El Presidente Trump

TheOven wrote: »

http://time.com/4401600/gop-platform-contemplates-anti-porn-provision-embrace-of-conversion-therapy/

People aren't honestly trying to pretend gay people are better off with Trump than Clinton.

no, they're mereley suggesting that conceived notion that trump is going to come out and ban gays while hillary would have been such a great friend to the lgbt community being peddled by laci green and the likes is an absolute falsehood.

rob316

[Deleted User] wrote: »

According to RTÉ Clinton actually won more of the popular vote than Trump. Astounding.

God bless America and its understanding of democracy.

God bless you and your lack of knowledge of how the american electoral process works.

retro:electro

Depp wrote: »

the entire speech is her defending the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman in an arguement against gay marriage...thats kind of textbook homophobia isnt it?

No.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Is homophobia not an irrational fear/hate of the gays?

are we seeing some revisionism here? so anyone who voted no on the marriage equality referendum arent all just nasty homophobes anymore? because thats what the consencus on here seemed to be anyway

Christy42

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Where does this myth come from that Trump is a racist who hates the LGBTQ community .
All his rallies had
BLACKS FOR TRUMP signs and he held a LGBT flag, could you see Putin going that ?

http://logoonline.mtvnimages.com/uri/mgid:uma:image:logotv.com:12346446?quality=0.8&format=jpg&width=1500&height=843

As an example calling Mexican's rapists was racist and Pence has funded electro shock therapy for " gay to straight conversion" is his chosen VP.

Shockingly when you say racist things and support homophobic acts you get called a racist and a homophobe.

This is simply a disgraceful event showing That socially large parts of America are still in the 50s in spite of the last . You can't say America doesn't have issues with race, gender and lgbt anymore when the president is a racist and a sexist while his VP is a homophobe. Remember he didn't just best Hillary- the GOP had plenty of candidates in the primaries even if some of them have questionable views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcZJF81jt4w

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, it's sort of important that the person who is elected to office as leader of a self-proclaimed democracy has won more of the votes from the people than his only rival. Not in America, it appears.

Depp wrote: »

no, they're mereley suggesting that conceived notion that trump is going to come out and ban gays while hillary would have been such a great friend to the lgbt community being peddled by laci green and the likes is an absolute falsehood.

They would follow the party line which for gay people, there is a clear difference between the two.

One sees them as equals, the other as sick people.

retro:electro

Depp wrote: »

are we seeing some revisionism here? so anyone who voted no on the marriage equality referendum arent all just nasty homophobes anymore? because thats what the consencus on here seemed to be anyway

You're assuming that only straight people voted no. Are gay people who voted no homophobic too?

lawlolawl

TheOven wrote: »

http://time.com/4401600/gop-platform-contemplates-anti-porn-provision-embrace-of-conversion-therapy/

People aren't honestly trying to pretend gay people are better off with Trump than Clinton.

That the same GOP that pretty much rejected Donald as a candidate from day one?

lawlolawl wrote: »

That the same GOP that pretty much rejected Donald as a candidate from day one?

Would LGBT rights be better under Clinton or Trump? Many are with him.

It's amazing the statements from the world leaders this evening- so guarded.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/world-leaders-react-to-donald-trumps-us-election-victory

mansize

robindch wrote: »

Huh? I am pointing out the simple, if sad, mathematical fact that 50% of any population is dumber on any given issue than the other 50%.

That said, it is difficult to know how to reply to people who believe it's a good idea to a rage-filled, sociopathic sexual predator access to nuclear weapons - especially if the reason seems to be nothing more than a fleeting wish to spite others.

A bit more respect all around, particular from DT, would go a long way. But I suspect it's too late for that now.

Dumb is a derogatory pejorative word

rob316 wrote: »

God bless you and your lack of knowledge of how the american electoral process works.

Yes, because we all have time to sit around following every Wikipedia link concerning all the idiosyncracies, contradictions, procedural differences, regional variations and outdated elitist foibles of the Electoral College.

It's fantastic, though, that you evidently have the time to do this.

tomwaterford

Depp wrote: »

are we seeing some revisionism here? so anyone who voted no on the marriage equality referendum arent all just nasty homophobes anymore? because thats what the consencus on here seemed to be anyway

Not quite sure what your attempting to imply here?

TheOven wrote: »

They would follow the party line which for gay people, there is a clear difference between the two.

One sees them as equals, the other as sick people.

also find it strange that a candidate so deeply funded by the saudi royal family is so well supported in the lgbt community.

bearing in mind that for the saudis the ''party line'' as regards homosexuality is still to throw them off the roof of a tall building.

Depp wrote: »

also find it strange that a candidate so deeply funded by the saudi royal family is so well supported in the lgbt community.

bearing in mind that for the saudis the ''party line'' as regards homosexuality is still to throw them off the roof of a tall building.

Yes, Clinton would have started implementing sharia law

I thought I was hearing the dumbest thing all election today, somehow you have managed to be part of breaking that record not just once, but twice in a single day.

You cant even manage to defend conversion therapy. The gays should be thankful they arent being killed I suppose.

lawlolawl

TheOven wrote: »

Would LGBT rights be better under Clinton or Trump? Many are with him.

Is there any video evidence of Trump being against gay marriage out there?

Bonaparted

Trump with no political machine, with no right to win the GOP primary's, never mind a presidential race, beat the Republican and then Democratic establishments. Fighting off a hostile media he eventually won the US election and defeated the might of the entire Clinton machine with a cooms strategy that involved spending little in advertising, alienating women and insulting minorities.

Remarkable.

https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/796467942435262464

lawlolawl wrote: »

Is there any video evidence of Trump being against gay marriage out there?

More avoiding. You dance around it but why wont anyone come out and say that Trump with the GOP behind him is the best option for LGBT rights?

A Dub in Glasgo

buried

I'm actually enraged with myself, I won over 400 quid on a football accumulator bet the weekend, still have the money in my account, was going to throw half of it on a Trump win yesterday at 12/1 and didn't bother. Knowing my fecking luck, if I had put the bet on, Clinton would have walked it too

tomwaterford

Bonaparted wrote: »

Trump with no political machine, with no right to win the GOP primary's, never mind a presidential race, beat the Republican and then Democratic establishments. Fighting off a hostile media he eventually won the US election and defeated the might of the entire Clinton machine with a cooms strategy that involved spending little in advertising, alienating women and insulting minorities.

Remarkable.

Tbf....you couldn't make it up and if saw it in a film....youd dismiss it as stupid and unrealistic :pac: :pac:

Manic Moran

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder why more states don't have a system where electoral college votes can be split based on the % of votes in each state.

If you get 60% of the vote, you get 60% of the EC votes (with the overall number of EC votes being proportional to the population of the state. I appreciate that the maths isn't easy with states that have only 3 or 4 EC votes, but it could be approximated, and would seem more fair to me at least.

It seems strange that in a state like Florida with the vote evenly split, all the EC votes go one way. Likewise in California, Trump got 33% of the vote - why not give him 33% of the EC votes.

That way you still completely ignore a state at your peril, but it would more closely reflect the voting in each state at the end.

I don't know whether this would help one party more than the other in general, or if it has been discussed before either.

It's an idea which has been proposed, and I'm not sure what the practical effect would be, but I'm not sure I can see how it would actually pass.
Let's take my State of California. It is basically run by Democrats. Every now and then we have a Republican governor or treasurer or something, but we're very solidly and definitely 'blue.' Given its current 55 EC votes, our one state alone provides almost 20% of the votes needed to win the presidential election. Further, given that it is basically solid blue, this means that as long as Democratic-run California can eke out even a tiny majority in favour of the Democratic candidate, that's a huge boost that can be given to 'their' candidate for President in the national contest. What is the incentive for the Democratic government of California to split its EC vote and then reduce the chances of their Presidential candidate winning? You'd basically be asking them to voluntarily give a significant portion of their votes to the opposition. I just don't see that happening.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

I disagree, and refer to my earlier post on this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101613112&postcount=1459

That's a terrible argument.

"Why would a politician ever bother with sparse old Indiana"

Er, Hillary barely bothered with Indiana.

How did her Kentucky rally go? About as good as Trump's campaign in Massachusetts I'd say.

Politicians already ignore certain states, for all intents and purposes. Whatever campaign there is for Hillary in Alaska is run by local obsessives.

The difference is that they already feel represented by -someone-. The high-population centers of CA, NY, MA etc already have a champion. The total BFE states like Alaska have theirs. But who would fight for the small, apparently swingable state of Wisconsin which has a moderate city combined with farms?

Trump also said climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese to undermine the US.

Cringe.

TheOven wrote: »

Yes, Clinton would have started implementing sharia law

I thought I was hearing the dumbest thing all election today, somehow you have managed to be part of breaking that record not just once, but twice in a single day.

You cant even manage to defend conversion therapy. The gays should be thankful they arent being killed I suppose.

never said she would was merely saying its interesting to see where the money is coming from!

also dont see how you're getting at me defending conversion therapy? havent said anything of the sort and for the record its a disgusting practice.

similar to the opening line of your post, do you believe pence is going to try and introduce mandatory conversion therapy?

lawlolawl

TheOven wrote: »

More avoiding.

So there isn't video evidence is what you are telling me? There is with Hillary.

The only thing Trump has said on the issue is that it should be decided at a state by state level. But that got turned into him being homophobic somehow.

Unlike the video of Hillary saying she didn't support gay marriage at all. That's fine.

hannible the cannible

Bonaparted wrote: »

Trump with no political machine, with no right to win the GOP primary's, never mind a presidential race, beat the Republican and then Democratic establishments. Fighting off a hostile media he eventually won the US election and defeated the might of the entire Clinton machine with a cooms strategy that involved spending little in advertising, alienating women and insulting minorities.

Remarkable.

Yes , it's fantastic isn't it

Depp wrote: »

never said she would was merely saying its interesting to see where the money is coming from!

also dont see how you're getting at me defending conversion therapy? havent said anything of the sort and for the record its a disgusting practice.

similar to the opening line of your post, do you believe pence is going to try and introduce mandatory conversion therapy?

The GOP supports parents using conversion therapy, a practice which is ineffective and is just abuse, on their children. It won't be mandatory but they support the choice of parents to abuse LGBT minors.

The democrats have no mention of throwing gay people off buildings in theirs.