USA Today abandons no-endorsement policy to declare Trump unfit for office - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Claxx;51146245]Where does this whole thing with "Trump is going to take away LGBT rights" come from? He's pretty pro-LGBT from what I've seen on his social media.[/QUOTE] He elected fucking Mike Pence as his vice president.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51146249]He elected fucking Mike Pence as his [B]vice president[/B].[/QUOTE] Undoubtedly one of the most useless positions you can hold in office. He's an idiot, but not a threat. He is on board to be a figurehead and give Trump the bump in political experience he needs to appear to have. Pence is an awful person, but he's not going to be spawning and passing laws to strip your rights away...

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51145905]But if she gets a friendly House/Senate, she can get a lot more done than Obama ever did. He pretty much had an uphill battle to fight on anything. Plus, gun rights are not the kind of thing that gets restored after they are taken away. It's really my biggest issue this cycle because if I want to be safe with it, I have to pick the man-child, but if I want to go with what is probably better in the long run, I have to pick the other thing and hope she doesn't bite... This really reinforces my hope/idea/belief that Trump just won't be able to do anything and he will be cockblocked with any crazy legislation. He would just be a really loud mouthpiece. No one is going to be daft enough to try to take away LGBT rights now that they are here, minus your handful of crazy governors. The other amendments are basically safe, bar a few minor squabbles, but the 2nd is under a pretty big threat should the lawmaking turn left.[/QUOTE] Shit didnt mean to star this. Trump and Pence will destroy lgbt rights and i think gun rights. Go with Clinton.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146288]Undoubtedly one of the most useless positions you can hold in office. He's an idiot, but not a threat. He is on board to be a figurehead and give Trump the bump in political experience he needs to appear to have. Pence is an awful person, but he's not going to be spawning and passing laws to strip your rights away...[/QUOTE] Were you not alive during George W Bush's presidency where Dick Cheney pretty much ran the show? The same thing will happen with Trump. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/[/url] Donald Trump's son allegedly offered John Kasich to become the "most powerful Vice President in history" and give him complete control over foreign and domestic policy. It's not a stretch to suggest that he may have given Mike Pence the same offer.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146288]Undoubtedly one of the most useless positions you can hold in office. He's an idiot, but not a threat. He is on board to be a figurehead and give Trump the bump in political experience he needs to appear to have. Pence is an awful person, but he's not going to be spawning and passing laws to strip your rights away...[/QUOTE] Trump all but offered Kaisch the presidency when he offered him the VP position. Trumps idea seems to be to act as little as possible, delegating everything to his VP instead. [B]That[/B] is why Pence as VP is a problem. His regressive ideals of minority rights are something he could feasibly act on if Trump offered him the same deal. And Trump hasn't shown anything resembling outright support of minority rights in the past, just a "yeah whatever", which is as good as supporting the worst options as you aren't actively trying to prevent regression.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51146310]Shit didnt mean to star this. Trump and Pence will destroy lgbt rights and i think gun rights. Go with Clinton.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you get the idea that they will destroy gun rights. LGBT is an understandable conclusion to draw considering Pence, but not logically. Repealing anything LGBT would throw the GOP further down the public opinion shithole. It's simply not favorable to do anymore. People are for it more than ever, and those who aren't just really don't care enough to either support or oppose it. The ones who actively oppose it are a vocal minority. I've been following this election for a year now, and I've really been weighing down on Clinton vs Trump since probably May. Unfortunately, Sanders was the ideal candidate, who had progressive ideas but also didn't want to AWB everything guns and call it a success. Unfortunately, that is Clinton's history and plan. As I mentioned before, it's unprecedented for a government to restore gun rights, because why the hell would they. That makes holding on to what we have all the more important. And, also previously mentioned, touching LGBT laws that we just passed is not good publicity. If I could bet on it with you, I would.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146337]Repealing anything LGBT would throw the GOP further down the public opinion shithole. It's simply not favorable to do anymore. People are for it more than ever, and those who aren't just really don't care enough to either support or oppose it. The ones who actively oppose it are a vocal minority.[/QUOTE] How fucking deluded do you have to be to say this, when GOP politicians all over the country are STILL passing anti-LGBT laws, and then to turn around and say Clinton is going to "AWB all guns" when the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made against that happening.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51146328]Were you not alive during George W Bush's presidency where Dick Cheney pretty much ran the show? The same thing will happen with Trump. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president/[/url] Donald Trump's son allegedly offered John Kasich to become the "most powerful Vice President in history" and give him complete control over foreign and domestic policy. It's not a stretch to suggest that he may have given Mike Pence the same offer.[/QUOTE] Dick Cheney had the unparalleled sway of the 9/11 aftermath. Remember how the country was gung-ho about going to war? We don't have anything like that currently. People are fed up of the US playing world police. Short of some other attack on that magnitude, it's not like he has a remote control in Trump's brain. [QUOTE=hexpunK;51146333]Trump all but offered Kaisch the presidency when he offered him the VP position. Trumps idea seems to be to act as little as possible, delegating everything to his VP instead. [B]That[/B] is why Pence as VP is a problem. His regressive ideals of minority rights are something he could feasibly act on if Trump offered him the same deal. And Trump hasn't shown anything resembling outright support of minority rights in the past, just a "yeah whatever", which is as good as supporting the worst options as you aren't actively trying to prevent regression.[/QUOTE] I don't doubt that he's going to lean on his VP for a lot, but I also don't think he's trying to make his legacy stained, especially if he beats Clinton. I'm sure we will have our share of bigoted speech, and hear about how bad Islam is. But, I don't know how else to stress this, going against the progress LGBT has made so quickly and widespread, considering how accepted it is now, would be basically political suicide. If I knew exactly how everything would turn out before I voted, there wouldn't be a problem at all. If I knew Clinton wasn't going to do everything she could to reinstate the AWB or watchlist programs, I would jump on that train so fast. But because it is such a unique right to have, you really don't have a second chance once it is taken. I feel confident enough in what I have repeated that I feel I can put the majority of my voting into that issue without risking much else. Other's may disagree, but that's what your vote is for. I despise the idea of even remotely giving him any form of power, but there isn't much choice this election. It's one extreme or the other. It sucks equally.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146228]Honestly, what does his platform even consist of that would be something you'd see Republicans jump on?[/QUOTE] You could just compare them yourself, but opposition to mitigating climate change, cutting welfare programs that people rely on, lowering taxes on the wealthy, dismantling financial regulation, defunding Planned Parenthood, rolling back federal LGBT protection, opposing minimum wage increases, compromising personal liberty in the name of "religious freedom", supports voter ID laws, etc. [QUOTE=Revenge282;51146228]Blocking Muslims from coming in? Worst case, we don't take as many refugees, a situation that is already screwed up beyond American control. Unfortunate, but it is so.[/QUOTE] Probably this but its still up in the air exactly where Trump stands on this issue because he said it was now about "territories that have been compromised by radical Islam" but when asked if he was backing away from his blanket Muslim ban, said no. [QUOTE=Revenge282;51146228]Building a wall? A huge waste of money, time, and labor. Mexico isn't paying for it, they know it, we know it. We already have a wall any how.[/QUOTE] The wall isn't happening but I do expect some sort of border security bill to go through in a Republican congress if Trump wins. [QUOTE=Revenge282;51146228]Obamacare? Honestly, in an ideal world we could repeal it start, fresh and not suffer any hiccups from the change. But that isn't going to happen. At least he plans on opening insurance across state lines, that is if he even gets his way to start. I will say that Obamacare in it's current state, as helpful as some claim it to be, is pretty disastrous, and an awful foundation to start building universal healthcare.[/QUOTE] The problem with the "repeal and replace" effort by Republicans is that there is no replacement for the ACA. Opening insurance across state lines might decrease prices through increased competitoin but it's also a de facto deregulation of insurance companies who, thanks to the repeal of the ACA, no longer have to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of people would find themselves without health coverage and might not be able to get it back even if it means paying for it. [QUOTE=Claxx;51146245]Where does this whole thing with "Trump is going to take away LGBT rights" come from? He's pretty pro-LGBT from what I've seen on his social media.[/QUOTE] It comes from reading the things he writes and listening to the things he says. [QUOTE=Revenge282;51146288]Undoubtedly one of the most useless positions you can hold in office. He's an idiot, but not a threat. He is on board to be a figurehead and give Trump the bump in political experience he needs to appear to have. Pence is an awful person, but he's not going to be spawning and passing laws to strip your rights away...[/QUOTE] Trump supposedly offered Kasich the most powerful vice presidency in history with power over both domestic and foreign affairs. Pence has stated before that he wants to be an influential VP with Dick Cheney as his role model. People who dislike how Pence ran Indiana and particularly his outlook on gay rights have all the reason in the world to fear a "Trump" presidency.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51146355]How fucking deluded do you have to be to say this, when GOP politicians all over the country are STILL passing anti-LGBT laws, and then to turn around and say Clinton is going to "AWB all guns" when the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made against that happening.[/QUOTE] Simmer down hot shot. The Clinton family history has been laughably awful when it comes to crime and gun control. I don't need to point that out any more than I have. Where in the country are they passing laws harmful to LGBT? Of course they are being introduced, [URL="https://www.aclu.org/other/lgbt-nondiscrimination-and-anti-lgbt-bills-across-country#harmfulbills"]but they aren't succeeding at all with the exception of a very very small handful[/URL], and look at how well that is working in places like NC with HB2. They have been publicly denounced, lost a ton of revenue from events, and the approval is 37%. It is just a waiting game for the law to be repealed, likely by the next state election. The LGBT mainstream hate is on the downturn now. The big Republicans have other fish to fry.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146378]But, I don't know how else to stress this, going against the progress LGBT has made so quickly and widespread, considering how accepted it is now, would be basically political suicide.[/QUOTE] If it's political suicide, mind explaining all of the Republican politicians (WHICH INCLUDES MIKE PENCE) that are still doing it?

You don't seem to understand. Trump is absolutely going to give Republicans what they want, and if they have a majority of the house and control of the Supreme Court, they can make LGBT marriage rights unconstitutional again. And for your point on guns; Trump is a demagogue and he wants control. He constantly goes on about law and order. And both the House and Senate have shown they will gleefully screw over Americans and their rights when it comes to security issues (see: the PATRIOT Act). If I was a betting man, I would bet you that within two terms Trump would screw over LGBT people and minorities and would have convinced Americans to get rid of the second amendment for 'security' reasons. Hell, he already wants to ban people on easy to get on watchlists from having weapons - do you really think it's inconceivable that he wouldn't go further, in the name of 'law and order'?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51146384]You could just compare them yourself, but opposition to mitigating climate change, cutting welfare programs that people rely on, lowering taxes on the wealthy, dismantling financial regulation, defunding Planned Parenthood, rolling back federal LGBT protection, opposing minimum wage increases, compromising personal liberty in the name of "religious freedom", supports voter ID laws, etc. Probably this but its still up in the air exactly where Trump stands on this issue because he said it was now about "territories that have been compromised by radical Islam" but when asked if he was backing away from his blanket Muslim ban, said no. The wall isn't happening but I do expect some sort of border security bill to go through in a Republican congress if Trump wins. The problem with the "repeal and replace" effort by Republicans is that there is no replacement for the ACA. Opening insurance across state lines might decrease prices through increased competitoin but it's also a de facto deregulation of insurance companies who, thanks to the repeal of the ACA, no longer have to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of people would find themselves without health coverage and might not be able to get it back even if it means paying for it. It comes from reading the things he writes and listening to the things he says. Trump supposedly offered Kasich the most powerful vice presidency in history with power over both domestic and foreign affairs. Pence has stated before that he wants to be an influential VP with Dick Cheney as his role model. People who dislike how Pence ran Indiana and particularly his outlook on gay rights have all the reason in the world to fear a "Trump" presidency.[/QUOTE] I can't really argue your first point. The best thing I can say is that it would be best to split the House and Senate again and try to make it as balanced as possible. All Democrat or all Republican are equally as bad. The rest of what you said is true. ACA is helpful, but it isn't expandable after it suffered the cuts it did to pass the Republican vote. The wall is a pipe dream, but a boost to border security is always welcome. Also, I'm not saying there is nothing to fear. There absolutely is. The chance is always there, but I fear both presidency options. Clinton is no saving grace either. [QUOTE=Helix Snake;51146402]If it's political suicide, mind explaining all of the Republican politicians (WHICH INCLUDES MIKE PENCE) that are still doing it?[/QUOTE] Yeah, they are vocal minorities. Who even heard of Pence until now outside of Indiana? Explain why all their bills are being struck down if they are such a threat? [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51146453]You don't seem to understand. Trump is absolutely going to give Republicans what they want, and if they have a majority of the house and control of the Supreme Court, they can make LGBT marriage rights unconstitutional again. And for your point on guns; Trump is a demagogue and he wants control. He constantly goes on about law and order. And both the House and Senate have shown they will gleefully screw over Americans and their rights when it comes to security issues (see: the PATRIOT Act). If I was a betting man, I would bet you that within two terms Trump would screw over LGBT people and minorities and would have convinced Americans to get rid of the second amendment for 'security' reasons. Hell, he already wants to ban people on easy to get on watchlists from having weapons - do you really think it's inconceivable that he wouldn't go further, in the name of 'law and order'?[/QUOTE] Literally nothing he has said, done or endorsed supports your longshot assumptions on his stance on guns. Is he a threat to LGBT, sure, of course. But is it a threat with much weight behind it, I don't think so. If I was a betting man, I would take you up on your bet.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146497]The rest of what you said is true. ACA is helpful, but it isn't expandable after it suffered the cuts it did to pass the Republican vote.[/QUOTE] It didn't pass the Republican vote actually. They had to cut it to get it through the more conservative Democrats in the senate. [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Revenge282;51146497]Literally nothing he has said, done or endorsed supports your longshot assumptions on his stance on guns.[/QUOTE] Did you skip the debate?

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146497] Yeah, they are vocal minorities. Who even heard of Pence until now outside of Indiana? Explain why all their bills are being struck down if they are such a threat? [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] [/QUOTE] Because Obama's in office. When Trump and Pence are in office, that's going to radically change

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51146520]It didn't pass the Republican vote actually. They had to cut it to get it through the more conservative Democrats in the senate. [editline]3rd October 2016[/editline] Did you skip the debate?[/QUOTE] [t]https://scontent-mia1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14494660_10153774091467750_4676234240072089404_n.jpg?oh=fabaa3e5f1d6235996ffac1431be0900&oe=58A9BBC8[/t] No. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51146543]Because Obama's in office. When Trump and Pence are in office, that's going to radically change[/QUOTE] Obama single-handedly defeated their state-level legislation? Call the presses. Here I thought that the majority of the state legislature found it unfavorable...

Do you not think that his presence as a pro LGBT president had an effect on the atmosphere of the nation

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51146904]Do you not think that his presence as a pro LGBT president had an effect on the atmosphere of the nation[/QUOTE] Not with any significant effect. What else has he influenced that would be similar to that effect? He may have pushed his party, but surely not the Republicans. I would attribute it to the fact that people are just being more liberal/progressive overall.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146967]Not with any significant effect. What else has he influenced that would be similar to that effect? He may have pushed his party, but surely not the Republicans. I would attribute it to the fact that people are just being more liberal/progressive overall.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure your point is contradicted entirely by the fact that Trump is the Republican candidate, he's the complete opposite of a liberal, progressive Republican (at-least, if we assume these types of Republicans are moderate or centre-right). You need to read the Republican manifesto. It's very anti-LGBT.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51146995]I'm pretty sure your point is contradicted entirely by the fact that Trump is the Republican candidate, he's the complete opposite of a liberal, progressive Republican (at-least, if we assume these types of Republicans are moderate or centre-right). You need to read the Republican manifesto. It's very anti-LGBT.[/QUOTE] My point is the president isn't some magical swaying force of persuasion. If Obama couldn't do it, then Trump sure as hell won't. Obama could speak eloquently, reach across aisles, and appeal to both party supporters. Trump just rallies his echo chamber.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146967]Not with any significant effect. What else has he influenced that would be similar to that effect? He may have pushed his party, but surely not the Republicans. I would attribute it to the fact that people are just being more liberal/progressive overall.[/QUOTE] So you attribute the drastic change in acceptance of LGBT peoples over the duration of his presidency to what?

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51147008]My point is the president isn't some magical swaying force of persuasion. If Obama couldn't do it, then Trump sure as hell won't. Obama could speak eloquently, reach across aisles, and appeal to both party supporters. Trump just rallies his echo chamber.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting to take the Supreme Court into account. It is going to change a lot over the next few years and if Trump is elected with a Republican majority, it is guaranteed to be highly conservative - and thus very likely anti-LGBT. It is NOT worth taking a risk over. It is all too easy to roll back rights given the right leader and right conditions.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51145346]What civil liberties are being threatened by Clinton? Like, I guess you could consider gun rights, but even that is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Her current proposals are mandatory background checks ([I]fairly reasonable request imo[/I]), restrictions to magazine size and certain classifications ([I]probably not very well conceived[/I]) and restricting weapons to people on watchlists ([I]same as Trump -- bad idea until watchlists are more transparent and give the chance for appeal[/I]). Beyond that, I don't see what other civil liberties she could possibly be threatening, especially when compared to Trump who has personally and repeatedly endorsed violating or revoking key provisions of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth amendments. And, again, possibly the 2nd amendment depending on how you feel regarding his policy on gun access for people on watchlists.[/QUOTE] Freedom of speech? She isn't speaking up against mass surveillance, so she's going to silently erode our right to privacy like Obama did. He authorized drone strikes in the homefront, and she will probably authorize worse. At least if Trump tries to propose it, it might go under fire from liberals.

[QUOTE=space1;51148663]Freedom of speech? She isn't speaking up against mass surveillance, so she's going to silently erode our right to privacy like Obama did. He authorized drone strikes in the homefront, and she will probably authorize worse. At least if Trump tries to propose it, it might go under fire from liberals.[/QUOTE] Trump will expand it he's made it pretty clear his opinion on security he's fairly authoritarian about security to imagine he won't be able to pass those kinds of things because "liberals" is silly

This just in USA Today abandons their credibility as a news outlet.

[QUOTE=space1;51148663]Freedom of speech? She isn't speaking up against mass surveillance, so she's going to silently erode our right to privacy like Obama did. [b]He authorized drone strikes in the homefront,[/b] and she will probably authorize worse. At least if Trump tries to propose it, it might go under fire from liberals.[/QUOTE] What?

I just don't see the how a candidate promising to institute background checks for gun sales, or restrictions of certain kinds of weapons (however misguided they might be) is somehow more threatening to you than a candidate who has promised to essentially overturn the entire bill of rights. [editline]4th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=space1;51148663]Freedom of speech? She isn't speaking up against mass surveillance, so she's going to silently erode our right to privacy like Obama did. He authorized drone strikes in the homefront, and she will probably authorize worse. At least if Trump tries to propose it, it might go under fire from liberals.[/QUOTE] Name a single fatal drone strike that has occurred on US soil. Actually, don't bother. I'll tell you how it ends. To date, exactly four US citizens have been killed by drone strikes -- all in the same strike, and all overseas fighting for a terrorist faction. There has never been a drone strike on US soil.

[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;51148912]This just in USA Today abandons their credibility as a news outlet.[/QUOTE] Not at all. They're just stating facts, like a newspaper should.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51147014]So you attribute the drastic change in acceptance of LGBT peoples over the duration of his presidency to what?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Revenge282;51146967]Not with any significant effect. What else has he influenced that would be similar to that effect? He may have pushed his party, but surely not the Republicans. [B]I would attribute it to the fact that people are just being more liberal/progressive overall.[/B][/QUOTE] I thought I answered that. [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51147030]You're forgetting to take the Supreme Court into account. It is going to change a lot over the next few years and if Trump is elected with a Republican majority, it is guaranteed to be highly conservative - and thus very likely anti-LGBT. It is NOT worth taking a risk over. It is all too easy to roll back rights given the right leader and right conditions.[/QUOTE] The decision passed 5-4 to allow gay marriage in the SCOTUS. With Scalia dead, that will sit at 5-3. Should Glenn Beck's racist grandma win the nomination for justice, it will still be 5-4. Barring anyone dying, which we should be good for four years, I wouldn't expect much to change in the court. If this scares you, vote democratic senators since they vet the candidates and the difference is minor currently. Not to mention, if something happens in the election, and Clinton seems to be in the lead, the Republicans would more than likely try to keep Garland as the nominee since he would be their most conservative option. If the trend continues, expect it to go this way. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51149599]I just don't see the how a candidate promising to institute background checks for gun sales, or restrictions of certain kinds of weapons (however misguided they might be) is somehow more threatening to you than a candidate who has promised to essentially overturn the entire bill of rights.[/QUOTE] I'm assuming this was directed towards me? If not, ignore what I say. But, I already said why it was threatening, and I explain a bit more in this post above. It's not something that you get back, and even Obama (who people say was lean on guns) wanted to permanently reinstate the AWB. If you don't think Clinton will pursue that three times as hard, I would say you are naive. I am also confident in the SCOTUS to defend the decision they made, as I said. You may say I have too much confidence in parts of the system, or that I should remain skeptical, but I feel that I have a pretty logical conclusion.

[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;51148912]This just in USA Today abandons their credibility as a news outlet.[/QUOTE] yes i'm sure that the newspaper is in dire straits having said no to having a mop-wearing, lying lunatic in the most powerful political position in the world