[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[TheIronRuler]

edit: f*ck it. Derailed. Redacted. Left this.

 

[The Lunatic]

Because Hillary voted for the pro-LGBT side, becoming pro-LGBT and never betrayed that. I voted for pro-LGBT Hillary.

Your argument is that Hillary is anti-LGBT, and Trump is pro-LGBT, but the facts do not support these claims, as their actions have proven the opposite of your claims, especially their actions over the last decade.

Feel free to give me a challenge though. These have been easy.

It's simply denying reality to not accept Hillary's history of being anti-LGBT.
I never said Trump was Pro-LGBT. Just that he has enacted a few things that are.

Denying reality? Right-wingers sure do like to project.

You're going to need to provide evidence to support your claims.

Below are a collection of quotes from Hillary Clinton, which if you voted for Clinton, you must 100% believe and support.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
This is before we even get to the awful things she's said about AIDs and HIV.

 

[Saelune]

Because Hillary voted for the pro-LGBT side, becoming pro-LGBT and never betrayed that. I voted for pro-LGBT Hillary.

Your argument is that Hillary is anti-LGBT, and Trump is pro-LGBT, but the facts do not support these claims, as their actions have proven the opposite of your claims, especially their actions over the last decade.

Feel free to give me a challenge though. These have been easy.

It's simply denying reality to not accept Hillary's history of being anti-LGBT.
I never said Trump was Pro-LGBT. Just that he has enacted a few things that are.

Denying reality? Right-wingers sure do like to project.

You're going to need to provide evidence to support your claims.

Below are a collection of quotes from Hillary Clinton, which if you voted for Clinton, you must 100% believe and support.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
This is before we even get to the awful things she's said about AIDs and HIV.

Citation needed. I want proof, and dates.

 

[Saelune]

Trump in 2000:



Trump 2016:

 

[Marik2]

I honestly think donald would have been president if the internet was more powerful in the early 2000s.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

 

[Saelune]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

 

[Saelune]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

 

[Saelune]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-tells-u-s-embassies-they-can-t-fly-n1015236

Trump is anti-LGBT.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

 

[Saelune]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Nah, you were making up a bunch of hypotheticals to change my point because the reality of the situation isn't one you want to acknowledge. You were the one trying to move the goalposts and I put it right back.

Make your choice.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Nah, you were making up a bunch of hypotheticals to change my point because the reality of the situation isn't one you want to acknowledge. You were the one trying to move the goalposts and I put it right back.

Make your choice.

Please tell me in what way my hypothetical changed your point? No goal posts were moved.

I've been saying all along that different people have different issues that they may find more or less important to them, and that when they vote they will vote for whatever politician best represents their most core issue. Sometimes other issues that are also important to them will not be represented by that politician.

All that my hypothetical situation did was remove your bias against Trump, who I know you would never vote for, and instead add a candidate that campaigns for racial equality, something that I know you do advocate for. This creates the situation I described previously in this thread, having 2 sides which are both issues that you care about, but having to only support one issue. How do you choose?

You yourself said that anyone who votes against pro-LGBT candidates is actively against LGBT rights, "you are what you vote for." One can easily say the same is true with racism. Anyone who votes against a candidate whose platform is based on racial equality is a racist.

Between these 2 platforms which would you choose, and would making a choice between them cause you to be labeled a bigot because you would be showing that you care about one of these platforms less than the other?

I know answering this question makes you uncomfortable. That's entirely the point, because it's something that voters like me have to deal with every time we vote. You're completely in the democrat camp, but I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and when choosing between a democrat or republican candidate exactly half of the platforms I care about get screwed regardless who gets elected. That doesn't mean that I don't care about those platforms, but I don't get to have my cake and eat it.

I didn't change anything about your point except give you two positions that you care about and tried to force you to pick between them, because that's the reality for most people during elections.

So now by your own logic you have the choice, you can be a homophobe, or you can be a racist, or you can admit that people are more complex than which political party they vote for in any particular election.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes, the Trump administration's attacks on trans people (or LGBT people in general) is reminiscent of attacks on PoC, using the same arguments and based on the same motives.

Yes, voting for Clinton would be voting for someone who'd expressed very anti-LGBT sentiments in the past. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, given it was sometime ago. You expect progressives to progress, even the best candidates who are of a certain age have skeletons in their closets.

A more interesting question would be did voting for Obama mean you support drone strikes? I'm going with "yes" with that, at least to an extent. Mind you, assuming GOP politicians would do the same, you've little choice in the matter, but there is some responsibility that goes with that vote.

 

[Silvanus]

Below are a collection of quotes from Hillary Clinton, which if you voted for Clinton, you must 100% believe and support.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
"Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
This is before we even get to the awful things she's said about AIDs and HIV.

Right, yes, but these are all from... over a decade ago, right?

Her presidential campaigns, and recent history, are supportive. There's no reasonable case to be made that the two candidates in the 2016 election were equivalent on this issue.

 

[Saelune]

...

Hold on, do you literally believe that a given person must necessarily hold 100% of the platform positions of either the Democrats or the Republicans? Or that if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you must necessarily hold 100% of that party's platform?

Does that mean if you're pro-2nd amendment you must also necessarily be pro-life? How does that make any sense?

And fuck, do I just support literally everything? I vote for Democrats about 85% of the time, Republicans about 10% of the time (usually for certain state level positions where the Democrat candidate fielded is shitty), and third party the rest of the time. Does that mean I simultaneously hold both positions on every issue that the Dems and GOP conflict on?

It means that you have to pick which of your views is more and less important than each other based on the candidates given. I do not 100% agree with Hillary, but when I voted for her, I was voting for 100% of her policies. I cant pretend to pick and choose by that point. But then the concept of compromise is a lost one.

As for your example, it doesn't, but that's a conflict of Republican hypocrisy. I know you want to 'gotcha' me with that, but you just 'gotcha'd' Republicans who claim to be pro-life, but aren't.

Does that mean that your stance is that LGBT rights should be everyone's highest priority at all times and anyone who disagrees with that is a bigot?

My stance is that you are what you vote for, and the choices was between being pro-equal rights, or anti-equal rights. That voting for Trump meant supporting bigotry against LGBT people, women, non-whites, and non-Christians, or voting for Hillary and supporting at 'worst' a continuation of Obama's policies which were at 'worst' not anti-LGBT, women, non-whites and non-Christians.

If it ever comes down to one side supporting 'Kill all black people' and the other being 'kill all white people', then I suggest we openly rebel. But that isnt what it was, was it?

Imagine, there's a political race somewhere in the south, maybe for a seat on the house of representatives, maybe senate, maybe mayor or governor, or district attorney, doesn't matter.

One candidate is running on a pro-LGBT platform. The other candidate is is a black southern baptist (who is ant-LGBT due to religious reasons) who is running on a platform that is pro-black rights and racial equality.

If you vote for the black candidate campaigning for black rights are you a homophobic bigot for not supporting the LGBT community?

If you vote for the pro-LGBT candidate are you a racist for not supporting black rights and racial equality?

If you are what you vote for in this scenario then you're either a homophobic bigot or a racist, but you can't be neither according to your black and white stance.

Imagine there is a white supremacist who makes his second in command a notorious anti-LGBT person, who rapes women, makes sexual remarks about children, including his own daughter, who encourages White Supremacists to be violent, who lies about everything, even things he doesn't need to, who condemns others for things he himself does and worse, who puts incompetent CEOs as the head of everything he can, who believes that criticism of him is equal to treason, who sides with the nation's notorious enemies and opposes the country's allies, who tears down healthcare for everyone cause it has some black guy's name attached or a woman who is the complete opposite of that.

Make your fucking choice.

Good re-direct but you didn't answer the question, and I imagine it's because it proves your ideology to be untenable.

Nah, you were making up a bunch of hypotheticals to change my point because the reality of the situation isn't one you want to acknowledge. You were the one trying to move the goalposts and I put it right back.

Make your choice.

Please tell me in what way my hypothetical changed your point? No goal posts were moved.

I've been saying all along that different people have different issues that they may find more or less important to them, and that when they vote they will vote for whatever politician best represents their most core issue. Sometimes other issues that are also important to them will not be represented by that politician.

All that my hypothetical situation did was remove your bias against Trump, who I know you would never vote for, and instead add a candidate that campaigns for racial equality, something that I know you do advocate for. This creates the situation I described previously in this thread, having 2 sides which are both issues that you care about, but having to only support one issue. How do you choose?

You yourself said that anyone who votes against pro-LGBT candidates is actively against LGBT rights, "you are what you vote for." One can easily say the same is true with racism. Anyone who votes against a candidate whose platform is based on racial equality is a racist.

Between these 2 platforms which would you choose, and would making a choice between them cause you to be labeled a bigot because you would be showing that you care about one of these platforms less than the other?

I know answering this question makes you uncomfortable. That's entirely the point, because it's something that voters like me have to deal with every time we vote. You're completely in the democrat camp, but I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and when choosing between a democrat or republican candidate exactly half of the platforms I care about get screwed regardless who gets elected. That doesn't mean that I don't care about those platforms, but I don't get to have my cake and eat it.

I didn't change anything about your point except give you two positions that you care about and tried to force you to pick between them, because that's the reality for most people during elections.

So now by your own logic you have the choice, you can be a homophobe, or you can be a racist, or you can admit that people are more complex than which political party they vote for in any particular election.

When voting between two options, you have to decide what you are more for and more against. It is that simple. If both options are so heinous, then you need to do something else to oppose both, but most people wont.

If it was between voting for killing all black people, or voting against LGBT in the military, I wont sacrifice black people.

But no one voting for Trump is pro-LGBT rights, because voting for Trump is voting for bigotry, cut and dry. Because it wasnt between two bad choices. It was between one bad choice and one good one.

So unless you're going to work to overthrow the entire system, make your choice.

Yes, the Trump administration's attacks on trans people (or LGBT people in general) is reminiscent of attacks on PoC, using the same arguments and based on the same motives.

Yes, voting for Clinton would be voting for someone who'd expressed very anti-LGBT sentiments in the past. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, given it was sometime ago. You expect progressives to progress, even the best candidates who are of a certain age have skeletons in their closets.

A more interesting question would be did voting for Obama mean you support drone strikes? I'm going with "yes" with that, at least to an extent. Mind you, assuming GOP politicians would do the same, you've little choice in the matter, but there is some responsibility that goes with that vote.

Voting for the American President is voting for military attacks on other countries. Bernie wasn't going to change that. He might have tried to make effort to change that, but then so did Obama. Obama's support of Drone Strikes was Obama's opposition to endangering more American Soldiers. Trump on the other hand just made it more dangerous for soldiers of both sides.

 

[Leg End]

But no one voting for Trump is pro-LGBT rights, because voting for Trump is voting for bigotry, cut and dry. Because it wasnt between two bad choices. It was between one bad choice and one good one.

You know this and similar items were stupidly popular during the 2016 election cycle, right? Your opinion is not fact, and there were people across the spectrum that saw the way you do, that but inverted, and thought that both big candidates were actual garbage.

Spoiler

 

[Saelune]

But no one voting for Trump is pro-LGBT rights, because voting for Trump is voting for bigotry, cut and dry. Because it wasnt between two bad choices. It was between one bad choice and one good one.

You know this and similar items were stupidly popular during the 2016 election cycle, right? Your opinion is not fact, and there were people across the spectrum that saw the way you do, that but inverted, and thought that both big candidates were actual garbage.

Spoiler

Fact: Trump is a bigot who ran on a platform of bigotry, and people were willing to vote for him anyways.

 

[Worgen]

I honestly think donald would have been president if the internet was more powerful in the early 2000s.

Didn't he try to get on the democratic ticket in like 2004?

 

[The Lunatic]

Right, yes, but these are all from... over a decade ago, right?

Her presidential campaigns, and recent history, are supportive. There's no reasonable case to be made that the two candidates in the 2016 election were equivalent on this issue.

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.