1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Trump is a Winning Machine

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by blkduc, Dec 14, 2016.

  1. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

    Trump was never anti-gay like Obama so he didn't need
    his viewpoint to evolve.
    Trump had the right viewpoint right from the start.
     
  2. saintlaurent

    saintlaurent Well-Known Member

    I'm going to pretend you guys can read and put this wikipedia list here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy_of_Donald_Trump#LGBT_issues

    Trump said multiple times that marriage was for man and a woman, he endorsed "traditional marriage" (saying he wants states to decide does not mean he is pro gay marriage, sorry.)

    He has rolled back key parts of policy that Obama enacted that protected workers from discrimination from contractors.
    He also moved to exclude questions about sexuality and gender identity from the 2020 census. (FYI trying to pretend a demographic does not exist is not "pro gay")

    All his judicial appointments are obviously thinly veiled attempts at overturning previously passed rulings on marriage and lgbt rights.
     
  3. TXFZ1

    TXFZ1 Well-Known Member

    I agree with most especially the transgender in the military, any group that has a 40% suicide rate does not need to be in the military as they need help. I had a niece that aspired to join the military but was declined as she was once treated for depression. As for contractors proving they are meeting a regulation is just defining a quota which is wrong. Gay marriages, I don't fuckin care but want the goobermint out of the marriage bidness as long as there is an age of consent. Overturn them all for I care.
     
    pickled egg likes this.
  4. pickled egg

    pickled egg Tell me more

    Obviously :rolleyes:

    The census is an enumeration of the citizenry. That it's been usurped to play identity politics with should cause everyone offense.

    As to the rest of the claptrap, show me where in the constitution the right to marry is found. I'll wait.

    Fact is that marriage at the most should be a state issue, and shouldn't be a government issue at all.
     
    sheepofblue likes this.
  5. DonTZ125

    DonTZ125 Purveyor of Neat Toys

    So - what then, a simple count up of noses but with no categories?
     
  6. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck


    Avada Kedavra

    [​IMG]
     
  7. DonTZ125

    DonTZ125 Purveyor of Neat Toys

    Yes, but he's British and wouldn't be part of the US census.
     
    sheepofblue likes this.
  8. pickled egg

    pickled egg Tell me more

    Do you know the purpose of the census?
     
  9. DonTZ125

    DonTZ125 Purveyor of Neat Toys

    I'm asking a question, not espousing a position.

    "The census is an enumeration of the citizenry. That it's been usurped to play identity politics with should cause everyone offense." Taking that as far as it goes, with the complete elimination of any identity discrimination even to male and female, leads to a simple head count.

    Do you know the purpose of the census, once all identity has been scrubbed?
     
  10. pickled egg

    pickled egg Tell me more

    Yes. That's what the census is. A head count of citizens used for the apportionment of representatives in congress.

    What it's become is a fucking abomination.
     
    sheepofblue and brex like this.
  11. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator


    :crackup: Thinly veiled. Good lord does anyone truly think Trump can be subtle?

    Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Saw a billboard in Ohio talking about how Holy Matrimony is between a man and a woman. They are correct. Depending on the religion of course but the main ones all tend to be pretty hetero. State laws about marriage however have (well, should have) nothing to do with any specific religion.

    Read the wiki, not seeing any anti LGBT statements by Trump. Got anything real? As for the census - what in the world does that have to do with anything anti or pro?
     
  12. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member

    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."-Obama, 2008
     
    XFBO likes this.
  13. code3ryder

    code3ryder Well-Known Member

    Interesting. That opens up a pretty big can of worms, no? How would that work in regards to taxes, other financial issues, death decisions. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be a .gov issue but if it wasn't, how would those things work. If it was state to state, how would those things work if you moved states?

    My bigger question is why is religion a part of "marriage" when it comes to .gov?
     
  14. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    I'm not sure it is in any manner other than religious people vote and a lot of them don't want same sex marriage. Overall though the government doesn't even require a ceremony, just get the paperwork notarized and you're hitched.
     
  15. 2blueYam

    2blueYam Track Day Addict

    Treat people as individuals. No benefit or penalty for marriage. Legal guardianship for who can use dependents in their taxes. Get rid of the inheritance tax. Do the rest with legal contracts.
     
    pickled egg and code3ryder like this.
  16. code3ryder

    code3ryder Well-Known Member

    So, in reality, it is. Just the paperwork (why do you need a license to get married?) as long as it's between a man and a woman in many places.
     
    Motofun352 likes this.
  17. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    What are these many places of which you speak? Churches? Probably. City hall...nope. Back yard by a mail order preacher? Nope.
     
  18. pickled egg

    pickled egg Tell me more

    All "marriage" is is a one-stop-shop for certain legal obligations and protections. All of which, sans the government issued shit (read: taxes) can be successfully handled through conventional contract law.

    That's what "civil partnerships" were--marriage without the word "marriage". All the legal recognitions, none of the ooky queer shit to get the puritans wee-wee'd up.

    As to how would anything work without government sanctioned wedlock, why should it? Deal with individuals as individuals, deal with couples as two individuals, and hey, if you're into polyamory, as many individuals as you want. No difference.

    Edit: 2blue nailed it.
     
    code3ryder likes this.
  19. G 97

    G 97 Garth

  20. Inst Tech

    Inst Tech ain't no half steppin

    Dems hate his new plan but it's the same way that Canada does their immigration. But when he introduces it their heads explode. This Muh $#kr is so winning. I mean badly. Like beating them badly.
     
    blkduc likes this.

Share This Page