Trump considering women and openly gay men for leadership posts - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Judas;51370698]"i'm friendly with you but I dont think you deserve the same rights as me" also: mike pence diverted funds from aids research to fund conversion camps, and in response to an aids outbreak in the state he was governor of, he said "i'll keep them in my prayers" and took no further action whatsoever you're such a spinelessg for trump that you're consciously ignoring facts[/QUOTE] Fantastically missed my point completely on the gay marriage thing. Also I don't defend Pence ever, but he can fuck off like almost every VP and change a lightbulb to be useful every once inawhile and be a GOP token boy.

Pence is homophobic and has proven to be homophobic. Trump is just dumb.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51370683]Honestly, who knows? He has said that the gay marriage ruling is secure more recently than he said he intends to appoint judges who will overrule it, but he's said both. Trump is making this up as he goes along. Well have no idea what he intends to do until he has actually done it, because his policy positions depend entirely on his mood at the time.[/QUOTE] As much as I don't like Trump, he isn't driven by ideology like Pence. I think he's indifferent to gay marriage and knows that public opinion on it has dramatically shifted over the decade, to the point that even some republicans are starting to accept it. He knows he'll piss off way too many people by trying to overturn it and he will want to win again in 2020. I can't see him trying to do it.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51370727]As much as I don't like Trump, he isn't driven by ideology like Pence. I think he's indifferent to gay marriage and knows that public opinion on it has dramatically shifted over the decade, to the point that even some republicans are starting to accept it. He knows he'll piss off way too many people by trying to overturn it and he will want to win again in 2020. I can't see him trying to do it.[/QUOTE] Totally agree with this. We honestly will probably never know how much he wont some issues to just bring over hardcore GOP votes in some cases, but the man seems indifferent to Gay marriage completely.

[URL="http://huffpost.com/us/entry/1442726"]Grenell deleting sexist comments during the 2012 election[/URL]

[QUOTE=Govna;51370518]Not only that, but with gays in the leadership that's sure to cause problems with Pence. He is and always has been since he began his career in politics a staunch opponent of the LGBT community and even so much as upholding their basic civil rights (like employment discrimination protection laws). It's nothing but pandering. He's trying to make himself look reasonable while all this other shit is going on. Be smart and don't fall for it.[/QUOTE] Poe's law applies to more then sarcasm, and can be abused to make your argument. A politician pander enough, eventually their pandering can be abused to force them to actually push their pandering to actual legislation Once the pandering has been taken out of their hands you have infected/melted together with their campaign enough to have become their actual stances. There is nothing more influential to a political candidate then for example with trump... being handed an lgbt flag, or 2 lesbians with pro trump flags jumping on stage and kissing him, or 2 gay guys thanking him for a pro lgbt article or interview he did ages ago and how it helped them... or have people in a group with lgbt flags during a rally saying "lgbt for trump" over and over and over and over again... have 50 people do that in different ways and trump will be pro lgbt just because he knows he now willingly or not has been associated with lgbt rights and the lgbt vote, and its a constituancy he can both no longer afford to lose and he already pissed off the people that oppose lgbt. This is how 50 people can sway a national election talking point.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51370727]As much as I don't like Trump, he isn't driven by ideology like Pence. I think he's indifferent to gay marriage and knows that public opinion on it has dramatically shifted over the decade, to the point that even some republicans are starting to accept it. He knows he'll piss off way too many people by trying to overturn it and he will want to win again in 2020. I can't see him trying to do it.[/QUOTE] Like I said, it all boils down to his nomination for a Supreme Court justice. If he goes moderate, I'll loosen up a bit. If he goes ultra conservative, as he's promised, then it will be clear that all this empty rhetoric is just that. He has flip flopped so many times on so many subjects as to make his personal statements utterly meaningless. Our future president is so fundamentally untrustworthy that all we can do is [I]guess[/I] what he's actually going to do and [I]hope[/I] that it's not as destructive and regressive as his most extreme comments indicate it could be.

[QUOTE=redBadger;51370548]I'd rather see these positions filled by people who are genuinely qualified and are known to do a fantastic job, rather than meeting a quota.[/QUOTE] It's not what you know, it's who you know. Appointing people to various positions is how any President pays back supporters and also makes concessions in the short term to earn future favors. Trump may be setting up a trade here, gay rights are 'safe' so no future Trump influenced Supreme Court will overturn them, in exchange for overturning Roe v Wade or other previous decisions conservatives hate. If you know everyone expects you to be the bad guy, then you do something nice, it'll make it harder for them to later get outraged when you do what you really wanted to do all along. Just a possible scenario is all I'm saying it is.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51370684]Please show me why he is homophobic. I know some people will just never understand this concept, but you can be friendly to gay people while opposing gay marriage. Commonly these people recognize the need for legal equality and are for civil unions, but just won't let go the term "marriage" because of their deep religious beliefs. Do I think Trump is truly homophobic? Not at all. What I do understand is the guy is 70 years old and like most of my older relatives just won't let go of that battle, but he already said it is settled law so it's over anyways. Besides for a homophobe, he just [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFFXhCP412g"]keeps[/URL] [URL="https://youtu.be/lSVLpzGseXw?t=2m17s"]breaking[/URL] [URL="http://www.eonline.com/shows/i_am_cait/news/776732/caitlyn-jenner-praises-donald-trump-he-seems-very-much-behind-the-lgbt-community"] the[/URL] [URL="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/flashback-trump-defends-gays-clintons-2000/"]narrative.[/URL] Sorry he ain't perfect, but for a republican, he is fucking progressive with the LGBT community, and hopefully the GOP progresses because of it. [/QUOTE] Hey I was talking about Pence, who supports gay conversion therapy. Or at least he did [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20010519165033fw_/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html"]16 years ago[/URL] but nothing suggests he's changed his opinion. I don't think that reflects very well on your pro-gay Trump but for once I wasn't criticizing the big cheeto.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51370595]People just want to believe a silly narrative that Pence is a evil super-villain of the GOP that is somehow pulling strings.[/QUOTE] Why do the worst Trump supporting posters desperately twist reality to try and make everyone else look like they are worried about nothing. It's pathetic.

[QUOTE]I know some people will just never understand this concept, but you can be friendly to gay people while opposing gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Here is my view. America needs a stable order above all else. Right now that means getting malignant corruption outa the political process. Corruption destroys nations and rule of law. Without rule of law, the government cannot provide protection. One is one their own in such situations. Which leads to situations like Venezuela, Philippines and ect. This destruction or collapse is the result of people losing faith and trust in the institutions needed to provide protection against civil rights violations. Corruption destroys this trust and faith. Without faith in the government, chaos soon follows. So to me it a matter of priority. If gay marriage is pursued before eliminating corruption, or pursues gay marriage and lets corruption get worse and worse, it wont be long until radicals come out of the wood work to over throw the nation and could intact purges. Seeing how there is a new global right wing revival, it doesnt take too long to figure out who will get purged when a collapse occurs. TLDR, if you dont clean up corruption, but get marriage at expense of cleaning up a government, one going lose this new right eventually. Maybe even their life. Where if its done with corruption then gay marriage, one will put them selves in a better position to gain such rights, then more likely have a government respond to minority needs. So if you wanna have protection under the law as a marginalized person, gotta ensure the system works with integrity. Other wise it is a long term loss for such gains for civil rights.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51370484]a woman running the rnc with bannon somewhere nearby? that cant possibly cause friction.[/QUOTE] Friction between pussy and trumps tiny grabby hands. I suppose It's only fair to give them a chance to prove themselves but in doing so it sort off legitimises them, along with all their crackpot supporters. What do my views matter anyway I don't even live in the USA, at least post Brexit Britain isn't alone on the stupid table.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373411]Here is my view. America needs a stable order above all else. Right now that means getting malignant corruption outa the political process. Corruption destroys nations and rule of law. Without rule of law, the government cannot provide protection. One is one their own in such situations. Which leads to situations like Venezuela, Philippines and ect. This destruction or collapse is the result of people losing faith and trust in the institutions needed to provide protection against civil rights violations. Corruption destroys this trust and faith. Without faith in the government, chaos soon follows. So to me it a matter of priority. If gay marriage is pursued before eliminating corruption, or pursues gay marriage and lets corruption get worse and worse, it wont be long until radicals come out of the wood work to over throw the nation and could intact purges. Seeing how there is a new global right wing revival, it doesnt take too long to figure out who will get purged when a collapse occurs. TLDR, if you dont clean up corruption, but get marriage at expense of cleaning up a government, one going lose this new right eventually. Maybe even their life. Where if its done with corruption then gay marriage, one will put them selves in a better position to gain such rights, then more likely have a government respond to minority needs. So if you wanna have protection under the law as a marginalized person, gotta ensure the system works with integrity. Other wise it is a long term loss for such gains for civil rights.[/QUOTE] Sorry what does gay marriage have to do with corruption at all??? Trump's putting big business billionares in the cabinet so it's not like it's "yeah he's got a homophobe vp but overall it's better than having corrupt people in government" because he clearly has the worst of both worlds.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51370684] I know some people will just never understand this concept, but you can be friendly to gay people while opposing gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Plenty of people understand the concept of being nice to people while keeping them away from certain rights that us straights deserve. [QUOTE=Tudd;51370684] Commonly these people recognize the need for legal equality and are for civil unions, but just won't let go the term "marriage" because of their deep religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] Well I think the big problem people are having is that you are aligning these "deep religious beliefs" with law in an ostensibly secular nation. I've lived long enough to know that when someone supports something because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" then it's probably not something great. A certain governor in Indiana might jog some bad memories of that sort of legislation. [QUOTE=Tomo Takino;51372167]Why do the worst Trump supporting posters desperately twist reality to try and make everyone else look like they are worried about nothing. It's pathetic.[/QUOTE] Less pathetic, more ironic, considering that was their most cited criticisms of Clinton's campaign. [editline]15th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Guriosity;51373411] TLDR, if you dont clean up corruption, but get marriage at expense of cleaning up a government, one going lose this new right eventually. Maybe even their life. Where if its done with corruption then gay marriage, one will put them selves in a better position to gain such rights, then more likely have a government respond to minority needs. So if you wanna have protection under the law as a marginalized person, gotta ensure the system works with integrity. Other wise it is a long term loss for such gains for civil rights.[/QUOTE] Putting aside the fact that Trump has given absolutely zero indication that he is "getting corruption" out of the political process and is in fact doing the exact opposite; This isn't Civilization. You aren't looking at a tech tree and trying to make a decision with where to go after researching the Large Hadron Collider. You can root out corruption (by which I assume Trump means press that is critical of him) and simultaenously not regress civil rights.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51373492]Sorry what does gay marriage have to do with corruption at all??? Trump's putting big business billionares in the cabinet so it's not like it's "yeah he's got a homophobe vp but overall it's better than having corrupt people in government" because he clearly has the worst of both worlds.[/QUOTE] I said it clearly. People are trying to get gay marriage by electing bad actors (such as Clinton). Which to me is counter productive. It should be end corruption then gay marriage. As for corruption? I said in another post. [QUOTE]Which is the fault of the voters. People keep voting for shit people due to the pied piper tactic politicians pull on the electorate every cycle. On the left, its "don't vote for me because im corrupt as all hell? Ok I ll let the bigots come take you away." On the right is " Yes Im shit but if you dont vote for me, the left will come take your guns, religion and money away (through taxes) " So the solution is create a new idea and platform for a new party which provides refuge for both sides while being something the opposite of what the democrats and gop stand for. The shit sandwiches and douche bags use the fear of discrimination from the other side as a method to continue to be a shit sandwiches and douche bags. Come together and destroy these boogeymen, and the shit sandwiches and douche bags will be held accountable.[/QUOTE] So instead of throwing hissy fits (like anti Christ did), it might be more productive to brainstorm and explore other ways to gain rights for all that isnt as divisive as the current situation is now. The problem with the left is it assumes the only way to end intolerance is through implementation of its ideology. Any one who disagree with this ideology is a "bigoted". That like Christians saying the only reason one doesnt agree with their doctrine is because they just "wanna sin". Its the same clap trap and leads to the same result. Which is division. While the common person is divided and other their neighbors' throats, is a situation bigger, nastier players who erode the system through corruption exploit to get away with their crimes. This corruption will lead to collapse. Which will lead to a bad time for minorities when the government (thus rule of law) evaporates. Exploring other ways together through discussion and brainstorming is not bigoted. Its actual willingness to get a better future for all. I just dont think the current prescriptions of the left to end bigotry are working and are counterproductive. However getting hissy because someone questions the methods currently known to reach a solution to end abuse (despite agreeing with the same desired end result) is a sign of an abusive personality who doesnt care about being treated with respect, but a sign of wanting power over some else through immature means. Ill make it very clear. I despise abuse in all it forms. It generate emotionals wounds which spread and cause incredible amounts of suffering for every one for long periods of time. Its not right for the right to fuck with people cause some writing whose inspiration was a dream says kill fags. Its not right for the left to go full SJW either and get nasty when someone wants to help, but wants to try or brain storm new methods. Both sides are abusive. Both sides need to go.

The problem with your runaway train of thought is that [I]we already have gay marriage.[/I] You talk as if this is a subject that we're still trying to see recognized, and that it's more important to stamp out corruption first, but there's no correlation between these subjects. Gay marriage has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court; Trump's campaign "against corruption" should not be in any way related to LGBT rights, and yet his administration remains a pertinent threat to them. Furthermore, if Trump's administration is so focused on sniffing out corruption that they simply wouldn't have time to [I]recognize or improve[/I] LGBT rights, then why do they have time to [I]diminish[/I] them? Also, why don't we drop this "Liberalism is a mental illness" shit, yeah?

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373542]I said it clearly. People are trying to get gay marriage by electing bad actors (such as Clinton). Which to me is counter productive. It should be end corruption then gay marriage. As for corruption? I said in another post.[/QUOTE] Trump is surrounding himself by all the people that Clinton was accused of surrounding herself with so I think the choice was less binary than you make it out to be. [QUOTE=Guriosity;51373542] Both sides are abusive. Both sides need to go.[/QUOTE] This nihilistic "both sides are shit and need to go/the sky is falling" posts need to go.

[QUOTE=redBadger;51370548]I'd rather see these positions filled by people who are genuinely qualified and are known to do a fantastic job, rather than meeting a quota.[/QUOTE] yes, because a GOP chairman is not qualified to be chairman of the RNC, and someone who has been a US spokesman at the UN is not qualified to be the US ambassador to the UN. read the fucking article first, please.