staunchly anti-gay are clearly just worried about Nazi gay death camps. Apparently being concerned over a staunchly anti-gay Vice President is just fearmongering foolishness and not common sense or something. Why wouldn't people be worried about that?[/QUOTE] Pence aside, couldn't Hillary have done the same exact thing? The only things we have to go on is Trump's words. If we can't do that then we'd have to have these kinds of worries for every president ever elected. I'm not saying people shouldn't be worried, especially since Pence was selected as his vice. But I'd like to hope he didn't select him because he was against gay marriage.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51366810]So what happened to all the doomsaying that made it seem like Trump/Pence would set up gulags for gay people?[/QUOTE] From what i've seen pence is actually terrible.

[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;51367741]Pence aside, couldn't Hillary have done the same exact thing? The only things we have to go on is Trump's words. If we can't do that then we'd have to have these kinds of worries for every president ever elected. I'm not saying people shouldn't be worried, especially since Pence was selected as his vice. But I'd like to hope he didn't select him because he was against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] There is 0 evidence she would flip on that She only flipped when her constituency did

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51366861]Half of you are either fools or fearmongers. "I'll believe it in four years." No, yeah, because the President can just, at will, overturn decisions made by the Supreme Court. Ok.[/QUOTE] Yeah sorry for most of us not believing a politician at face value after being lied to by every single one we've elected in living memory. Next time we'll just find a bottle of naivete' on eBay, chug it, and suddenly adhere to the [i]gospel[/i] they give us! /s

Well in order for it to change he'd need to control the supreme court and have it become an issue, two not so easy things. He can still hammer down on LGBT people though

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51368060]Well in order for it to change he'd need to control the supreme court and have it become an issue, two not so easy things. He can still hammer down on LGBT people though[/QUOTE] You're almost guaranteed to see something come before the Supreme Court with no doubt a conservative majority after Trump nominates his own Justice to the bench.

[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;51367741]Pence aside, couldn't Hillary have done the same exact thing? The only things we have to go on is Trump's words. If we can't do that then we'd have to have these kinds of worries for every president ever elected. I'm not saying people shouldn't be worried, especially since Pence was selected as his vice. But I'd like to hope he didn't select him because he was against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] While I wouldn't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her, she is pretty reliable in her ideals and beliefs. By which I mean whatever gets her the most votes she rolls with. From what I remember she used to be for traditional marriage, then I think earlier in this election she said how she was for gay marriage? Flip flops like mad, but as long as it makes people want her I feel she'd be pro gay. Donald can be whatever he wants, but people don't need to have a whinge when people don't trust his statements on gay marriage with a VP like Mike Pence.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51367234]20 whole dollars?! USD??[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bitches;51367183]lame as hell; you'll be long gone from this forum as your life goes on by then how about arguing against the many points made against your blind beliefs?[/QUOTE] wow guy'd be donating to a charity only 20? its not the thought that counts fuck this guy! calm the fuck down holy shit

I was less offended by the amount and moreso by the fact he made a bet about it.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;51368245]wow guy'd be donating to a charity only 20? its not the thought that counts fuck this guy! calm the fuck down holy shit[/QUOTE] they're calm dude. they called out a terrible post and you're overreacting by thinking that they're mad. he made a terrible 20 dollar bet to get out of an argument. that $20 may or may not go to charity because it's dependant on a situation that will happen in 4 years

[quote=CBS 60 Minutes] Republican President-elect Donald Trump said he’s “fine” with same-sex marriage as the law of the land, calling the issue "settled" by the Supreme Court. [/quote] B-But on Facebook they told me that Trump was going to put all my gay friends onto cattle cars and send them to the electrocution camps until they're straight again? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Pascall))[/highlight]

The concerning thing is that while it's settled [I]now[/I], if he packs the Supreme Court with 2-3 more conservative judges and it somehow ends up at the Supreme Court again, it could easily be settled in the opposite way. People thought "separate but equal" was settled via Supreme Court decision. That didn't last. Obergefell can still be undone [I]easily[/I] - it was already a narrow win. Pack the SCOTUS with 2 more conservatives and that 5-4 vote will easily disappear and refer it back to the individual states. That is concerning - and it has nothing to do with Trump's beliefs.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;51368492]B-But on Facebook they told me that Trump was going to put all my gay friends onto cattle cars and send them to the electrocution camps until they're straight again? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Pascall))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Stop making posts like this, they're so dumb lol

My understanding of the world is completely fucked up

Eh... as a leftist, Gay Marriage is what I call a "turd issue". IE: a meaningless social issue that affects only a small group of people which has had it's significance blown out of all proportion by leftists. The left becomes laser-focused on these issues at the expense of more important topics like class divides and anti-war activism. It is because I had such contempt for these kind of turd issues that I found the transition from Bernie to Trump supporter easier than many other leftists. It's all well and good to be in favor of Gay Marriage, but it doesn't have to override every. single. other. issue. There are more important things to bother ourselves with, Oliver Stone is one of those few on the left who is actually keeping things in perspective: [url]https://twitter.com/TheOliverStone/status/796452185437409280[/url] I myself don't expect life to get much worse for Gay people under Trump, and I would definitely be surprised if Gay Marriage was re-criminalized. I think Trump represents the beginning of a change for Republicans on the issue, slow but steady opposing Gay Marriage will not feature very large on Republican Agendas in the future. [QUOTE=dai;51366896]with all of the "OH SUDDENLY TRUMP IS SAYING SOME COOL LIBERAL-FRIENDLY SHIT TOO" news in the past few days I'm afraid he may just pulling more salesman pandering. He already sold himself to the extreme right and got their votes, now he can open up about some lefty views and start to settle the unrest and gain some benefit of the doubt. If he can sate the rage of the blue votes there'll be less [B]pressure on the elecs who can vote against their state's popular vote to go blue to spite him in december.[/B] There's no doubt there will be another wave of "oh he changed his mind" news if/when those votes are secured[/QUOTE] This. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen. The Republican electors are NOT going to turn against their candidate, especially not now that their party is in such a strong position, whilst the democrats are on the verge of internal civil war. They have absolutely NO incentive to fuck things up because a bunch of metropolitan students, who were never going to vote GOP anyway, are marching up and down the street in their urban strongholds. They DO have reason to be scared of what their own (better armed) supporters might do if they are seen to bow to democratic pressure to reverse the result. Most of these rural republican voters probably do not even know (and almost certainly don't care) that Hillary (narrowly) won the popular vote, they are not going to take any fucking around with the results lying down and level-headed people on both sides know it. Hell, the only electors who have actually promised not to vote for their party's candidate are democratic ones, so Hillary might get an even smaller delegate count come December.:v: Just look at Hillary herself, she is probably be more bitter about this result than ANYONE, and she has never even suggested pulling fuckery like this. The slightest suggestion that she would, especially after calling Trump's potential refusal to accept the results "horrifying" would transform her into a political pariah, loose most of what influence her family still has in the DNC and almost certainly doom her own daughter's future political ambitions. And don't just take my word for it, even Vox says there's no chance in hell of this being pulled off: [url]http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trump[/url]

Glad to know me getting married is a "turd issue", bro.

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;51369078]Glad to know me getting married is a "turd issue", bro.[/QUOTE] If you knew candidate X would start a terrible war that would cause millions of needless deaths but was in favor of Gay marriage, while candidate Y was opposed to gay marriage. Would you still vote for candidate X?

You say class divides are one of the most important topics and you vote for bloody Trump of all people who rode to the presidency by dividing the working class by pitting them against each-other using constructs like nationalism? He's also far from a peaceful guy as well, there's his statements, and also the fact that politicians who are like him, historically, actually DEPEND on war to reignite the population's fervor and support for him. Human rights are still a very important issue, doesn't matter whose rights are being violated. Unless you're going MAXIMUM ACCELERATIONISM i guess? [sp]though I do get the irony and privilege of supporting HRC for our rights back home while the middle east goes to hell under US imperialism. There's just no reason to believe that Trump won't do the same, and even evidence that he might be tempted[/sp]

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51369094]If you knew candidate X would start a terrible war that would cause millions of needless deaths but was in favor of Gay marriage, while candidate Y was opposed to gay marriage. Would you still vote for candidate X?[/QUOTE] Then everything is a turd issue.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51369099]You say class divides are one of the most important topics and you vote for bloody Trump of all people who rode to the presidency by dividing the working class by pitting them against each-other using constructs like nationalism?[/QUOTE] And people on the left don't do that too? The left has been using social issues to distract from solving problems of the working classes for years now. The whole reason Bernie lost the primary was because the Dems said that he was "tone-deaf" on "black issues". They basically said identity politics trumped class politics. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51369099]He's also far from a peaceful guy as well, there's his statements, and also the fact that politicians who are like him, historically, actually DEPEND on war to reignite the population's fervor and support for him.[/QUOTE] Trump won't gain support by going to war with nations, he'll again support by calling the heads of the hated big businesses and demanding they move their manufacturing industries back into the US. Even if they don't do what he says he will still be very popular for standing up to the wealthy job-reapers. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51369099]though I do get the irony and privilege of supporting HRC for our rights back home while the middle east goes to hell under US imperialism. There's just no reason to believe that Trump will do the same, and even evidence that he might be tempted[/QUOTE] Why would he engage in imperialism? It goes completely against his view that foreign policy should be run in a money-saving business-type manner. I understand he's not exactly Chomsky, but his foreign policy is already showing signs it will be 100 times better than Clinton's.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51369150]And people on the left don't do that too? The left has been using social issues to distract from solving problems of the working classes for years now. The whole reason Bernie lost the primary was because the Dems said that he was "tone-deaf" on "black issues". They basically said identity politics trumped class politics. Trump won't gain support by going to war with nations, he'll again support by calling the heads of the hated big businesses and demanding they move their manufacturing industries back into the US. Even if they don't do what he says he will still be very popular for standing up to the wealthy job-reapers. Why would he engage in imperialism? It goes completely against his view that foreign policy should be run in a money-saving business-type manner. I understand he's not exactly Chomsky, but his foreign policy is already showing signs it will be 100 times better than Clinton's.[/QUOTE] The "left" The democratic party are a bunch of neoliberals. The left were generally with Bernie, and later Hillary or no one at all because muh lesser evilism. There's a small contingent of social democrats but most fit into the new democratic coalition. And I say that because of how nationalism works, it requires fuel. Historically the American economy too has benefited greatly from imperialism. It's very easy for a politician to talk about peace but then are willing jump into a conflict because it's a powerful way to drive up your approval rating and distract the people from their suffering under your regime. And honestly even if we're talking about what he's said, he fucking lied about what he said about the Iraq war, he supported the war at the time, and he's also said many times that he's willing to declare war on Iran or shoot down Russian planes, an act of war, and his very first campaign ad was about invading ISIS and taking their oil.

Oh boo hoo he supported a war that a lot of other people did. Conveniently forgetting that Hillary actually voted for the war, led the intervention in Libya, and is on video saying Iraq should be treated as a business venture. The bitch is so two-faced, why the fuck would anyone vote for her is beyond me.

[QUOTE=Pops;51369218]Oh boo hoo he supported a war that a lot of other people did. Conveniently forgetting that Hillary actually voted for the war, led the intervention in Libya, and is on video saying Iraq should be treated as a business venture. The bitch is so two-faced, why the fuck would anyone vote for her is beyond me.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying she didn't, I'm saying that it's insane to think that Trump will be guaranteed to be pro-peace. He's hardly an improvement, it's just the devil we know vs the devil we don't

[QUOTE=Pops;51369218]Oh boo hoo he supported a war that a lot of other people did. Conveniently forgetting that Hillary actually voted for the war, led the intervention in Libya, and is on video saying Iraq should be treated as a business venture. The bitch is so two-faced, why the fuck would anyone vote for her is beyond me.[/QUOTE] Not understanding why people voted or would vote for Trump is a huge factor into why the Democrats lost this election. But now we have people on the right now saying they don't understand why people voted Clinton. Now going back and saying "why would anyone vote for Clinton" is what will cause even more division and will result in a bad presidency if the Republicans and Trump don't try to understand.

I don't think I'll ever understand how this man's mind works. In the same breath, he calls the Supreme Court's ruling on homosexuality, in place for barely a year, a "settled law," while promising to do everything he can to overturn Roe v Wade, which is decades old and was just reaffirmed earlier this year. Like, obviously neither of these rulings should be overturned, but just the break in Trump's internal logic is enough to make my head spin.

Okay so here's the thing, I really don't think Trump has any interest in being against LGBT rights. People say that he's saying this just to save face but what's the point? He already won the election so really he doesn't need to hold back, and he certainly isn't when it comes to illegal immigration. I just think if Trump really wanted to fuck with the LGBT community he'd just come out and say it. I don't agree with much of what he says but it does seem he usually speaks his mind, and I can't really remember him being actively against gay marriage.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51369245]I don't think I'll ever understand how this man's mind works. In the same breath, he calls the Supreme Court's ruling on homosexuality, in place for barely a year, a "settled law," while promising to do everything he can to overturn Roe v Wade, which is decades old and was just reaffirmed earlier this year. Like, obviously neither of these rulings should be overturned, but just the break in Trump's internal logic is enough to make my head spin.[/QUOTE] My guess is he feels one should be left up to states, and the other should be universal.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51369245]I don't think I'll ever understand how this man's mind works. In the same breath, he calls the Supreme Court's ruling on homosexuality, in place for barely a year, a "settled law," while promising to do everything he can to overturn Roe v Wade, which is decades old and was just reaffirmed earlier this year. Like, obviously neither of these rulings should be overturned, but just the break in Trump's internal logic is enough to make my head spin.[/QUOTE] Well abortion and marriage equality aren't mutually exclusive. It seems unlikely but it is possible to be really against one of them and be completely indifferent to the other. That seems to be the case here.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51369150]And people on the left don't do that too? The left has been using social issues to distract from solving problems of the working classes for years now. The whole reason Bernie lost the primary was because the Dems said that he was "tone-deaf" on "black issues". They basically said identity politics trumped class politics.[/quote] citing an attack that came almost exclusively from the Clinton camp as an attack from the "left" is pretty strange. [quote]Why would he engage in imperialism? It goes completely against his view that foreign policy should be run in a money-saving business-type manner. I understand he's not exactly Chomsky, but his foreign policy is already showing signs it will be 100 times better than Clinton's.[/QUOTE] from [url]https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/foreign-policy-and-defeating-isis[/url] [quote]Work with our Arab allies and friends in the Middle East in the fight against ISIS. Pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expand intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. Defeat the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism just as we won the Cold War. Establish new screening procedures and enforce our immigration laws to keep terrorists out of the United States. Suspend, on a temporary basis, immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism. Establish a Commission on Radical Islam to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization. [/quote] love too trade neoliberal imperialism for conservative imperialism [quote]Trump won't gain support by going to war with nations, he'll again support by calling the heads of the hated big businesses and demanding they move their manufacturing industries back into the US. Even if they don't do what he says he will still be very popular for standing up to the wealthy job-reapers.[/quote] those manufacturing jobs no longer exist. the list of ways in which trump's policies will hurt workers, however, is quite long. removal of protections for those with pre-existing conditions, as well as reintroduction of "high-risk pools" in the healthcare market and not repealing the existing healthcare mandate, creating out of those with pre-existing conditions a captive market. i think it goes without saying that those affected will be those who are already having a hard time with insurance under the ACA, i.e., lower and middle class workers. dismantling of protections on the basis of sexuality or gender identity for lgbt workers (""""turd""" issue, but i'd keep in mind that the left wins when it builds solidarity, not when it sees homophobes and racists win and goes, "oh shit, maybe we weren't being racist enough") everything about his tax plan (though this is more about trump being pro-rich than anti-worker). he's going to demolish the estate tax and introduce a tax plan that slashes taxes further on the most wealthy in the country. (npr has a nice little table with the planned rates [url=http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan]here[/url].) this plan, along with how trump plans to spend (freely, on things like walls and deportations) will mean that any progressive government following the trump presidency will have to, before doing anything else, confront a rapidly accruing deficit. with trump's victory, the republicans will be in charge of the National Board of Labor Relations. ([url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-unions-idUSKBN1343LU]Steven Bernstein, a partner at law firm Fisher Phillips, which represents employers, said the Trump administration and Congress may also target recent NLRB rulings that allowed workers to picket on private property, expanded the type of worker activity protected by federal labor law and gave graduate students the right to unionize.[/url]) and this is, of course, not mentioning that the massive domestic spy networks that have been assembled over the course of the obama and bush presidencies, the ones that are now in the hands of a man who has already threatened journalists for reporting on him in a way he didn't approve of. (and you do realize that trump [I]is[/I] a wealthy job-reaper, right? and what does popularity manage when his policies make life more difficult for those making the least? he stays in power longer and has more time to do more damage?) to assume that the left's failure means far-right populism is the way forward is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Tsyolin;51369288]Okay so here's the thing, I really don't think Trump has any interest in being against LGBT rights. People say that he's saying this just to save face but what's the point? He already won the election so really he doesn't need to hold back, and he certainly isn't when it comes to illegal immigration. I just think if Trump really wanted to fuck with the LGBT community he'd just come out and say it. I don't agree with much of what he says but it does seem he usually speaks his mind, and I can't really remember him being actively against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Thing is, this doesn't mean much at all. As Trump has demonstrated time and time again, his word cannot be trusted. He flip flops on a whim. He is already quoted as saying that gay marriage should be a state's right and that he would push to make it a state's right rather than a constitutional ruling. Regardless of Trump's personal stances on gay rights, however, it is a fact that he wants to appoint highly conservative supreme court justices for the purposes of overturning Roe v Wade. Given that opposition to both abortion and gay rights are rooted primarily in ignorant religious beliefs, it's going to be pretty difficult for Trump to find a qualified SC nominee who supports one but not the other. And, forgive me for the skepticism, but I sincerely doubt he'll even try. Even if gay rights [I]aren't[/I] his primary target, they are incredibly likely to be collateral damage to other stated goals. [QUOTE=Tsyolin;51369297]Well abortion and marriage equality aren't mutually exclusive. It seems unlikely but it is possible to be really against one of them and be completely indifferent to the other. That seems to be the case here.[/QUOTE] In a general sense, that's certainly true, yet both are rooted primarily in religious ignorance, and those who are strongly opposed to one tend to be opposed to the other. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, of course, but the general trend is fairly evident. [QUOTE=Pops;51369292]My guess is he feels one should be left up to states, and the other should be universal.[/QUOTE] He's repeatedly stated his belief that [I]both[/I] should be left to the states. However, as we all well know, Trump's stated intentions are meaningless. His support or condemnation of something today doesn't inform his decisions tomorrow.