Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Deletedaccount1]

I have no idea why you think it's a stretch. Did Trump say he would over turn it? Did Trump's released list of potential nominees include those who wouldn't? Why wouldn't they overturn it? You think 2 votes is a major burden for their life appointment? Bizarre...

Well for one I don't think Trump has any intention of doing 90% of the things he has stated he will do. Especially not something that he last mentioned in February according to Google and is not on his campaign platform on his website.

Secondly, the issue is a state one at this point. It would take 2 majority decisions to somehow erase that and even then, I wouldn't know where the decision would lie.

Thirdly, Trump is almost certainly going to lose at this point so that just piles on top of how many unlikely things it will take for this to happen.

[Lenonis]

You don't speak for all gay people and neither do I and nor did I claim to.

Golly gee it isn't like there is polling on this topic. Or...y'know...common sense.

You don't know what all gay people want. Most of them are Democrats but plenty of them aren't. It would take an absolutely unprecedented string of events to make gay marriage illegal again on a federal level and that is just moot compared to every other issue that is being thrown around this election.

See my previous comment. There is a reason 2/3rds or more gay people vote democratic. I expect that number to be even more lopsided this election.

[Deletedaccount1]

I was pointing out that your lack of ability to grasp why LGBT folks are concerned is pretty obvious.

I've stated before that if someone is going to vote with LGBT rights as their primary issue, they should vote Clinton. That's not always the case -- see Log Cabin republicans for instance.

Also, many people run under the scenario where Trump gets 8 years in office given the advantage sitting presidents have in elections. If you put on that lens the odds of multiple supreme court picks goes up immensely. You also are completely ignore the idea that a conservative SCOTUS would basically halt advancement of LGBT rights. And if you have to ask "what is left" then see my point about your ignorance of the topic.

Yeah I also said that earlier so I don't see what the big issue is here. I'm not even going to entertain the scenario of Trump being in office for 8 years because he has under a 20% chance right now of being in for 4.

[Lenonis]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway. Back to the main point...more bad news for the Trump campaign:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politi...igh/index.html

Trump's attempts to paint the US as a fallen state with an incompetent leader is out of touch with how a majority of Americans feel. His message isn't resonating outside his base -- and to have a sitting president in his 8th year hit new high approval ratings does not bode well for Trump at all.

[Deletedaccount1]

See my previous comment. There is a reason 2/3rds or more gay people vote democratic. I expect that number to be even more lopsided this election.

I'm surprised it isn't more than that. If anything it helps my case because I was assuming that close to 90% of gays voted for Democrats.

[Lenonis]

Well for one I don't think Trump has any intention of doing 90% of the things he has stated he will do. Especially not something that he last mentioned in February according to Google and is not on his campaign platform on his website.

Even if he didn't take an active stance against LGBT rights there really is no reason to assume he'd veto any anti-gay legislation that hits his desk. And if your defense at this point is "well, he might not do what he said y'know" that's not making a very compelling case why LGBT folks should support Trump.

Thirdly, Trump is almost certainly going to lose at this point so that just piles on top of how many unlikely things it will take for this to happen.

Still time for something crazy to swing the election -- plus if the dems get complacent you never know what might happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm surprised it isn't more than that. If anything it helps my case because I was assuming that close to 90% of gays voted for Democrats.

The reality is gays tend to have higher median income than other demographic groups. A lot of gays vote with their wallet cause, let's face it, the GOP is the party for rich people. There is a lot of tension between wanting to protect income/assets and protecting your rights. Plus, in lesser amounts, you have religious gay folks who vote along with the religious block, and gays who just vote Republican because they feel XYZ issue is the most important, whether it's gun control, terrorism, etc.

[Felya]

Well for one I don't think Trump has any intention of doing 90% of the things he has stated he will do. Especially not something that he lasted mentioned in February according to Google and is not on his campaign platform on his website.

I'm sorry, but believing Trump will not do 90% of what he is saying, would means you might as well vote Hillary. You are litteraly telling me to not listen to what Trump said and does. Your Google skills suck, check his speech when releasing the list of nominees, check his nearly weekly speeches to evangelicals.

No, I am sorry, that makes no sense... saying Trump means the opposite 90% of the time, is another way of saying "Trump believes what ever you want him to believe".

Secondly, the issue is a state one at this point. It would take 2 majority decisions to somehow erase that and even then, I wouldn't know where the decision would lie.

Again, does state law supersede federal? We are talking about constitutional amendment, why are you talking about it being a state issue? Parroting GOP 'state rights' doesn't work, when the discussion is of a constitutional amendment.

Thirdly, Trump is almost certainly going to lose at this point so that just piles on top of how many unlikely things it will take for this to happen.

You end with 'Trump will lose, so who cares'? Brilliant...

[DeadmanWalking]

Yeah I also said that earlier so I don't see what the big issue is here. I'm not even going to entertain the scenario of Trump being in office for 8 years because he has under a 20% chance right now of being in for 4.

It's not over until one conceeds to the other. In the next hour or on the day before elections a huge october surprise could drop which wrecks the election for either one of them. Hillary could have something hits that ruins her run for office and Donald can just stroll into the white house. It isn't over until it is over and anyone who thinks it isn't possible for him to still win haven't been paying attention, don't get lax or you will fall.

[Saucerian]

I admit I'm disappointed at Trump going down like the Hindenburg.

I'd been hoping once he'd gotten the nomination he'd give a giant finger to the wingnuts and pivot to the middle. Heck, during the primaries he seemed like the only R candidate not that interested in a theocracy.

Why oh why he picked Pence as running mate, I don't know.

I imagine if I were gay I'd probably hold my nose and vote Clinton. But I'd worry about the party's stance on immigration (of cultures where gays are thrown off roofs). The US isn't Europe, yet, but I wonder for how much longer.

[Felya]

I'm surprised it isn't more than that. If anything it helps my case because I was assuming that close to 90% of gays voted for Democrats.

How does that help your case? Your argument is that they have nothing to fear, not that 90% of them do avoid it. Remember your example of 1 person? The above means you made your case, while knowing there 9 other people who disagreed. That's disengenous, which doesn't help you.

[Deletedaccount1]

How does that help your case? Your argument is that they have nothing to fear, not that 90% of them do avoid it. Remember your example of 1 person? The above means you made your case, while knowing there 9 other people who disagreed. That's disengenous, which doesn't help you.

No, my argument is that there is no reason why an LGBT person should vote for Clinton over voting for someone else like Gary Johnson or simply not voting at all.

[Felya]

I imagine if I were gay I'd probably hold my nose and vote Clinton. But I'd worry about the party's stance on immigration (of cultures where gays are thrown off roofs). The US isn't Europe, yet, but I wonder for how much longer.

Seeing as how the same allegory of Lot leads them to "throwing off roofs", my guess they have as much to fear from them, as just about anyone who ascribes to Lot's plight.

[Lenonis]

But I'd worry about the party's stance on immigration (of cultures where gays are thrown off roofs). The US isn't Europe, yet, but I wonder for how much longer.

I'm really not sure how much validity there is to the fearmongering around immigrants/refugees and essentially what is Sharia law. Mainly because there is a giant body of water in between us so the flood of refugees coming in and taking over is...well...really quite impossible. We don't have the vulnerability Europe does in this space just because of geography.

It's probably also worth stating that the GOP's efforts to create a theocracy are likely to do more to pave the way for Sharia law in the US than anything the dems are doing.

[Felya]

No, my argument is that there is no reason why an LGBT person should vote for Clinton over voting for someone else like Gary Johnson or simply not voting at all.

What are the chances that Johnson will win? If Hillary loses, what is the only realistic outcome? I'm sorry, we just spent pages discussing why it's reason enouph. Again, disengenous...

[Deletedaccount1]

I'm sorry, but believing Trump will not do 90% of what he is saying, would means you might as well vote Hillary. You are litteraly telling me to not listen to what Trump said and does. Your Google skills suck, check his speech when releasing the list of nominees, check his nearly weekly speeches to evangelicals.

No, I am sorry, that makes no sense... saying Trump means the opposite 90% of the time, is another way of saying "Trump believes what ever you want him to believe".



Again, does state law supersede federal? We are talking about constitutional amendment, why are you talking about it being a state issue? Parroting GOP 'state rights' doesn't work, when the discussion is of a constitutional amendment.



You end with 'Trump will lose, so who cares'? Brilliant...

I have never said anyone should vote for Trump, I will certainly not be voting for him and I hope he loses.

I googled:
https://www.google.co.jp/webhp?sourc...age%20decision

I found nothing except for an article in February saying that Trump would overturn that decision.

What are you even talking about? You realize if they struck down the decision to legalize gay marriage then it would become a states right's issue. If they instituted a federal ban it would obviously be opposed. And why are you saying it is a constitutional amendment?

I end with Trump will lose because Trump is probably going to lose.

- - - Updated - - -

What are the chances that Johnson will win? If Hillary loses, what is the only realistic outcome? I'm sorry, we just spent pages discussing why it's reason enouph. Again, disengenous...

The chances Johnson will win are zero but there are more reasons to vote third party other than to get a candidate in office.

[Lenonis]

No, my argument is that there is no reason why an LGBT person should vote for Clinton over voting for someone else like Gary Johnson or simply not voting at all.

There have been a myriad of reasons given in this thread.

Here's more: The president tends to have a heavy hand in setting policy in the military, which has under Obama taken huge strides to fix it's anti-LGBT stand.

Federal contractors cannot discriminate -- president's domain.

"No reason" is a fabrication in your head that shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. Given your lack of knowledge why are you debating it so intensely? It's odd.

[Deletedaccount1]

Again, I am not contesting the idea that a single issue voter who only cares about gay rights should vote for Hillary over Trump. I am saying that a gay person who is not a progressive shouldn't have to vote for Clinton off of the fear that Trump might win and ruin their marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

There have been a myriad of reasons given in this thread.

Here's more: The president tends to have a heavy hand in setting policy in the military, which has under Obama taken huge strides to fix it's anti-LGBT stand.

Federal contractors cannot discriminate -- president's domain.

"No reason" is a fabrication in your head that shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. Given your lack of knowledge why are you debating it so intensely? It's odd.

Again, you are coming at this from the perspective of a gay person as a single issue voter. I am not contesting that.

If I was a gay person who was a libertarian and not in the military why would I give a shit what Obama did about don't ask, don't tell and why would that give me reason to vote for Hillary over voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all when she is already probably going to win?

Do you know how inconsequential individual votes are?

[Lenonis]

I am saying that a gay person who is not a progressive shouldn't have to vote for Clinton off of the fear that Trump might win and ruin their marriage.

And we're saying that your assertion that there is no danger flies completely in the face of the powers of the president, the makeup of the SCOTUS, and Trump's own words and actions.

You are basically making this up in your head and screaming "why can't anyone see this "reality" I invented?!?"

If someone primarily cares about LGBT rights, Clinton is the only vote that makes sense. If you are talking beyond that this discussion is basically missing the rest of the issues.

[Deletedaccount1]

If someone primarily cares about LGBT rights, Clinton is the only vote that makes sense. If you are talking beyond that this discussion is basically missing the rest of the issues.

Do I need to say for a fourth time that I am not talking about single issue voters?

[Lenonis]

Again, you are coming at this from the perspective of a gay person as a single issue voter. I am not contesting that.

Then what is the discussion about then? We've already debunked this "Trump is no threat to LGBT rights". Sooooooooooo...people with complicated policy stances might not vote Hillary even if LGBT is part of it? Erm...ok. People who hate gays may vote Clinton for the same reason so I'm not sure what the point of this conversation is anymore...

- - - Updated - - -

Do I need to say for a fourth time that I am not talking about single issue voters?

Sorry I seem to be just a few seconds behind you in posting so I'm delayed in seeing your responses.