5 ms·

Not to mention "single issue voting" has become a huge trend in this country. Do you know any friends who are LGBT who will vote democrat just because of gay ri

Not to mention "single issue voting" has become a huge trend in this country. Do you know any friends who are LGBT who will vote democrat just because of gay rights, but on any other day of the week are fiscally conservative? I'm sure there are more than one of those people voting for Trump because of some issue they disagree with Hillary on, or some single issue they disagree with Trump on.

untog 10y ago
What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.
- hprotagonist 10y ago
  Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.
  - georgemcbay 10y ago
    "who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency" Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against. I'm not saying minorities who are rich aren't also victims of prejudice and such, but when you are rich and relatively famous (and any kind of minority) you are very unlikely to be openly discriminated against the same way a "commoner" minority will be. ... which makes his support for Trump seem even more selfish to me.
    - supergeek133 10y ago
      By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something? I mean, I see more hateful things being said to celebrities than just about anyone else.
      - sedachv 10y ago
        > By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something? More like being murdered for being gay or black or ... and the police refusing (sometimes openly) to investigate, which used to happen well into the 1960s in the US.
        georgemcbay 10y ago
        Yes, this is more the sort of thing I meant. Sure, when it comes to hateful semi-anonymous bad things said about people on twitter or whatever, celebrities are prime targets (and that kind of sucks, celebrities are people too), but I'm more thinking about active physical-world types of discrimination, the kind that end up with you being beaten, possibly killed, or just denied otherwise deserved opportunities. Being rich/famous doesn't guarantee you won't suffer from that sort of discrimination, but anecdotally it does appear to lessen the chances by a great deal.
        supergeek133 10y ago
        Oh, well in that context yes I agree. Rich people can afford bodyguards and security.
    - hprotagonist 10y ago
      >Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against. I would remind you that the chief claim in US v. Windsor was about the tax implications of a lesbian wedding not recognized at the federal level, which incurred a higher estate tax penalty (to the tune of ~$380,000) which is unconstitutional under the 14th. That seems exactly like something that Peter Thiel probably cares about if he ever chooses to marry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against A person worth north of 2 billion does not risk being discriminated against.
    - hprotagonist 10y ago
      In Thiel's case, that depends entirely on how rude Trump intends on being to gay people.
    - vsl 10y ago
      This entire thread is about attempted discrimination against him due to his wrongthink political views...
- supergeek133 10y ago
  Well, take a different issue then, one that's larger and either drives people to or away from a party. Say I really side with an issue that is on the Republican platform, gun rights for example. We've come to the point lately where that just means I must also be a racist, homophobe, bigot. Guilt by association. Even to the point of people losing their job or life over it. Really? We think that's OK? Then in this case she's doing it simply because he has money and gave it to said candidate? On the reverse I've seen some people with the "pot should be legal" argument get completely put down by some on the more conservative side saying they must also be for free everything!! Which isn't always the case.
- hiringmanager 10y ago
  I am Gay. Hillary Clinton is on the record her entire career as opposing gay marriage. Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference". As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons (Bill signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the first place) are the anti-gay ones (and add Obama to that too) Not all of us are gullible to the blatant pandering and fear mongering democrats engage in. While during the Bush years there was some stupid asinine anti-gay rhetoric from Bush, nothing was even attempted. But it was the Clintons who banned gay marriage. That's all when I stopped being a democrat.
  - danem 10y ago
    Which party has a stronger record of LGBT support? According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center[1], as recently as this year, only 33% of republicans supported gay marriage. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what I'm really voting for is the Democrat party. This means keeping another Scalia out of the supreme court, and forcing the Republicans to take a long hard look at themselves, and really evaluate where they stand as a party. [1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay...
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    "Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference"." That's an -odd- comparison. One is about gay marriage, and one is about people being gay. Trump is perfectly capable of having no issue with someone being gay AND being against their right to marriage. And realistically? What's worse for you as a gay person - Donald's -personal- beliefs, or those he advocates as a policy? http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/ http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se... Besides, Trump has said a lot of things that contradict other things he's said, and gay marriage is one of those: "I am not in favor of gay marriage." For someone affected by such things, you really should be more informed.
  - sn9 10y ago
    And what about the 'T' in 'LGBT'? Surely you haven't already forgotten the rise in anti-trans discriminatory legislation in recent years? Do you think Trump and his supporters are the type to not support those? Which party is it that's been at the forefront of anti-discriminatory legislation and equal protection in general? It sucks that the first past the post voting system of ours all but guarantees that we must choose between the lesser of two evils to avoid throwing our vote away, but what else are you going to do? A vote for a third party is a vote that increases the probability of a Trump presidency.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

untog 10y ago

What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.

hprotagonist 10y ago
Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.
- georgemcbay 10y ago
  "who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency" Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against. I'm not saying minorities who are rich aren't also victims of prejudice and such, but when you are rich and relatively famous (and any kind of minority) you are very unlikely to be openly discriminated against the same way a "commoner" minority will be. ... which makes his support for Trump seem even more selfish to me.
  - supergeek133 10y ago
    By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something? I mean, I see more hateful things being said to celebrities than just about anyone else.
    - sedachv 10y ago
      > By discriminated against do you mean someone saying hateful things to you, or someone actively going out of their way to deny you something? More like being murdered for being gay or black or ... and the police refusing (sometimes openly) to investigate, which used to happen well into the 1960s in the US.
      - georgemcbay 10y ago
        Yes, this is more the sort of thing I meant. Sure, when it comes to hateful semi-anonymous bad things said about people on twitter or whatever, celebrities are prime targets (and that kind of sucks, celebrities are people too), but I'm more thinking about active physical-world types of discrimination, the kind that end up with you being beaten, possibly killed, or just denied otherwise deserved opportunities. Being rich/famous doesn't guarantee you won't suffer from that sort of discrimination, but anecdotally it does appear to lessen the chances by a great deal.
        supergeek133 10y ago
        Oh, well in that context yes I agree. Rich people can afford bodyguards and security.
  - hprotagonist 10y ago
    >Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against. I would remind you that the chief claim in US v. Windsor was about the tax implications of a lesbian wedding not recognized at the federal level, which incurred a higher estate tax penalty (to the tune of ~$380,000) which is unconstitutional under the 14th. That seems exactly like something that Peter Thiel probably cares about if he ever chooses to marry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
- masklinn 10y ago
  > Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against A person worth north of 2 billion does not risk being discriminated against.
  - hprotagonist 10y ago
    In Thiel's case, that depends entirely on how rude Trump intends on being to gay people.
  - vsl 10y ago
    This entire thread is about attempted discrimination against him due to his wrongthink political views...
supergeek133 10y ago
Well, take a different issue then, one that's larger and either drives people to or away from a party. Say I really side with an issue that is on the Republican platform, gun rights for example. We've come to the point lately where that just means I must also be a racist, homophobe, bigot. Guilt by association. Even to the point of people losing their job or life over it. Really? We think that's OK? Then in this case she's doing it simply because he has money and gave it to said candidate? On the reverse I've seen some people with the "pot should be legal" argument get completely put down by some on the more conservative side saying they must also be for free everything!! Which isn't always the case.
hiringmanager 10y ago
I am Gay. Hillary Clinton is on the record her entire career as opposing gay marriage. Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference". As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons (Bill signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the first place) are the anti-gay ones (and add Obama to that too) Not all of us are gullible to the blatant pandering and fear mongering democrats engage in. While during the Bush years there was some stupid asinine anti-gay rhetoric from Bush, nothing was even attempted. But it was the Clintons who banned gay marriage. That's all when I stopped being a democrat.
- danem 10y ago
  Which party has a stronger record of LGBT support? According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center[1], as recently as this year, only 33% of republicans supported gay marriage. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what I'm really voting for is the Democrat party. This means keeping another Scalia out of the supreme court, and forcing the Republicans to take a long hard look at themselves, and really evaluate where they stand as a party. [1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay...
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  "Trump, when questioned what he would do if he found out an employee was gay said "it makes no difference"." That's an -odd- comparison. One is about gay marriage, and one is about people being gay. Trump is perfectly capable of having no issue with someone being gay AND being against their right to marriage. And realistically? What's worse for you as a gay person - Donald's -personal- beliefs, or those he advocates as a policy? http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/ http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/se... Besides, Trump has said a lot of things that contradict other things he's said, and gay marriage is one of those: "I am not in favor of gay marriage." For someone affected by such things, you really should be more informed.
- sn9 10y ago
  And what about the 'T' in 'LGBT'? Surely you haven't already forgotten the rise in anti-trans discriminatory legislation in recent years? Do you think Trump and his supporters are the type to not support those? Which party is it that's been at the forefront of anti-discriminatory legislation and equal protection in general? It sucks that the first past the post voting system of ours all but guarantees that we must choose between the lesser of two evils to avoid throwing our vote away, but what else are you going to do? A vote for a third party is a vote that increases the probability of a Trump presidency.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]