John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:That fucking piece of shit has the gall to use the LGBT community as an excuse to make a thinly veiled remark about Islam.

Islam? What evidence do you have that Islam was behind the veil? I was impressed that he made a LGBTQ remark that he worried wouldn't go down smooth with the crowd and then encouraged their good behavior - I'd call that a demonstration of leadership.

quas wrote:
I say get rid of this democractic electoral bullshit, and hand over the presidency to people like Elon Musk. No voting required.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:That fucking piece of shit has the gall to use the LGBT community as an excuse to make a thinly veiled remark about Islam.

I disagree, the anti-Muslim remarks were anything but thinly veiled, They were right up there for all to see, as were his anti-Mexican remarks.

As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me.""And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you."

willhud9 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/peter-thiel-gay-republican-national-convention/

I mean there are gay Republicans.

And as I said before I identify as a Republican. I reject the party's platform, but I still actively write my state's party conventions and the national convention about why, my voice as a registered Republican also deserves to be heard and represented in my party.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:"As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me."

Animavore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

"As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me."

I thought he was talking about Christianity.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

"As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me."

I thought he was talking about Christianity.

I thought it was telling he focussed on only one ideology that's used to attack the LGBT community.
Also could you fix the quote tags in your posts so it doesn't look like I'm Trump.

Animavore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

I thought he was talking about Christianity.

I thought it was telling he focussed on only one ideology that's used to attack the LGBT community.
Also could you fix the quote tags in your posts so it doesn't look like I'm Trump.

Christianity is foreign, to America.

jamest wrote:I haven't followed the news sufficiently plus this is a long thread, so forgive me for asking whether he has put forward any concrete proposals for 'dealing' with Muslims?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:I haven't followed the news sufficiently plus this is a long thread, so forgive me for asking whether he has put forward any concrete proposals for 'dealing' with Muslims?

Built a wall in the Atlantic.

jamest wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

jamest wrote:I haven't followed the news sufficiently plus this is a long thread, so forgive me for asking whether he has put forward any concrete proposals for 'dealing' with Muslims?

Built a wall in the Atlantic.

Are muslims good swimmers?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/peter-thiel-gay-republican-national-convention/

I mean there are gay Republicans.

And as I said before I identify as a Republican. I reject the party's platform, but I still actively write my state's party conventions and the national convention about why, my voice as a registered Republican also deserves to be heard and represented in my party.

Has anyone said there aren't?

Teague wrote:
The US is so fucked right now that it's worth a try.

Teague wrote:You have the least 2 favoured politicians in history and one is going to become president so fuck it, why not. I really can't think of anything worse that could happen no matter what people try.

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/politics/peter-thiel-gay-republican-national-convention/

I mean there are gay Republicans.

And as I said before I identify as a Republican. I reject the party's platform, but I still actively write my state's party conventions and the national convention about why, my voice as a registered Republican also deserves to be heard and represented in my party.

Has anyone said there aren't?

Well not directly but when you say how dare he use the gay community as a thinly-veiled attempt at attacking Islam, I do have to disagree. It was actually kind of refreshing to see a GOP figure actually acknowledge that it was a GAY Community that got attacked in Orlando by someone who associated with radical Islam.

willhud9 wrote:
As a bisexual man it has been disheartening to hear people from the GOP say, "It doesn't matter how they identified; all that matters is they were killed."

aliihsanasl wrote:Did he really said that he wouldnt intervene if a NATO member would be under attack ? If he said that. it isnt a bad time to move into Euroasia block for Turkey.

Donald Trump has suggested that under his leadership America would not necessarily come to the aid of a Nato ally under attack, saying he would first consider how much they have contributed to the alliance.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... der-attack

Oldskeptic wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:He will win if people become complacent and don't vote.

He'll win if Hillary tries to match Trump in bombast and name calling. Best thing she could do is not mention his name. Run for president on her merits and those of her policies and proposals, not against Trump personally.

quas wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

laklak wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:
Ensuring better electoral choices isn't accomplished by sitting on one's ass. It's everything you do between elections that creates the candidates you get to choose from, not boycotting an election that will go through without your participation.

You are wise beyond your years, young Rachel.

If neither Trump nor Hillary appeal to you, vote Progressive, or Green, or Libertarian. It doesn't require a majority to change policy, even 10% will get the attention of the Big Boys.

No. On election day you cast the vote that avoids electing the dangerous, possibly fascist, choice. That means voting for Clinton. Then, do other stuff the other 1460 days of the quadrennial to forward the progressive cause. 10% means fuck all to the Big Boys. In fact, they'd love it if you kept on in the delusion that that does anything to hinder them.

The vote for "lesser evil" strategy legitimizes election and never fails to ensure the next election would be another Alien vs Predator affair where you'd have to, once again, vote for the "lesser evil". Only a boycott can put a stop to this vicious cycle.

quas wrote:I say get rid of this democractic electoral bullshit, and hand over the presidency to people like Elon Musk. No voting required.