Trump or Clinton?

[ZenOps]

Bernie Sanders is going independent instead of democrat.

Wow.

[suntan]

So the motherfucker's gone and done it...

He's banned lobbyists.

And Foxconn looking to open factories in the USA?

WTF is going on?

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Type_S1


Bringing some legitimacy to your argument, like adding links to scientific (peer-reviewed) articles backing up this claim may help.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong but simply stating things without backup isn't a way to win people over in a debate.

Haha no doubt.

So a recent study on the genetic link to sexual orientation, I can probably go on google scholar and pull up the studies from last century but I don't have a personal subscription. (I really thought people knew about this though?!?!?!?)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...EA670C5F380343

Polls (not peer reviewed)
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbsnew...?client=safari



http://time.com/3890179/gallup-poll-gay-marriage/


Even right wing Fox News can no longer deny it
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-legalize.html

At the end of the day though when discussing things like social progress you need to think logically and rationally. Does it make sense to discriminate against someone or are you letting ignorance and/or indoctrination guide your views? I challenge someone to put together a well thought out arguement on why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. If you think intelligently and rationally about it that will prove an impossible task...

[ZenOps]

Foxconn announcement is good PR to appease Allmighty Trump.

Sort of like they said that Keystone XL was "just around the corner"... Seven years later.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by suntan
So the motherfucker's gone and done it...

He's banned lobbyists.

And Foxconn looking to open factories in the USA?

WTF is going on?

He's not banning lobbyists outright. He's banning the immediate transition from gov't employee to lobbyist by instituting a rule that said employee must be 5 years removed from their gov't job before being a lobbyist.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Bernie Sanders is going independent instead of democrat.

Wow.

He was an independent before running for nomination.

He is just staying as independent to finish his senate term. Dem needs him to outreach to take back the senate in 2 years.

Originally posted by suntan
So the motherfucker's gone and done it...

He's banned lobbyists.

Moreover, any former lobbyist who snags a plum Trump position will realize there’s no way on earth the ban will ever be enforced. In 2006, then-Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd pointed out that during the past three years the Senate’s office in charge of keeping track of lobbyists had “referred over 2,000 cases to the Department of Justice, and nothing’s been heard from them again.”

Second, there’s a huge problem with the legal definition of “lobbyist” and how exactly the ban will be enforced.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 set up three thresholds that must be met for someone to be considered a lobbyist. The most important of these is that you have to spend at least 20 percent of your time in any three month period lobbying for any one client.

So you can make $3 million a year lobbying, but if you limit yourself to pushing Exxon’s interests to just 19 percent of your time, you’re not a lobbyist.

Empty gesture for now. Probably to deflect all the news about his transition team appointments.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by J-hop

Does it make sense to discriminate against someone or are you letting ignorance and/or indoctrination guide your views? I challenge someone to put together a well thought out arguement on why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. If you think intelligently and rationally about it that will prove an impossible task...

The challenge can easily be flipped around. Why do you think they should?

Note, I am much more libertarian than anything, but your supposed "correct" stance with zero actual substance? You still haven't answered the most basic of questions behind your argument. Make a statement, defend it with your logic of why you came to that conclusion, and then support it with evidence.

Really all you've said so far is "your silly if you don't agree with me, here are some links". I don't know what genetics has to do with marriage, but please enlighten me.

[dirtsniffer]

you obviously don't understand the regressive left.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


The challenge can easily be flipped around. Why do you think they should?

Note, I am much more libertarian than anything, but your supposed "correct" stance with zero actual substance? You still haven't answered the most basic of questions behind your argument. Make a statement, defend it with your logic of why you came to that conclusion, and then support it with evidence.

Really all you've said so far is "your silly if you don't agree with me, here are some links". I don't know what genetics has to do with marriage, but please enlighten me.

Read my previous post. I don't really want to regurgitate it.

Do we really need to get down to the basics here?

Science backs up that homosexuality is genetically driven. Marriage is the civil union of two people that love each other and wish to form a unit. Love is a genetically driven attraction between two people.

I don't get what more you want? Provide a logical reason why gays should be prohibited from following the above logical process and allowed to marry?

Provide a poll, study or other that says the majority of Americans oppose marriage equality.

Provide a peer reviewed paper that shows being gay is a choice.

all of the available evidence(NOT opinion) suggests marriage equality is the intelligent and rational conclusion.

I know you have been looking to pick fights, you have pressed me for explaination of my arguement a, I have provided. You have not provided a single shred of evidence beyond your own personally held opinion. I am fine carrying on this discussion as discussions like this need to occur and which ever side has reason in their favour should win but provide some evidence to back up your theories.


As a side note why does rational thinking always get lumped in with the regressive left. I'm not interested in preaching some black lives matter bs that has no empirical evidence I'm interested in the truth.

[Antonito]

Holy shit this argument again? HiTempGuy (and a bunch of Americans) keep whining about being talked down to and ignored, but then actively plays dumb. How about going to one of the dozens of threads in this topic in which people have had this argument with you specifically if you need substantive claims spelled out for you again

[Gestalt]

People still deny homosexuality has a genetic factors?

Is this 1970?

And is it even important? People should all have he same rights, whether it's natural, or a disease, or a mutation, or a disability, or whatever your mind needs to call it to deal with people different from you.

[killramos]

You know what's funny. How everyone on either side like to come up with arbitrary definitions of marriage in order to justify their opinions.

Reality is the real historical reasoning for marriage is somewhere between a man agreeing to take responsibility for second class citizen women and permission from the church to make woopie and have some spawn to work the farm.

Not sure why people get so worked up about having the "right" to do that. Also not sure how gay couples fit into that (but that's just my opinion)? It's pretty well an outdated religious ceremony that people do because say yes to the dress told them to. You wonder why so many people don't even bother getting married these days.

Everything else people associate with it is just social convention ( isn't that what the whole recent gender fluid whatever you want to call it rights movement has been against? Social constructions?) that people want to have. And anyone can host whatever kind of party they want to pay for, doesn't matter where you like to get your dick wet later that night. Like Hitemp said, let me know which part of the genetic code says you turn 30 and need the right to stand in front of an alter and pledge yourself to someone for the rest of your life in front of your friends and family.

At the end of the day so long as all relevant aspects of the tax code and legal system allow any 2 people civil common law status and all the privileges and burdens associated with that status that is the only thing that really matters in terms of true "equality". Legal equality. Either that or just get rid of those sections of the tax and legal codes for everyone (probabaly the better option imo).

You don't however get to force people to support you, whether their reasons are bigoted or not. That's thought police type shit.

[Buster]

The answer is to have government get out of the business of regulating monogamy. The entire premise is silly. Poof! everyone is equal.

Also, sexual preference is clearly a mix of social and genetic determinants. Nature-vs-nurture arguments are notoriously difficult to settle.

[zhao]

Originally posted by Buster
The answer is to have government get out of the business of regulating monogamy. The entire premise is silly. Poof! everyone is equal.

Also, sexual preference is clearly a mix of social and genetic determinants. Nature-vs-nurture arguments are notoriously difficult to settle.

Smartest post in this thread.

Anyone who has taken an anthro course should know cultural/social influences can greatly affect people's mindset.

There are tribes were homosexuality is the norm and hetrosexual activities are taboo except for the occasional necessity done far away from the tribe to keep the population going. There are kiddie diddler cultures too that view being what we would call molested as a necessary step to becoming an adult. Social norms can keep people in hiding, or cause people to switch sides, but anyone who looks at a girl and goes, i'd do her, and then looks at a door knob and goes, i dont want to do that... should know there are some genetic predispositions at work there.

I think instead of saying government though, I think we should be saying organized religion should piss off, as that is the breeding ground for a lot of BS.

[blindsight]

.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by killramos


At the end of the day so long as all relevant aspects of the tax code and legal system allow any 2 people civil common law status and all the privileges and burdens associated with that status that is the only thing that really matters in terms of true "equality". Legal equality. Either that or just get rid of those sections of the tax and legal codes for everyone (probabaly the better option imo).

This is what I didn't get, if it had been like this the whole issue wouldn't have gotten so much traction. Sure there would still be semantics, but it wouldve been hard to take that to the Supreme Court. But of course everyone against equality kept having to tinker and fuck with the rules to make it as complicated and unequal as possible so that it was pretty easy to go "no, these aren't equal rights/protections" and rule in favour of gay marriage

[ZenOps]

What scares me a little bit:

Trump is either going to save America, or he is going to push them headlong into the pit of despair.

Betting on Trump is like betting on red or black, there is no such thing as "steady growth" or "steady decline".

"Do or Do Not, there is no try" - Yoda.

[suntan]

Climate change real?

Don't torture terrorists?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us...ump-visit.html

[kaput]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by kaput
#NotMyPresident

Me neither.