Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Lenonis]

Don't accuse of cherry picking and then deliberately demand the numbers are under reported to include things that don't even necessarily constitute a person being homosexual.

Sorry those were two separate thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States

You can see that almost every percentage is over 2% in that article.

If it is a hard wired concept, experimentation is purely that and not a basis to include those people as part of the homosexual crowd. As I said before, if homosexual issues are an issue to be discussed, there is no benefit in watering down the affected parties with drunken lesbian encounters that have nothing to do with marriage rights, federal benefits, or lifestyle choices one may or may not be judged by employers.

Except were talking more than just marriage. We're talking discrimination, job security, housing selection...things that really matter -- and although a drunken one night stand might not be an indicator that someone is a certain sexuality -- in some places it can get you evicted if your landlord sees it. So it does matter.

Anyway this is veering off topic again as we've moved away from what Clinton or Trump would do. I don't want to make Crissi mad again.

[Fasc]

This is an interesting argument, actually. I'm not sure what my stance on this is; I've always agreed though that tax breaks for married people is a questionable element. I think marriage should not change anything legally for any person, otherwise, indeed, it is kind of discrimination against non-married people.

Eh, I think that's stretching it since its a freely entered into contract that is of compelling public interest, much in the same way you get benefits and extras for being a business owner (along with increased risks). Sexuality aside, there are legitimate benefits to yourself and the community to being financially joined and legally able to care for lots of small persons.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Why should an asexual person need to marry someone else to receive the same tax breaks that straight and homosexuals get?

Married couples with only one earner (or perhaps one high earner and one low earner) experience a tax benefit by filing jointly. But two-earner married couples generally are penalized by the joint return rates. They would be better off filing as two single taxpayers. The primary reason for this difference is a historical accident and Congressional responses to political pressure. The modern joint return was enacted in 1948 in order to treat all married couples the same, regardless of where they lived. Before 1948, married couples in community property states were able to split community income and report each half on a separate tax return. Given the existence of progressive rates, these couples necessarily paid lower taxes than couples in non-community property states where the earnings all belonged to one spouse. And so the joint return was created to solve this problem. But then single parents complained that they were discriminated against because they could not split income with the children they were supporting. Congress responded with the Head of Household rates. And then single taxpayers complained that they were being discriminated against because married couples benefited from economies of scale and enjoyed the tax-free imputed income of the stay-at-home spouse. Congress responded by adjusting the rates for single taxpayers.

- Patricia A. Cain
Professor of Law at Santa Clara University, Author of the book Rainbow Rights, The Role of Lawyers and Courts in the Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights Movement (2000)

That's why married people get tax breaks. HTH. I think we're getting off topic again, though.

[Venant]

Did she have the authority to refuse the money?

Who in their right mind would refuse millions of dollars, especially when you know the media will never investigate these donations, and your supporters have not interest in knowing who is actually funding you.

[Edge-]

Why should an asexual person need to marry someone else to receive the same tax breaks that straight and homosexuals get?

Because that's what legal marriage is. If you have an issue with what marriage is, that's a topic for another thread.

Who in their right mind would refuse millions of dollars, especially when you know the media will never investigate these donations, and your supporters have not interest in knowing who is actually funding you.

How dare they not turn down millions of dollars that could be used to help the organizations charitable efforts for the sake of avoiding some potential controversy from conspiracy theorists when Hillary runs for president! How selfish of her, as she directly runs the organization and benefits personally from everything!

That's all sarcasm, FYI.

[Lenonis]

Who in their right mind would refuse millions of dollars, especially when you know the media will never investigate these donations, and your supporters have not interest in knowing who is actually funding you.

Don't you mean funding her foundation?

Unless you believe the lie that the foundation spends 10% on charity and gives the Clintons the remaining 90%?

[TZucchini]

Did she have the authority to refuse the money?

I'm not sure. I'm assuming she did, since you're asking.

- - - Updated - - -

Who in their right mind would refuse millions of dollars, especially when you know the media will never investigate these donations, and your supporters have not interest in knowing who is actually funding you.

Why bother reporting these donations at all? It's not required by law.

[Merkava]

I'm not sure. I'm assuming she did, since you're asking.

So if she had the authority to refuse the money and didn't, we can say then, that she accepted the money, correct?

[Kujako]

Why bother reporting these donations at all? It's not required by law.

Because when she became Secretary of State she opted (under Obama's recommendation) to open up the books on the Clinton Foundation to prevent crazy people on the Internet making things up. Looks like it didn't work.

[zenkai]

I'm all for people being able to get tax breaks just like their straight counterparts but where is the tax break for asexual people? I guess their rights mean nothing to you. I guarantee there are more wizards and warlocks on this forum then there are homosexuals.

Ok I laughed

[siegfrid]

She's very ill. Whereas it doesn't really matter if Trump is a Russian spy. Which he isn't

[Felya]

I think the SCOUTS argument should really be the thing that makes this a moot argument. What type of Judge would Hillary choose, and what type of Judge would Trump Choose?

We know, because Trump has said that he would choose someone like Scalia. Who was the biggest homophobe on the SCOTUS.

Here is a list Trump provided of his potential SCOTUS picks:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...ates-supreme-c

I do not believe any of them would vote for gay marriage, but I don't know who all of them are.

[TZucchini]

So if she had the authority to refuse the money and didn't, we can say then, that she accepted the money, correct?

Well, no. The Clinton Foundation accepted the money.

[Fasc]

Sorry those were two separate thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States

You can see that almost every percentage is over 2% in that article.

Except were talking more than just marriage. We're talking discrimination, job security, housing selection...things that really matter -- and although a drunken one night stand might not be an indicator that someone is a certain sexuality -- in some places it can get you evicted if your landlord sees it. So it does matter.

Anyway this is veering off topic again as we've moved away from what Clinton or Trump would do. I don't want to make Crissi mad again.

I wasn't disputing the percentage specifically, just that inflating the numbers is unnecessary.

Also I'm unsure as why a Trump nomination to SCOTUS, even a Scalia-esque appointment, would necessarily worsen the LGBT situation in those areas you're speaking to:

Discrimination - Equal protection was still something even Scalia upheld, being the strict constructionist he was. This gets murky in places where discrimination is being assumed but weakly PROVEN and the action has non-discriminatory reasoning.

Job security - A lot of this hinges upon contract law which even if a contract gives a "I can fire you for any reason," if you sign that you're reaaaaaally binding your own rights up. It can be fought obviously, but that's a contracts thing.

Housing selection - This goes with discrimination in the sense that if I the seller observe a couple trying to buy/rent my home and deny them, I can do so without needing to really say much at all (contract law again). Only in overt cases of "I won't sell cuz ur gay" can you pull equal protections which Scalia would uphold.

Do you have a specific case in which Scalia just tried to drop the hammer on LGBT outside of marriage that concerned issues like those above? I'm not convinced a Trump nomination would be a deathblow to LGBT rights, to include marriage, thus rendering the assessment that Hillary >> Trump on this particular point.

[Edge-]

So if she had the authority to refuse the money and didn't, we can say then, that she accepted the money, correct?

No, because she doesn't run the Clinton Foundation.

[Venant]

She's very ill. Whereas it doesn't really matter if Trump is a Russian spy. Which he isn't

Seems like Vladmir Putin snuck up on her with a poisoned umbrella, clearly this is all a Russian plot!

[Merkava]

Well, no. The Clinton Foundation accepted the money.

Let's back up. You agree that Hillary Clinton had the authority and influence to refuse the money. Is that correct?

- - - Updated - - -

No, because she doesn't run the Clinton Foundation.

Who ran the foundation when the donation in question was made?

[Venant]

No, because she doesn't run the Clinton Foundation.

Now will you admit the Clinton 'David Duke' line of attack on Trump is ludicrous, considering you are arguing that Hillary has nothing to do with the people who gave her organization massive amounts of money?

[Felya]

What percentage of the population is homosexual? Like 5%? Why is this such a huge talking point here when there are way more important policies that effect way more people not being talked about at all?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Also anyone with half a brain knows that if a country needed to be invaded after 9/11 it was and still is Saudi Arabia and not Afghanistan or Iraq.

I disagree... We do not need to invade or bomb the shit out of any country. Not after 9/11, not now. If anything, immediate post 9/11 public opinion, should be used as an example why Trump is so bad. The same rhetoric that he uses to get elected, is the rhetoric used to scare us into thinking the war was a good thing and Patriot Act was fine because we are not terrorist. Anyone who honestly understands how the Iraq war played out, would never vote for Trump.

[Edge-]

Let's back up. You agree that Hillary Clinton had the authority and influence to refuse the money. Is that correct?

Who ran the foundation when the donation in question was made?

Here's their current lineup - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/leadership-team

The Saudi royal family has donated periodically over the years, so it's been run by a number of people. None of which were Hillary IIRC, but I'd need to double check on that one.

Now will you admit the Clinton 'David Duke' line of attack on Trump is ludicrous, considering you are arguing that Hillary has nothing to do with the people who gave her organization massive amounts of money?

Apples and oranges. David Duke is supporting Trump himself specifically because he believes Trump is echoing his racist, bigoted ideology and bringing it to a broader platform.

The Saudi royal family has donated to the Clinton Foundation (which again, Hillary does not run and does not have access to their funds) over decades.