When business teamed up with religion, it’s been tuff for honest, hard-working individuals.. It will forever be easier to anger and confuse than to educate and motivate.

Interesting.

Maybe R's weren't doing that so much before (except for people like Ron Paul, who I admire), but our Governor sure has been lately (Kasich). He was in the R race in 2016 and is now terming out as Governor of Ohio so nothing would stop him from throwing his hat in again in 2020.

Maybe it will be the Moderates who save us.

Also, I think people forget there are other ways to secure rights that we want to be fundamental instead of just being at the mercy of the Supreme Court to interpret the existing Constitution for us. Our generation has yet to put an amendment forward . . .

@empirical I initially thought Rin Paul would shake things up, but he lost me on the gold standard, anti-net neutrality, is in favor of spam email, doesn't want campaign finance reform (likes citizens United), has a 2nd boner, thinks victims of sexual harassment in the workplace should quit their jobs, agaonst gay adoption, pro-birth/anti-abortion, against church/state separation, against same sex marriage, in favor of don't ask/don't tell, loves the death penalty, against public schools, screw the environment, climate change denier, wants to keep healthcare expensive, falls into the "big gov" rhetoric trap all the time, believes in the mythical welfare queen (especially the illegal immigrant type), and thinks the bin laden raid was bad.
I share some of his views, but they are in the dark shadow of the above positions, so I'm glad he is old and pretty much out of the game.

@dokala I'll clarify that I liked his integrity. I felt that he was sharing his honest thoughts, even if my perspective was different. Also, he punted a lot of issues to the states, which I find a cop out because there are certain rights I feel every American should be entitled to, no matter where they live. However, he wasn't mean-spirited like others of his time against gays and those who choose abortion (my litmus test issues at the time - and still today as evidenced by the concerns I expressed in my original post, but I also have a 2nd boner, which has risen (lol) to the top of my litmus test criteria list since the other issues are less urgent now). And yes, once I looked into the history of , I didn't agree that we should go back to the gold standard, but he is the one who got me thinking about things like that. At least he was trying. The main issue I supported him on was Audit the Fed and after some years he got a lot of his other colleagues on board with that.

@dokala Also, contrary to your bleak assessment, two recent Supreme Court cases ruled on the side of free speech. Our freedom of speech includes our freedom to be compelled from speech. The case in which that was decided, won originally from Jehovah's Witnesses who didn't want to get kicked out of school for not saying the pledge, was cited in both the cake case and the union case. If I have "faith" in any government official, it would be Chief Justice John Roberts. I have seen him rally for the underdog as well as offer tough love. He has been on both sides of the gay cases, but I respected his reasons. Plus he's handsome lol

@empirical all that is perfectly reasonable. As I said, I initially liked him. Targeting DoD spending is also a solid idea. An audit can be a good thing.

@empirical Justice "savior of Obamacare" Roberts? As long as he keeps Gorsuch in line so that Gorsuch doesn't tell me I have to freeze to death for a company in order to prevent from getting fired.

Your post has a lot to unpack. Let's go point-by-point.

"Let’s start our rant by poisoning the well . . .”

It looks like you went right into false equivalency. Moreover, nothing I said was irrelevant. Liberals purport to care about equal rights and I listed examples of times their actions do not support that goal.

“and then continue with false equivalency . . . "

I lined up their official public statements. Trump at the RNC and Clinton through the Human Rights Campaign. That's about as fair of a comparison as you can get. What she said was not OK, not matter what else she may have done for gays. She encouraged bigots in her statement. Trump did the opposite. Moreover, I have yet to see a public statement made where he was ever against equal rights for gays to begin with, as opposed to the Clintons, who we have to thank for the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (which was a little progressive, but still short of equal treatment). The Clintons were making gay alliances since the 90's and should have openly affirmed them as equals back then, like Sanders did, if they wanted my vote in 2016 (which Sanders got). They would argue, I suppose, that they thought they needed to be half-ass about gays to get other good things through. What if they had set a better example and just went for the glory of choosing the right thing over politics? I guess we will never know. If Trump could pull it off, it seems like they could have at least tried. Sanders is still around and Vermont was conservative when he started out.

" and straw men." . . .

You did not make clear which argument you thought was straw man.

"I don’t know if you are demonizing Clinton because she dared change her mind or she didn’t. If you were a JW then you were anti-gay and when you got out you either changed you mind or you didn’t."

Here, you are the one making a straw man argument and responding to an argument I did not make instead of the one I did. I was not complaining that she evolved, I was calling her hypocritical for needing to evolve and then still not being completely evolved in the end. I love it when people evolve. For example, our Republican Senator, Rob Portman, openly, explicitly and unequivocally changed his view on gay rights - before Clinton did, I'll add. He realized that being against equal rights is antithetical to being about love (which is what he thought was the main thing his religion should be about) and that making laws about people's personal lives is antithetical to the conservative value for small government. I’m glad he thinks Christianity is about love. That was not my experience. The Bible saying that men who lie with men won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven and other anti-gay lines is a main reason why gays have been oppressed in our country for so long. I guess I am glad he is cherry picking, but it would be nice if people were not presented with such contradictory teachings to begin with. This is what’s wrong with the Bible. There is something for everyone. It causes so much conflict because you can use it to support anything! But yeah, I’m glad he came around to the side of equal rights since this is America and all. Yes, I was technically anti-gay because that is what I was taught as a and believed as a . I began questioning that particular belief as soon as I found out my uncle was gay when I was 16 and that was after rejecting the religion generally at 14. By the time I knew better, I was able to see clearly what equal rights and love should be about. Not sure why it would take others so long, especially Clinton who went to law school and was inspired by King! She shouldn’t have been the last person of all of the above to come around. I didn’t go to law school to my 30’s!

"Trump says something clearly, and it’s alleged and we’re hypocritical?"

He admitted to the contact, but characterizing that contact as "assault" is an allegation. He clearly stated that they let him do it. That is not assault per the definition of assault: unwanted contact.

"Clinton didn’t wear her religion on her sleeve . . . "

She has stated in multiple interviews that the Bible is her favorite book.

Even if she didn't wear it on her sleeve, would that be better? It would be just as two-faced to hide what you believe. It's problematic either way.

". . . and bend over backward to support evangelicals like your new-found hero."

See above. They bent over backwards to appease the Republicans throughout the 90's through DOMA and D-A-D-T. Her 2015 statement that well-intentioned people might still disagree is more of the same. In contrast, Trump boldly asserted his progressive opinion in front of those same evangelicals you are saying he bends over backwards to appease.

"The folks who support the Book of Revelation as literal truth are certainly mostly not Liberals."

Whether or not you take it literally, that is the moral of the story, yet many Liberals refuse to condemn the book. The moral of the story is that anyone who thinks differently will eventually die (it was a recurring theme in the rest of the Bible as well) - in addition to the anti-women, anti-gay and pro-slavery themes. Yet they have no qualms condemning everyone else for how their words might hurt others.

But yeah, a lot of Republicans do it, too. That is what I find so disturbing about this phenomenon. The Democratic Party really seems to think they are different and better. At the very least, they could be a little better about self-awareness.

"My Goodness!"

Yes, My Goodness! This sentiment I share completely. Someone who is open-minded enough to be on a site like this and intelligent enough to admit that we don’t have evidence to believe in “God” is ready to throw all of those qualities to the wind when a political nerve is struck. You have taken time out of your day to try to put down someone who made a post defending equal rights. What sense does that make?

Moreover, you have made baseless assertions in attempts to support your bias. You are educated enough to know about rhetorical fallacies, but shameless enough to name them and then misuse them. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Our educational system is somehow failing us when we are turning out citizens that think nothing of evangelizing their half-baked sophomoric conclusions.

@empirical I think your wrong on every count but at this point I'll just let other readers decide who to believe.

@gearl Thanks for sparing us!

@Mortal I think you are officially a LibtTROLL now. You've said your piece, now you are bopping around looking for any other opportunity to slam. You have already demonstrated that you care more about a silly word than about about gay rights. It would be great if you would spend a fraction of this time and energy letting the truth of the post sink it. You know damn well a Liberal should care about gay rights or else they should admit that they don't really care about equal rights for all. Gay people have been mistreated and many still are OK with it, encouraged over the years by leaders like the Clintons. If you want to be a real activist, do something about THAT. What YOUR last post was, was a great example of confirmation bias (the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories). What is your obsession with trying to label me a conservative anyway? So that you can justify automatically dismissing what I say? Think about that some more, too. That's the cultish behavior I was talking about. Thanks, I suppose, for illustrating my post for me.

as a story the book of revelations is pretty cool. all these apocolipse movies

Exactly. He said they let him do it. Consensual touching is not assault. I hope that if anyone ever accuses you of anything that they get more evidence before judging. To support your suggestion, we would need to hear the other side of the story.

I have already said what I like about Trump, so no need to imagine. He unequivocally asserted gay rights. That was a good thing. I would like to think that a free-thinker can sort out good from bad. No one is all good or all bad. We should be able to have a conversation about the nuances without people shutting down, which is what these friends persistently did. I felt like I was talking to my JW family members. If it didn't support their conclusion, they'd go in circles.

@jorj I could likely name ten DC politicians (off the top of my head) who are not “slime balls.” ...I’m beginning to wonder if you could name ten, period? You been drinkin KGB-Republican kool aid or what

@jorj I can understand your frustration over being duped.. You weren’t alone. My question, had you swallowed the Republican Propaganda before, or after the Russian hacked emails were strategically timed for release? If it were prior, you’re on the wrong board.. If later, I kinda get it … but had I not voted for HRC due to the most ‘incriminating’ emails the Russian Republicans could find, along with the should-be obviously fake ‘social media’ stories spread by the same ..I hope I’d have the personal dignity to admit it..

@jorj Honestly, I’d known Hillary Clinton for years ..to the extent one could. She had my trust, and my vote. She’s never lost my respect. I know what she’s up against ..and they ain’t pretty… Hillary’s a caregiving policy wonk, but good policy. Bill was the politician, evidenced by two terms.. I appreciate them both, both having done far more good for humanity and this nation than the accident now holding their office.

As mentioned around here.. I agreed with 30% of trump’s proposed policy, and 70% of Hillary’s. Knowing those were the only legitimate choices, not having run myself in the Democratic Primary, my choice was clear. HRC would have been kept in check by the republican congress … until or unless the people finally woke up.. And we’d have had incremental change that would have left us poised to compete with the world and live with dignity in a nation that cared for all ..not just the wealthy.

As is, we’re screwed. So you should be jumping for joy! And when future authorities come hunting for the participants on this site … you’ll have 10 seconds to convince them ‘you were on their side’.. Not sure how mass extermination will work in this century, though

@jorj Was just thinking today about ‘when Obama came in,’ and immediately spent his political capital cobbling together as rudimentary a semblance of health care as could get passed - with no help from your side, and the eventual loss of several courageous US Senators voting with America’s best… All that while saving our economy - and fighting both Bush Jr’s wars! Thanks for reminding me…

Problem was, Obama reached out to the Republicans, as if they cared for their constituents, or this nation... Those Republican POS refused to shorten the worst recession/ depression in my lifetime ..all in order to kill the Obama presidency. Two terms - when America was great! Trusted & admired by our allies - Feared & respected by our enemies.

...sorry, couldn’t finish more than your first sentence ..if I wanted FOX Entertainment, I’d, I’d turn in on. As is, I’ve some serious Star Trek TOS to watch good night ~

@empirical

"Exactly. He said they let him do it. Consensual touching is not assault. I hope that if anyone ever accuses you of anything that they get more evidence before judging. To support your suggestion, we would need to hear the other side of the story."

But we have heard the other side of the story, from 19 different women. 12 have come forward since 2016. There are the visits to the dressing room during the beauty pageants. Three separate rape allegations. And who can guess how many were afraid to come forward because this is an extremely wealthy man with an arsenal of lawyers and publicists, who routinely slut-shames his accusers in public? One or two allegations and he gets the benefit of the doubt. This is a pattern of a man who fears no repercussions and thinks he has the right to do anything to anyone.

"I have already said what I like about Trump, so no need to imagine. He unequivocally asserted gay rights."

Yes, he unequivocally asserted them until he decided to run for President as a Republican. He ordered the Attorney General to defend states' anti-LGBT laws in the courts. He rescinded federal protection towards LGBT students in schools. His administration tried to ban transgender people in the military. He is the first sitting president to appear at the so-called "Values Voters Summit", hosted by the Family Research Council. He spoke there twice before, once as a candidate. This is a group that's against same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, LGBT adoption, abortion, embryonic stell-cell research, pornography and divorce. (The pornography and divorce issues should be really close to The Donald's heart, at least, and yet he seemingly saw no conflict in appearing there. Nor they with inviting him.)

If Trump believes in LGBT rights, why has his administration been rolling them back in the name of "religious freedom"?

What you have here is someone who blows with the wind. He claims to be progressive when that's popular, but when he wants the Republican nomination, he adopts all the slogans of far-right hate groups. I don't know what he believes, or if he believes anything. He's starring in his own reality show. He doesn't understand morality beyond the idea that what he wants is the supreme good. HE HAS NO VALUES.

This is the truth. Believe it if you want. Or not.

@Paul4747 Please just stop. You have made it clear you have no idea what you are talkiing about and lack the character to make sure you know what you are talking about before you waste the time of others.

1. You obviously aren't familiar with the law or basic justice. You could have 5 million allegations of assault in other cases, but you could still have lots of consensual interactions as well. Regarding the interactions discussed on a hot mic, the only other relevant sides of the story would be those particular women he was referring to. What is this? Puritan England? What kind of Liberal would complain about sexual freedom and fair trials? (Insert the word you guys don't like here.)

2. As I said, Trump asserted gay rights AT THE RNC. I am not interested in going on for days with someone that can't focus on the facts presented and reign their arguments in accordingly. If you want me to take you seriously, you have to filter your remarks a little better. Here, there is too much going on and your logic is tainted with fallacy. If I take the time to look into some of the other things you mentioned, I take a big risk of wasting my time because your filter has already lost credibility with me.
   There is not much more to say on this post. My point was clear to those who are mentally and emotionally capable of seeing it - a Liberal should understand why I would criticize Clinton for her history of anti-gay actions and words. It's that simple. I don't know what else to do if you can't accept that. I'm not a therapist. For whatever reason, there is some kind of "disease" affecting many Liberals' ability to reason objectively, though they have always otherwise been rational people. As I said to some of the others who appear to have the same infliction, I suppose I can appreciate that you have helped demonstrate the symptoms for all to see.

@Paul4747 Not just for you, but for anyone following, I will add that the cake case was not what I consider anti-gay. That case turned on the freedom of expression the baker should have. Gay rights don't mean gays should have more rights than others. They just shouldn't have less than others. Similarly, trans people have a right to BE trans, but not necessarily a right to have others pay for their surgery. These are all interesting subjects for debate, but my original post was focused on the stated beliefs of the candidates on general equality. In that particular side-by-side, Trump was grand and Clinton was a weasel. Inherit in the struggle to provide equal rights to all is the problem of having competing rights. At the very least, we can make sure that everyone starts with an equal right to at least be who they are.

@empirical And I'm not interested in your cherry-picked examples which ignore the record. Have a great day.

@Paul4747 It's pretty clear you mean the inconvenient truths that challenge your views, but you have a good day, too.

@empirical Holy shit, you're really invested in having the last word.

Look at his administration's record. Look at who he's appointed to the courts. To the Cabinet. Look at his statements. Look at his actions.

And you can also research why he made that remark in his speech. Because it was all part of "the art of the deal".

>> When Donald Trump promised at the 2016 Republican National Convention to “do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens,” it was heralded as an unprecedented declaration by a GOP presidential nominee — and a sign of hope that Trump would prove more moderate in his gay-rights policies than his party platform. Two years and multiple anti-LGBTQ policies later, a new book by his former press secretary Sean Spicer reveals that the sentence in Trump’s convention speech was nothing more than empty payback for a political favor.

In The Briefing: Politics, The Press, and The President, out Tuesday, Spicer writes that Trump’s campaign team was on a mission at the time to derail anti-Trump delegates seeking to prevent Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee — a process that “Never Trumpers” had initiated by signing a petition ahead of the Republican convention.

“[Trump campaign chairman Paul] Manafort and his lieutenants went one by one down the list of people who had signed the petition and persuaded them to remove their signatures,” Spicer writes. “How Manafort and company did this was a scene out of 1950s politics — alternating between carrot and stick and sometimes bat, even, at one point, conveniently making the convention’s parliamentarian unavailable to keep the opposition from formally submitting their petition.”

Spicer adds, “The Manafort message was clear: Trump will be our nominee and our next president, and anyone who didn’t want to work to that end could spend the next four years in political Siberia. (No Russia pun intended.)”

The final name that needed to be scrubbed from the petition, Spicer writes, was that of Washington, D.C., delegate Robert Sinners. The book describes an alleged deal between Sinners, who Spicer says told the Manafort team “he wanted Donald Trump to support gay rights,” and senior Trump communications advisor Jason Miller.

“Jason assured Sinners that Trump would be the most ‘inclusive’ candidate the Republican Party ever had,” Spicer writes.

“This is your moment, Robert,” Miller told Sinners, according to the book. “You can deliver this.”

Sinners then reportedly signed “a form that officially removed his name from the petition,” and the deal was done.

“Jason told Sinners Donald Trump’s acceptance speech would acknowledge the LGBT[Q] community, which no other Republican acceptance speech had done,” Spicer writes. “And it did.”

[people.com]

There you go. The very first link that came up when I searched for "Trump RNC speech gay rights". But I'm sure you'll dismiss this first-hand account as well.

@Paul4747 Yawn. What part of go pound salt didn't you understand? Didn't even read. Stop clogging my inbox

@empirical So you don't want to learn the truth. Bye.

Yes, it was mutual - to an extent. The difference is I would agree with them on some things. For example, I was against the religious test Trump wanted in his immigration policy. They, however, refuse to say anything good about Trump, even if it was good, like how he asserted gay rights at the convention. Most Republicans I have spoken to lately have really come around on that issue and Trump set the right tone.

Regarding free speech, I agree that there are some things that are not right to say, even if it is your legal right to say them. But the people I am describing here are saying things that are not right, too. Your other arguments are flawed because you are not considering all of the options. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton (I actually said who I voted for. Does that mean you must be illiterate -since you seem to operate in binary), I am not a spy and I am not an extremist, yet I am still here.

Your instinct was to find some way to dismiss me so you didn't have to deal with the truth of what I was saying. Like I have been telling others, if I wanted to deal with people who only pretend to debate so they feel reasonable but don't actually challenge themselves to accept other versions of truth, I would have stayed a JW. The best part is that they call their religion "The Truth" among themselves.

Take your own advice - stop being an extremist. If you really a free thinker, go read again. I am the OPPOSITE of an extremist. An extremist wouldn't look at both sides. It's the looking at both sides that seems to be upsetting certain so-called Liberals and that is supposed to be something they are usually for.

@jorj “Being against Clinton don't mean u are for Trump in any way at all.” It does in the US binary voting system, which the OP here, by all indications must have known..

We’re not electing a best friend, or punishing someone we disagree with … we should be looking for competence, morality and experience - not perfection. What we have now is the opposite of Competence, Morality and Experience - and anyone with the slightest of either should have known a vote for anyone other than Hillary Rodham Clinton was a vote for trump. No excuses ~

@Mortal The sickest part about it is ..they’ve won.. Or at least they think they’ve won. Yes, a black cloud of fascism, with all the tactics. I began as a moderate republican, voted back & forth back in the good ol’ days.. I left just before ‘the purge,’ when moderates were labeled RINO’s and the fanatics took control…

Propaganda media like ‘Fox entertainment’ and AM radio hate-jocks filled a lot of angry heads with misinformation… My question: how far will such followers go? They’re not rich, they’re not immune from societal ills, they’re basically pawns. They view politics as a ‘team sport,’ have total disdain for wisdom, education or experience, and label those who do “Libtards,” often the best among us.

...as they’d apparently beg at their master’s feet for crumbs.. The bane of Humanity … for without them, evil would be powerless … like an Austrian vagabond with delusions of nationalistic grandeur and conjured enemies.

@empirical As mentioned, trump’s supreme court picks will have far longer effect on (our) society than his mentioning something inclusive regarding gay rights.. The far wrong will continue to smile and nod ..as long as he continues to give them what they really want - a Theocracy.

...as you digress.. You threw away your vote, and, as mentioned by several respondents, I didn’t finish your piece, nothing to gain, just inflammatory rhetoric. It appears you’re taking yourself far too seriously

Quick to label and demean others, though … no wonder they’ve no desire to “debate.” What I’m reading from you (very little, honestly) ..is all over the place! As if you’d slapped everyone in the room - then declared your view triumphant because they all left…

I’m sorry you’re so angry, but there appears little anyone can do to help

@Varn What's with guys calling me angry like it's a bad thing? It's good to be angry about injustice. I disagree there is nothing more that can be done. If I wanted to deal with people like you who go on and on in defeatist circles, I'd have stayed a JW. As far as I am concerned, you have overstayed your welcome on this feed. I made a simple point that Liberals should care about equal rights. Think about it and get in with your life. Have a good day.

@empirical Anger can motivate, it has me. At the core of my politics is my Atheism. Target better … if you’re here, then in some small way, we should be your allies. It’s like passive aggression to read a couple lines, which inspire me to respond with all sincerity ..seeking common ground, only to find demeaning remarks..

I’d wanted to describe my experiences with the far-left, having worked to limit or greatly slow the influx of illegal ‘immigrants’ to my nation … I’ve gone face to face and stood side by side on protest lines with those I’m told ‘are my friends.’ BS! “F the Democrats!” one boasted, “We don’t need them” ...as he promoted more amnesty for his fellow invaders… That experience, including the reaction of supposed friends ..gave me a taste of what the extreme left is like. Even around here…

My point is, when you label others, then force them to defend what you’ve falsely accused them of -- what do you expect? Sure, once in awhile you can find a fight, but what’s again impressed me ‘around here’ is how few took the bait.. Guess I’m a sucker

I’ve ‘worked’ many a small town fair inside the lonely Democrat’s booth.. with more angry snears than engaging debates ..but when the occasional angry R did step up, I wasn’t looking for a fight, that’s easy, and they’re primed! I sought common ground, we often parted with smiles, occasionally, a handshake..

There’s a divide & conquer mentality and strategy occurring within our nation, and it works too well. To me, the Democrat’s ‘all inclusiveness’ needs some tweaking. But the Republican’s constant militaristic retrotic, marrying wealthy industrialists with religious fanatics is ..evil.

So -- here’s how it’s worked: the above was written after my reading your somewhat passive statements, as I have, wanting to respond as above. Next, I read the following: “If I wanted to deal with people like you who go on and on in defeatist circles, I'd have stayed a JW. As far as I am concerned, you have overstayed your welcome on this feed. I made a simple point that Liberals should care about equal rights. Think about it and get in with your life. Have a good day.”

Basically, a sad FU… You’ve referred often to your “JW” upbringing.. I was spared religion, actually given a choice, dabbled a bit as a kid and rejected it, without punishment. So I’m unscared. Perhaps being constantly surrounded by ‘your own kind’ has left you expecting the same in greater life..?

Yours was not a ‘simple point,’ it was obviously a calculated piece, with extensive follow up, meant to incite those you still don’t understand. I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through in life, and beyond thankful that my adult daughters were spared the same.. But looking for enemies in order to motivate yourself is not ..healthy.

@Varn Yawn. What part of go pound salt didn't you understand? Didn't even read. Stop clogging my inbox

@empirical Take your time ..and hope your ‘inbox’ never goes dark

Don't get me wrong, I am glad she finally evolved . . . - ISH. She still fell short when compared to Trump when it comes to openly and unequivocally asserting gay rights in the campaign. I used that as an example of how off Democrats were seeming to be getting. They just couldn't understand why I didn't like her because of her weak track record for gay rights, something they are supposed to be all about. They would start trolling my page to slam any comment that wasn't pro-Clinton and any I put up about any of the other 3 big candidates - even if they had progressive ideas or fair points and counterpoints to consider. You couldn't have a nuanced policy discussion with them at all. It was like you either you accepted their whole platform or you were their enemy. I lost of lot of respect and even stopped liking people I used to think were great. And it was mutual. The 5 I unfriended just wouldn't relent and they resorted to essentially calling me and some of my other friends idiots, which is where I draw the line. Whoever is right or wrong didn't even matter as much as we were just not compatible Facebook friends. I made sure they knew they could call if they ever wanted to talk in real life about anything.

@empirical I'm not a dem either, independent with liberal view against bible thumpers, and in this game of technology taking everyone's jobs I preferred Bernie. I unfriended friends and family for their Trump lunacy and bible pushing ways. Its a shame but it seems we put in office someone who would rather put in the Supreme Court people who would vote totally against gay rights which is what this last election was all about. Not good at all for gays, free speech, civil liberties for decades if not longer if this continues to happen. Voting for dems was difficult but I understood what was at stake. Now we know why Republicans can never, ever be put in that Office, Congress and the Senate ever again. It's all about the bible to them. It's about logic to me.

When you put his campaign statement next to Clinton's Human Rights Campaign statement in 2015 (where she first openly announced her change of opinion), she equivocated and he did not. Moreover, he was never against it. She actually had to come around and didn't even do it full-heartedly. It was surprising to see Liberals who voted for her wouldn't demand more from their candidate. They seemed to have a double standard.

Yes! Thanks