Gays For Trump Thread

ActionBuddy

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Posts
13,958
Media
15
Likes
31,447
Points
618
Location
Seattle, Washington, US
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Y'all do realize that Gays are welcome in the organization, and they aren't interested in alienating anyone on the basis of sexual orientation?

Yeah, right, dumb-ass... That's a "welcoming" group that I will "social distance" far more than 6 feet from!

As usual, you have missed the point @malakos .

A/B
 

Nigel Atkinson

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Posts
987
Media
0
Likes
2,036
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Nor did I say that you said anyone had to leave.

I didn't comb through all 300 posts before writing you. That is true. If y'all are able to read every post in several hundred post long threads you comment on, good for you. I don't have that kind of time on my hands.

I do remember there being posts complaining about this thread being crashed by anti-Trumpers. I agree that was silly. The thread wasn't started with the intention of it being a safe space, just a place to discuss the "Gays for Trump" phenomenon. But I don't understand why you would indulge that complaint, and encourage a shutdown of dialogue. Especially given how necessary the voices of Gay Trump supporters are for gaining traction on understanding "Gays for Trump".

Why would you want all Trump supporters to leave a discussion that's supposed to be about "Gays for Trump"? Seems like Gays who support Trump would be a demographic that would be important to be represented in the discussion, to be able to understand what the phenomenon is about.

You have this tendency to forget what you've said five minutes ago. I never encouraged any sort of dialogue shut down. I saw complaints from people feeling like they weren't able to express their views and wanted to take their discussion elsewhere, so I created a thread with good intentions. Like I said on that thread. You and the others do not have to use that thread if you choose not to, but it was opened as an outlet for you to feel comfortable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinderel

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You have this tendency to forget what you've said five minutes ago. I never encouraged any sort of dialogue shut down. I saw complaints from people feeling like they weren't able to express their views and wanted to take their discussion elsewhere, so I created a thread with good intentions. Like I said on that thread. You and the others do not have to use that thread if you choose not to, but it was opened as an outlet for you to feel comfortable.

What in your quotes indicates I forgot anything? Do you not understand the difference between softly encouraging people to check out another place, and insisting that they must leave the first place? It's the difference between "Hey, have you seen that place around the corner, I think you might like it" and "Your kind don't belong here, go on and get". The former is encouraging one to go to another place. The latter is saying one has to leave. I was describing what you were doing in the former manner. You changed the description to the form of the latter.

You're assuming that thread is somehow appropriate for me. You stated that the thread is for right-wing Trump supporters, which happens to not describe me.

I don't really care to scrutinize your motives any further. I'll just let that topic drop. But I will stick with my claim that segregating this discussion is counterproductive, and it would be better to instead shift your tone to not be so antagonistic to those on the other side, so some real exchange of information might be possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bramguy60

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I block Trump-supporting gays on Grindr and Tinder. I'm hot, so that's a huge L for y'all.

Yes, I grill dudes on their political views before I fuck them.

Oh, darn, now I feel like I'm really missing out by deciding to not sink more hours into that shitfest. Golly, there's some arrogant "hot" (interesting you have no pics of any kind) guy who feigns to have some sort of dignity by screening his tricks for their political views! What ever am I doing with my life in not being on Grindr?!
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Gavin McInnes is a clown. If he were half as serious as that video wants to make him look, there would have been coordinated rightist attacks in the past few years that would have made the BLM riots look like circle time. But there weren't. And he isn't. He mostly just enjoys getting people outraged, somewhat like that Milo creature.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So is Trump, Spencer, and whole bunch of other "clowns" I COULD mention. ALL dangerous when embraced and followed by those of like ILK.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So is Trump, Spencer, and whole bunch of other "clowns" I COULD mention. ALL dangerous when embraced and followed by those of like ILK.

The Donald can be seen as dangerous in certain respects. He actually has power though. None of these other losers do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bramguy60

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Yeah, right, dumb-ass... That's a "welcoming" group that I will "social distance" far more than 6 feet from!

As usual, you have missed the point @malakos .

A/B

I haven't missed anything. It's a group of Gay men conflating their milktoast centrist liberal sensibilities with their sexual orientation, as usual, even though there is no real connection. Assuming the linkage of these two things, they read any sort of opposition to an expansive program of social progressivism as an attack on their identity. In response, with this supposed linkage still in mind, they flout their sexuality as if a defiance to those who have "attacked" them. But the conflation is misguided to begin with. And groups like the Proud Boys certainly do not care if someone discreetly has a male partner. They're not that reactionary.
 

Nigel Atkinson

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Posts
987
Media
0
Likes
2,036
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Why would you want all Trump supporters to leave a discussion that's supposed to be about "Gays for Trump"? Seems like Gays who support Trump would be a demographic that would be important to be represented in the discussion, to be able to understand what the phenomenon is about.

Right here :emoji_point_up:


What in your quotes indicates I forgot anything? Do you not understand the difference between softly encouraging people to check out another place, and insisting that they must leave the first place? It's the difference between "Hey, have you seen that place around the corner, I think you might like it" and "Your kind don't belong here, go on and get". The former is encouraging one to go to another place. The latter is saying one has to leave. I was describing what you were doing in the former manner. You changed the description to the form of the latter.

You're assuming that thread is somehow appropriate for me. You stated that the thread is for right-wing Trump supporters, which happens to not describe me.

I don't really care to scrutinize your motives any further. I'll just let that topic drop. But I will stick with my claim that segregating this discussion is counterproductive, and it would be better to instead shift your tone to not be so antagonistic to those on the other side, so some real exchange of information might be possible.


You made a claim that I wanted people to leave this thread. Then stated that you made no such claim. I highlighted it in bold to give emphasis to my point and show that you forgot your previous statement. Because you quickly backtracked when I called you out on it. I've never been antagonistic with you. I've actually been quite polite and have continuously tried to keep things cordial between us in spite of your pugnacious responses in general. It quite hard to really have a conversation with you when you deliberately obfuscate everything you say. I already told you that I made that thread because you and others were complaining that you felt you couldn't express your viewpoint. If you feel like it would be counterproductive for you to use the other thread, then that's fine. You are under no obligation to use it.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Right here :emoji_point_up:

You made a claim that I wanted people to leave this thread. Then stated that you made no such claim. I highlighted it in bold to give emphasis to my point and show that you forgot your previous statement. Because you quickly backtracked when I called you out on it.

I'll CP the thread of the particular exchange:

I just made a thread for you Trump supporters/Conversatives/Republicans. Feel for to take your rhetoric over there.

Why would you want all Trump supporters to leave a discussion that's supposed to be about "Gays for Trump"?

No one said that anyone had to leave.

Nor did I say that you said anyone had to leave.

You have this tendency to forget what you've said five minutes ago.

The problem is that you read "have to" into my first response to you. But my response did not take that form. I asked you why you would want them to leave. That is different from saying they have to leave, and that was what I was communicating in my second response. So I wasn't forgetting anything. I was pointing out you had changed the form of suggestion "want them to leave" to "they have to leave". Whereas I had never suggested that you were actually trying to force anyone out. So there was no backtracking and no forgetting on my part.

It quite hard to really have a conversation with you when you deliberately obfuscate everything you say.

The sort of thing I do, as exemplified above, is not obfuscation, but rather parsing out semantic nuance, which is, if anything, the opposite of obfuscating. My studies involve a lot of work with semantics, so I'm accustomed to focusing on clarification of meaning with respect to phrasing in this manner. If it doesn't work for you and a different style would be clearer for you, I'm open to suggestions.

I already told you that I made that thread because you and others were complaining that you felt you couldn't express your viewpoint.

I didn't complain about ability or inability to express my own views. I responded to a user who claimed he had been mistaken about it being a "dumptrump sanctuary" by pointing out that most who deviate from that line of thinking do in fact get banned, usually sooner than later.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,367
Media
30
Likes
6,561
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

Why should that be confusing? If there's going to be any holistic understanding of what "Gays for Trump" is about, it's going to have to involve testimony from Gays who support Trump. It's not possible to fully understand a movement, group, organization, culture, or whatnot without sincerely hearing out some individuals from the inside.
 

ActionBuddy

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Posts
13,958
Media
15
Likes
31,447
Points
618
Location
Seattle, Washington, US
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
... And groups like the Proud Boys certainly do not care if someone discreetly has a male partner. They're not that reactionary.

Now that I know that you are completely delusional, I can gladly skip over your posts without bothering to read them.

A/B
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinderel

Nigel Atkinson

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Posts
987
Media
0
Likes
2,036
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I'll CP the thread of the particular exchange:











The problem is that you read "have to" into my first response to you. But my response did not take that form. I asked you why you would want them to leave. That is different from saying they have to leave, and that was what I was communicating in my second response. So I wasn't forgetting anything. I was pointing out you had changed the form of suggestion "want them to leave" to "they have to leave". Whereas I had never suggested that you were actually trying to force anyone out. So there was no backtracking and no forgetting on my part.



The sort of thing I do, as exemplified above, is not obfuscation, but rather parsing out semantic nuance, which is, if anything, the opposite of obfuscating. My studies involve a lot of work with semantics, so I'm accustomed to focusing on clarification of meaning with respect to phrasing in this manner. If it doesn't work for you and a different style would be clearer for you, I'm open to suggestions.



I didn't complain about ability or inability to express my own views. I responded to a user who claimed he had been mistaken about it being a "dumptrump sanctuary" by pointing out that most who deviate from that line of thinking do in fact get banned, usually sooner than later.


:joy::joy: Right now you are currently trying to play semantics with me. You said "Why would you want all Trump supporters to leave a discussion that's supposed to be about "Gays for Trump"?" This indicates that I'm suggesting people leave regardless of the word play you choose to you. This is what I'm talking about when I say you deliberately obfuscate. You actually suggested that I was trying to force people out.


Nor did I say that you said anyone had to leave.

I didn't comb through all 300 posts before writing you. That is true. If y'all are able to read every post in several hundred post long threads you comment on, good for you. I don't have that kind of time on my hands.

I do remember there being posts complaining about this thread being crashed by anti-Trumpers. I agree that was silly. The thread wasn't started with the intention of it being a safe space, just a place to discuss the "Gays for Trump" phenomenon. But I don't understand why you would indulge that complaint, and encourage a shutdown of dialogue. Especially given how necessary the voices of Gay Trump supporters are for gaining traction on understanding "Gays for Trump".

The part I bolded suggest this. Words mean things and if you use them in the wrong way. I different meaning manifest.
 

ActionBuddy

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Posts
13,958
Media
15
Likes
31,447
Points
618
Location
Seattle, Washington, US
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I haven't missed anything. It's a group of Gay men conflating their milktoast centrist liberal sensibilities with their sexual orientation, as usual, even though there is no real connection. Assuming the linkage of these two things, they read any sort of opposition to an expansive program of social progressivism as an attack on their identity. In response, with this supposed linkage still in mind, they flout their sexuality as if a defiance to those who have "attacked" them. But the conflation is misguided to begin with. And groups like the Proud Boys certainly do not care if someone discreetly has a male partner. They're not that reactionary.

@malakos... etc... Tell me:

"Which Side Are You On?" - Pete Seeger


A/B
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,733
Points
643
Gender
Male
Specifically, how has PRESIDENT Trump hurt the gay community?

Trump says he supports queer people; now he’s trying to strip their rights internationally

Though Donald Trump continues to insist that his administration is the most pro-queer in history, a proposed policy to the UN suggests otherwise. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has unveiled the Trumpian Commission on Unalienable Rights, which aims to exclude LGBTQ rights from a new vision of human rights...the proposed doctrine of human rights reverts to a Christianity-based “natural law” which would exclude the rights of LGBTQ people to live openly and free from the threat of violence. The doctrine would also erode women’s rights as well.

Pompeo’s proposed policy is just the latest in a four-year assault on queer people by the Trump administration. The administration has pushed policies banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, argued against workplace protections for LGBTQ people, banned embassies from flying the Pride flag, and appointed a roster of anti-LGBTQ judges among a litany of other assaults on equal rights. Trump’s latest pick to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court , Amy Coney Barrett, signed a statement in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges court decision which legalized marriage equality in all 50 states. The statement signed by Barrett opposed legalization of marriage equality, instead affirming a religious-based doctrine which deemed same-sex attraction and relationships immoral.
 
Last edited:

kidfresh512

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
432
Media
0
Likes
1,373
Points
323
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
SCOTUS Justices Suggest Need to Overturn Marriage Equality
The Supreme Court today rejected the appeal of a clerk in Tennessee who refused to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex on religious grounds, but a dissenting opinion from two of the court’s most conservative justices cast doubt for the future of LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality. The court denied the request of Kim Davis to quash a lawsuit against her after she defied the court order to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, but Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito claimed that court, in effect, created the right to marriage equality in the 14th amendment and in doing so violated Davis' religious beliefs by forcing her to issue the licenses.

In their dissenting opinion, which is unusual for a case rejected by the court, Thomas and Alito declared “it would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process” allowing the people to decide whether to “provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law” but that it is improper for the court to force that “choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”

The dissent went on to say the court’s original ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is where marriage equality was passed, created a “novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment” and that it enabled the government and courts to “ brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.” In essence, they maintain that marriage equality is in opposition to the First Amendment.

"The Court has created a problem that only it can fix," Thomas wrote in his opinion. "until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

__________________________________________________________________
I hope A dem senator flat out asks Amy during the hearings how she feels about this dissent specifically. Is she a firm third in agreeance?
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
SCOTUS Justices Suggest Need to Overturn Marriage Equality
The Supreme Court today rejected the appeal of a clerk in Tennessee who refused to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex on religious grounds, but a dissenting opinion from two of the court’s most conservative justices cast doubt for the future of LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality. The court denied the request of Kim Davis to quash a lawsuit against her after she defied the court order to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, but Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito claimed that court, in effect, created the right to marriage equality in the 14th amendment and in doing so violated Davis' religious beliefs by forcing her to issue the licenses.

In their dissenting opinion, which is unusual for a case rejected by the court, Thomas and Alito declared “it would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process” allowing the people to decide whether to “provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law” but that it is improper for the court to force that “choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”

The dissent went on to say the court’s original ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is where marriage equality was passed, created a “novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment” and that it enabled the government and courts to “ brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.” In essence, they maintain that marriage equality is in opposition to the First Amendment.

"The Court has created a problem that only it can fix," Thomas wrote in his opinion. "until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

__________________________________________________________________
I hope A dem senator flat out asks Amy during the hearings how she feels about this dissent specifically. Is she a firm third in agreeance?

All just the continuation of the gutting of all the progressive gains of the last 30 years. Stand by the Dark Ages are about to make a comeback. Moscow Mitch, Trump and the Senate have been busy stacking the courts with unfit troglodytes.
But but Hillary's emails!