# Why is Trump a candidate?



## Yoshi Killer (Aug 21, 2016)

Did the USA collectively get a concussion or something?!?


----------



## Corrie (Aug 21, 2016)

He has money. 

Lots of it.


----------



## SolaireOfAstora (Aug 21, 2016)

Corrie said:


> He has money.
> 
> Lots of it.



Literally exactly what I was gonna say


----------



## Romaki (Aug 21, 2016)

He's successfully manipulating gullible people.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 21, 2016)

After the election, people will write entire books about it because it's a complex combination of things which led to this man being able to win the nomination of one of America's two political parties. It is interesting that so many people don't care about controversial things Trump _says_ and so many people don't care about controversial things Hillary Clinton _does_. People seem to only think about what they like about candidates and don't think about all the reasons not to like them.


----------



## Aquari (Aug 21, 2016)

he has money and he appeals to many racist and sexist bigots


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

I honestly believe Obama's actions lead to Trump winning the Republican nomination. Those who are sick of the corruption done by the Obama Administration (as well as Congress) would vote for Trump.

No, I don't like Trump, but I would rather have him than Obama at anytime.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I honestly believe Obama's actions lead to Trump winning the Republican nomination. Those who are sick of the corruption done by the Obama Administration (as well as Congress) would vote for Trump.
> 
> No, I don't like Trump, but I would rather have him than Obama at anytime.



Republicans had 17 candidates all of who bashed Obama at every possible opportunity. They did not have to collectively lose their minds and pick Trump to get someone different than Obama. The reason why Republicans got Trump is because instead of critiquing Obama's policy ideas and offering up alternative ideas, they repeatedly questioned his U.S. citizenship, his religion, his loyalty to the U.S., and they made his race an issue. Trump spews many of these same conspiracy theories that Republicans have been fed for the last 8 years, so it's no wonder he won the nomination.  To put things in perspective, Democrats hated Bush after his 8 years in office, but that didn't cause them to pick a total ass clown as their nominee.


----------



## Greninja (Aug 22, 2016)

I dream its all an act and he reveals he isnt racist or anything he just did this to bring all the racist people out of hiding


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> Republicans had 17 candidates all of who bashed Obama at every possible opportunity. They did not have to collectively lose their minds and pick Trump to get someone different than Obama. The reason why Republicans got Trump is because instead of critiquing Obama's policy ideas and offering up alternative ideas, they repeatedly questioned his U.S. citizenship, his religion, his loyalty to the U.S., and they made his race an issue. Trump spews many of these same conspiracy theories that Republicans have been fed for the last 8 years, so it's no wonder he won the nomination.  To put things in perspective, Democrats hated Bush after his 8 years in office, but that didn't cause them to pick a total ass clown as their nominee.



That last part you said is exactly what I believed about Obama. No, he wasn't like this back in 2008. He has become this kind of person because of the actions he has done in the past seven years. What's even worse is that even after all of these acts of corruption, many people viewed him positively. They just didn't care about his corruption when he was very corrupt.


----------



## pipty (Aug 22, 2016)

Everything in this world comes down to dollars and cents.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> That last part you said is exactly what I believed about Obama. No, he wasn't like this back in 2008. He has become this kind of person because of the actions he has done in the past seven years. What's even worse is that even after all of these acts of corruption, many people viewed him positively. They just didn't care about his corruption when he was very corrupt.



Care to name a few of those acts of corruption?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> Care to name a few of those acts of corruption?



Betrayal of Israel
The DREAM Act (and how he implemented it)
The IRS and NSA scandals
Violated states rights to implement Obamacare federally (as well as a few other policies like allowing people of one sex using the opposite sex restrooms in schools).
The Prison Swap of 2014

Passing laws that aren't compatible with the Bill of Rights is natural, but to throw out the constitution just to pass the laws or executive actions is clearly wrong.


----------



## zoetrope (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> Passing laws that aren't compatible with the Bill of Rights is natural, but to throw out the constitution just to pass the laws or executive actions is clearly wrong.



Examples of disregarding the constitution?


----------



## Antonio (Aug 22, 2016)

Because he ran for president and was voted to be the Republican Nominee, sadly.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> Betrayal of Israel
> The DREAM Act (and how he implemented it)
> The IRS and NSA scandals
> Violated states rights to implement Obamacare federally (as well as a few other policies like allowing people of one sex using the opposite sex restrooms in schools).
> ...



I don't know how he betrayed Isreal, but if he did somehow there's nothing corrupt or illegal about it. The president can choose which countries are considered our allies and which are not.

The DREAM Act isn't a law currently. If you're talking about DACA, I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires the president to round up and deport undocumented immigrants. As long as they don't cause trouble, I don't see the big deal.

I'll give you the IRS one even though there is no evidence currently that Obama was directly involved. The NSA thing isn't a scandal; it's part of the Patriot Act passed by Bush and Republicans have not tried to overturn it.

Obamacare has already been litigated several times in the Supreme Court and has been ruled constitutional. The bathroom thing has been decided on the state level so far. If anything, Republicans on the state level are violating the Constitution by denying people equal protection of the law based on their gender.

The prisoner swap may have been a bad idea, but I don't think there was anything illegal about it.

So there may have been one instance where the executive branch violated the constitution, but even then it was likely a rogue employee of the IRS rather than an order from Obama.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

zoetrope said:


> Examples of disregarding the constitution?



1. The DREAM Act did not pass in the Senate. However, Obama forcibly put the law in effect, thus violating the separation of powers.

2. The whole bathroom debate is one of the issues that should be dealt with the state and not taken to a federal level. Since picking sides to the bathroom debate (which includes locker rooms and showers) doesn't violate the first nine amendments, it should be a state thing. However, Obama failed to respect that and forced all 50 states to side with him on the bathroom debate for grade schools. It's not even a civil right.

I'll be okay if you support any of his leftist policies, but I'm only outraged that a slim majority supported his policies. If you're in office of any branch or any agency (including the EPA and lower courts), you have to stick to the constitution. That's how the American government goes.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

he's rich and there are a bunch of cpnservative racists in the us


----------



## LambdaDelta (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> 2. The whole bathroom debate is one of the issues that should be dealt with the state and not taken to a federal level.



honestly, no

this is such a "basic human rights" issue, that having it vary on a state-by-state basis, especially when passing or not would be purely based on how overly transphobic or not that state is, is complete ****ing bull****


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I don't know how he betrayed Isreal, but if he did somehow there's nothing corrupt or illegal about it. The president can choose which countries are considered our allies and which are not.
> 
> The DREAM Act isn't a law currently. If you're talking about DACA, I don't see anything in the Constitution that requires the president to round up and deport undocumented immigrants. As long as they don't cause trouble, I don't see the big deal.
> 
> ...



There's a lot to argue with on, so I'll try to post as simple as possible. Keep in mind that only some of these points are related to the constitution.

The alliance with Israel has nothing to do with the constitution. However, he refused to turn down the Iran nuclear deal, which is a threat to Israel.

There is nothing in the constitution that requires deporting undocumented immigrants and you are right about it. However, it's bad for America to actually let people in illegally and allowing them get citizen rights through descendants. Especially if it's for welfare.

For the NSA Part, Obama's NSA spied on Americans. Bush's NSA spied on foreign terror groups. But the NSA was created during the McCarthyist Era.

I may disagree with Obamacare and the Transgender Rights to use opposite sex restrooms (personally, I think restrooms and locker rooms should seperated based on biological sex rather than gender identity), but what I'm complaining about is that he wanted to force all 50 states to implement them. He didn't respect states' rights on that.

The prisoner swap may not be related to the constitution, but those people he released were somehow linked to the 9/11 attack in some way. And he's setting them free to let a traitor return back to America.

Let's see how bad Trump is compared to Obama if he takes office.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> 2. The whole bathroom debate is one of the issues that should be dealt with the state and not taken to a federal level. Since picking sides to the bathroom debate (which includes locker rooms and showers) doesn't violate the first nine amendments, it should be a state thing. However, Obama failed to respect that and forced all 50 states to side with him on the bathroom debate for grade schools. It's not even a civil right.


There are 27 amendments, not 9. Bathroom bills specifically violate the 14th amendment.


Spoiler: Here's the text:






> Amendment XIV
> 
> Section 1.
> 
> ...






The first section specifically says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which means no state can pass laws restricting public restroom access to people based on their gender because that would mean denying a person equal protection of the laws. Once the cases get to the Supreme Court, they will likely strike down any laws restricting bathroom access (especially after Clinton gets to appoint a justice if she wins).



Apple2012 said:


> Let's see how bad Trump is compared to Obama if he takes office.


I'd rather just imagine what his presidency would look like hypothetically and elect Clinton instead.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> There are 27 amendments, not 9. Bathroom bills specifically violate the 14th amendment.
> 
> The first section specifically says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which means no state can pass laws restricting public restroom access to people based on their gender because that would mean denying a person equal protection of the laws. Once the cases get to the Supreme Court, they will likely strike down any laws restricting bathroom access (especially after Clinton gets to appoint a justice if she wins).
> 
> I'd rather just imagine what his presidency would look like hypothetically and elect Clinton instead.



I support separation of sexes in bathrooms mainly to prevent sex crimes happening in commercial bathrooms. Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes. I'm more for the right to privacy.


----------



## zoetrope (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I support separation of sexes in bathrooms mainly to prevent sex crimes happening in commercial bathrooms. Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes. I'm more for the right to privacy.



Sorry to be 'that person' again, but can you back that up?  I mean, do you REALLY think a lot of people will go out of their way to act transgender in order to assault someone?  I hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to assault someone in a bathroom I really don't think they care whether they're allowed in there or not.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

zoetrope said:


> Sorry to be 'that person' again, but can you back that up?  I mean, do you REALLY think a lot of people will go out of their way to act transgender in order to assault someone?  I hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to assault someone in a bathroom I really don't think they care whether they're allowed in there or not.



This time, I'm not going to argue. You can't get me to change my political beliefs. When I side conservative on one issue, I'm set in stone. Yeah, I would use the 14th Amendment to prevent racial discrimination, but I wouldn't use that same amendment to remove sex restrictions in restrooms. Of course I wouldn't hate transgenders, but it's not even the transgenders I want to keep out.

But I can say this much. Rape isn't the only sex crime out there.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes.



last I checked there has been absolutely no proof of this, and has just been literal transsexual fear mongering

plus if you say that, then shouldn't cisgendered homosexuals have to use the opposite gender restrooms so they don't assault people of the same gender in their normal restrooms? what about bisexuals? by this logic they should be considered a danger to anyone in any restroom. not to mention if the person is trans-gay/bi


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

LambdaDelta said:


> last I checked there has been absolutely no proof of this, and has just been literal transsexual fear mongering
> 
> plus if you say that, then shouldn't cisgendered homosexuals have to use the opposite gender restrooms so they don't assault people of the same gender in their normal restrooms? what about bisexuals? by this logic they should be considered a danger to anyone in any restroom. not to mention if the person is trans-gay/bi



I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.

I may agree with many civil rights, but the right for transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms, that's one civil right I have to disagree with. I don't get why people started this debate when this is something that should stay out of politics.


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

LambdaDelta said:


> honestly, no
> 
> this is such a "basic human rights" issue, that having it vary on a state-by-state basis, especially when passing or not would be purely based on how overly transphobic or not that state is, is complete ****ing bull****



This. I just can't even grasp how "bathroom privilege" like this can NOT be a human rights issue. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but if it's not up to dealing with this stuff then y'all might want to look into that.. and catch up with 2016.

Yikes.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

amanda1983 said:


> This. I just can't even grasp how "bathroom privilege" like this can NOT be a human rights issue. I don't know the ins and outs of the US constitution, but if it's not up to dealing with this stuff then y'all might want to look into that.. and catch up with 2016.
> 
> Yikes.



It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.



wow

uh

hold on

I'm trying to wrap my head around that this is an actual serious post

I just


Spoiler


----------



## Liamslash (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.
> 
> I may agree with many civil rights, but the right for transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms, that's one civil right I have to disagree with. I don't get why people started this debate when this is something that should stay out of politics.



If someone feels like they are male/female let them use whatever bathroom they want. Transgender people don't even fancy the same gender. If they are born female and are transgender, more often then not they don't even fancy males. They fancy females as they identify as male.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I support separation of sexes in bathrooms mainly to prevent sex crimes happening in commercial bathrooms. Striking down sex restrictions would lead to more sex crimes. I'm more for the right to privacy.



yeah because all trans people are sex offenders obviously and letting them into the right bathroom would make you normal cis people victims ... /s

- - - Post Merge - - -



Liamslash said:


> If someone feels like they are male/female let them use whatever bathroom they want. Transgender people don't even fancy the same gender. If they are born female and are transgender, more often then not they don't even fancy males. They fancy females as they identify as male.



trans ppl can be gay lmao

and what's up with your attitude that makes it sound like gay people are more "dangerous" in that sense than straight ppl.....


----------



## Iwaseleanor (Aug 22, 2016)

He uses something called Populism. Appealing to the average American-The Christian white male.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.



trans women arent men pls leave


----------



## LambdaDelta (Aug 22, 2016)

HOT TAKE: gendered restrooms are a dated relic that need to go away


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.



First of all, trans women are women, not men. Nobody agrees with letting men in woman only spaces, nobody is advocating that. Nobody is violating anyone's right to privacy, people generally go into public bathrooms to do their business, wash their hands, and leave, why on earth is this such an issue?

I really dislike how trans people are so often brought up in discussion and argument in this manner, as if their rights are just a discussion point.





zoetrope said:


> Sorry to be 'that person' again, but can you back that up?  I mean, do you REALLY think a lot of people will go out of their way to act transgender in order to assault someone?  I hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to assault someone in a bathroom I really don't think they care whether they're allowed in there or not.



Also this. Sadly, people who are willing to break the law to assault someone are not going to stop just because a law states that they are not legally allowed in a certain bathroom anymore. It's awful, honestly, but it really has nothing at all to do with trans people, I'm pretty sure trans women aren't the ones assaulting people, they just want to take a piss.


----------



## Liamslash (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> yeah because all trans people are sex offenders obviously and letting them into the right bathroom would make you normal cis people victims ... /s
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



*more often then not *

Lol what do you mean? I'm sticking up for LGBT people what do you mean


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

LambdaDelta said:


> wow
> 
> uh
> 
> ...



I'm always serious when it comes to online political discussions. I don't even joke around. I'm also not simple-minded, drunk, high, mentally ill, or anything like that. I'm serious. I'm not even going to change my political opinions.

Anyway, let's anti-derail the thread and move back to why we elected Trump as the Republican nominee. Basically, he got in because of those who were angry at the Obama Administration. Of course, he did get help from racists and islamaphobes, but he also got help from the right-wingers that are tired of lies and hypocricies from the federal government, Republicans that hate Ted Cruz, and a couple of people that hate Hillary.


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I still choose to believe whatever I say is true. I hate to say, but the fear-mongering conservatives are correct.
> 
> I may agree with many civil rights, but the right for transgenders to use opposite sex restrooms, that's one civil right I have to disagree with. I don't get why people started this debate when this is something that should stay out of politics.



*fear mongering conservatives are correct in your opinion, if you please.



I am lucky to live in an area that respects the rights of all people to use whatever bathroom they find most appropriate. There have been some murmors of "what about.." from the local fear-mongering crowd (religious extremists, who'd have thunk it..) since the hoo-ha in the US hit the news.. but so far they've been quashed by sheer overwhelming evidence to the contrary of all fear claims. There is literally NO reliable evidence of increased negative outcomes as a result of allowing transgender etc people to use whatever bathroom they please, to me knowledge. Even the religious crowd around here acknowledges this, and I've seen stuff coming out of the US that indicates it's similar at least in some parts of the US.

Personally I'm still just cynically amused that so many people just *now* decided to take issue with which bathroom someone else uses.. what do y'all think people have been doing for as long as we've had bathrooms? Transgender people were being born and raised long before surgery and hormone injections became available to help physically transition.. the sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. It won't now either, even now that so many more people know that being trangender is a thing. Well, the sky won't fall unless the nutters (fear mongers) cause it to.

I have many friends who are transgender, gender fluid, or otherwise on the spectrum (as are we all but that's perhaps best left for another day). One friend was, when I met them, an absolutely gorgeous young woman. About my height so a bit above average for a woman, lovely to look at and and even lovelier personality. This person has now completed their transition and is, to any casual onlooker, male. With the hormone therapy they have a physical appearance that is still aesthetically pleasing - but I assure you, I would be surprised and possibily even scared (depending on their demeanor) to see someone who looks like them come into the female bathroom with the intent of using female facilities... this person could not currently pass as female if they tried - and they're not. Which is why I'd be surprised, as it would be very unlikely for a female-to-male transgender person to just waltz into the ladies loo. So either they've failed to notice, or something else is going on. And whatever gender they are, I'm calling for help as fast and as loud as I can and trying to keep myself safe.

For those that are concerned with "what's in their pants" and "what parts they were born with", I can only shake my head in confusion. I don't get it. That first concern is relevant when considering initmate relationships, and the latter *may* be relevant in certain circumstances .. but outside of those personal, private matters ... who the **** cares what genitals any individual has now, or had in the past? That's frankly the most concerning part about this whole thing to me. It's indicative of a fascination with other people's genitals I find unwholesome at best. I find it sickening to even think about "deciding" who can have access to which able-bodied bathroom, it's just.. so inappropriate I can't really fathom it.

Kinda like banning my black aboriginal family members from a caf? because they're black.. it's wrong, the kind of wrong I can't and won't accept.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Iwaseleanor said:


> He uses something called Populism. Appealing to the average American-The Christian white male.



You got it. But I personally believe everyone (no matter who they are) should have the same human rights and not additional rights for specific people. I don't believe in promotion of hatred or bigotry. Nobody should be treated as second-class citizens.

- - - Post Merge - - -



amanda1983 said:


> *fear mongering conservatives are correct in your opinion, if you please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I may have some beliefs you find crazy, but I'm not a hostile person in general. Personality-wise, I am a very nice person, but politically, I'm far-right by TBT's standards.


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> It's very ignorant to believe that the bathroom issue is a civil rights issue. What about womens' rights to privacy? By letting a man into the woman's restroom or women's locker rooms, you are basically violating their right to privacy. Sure, we can say that you are allowed to tell them your gender identity or not regardless of what you look like, but people can abuse the system. I would prefer to reverse progressivism than to go with it.



As a 32 year old woman I've see plenty of women's restrooms. Also seen a fair few men in those areas for various reasons ranging from stupid to potentially dangerous. I'm not counting male cleaners, either, or other staff who occasionally need to enter tjose areas.

.. Or the dads. My own included, many a time, as he needed to escort his daughters just as our mum did when required, he couldn't just take us to the men's, and parent/family facilities weren't around back then. Still aren't everywhere today, either.

Dads and female bathrooms has to be one of the most angst-filled topics I deal with as an early childhood educator. Little girls who've transitioned out of nappies can't always wait til a family facility is found. And I haven't met any families happy to have their daughter in the men's restroom, however careful dad/whomever may be.. that's just not appropriate. So I've actually spent a lot of time professionally considering all the angles in this exact vein. It's one of the most frequently asked questions I get working with toddlers, and these are not questions that should be shrugged off or treated lightly.

This is complex stuff. I'm just very confused as to why almost NONE of the (actual, RL) debate is dealing with any of the heavy stuff here. Instead it's all scare-mongering and fact checking. There's a lot of feelings and thoughts being shared.. but it just seems like the things that matter get ignored for the sensational or the stupendously wtf.

- - - Post Merge - - -

*when I work with toddlers, which I've done for several years, but I also work with kinder aged children, and babies. Just to clarify. Toileting concerns are naturally a big part of the job when working with toddlers. When I do, dads and female restrooms is a dilemma we take very seriously whenever it comes up (so, basically every family with a daughter or who knows a female child they might have care of during an outing etc)


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

Liamslash said:


> *more often then not *
> 
> Lol what do you mean? I'm sticking up for LGBT people what do you mean



i don't see why not being attracted to the same gender makes someone less likely as a sex offender tho. u are makign it sound like gay people are more dangerous than straight ppl in bathrooms which isnt rly cool since public bathrooms are supposed to be non sexual places and anyone who makes it sexual is an ******* ?? n implying that sga ppl are more dangerous or w/e in that sense inst supportive lmao


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> yeah because all trans people are sex offenders obviously and letting them into the right bathroom would make you normal cis people victims ... /s



I don't believe all transgendered people are sex offenders. I also don't see a correlation between sex offender and transgender. Same with homosexual.


----------



## Liamslash (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> i don't see why not being attracted to the same gender makes someone less likely as a sex offender tho. u are makign it sound like gay people are more dangerous than straight ppl in bathrooms which isnt rly cool since public bathrooms are supposed to be non sexual places and anyone who makes it sexual is an ******* ?? n implying that sga ppl are more dangerous or w/e in that sense inst supportive lmao



What? I'm implying that trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want.


----------



## oath2order (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> trans women arent men pls leave



I'm sorry but please don't speak for all trans women, some might identify as a trans woman some days and a male another day.

Side note


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

Liamslash said:


> What? I'm implying that trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want.



I see what you were going for, but do also see the aspects visibleghost raised. I guess the crucial difference between your intented implications and the unintended implications of some of your wording is where things came a bit unstuck. Not that YOU mean the implied things that the wording suggests; but that it is often used by though who absolutely DO mean those negative things mentioned.

Just food for thought. We're all learning as we go.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I don't believe all transgendered people are sex offenders. I also don't see a correlation between sex offender and transgender. Same with homosexual.


oh wow immediately you're being such a great ally gj ..... trans ppl are the gender they id as and letting us into the right bathroom isn't more risky than letting anyone into the bathrooms lmao



Liamslash said:


> What? I'm implying that trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want.


while also implying that thing abt sga ppl but  yhg w/e


----------



## Liamslash (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> oh wow immediately you're being such a great ally gj ..... trans ppl are the gender they id as and letting us into the right bathroom isn't more risky than letting anyone into the bathrooms lmao
> 
> 
> while also implying that thing abt sga ppl but  yhg w/e



I'm not implying everything, so being so triggered and realise when someone is defending people. Stop taking everything the wrong way and twisting my words, it's getting annoying.


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

Oh my gosh oath2order!!! My sister found that set of photos right when she and the rest of my family were leaving after dinner tonight. She passed it around after she caught her breath from laughing so much, and we all fell into fits of laughter in turn, then kept laughing as everyone else "got it", it was just that good! One of the best laughs I've had in ages!!!


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

Liamslash said:


> I'm not implying everything, so being so triggered and realise when someone is defending people. Stop taking everything the wrong way and twisting my words, it's getting annoying.



when will ppl learn what triggered actually means and use it in the right way

all i'm saying is that the way you worded it didn't make it sound all that great, it's cool if you don't mean what you wrote, i just wanted to let you know how it could be read and that it wasnt really super cool.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> oh wow immediately you're being such a great ally gj ..... trans ppl are the gender they id as and letting us into the right bathroom isn't more risky than letting anyone into the bathrooms lmao
> 
> 
> while also implying that thing abt sga ppl but  yhg w/e



Yep. Even if I support separation of sexes in restrooms, I never supported it to be against transgender. But I am against hatred and bigotry towards them. It doesn't matter who you are.


----------



## oath2order (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> oh wow immediately you're being such a great ally gj ..... trans ppl are the gender they id as and letting us into the right bathroom isn't more risky than letting anyone into the bathrooms lmao



You can't just go any complain about how the country is so discriminatory against the LGBTQIA+ community and then deride people for small progressive steps they make in their personal views.

Apple2012 is more conservative than most members here. Yet unlike most conservatives in the country, he actually supports trans people somewhat. And you know what? Given that there's an entire party of conservatives who *don't* support trans people at all, I think that you should probably cut back on the snarky "oh you're SUCH a great ally" comments. Mocking allies does nothing to help the cause.


----------



## Liamslash (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> when will ppl learn what triggered actually means and use it in the right way
> 
> all i'm saying is that the way you worded it didn't make it sound all that great, it's cool if you don't mean what you wrote, i just wanted to let you know how it could be read and that it wasnt really super cool.



Anything can be taken out of context and in the wrong way, I've had that done to me plenty of times. You are taking it out of context.


----------



## Trent the Paladin (Aug 22, 2016)

Guys this is a topic on Trump, please stay on target. If you folks would like to discuss bathrooms, make a topic please.


----------



## Liamslash (Aug 22, 2016)

Tom said:


> Guys this is a topic on Trump, please stay on target. If you folks would like to discuss bathrooms, make a topic please.



It's the same thing because he's a pile of ****


----------



## moonford (Aug 22, 2016)

How did this go from "Why is Trump a candidate" to "Things transgender people have to put up with"?

Trump is a candidate because he wants to make America great again (fall apart, even more), so he's going to do so in his way, the wrong way, even though America has never been great. tbh.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

I know Trump is a bad choice, but if I had to choose between Clinton and Trump, I'm going with Trump. Here's why:

1. Obama was in office for eight years. In the past 64 years, we had Republicans and Democrats taking turns every eight years. It's eight years Republican and eight years Democrat. The only anomaly was between 1976 and 1992, where a Democrat had four years and the Republicans have 12 years. Do we need a Democrat hold office for another four years?

2. I am naturally conservative, so I would automatically support the Republican candidate, even if it's Trump or Cruz.

3. Obama has done a very bad job in office (even if many of you disagree with me on this), and I feel that Hillary would continue the work Obama has done. This was the same with George Bush and John McCain.

4. When Trump does something bad, he makes himself look like he did it. When Hillary does it, she tries to hide the evidence (like the whole e-mail scandal). I would not vote a liar.

Yes, I know we're upset that Trump got in the race, but if people chose to vote him, it's their choice. A couple of them even supported him with logic. Yeah, I would prefer someone else, but since we're left with him, I have no choice. But I won't agree with him on everything.


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

Sorry for my part in the off topic (s?). 

Back to Trump : I think he just was the man around when that perfect storm of social/political/economic was coming to a head after the gfc fallout. People like easy answers, clear boundaries, and patriotism, and having a "strong" leader when the world looks shaky. When combined with both smooth sales pitches AND total wtf bald-faced nonsensical bull****, in a man coming into big-league politics straight from the business world (where he has been a failure and international laughing stock, often at the same time, for virtually his entire business life, mind, but that just adds to the spectacle of it all).. well, another man could have made it this far with similar credentials (sans the ridiculous business resum?, natch), but definitely not with the degree of controversy that the Trump brings to things. This wtf-ery is all on him.

Americans being keen to vote extreme nutcases* into power surprises me not at all, sadly. People are fickle beings across the world. 

But this one? Wow. He's one for the history books, definitely, hopefully as the loser of the election and not the winner. Then history can be analytical of how he got so far, instead of reeling off the horrific consequences of his win.

Edit : extreme nutcases* meaning individual people who represent extreme views, not any and all conservatives. I don't believe there have been any extremist left-wing US presidents, my understanding is that even the far left of the US is rather conservative by international standards, but I'm aware that is something others feel differently about.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

oath2order said:


> You can't just go any complain about how the country is so discriminatory against the LGBTQIA+ community and then deride people for small progressive steps they make in their personal views.
> 
> Apple2012 is more conservative than most members here. Yet unlike most conservatives in the country, he actually supports trans people somewhat. And you know what? Given that there's an entire party of conservatives who *don't* support trans people at all, I think that you should probably cut back on the snarky "oh you're SUCH a great ally" comments. Mocking allies does nothing to help the cause.



sorry abt that, i know i should have been more patient. i meant that being like "oh i want the sexes to be separated but i dont think gay ppl or trans ppl are sex offenders automatically for being who they are" doesnt earn u a gold star (which  yyyeah ik they ddint say they wanted but im a bt aggressive 2day sorry)


----------



## Alienfish (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> No, I don't like Trump, but I would rather have him than Obama at anytime.



Wow, alright o__O

But yeah obviously money and typical stuff people go vote for when they are tired of their current leader/country.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> 1. Obama was in office for eight years. In the past 64 years, we had Republicans and Democrats taking turns every eight years. It's eight years Republican and eight years Democrat. The only anomaly was between 1976 and 1992, where a Democrat had four years and the Republicans have 12 years. Do we need a Democrat hold office for another four years?



There is nothing that says the two major political parties have to "take turns" getting the presidency. Each of them wants to win every single election and there's nothing wrong with that. FDR was elected for four consecutive terms during the Great Depression and WWII and Harry Truman got re-elected after FDR died and things worked out just fine having the same party in power for 20 years. Republican presidential candidates have lost the popular vote 5 of the last 6 elections and it's probably going to be 6 out of 7 after this one. The Republican party has become out of touch with the increasing diversity and tolerance of other people in America and has decided to make a last stand with their angry white male base instead of modernizing their platform to be more inclusive of women, minorities, and the LGBT community. That's why they nominated Trump. If the party wants to be serious about winning elections in the future, they need to "purge" the racists, nativists, and religious fanatics from their party and put together a real policy platform and explain why they think it's better than the Democrats' ideas. Or they can just continue to try to smear Obama and Hillary Clinton all the time and keep scratching their heads wondering why very few women and minorities vote for Republicans.


----------



## radical6 (Aug 22, 2016)

trump is the most friendly LGBT GOP candidate and has a lot of young LGBT voters surprisingly though


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

kallie said:


> trump is the most friendly LGBT GOP candidate and has a lot of young LGBT voters surprisingly though



lol this made me think of that vine with him saying "ask the gays" over and over again

idk but from what i've seen he doesn't seem to be all that great w/ lgbt+ rights. i don't remember if i've seen anything rly bad (we ll except for the ask the gays thing lmao) but i don't think he can be seen as a lgbt+ friendly candidate..?? imo


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Why was Dennis Hastert able to become Speaker of the House? Times have changed, and apparently people's actions don't matter.
My mom, who is a Trump supporter, claims that everything controversial he claims he'll do won't actually happen and that he's only doing it for attention. But I don't think that, even if that's true, that's a good thing at all. Politicians, in my opinion, should mean what they say.


----------



## radical6 (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> lol this made me think of that vine with him saying "ask the gays" over and over again
> 
> idk but from what i've seen he doesn't seem to be all that great w/ lgbt+ rights. i don't remember if i've seen anything rly bad (we ll except for the ask the gays thing lmao) but i don't think he can be seen as a lgbt+ friendly candidate..?? imo



nah he at least has several LGBT people at his Trump Tower thing, and unlike Cruz doesnt want to repeal the gay marriage law.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> Why was Dennis Hastert able to become Speaker of the House? Times have changed, and apparently people's actions don't matter.
> My mom, who is a Trump supporter, claims that everything controversial he claims he'll do won't actually happen and that he's only doing it for attention. But I don't think that, even if that's true, that's a good thing at all. Politicians, in my opinion, should mean what they say.



yeah i agree with you, if he is only making a bunch of stuff up he's just lying? and shouldn't his supporters support him because they want him to do what he is promising...? but if he becomes the president and does do those things... uh well then thst would really suck.

but isnt he claiming that hillary clinton is just a lying scumbag, he's kinda doing the same... if he can't show the people how he would do everything he has promised then that's just unrealistic dreaming. (not that i'm sad thst he doesn't seem to habe a plan But)


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

visibleghost said:


> yeah i agree with you, if he is only making a bunch of stuff up he's just lying? and shouldn't his supporters support him because they want him to do what he is promising...? but if he becomes the president and does do those things... uh well then thst would really suck.
> 
> but isnt he claiming that hillary clinton is just a lying scumbag, he's kinda doing the same... if he can't show the people how he would do everything he has promised then that's just unrealistic dreaming. (not that i'm sad thst he doesn't seem to habe a plan But)



Yeah, he keeps talking about how much Hillary Clinton lies and how "crooked" she is and I definitely agree that if he is lying himself, that would definitely undermine his campaign, or if he got elected, would undermine his position among his supporters.

- - - Post Merge - - -



kallie said:


> nah he at least has several LGBT people at his Trump Tower thing, and unlike Cruz doesnt want to repeal the gay marriage law.



He probably is more LGBT-friendly than other Republicans in recent years, but that doesn't make him the most LGBT-friendly candidate to vote for.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

Being honest here, I support trump because he isn't a lying crook who btw we found more emails of Clinton yet she's blaming this on Colin Powell on her email, she's the biggest lier I've ever seen, it makes me laugh im never supporting her


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Jared:3 said:


> Being honest here, I support trump because he isn't a lying crook who btw we found more emails of Clinton yet she's blaming this on Colin Powell on her email, she's the biggest lier I've ever seen, it makes me laugh im never supporting her



You do realize that Trump lies roughly 81% of the time, right? Hillary Clinton lies a lot too but not as much.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> You do realize that Trump lies roughly 81% of the time, right? Hillary Clinton lies a lot too but not as much.



This is not true, trump dosent lie like she does, hillary Clinton is way more untrust worthy done by American polls

- - - Post Merge - - -

I would show proof, I'm not starting flame wars, respect my post ok


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Jared:3 said:


> This is not true, trump dosent lie like she does, hillary Clinton is way more untrust worthy done by American polls
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> I would show proof, I'm not starting flame wars, respect my post ok



Explain this, then.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> There is nothing that says the two major political parties have to "take turns" getting the presidency. Each of them wants to win every single election and there's nothing wrong with that. FDR was elected for four consecutive terms during the Great Depression and WWII and Harry Truman got re-elected after FDR died and things worked out just fine having the same party in power for 20 years. Republican presidential candidates have lost the popular vote 5 of the last 6 elections and it's probably going to be 6 out of 7 after this one. The Republican party has become out of touch with the increasing diversity and tolerance of other people in America and has decided to make a last stand with their angry white male base instead of modernizing their platform to be more inclusive of women, minorities, and the LGBT community. That's why they nominated Trump. If the party wants to be serious about winning elections in the future, they need to "purge" the racists, nativists, and religious fanatics from their party and put together a real policy platform and explain why they think it's better than the Democrats' ideas. Or they can just continue to try to smear Obama and Hillary Clinton all the time and keep scratching their heads wondering why very few women and minorities vote for Republicans.



I can say one thing about the "angry white male base". They at least have more respect towards the founding fathers (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin) than the liberal voter bases do. And it doesn't necessarily mean they like or hate the founding fathers. There are some laws/policies that progressivism agrees with that would make the founding fathers angry if they come back. Yeah, it's hard to cater to the changing society that want to throw out traditional values, but at least the right is showing more respect to the founding fathers by supporting these traditional values.

Sadly, Trump won't make the founding fathers happier since he agrees with stuff that would anger them as well. I mean, he wanted to ban Muslims from entering our nation. That's a first amendment violation and the founding fathers would be just as mad at Trump as they would be towards Obama, the Democratic Party, and our current generation of citizens that want change.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

The arguments start because people can't respect other people's opinions, I support trump that's it, I will never support hillary, so that's my opinion k peeps


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> There is nothing that says the two major political parties have to "take turns" getting the presidency. Each of them wants to win every single election and there's nothing wrong with that. FDR was elected for four consecutive terms during the Great Depression and WWII and Harry Truman got re-elected after FDR died and things worked out just fine having the same party in power for 20 years. Republican presidential candidates have lost the popular vote 5 of the last 6 elections and it's probably going to be 6 out of 7 after this one. The Republican party has become out of touch with the increasing diversity and tolerance of other people in America and has decided to make a last stand with their angry white male base instead of modernizing their platform to be more inclusive of women, minorities, and the LGBT community. That's why they nominated Trump. If the party wants to be serious about winning elections in the future, they need to "purge" the racists, nativists, and religious fanatics from their party and put together a real policy platform and explain why they think it's better than the Democrats' ideas. Or they can just continue to try to smear Obama and Hillary Clinton all the time and keep scratching their heads wondering why very few women and minorities vote for Republicans.



I agree with what you said, although one thing that is worth mentioning is how Republicans have managed to keep at least a chamber Congress almost continuously. The Republicans won both chambers back in 1994, and they only lost the Senate for a while after the 2000 elections proved to a be a draw, and then the Senate came back to them in the 2002 elections. Although they then lost both chambers in the 2006 elections, the 2010 elections gave the Republicans the House back and then the Senate was retaken in the 2014 elections.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Jared:3 said:


> The arguments start because people can't respect other people's opinions, I support trump that's it, I will never support hillary, so that's my opinion k peeps



I was simply trying to say that Trump lies more than Clinton does and he continually makes comments that have no basis in reality.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> I agree with what you said, although one thing that is worth mentioning is how Republicans have managed to keep at least a chamber Congress almost continuously. The Republicans won both chambers back in 1994, and they only lost the Senate for a while after the 2000 elections proved to a be a draw, and then the Senate came back to them in the 2002 elections. Although they then lost both chambers in the 2006 elections, the 2010 elections gave the Republicans the House back and then the Senate was retaken in the 2014 elections.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...


This is not true, Clinton lies more than trump


----------



## LambdaDelta (Aug 22, 2016)

oh, I see jared's back

wonderful

the slight increase in average post quality was nice while it lasted


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

LambdaDelta said:


> oh, I see jared's back
> 
> wonderful


Thank you


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Jared:3 said:


> This is not true, Clinton lies more than trump



Then how is PolitiFact able to calculate that score of Trump lying at least 81% of the time, if not more?


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> Then how is PolitiFact able to calculate that score of Trump lying at least 81% of the time, if not more?



This is a poll from the American people, trump does not lie like her HOWEVER yes he gets his fair share of lies, I've seen more polls of Clinton being very untrustworthy, and nobody actually knows if trump or Clinton are lying, this is simply a biased question


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> Then how is PolitiFact able to calculate that score of Trump lying at least 81% of the time, if not more?



PolitiFact is liberal biased. They don't necessarily tell the truth.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> PolitiFact is liberal biased. They don't necessarily tell the truth.



This is very true thank you


----------



## nerdatheart9490 (Aug 22, 2016)

I'm convinced that it's the universe playing a joke on us.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

nerdatheart9490 said:


> I'm convinced that it's the universe playing a joke on us.



Well, we had a pedophile as Speaker of the House, so is this really that surprising?


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 22, 2016)

Seriously though, all the talk around Hilliary lying as if it's a new thing, being a liar is practically a confirmed personality trait of all politicians. They waant to get what they want, it's no shock or secret that the vast majority of them lie frequently.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

Fleshy said:


> Seriously though, all the talk around Hilliary lying as if it's a new thing, being a liar is practically a confirmed personality trait of all politicians. They waant to get what they want, it's no shock or secret that the vast majority of them lie frequently.


It's not that I don't believe hillary it's just shes had so many things against here, they just found over 10,000 more emails, I can't trust her, but then she blames Colin Powell, which pisses me off because it was her, this makes me dislike her very much


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 22, 2016)

Jared:3 said:


> It's not that I don't believe hillary it's just shes had so many things against here, they just found over 10,000 more emails, I can't trust her, but then she blames Colin Powell, which pisses me off because it was her, this makes me dislike her very much



I can pretty much assure you other politicians have done way worse, the only difference being Hillary got caught. It's just when people are like "Hillary is a liar", as if the rest of them aren't? I get what she's done is really pretty ****ty though.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

Fleshy said:


> I can pretty much assure you other politicians have done way worse, the only difference being Hillary got caught. It's just when people are like "Hillary is a liar", as if the rest of them aren't? I get what she's done is really pretty ****ty though.



Yes, trump does lie, but I don't think he does as much as her, yes I've seen way worse but America is on ice of falling apart, this election matters so much

- - - Post Merge - - -

It's just we got 2 ****ed up *****es running I hate pretty much both atm


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Jared:3 said:


> Yes, trump does lie, but I don't think he does as much as her, yes I've seen way worse but America is on ice of falling apart, this election matters so much
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> It's just we got 2 ****ed up *****es running I hate pretty much both atm



Now you know what it was like when people had to choose between Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Both were terrible. John Boehner didn't really do much of a better job, either.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> Now you know what it was like when people had to choose between Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Both were terrible. John Boehner didn't really do much of a better job, either.



Yup good example, hillary and Donald match this description


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I can say one thing about the "angry white male base". They at least have more respect towards the founding fathers (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin) than the liberal voter bases do. And it doesn't necessarily mean they like or hate the founding fathers. There are some laws/policies that progressivism agrees with that would make the founding fathers angry if they come back. Yeah, it's hard to cater to the changing society that want to throw out traditional values, but at least the right is showing more respect to the founding fathers by supporting these traditional values.
> 
> Sadly, Trump won't make the founding fathers happier since he agrees with stuff that would anger them as well. I mean, he wanted to ban Muslims from entering our nation. That's a first amendment violation and the founding fathers would be just as mad at Trump as they would be towards Obama, the Democratic Party, and our current generation of citizens that want change.



Maybe conservatives like the founding fathers more than liberals because the founding fathers were all white men. Some of those founding fathers owned slaves and they decided to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. "Traditional values" were all defined by white men. The reason why America is different now than back then is because more voices are allowed to speak up and have a say in the direction of the country. That should be celebrated. When Trump says he wants to "Make America Great Again", he says he is referring to the 1950's which just so happens to be the last decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed. So while white men might have nostalgia for the "good old days" when they could lord over women and minorities, everyone else thinks we are much better off now than back then. America has its problems currently, but to say that the 21st century has been a total train-wreck compared to the 1900's and 1800's and late 1700's is just silly. If the founding fathers came back to life today, most people would tell them to either get with the 21st century or shut the hell up.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> Maybe conservatives like the founding fathers more than liberals because the founding fathers were all white men. Some of those founding fathers owned slaves and they decided to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. "Traditional values" were all defined by white men. The reason why America is different now than back then is because more voices are allowed to speak up and have a say in the direction of the country. That should be celebrated. When Trump says he wants to "Make America Great Again", he says he is referring to the 1950's which just so happens to be the last decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed. So while white men might have nostalgia for the "good old days" when they could lord over women and minorities, everyone else thinks we are much better off now than back then. America has its problems currently, but to say that the 21st century has been a total train-wreck compared to the 1900's and 1800's and late 1700's is just silly. If the founding fathers came back to life today, most people would tell them to either get with the 21st century or shut the hell up.



I agree with this, and I find it crazy that Trump says our nation has not been great since the 1950s. What about when the moon landings occurred in 1969? What about when the Soviet Union fell in 1991?


----------



## Envy (Aug 22, 2016)

Donald Trump is a candidate because that's what the base of the Republican party looks like. He panders to them all too well.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> Maybe conservatives like the founding fathers more than liberals because the founding fathers were all white men. Some of those founding fathers owned slaves and they decided to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. "Traditional values" were all defined by white men. The reason why America is different now than back then is because more voices are allowed to speak up and have a say in the direction of the country. That should be celebrated. When Trump says he wants to "Make America Great Again", he says he is referring to the 1950's which just so happens to be the last decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed. So while white men might have nostalgia for the "good old days" when they could lord over women and minorities, everyone else thinks we are much better off now than back then. America has its problems currently, but to say that the 21st century has been a total train-wreck compared to the 1900's and 1800's and late 1700's is just silly. If the founding fathers came back to life today, most people would tell them to either get with the 21st century or shut the hell up.



I have no credibility in this. That first part you just said, sounds like you got some real liberal bias.

Yes, I am conservative biased, but sometimes, I see guilt in both sides. The biased liberals would say that Republicans only like white people, only like Christians, want to repeal the Bill of Rights or overthrow the constitution, and would say that the Republicans are only liars. Guess what the biased conservatives say? They say the exact same stuff about the Democrats, accusing them of hating white people and Christians, supporting repealing the Bill of Rights and the constitution, and for never telling the truth. What's really happening to you is that you have fallen for the extreme-left media, just like how some of these "angry white men" you call them (not even all of them are angry) have fallen for the extreme-right media. The radicals on both sides are actually vocal minorities (meaning they are not as common as the general population), but have the loudest mouths, which is why the extremes have more power and why we live in an age of polarization. If we can actually move to the center and steer clear of the extremes, you can really see the truth.


----------



## zoetrope (Aug 22, 2016)

Thank god most TBTers can't vote.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

zoetrope said:


> Thank god most TBTers can't vote.



I am already old enough to vote, and I do have the intentions to vote. If Trump can keep Georgia and Arizona from switching over while winning the other traditionally red states and these four states (Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio), Trump will win the election, even if Hillary wins the others. He would be at 273 while Hillary would be at 265. However, these four states I named will be tough, especially Pennsylvania (which was only won by Democrat since 1988). Because of his recent controversial comments, he may not win one of the four states, but let's see how it goes for the next two months. This year had a lot of controversial events.


----------



## Jared:3 (Aug 22, 2016)

I can't vote but my parents support trump as I do, so they're voting for trump, although his comments weren't ok at all, that made me dislike him a bit more


----------



## amanda1983 (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> Maybe conservatives like the founding fathers more than liberals because the founding fathers were all white men. Some of those founding fathers owned slaves and they decided to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. "Traditional values" were all defined by white men. The reason why America is different now than back then is because more voices are allowed to speak up and have a say in the direction of the country. That should be celebrated. When Trump says he wants to "Make America Great Again", he says he is referring to the 1950's which just so happens to be the last decade before the Civil Rights Act was passed. So while white men might have nostalgia for the "good old days" when they could lord over women and minorities, everyone else thinks we are much better off now than back then. America has its problems currently, but to say that the 21st century has been a total train-wreck compared to the 1900's and 1800's and late 1700's is just silly. If the founding fathers came back to life today, most people would tell them to either get with the 21st century or shut the hell up.



This. This expresses my thoughts so clearly and eloquently. Thankyou.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 22, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I have no credibility in this. That first part you just said, sounds like you got some real liberal bias.
> 
> Yes, I am conservative biased, but sometimes, I see guilt in both sides. The biased liberals would say that Republicans only like white people, only like Christians, want to repeal the Bill of Rights or overthrow the constitution, and would say that the Republicans are only liars. Guess what the biased conservatives say? They say the exact same stuff about the Democrats, accusing them of hating white people and Christians, supporting repealing the Bill of Rights and the constitution, and for never telling the truth. What's really happening to you is that you have fallen for the extreme-left media, just like how some of these "angry white men" you call them (not even all of them are angry) have fallen for the extreme-right media. The radicals on both sides are actually vocal minorities (meaning they are not as common as the general population), but have the loudest mouths, which is why the extremes have more power and why we live in an age of polarization. If we can actually move to the center and steer clear of the extremes, you can really see the truth.



You're correct that both parties have their extremists. However, the radicals on the Republican side were able to actually nominate a radical candidate while radicals on the Democratic side did not have enough power to nominate a radical candidate (only conservative media outlets would call Hillary Clinton an extreme leftist candidate when she is really more centrist than Obama). Not all Republicans are racist or nativist, but the nomination of Trump shows that a large proportion of them are. I don't really like Clinton that much and I don't think she's very trustworthy, but Trump is equally untrustworthy by not fulfilling his business contracts and not releasing his tax returns so the public can know where his money comes from. He completely makes stuff up when he speaks while repeatedly saying "Believe me" and "Many people are saying" which is usually a sign that he's lying. He doesn't have much understanding of how government and foreign policy works either. Clinton is a typical politician, but at least she can keep the country in one piece like a typical politician does. It's not like her emails have personally affected anyone in a negative way. So we can agree to disagree and that's what voting is for, but barring some miracle for Trump, chances are that more Americans will disagree with you than agree with you.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> You're correct that both parties have their extremists. However, the radicals on the Republican side were able to actually nominate a radical candidate while radicals on the Democratic side did not have enough power to nominate a radical candidate (only conservative media outlets would call Hillary Clinton an extreme leftist candidate when she is really more centrist than Obama). Not all Republicans are racist or nativist, but the nomination of Trump shows that a large proportion of them are. I don't really like Clinton that much and I don't think she's very trustworthy, but Trump is equally untrustworthy by not fulfilling his business contracts and not releasing his tax returns so the public can know where his money comes from. He completely makes stuff up when he speaks while repeatedly saying "Believe me" and "Many people are saying" which is usually a sign that he's lying. He doesn't have much understanding of how government and foreign policy works either. Clinton is a typical politician, but at least she can keep the country in one piece like a typical politician does. It's not like her emails have personally affected anyone in a negative way. So we can agree to disagree and that's what voting is for, but barring some miracle for Trump, chances are that more Americans will disagree with you than agree with you.



I would go ahead and say that I would never vote for a man who said our nation wasn't great when we sent men to the moon.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 22, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> I would go ahead and say that I would never vote for a man who said our nation wasn't great when we sent men to the moon.



Trump also excluded Ronald Reagan when he said America wasn't good since the 1950's. I believed that Reagan was the last good president America had. So Trump really lied on that part. I also thought John F Kennedy was a good president and he was president during the era Trump said that America wasn't good. I can say America was a bad place when Obama was in office, but I wouldn't say that America was a bad place for a long time.


----------



## ToXiC_Tr4sH (Aug 23, 2016)

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY

American politics is all about that sweet cash money. Both parties are bought and paid for. Also, this particular election is a lying and manipulating businessman vs a lying and corrupt politician. So it's basically money and lies.

Although, I'd much rather have Trump and his horrible hair and crazy antics over Hillary. At least America's fall would be entertaining.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 23, 2016)

I have a question to the Trump opponents:

Do you think Ted Cruz would be even worse for America than Donald Trump? I think he would be better for America to begin with. I mean, he is better than Obama, better than Carter, and better than Bush for a president. But what would your opinion be on Ted Cruz?


----------



## Mink777 (Aug 24, 2016)

Because he ran and he got in.


----------



## piichinu (Aug 24, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I have a question to the Trump opponents:
> 
> Do you think Ted Cruz would be even worse for America than Donald Trump? I think he would be better for America to begin with. I mean, he is better than Obama, better than Carter, and better than Bush for a president. But what would your opinion be on Ted Cruz?



hes the zodiac killer


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 24, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I have a question to the Trump opponents:
> 
> Do you think Ted Cruz would be even worse for America than Donald Trump? I think he would be better for America to begin with. I mean, he is better than Obama, better than Carter, and better than Bush for a president. But what would your opinion be on Ted Cruz?



I think Cruz would be just as bad. Cruz basically caused the government shutdown in 2013.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 24, 2016)

nintendofan85 said:


> I think Cruz would be just as bad. Cruz basically caused the government shutdown in 2013.



Some people think he's worse than Trump. While Trump wants to deport all of the undocumented immigrants (including the good ones) and ban all muslims from entering, people hate Cruz even more because he is a religious wingnut, but I think he is more like the Demon of Empire City instead of a good Christian. Not only that, but he wants to repeal every word of Obamacare. And while Trump can be entertaining at times, Cruz is always serious.

Good thing you won't see him win the election anymore. Not that he was born in Canada, but he broke his promise of endorsing Trump out of grudgery. The Republicans hate him more to the point to where he can't even get another term in the senate. I'm guessing Americans really hate the demon of empire city.


----------



## namiieco (Aug 24, 2016)

idk usa is just gone bat**** crazy i guess, not my problem.


----------



## Leen (Aug 24, 2016)

Both money and reputation (a celebrity face) has helped Donald Trump rise up. But he has illuminated and brought together all that is essentially wrong in this country. He is manipulating the poorly educated, catalyzing the racists, sexists and bigots, and stirring up a nationwide civil turmoil.


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 24, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I have a question to the Trump opponents:
> 
> Do you think Ted Cruz would be even worse for America than Donald Trump? I think he would be better for America to begin with. I mean, he is better than Obama, better than Carter, and better than Bush for a president. But what would your opinion be on Ted Cruz?



I'm not in America, and I'll admit I'm not completely clued up to Ted Cruz and his polices and what-not, but I do know that he is extremely anti-lgbt, even more so than Trump. He believes that being lgbt is a choice, and he strongly apposes same-sex marriage, as a member of the lgbt community, I'd say he'd for sure make America a worse place to live in for certain groups of people. 

What exactly makes him better than Obama?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 24, 2016)

Fleshy said:


> I'm not in America, and I'll admit I'm not completely clued up to Ted Cruz and his polices and what-not, but I do know that he is extremely anti-lgbt, even more so than Trump. He believes that being lgbt is a choice, and he strongly apposes same-sex marriage, as a member of the lgbt community, I'd say he'd for sure make America a worse place to live in for certain groups of people.
> 
> What exactly makes him better than Obama?



I think he's better because he's pro-life, anti-Obamacare, anti-drug, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, and pro-business. Not only that, I am very conservative (but not as conservative like what my user title implies), so don't be surprised to see me say that right-winged politicians and columnists are better than left-winged politicians and columnists. You may disagree, but this is what I believe. However, there are some exceptions. I like Harry S Truman and John F Kennedy more than all the Republicans that came after (except Ronald Reagan), I respect FDR more than Hoover even if his actions created long-term unexpected drawbacks that ruined today's society, and a few other cases I can't think of at the minute.


----------



## Leen (Aug 24, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> I think he's better because he's pro-life, anti-Obamacare, anti-drug, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, and pro-business. Not only that, I am very conservative (but not as conservative like what my user title implies), so don't be surprised to see me say that right-winged politicians and columnists are better than left-winged politicians and columnists. You may disagree, but this is what I believe. However, there are some exceptions. I like Harry S Truman and John F Kennedy more than all the Republicans that came after (except Ronald Reagan), I respect FDR more than Hoover even if his actions created long-term unexpected drawbacks that ruined today's society, and a few other cases I can't think of at the minute.



He's also anti-equal rights, so if you're a woman, you can guarantee he doesn't have your best interests in mind.


----------



## demoness (Aug 25, 2016)

why yes OP, we do have a concussion 

it's been caused by a serious injury doctors call the alt-right, which results in the dreaded trumposis

it's super sad, but it looks pretty likely that as a registered democrat, this election will end with another massive republican electorate embarrassment, i'll be pleased come november


----------



## Aleigh (Aug 25, 2016)

Why isn't Bernie? Lmao


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 26, 2016)

I don't think being a conservative is a mental illness, but Trump is not the ideal conservative.


----------



## Brad (Aug 26, 2016)

_Preface: I think it should be pretty obvious that I'm not a Trump supporter if you know me. But, also not necessarily a Hilary supporter either._

The real answer? People want a candidate who isn't going to lie to them. And, unfortunately the first truly honest candidate we've had in a long long time just so happens to be a person that terrible people think they can rally behind.

And, let's be completely honest with ourselves. Hilary is in no way truthful or honest with her supporters. An obvious example of this can be seen in the way she panders to the young voters. Appearing on TV shows like Broad City, trying bubble tea, and making jokes about Pokemon Go in her speeches. It's just very difficult to shake the air of in-authenticity surrounding her.

Also Trump is extremely good at appealing to a very vague sense of "American ideals." His slogan of making America great again is lifted almost verbatim from Reagan's "Let's Make America Great Again." It appeals to the older crowd that misses the 'good old days' before their kids were listening to rock/rap, when your neighborhood was quiet, et cetera. It's a common case of thinking your generation is better than the one that comes next. When in actuality, every generation has been just as awful than the one that came before it. All the way back to the 1800's.

Unfortunately, this type of thinking also provides a breeding ground for people who misconstrue this message (and obviously Trump isn't going to do anything to dissuade these less-than-rational people, they're voters after all). And it's this line of thinking that has bred a resurgence in anti-LGBT sentiments, the anti-PC culture movement, and those who walk around pretending that saying "All Lives Matter" is anything but instigation.

Another reason we're stuck with Trump as our presidential candidate is that the Republican party is literally imploding right now. The far right has become the vocal minority of the group and is creating a bad image for the right side of the spectrum (which has also caused some very volatile reactions from the far left). And this vocal minority has chosen the candidate that will get them the most votes. Again, remember that not everyone who votes for Trump believes in his awful racism or bigotry, they just want somebody who's honest. But even trump is becoming too Trump for these people, as he's currently losing points in the polls.

Summing things up, Trump is our candidate because people want honesty (no matter who it's from), a way to fight changes that come from the next generation, and somebody other than Obama (even though ironically enough, Trump said he would try too keep some parts of Obamacare).

And, if there's anything you need to take away from everything we've seen so far, and will see (watch for those October Surprises) in the near future, please remember that the only way for you to end up with the presidential candidate you want, *is to vote in November.*

*You can whine and moan about Trump all you want, but if you don't vote and he's elected, you're just as much to blame as the people who did vote for him.*


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 26, 2016)

I agree with Brad on everything he's saying, including the generation part.

The world was also just as bad now as it was from a thousand years ago, but only different. We evolved from a time with less technology to a time when the environment was greatly damaged. We evolved from a time when religion dominated science to a time when religion is greatly scorned. We evolved from a time when men were better than women and the rich were better than the poor to a time when the rich were the most hated people. We evolved from a time when torture was commonly used to a time when we can build even more dangerous weapons. We may think are lives are getting better, but in some way, it's getting worse.


----------



## Antonio (Aug 26, 2016)

Tbh, i don't see how he is a candidate...


----------



## moonford (Aug 26, 2016)

Shattered said:


> Tbh, i don't see how he is a candidate...



You should have drawn a piece of feaces and put a wig on it, would have been easier & more accurate.


----------



## zoetrope (Aug 26, 2016)

Apple2012 said:


> The world was also just as bad now as it was from a thousand years ago, but only different. We evolved from a time with less technology to a time when the environment was greatly damaged. We evolved from a time when religion dominated science to a time when religion is greatly scorned. We evolved from a time when men were better than women and the rich were better than the poor to a time when the rich were the most hated people. We evolved from a time when torture was commonly used to a time when we can build even more dangerous weapons. We may think are lives are getting better, but in some way, it's getting worse.



This would be great and all except that Trump is a misogynist, advocates using torture, is one of the richest people in the US and has used shady practices to protect his fortune, seemingly wants religion to dominate science yet again,and and and and and... need I go on?


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 26, 2016)

Brad said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think the reason behind Trump's appeal is him being honest. Trump lies a lot. He frequently just makes stuff up. I think his appeal is that he gives a one sentence solution to every problem the U.S. faces. How do we stop illegal immigration? Build a wall. How do we prevent terrorist attacks? Ban Muslims from entering the U.S. How do we fix the economy? Negotiate better trade deals. Most Americans are not policy wonks, so they like hearing simple answers instead of Hillary Clinton's longer and more detailed answers for these problems.

I also think the reason why people think Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is ironically because we know almost everything about her. She's been in the public eye for 25 years so there is a long record to look through to find flaws. Most of her State Department emails have been made public, so anything bad in those makes her look bad. However, we don't get to see Trump's emails. We didn't get to see either Obama's or Romney's emails in 2012. We don't know what they are/were hiding, but apparently people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on their emails while Hillary Clinton gets hammered because she has been transparent about her emails. Trump has only received lots of public scrutiny for the past year and there are still a lot of things we don't know about him. He hasn't released his tax returns, so we don't know what kinds of business deals he's been involved in. He has no voting record, so he can basically take any position on an issue he wants. Trump isn't very transparent or honest at all, but because he's willing to say outrageous stuff in public instead of just doing it behind the anonymity of a Facebook / Twitter account like many Americans do, he is seen as "authentic" and "real".


----------



## Paxx (Aug 26, 2016)

Why? It's simple.
Because of his "beautiful" hair.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Aug 26, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think the reason behind Trump's appeal is him being honest. Trump lies a lot. He frequently just makes stuff up. I think his appeal is that he gives a one sentence solution to every problem the U.S. faces. How do we stop illegal immigration? Build a wall. How do we prevent terrorist attacks? Ban Muslims from entering the U.S. How do we fix the economy? Negotiate better trade deals. Most Americans are not policy wonks, so they like hearing simple answers instead of Hillary Clinton's longer and more detailed answers for these problems.
> 
> I also think the reason why people think Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is ironically because we know almost everything about her. She's been in the public eye for 25 years so there is a long record to look through to find flaws. Most of her State Department emails have been made public, so anything bad in those makes her look bad. However, we don't get to see Trump's emails. We didn't get to see either Obama's or Romney's emails in 2012. We don't know what they are/were hiding, but apparently people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on their emails while Hillary Clinton gets hammered because she has been transparent about her emails. Trump has only received lots of public scrutiny for the past year and there are still a lot of things we don't know about him. He hasn't released his tax returns, so we don't know what kinds of business deals he's been involved in. He has no voting record, so he can basically take any position on an issue he wants. Trump isn't very transparent or honest at all, but because he's willing to say outrageous stuff in public instead of just doing it behind the anonymity of a Facebook / Twitter account like many Americans do, he is seen as "authentic" and "real".



Not only that, but Trump has switched parties six times since 1987.


----------



## himeki (Aug 26, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> After the election, people will write entire books about it because it's a complex combination of things which led to this man being able to win the nomination of one of America's two political parties. It is interesting that so many people don't care about controversial things Trump _says_ and so many people don't care about controversial things Hillary Clinton _does_. People seem to only think about what they like about candidates and don't think about all the reasons not to like them.[/QUOTE
> its gonna go down in history tbh..... like he's gonna be someone you learn about in history like "AND THIS IS WHY AMERICA WENT DOWNHILL BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP"


----------



## Brad (Aug 26, 2016)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think the reason behind Trump's appeal is him being honest. Trump lies a lot. He frequently just makes stuff up. I think his appeal is that he gives a one sentence solution to every problem the U.S. faces. How do we stop illegal immigration? Build a wall. How do we prevent terrorist attacks? Ban Muslims from entering the U.S. How do we fix the economy? Negotiate better trade deals. Most Americans are not policy wonks, so they like hearing simple answers instead of Hillary Clinton's longer and more detailed answers for these problems.




I totally agree with everything you're saying here. But, I think I may have phrased my statements about Trump being "truthful" a tad incorrectly.

People like him because he doesn't care what he says. He just says what he wants. Most of it is awful, and usually involves something racist or unconstitutional; but still.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Aug 27, 2016)

my theory: old bigots want to go back to the "good old days" when casual misogyny/homophobia/racism was seen as okay.


----------

