Who are you voting for?

[Ashenfire]

I am a conservative first. I can vote conservative democrat or conservative republican.

I promote 'protection of the minority from the majority' concepts.

 

That is hard to promote when the RNC website decides to TAKE AWAY simple rights for transgender people.

 

Ted believes same sex marriage is 'sin' and transgender girls/boys choose or 'feel' their gender and thats enough to undo the rights we fought for recently.

He follows RNC new proposition to discriminate against trans women and trans men:

http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/2/25/republican-national-committee-endorses-anti-trans-bathroom-bills

 

I had to stop endorsing Carly when I found out she accepted to be his running mate. Can't stand prejudism based on sex, creed, religion, gender.

 

My friend went so for as to renounce her association with the republican party. So sad.

 

Hillary and her camp say that voters should hate their neighbors because they own more than what the voter has. She believes people are not smart

enough to take care of themselves. The big mighty government should do it instead.

 

So let me get this straight "We the people" are not smart enough to take care of our children.

WE need the government to dress us, school us, feed us, be our dietician. Yet she says that is not brainwashing. WE still have rights. ROFL :pirate:

That means that she believes our founding fathers were NOT afraid of tyranny, that it is okay for the government to be our nannies?

LOL :nuke: Toxic idea.

 

She has on record, told energy companies that they should effectively 'compete against themselves'. In other words, if its an oil company,

it must foot the bill, by law, to come up with its own alternative to free energy. How draconian. Got to love it, when a politician believes he

or she can order to the CEO of a company, of how, when, and where business will be conducted. *shhh* we are not to call that fascism.

 

 

@WursWaldo

I was actually thinking that instead of rebuilding, just force the party to go back to their roots.

It was not religious in nature for instance. Both sides of the aisle had believers in God, but that did not immediately equate to making religious laws.

Reclaiming the party by getting rid of the religious elite who decide I must serve their God would be sufficient.

They enjoyed 'protectionism' built in by the Constitution even though it discriminated a class of people.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ashenfire

[Ashenfire]

When is the last time GM was sued because a drunk driver killed a family? (never) It's this kind of idiocy that permeates their policies, and I want nothing to do with them.

It has been attempted, to sue any manufacturer If the manufacturer is 'linked' to a crime or accident. I kid you not, They are trying.

They want to also sue alcohol vendors and alcohol manufacturers for the decision a drunk driver makes.

This of course, means they don't believe WE as a nation are allowed to think for ourselves.

 

Also you said:

"And then there is the whole topic of using the restroom of the gender you identify with..... If you don't think that various and sundry perverts aren't going to use these new laws to expand their 'hunting grounds', you are delusional. There is no way on god's little green acre on want someone with a penis sharing a restroom with my granddaughter."

 

I submit to you, YOU are delusional.

FACT: up to this year, there is not a single case of a transgender woman/man molesting people AT ALL, REGARDLESS if a bathroom bill was passed.

 

FACT: People of ALL groups have been found to violate the trust.

They are WOMEN teachers, priests, men teachers, coaches, fire fighters, soldiers, Subway sandwich promoters, police and so on.

 

FACT: Approximately 1.5 percent of the American population identifies with a gender disorentation. The highest estimate is 3 percent.

Take that percentage, then deduct the ones that know exactly who they identify with. The ones that are not 'fluid'.

Take into consideration that they want protections too and it is IDENTITY they are struggling with, it is not SEX.

 

So, the point is.....it is TOO LATE to be afraid of a dismal opportunity that someone in the transgender community, which is less than 1.5 percent; might take.

 

 

Breathe easy.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ashenfire

[HeyYou]

 

When is the last time GM was sued because a drunk driver killed a family? (never) It's this kind of idiocy that permeates their policies, and I want nothing to do with them.

It has been attempted, to sue any manufacturer If the manufacturer is 'linked' to a crime or accident. I kid you not, They are trying.

They want to also sue alcohol vendors and alcohol manufacturers for the decision a drunk driver makes.

This of course, means they don't believe WE as a nation are allowed to think for ourselves.

 

Also you said:

"And then there is the whole topic of using the restroom of the gender you identify with..... If you don't think that various and sundry perverts aren't going to use these new laws to expand their 'hunting grounds', you are delusional. There is no way on god's little green acre on want someone with a penis sharing a restroom with my granddaughter."

 

I submit to you, YOU are delusional.

FACT: up to this year, there is not a single case of a transgender woman/man molesting people AT ALL, REGARDLESS if a bathroom bill was passed.

 

FACT: People of ALL groups have been found to violate the trust.

They are WOMEN teachers, priests, men teachers, coaches, fire fighters, soldiers, Subway sandwich promoters, police and so on.

 

FACT: Approximately 1.5 percent of the American population identifies with a gender disorentation. The highest estimate is 3 percent.

Take that percentage, then deduct the ones that know exactly who they identify with. The ones that are not 'fluid'.

Take into consideration that they want protections too and it is IDENTITY they are struggling with, it is not SEX.

 

So, the point is.....it is TOO LATE to be afraid of a dismal opportunity that someone in the transgender community, which is less than 1.5 percent; might take.

 

 

Breathe easy.

 

It isn't the trans folks I am worried about. It's the folks PRETENDING to be trans, that are just looking for their next victim that I worry about.

 

Also, I am curious why the majority (97-98.5% of the population) should have to sacrifice their privacy/comfort, for a tiny fraction of the population?

[Ashenfire]

1. Its not a sacrifice.

 

2. Protection of the minority from the majority, transgendrs are fluid, binary and include women and men that deserve the very same rights.

 

3. Why should they be discriminated against because of some fear of a predator. Predators get dealt with by society anyways. Why should

THEY be 'sacrificed' ?

 

Using your example. I would have to have laws that tell gay men they can't use the bathrooms. I would have to say that gay woman can't use the bathroom, after

all your daughter is there. They didn't 'hide' their gender selves. Most perversions come from Heterosexual encounters. Gay folk make up a larger percentage

than 1.5 percent. You don't claim to be scared of them molesting your children. Why are they different?

Its a bad argument.

 

The fact is, that you are mixing up sex and predators, with people who are gender challenged. They should NOT be lumped into that category.

 

Keep in mind, again, you are dealing with predators who DON'T NEED TO PRETEND. Those predators are in a category MUCH higher than 1.5 percent.

If you heard American news recently. You might have heard that the Subway promoter who 'lost weight because of his product' was put in jail for being

a child predator. Could you just look at him and 'know' that he's a child predator? He did not even have to camouflage or pretend. The hunting grounds

as you define them are wherever the predator chooses. They want power/control/sexual gratification. So now a transgender person comes along and

wants to be protected from the same predator, but instead gets rewarded for having more prejudists laws against the person who has not committed a crime?

That is a bad argument.

 

 

4. Why are you protecting haters? You state you are not against transgenders, but the bill was BORN solely to discriminate AGAINST transgenders and its design

is from religious folk who say transgenders are 'unnatural' and a 'disease' and will 'go to hell'. You can not segregate the small transgender population.

 

5. Transgender folks 'bloom' later in life. It is not a 'feeling' or an option for them. There is enough science to prove this. The press doesn't attempt

to call it for what it is because truth isn't sensational. Women/men who bloomed, actually RESENT being called 'transgender' because they fit the

'binary' and figured out their identity.

 

6. Why should less than 1.5 percent of a population, be a threat? Do they all live in your town? I believe thats not true.

 

7. Why is it that I have stated many items already yet; you don't give any counter point to any of them? Your only argument is to keep the freaks and predators

away from your daughter? You unfairly lump the transgender into that category and expect THEM to carry the burden. You don't have the right.

Conservative values include not having a populist state who will erradicate those who think differently from the so called 'norm'. You are proposing this.

Your argument is based on a small population should not have the right to hold the larger population 'hostage' or dictate law.

My argument is based that they are NOT holding anyone hostage. They are simply demanding to be counted in the same rights category everyone

else shares. The same arguments for segration were made for 'separate but equal'. Ask people who are not caucasian, if that argument holds water..

 

 

Its a mistake people make. I forgive them.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ashenfire

[HeyYou]

1. Its not a sacrifice.

 

2. Protection of the minority from the majority, transgendrs are fluid, binary and include women and men that deserve the very same rights.

 

3. Why should they be discriminated against because of some fear of a predator. Predators get dealt with by society anyways. Why should

THEY be 'sacrificed' ?

 

Using your example. I would have to have laws that tell gay men they can't use the bathrooms. I would have to say that gay woman can't use the bathroom, after

all your daughter is there. They didn't 'hide' their gender selves. Most perversions come from Heterosexual encounters. Gay folk make up a larger percentage

than 1.5 percent. You don't claim to be scared of them molesting your children. Why are they different?

Its a bad argument.

 

The fact is, that you are mixing up sex and predators, with people who are gender challenged. They should NOT be lumped into that category.

 

Keep in mind, again, you are dealing with predators who DON'T NEED TO PRETEND. Those predators are in a category MUCH higher than 1.5 percent.

If you heard American news recently. You might have heard that the Subway promoter who 'lost weight because of his product' was put in jail for being

a child predator. Could you just look at him and 'know' that he's a child predator? He did not even have to camouflage or pretend. The hunting grounds

as you define them are wherever the predator chooses. They want power/control/sexual gratification. So now a transgender person comes along and

wants to be protected from the same predator, but instead gets rewarded for having more prejudists laws against the person who has not committed a crime?

That is a bad argument.

 

 

4. Why are you protecting haters? You state you are not against transgenders, but the bill was BORN solely to discriminate AGAINST transgenders and its design

is from religious folk who say transgenders are 'unnatural' and a 'disease' and will 'go to hell'. You can not segregate the small transgender population.

 

5. Transgender folks 'bloom' later in life. It is not a 'feeling' or an option for them. There is enough science to prove this. The press doesn't attempt

to call it for what it is because truth isn't sensational. Women/men who bloomed, actually RESENT being called 'transgender' because they fit the

'binary' and figured out their identity.

 

6. Why should less than 1.5 percent of a population, be a threat? Do they all live in your town? I believe thats not true.

 

7. Why is it that I have stated many items already yet; you don't give any counter point to any of them? Your only argument is to keep the freaks and predators

away from your daughter? You unfairly lump the transgender into that category and expect THEM to carry the burden. You don't have the right.

Conservative values include not having a populist state who will erradicate those who think differently from the so called 'norm'. You are proposing this.

Your argument is based on a small population should not have the right to hold the larger population 'hostage' or dictate law.

My argument is based that they are NOT holding anyone hostage. They are simply demanding to be counted in the same rights category everyone

else shares. The same arguments for segration were made for 'separate but equal'. Ask people who are not caucasian, if that argument holds water..

 

 

Its a mistake people make. I forgive them.

If you don't want to respond to what I actually wrote, don't expect me to continue.

 

You and I have very different views on this particular topic, and neither of us is going to sway the other, and I really don't feel like debating it with you in any event. After all, this thread is about who we are voting for. The dems have to many planks in their platform that I disagree with, for me to even consider voting for them, this is just one of them. It isn't even the one I take the most exception to. Are the republicans perfect? Oh hell no. It's just the stuff that I disagree with in their platform, doesn't raise my hackles nearly as badly. They are, for the most part, the 'lesser' evil......

[Ashenfire]

You and I agree with many things.

 

The sad part is you have not responded at all with any counterpoint.

 

I have articulated clearly to you that your argument does not work, it has already been tried and failed in the past.

 

I most definitely responded to you. Your argument singles out innocent people and does not solve your problem of protecting your children.

 

But oh well......

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ashenfire

[HeyYou]

You and I agree with many things.

 

The sad part is you have not responded at all with any counterpoint.

 

I have articulated clearly to you that your argument does not work, it has already been tried and failed in the past.

 

I most definitely responded to you. Your argument singles out innocent people and does not solve your problem of protecting your children.

 

But oh well......

Just like the democrats gun laws....... :D

[Ashenfire]

Exactly. So you should now see how it helps soothe your fears and apply the same argument.

Just like the gun laws, the bathroom law is used to attack innocent people and put unneccessary burdens on their rights instead of prosecuting the pervert/perp/criminal.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ashenfire

[HeyYou]

Exactly. So you should now see how it helps soothe your fears and apply the same argument.

Just like the gun laws, the bathroom law is used to attack innocent people and put unneccessary burdens on their rights instead of prosecuting the pervert/perp/criminal.

Right. So, it's perfectly fine for some swingin' dick to use the girls john...... Sorry, I just cannot agree.

 

Now, I will grant you, I am sure it happens every day in any event, and folks simply don't notice, or, for the most part, they don't care. So long as it isn't brought to their attention, and rubbed in their face. What I really object to is the whole LBGT crowd seeming to think that their rights should be more important than anyone elses. They demand that folks violate their personally held religious beliefs, in order to cater to them. Whatever happened to freedom to practice our religion? Here comes uncle sam now putting caveats on that. WHY are LGBT 'rights' more important than everyone elses??

 

If the LBGT crowd would simply live their lives, quietly, like the rest of us, not demand attention at every turn, or scream discrimination because a farking CHURCH doesn't want to hold their marriage ceremony.... an act that goes directly against all their teachings/beliefs, we would all be much happier. The LBGT crowd MUST understand that not everyone is going to accept them, and passing laws to FORCE folks to is only going to breed MORE discrimination/hate, not less. Lets face it, the whole topic is HIGHLY controversial... (putting it politely.... :) ) So, how about we all try and NOT make it even more so. If you suddenly decide you are trans, and want to use the 'other' bathroom, and folks that actually have the correct equipment for that facility are uncomfortable with it, ACCEPT the compromise of using a gender-neutral facility. Going out and publicly DEMANDING that you be allowed to use the 'other' john, (jane?) regardless of other folks feelings isn't going to endear you to anyone, and is highly likely to make folks fight back tooth and nail, to make SURE you do not.

 

And once again.... here we go wandering WAY off topic. It's YOUR FAULT! You should be ASHAMED! Violating the principles of good debate by dragging us off on a tangent. See how you are. :D (that is a joke. I am fully aware that expecting ANY thread to stay strictly on-topic, on an internet forum, is roughly akin to expecting the sun not to come up in the morning. :D I am kidding.)

[Ashenfire]

Lets break it down then.

You responded to this thread with saying that voiting for the president had something to do with child predators.

That resulted in saying that trans people should be burdened by the law for a minute possibility of a child predator pretending to be them; when it is clearly not about trans people.

That resulted in lumping trans people with child predators when that is a separate issue.

That somehow got lumped into GLBT entire community where trans people have not been represented fairly by that group either!

Yet, somehow, its okay to vote against a set of people based on the confusion stated above.

There is MORE THAN ONE argument in those statements above.

THAT is why its a tangent. Each argument has value and should be separately discussed.

 

I promise you, trans folk are looking for equality and are NOT looking for drama. They WANT quiet lives!

I feel bad that trans folk don't get represented properly from the GLBT community at a level they should be represented.

Trans folk vote conservative, libral, democrat, republican as well. They are not the driving force to make you miserable.

 

I for the record believe the churches are protected where the government can not tell them how to practice their religion.

It was a fundemental fear that our predecessors would run from 'England's Tyranny' and repeat it in the new lands.

This means that a person can not go into a mosque/church and demand a religious service that goes against the teachings of that establishment.

You are right in that sense.

 

The problem is that religious establishments are challenging what it means to be married and get 'lumped into' the GLBT community.

Liberal elitists don't recognize the protections of religion. They attempted to vote GOD out of the affairs of the Democratic party.

They now are associated with the GLBT community.

I don't take their stance either way. I just wan't people to have rights in public venues and not be singled out because of religion.

 

The threshold of this debate is based on how society as a whole recognizes PUBLIC and PRIVATE entities and how the rights differ.

Most people will argue that churches are 'private property' and can invite anyone they want to into their buildings. They then have the

right to discriminate against transgender people because of their faith. I try to let that go and concentrate on other truths that can be

debated. So I can agree with you that some of churchs' rights are being infringed upon.

 

The problem is that when a government institution or an institution of faith, tells 'a singled out group' that they are not like the others and will pass a law

to segregate them in PUBLIC venues, the law is wrong.

 

You can't quietly live your life, if you are being targeted for persecution for the sins another person can possibly make.

 

The mistakes that the GLBT community make, is that they don't differentiate between church, public, private rights and neither does the majority of people either.

I have seen people of faith, 'froth from the mouth like a rabid dog' because of their hate, I have seen members of the GLBT community do the same.

I ignore them. So should you.

 

I hear that even in the religious crowd, they don't believe marrying same sex couples violates the All Mighty's will. Religion doesn't have to be bad.

That is a religious argument and I stay clear of direct interpretations of a complex faith derived from ancient people.

 

Its my concern to separate the arguments so they are all represented and not confuse them as ONE ARGUMENT.

 

I took your joke in kind spirit. I always give my heart to those that try to make sense of this even when I disagree. Let your heart not be troubled.

binary bathrooms are okay. Its okay to have guns. Its okay to have writing utensils. Its okay to have genitals. ITS NOT OKAY if you choose any of them

to commit a crime to benefit your greed. Each one of them can be used for assault. Gay women will not assault your daughter. Neither will male to female (FTM)

women are are just women. Don't push them out of society for an unfounded fear.