Jennifer Holliday: "I sincerely apologize for my lapse of judgement"

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Screw that. Being the bigger person costed you guys the election.

Do you know what you guys need? You need the 'alt-left'.
You need more trolls, meme-posters and fake news.
You need to be militant. You need a platform based on hate, because that works - hate against the Republicans.
All that bullshit ruined Clinton's chances, imagine what it would do with Trump when most of it is actually true.

Facts don't win an election, feelings do.
Nor does a positive message, it's all about fear.
And forget hope, love and more of that nonsense. Let the people hate and fear everyone that doesn't vote like them.
It worked for Trump and it will work for the Democrats.

....Umm what cost us the election was chosing Hillary. There were plenty of people to beat Trump. "Being the bigger person" was not why we lost. If anything it was part of the problem on the Neo Liberal side of things.

No one cares about that. The only thing to discuss here is how much we hate Trump

.

I'm confident people do care, but some people like me have to wonder if the death threats are true. We've been through that kinda thing.

[Torto]

Sucks that somebody gets death threats because they are going to sing.

I think that's the real serious matter here.

It goes a lot deeper and wider than this one incident. Public shaming by the left has now become an industry.

[TrumpIsPresident]

It goes a lot deeper and wider than this one incident. Public shaming by the left has now become an industry.

No one cares about that. The only thing to discuss here is how much we hate Trump.

The public shaming and the hatred for Trump being one thing.

But its becoming a very serious matter when there are people out there rioting, destroying property, committing hate crimes, and sending death threats while aligning themselves with a particular side - a side with a long history of belligerently accusing everybody else of doing these things (without proof) - a side that is absolutely silent on the fact that this is what their supporters are doing.

Its going to get out of control at some point.

[Blacktop Cadence]

Remember kids, if you don't actively disassociate yourself from the things others do some people apparently will assume you do these things even though you obviously haven't taken part.

It's pretty funny, at least, to witness.

[Phookah]

Let's not forget that the current Republican Party stance as of 2016 is to make gay marriage illegal, make it legal to discriminate against gay people, and make it harder if not impossible for gay people to adopt.

Naturally this is the same party that claims to want less government interaction in the day to day affairs of the average American, except when it comes to your own body, (gay marriage/abortion etc...) while simultaneously trying to give large corporations breaks on everything possible.

[Sky High]

It goes a lot deeper and wider than this one incident. Public shaming by the left has now become an industry.

you can make money doing that? wow, I might have to join in.

[Torto]

you can make money doing that? wow, I might have to join in.

There is big dollars in it my friend.

One quick example : http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/how-sha...-corporations/

[Sky High]

There is big dollars in it my friend.

One quick example : http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/how-sha...-corporations/

oh I thought you meant normal people can make money screeching on the internet, whatever then.

[Torto]

oh I thought you meant normal people can make money screeching on the internet, whatever then.

You probably could, all you need is a platform. I wouldn't recommend this forum though, as nobody takes the lefties seriously here anyway.

[Sky High]

I wouldn't recommend this forum though, as nobody takes the lefties seriously here anyway.

I know, that sentiment goes both ways.

[HeyGuysHello]

You pointed out one quote out of a humongous page. Same as Raeg. You take a brief glance at the page, find the first thing that you can criticize (which in this case, doesn't even refute my point at all, there's tons of quotes, recent and old, that shows he's against equal marriage) and then hand wave it away. "Fake news" is the newest way of recognizing the person you are talking to is a complete idiot, and not worth wasting time on. It's just like the guy who got his ass handed to him on NPR. He kept saying "fake news" but when he was challenged to say what was fake about it, all he could do was stammer, stutter, and spurt out excuses. Put up or shut up. Just crying "fake news" doesn't prove your point. It makes anyone who says it look like an ass who feels uncomfortable thinking outside of their own little bubble.

If you think every single quote on that page, every single one, is taken out of context, and Trump just loves marriage equality, then you can go through and point out how the full quote shows he supports equal marriage. Otherwise you're just making excuses.

I'll go through every source on that page for the full context after you do. So far you haven't proven that you actually went through an entirety of one source.

[Blacktop Cadence]

I kind of find the whole "Trump is pro-LGBT!" argument kind of silly.

If he is, great, but if he isn't or is content to let other, anti-LGBT Republicans run policy regarding LGBT Americans a whole helluva lot of damage is going to be done. Guess in that case we'll have to find comfort with "I'm sorry, my bad" from supporters who voted for Trump. Pretty cold comfort, eh?

I didn't see the point of risking it one bit.

[Mad_Murdock]

I'm confident people do care, but some people like me have to wonder if the death threats are true. We've been through that kinda thing.

As with those things, it's probably a little more fluid then just a yes or no. If she got 1 or two people saying "I hope someone kills you if you perform" or maybe 1 or 2 people going "I'm going to kill you if you performing" I'd view that differently then if she got 10-20-50 death threats. I think it was Jimmy Kimmel who got death threats because in made fun of people who watch gamer streams. What they consider death threats was "I hope you get cancer" and 'You need to die' which is just standard 16-22 year olds venting in their usual inarticulate way.

What really should be the discussion here, is how many serious threats did she get and did they try other ways to shame her. As someone else noted, when you are supposed to be part of a group that is about acceptance and against violence and bigotry. It seems odd for that group to use threats of violence to intimidate that person into submission.

[-aiko-]

She should have just told those people to fuck off and stood by her decision.

[TexasRules]

She should have just told those people to fuck off and stood by her decision.

You have to play to your audience. I had never heard of her, and apparently won't hear her sing either. I am sure she will sell some more music to people who hate Trump, but int he end, she will be forgotten by a bunch of people who did not know who she was. I guess expanding your audience to the entire country pales in comparison to keeping your small audience happy.

[Slicer299]

M
- - - Updated - - -




http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...-bill-oreilly/


http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...y-great-again/


http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/arc...n-the-700-club


http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...rump-responds/

Alright, so he did flip flop. Makes him absolutely no different than Hillary. He spent the last year supporting gay marriage.

“It’s done. . . . These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled, and I’m fine with that.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...age-60-minutes

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...arriage-231310

Meanwhile, Trump's stance on trans bathroom laws has been purely centrist. Even pacifying super liberal outlets like Vox. And no he didn't flip flop on this issue, he just took a position from the start that hardline liberals don't like. He's all for letting people use any bathroom they want, but believes it's an issue for the states. That it's a State's Rights issue, and again, even many liberals agree with him on this. The Constitution certainly agrees with that stance too. The federal government should not be dictating issues like this to the states.

And, if anyone is going to vilify Trump about his stance on gay marriage in the past, they have to hold Hillary to the same standard. Both Hillary and Obama opposed gay marriage at one point, publicly, and only changed positions when it was politically prudent to do so. Trump flipping is no different. As for Pence's positions...that's laughable. VP's don't generally shape policy in any way. The VP holds no power to pass or stop the passage of laws.

Hillary opposing gay marrage:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-sex-marriage/

https://youtu.be/6I1-r1YgK9I

[Blacktop Cadence]

And, if anyone is going to vilify Trump about his stance on gay marriage in the past, they have to hold Hillary to the same standard. Both Hillary and Obama opposed gay marriage at one point, publicly, and only changed positions when it was politically prudent to do so. Trump flipping is no different. As for Pence's positions...that's laughable. VP's don't generally shape policy in any way. The VP holds no power to pass or stop the passage of laws.

This, of course, assumes that the goal is looking for supposed verbal approval and not actual policy support. That's why this is a banal conversation, and always has been. The Republican Party has an actively antagonistic relationship with the LGBT community, and an extremely hostile one with the trans community in particular. Their stated policy goals are diametrically opposed to our own, and their actual policy actions make this clear -- particularly now with punitive, criminalizing "bathroom bills" spreading like wild fire in Republican led legislatures.

If you're actually gauging support for LGBT rights then Clinton was, and is, way ahead of Trump and the Republicans by implementation alone. While at State she helped launch the Global Equality Fund, extended benefits to the same-sex partners of diplomats, and changed the rules for changing gender markers on passports to require only a doctor's letter and not surgery. Among other things, of course, but I highlight these three because one is a global initiative on our behalf and two directly impact American LGBT individuals. The gender marker change is particularly progressive and wide ranging when you consider that many transfolks don't have access to such changes on other important documents (or they're exceedingly hard to get), and this is both dangerous (outing them every time they have to produce an ID) and is often used in denial of services.

What has Trump done? He issued a statement of support after the Pulse massacre with the caveat that he would protect us from foreigners (but not from domestic abuse). He flopped around like a fish out of water on HB2, promised to sign FADA, and has declared he'll appoint a conservative SCOTUS justice in a year where the Grimm case is on the docket.

Well, we'll find out in very short order as it is. Federal protections for LGBT folks are largely built on executive interpretation of existing law, executive rules, and guidance from the president or his cabinet. If Trump decides to undo these executive orders, allows his cabinet members to changes rules, and rescinds the DoE guidance on trans kiddos' bathroom rights I think we'll have our answer as to what the Trump administration's active policy will be towards us.

Anyone with any sense knows it's very, very likely to be hostile.

[TexasRules]

I don't know that singing at an inauguration has ever been a real turning point in the profitability of one's merchandise.

It is the only way I along with a lot of people who have never heard her sing would hear her. Maybe I would like it. This may sound strange to some people, but if she sang at the inauguration, maybe some people would buy her music as support for her playing the inauguration while many would not.

[TexasRules]

I guess. It's kind of weird to me that people even watch the inauguration in the first place. I see it as a pointless formality that should be kept as simple and cheap as possible.

The people who voted in Trump are the Midwest people who put him over the top. They voted because he tapped in to nationalism, because they buy American, and support America. They will support people who support Trump. I know lots of people who buy an American version of something , even if it is a little more expensive just to say they support America. Trump tapped in to this. I think people will actually watch his inauguration.

[Slicer299]

"State's rights" is pretty much invariably a code for "Let us discriminate" when it comes to social policy.

He didn't spend the last year defending same-sex marriage. Some of those quotes are from the last year. There are probably more recent ones, but I really didn't spend that long searching. Yeah, it's great that he said it's a done deal and gave up on it, but that doesn't make him as good as a Democrat on the issue and does little to generate trust that he'll do anything at all to defend those rights if they come back into contention.

I know Hillary once opposed gay marriage. Hell, she still might. All the Democrats did. However, it hasn't been acceptable to oppose same-sex marriage with a D next to your name since part way through Obama's term, at least not in the form of how you enact policy. It's water under the bridge.

Sorry, you lose all credibility with that nonsense. The Constitution, the binding principle of our entire country, is founded on state's rights and state's being for more autonomous than they are under the modern federal government. You, falsely, claim any discussion for or desire for state's rights is nothing more than an excuse to discriminate. Biggest problem with that is discrimination is in the eye of the beholder. You may think it's discrimination for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, not a gay person, just a gay wedding, but the Constitution says you are wrong. The Constitution says the baker's right to religion and speech trump who a person chooses to marry.

And by allowing those issues to be decided by the state, not the Federal government, as the Constitution intends, people are then free to vote on those issues at the state level and freely move from state to state if they state they live in passes laws that go against their personal values. I suggest you go brush up on your history, the US was founded on the principle that laws would vary from state to state, and that the people would retain power by having the power to vote on the issues in the state's they live in, and to flee states where such votes don't go their way.

The US was not founded, and the framers never intended, for every state law to end up before SCOTUS, allowing a federal body of 9 judges to dictate things to individual states. If you don't agree with that, then you don't agree with the Constitution, and that puts you on the wrong side of the law and history. The federal government, especially the judicial and executive branches, are too big and are exercising power they have no right to under the Constitution. It's not just a liberal issue either, both parties have been over stepping their power and authority for too long.

Your dismissive attitude towards Hillary flip flopping on gay marriage, but trying to hold Trump to task for it, further erodes what little credibility you may have had. It's attitudes like that that helped Trump win, not the Russians. SUre Russia may have hacked the DNC, but they didn't write those emails. Democrats did, and those same democrats have maintained their arrogance to this day. I didn't want Trump as President, but I wanted Hillary even less. But we will be stuck with Trump until the left wises up and starts listening to the people. And the people have spoken loud and clear, they don't want big government dictating every facet of their lives to them. The federal government needs to get the hell out of bedrooms, bathrooms, schools, churches, and everything else they are destroying.