Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[EV]

I don't really care much to go deeper into this argument,

Then why'd you jump into this thread and start spouting nonsense? You're fair game now, kid.

homophobic for reasons unknown other than Westboro Baptist Church (fun fact, Obama didn't support LGBQ rights until reelection, verses Trump being in favor of them the entire time he's been in office).

https://www.hrc.org/timelines/trump

I wonder....... just what might be considered homophobic or anti-LGBTQ.......

• Less than two hours after being sworn into office, all mentions of LGBTQ issues were removed from the White House website
• DoJ and Dept of Education removed protections for transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments
• Betsy Devos refusal to provide reassurance to LGBTQ students that they'd be protected from discrimination
• The ban on transgender military service members
• Trump agreeing with solicitor general Francisco that businesses should be allowed to hang signs indicating they don't serve LGBTQ customers
• Opposing the Equality Act, which would provide protections to LGBTQ people in employment, housing, education, federal funding, etc
• Adding religious exemptions to Obama's 2014 executive order which prohibited discriminating against federal contractors on basis on sexual orientation and gender identity

 

[Legendary Latios]

Then why'd you jump into this thread and start spouting nonsense? You're fair game now, kid.


https://www.hrc.org/timelines/trump

I wonder....... just what might be considered homophobic or anti-LGBTQ.......

• Less than two hours after being sworn into office, all mentions of LGBTQ issues were removed from the White House website
• DoJ and Dept of Education removed protections for transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments
• Betsy Devos refusal to provide reassurance to LGBTQ students that they'd be protected from discrimination
• The ban on transgender military service members
• Trump agreeing with solicitor general Francisco that businesses should be allowed to hang signs indicating they don't serve LGBTQ customers
• Opposing the Equality Act, which would provide protections to LGBTQ people in employment, housing, education, federal funding, etc
• Adding religious exemptions to Obama's 2014 executive order which prohibited discriminating against federal contractors on basis on sexual orientation and gender identity

I appreciate you taking the time to come up with the creative insult of "kid" and ignoring an olive branch to table this particular discussion and move onto actual discussion on policy, but I digress. Also, for the sake of argument, I will ignore the fact that you broadened my one small portion of my argument to encompass half of your argument.

*sigh*
1.) As were probably most things from Obama's administration. It is almost like a different President doesn't want the exact same things as the last one. It's like saying that Trump doesn't think anyone should have healthcare because he removed Obamacare from the white house website after he was elected. That is a dishonest argument.
2.) Those protections were redundant. Essentially, it is the same as saying everyone on earth deservers these protections, including the particular group here. Non-discrimination based on sex covers everyone. Also note the terminology, as following gender theory, sex is still assigned at birth (the act mentions sex, not gender), removing that little argument coming up on that.
3.) See above, under Title IX, they are protected from any form of discrimination.
4.) Not going to lie, bad PR. There is justification for this move (cost, organizational difficulty to name a few) but I'm generally of the opinion that if people are willing and able to server let them.
5.) That is called free speech, protected by the first amendment. If someone does not want to serve someone else, they have the right to do that in America. People are entitled to their beliefs, whether or not you disagree with them, and removing the right to hold an opinion goes against the basis of America. You also have the right to disagree with them and not support those businesses.
6.) The Equality Act was incredibly vague, leaving to door open for other things further down the line, the main one being that it could have the ability to control speech and categorize peoples beliefs as illegal. That starts to edge up to a totalitarian state, and that alone tends to scare conservatives and republicans. We don't disagree with the idea that all people are equal and should be treated as such, but act had red flags outside of those parameters that we don't like.
7.) First amendment again, the freedom of religion. Arguably the executive order infringed on a religious institutions ability to follow their stated beliefs and Trump was upholding the constitution. But again, the main argument is that if you undermine someone's religious beliefs and force them to do something THEY disagree with on a moral. Similar to number 5, you can disagree with it, but it is infringing on the institutions rights forcing them to go against their beliefs.

Tl;DR, only one of those can be argued as "homophobic" and even that one has other reasons to it other than "trans bad" that are stronger arguments. At the end of the day probably none of this will change your mind, but hopefully at least give you a better understanding of the other side before dismissing it nonsense and hate speech (which I know you didn't say, but the internet in general has a reputation of doing that).

 

[EV]

ignoring an olive branch to table this particular discussion and move onto actual discussion on policy

Again, you came in here swinging, got called out, and then furthered the discussion. Should I be sorry I refuted your baseless claim that he's pro-LGBTQ? Just what did you hope to accomplish and why are you bothered that somebody responded? It's not my fault you were off-topic.

You have systematically failed to provide evidence of Trump being supportive of LGBTQ rights while in office and gone so far as to defend his actions that prove the contrary, under the guise of "freedom of speech" and "non-discrimination based on sex covers everyone they don't need special protections" (when history has shown us that we do). You're not fooling anyone, besides yourself and maybe deceit.

 

[termi]

1.) As were probably most things from Obama's administration. It is almost like a different President doesn't want the exact same things as the last one. It's like saying that Trump doesn't think anyone should have healthcare because he removed Obamacare from the white house website after he was elected. That is a dishonest argument.

no man it's more like removing any mention of health care from his website whatsoever, in which case you surely would concur that it's not an important issue to the current administration

5.) That is called free speech, protected by the first amendment. If someone does not want to serve someone else, they have the right to do that in America. People are entitled to their beliefs, whether or not you disagree with them, and removing the right to hold an opinion goes against the basis of America. You also have the right to disagree with them and not support those businesses.

so like, just checking, under your conception of "free speech," hanging a sign like this in front of your business is perfectly legitimate as well, right?

cw racial slur(?)

7.) First amendment again, the freedom of religion. Arguably the executive order infringed on a religious institutions ability to follow their stated beliefs and Trump was upholding the constitution. But again, the main argument is that if you undermine someone's religious beliefs and force them to do something THEY disagree with on a moral. Similar to number 5, you can disagree with it, but it is infringing on the institutions rights forcing them to go against their beliefs.

see the problem is that religions aren't static things where there is precisely one (1) christianity that dictates what is and is not against the faith. instead, there are fucking dozens if not hundreds of different christianities, all with their own interpretation of the bible, and even within these sects some interpret the bible differently than others. idk how exactly religion is defined according to american law but i may assume that it also accounts at least for all the other major world religions and their multitude of different interpretations. what this means in practice is that just about any terrible, otherwise illegal act could be defended under the excuse "sir, i was merely trying to stay true to my faith." if your argument against the equality act is that it's too vague, surely you must concur that freedom of religion is even more vague and should not be a valid argument in case somebody's right to equal treatment (which is infringed upon when you are being denied service or a job based on your sexuality or gender identity) is being infringed upon

 

[Dece1t]

Conservatives: lmao snowflake libtards with their victim complexes, nobody is oppressing you we just dont agree with you

Also conservatives:

Take a joke, would it kill you?

 

[Legendary Latios]

no man it's more like removing any mention of health care from his website whatsoever, in which case you surely would concur that it's not an important issue to the current administration


so like, just checking, under your conception of "free speech," hanging a sign like this in front of your business is perfectly legitimate as well, right?

cw racial slur(?)

View attachment 221884

see the problem is that religions aren't static things where there is precisely one (1) christianity that dictates what is and is not against the faith. instead, there are fucking dozens if not hundreds of different christianities, all with their own interpretation of the bible, and even within these sects some interpret the bible differently than others. idk how exactly religion is defined according to american law but i may assume that it also accounts at least for all the other major world religions and their multitude of different interpretations. what this means in practice is that just about any terrible, otherwise illegal act could be defended under the excuse "sir, i was merely trying to stay true to my faith." if your argument against the equality act is that it's too vague, surely you must concur that freedom of religion is even more vague and should not be a valid argument in case somebody's right to equal treatment (which is infringed upon when you are being denied service or a job based on your sexuality or gender identity) is being infringed upon

1.) Still a dishonest argument, just because something isn't a top priority doesn't mean that it isn't important to you. Though if you listened to the SOTU last night, you'd hear government plans actually dropped in price for the first time, after doubling during Obamas.

2.) Adowable, is that a damned if I do, damned if I don't proposition? If I don't say I support it, well I'm a hypocrite, and if I do, I'm a racist. However, since this concept is bewildering to you, I shall be blunt: you can think whatever you want to think and have your own opinions, and they can be truly vile, but you are allowed to have them. Just because I let you have opinions doesn't mean I'm complicit with it, but I'm allowing you to keep your right to have your own opinion. There might be social repercussions, but that doesn't mean you can't have them. For example, Richard Spencer is a white supremacist and I despise that idea and I don't want him to spread that message. But is he allowed to have that opinion, yes. Just so you know, legitimate threats of violence are illegal, along with a host of other things (like yelling "Fire!" in a theater), if you use that or similar lines of reasoning as a retort, I will ignore it.

3.) I don't think you understand freedom of religion/ religion in general. Are there many sects of Christianity, yes, and most of them have the majority of ideas the same, and only small differences between them. Religion is defined, and it does not absolve people of illegal acts. For example, Jihad is a part of Islam, but terrorism in the name of Jihad is illegal. However, forcing religious groups that have registered with the government as religious institutions (important note here), is infringing on their rights as well. It also only applied to government contractors, so it would literally be the government imposing their will on religion. This isn't a debate on individuals, but a debate government power. As an aside, most religious organizations will ask for someone they employ to sign an agreement saying they agree with their beliefs. That is legally binding and doing something against that would be grounds for fair termination. If an institution doesn't do that, I have no idea and will concede on that point.

Again, you came in here swinging, got called out, and then furthered the discussion. Should I be sorry I refuted your baseless claim that he's pro-LGBTQ? Just what did you hope to accomplish and why are you bothered that somebody responded? It's not my fault you were off-topic.

You have systematically failed to provide evidence of Trump being supportive of LGBTQ rights while in office and gone so far as to defend his actions that prove the contrary, under the guise of "freedom of speech" and "non-discrimination based on sex covers everyone they don't need special protections" (when history has shown us that we do). You're not fooling anyone, besides yourself and maybe deceit.

Ok, the HRC is incredibly biased against trump, but I digress. Anyways, here are a couple articles you might enjoy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...ort-end-criminalization-homosexuality-n973081
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...trump-is-worst-president-on-lgbtq-issues-ever

Also, so you know, my original post was on topic with the Iowa caucuses, a joke that I made was taken out of context, and I made a post where I stated my aggravation of the use of incredibly insulting adjectives to describe people on the right by quickly refuting them. Afterwards, you chose a single small part that was wasn't a main part of my argument to attack me on. I again responded, and you keep saying "I furthered the discussion" when you initiated it. Enjoy your righteous indignation over something you pushed the envelope with. Projection is a powerful tool.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Take a joke, would it kill you?

If you were any less self aware you wouldn't qualify as sentient.

 

[EV]

For example, Richard Spencer is a white supremacist and I despise that idea and I don't want him to spread that message. But is he allowed to have that opinion, yes.

Live and die by freedom of speech and eventually you start supporting a neo-nazi's freedom to express himself. There is a line you can draw, you know.

3.) I don't think you understand freedom of religion/ religion in general.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...trump-is-worst-president-on-lgbtq-issues-ever

Him being the only president to support same-sex marriage when he was sworn in isn't enough. What actions has he undertaken while in office? So far it's been to promote freedom of religion as a cover to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

Afterwards, you chose a single small part that was wasn't a main part of my argument to attack me on.

I was going to let somebody else poke holes in the "we're not racists/misogynists/etc" argument and focus on what I know best. Was calling you "kid" really an attack?

It just looks like you're mad you put your foot in your mouth and people clapped back. But anyway if you're so desperate to "get back on track" feel free to @ me somewhere else.

 

[vonFiedler]

Alright, it helps no one when all of our rhetoric is based around harmful stereotypes. So stop making fun of conservatives for loving small government, y'all know that's reaching.

 

[termi]

the american conservative's logic: "we're not homophobic, we just don't do anything for gay people and block every legislative attempt to combat homophobia over some vague concern that these laws somehow are going to be used to kill free speech and make christianity illegal despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence to support this claim. but no we really do care about the gays tho"

note: it is perfectly possible to believe you are not prejudiced against anyone based on ethnicity, sexuality, gender etc while simultaneously upholding the institutions that make the continued discrimination of minorities possible

 

[MikeDawg]

Pete's lead is starting to widen again, with a 1.7% SDE lead and 60 counties vs Bernie's 16. Thank goodness, or all that rigging would've been for nothing!

 

[MikeDawg]

Alright, it helps no one when all of our rhetoric is based around harmful stereotypes. So stop making fun of conservatives for loving small government, y'all know that's reaching.

So we can't make fun of conservatives for loving small government because it's a harmful stereotype.

But "peter is just depressing and the worst thing to happen to gay people since the cia invented aids" is fine and dandy?

Never though I'd say this, but you're right: Gato is the best mod.

 

[BIG ASHLEY]

So we can't make fun of conservatives for loving small government because it's a harmful stereotype.

But "peter is just depressing and the worst thing to happen to gay people since the cia invented aids" is fine and dandy?

Never though I'd say this, but you're right: Gato is the best mod.

There's been quite a lot of talk this last page of "missing the joke", but...

 

[vonFiedler]

So we can't make fun of conservatives for loving small government because it's a harmful stereotype.

But "peter is just depressing and the worst thing to happen to gay people since the cia invented aids" is fine and dandy?

Never though I'd say this, but you're right: Gato is the best mod.

Remember when you asked why we tolerate chou and termi?

Well we're not tolerating them.

Try to read between the lines for once in your life before you answer that.

 

[MikeDawg]

Remember when you asked why we tolerate chou and termi?

Well we're not tolerating them.

Try to read between the lines for once in your life before you answer that.

So you aren't bothered by literal fake news and statements that people were actually offended by, but you're bothered by me having opinions that are incredibly common outside of the 10 people in this pathetic echo chamber?

Perhaps you're the one who needs to do some introspection, mate. Though I know you won't. Confirmation bias is a real bitch.

P.S. These "you're stupid, MikeDawg!" comments are really impotent. If you want to hurt my feelings, you're going to need way better material than that.

 

[vonFiedler]

So you aren't bothered by literal fake news and statements that people were actually offended by.

But you're bothered by "conservatives like small government" and me having opinions that are incredibly common outside of the 10 people in this pathetic echo chamber?

Perhaps you're the one who needs to do some introspection, mate. Though I know you won't. Confirmation bias is a real bitch.

I'm bothered by people who go me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me non-consensual sex exists literally everywhere in the animal world, and it isn't rape me me me me me me me me me me me me me me. The only thing echoing is you constantly talking about yourself. Maybe in some forums there are 9 other people voting for someone other than Bernie, but you don't need to have the ego of 10 people to make up for it. Having the ego of just 2-3 people matches the smogon average better.

 

[MikeDawg]

I'm bothered by people who go me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me non-consensual sex exists literally everywhere in the animal world, and it isn't rape me me me me me me me me me me me me me me. The only thing echoing is you constantly talking about yourself. Maybe in some forums there are 9 other people voting for someone other than Bernie, but you don't need to have the ego of 10 people to make up for it. Having the ego of just 2-3 people matches the smogon average better.

LMAO either you're a tcr alt, or I'm legitimately a celebrity here. The fact that y'all are still stuck on an edgy teenager troll thread from literally half a decade ago is fucking nuts. Did you even read your comment before you posted it? I've never spoken to you in my life, dude, and you have a legitimate obsession with me.

Like I said before, I'm sincerely flattered by the insane amount of attention you all give me, but get a grip. You're 31 years old.

P.S. If you want to talk about ego, you might want to start with the 20 year old kid saying anyone who doesn't support Bernie (i.e. 95% of the country) wants to commit literal genocide.

 

[Machoke]

They gave Deval Patrick 21 delegates in the latest reporting. Something smells fishy here lmao

 

[vonFiedler]

LMAO either you're a tcr alt, or I'm legitimately a celebrity here. The fact that y'all are still stuck on an edgy teenager troll thread from literally half a decade ago is fucking nuts. Did you even read your comment before you posted it? I've never spoken to you in my life, dude, and you have a legitimate obsession with me.

Like I said before, I'm sincerely flattered by the insane amount of attention you all give me, but get a grip. You're 31 years old.

You've got 4 months and 22 days until the statute of limitations on saying awful things on the internet runs out.

 

[MikeDawg]

Also, Pete is up 2.3% SDEs and 700 votes now, and he's still getting the same number of delegates as Bernie? This is so rigged.

 

[Dece1t]

Let's get this over with.

This isn't the norm. It's not going to continue

Honestly this is the problem with all political forums. There's no way for moderation to be consistent. We're different people with different views. 3 years ago we tried to get 100% approval before doing anything and it just doesn't work. Everybody moderating the forum has their own view on things and there's no way to make us think alike.

That said,
Clearly this thread is never going to be a kumbayah circle, especially with primaries coming up. You're right when we say "stop bickering" it doesn't lead to much because...well this is basically the bicker thread. But don't take this as a blank check. If you break or repeatedly skirt the rules then there's no point having you around. But this thread COULD be a little more lax with the current primary HOIYPE.

That said,
Why the fuck are you posting in the Democratic thread more than half of the dems deceit? U offer nothing other than to confirm everybody's hatred of the Right Wingers


Also: if ppl think that the direction of cong is not something they want, reach out to us. Pm on smogon or discord. Its hard to know what the masses want when all we get are occasional bubbles of discontent every 100 threads that go through. I promise, we are real people

Why do I bother posting in this epitome of sheer cancer? Because typically I don't have a lot of outlets to be able to dig deep and talk politics, but hey, you're right, why am I wasting my time only to be insulted. Even you the modding staff are complete and utter assholes towards conservatives, given vonFiedler just admitted to trolling, but I digress, I'll just be on my way. You guys especially can go fuck yourselves.

P.s. don't blame me for confirmation bias, given half of these morons can't read an argument for their lives. Take this one for example:

the american conservative's logic: "we're not homophobic, we just don't do anything for gay people and block every legislative attempt to combat homophobia over some vague concern that these laws somehow are going to be used to kill free speech and make christianity illegal despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence to support this claim. but no we really do care about the gays tho"

note: it is perfectly possible to believe you are not prejudiced against anyone based on ethnicity, sexuality, gender etc while simultaneously upholding the institutions that make the continued discrimination of minorities possible

I need to address this though, because this is so utterly stupid its not even funny. Full discretion half of my family is gay, but regardless I'm pretty libertarian, it's your life do what you want. But if your definition of holding up LGBT rights includes holding a gun to the head of churches where its against their religion to marry someone who is LGBT instead of getting married somewhere else; that isn't homophobia, that is freedom of religion which is protected by the first amendment. If you're gonna go full-blown Beto and take away tax exemptions from religious institutions that refuse to teach how many endless genders and sexualities there are, that ain't gonna go well. On top of that, you're saying institutions are discriminating willy nilly without giving an iota of evidence supporting that, other than calling people out to make yourself look more virtuous. The same is true with mass incarcerations, no one has given a stem of evidence, yet here we are flinging it around freely without second thought, like its second nature.

3/4s of you are total tools and idiots, have a nice life. I've had enough.

 

[Machoke]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225171029275754497

Yikes!

 

[Stratos]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225170253778444291

 

[Machoke]

Every time you think the democratic party couldn't get more incompetent, they manage to surprise you even further.

 

[MikeDawg]

Every time you think the democratic party couldn't get more incompetent, they manage to surprise you even further.

*Iowa Democratic Party. The DNC has no significant part in this.

Unless they don't use this as an opportunity to strip Iowa of it's importance in the next election. In that case, they take full responsibility for not remediating the situation.

One thing people don't consider though are the ramifications of demoting Iowa (or any state, for that matter). If the DNC says, "You're going last, and we'll invalidate your delegates altogether if you object," then Iowa probably isn't voting blue in the general.