Who is going to win this election in November?

[Nyotarules]

There is a small minority of backward, small-minded, worthless twits who would try to minimize you as a person. I may not be saying this right, but I hope my meaning comes through. Just know that most conservatives are not in that group.


If you are being discriminated against, seek counsel and use the law to your advantage.

What happens when that small minority win an election? All that needs to be done for evil actions to triumph is for 'good' people to elect them into office....

 

[urbandefault]

I've given you information and listed what I'm concerned about. What more do you need?

I can't change who I am, I don't get a choice. My life is literally in the hands of politicians who think I don't deserve to be who I am.

I think the big problem is that we misunderstand each other. It's become overcomplicated. I'm not critical of anyone for who they are. With me, you're beating your head against that wall for no reason.

Can we just be friends?

People will call me naive (and other names), and I don't care, but if we just talk to each other without the shouting and the hyperbole and just be people together we can work this all out.

Yeah, there are the morons. But we have to start somewhere.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I think the big problem is that we misunderstand each other. It's become overcomplicated. I'm not critical of anyone for who they are. With me, you're beating your head against that wall for no reason.

Can we just be friends?

People will call me naive (and other names), and I don't care, but if we just talk to each other without the shouting and the hyperbole and just be people together we can work this all out.

Yeah, there are the morons. But we have to start somewhere.

You can start by not supporting Republicans who try to deny people rights. There are Republicans who are against it.

 

[Rincewiend]

Ok, thanks (but I wasn't really talking to you). You're obviously angry, and believe it or not, I understand. I think all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a bit dramatic, but it's been less than a week. Let's see how this plays out. A lot can happen between now and January 20.

Read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b

 

[urbandefault]

You can start by not supporting Republicans who try to deny people rights. There are Republicans who are against it.

You don't know who I support, and I think I'm a bit offended by the implication. If you don't want an ally, that's fine with me.

But as a last olive branch, feel free to contact me via PM.

 

[MacLeod]

That's the kind of thing that's got us to this point. No one tries to talk to the other side, find out why they think the way they do, and find a common ground.

Obama was elected twice, and Democrats held both houses of Congress for a good part of that time. In those years I heard every day how they couldn't get anything done because of those damned Republicans. At the time, they could have done anything without support from the right side of the aisle. They even found a way to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote, but still they blamed the lack of progress on those damned Republicans.

So, what does it mean, "time to fight?"

Disclaimer: I am not a member of the GOP. I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

I might be mistaken but during the time Obama has been President, Democrats have only controlled Congress for 2 of those years.

 

[Awesome Possum]

You don't know who I support, and I think I'm a bit offended by the implication. If you don't want an ally, that's fine with me.

But as a last olive branch, feel free to contact me via PM.

An ally is an ally all the time. I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just trying to explain how bad my situation is.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I read about Trump and my mother read more about Trump. He will not be running the country. Pence will be running the country, When Kasich was offered the vice-presidency, he was told by Donald Trump, Jr. that he would be in charge of all foreign and domestic policy. He turned down the offer. Pence was selected as vice-president soon afterwards.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-election-2016/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=0

Trump does not get into the weeds. This is left to those who work with him. He is the promoter of his brand.

We are seeing the Trump Administration in its infancy. It will be dominated by anti-LGBTQ individuals who are already making overtures of overturning Dodd-Frank, of bypassing the Paris Accords, and of "fixing" ACA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...s_582638e8e4b0c4b63b0cafff?q6qh6e0uq4t9m2huxr

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paris-climate-agreement_us_58277f3de4b060adb56ebd29

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-dodd-frank_us_58264c2ae4b0c4b63b0cc1bc

The Democrats had control of the Congress from 2008 to 2010. They had control over the House of Representatives; however, they had limited control over the Senate. They had a small amount of time where the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate - 72 days. When this period ended, the Republicans voted as a block against the bills coming from the House, preventing the Senate from passing those bills. (The Republicans met in January 2009 and planned on obstructing the President, making him a one-term president. This action was unprecedented and gain its full impact when the Republicans gain full control of both branches of Congress.) Remember: the House makes the bills, the Senate tweaks the bills, the bills are then signed by the President. The House is dominated by Republicans who do not fear repercussions as they are in safe districts created by gerrymandering.

This person goes into the details:
http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucin...-did-not-control-congress-his-first-two-years

There are steps the Republicans can take to limit the Democrats next year. For one, they can get rid of the filibuster rule.

This is an article about the filibuster and what Republicans might do with it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/republicans-house-senate.html

 

[Captain Crow]

Read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b

He's a Religious zealot. THEY GAVE THE KEYS TO ONE OF THE WORLDS MOST LARGEST ARSENALS TO A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT!!!!!!!!!

I thought I was batshit crazy yesterday when my brain started connecting dots together and come up with a quite horrific thought.

They really are turning this into a christian state. They're going to purge what they deem "sub-human". They're going to reinstate the death penalty for none believers or those who step out of line. The whole wanting to ban Muslims and wanting to bomb them thing. They aren't trying to turn the clock back to 1950. They're turning it back to around 1095–1291.



Please tell me my brain is just going a bit wonky and this isn't what's actually happening.

 

[fonzob1]

Liberals haven't tried to pass laws to limit the freedom and lives of Conservatives.

Not exactly true. Forcing a conservative christian bakery owner to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be an example. Whether you think the bakery owner is wrong for refusing or not, the bakery owner is being denied the freedom to refuse to provide service.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Hilary Clinton is up by 1.8 million voters. There are still 7 million votes yet to be counted, with 4 million from California.

David Leonhardt, a columnist for The New York Times, noted on Friday that with a 1.7-percentage-point popular vote lead over Donald Trump,Clinton will have a larger margin of victory than Richard Nixon had over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John F. Kennedy had over Nixon in 1960. (Her edge is also larger than Al Gore’s popular vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000, though he too was stymied by an electoral college loss.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory_us_5827a2c5e4b02d21bbc91bbc

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=0

http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...n-4-million-ballots-1478828215-htmlstory.html

The problem is this: the Democrats are concentrated in a small number of states with high populations and the Republicans are spread over a large number of states. So, even if the Democratic candidate has more votes, the Republican can win because of a numerical superiority in the electoral college. I can see the electoral college becoming more of an issue in the near future.

 

[MacLeod]

Not exactly true. Forcing a conservative christian bakery owner to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be an example. Whether you think the bakery owner is wrong for refusing or not, the bakery owner is being denied the freedom to refuse to provide service.

Yes but under anti-discrimination laws they can't bake a wedding cake for a hetro-sexual couple and not bake a same gender couple. They can of course refuse to bake any wedding cakes as that doesn't discriminate.

Change same gender couple for a couple of a different ethnic background would it be ok to deny them a cak?

 

[fonzob1]

At least we are getting a peaceful transition of pow - oh wait.

You noticed too, huh?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Lakenheath 72]

On the bakery issue, here is a summation:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

Because of Republican obstruction, there are a large number of federal judge positions open. Expect them to be filled.

I can counter that video with accounts of violence being committed by Trump supporters against minorities.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mes-worse-than-post-911-experts-say/93681294/

 

[fonzob1]

Yes but under anti-discrimination laws they can't bake a wedding cake for a hetro-sexual couple and not bake a same gender couple. They can of course refuse to bake any wedding cakes as that doesn't discriminate.

Change same gender couple for a couple of a different ethnic background would it be ok to deny them a cak?

There is no religious component when you are denying service to a particular race. That is clear cut racial discrimination. However, when you're talking about gay marriage, you would be asking that baker to help facilitate the celebration of something he perceives to be a sin. From his perspective, his religious freedoms are being violated. The water is muddy.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Not exactly true. Forcing a conservative christian bakery owner to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be an example. Whether you think the bakery owner is wrong for refusing or not, the bakery owner is being denied the freedom to refuse to provide service.

Boo fucking hoo. I can't go to a public restroom in North Carolina. Don't talk to me about being denied your freedom to be a bigot.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Gingrich holds no public office, therefore he has no power. Anything that happens in the House is up to the sitting House, not a former Speaker nearly 20 years gone.

Gingrich is a former Speaker of the House who is a trusted Trump surrogate and on the shortlist for Secretary of State and said on Trump's behalf during the campaign that the House should reinstate the House Un-American Activities Committee (or a similar body) for the purpose of interrogating, blacklisting, and deporting Muslims. He's got enormous influence in the Trump administration and with his former colleagues in the House, he's got Republican control of the House, Senate, executive branch and possibly even the Supreme Court soon enough. He doesn't have to be in the House itself to have influence in convincing them to implement Trump's policies.

The very fact that he suggested bringing back something so intimately and negatively linked with Red Scare fearmongering, blacklisting, and legislative corruption and was not only not immediately laughed off the campaign and disqualified from further office but is now in line to be our Secretary of State and in charge of diplomacy of all things should give people on both sides of the aisle pause. Once the Red Scare fervor died down in the late 50s (though HUAC lasted longer and continued in different forms) HUAC's kangaroo court behavior was condemned by politicians on both sides and called the most Un-American thing about the whole situation by Truman, yet we have a major political figure in the President-elects cabinet shortlist proposing it as a serious idea and not immediately being dismissed from consideration. I don't get how anyone, Republican or Democrat or other, can not find that scary as hell.

 

[fonzob1]

Boo fucking hoo. I can't go to a public restroom in North Carolina. Don't talk to me about being denied your freedom to be a bigot.

Yeah, your situation is pretty painful I would imagine. I can't fathom your desire to dress like the sex opposite of your genetics, and I can't relate. But, the fact remains that some people (both Christian and Muslim) hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, and circumstances like the baker make those people feel like their religious freedoms are being hindered. It's a situation where someone from your side of the fence and their side of the fence will never see eye to eye.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah, your situation is pretty painful I would imagine. I can't fathom your desire to dress like the sex opposite of your genetics, and I can't relate. But, the fact remains that some people (both Christian and Muslim) hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, and circumstances like the baker make those people feel like their religious freedoms are being hindered. It's a situation where someone from your side of the fence and their side of the fence will never see eye to eye.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Yeah, your situation is pretty painful I would imagine. I can't fathom your desire to dress like the sex opposite of your genetics, and I can't relate. But, the fact remains that some people (both Christian and Muslim) hold the view that homosexuality is a sin, and circumstances like the baker make those people feel like their religious freedoms are being hindered. It's a situation where someone from your side of the fence and their side of the fence will never see eye to eye.

I don't have a desire to dress like anyone. My brain is literally wired in a way opposite to how my body looks. We have scientific evidence for this.

As for religious freedom, where do we draw the line? Do we just exclude gay and trans people from being treated equally because some religious people object to our existence? Or can a person object to serving a black couple or an interracial couple for religious reasons?