Debate PEDs? Cancelling SNL? [A politics thread]

[Chase]

Things I've learned from this thread.

• I'm -NOT- the worst Conservative on this board - which is shocking in itself.
• Eviora still is content to make logical leaps about reasons people vote for a particular person. (Cyanna, Jake, trust me on this one - this circular argument isn't worth getting into. Let her believe your vote for paying less in taxes equates to you being a homophobic sexist and move on.)
• Preference for the woman who doesn't happen to be a sexist trumps importance of national security.

---

Jake. You have to be more reasoned. Nobody decides to traipse over from the left to the right overnight, and that will bleed into reasoning behind any issue as well. Use neutral citations, provide many of them, and yield where claims are too grandiose to take seriously.

The reason I say this? This is how conservatism will die. People running into the woods and forging theories about people in a damaging manner.

Things you got right:

• Islam (and the Quran) -does- inspire terrorism. It doesn't necessarily mean every Muslim is a terrorist - but having studied scripture of various religions personally, I understand HOW Muslims are supposed to view the Quran from a literary standpoint (much more literally than the Christian is to view their Bible, as it's a beginning-to-end work on Islamic lifestyle advisory as opposed to a collection of writings needing a canon test to put together.) - and WHAT the implications are. What's important to remember though, is that this doesn't justify targeting Muslims for their beliefs. I don't have an idea on how to proceed when it comes to "RADICAL Islamic Terrorism" - but I do believe - with RADICAL being the key word - that using the term for "our enemy" is appropriate.
• Hillary was either negligent or intentionally putting American intelligence at risk. Most Democrats are either uncaring (Eviora), or thankfully understand that it was a mistake and will likely disagree on scale (Squattle).

Things you didn't

...pretty much everything else.

---

Man, even people who are voting for the third party candidates can't win. I recently just read an article about how voting for them equates to "White Priviledge" due to implications for minorities being so high.

I'm sorry. There's more politics out there than identity politics. That's why I'm a conservative. The right does a MUCH better job of appealing to people who don't compartmentalize Americans into groups and then militarize them against their opponents by inciting emotional attachment to their skin color, or sexual orientation, or gender, or socio-economic status.

[Kurotsune]

Honestly, I just take issue with our friend there saying shit like

D. Never said rape was exclusively Mexican, I said that illegals do rape people however. Christ, and you guys say I spin things.

Which is an incredibly ludicrous argument in and of itself.

"Illegals rape people!!11" yes. Illegals also murder people, steal from people, and commit a bunch of crimes.

So do people from literally all nationalities however, it is not exclusively one type of person as you try to spin it. Nor is it the majority of these people as you again try to spin it.

Nor is the majority of these CASES, as you AGAIN try to spin it.

Lastly, the proof of you lying in that statement is in your post itself -

"Over 70% of women who cross the border are raped by an illegal immigrant, or while they are on their way to cross illegally, that is fact. "

That is very, very clearly stating that all rapes are done by immigrants and belies an appalling precedent of you not reading the proof you yourself attach to your statements and, perhaps, hoping that no one else will too.

I don't care about the election, but I do care about proper debates. If you're unwilling to argue with solely facts and will try to twist and turn reality to suit your whims, mayhaps it's best that you don't at all.

[Chevaleresse]

@hunter: the whole thing with identity politics in this election is that the ones who've escalated it to this point have been the republicans by dint of Trump and the idea of someone who obviously holds racist, sexist, etc positions like he does coming into power. He's not the worst candidate that was in the running about that group of issues (that dubious honor goes to Cruz) but his sheer brashness about it is terrifying for a minority voter. The economy and such are a lot more abstract than the prospect of being stripped of opportunities or beaten to death by police officers because you happen to produce more melanin than the average American.

Trump is also a national security concern due to a strong suspicion of having ties to Russia and generally being easily provoked. (Do we really need someone who can be incensed by a tweet in control of the most powerful military force in the world?)

@the actual thing I wanted to talk about: this may be slightly off-topic but I've never particularly liked the way people approach many issues, but in particular is the wage gap. Saying "women get paid less than men on average" is technically correct but also a vast oversimplification. There are a number of factors to this, mostly due to differences in job selection by males and females due to differing values and opportunity costs, as well as how each gender approaches a given job. The short version is that women tend to choose more flexible jobs because it's a lot easier to raise a family, which is a burden that tends to fall more heavily on them. This is evidenced by countries with mandatory paternal leave (essentially making the opportunity cost of a child equal for both sexes) having a much smaller disparity in average pay. The second reason has to do with negotiation strategies; statistically a man is more likely to demand more pay where a woman will be content with an initial offer more often. The factors that play into this are, again, complicated, but I do believe I've made my point.

[Chase]

I won't exonerate Trump or Cruz for running campaigns that have been geared against specific groups. There's a reason both of them are going to lose this election.

- You can't beat Democrats at identity politics. Period.

Groups that traditionally vote blue based on identity issues:

• African Americans
• Women
• LGBTQ
• Muslims
• Catholics
• Hispanics

Women, Hispanics, and African Americans in particular are some of the largest voter demographics in the country and have been a strong reason as to why there are more registered Dems as opposed to GOPers in this country. This precedes Trump's antics and Cruz's rhetoric by a longshot too. African Americans have been a safe Democratic bloc since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, and Democrats have freely been the spinsters of immigration reform being somehow discriminatory for the longest - and it's worked well for them with that group.

Women and LGBTQ folks are literally the only groups that have had legislative successes of recent relevance however - and those were moreso judicial successes than legislative ones (Roe, Obergefell SCOTUS cases) - The other groups on this list have been voting based on past experience - and there are still issues such as wage disparity with women, socio-economic downfalls with African Americans, and immigration reform is still very much needed - in order to help Hispanics above harming them.

Sure, Trump and Cruz are playing to their party's weaknesses - but a Marco Rubio wouldn't necessarily be groundbreaking outside of Hispanics for the GOP either. The Republican Party wins when they emphasize financial matters, jobs, and national security (in the not-Trumpian manner, of course) - all of which apply to every single American ever. That is how they close the gap.

If you want to engage the left on a platform that fringes on identity importance, you will lose that fight every. single. time.

[Eviora]

...And a certain someone, it seems, is still happy to offer the strawman that I even care about the reasons why people vote for whomever they do when, in fact, it is the action of voting for a particular candidate itself and not that rationale behind it that I view as defining. People do bad things for 'good' reasons all the time - keep in mind that the people behind 9/11 likely did what they did believing it was the will of the one true infinitely good god. On that grand scale, it doesn't excuse what they did, and nor do any of our personal excuses absolve us of the smaller scale harm we help cause in the voting booth. What you do, not why you do it, says the most about who you are.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Eviora

[Cyanna Cyril]

This will be my one and only post in this thread. I refuse to vote in this election or watch the debates at this point because they literally picked two of the absolute WORST people to give us a 'choice' between. The poster child for corruption in American Politics vs someone who hasn't the slightest clue of what he's doing. Never in any election as much as this one has the adage of "Pick your poison" ever been more accurate.

Almost did this to be honest. Don't blame you in the slightest.

[Chase]

Eviora... Can you point to me where I said voters were able to be excused of the consequences of who they vote for? I don't recall saying that you are pinning blame on the wrong people.

The issue I have is that you truly believe that action is a sleight against you as a person and the person's intents and reasoning behind their actions mean absolutely nothing to you when it comes to understanding someone.

In the case of the hijackers on 9/11, I understand what they felt they were doing - and I would agree with you in that it doesn't make their actions justifiable. However, it's more apples-to-oranges. In that scenario, the hijackers were committing an atrocious action against people while fully caring about their own skin.

Not everyone voting for Trump is voting for Trump under selfish reasons. People are voting for Trump because they want their kids to be able to practice their religion freely. They want their police departments to be as effective as possible. They want their healthcare plans to be adjustable and their premiums to go down so that more people can afford healthcare while being in charge of who provides it and where. They want to stop a senseless war as quickly as possible so that their families and their friends are safe abroad....

The hijacker wanted the best for themselves period. The Trump voter isn't always so self-centered, albeit probably mistaken.

If a church provides aid to a family the government passes over, are you the person that condemns that church because their beliefs differ from yours - or do you cheer that church for stepping up it's humanitarian efforts?

If you have a genuine care for other people, I would hope you would understand others who care about people - even if they don't agree with you.

[Eviora]

Selfishness has nothing to do with it. Consider a Christian mother who kills her infant child in order to have them sent straight to heaven, untainted by sin. She may be willing to sacrifice her eternal soul to protect that of her child. That excuse does nothing whatsoever to redeem her action. She's still the type of person willing to kill her own child.

I'm the type of person who judges people based on what they do far, far more than what they believe. The Qur'an - and, yes, the Bible - proscribe all sorts of deplorable behaviors to those who follow them. Yet most of those people refuse to obey the worst of those commands. They make up interpretations of their own, or cherry-pick, or do whatever else they have to to avoid that depravity. And I think you'll find that in the vast majority of cases scholarship has nothing to do with their way of "following" their holy books. They are better than their holy books. They don't engage in those atrocities because they're too decent of people to do the things that are being asked of them.

When they help someone, they deserve credit for that. When they hurt someone, they assume the blame for it, and the good things they've done do nothing to lessen their fault.

People like to tell me things like "I'm your friend," or "I care about your well being." Then, some of them add, "And I'm voting for a candidate who would hurt you," or "And I'm too disgusted with this election to stand up for you." I've been subjected to enough abuse in my life to know it when I see it. I'm not buying into those inauthentic 'friendships' that exist only in words. Friends stick up for friends. Sometimes, you have to make a choice. You can vote for your perception of 'the greater good' over your friends, but don't expect to just be let off the hook for that. Your actions show me what you really care about. I'm not just to going pretend you're an ally of mine when you show me that you're not.

[Bluewolf]

Coyotaje, a term I'm more familiar with.

Also this is great and all, but quite honestly what's Trump's plan for actually winning the election. You know, becoming president. Because we can sit here and debate what's true and what's false, who said what and did what where, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton has an average 6.4% lead on Donald Trump, leading 262 electors to his 170.

So unless Donald can...well, become someone not Donald J. Trump, then his battle is a bit more uphill. Although apparently he's a master at all things concerning the "element of surprise" so I'm eager to see his plan to gain 100 electors in 19 days.

[Chase]

I've already touched on this in the past - but I have faith in the elected officials we currently have to not rescind your unalienable rights either way.

That's where you are currently baffling me. There is no evidence out there that Trump's band of misfits will be able to gain any traction in reversing a Supreme Court case. If that were the case, Roe v. Wade would already have been overturned - and paranoia should rest with those who currently are "married" to people of the same sex in previously opposed states. Looking at the polls and knowing where my vote stands as a native of a traditionally Republican state (a candidate who supports the right for same-sex couples to marry and is for leaving the issue of abortion to the states, mind you!) I can earnestly say your fear is a bit irrational considering the circumstances.

That goes for any documented Hispanic immigrant, any peaceful Muslim, any woman, and any African American. You all should be applauding Trump's stupor and breathing a large sigh of relief, because it's severely damaging his bid for the presidency.

I believe in friendship, even with those that have incredibly differing political views (or views about anything in general) with others because friendships are a two-way street. I expect a true "friend" to stop me from getting tunnel-vision and hold me accountable when it's necessary, and I have no problem doing the same in turn. That's what "being a friend" is - not sinking on the same ship together simply because you have each others' backs even when you are wrong in doing so.

I don't need to protect you with my singular vote. I don't need to say "you know, this candidate is better for Eviora than this one, therefore this candidate is the way to go." - when there's things like checks-and-balances, opposing parties grappling for control and often counterbalancing each other, and ultimately a difficult road for a radical to make your life miserable or take away the rights you have earned.

If there's all of those things in place, my vote can go for bigger things, like America as a whole. Seeing as we're electing the President that seems about fitting around this time.

Knowing your demeanor on these forums, I would say that wouldn't consider yourself bigger than anyone else - because you aren't the type to flaunt an ego around. You wanting people to vote for you then - is where the selfishness truly lies.

If that's who you are - then I hate to say it, but it's a little hard to make friends with that kind of attitude. All take and no give makes it incredibly difficult for others to put up with someone.

I for one, think it's because you're passionate about social justice, and you believe THAT to be bigger than "the greater good" or at least that it's synonymous with the latter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - save for how you engage with others regarding it.

[Eviora]

Oh, I've never been any good at making friends, and I'm even worse at keeping them. Remember all those times I said I was crazy? I wasn't kidding, and my brand of lunacy makes relationships quite difficult. That's okay, though, because it makes the few friends that do last all the more meaningful to me.

It's pretty easy to be calm about threats against minorities when you're not a member of any of those minorities. Not all of us have that luxury. As was mentioned in last night's debate, the winner of this election could have significant sway over the Supreme Court, and therefore over all sorts of issues. There has been explicit talk about making a Supreme Court that would undo our progress and halt the progress we've yet to make that is so badly needed. Your willingness to characterize my focus on equality for everyone as tunnel vision is only proof that, while you may be intellectually aware of the problems that remain, you don't have the perspective necessary to actually understand them.

If it's selfish to expect my friends to treat me as an equal and not to simply accept the status quo because there are other, "more important" things at stake, then yes, I'm selfish, and I'm not ashamed of it. Importance is subjective, after all. To consider someone as a friend, or as something more, is, in my eyes, to put them above the mass of blurry faces all around you. I do that for my friends, and I expect it from them in return. Any definition of friendship that doesn't involve something like that is too cheap and empty for me to bother with.

[Chevaleresse]

I'd like to ask something; where is religious freedom being threatened in America at the moment? I'm seeing a lot of the reverse; an attempt to press Christian values, practices, etc into law despite it being blatantly unconstitutional to do so.

[HughJ]

It's pretty easy to be calm about threats against minorities when you're not a member of any of those minorities. Not all of us have that luxury.

The low-key 'check your privelege'

Seeing as "packing the Supreme Court" is the closest thing this thread has come to an objective political discussion since the first page or so covering the role of censorship in media, I might as well chime in

Both Clinton and Trump are pursuing agendas largely separate from their campaign platforms. Thus far, Sanders and Stein are the only two (ex-)candidates that have convinced me that they genuinely believe in the progressive arguments they've made.

Clinton is almost certainly going to reverse her positions from the TPP down on to Bernie's feeble requests of a bumped minimum wage. People within the Democratic Party have already suggested this and Bill Clinton lately promoted it just like he stumped for Hillary at local booths back in the nomination process. If she gets in she'll probably push first for a Democratic majority in Congress by dumping money in from the Clinton Foundation (if she doesn't have control already after HOR voting on the 8th) and from there attempt to pack the Court without veto (as Obama is struggling to do currently).

Trump just says whatever gets him publicity as he explicitly wrote in The Art of the Deal. If he's making some Republican bedfellows as suggested by his cooperation with Pence (who is about as cookie-cutter Republican as it gets and opposes Trump on like 60% of issues) then he'll probably reverse his progressive attitudes on subjects like LGBTQ rights or even abortion (although he seems more personally uneasy about that topic).

They're both in it for the power. At this point American politics have devolved into an organism largely separate from the people's intent, running on hidden donations and appeasing the public they're manipulating with the occasional attempt at reform.

We can argue about the merits of social justice or... friendship... all day but when the candidate of either dominant party isn't going to hold themselves to the interests of their voting base then there's even less value in attempting to convince other individuals than usual

[Chase]

I'm sorry, but the grandiose buzzword "equality for everyone" thing is completely invalidated when people can't be your friend if they hold a different political opinion from you. You can't spin one's voting tendencies disqualifying them from your graces any other way. They can treat you better than some of your fellow LGBTQ allies - but if they don't have the same shot of befriending you as the group in question, it's not about equality, it's about preference. You don't like when people are opposed to your values, so they are automatically cast out.

Furthermore, I don't need to be a homosexual male to understand the pressures of a Trump presidency or conservative power gains from the shoes of one. It's wrong to assume I'm a wallflower that's flaunting my own opinion from a perch when my peers are the very subjects that are under that fear and paranoia. In order to claim one needs to "check your privilege" one needs to automatically assume there is no care whatsoever for that person's friends and family that fit the bill. This is where you fundamentally stumble on understanding other people, Eviora. Just because one determines the correct decision is to disagree with one's friends DOES NOT mean one doesn't care about those friends. For example, many Trump voters -I- know are very distraught by their vote (for good reason) - but taking the man away from the issues, they felt it was the right thing to do, despite people (such as myself!) chiding them for their endorsement of perhaps the worst candidate in Republican history. In my case, it was my understanding of friends who are Muslim and females that solidified my decision to vote third party. I'm not a winner, but if the miracle occurs, or if Hillary wins through my rebellion, my friends don't have to suffer.

That does not mean I think Hillary is the best candidate for the job, or that I agree that her policies have to be supported or else my friends will bear undue burdens. It -does- mean however, that in an election where the issues are subverted by literal garbage and substance is replaced by "us. vs. them" politics, I need to protect those I care about.

Gary Johnson at least allows me the opportunity to vote for both - hope for America -and- protecting my friends.

---

Murdoc, the war being waged between secularism and Christians is two-sided. What you're seeing is indeed aggression, from a preferred vantage point.

1. Recently, the City of Houston (which elected it's first homosexual female mayor recently) issued a subpoena to all ministers in the city in order to have the first rights at their sermons so that they can be edited or thrown out by city officials to prevent pastors from "hatespeaking" against LGBTQ individuals. The mayor would eventually walk back the ordinance following an outcry from ministers in the surrounding area. She held a conference with concerned pastors and determined that they had "no hate in their hearts" - but had they stood it would have been a flagrant nullification of the ministers' First Amendment rights.

2. A Denver bakery refused a gay couple service when asked to provide the newlyweds a cake for their marriage. The baker cited his religious beliefs as to why service was refused, and the couple sued. The couple won that suit, as Colorado courts ruled that refusal of service based on religious grounds is "discriminatory."

3. The Kim Davis fiasco - caused when Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, citing her religious beliefs as to why she refused. Unlike the Denver bakery, Davis actually spent time in prison for failure to issue the license. When she was released, conservatives such as Mike Huckabee praised Davis for standing for religious freedom - making her a figure in a real "war".

With these accounts, what often goes unheard is that part of the Christian doctrine regarding the term "marriage" states that each marital bond is ordained by God. Due to biblical interpretation of same-sex relationships, there is no theological grounds to assume God is involved with a bond He is quoted to call "an abomination". Therefore, the holdup for MOST Christians on same-sex marriage, is that it doesn't fit their definition of the term. There's no "hate" to be found in that - only a difference in understanding brought about by practicing their faith - which is something that is perfectly protected by the Constitution.

There is no "war on religious freedom" - but there most certainly is a war between adherents of theistic faiths and secularists, caused by issues like how insufficiently the Obergefell case remedied the issue of same-sex marriage. LGBTQ people are leery and lash out at those who threaten to roll back the clock, and Christians have tangible happenings in the news to point to when people seek to deny any lashing out taking place. This causes strife caused by both sides.

---

Most important thing I've gathered from this election: Vote in Congressional races and apply the checking and balancing to either one of these clowns.

[AiedailEclipsed]

[...]

Groups that traditionally vote blue based on identity issues:

• Catholics

[...]

I was content to sit on the sidelines with my popcorn until I got to the above statement. Would you be able to expound on this a bit? It seems a bit counter intuitive on the surface. Catholics are generally pretty conservative on most issues, last I'd checked? I mean, I'd think the abortion issues alone would push the Catholic vote (any-mainstream-Christian vote really) towards the Republicans.

[Eviora]

People can hold a different political opinion from me and be my friends. They just can't vote for a candidate who would oppress me given the chance, ignore the election as if it were a non-issue, or waste everyone's time voting for a candidate no reasonable person believes has any chance to win when there are real stakes. I judge by actions before beliefs, though I must admit, there are some beliefs I would find disqualifying, such as "you deserve to burn forever for not worshiping my god." But you're being ridiculous now. Being my friend is not some matter of social, economic, or similar importance. Any pair of individuals may not be friends for pretty much any arbitrary reason. Not even I want the government policing who we have personal relationships. Not being friends with a person is not on par with hating, or even disliking, that person. And, by the way, I'm not more likely to be friends with someone just because they're LGBT. Honestly, I'd say it makes me even sadder when I see someone who's willing to throw themself under the bus along with the rest of us.

Where you fumble on understanding me is in the assumption that I care whether others care in the abstract space of their mind. Those who genuinely care will show me. The others are just liars, to me and maybe to themselves.

By not voting Trump, at least you're not attacking your friends. But a Johnson vote doesn't protect them because - seriously, now - he has no chance of winning. Protecting your friends and some of your political viewpoints are in diametric opposition. You can choose one, or you can refuse. But hoping for a better world, a world where that choice isn't necessary, won't bring you any closer to one.

[Neo]

This will be my one and only post in this thread. I refuse to vote in this election or watch the debates at this point because they literally picked two of the absolute WORST people to give us a 'choice' between. The poster child for corruption in American Politics vs someone who hasn't the slightest clue of what he's doing. Never in any election as much as this one has the adage of "Pick your poison" ever been more accurate.

Same, as far as posting goes. That being said, we've got a supreme court opening. This election kinda decides where that seat goes. Do consider that.

[Chase]

I was content to sit on the sidelines with my popcorn until I got to the above statement. Would you be able to expound on this a bit? It seems a bit counter intuitive on the surface. Catholics are generally pretty conservative on most issues, last I'd checked? I mean, I'd think the abortion issues alone would push the Catholic vote (any-mainstream-Christian vote really) towards the Republicans.

Largely due to immigration patterns and the origins of Catholicism in America.

For example - Mexican Americans and Native Americans who identify as Catholic typically live in the Southwest, where historically Spain conquered the region and set up missions. Mexican Americans have been historically Democratic, and Native Americans tend to side with Democratic politics as of late (see recent pipeline picketing).

The rest of the Catholic population tends to live up north, in generally more liberal areas - meaning location is a major influence to their political identity. Another reasoning Catholics could potentially lean to the left is because of immigration patterns from European countries, that tend to be more liberal than several American states.

For these reasons, Catholics tend to much more liberal than their Protestant neighbors. (Obama won nearly 50 percent of Catholics as opposed to 30 percent of Protestants - to put things in perspective.)

---

I can accept that much, Eviora. I still think it's too conditional to really call "friendship" - because from my experience, action only is the building block of what truly matters with any relationship ever - trust.

I - don't know about anyone else here - have a difficult time talking to friends who are voting for Trump because I feel like they are doing so out of pressure from external sources (which includes the bloomin' Supreme Court seat!) as opposed to making a decision that they are comfortable with. I tend to get fairly annoyed when people make themselves out of ability to control a situation they perfectly can. (I.e. casting a vote.) However, having conversed with them enough - the "show-me" moments build on top of one another and then all I need is to see the look of disdain in their eyes to know they aren't just being moronic. I find prioritizing actions in a relationship to be very stand-offish - but to each their own.

The only option that leaves for this election - by process of elimination - is voting for Hillary Clinton. It's at that point where someone would have to pardon the other if it were really a friendship. Is Hill a terrible person? I can't say for sure. I only know she's not perfect and that I disagree with her on virtually every issue. Is casting my vote SOLELY for a friend worth it?

Trump makes a compelling case - but I would have to say no.

This is where a vote for Johnson matters though. As a Texan who would normally vote Republican, this equates to one less vote....for Trump.

Mathematically, that's as close to a vote for Clinton as I can give my friends who are worried about a Trump presidency. In substance, there are some things I can actually get behind on the candidate I'm voting for's platform too - a nice bonus in the out-there event he gets first place in New Mexico and really throws this election into the Republican held House of Representatives - (which, depending on what Trump looks like, makes Johnson the PERFECT compromise vote to save GOPers' political futures and accomplishing the mission of keeping Donald out of office for House Dems.)

Knowing this helps your cause - does it change things for you? Or do you still think voting third party wastes your time as someone who wishes to avoid a Trump White House?

---

The other thing I find disheartening is - does it take someone voiding their right to vote based on their conscience to preserve your friendship when there's so - SO many other ways to "show" you they care that are much more consistent than an election year with absolutely horrid draws?

If there are more things to life than preserving your equality, is that truly the selling point?

[Eviora]

I don't really see how voting Johnson does anything that couldn't be accomplished just by not voting at all. It's one less vote for Trump either way. That's certainly better than a vote for Trump, but not as good as a vote for Hillary. Taking the vote from Trump puts him at a disadvantage of 1 vote. Giving it to Clinton would put him at a disadvantage of 2. So, overall, your anti-Trump stand feels quite half-hearted, and like the Johnson vote is more a matter of you feeling obligated to vote than anything else. I'm pretty sure it's not a waste of my time, though. It seems more like a waste of yours.

Is there anything worth more to me than legal equality? I must concede that there are many. But are they things that a small group of friends could provide? No, I don't think so. I would engage in almost any proverbial deal with the devil to have just fit in from the outset. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any suitable demons to bargain with. So I'm stuck in this horrid, icky world full of horrid, icky bigots, at least until I can muster the courage to free myself from it. I can't just hide in this tower forever, so I'll need to be able to stand up for myself. But I'm just one person. Without the right laws in place to protect me, what exactly do you expect me to do? Do you think words of comfort and encouragement will save me? No; words are wind. I wish it were as easy to just get by with everything stacked against me as you seem to think it is. But it's not, and having been dead as long as I have, I'm sick of lies and distractions. If you have a conscience of any value, no matter what you do, you'll be violating it one way or another. Best not to hesitate; decide what you can sacrifice, take aim, and pull the trigger. But if it's people rather than ideas that you execute, don't expect to be forgiven. Misfortune has its ways of spreading.

[Strider]

I won't put down any opinions, but it really is terribly sad that voting for a third party candidate is seen as a bad thing. If it continues to be seen as a throwaway vote, its likely going to be a long time before we have three candidates at a debate, or a third party candidate with a chance at winning.

[Chase]

It seems like your problem then, is that you're not content with the progress that -has- been made - which is incredibly understandable. However, this political issue seems to be more of a stem for the plant that really eats at you. In order words, people wanting you to be treated less than others is the cause of something along the lines of self-doubt or a need to avoid people in order to stay away from those who would see you fall. You're clinging to the progress you've made because it appears uncertain if it will hold - and that would explain why you have a hard time trusting people who don't completely buy in and draw their swords for what you have as well.

I'll admit. For me, it -is- easier to brush off attacks. Here is where checking my privilege is appropriate I'm white. I'm male. I'm straight. I've been blessed with parents who are at least partially supportive, and a job that enables me to take care of my needs. I also have a church family that is patient with me when I challenge them on things like God's role in American governance. While most of my friends are liberal, they understand my arguments as a conservative and don't equate me to the likes of Trump, so I don't face much backlash there either.

I don't have many friends though - largely because I'm stubborn, my faith offends or makes others leery of me, and I'm not the most gentle soul out there. That's why this matters to me so much. The most important thing I've found about this election is that it rips up communities. I'm tired of watching a man berate a woman for being pro-Hillary just because - according to that man - Trump "said something mean". I'm tired of my so-called friends looking at the vote and not the person and harassing them for voting with what their heart tells them to.

If history says anything, governance is sordid. We have figures like Hitler, Nero, Nebuchadnezzar, King George, and countless others, and while they weren't all popularly elected, Andrew Jackson is widely considered one of the worst American presidents (despite being the only president to pay off the National Debt) because of the pain and suffering he caused Native Americans during his tenure. Even the "good" presidents like Obama leave office looking 50 years older than the way they looked 4 or 8 years ago.

It's not worth building barricades and losing friends over. I would happily consider more thoughtfully Hillary Clinton if the campaign she ran reflected her campaign's slogan. One of Trump's few darts to actually land on the board is that her campaign has been very much "Trump must fall first, American prosperity comes second."

As much as I welcome dispute and dissent, I'd rather be "stronger together" than strongly opposed to one another. If that results to half-baked efforts to reach out to you. I'm sorry. It kinda reflects how half-baked Hillary Clinton's efforts are to reach voters like me.

[Eviora]

Oh, I'm not saying Hillary is any good. I'd sooner vote for a third term Obama if I could. But Hillary really isn't threatening to do much Trump wouldn't do even worse except to keep the status quo on abortion and take assault rifles off the streets. Under Trump, neither ISIS nor global warming would be the greatest threat to the U.S.... because the president would be the greatest threat to the U.S. The man has minimal self restraint. He's running for president and, judging by one of the original subjects of this topic, he can't even take being the butt of a joke. Imagine what he'd do if like Iran refused to settle on a deal he found acceptable, or if Kim Jong-un made one of his usual threats to attack us. To paraphrase (or maybe quote) Robert Downey Jr., "Do you really want to give the nuclear codes to a man whose signature move is firing things?"

The political issues may just be the stem of the plant that trouble me, but you'll never kill that planet if you leave the stem intact, and probably not even if you don't. When I talk about brushing off attacks, I'm not just talking about words. I'm talking about physical attacks, both direct ones and indirect ones that come in the form of denying me fair treatment with regards to getting a job, medical coverage, etc. I've stopped doing things I used to enjoy because I feel I would literally be endangering my life if I didn't. If I must die again, it will be cleanly, and on my own terms. But as long as some of our leaders continue to validate the reasoning people would use against me and that behavior continues to be viewed as acceptable, that hostility will continue to exist, and my reasons for avoiding people will remain good ones. If a politician suggested reinstating racial segregation their career would be over, but if they suggest employing the same policies against LGBT people, plenty of their peers will jump on board. It's the people who vote for them despite their enthusiasm to brush aside the undesirables who enable them to keep acting that way. That's why I won't excuse those votes even on an individual level. They are the energy that flows through the stem and into the plants. (Not that I know how plants actually work...) If your heart tells you to feed the plant, then you can see why we'd have problems. In the short term, you have a choice to make. One 'evil' against the other. But in the long term, you have the opportunity to show your party their disdain for their bigotry. Tell them that you won't accept their unnecessary sacrifices. Force them to change. Or don't. But don't pretend which you choose doesn't say something about you.

By the way, despite the many fears I face in my effort to be myself, I'm far from the worst off among my community. In four days, I'm getting Facial Femization Surgery. It will cost in the neighborhood of $40,000. I'm not a strong person. I've been putting up with people's bullshit for most of my life - most notably, with my own self hatred - and I'm nearing my limit. If I didn't have a supportive family and parents who are decent enough to actually help me, I can guarantee I'd have killed myself a long time ago. Even with their support, the thought is a constant presence in my mind. You may have no sympathy for the suicidal, but regardless of how you feel, this phenomenon extends well beyond me and will continue to do so as long as the current social attitudes are perpetuated. So keep in mind that opposing abortion isn't the only way to be pro-life.

[Chase]

- I think it's important the country really turns the corner on transitional therapy and you wouldn't find a larger advocate for it in a church sanctuary on Sunday than me. You're most certainly not the first story I've heard along those lines, and I we're on the same page on that front. It's unfortunate that things such as "bathroom rights" are the talking point at large instead of the effects of psychological therapy on similar cases. It's wrong to try and re-wire identity in someone simply for society's sake. Period.

- I think the real "binary" choice with Trump is would you vote for him - or not. There's two things that have to be addressed when exercising your right to vote.

• Is this candidate someone that can unify the country (Neither candidate has shown that they can.)
• Is this candidate fit to serve? (Trump has shown very clearly he isn't.)

From there, that would determine a 2 person race. Since the race isn't a two person race, the decision has to be made on voting for someone you 100 percent don't support (but is fit to hold office) or vote for a low percentage candidate that shares some of your values while preventing the major party candidate from having your vote.

Going back to the plant description, a vote for Johnson (or staying home) - under your words - is "half" bad for Trump from a usual Republican voter. instead of water, it's like giving the plant too much sun, causing Trump's hatred plant to wilt. A vote for Clinton would be straight poison and would most assuredly be harmful to the plant for sure, but you don't have to poison the plant to kill it.

From there, I would hope the candidate's record matters to you. If a conservative that would normally consider voting for a candidate that may cause detriment to your cause votes instead for a candidate that is supportive of your cause, that's more help than you might have gotten if the candidate were worse than Trump. In that way, Trump might be helpful. One by being so much of a disgraceful politician that Democrats may be able to sweep all thee branches of government (a tilt in the trans-person's favor) and Two by causing serious thought reform in the other major party so that nominating another Trump doesn't happen again.

I mean, that's what Ralph Nader was all about. The election goes well beyond November 8th. I would hope redemption is possible past that point for you, because your community could really use all the help it can get. LGBTQ members are not quite at the same level as women and ethnic minorities. You'll need the moderates or the estranged conservatives to help out.

[Eviora]

I would say the "binary" is actually more of a "trinary" (is that a real word?) of A. Support Trump B. Oppose Trump or C. Neither. If there were some viable way to oppose Trump without supporting Hillary that would be one thing, but I don't really think there is since Johnson and Stein obviously won't win. Before I suggested there was no effective difference between a vote for Johnson and not voting, and I don't think you've actually disagreed with me there yet during this conversation.That doesn't sit well with me because if too many people do that, they risk actually letting Trump squeak through with a victory. I'm irrational enough to believe that the moment I become complacent in thinking that he's lost is the moment he wins. I've already voted myself, so if I were a healthy person, I'd just stop thinking about this, but alas; we become the monsters the world makes us. I won't feel safe until this is all said and done. Then I'll start worrying about 2020.

And it's with that thought that the whole question of "redemption" kind of blows up, because if it were Cruz on that ticket, a man who would be worse for me than even Trump, you would be supporting him, wouldn't you? He made the hilarious mistake of sacrificing his backbone on Trump's altar two weeks before Trump got tyrannosaurus rekt by 2005 Trump, but there will always be others like him. Others who might tempt you to make bigger sacrifices. In the end, as long as you're willing to take those kinds of measures, how can I ever view you as anything but a traitor waiting to happen? I've been burned too many times to take that sort of risk. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm the only one so obsessed with consistency that I can't write off being so readily thrown aside. But I doubt it.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Eviora

[Void]

There is a actually pretty big difference between voting Johnson and not voting at all, even if he realistically stands no chance in this election. Winning 5% of the popular vote will qualify the libertarians for millions of dollars in public funding for the next election. Hitting that mark will be a step towards breaking the current republican/democrat duopoly.