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

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

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.

And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

 

[The Lunatic]

And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

Most politicians don't have the poor history Hillary does in regards to LGBT issues.

But, in general I'd say expecting people who have believed things for 50+ years to suddenly have seen the light, and yet still keep making gaffs in regards to the issue is being unrealistic.

 

[Saelune]

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.

So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

 

[Saelune]

And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

Most politicians don't have the poor history Hillary does in regards to LGBT issues.

But, in general I'd say expecting people who have believed things for 50+ years to suddenly have seen the light, and yet still keep making gaffs in regards to the issue is being unrealistic.

You know this applies to Trump too, right?

 

[The Lunatic]

So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

You know this applies to Trump too, right?

I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

 

[Kwak]

And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

Most politicians don't have the poor history Hillary does in regards to LGBT issues.

Apart from the ones currently in power you mean?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

You didn't say you didn't vote against Trump, which means voting for Hillary, because any vote not for Hillary, even not voting at all, was a vote for Trump. Which means your politico-spiritual Nazi index is definitely non-zero, and since politico-spiritual Nazi index is binary, your index number is 1. Which is supported by your overall Agreeability Value of less than 1, and positive Outspokenness Ratio.

 

[Saelune]

I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

You didn't say you didn't vote against Trump, which means voting for Hillary, because any vote not for Hillary, even not voting at all, was a vote for Trump. Which means your politico-spiritual Nazi index is definitely non-zero, and since politico-spiritual Nazi index is binary, your index number is 1. Which is supported by your overall Agreeability Value of less than 1, and positive Outspokenness Ratio.

For a second I thought you were being serious, in which case I was actually about to arguably 'defend' Lunatic. I am aware they are from the UK and thus could not vote even if they wanted to. However, The Lunatic is firmly of far-right views in line with Trump.

 

[Saelune]

So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

You know this applies to Trump too, right?

I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

You literally did not. You claimed Hillary said specific quotes. I then told you to cite these quotes, and you literally did not even try.

You support many of the same views Trump does and constantly defend Trump, his allies, his supporters, and criticize, often unfairly, his opposition and opponents.

You have given me no reason to believe that if you could have voted, that it would have been for anyone but Trump. I also think you just like pissing off left-wingers for the sake of pissing off left-wingers.

 

[Saelune]

So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

No Evidence isnt Evidence

Oh, no evidence is evidence, but in this case it is evidence of false claims and disingenuousness.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

 

[Saelune]

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.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Hey, Silvanus, would it bother you to have equal rights even if the people giving them to us didn't want to?

 

[Silvanus]

Hey, Silvanus, would it bother you to have equal rights even if the people giving them to us didn't want to?

Well, it would bother me a little to know those in power-- who are supposedly ruling in my best interests-- are personally uninvested in my wellbeing.

But it wouldn't bother me nearly as much as those in power directly working against my best interests, as the Republicans and UK Conservatives do.

 

[Agema]

Well, it would bother me a little to know those in power-- who are supposedly ruling in my best interests-- are personally uninvested in my wellbeing.

Institutions, and the people who run them, are almost entirely unconcerned with the wellbeing of individuals, at least at the level of any one specific individual. I think of every workplace I've ever been in, and (assuming you're reasonably personable and competent) you're valued by your colleagues, your boss, and maybe a bit further. But at some point after that, you're just a small, not very important and easily replaceable cog in a big machine.

The people who run things tend to care that the machine works as a whole, and don't give much of a damn about its components: you can be chewed up and spat you out so long the machine does what they want it to. Some in political power undoubtedly do think the function of the machine is to look after its own people... but even then they might have some strange ideas about what that means.

 

[Silvanus]

Institutions, and the people who run them, are almost entirely unconcerned with the wellbeing of individuals, at least at the level of any one specific individual. I think of every workplace I've ever been in, and (assuming you're reasonably personable and competent) you're valued by your colleagues, your boss, and maybe a bit further. But at some point after that, you're just a small, not very important and easily replaceable cog in a big machine.

The people who run things tend to care that the machine works as a whole, and don't give much of a damn about its components: you can be chewed up and spat you out so long the machine does what they want it to. Some in political power undoubtedly do think the function of the machine is to look after its own people... but even then they might have some strange ideas about what that means.

There's a rather large difference between technocratic indifference and prejudiced hostility.

 

[Agema]

There's a rather large difference between technocratic indifference and prejudiced hostility.

In a way. But the end effect of the two can be negligibly different depending on circumstances. One might suggest, for instance, that someone like Donald Trump is not particularly bigotted against various groups on a personal level, but it is technocratically expedient for him to act like it in order to run the country the way he wants.

 

[Saelune]

There's a rather large difference between technocratic indifference and prejudiced hostility.

In a way. But the end effect of the two can be negligibly different depending on circumstances. One might suggest, for instance, that someone like Donald Trump is not particularly bigotted against various groups on a personal level, but it is technocratically expedient for him to act like it in order to run the country the way he wants.

I gave up on trying to reason that Trump is not bigoted, just apathetic, but no. Trump is a bigot. He might be greedy enough to accept money from those he hates, but he is a bigot.

 

[The Lunatic]

You literally did not. You claimed Hillary said specific quotes. I then told you to cite these quotes, and you literally did not even try.

You support many of the same views Trump does and constantly defend Trump, his allies, his supporters, and criticize, often unfairly, his opposition and opponents.

You have given me no reason to believe that if you could have voted, that it would have been for anyone but Trump. I also think you just like pissing off left-wingers for the sake of pissing off left-wingers.

Nobody else in the thread is denying what Clinton has said about the LGBT community.
If you're willing to hold opinions which are counter to evidence, it's on you to prove them.

Google it.

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.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Yeah, I guess Garry Johnson or any other third party candidates just don't exist.

If LGBT matters are so important to you, you should vote for a candidate who represents that, not somebody like Clinton for being the "Least Worst" of two people most likely to be president.

 

[Saelune]

You literally did not. You claimed Hillary said specific quotes. I then told you to cite these quotes, and you literally did not even try.

You support many of the same views Trump does and constantly defend Trump, his allies, his supporters, and criticize, often unfairly, his opposition and opponents.

You have given me no reason to believe that if you could have voted, that it would have been for anyone but Trump. I also think you just like pissing off left-wingers for the sake of pissing off left-wingers.

Nobody else in the thread is denying what Clinton has said about the LGBT community.
If you're willing to hold opinions which are counter to evidence, it's on you to prove them.

Google it.

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.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Yeah, I guess Garry Johnson or any other third party candidates just don't exist.

If LGBT matters are so important to you, you should vote for a candidate who represents that, not somebody like Clinton for being the "Least Worst" of two people most likely to be president.

This post is you admitting you have nothing, surprising no one.