I’m off the Trump Train

[ivwshane]

Guys! Guys! If Democrats would just start nominating candidates right wing nuts could vote for they wouldn’t have to vote for the most incompetent president ever who violates the constitution daily in plain view.

lol!

That’s some grade A retard logic right there.

 

[zinfamous]

And again, people may regret Trump but very few regret NOT getting Hillary. Most hoped both could have lost in 2016.

lol--based on what? It's already observably clear that MOST wanted Hilary. How do you figure "very few" regret her not being president?

 

[thilanliyan]

The entire point is that hopefully your side stops picking shitty candidates that only your base likes.

I still don't understand your definition of "shitty". Trump is demonstrably shitty, and yet you think Bernie is somehow comparable in shittiness to him? He is a thousand times more fit for office than Trump and he ACTUALLY fights for the middle class. Based on previous threads I know you're not necessarily in favour of some of Bernie's social policies but wow, it's a heck of a lot better than Trump's policies of actively being a dick to anyone not rich or born in America.

I'm not even hoping Bernie gets the nomination (probably Warren would be better) but IF he were to get the nomination it's sad to see that some people still prefer the current train wreck to someone that will be without a doubt better for the country and the world in general. But hey, it's your vote, cast it as you wish.

 

[fskimospy]

I still don't understand your definition of "shitty". Trump is demonstrably shitty, and yet you think Bernie is somehow comparable in shittiness to him? He is a thousand times more fit for office than Trump and he ACTUALLY fights for the middle class. Based on previous threads I know you're not necessarily in favour of some of Bernie's social policies but wow, it's a heck of a lot better than Trump's policies of actively being a dick to anyone not rich or born in America.

I'm not even hoping Bernie gets the nomination (probably Warren would be better) but IF he were to get the nomination it's sad to see that some people still prefer the current train wreck to someone that will be without a doubt better for the country and the world in general. But hey, it's your vote, cast it as you wish.

It is really tiresome how Republicans bear no responsibility for their conduct but that Democrats must conform to whatever any given poster wants - otherwise they are somehow to blame for the state of things.

You never hear 'republicans better stop going so far right otherwise they're going to saddle us with a communist!'.

 

[glenn1]

It is really tiresome how Republicans bear no responsibility for their conduct but that Democrats must conform to whatever any given poster wants - otherwise they are somehow to blame for the state of things.

You never hear 'republicans better stop going so far right otherwise they're going to saddle us with a communist!'.

It works that way also. It’s not like in 2016 that I was beating the drum for the most extreme conservative candidates like Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz. They’re similarly unacceptable to the other side in a national general election contest.

 

[VRAMdemon]

This post is based on the thoughts of one of my conservative in laws that is also OFF the Trump Train.

Many Republicans have yearned for someone like Trump, but what they really want is someone like him, but not quite him, but even they themselves don't realize it. They want someone who boldly stands up and is politically incorrect and offensive with his delivery. But Trump isn't the 3D chess player they wanted - he is not a highly intelligent, cunning, savvy strategist - his brain's thought process is "six fireflies blinking randomly in a jar." But he sounds close enough to what they want, that they thought he was what they want.

Trump "plays" the social conservative that many have yearned for - someone who will say things like, "Men are discriminated against, Christians are discriminated against, etc." And when conservatives found someone who actually scratched that mental itch for them - Trump - the relief and joy he gave them was so intense that they'd go to any extent and do anything for him. It was almost indescribable delight - finally, someone who speaks for us. Many liberals/Independents are utterly baffled and confounded by the zeal of this passion - why Trump scratches the itch of these conservatives so satisfyingly. Because everyone wants a leader who they think speaks for them. But even Trump isn't a truly zealous social conservative; he more or less figured out how to scratch these people's itch for political gain.

Trump does not hold his own conservative principles. He was pro-choice / pro-Planned Parenthood before he suddenly was not. When asked to weigh in on pro-life positions, it was obvious he had never even thought about the issue past sound bites he got from TV. He was pro gun-control before. He hobnobbed with NY liberals. Trump is no conservative. He just got coached on how to play one on TV.

His policies are an embarrassment and should be anathema to most Republicans. Free Trade is a good thing. NAFTA. TPP. Instead, he spends all his time scuttling free trade, tariff this and tariff that. His praising of Kim Jong Un and know-towing to North Korea makes some conservatives want to vomit. Doesn't he realize what they do to Christians in that country? Every move he has made with regards to N. Korea is vile to some conservatives. His bromance with Putin is almost as bad. According to some Republicans, we should be building strong alliances with Western leaders and free Asia. Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

Trump is not a conservative, he’s an opportunist who has tried to make himself appeal to conservatives. And it worked.

 

[Jhhnn]

My vote wasn’t a determining factor in the 2016 election as I wasn’t in one of the applicable states that sealed the win for Trump. You don’t get extra EC votes for “virtue signaling” with your vote.

And again, people may regret Trump but very few regret NOT getting Hillary. Most hoped both could have lost in 2016.

I don't think that's true at all. It was a binary choice, Trump or Clinton. It's like a kid offered a choice between an apple & an orange who says "I want a banana." when there aren't any.

This notion that she would have somehow been worse than Trump isn't really rational.

 

[glenn1]

I don't think that's true at all. It was a binary choice, Trump or Clinton. It's like a kid offered a choice between an apple & an orange who says "I want a banana." when there aren't any.

This notion that she would have somehow been worse than Trump isn't really rational.

The “binary choice” option is patently false as I could choose neither apple or orange. And if both were rotten with fruit flies circling I’d refuse either.

 

[glenn1]

lol--based on what? It's already observably clear that MOST wanted Hilary. How do you figure "very few" regret her not being president?

Draft her as your nominee to run again if you think that many people really want to have her be the POTUS.

 

[Jhhnn]

lol--based on what? It's already observably clear that MOST wanted Hilary. How do you figure "very few" regret her not being president?

You mean that Trump is President only by an anomalous result of the Electoral College?

 

[Jaskalas]

Bernie is worse at being an acceptable candidate to those not typically inclined to vote Democrat. Unsure why this is hard for folks to understand. He's an avowed Dem Socialist, wants to hugely ratchet up transfer payments and the social welfare apparatus, wants to deeply regulate in the economic sphere, and wants huge new taxes on the middle class and up.

I know it's hard for you guys sometimes but remember back to 2016 when it was the GOP with double-digit number of candidates. Back then Democrats would have clearly preferred to have the (R) nominee be someone like Jeb Bush or John Kasich over Trump even though you'd rather the Dem be elected out of any of them. This is the same deal, when comparing alternatives to Trump (whether 2016 or 2020) the more "moderate" candidate is always going to appeal to the other side more than the more partisan extreme candidate.

Moderates, sure. But there are other types of voters who can cross party lines. And it requires a different kind of candidate to appeal to them. We have a growing wave of disillusioned victims of trickle down who are scraping by and BEGGING for a candidate to CHANGE things. Trump won that vote last time. He has failed, and now he is the incumbent. That vote is easily taken away from him IF we nominate a candidate who can speak to these voters and vows to bring in the sort of changes to society that they need in order to survive. The sort of change that can repair this broken country.

Warren, Sanders, Yang. None are "Left" enough to reach my position on balancing out and repairing Capitalism. But they are a step in the best direction.

 

[Perknose]

At some point you need to come up with a different angle on Mayor Pete because you really are coming across as clear projection on your part that everyone shares your seeming discomfort with gays.

I also fear what the Repub "fear and smear" machine would do with Mayor Pete being gay, and I have ZERO discomfort with gays whatsoever. Jhhnn has given no evidence ever of being homophobic, in fact, quite the contrary. Your accusation against him is a baseless slur.

And again, people may regret Trump but very few regret NOT getting Hillary. Most hoped both could have lost in 2016.

This is the most ridiculous form of projection on your part. 3,000,000 more Americans voted for Hillary over Trump. America is chock full of folks who severely regret not getting Hillary as their President solely due to the anachronistic artifact of the Selectorial College. 65,853,514 Americans who voted for Hillary most assuredly didn't hope "both could have lost in 2016. I'm willing to bet that number has swelled considerably since then.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I also fear what the Repub "fear and smear" machine would do with Mayor Pete being gay, and I have ZERO discomfort with gays whatsoever. Jhhnn has given no evidence ever of being homophobic, in fact, quite the contrary. Your accusation against him is a baseless slur.

Maybe, but I think even the right has really moved beyond this except for the very old. The younger folks on the right I don’t think care, and I’d hope he majority of them understand the dangers of attacking based on his sexuality.

 

[Stryke1983]

Maybe, but I think even the right has really moved beyond this except for the very old. The younger folks on the right I don’t think care, and I’d hope he majority of them understand the dangers of attacking based on his sexuality.

If the right has moved beyond homophobia then why is the Republican party still actively pushing back against gay rights? The current Republican administration's actions demonstrate the exact opposite of what you claim. That might change in the future, but I don't see any indication that there will be a dramatic shift in the next 14 months.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If the right has moved beyond homophobia then why is the Republican party still actively pushing back against gay rights? The current Republican administration's actions demonstrate the exact opposite of what you claim. That might change in the future, but I don't see any indication that there will be a dramatic shift in the next 14 months.

Like what though? I hear about transgender stuff but it seems like it’s been a while since I’ve really heard much about gay rights. I’m sure there may be little pockets of it in podunk Louisiana but by and large I don’t hear much about it. Then again I’m not looking for it either so maybe that’s just all off my radar?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

@UglyCasanova

50% I’m glad you got off
50% brotherly love ribbing

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Draft her as your nominee to run again if you think that many people really want to have her be the POTUS.

She lost, she’s not running again. Get over it, Elections have consequences.

 

[Stryke1983]

Like what though? I hear about transgender stuff but it seems like it’s been a while since I’ve really heard much about gay rights. I’m sure there may be little pockets of it in podunk Louisiana but by and large I don’t hear much about it. Then again I’m not looking for it either so maybe that’s just all off my radar?

"Transgender stuff" is under the umbrella of gay rights for starters. Then you've got the Vice President and plenty of other Republicans that are against gay marriage. The official Republican platform from 2016 made a notable jump to the right on social issues such as gay rights. A Pew poll of Republican voters last year had the majority (albeit a narrow one) opposing gay marriage.

So if the current Republican administration, the Republican party as a whole, and the majority of Republican voters are all openly against gay rights, based on their own actions and statements, I'm struggling to understand why you think the right is going to accept an openly gay candidate for the Presidency.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

"Transgender stuff" is under the umbrella of gay rights for starters. Then you've got the Vice President and plenty of other Republicans that are against gay marriage. The official Republican platform from 2016 made a notable jump to the right on social issues such as gay rights. A Pew poll of Republican voters last year had the majority (albeit a narrow one) opposing gay marriage.

So if the current Republican administration, the Republican party as a whole, and the majority of Republican voters are all openly against gay rights, based on their own actions and statements, I'm struggling to understand why you think the right is going to accept an openly gay candidate for the Presidency.

Not per a trans friend, she is not gay. Trans rights are completely their own issue.

Stuff gets real complicated in this area better to stay out of it unless you absolutely need to be involved

For example:
She views cross dresser as clowns. They are not women, they are putting on makeup like a clown does, they put on a costume like a clown does and they walk around in shoes that don’t fit them like a clown does.

Her words not mine.

 

[Perknose]

Like what though? I hear about transgender stuff but it seems like it’s been a while since I’ve really heard much about gay rights. I’m sure there may be little pockets of it in podunk Louisiana but by and large I don’t hear much about it. Then again I’m not looking for it either so maybe that’s just all off my radar?

Facts matter. Here are some:

The list of disasters for the community in the past year is not short: Mr. Trump’s administration sided with the right to discriminate against L.G.B.T.Q. Americans in the Masterpiece Cake case before the Supreme Court; he declared a new policy removing L.G.B.T.Q. people from the 2020 census; he failed to even mention gay people on World AIDS Day; and he attempted (although so far has failed) to ban trans people from the military. And of course, he made Mike Pence his vice president, a man who, as a congressional candidate, endorsed conversion therapy and who, as governor of Indiana, defunded H.I.V./AIDs testing and prevention — an action that may well have led to a record outbreakof the disease in that state.

How Comfortable are Americans with LGBTQ People?

● This year [2019], nearly half of non-LGBTQ adults (49%) are classified as ‘allies’ in the Index, meaning they responded that they were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable with LGBTQ people across all of the seven situations. This is has not changed from the 49% reported in 2018, which was down from 53% the year prior.

● 38% of non-LGBTQ adults are classified as ‘detached supporters’, whose comfort levels varies across the seven scenarios. 13% are classified as ‘resisters’ and are not comfortable in any of the situations that were presented. The percentage of ‘resisters’ has been stable since the start of the Accelerating Acceptance Index.

● The only age group to post a decline this year was young Americans ages 18-34. The number of non-LGBTQ U.S. adults ages 18-34 who reported being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable across all seven situations dropped from 53% to 45%. This reflects a continued erosion in comfort among this age group over the past two years. This year, the significant erosion is being driven by females ages 18-34, where comfort levels fell from 64% last year to 52% this year.

● In total, 18% of respondents report knowing a transgender person; 31% know a bisexual person; 75% know a gay or lesbian person.

 

[UglyCasanova]

"Transgender stuff" is under the umbrella of gay rights for starters

And there’s many that think the two have nothing to do with each other and hey we’re lumped together as a matter of convenience more than anything. I know plenty of right leaning people that are tepidly ok with gays (it’s more of a that’s non of my business who you love type thing, not an outright celebration of it or anything) but still view transgenderism as being both a mental illness and a dangerous push for society to be taking in trying to normalize it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Facts matter. Here are some:

The list of disasters for the community in the past year is not short: Mr. Trump’s administration sided with the right to discriminate against L.G.B.T.Q. Americans in the Masterpiece Cake case before the Supreme Court; he declared a new policy removing L.G.B.T.Q. people from the 2020 census; he failed to even mention gay people on World AIDS Day; and he attempted (although so far has failed) to ban trans people from the military. And of course, he made Mike Pence his vice president, a man who, as a congressional candidate, endorsed conversion therapy and who, as governor of Indiana, defunded H.I.V./AIDs testing and prevention — an action that may well have led to a record outbreakof the disease in that state.

How Comfortable are Americans with LGBTQ People?

● This year [2019], nearly half of non-LGBTQ adults (49%) are classified as ‘allies’ in the Index, meaning they responded that they were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable with LGBTQ people across all of the seven situations. This is has not changed from the 49% reported in 2018, which was down from 53% the year prior.

● 38% of non-LGBTQ adults are classified as ‘detached supporters’, whose comfort levels varies across the seven scenarios. 13% are classified as ‘resisters’ and are not comfortable in any of the situations that were presented. The percentage of ‘resisters’ has been stable since the start of the Accelerating Acceptance Index.

● The only age group to post a decline this year was young Americans ages 18-34. The number of non-LGBTQ U.S. adults ages 18-34 who reported being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable across all seven situations dropped from 53% to 45%. This reflects a continued erosion in comfort among this age group over the past two years. This year, the significant erosion is being driven by females ages 18-34, where comfort levels fell from 64% last year to 52% this year.

● In total, 18% of respondents report knowing a transgender person; 31% know a bisexual person; 75% know a gay or lesbian person.

I think that the reply to this would be similar to the reply to Stryke, by lumping transgenderism into the mix it makes the data relatively meaningless when measuring anything related solely to homosexuality.

And I’d say comfort level measurements are much different than gay rights. One doesn’t have to be comfortable with homosexuality to admit they have rights just like the rest of us. Granted there are plenty that don’t think gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals (primarily in terms of adoption, marriage, and the military) but those groups tend to be shrinking and a pretty quick pace. That doesnt mean necessarily that conservative are more "comfortable" with gays (although I’d argue they are) but rather they are recognizing they should be afforded the same rights.

The cake baker case is definitely the one thing that stands out as far as gay rights in recent years. And that was because it was this intersection of gay and religious rights. Whereas gay rights had been increasing, this was a case of religious rights decreasing. I think the courts made the correct decision in siding with the cake shop so that their own religious rights weren’t being infringed upon.

 

[Stryke1983]

And there’s many that think the two have nothing to do with each other and hey we’re lumped together as a matter of convenience more than anything. I know plenty of right leaning people that are tepidly ok with gays (it’s more of a that’s non of my business who you love type thing, not an outright celebration of it or anything) but still view transgenderism as being both a mental illness and a dangerous push for society to be taking in trying to normalize it.

So even if you separate the two issues entirely you still face the fact that high ranking members of the current administration, the Republican party as a whole, and the majority of Republican voters do not believe in equal rights for gay people. Therefore the right is not very likely to accept a gay president as you claimed earlier. I'm unsure how there is any confusion about this. The degree of homophobia is up for debate, as is the degree to which you want to separate gay rights and transgender rights. But the statement that that the right has largely moved beyond it's issues with gay people, to the extent that a gay president would not be an issue for them, goes completely against the stated position of the Republican party.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So even if you separate the two issues entirely you still face the fact that high ranking members of the current administration, the Republican party as a whole, and the majority of Republican voters do not believe in equal rights for gay people. Therefore the right is not very likely to accept a gay president as you claimed earlier. I'm unsure how there is any confusion about this. The degree of homophobia is up for debate, as is the degree to which you want to separate gay rights and transgender rights. But the statement that that the right has largely moved beyond it's issues with gay people, to the extent that a gay president would not be an issue for them, goes completely against the stated position of the Republican party.

Can you show me who and where though? If it’s been posted above already my apologies I must have missed it. What high ranking GOP official is pushing for unequal rights for gays? Or where are you seeing that the Republicans as a whole don’t? You may be right (I’m hoping you aren't).

 

[Perknose]

I think that the reply to this would be similar to the reply to Stryke, by lumping transgenderism into the mix it makes the data relatively meaningless when measuring anything related solely to homosexuality.

And I’d say comfort level measurements are much different than gay rights. One doesn’t have to be comfortable with homosexuality to admit they have rights just like the rest of us. Granted there are plenty that don’t think gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals (primarily in terms of adoption, marriage, and the military) but those groups tend to be shrinking and a pretty quick pace. That doesnt mean necessarily that conservative are more "comfortable" with gays (although I’d argue they are) but rather they are recognizing they should be afforded the same rights.

The cake baker case is definitely the one thing that stands out as far as gay rights in recent years. And that was because it was this intersection of gay and religious rights. Whereas gay rights had been increasing, this was a case of religious rights decreasing. I think the courts made the correct decision in siding with the cake shop so that their own religious rights weren’t being infringed upon.

And I think it is very difficult and frustrating to have a fact-based dialogue with you, since, when presented with hard data that absolutely contravenes your non-data based "thoughts" on the subject you wave them away with further "thinking."

To me, this gives the very term "thinking" a bad name. 🙁