The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm now genuinely scared of a Trump presidency

Kulindahr said:
Of course you can -- you can just say that gay rights isn't all you support, and Trump stood for a lot more that you favored.
Click to expand...

No, they really can't.

You can't say you support rights for a specific group of people and then knowingly vote for someone who has it a part of their mission to take those rights away. If they actually did support these rights they would not vote for said individual. Especially when you have options of other candidates who do support these rights.
 
Benvolio said:
Taxation to reduce the debt is possible now. It could not work with democrats; you could never tax enough to catch up with their spending. More taxes encourage more spending by dems. With a trillion a year deficit, Obama wanted to reward the unions with exaggerated infrastructure expenditures.
Click to expand...

You whine about other people calling names, but you do the same with your constant lying caricature of Democrats -- and your continual false statements about Obama, in this case a very tidy double falsehood: no "exaggerated infrastructure expenditures" were ever proposed, and there was no intent to "reward the unions". Those are your fantasies arising out of worship of an ideology that doesn't care about reality.

The county where I live got more dollars per capita of stimulus infrastructure spending than any in the country -- and not many of the jobs that got provided were union. Additionally, that infrastructure spending resulted in substantial savings to thousands of people because disintegrating roads were no longer damaging vehicles -- savings in the four-digit range for companies using those roads. NOT spending money to repair our roads is criminal, constituting am effective penalty for engaging in economic activity.

Further, given that union members no longer vote straight down the line for Democrats, you should be thrilled about union members getting jobs; it means that Republicans are earning more!
 
MakeDigitalLove said:
No, they really can't.

You can't say you support rights for a specific group of people and then knowingly vote for someone who has it a part of their mission to take those rights away. If they actually did support these rights they would not vote for said individual. Especially when you have options of other candidates who do support these rights.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. No one is obligated to vote on the basis of one issue. And there are much bigger issues confronting our nation than gay rights--even if you believe Trump is out to hurt gays, which I do not.
 
Benvolio said:
You did not answer the questions: how does immigration help people already in America? How does it help unemployed blacks and hispanics?
Click to expand...

Immigration helps people already here because per capita immigrants are much more likely to start businesses that provide jobs. Today's Republicans love to talk about "job creators", but then voted against legislation that would have rewarded real job creators by letting them turn their temporary visas into resident status.

Immigration also helps people already here by providing workers who will take jobs that current residents just won't do. When my county had an unemployment rate of 18%, there were still jobs no citizens would take, even at over twice minimum wage! Without immigrants, those jobs would have gone unfilled, crippling the local economy.

BTW, related to this is another reason to increase the minimum wage: it ought to be sufficiently higher than welfare payments that working is far more attractive than being on welfare!
 
Kabluey said:
Immigrants don't move to small towns.

In fact it appears the average Trump voter comes from an area of population shrinkage, not overpopulation.

The fearful people left behind are those who are trying to protect a way of life that is impermanent.
Click to expand...

Actually depending on the part of the country, immigrants do in fact move to small towns: in agricultural areas, lots of immigrants move to small towns because that's where they can find jobs they already know how to do. small towns in Oregon where agriculture is primary have far more immigrants as a percentage of the population than do the cities.
 
eastofeden said:
Well bless your neighbor's heart. I hope they are happy with the Supreme Court....and don't complain too much anymore since they helped make it.
Click to expand...

Like me, they won't be happy with the SCOTUS appointments Trump will make any more than they would have with the appointments Hillary would have made -- both will be dangerous for the Republic. That's why I suggest that Democrats tell Trump they'll support nominees who are strong on the Second Amendment if they match all other desired criteria; it would get nominees approved quickly and be good for individual rights.
 
MakeDigitalLove said:
No, they really can't.

You can't say you support rights for a specific group of people and then knowingly vote for someone who has it a part of their mission to take those rights away. If they actually did support these rights they would not vote for said individual. Especially when you have options of other candidates who do support these rights.
Click to expand...

Until we can vote "None of the Above", you're wrong -- we have no choice but to vote for people who support things we don't. What you're doing is insisting that support for gay rights means being a one-issue voter. Just as an example, would you really want someone to vote for a candidate who supported gay rights but also stood for allowing corporations to donate unlimited money to candidates without either the company or the candidates to reveal the donations? or supported gay rights but wanted to do away with the minimum wage? how about someone who supports gay rights but thinks women who get abortions should go to prison for murder and have all their children taken away?

Gay rights isn't the only issue in existence, so of course it's possible to support gay rights and support someone who doesn't.
 
Benvolio said:
Nonsense. No one is obligated to vote on the basis of one issue. And there are much bigger issues confronting our nation than gay rights--even if you believe Trump is out to hurt gays, which I do not.
Click to expand...

This doesn't surprise me because I do not believe you are actually gay and you are completely delusional if you think Trump is not going to do anything to LGBTQ people. And No, there aren't more important issues in a candidate when they are for making you even less of a citizen. Don't try to paint me as a one issue voter either.

All the fucking fear mongering bullshit you Republicans believe and spread about Democrats/Liberals that never actually happens, but when Trump/Pence actually make statements about what they want to do against specific groups of people you all come out with "They're not going to do anything", get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
 
Kulindahr said:
So you would vote for someone who wanted to end the minimum wage, send women who get abortions to prison, let corporations buy legislators... so long as the candidate supported gay rights.

That is extremely sad.
Click to expand...

That's the magic of choice, because you know the Democrat does too.
 
mikey3000 said:
^ OMG. I have never heard such selfishness.
Click to expand...

How is it selfishness to vote for someone who would not deny the rights of multiple groups of people?

Personally, first and foremost if I find a Politician to be discriminatory to any group of people, that's it, I am not interested in anything else they are about. If they aren't, then I'll start digging more information to see what they're about. That is absolute top priority to me and any claiming that equal rights and discrimination are not as important issues as <insert x topic>, I believe they are incorrect.

I consider that far from selfish. I'm not just worried about myself here.
 
Kulindahr said:
So you would vote for someone who wanted to end the minimum wage, send women who get abortions to prison, let corporations buy legislators... so long as the candidate supported gay rights.

That is extremely sad.
Click to expand...

No, I cut that part out for a reason. Do not assume this about me because I find your hypotheticals and examples a distraction from the original point I made.
 
Alnitak said:
A feeling that one is behaving with honor and dignity is the number one priority for any self respecting person.
Click to expand...

At the expense of the majority of your fellow citizens and your American democratic way of life? I think not. Sniveling bigots. Pathetic.
 
mikey3000 said:
At the expense of the majority of your fellow citizens and your American democratic way of life? I think not. Sniveling bigots. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

My conscience is clear because those who are pro gay are also pro everyone else except the disgustingly rich white male elite.
 
Ha ha!! There are plenty of disgustingly rich white male and GAY elites too. Get over it already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top