"If Trump Wins, We Leave"

[Simping For Hina]

I hate the fact that the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, too. There is a problem when you let the central government run what should be headed by the states. Also, common core is being pierced into the states with Central Government Funding. Whole this is gross. All of these candidates would strengthen the power of the Central Government, no matter what, and play it with their own settlements.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I hate the fact that the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, too.

Hope that's satire or sarcasm there. It needed to be done cause Congress sure as hell wasn't gonna do it. I shouldn't be penalized for having a BF just cause I had to move to a southern state for college.

 

The fact it took so long is a travesty

 

 

Trump might be a bastard, but it's provable that increasing labor force is inherently detrimental to those people already here AND he's liberal enough not to overturn important liberal changes such as abortion and LGB rights

 

The added bonus is he takes Islamic Extremism as an actual problem and is willing to butt heads and manipulate the media instead of being ruled by it.

 

Will he win? Highly doubtful, but the "Next Trump" will hopefully. We lose this battle, but we'll win the war

[Simping For Hina]

Hope that's satire or sarcasm there. It needed to be done cause Congress sure as hell wasn't gonna do it. I shouldn't be penalized for having a BF just cause I had to move to a southern state for college.

 

The fact it took so long is a travesty

I am entirely serious about the Supreme Court or Congress taking away power from the state. And, while you're right about the fact that you shouldn't be penalized from the states, the problems of this  are only constituted by the states and regulated by those governments, and didn't actually change much. The problems still exist, and it only permits the fact that you can get married, nothing more. The fact that you think marriage was the issue is a travesty, to be honest. The state governments are what permit the reputation of everything, and that is the problem. It is great that you can get married, but most of the discrimination never came from marriage or lack-of. Which, the Central Government shouldn't even conceive as a furthering claim anyways. Or have a voice in, much of what they have voice in shouldn't even be so.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I am entirely serious about the Supreme Court or Congress taking away power from the state. And, while you're right about the fact that you shouldn't be penalized from the states, the problems of this  are only constituted by the states and regulated by those governments, and didn't actually change much. The problems still exist, and it only permits the fact that you can get married, nothing more. The fact that you think marriage was the issue is a travesty, to be honest. The state governments are what permit the reputation of everything, and that is the problem. It is great that you can get married, but most of the discrimination never came from marriage or lack-of. Which, the Central Government shouldn't even conceive as a furthering claim anyways. Or have a voice in, much of what they have voice in shouldn't even be so.

Marriage gave them a codified reason to discriminate against us. They can't say "Oh they're not even married" now. My relationship has validation.

 

The discrimination came from people being rooted in their past, but the lack of marriage gave them justification to speak out about it

 

I dislike that the court had to step in, but someone needed to. There's nothing wrong with taking away power from the States. 10th Amendment only allocates what's not taken, it doesn't protect the rights of the states from being given to the Fed

 

It really doesn't matter mate. We're gonna get another lame duck president in Hillary (cause I highly doubt she'll let Bill be anywhere influential) so just another 4 years of Obama

 

I've given up on 2016, my eyes are on 2020

[Simping For Hina]

Trump actually doesn't have solid plans, and all he brings to the table are the conversations. His plans are pretty detrimental to anything, and would actually break the central government if they went through. His goals are heinous. Plus, a lot of the problems that he wants to face are only set up to be a conversation without legitimately realizing what his problems would cause. His labor increase isn't proven, and most of what he has done has crumbled. His work force isn't that strong, and he creates new jobs for the short-coming. Not long term. 

Liberal rulings I could give a sheet about right now. His take on everything brings into recollection the picture, and the pieces but he doesn't know how to put them together.

Marriage gave them a codified reason to discriminate against us. They can't say "Oh they're not even married" now. My relationship has validation.

 

The discrimination came from people being rooted in their past, but the lack of marriage gave them justification to speak out about it

 

I dislike that the court had to step in, but someone needed to. There's nothing wrong with taking away power from the States. 10th Amendment only allocates what's not taken, it doesn't protect the rights of the states from being given to the Fed

 

It really doesn't matter mate. We're gonna get another lame duck president in Hillary (cause I highly doubt she'll let Bill be anywhere influential) so just another 4 years of Obama

 

I've given up on 2016, my eyes are on 2020

Irrelevant, and there are multiple reasons besides that of religious or political agendas to discriminate against people. People still speak out about it. Lack of marriage made it political, not it is just social. Doesn't change the conversation, only makes it less warranted on the country. There is a problem taking power away from the states. It takes away from the balance of power, and the division of democracy. Bill of Rights needs to be updated, anyways.

[vla1ne]

uh... Dae, a better framing of that argument might be that all that was actually necessary would have been to grant them the same rights of marriage without calling it marriage. the name's not as important as the rights that were associated with it. and while i might be wrong here, i think the rights associated with marriage were probably the reason why the supreme court was able to make a verdict in the first place. marriage comes with rights, and by denying marriage to non hetero couples, you prevent them from obtaining rights and abilities that they should, by all means have access to.
 

 

On the other hand, as for politics/trump, you can rarely have a working solution until you understand the problem. and while trump doesn't really have any solutions, he's at least more than willing to point out the problems. personally, i don't agree with most of his ideas, but he's the main guy i see willing to actually discuss the issues openly, instead of hiding them behind politics. i'm willing to eat that sentence if you can point out a candidate that has a better picture and/or solution though. and that does bring up the next issue, which is that no side is willing to meet in the middle anymore. and very few people currently in office seem to realize that the government is about finding the best way to make the country work for those within it. A little cooperation would bring us that much closer to solving this countries problems. This idea of "if the guy i don't like wins i'm leaving" is not helping us one bit.

 

i didn't frame it as eloquently as i'd have liked, but i just got off a 12 hour shift, so sue me..

[Simping For Hina]

uh... Dae, a better framing of that argument might be that all that was actually necessary would have been to grant them the same rights of marriage without calling it marriage. the name's not as important as the rights that were associated with it. and while i might be wrong here, i think the rights associated with marriage were probably the reason why the supreme court was able to make a verdict in the first place. marriage comes with rights, and by denying marriage to non hetero couples, you prevent them from obtaining rights and abilities that they should, by all means have access to.

 

 

On the other hand, as for politics/trump, you can rarely have a working solution until you understand the problem. and while trump doesn't really have any solutions, he's at least more than willing to point out the problems. personally, i don't agree with most of his ideas, but he's the main guy i see willing to actually discuss the issues openly, instead of hiding them behind politics. i'm willing to eat that sentence if you can point out a candidate that has a better picture and/or solution though. and that does bring up the next issue, which is that no side is willing to meet in the middle anymore. and very few people currently in office seem to realize that the government is about finding the best way to make the country work for those within it. A little cooperation would bring us that much closer to solving this countries problems. This idea of "if the guy i don't like wins i'm leaving" is not helping us one bit.

 

i didn't frame it as eloquently as i'd have liked, but i just got off a 12 hour shift, so sue me..

The rights associated with it are the rights that are still settled by the states, just for the record. The supreme court doesn't change those rights, and doesn't change how those rights are given. They permit this basis of the certificate, which is also established by the states as well. Marriage is under state rule, and the Supreme Court shouldn't have conflicted in that, regardless of what it changed. 

 

And he knows of the problems. Everyone knows of the problems, and they are being discussed. He is only the ignition, not the fuel. If he does anything, it is only going to be a settled cost. He doesn't know how to do anything but have the conversation, and I would rather have someone fix the problems, than just bring notice of them. Let him call the people who can fix them, let other people notice what the problems are. He isn't one who can do anything other than speak, which is not going to help the country.

[vla1ne]

The rights associated with it are the rights that are still settled by the states, just for the record. The supreme court doesn't change those rights, and doesn't change how those rights are given. They permit this basis of the certificate, which is also established by the states as well. Marriage is under state rule, and the Supreme Court shouldn't have conflicted in that, regardless of what it changed. 

 

And he knows of the problems. Everyone knows of the problems, and they are being discussed. He is only the ignition, not the fuel. If he does anything, it is only going to be a settled cost. He doesn't know how to do anything but have the conversation, and I would rather have someone fix the problems, than just bring notice of them. Let him call the people who can fix them, let other people notice what the problems are. He isn't one who can do anything other than speak, which is not going to help the country.

the states were dragging their feet on human rights issues though. and congress, for better or worse, has quite the long history of stepping into arguments over human rights, they're the ones who first established separate but equal ruling, and later, the  brown V board of eduaction as well, so while this exact case is unprecedented, the conditions preceding it are rather well known, not saying it was their business to step in, but an argument could be made that they have done so multiple times in the past, each time over cases of similar complexity while the states were dragging their heels.

 

and i agree fully, trump doesn't have the answers,to many of our problems, if he has any at all, but as you said, he definitely qualifies as the ignition. so why not use him to get something started? he's not the worst we could do, unlike that one lying bastard who stole a win by deception, (i believe that was cruz)

[Simping For Hina]

the states were dragging their feet on human rights issues though. and congress, for better or worse, has quite the long history of stepping into arguments over human rights, they're the ones who first established separate but equal ruling, and later, the  brown V board of eduaction as well, so while this exact case is unprecedented, the conditions preceding it are rather well known, not saying it was their business to step in, but an argument could be made that they have done so multiple times in the past, each time over cases of similar complexity while the states were dragging their heels.

States always drag their heels. Letting the central government catch them when they do, means that the states will never have a chance to get their act together all the time. And just because it happened before, doesn't mean that it should continuously happen or that it should even have happened before. I am against the Central Government sticking their nose into States' problems when it doesn't conflict with the problems of the Central Government, and it doesn't.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You need both the ignition and the fuel to get the fire going Dae. Trump is the ignition. The people's anger is the fuel. All these Trump supporters? They'll want Trump's head if he doesn't mark up in 4 years...that's his motivation

[Simping For Hina]

You need both the ignition and the fuel to get the fire going Dae. Trump is the ignition. The people's anger is the fuel. All these Trump supporters? They'll want Trump's head if he doesn't mark up in 4 years...that's his motivation

The thing is: You also need a way to put the fire out when you have control of it, so it doesn't get out of hand. Properly speaking, you can't just start a conversation and expect people to keep it going. The problems will still be there, but action has to be made and he isn't the one who is going to do it. Trump has no proper plan in mind, and no way to fix the problem either.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The thing is: You also need a way to put the fire out when you have control of it, so it doesn't get out of hand. Properly speaking, you can't just start a conversation and expect people to keep it going. The problems will still be there, but action has to be made and he isn't the one who is going to do it. Trump has no proper plan in mind, and no way to fix the problem either.

Who would you support then? Cause most of them seem willing to sweep it under the rug

 

The way to put out the fire is simple, burn out the fuel

[Simping For Hina]

Who would you support then? Cause most of them seem willing to sweep it under the rug

 

The way to put out the fire is simple, burn out the fuel

Gary Johnson or John Kasich. He actually knows what he is doing, just staying under the rug. And has focused on many issues that conflict out there already. The problems that Trump brings up are noticed by the citizens, but the government already knows about them and will work with the president to get it done.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Gary Johnson or John Kasich. He actually knows what he is doing, just staying under the rug. And has focused on many issues that conflict out there already. The problems that Trump brings up are noticed by the citizens, but the government already knows about them and will work with the president to get it done.

The way Obama has? The only way to solve the gridlock is to find a negotiator. Maybe Kasich, likely Trump, definitely not the others.

 

Who even cares anymore dude, we're two people out of 300 Million, even if we both agree on this in the end, we're insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

[vla1ne]

States always drag their heels. Letting the central government catch them when they do, means that the states will never have a chance to get their act together all the time. And just because it happened before, doesn't mean that it should continuously happen or that it should even have happened before. I am against the Central Government sticking their nose into States' problems when it doesn't conflict with the problems of the Central Government, and it doesn't.

in this case it was a human rights issue though, and while i agree that federal and state shouldn't mix, denial of rights involves both levels of government, because it directly involves denial of the rights of citizens (and not the "privilege" bull that's spouted so often recently, but literal rights that can be proven to be granted to one group and withheld from another one). the states have been allowed to drawl on about quite a few things without the federal government interfering, in this case though, this is one of those things that while not at breaking point, was still rather overdue. homosexuals had been waiting quite a while for this, and it's very unlikely that there would have been any real change to the situation within the next 50 years either. there is a such thing as dragging on "too" long.

 

 

 

 

 

You need both the ignition and the fuel to get the fire going Dae. Trump is the ignition. The people's anger is the fuel. All these Trump supporters? They'll want Trump's head if he doesn't mark up in 4 years...that's his motivation

that's actually a fair point, as loud as he i about making america great again, he will likely lose much of what he's worked for (even outside of politics) if he doesn't show marked improvement within the next 4 years.

 

 

well then, i missed a lot...

[Simping For Hina]

The way Obama has? The only way to solve the gridlock is to find a negotiator. Maybe Kasich, likely Trump, definitely not the others.

 

Who even cares anymore dude, we're two people out of 300 Million, even if we both agree on this in the end, we're insignificant in the greater scheme of things.

Obama is a politician that focused on internal issues, and was sheet at external issues. He left it for the Central Government trying to figure it out by themselves, nothing more. He was sheet at that, and we need someone who wasn't. Trump is going to be even worse. Not even close to the call.

in this case it was a human rights issue though, and while i agree that federal and state shouldn't mix, denial of rights involves both levels of government, because it directly involves denial of the rights of citizens (and not the "privilege" bull that's spouted so often recently, but literal rights that can be proven to be granted to one group and withheld from another one). the states have been allowed to drawl on about quite a few things without the federal government interfering, in this case though, this is one of those things that while not at breaking point, was still rather overdue. homosexuals had been waiting quite a while for this, and it's very unlikely that there would have been any real change to the situation within the next 50 years either. there is a such thing as dragging on "too" long.

 

It wasn't a case of human rights. Separation of it, and Marriage was the conflicting goal of it. The rights were all there, just not recognized by all of the states at the time and separated by name. Change was already happening, and it would have happened. It isn't the fact that the federal government broke it, but Marriage wasn't a right given to people and it wasn't an argument about rights. It was an argument of what relationships were garnered, and relationships aren't defined by the central government. It doesn't involve them at all.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Wait how is Trump a negotiator?

[vla1ne]

Wait how is Trump a negotiator?

not really a negotiator so much as a neccecary instigator at this point. both sides are too damn afraid to step against their part lines, so nobody seems to meet in the middle again, some people i assume, are just hoping that trump will, for better or worse, open up proper discussions between both parties again (like him or hate him, he's definitely a good discussion starter) and as (i assume) we all acknowledge, a proper discussion's the first step to getting anything even halfway done in congress, much less crossing party lines.

 

 

 

Obama is a politician that focused on internal issues, and was s*** at external issues. He left it for the Central Government trying to figure it out by themselves, nothing more. He was s*** at that, and we need someone who wasn't. Trump is going to be even worse. Not even close to the call.

 

It wasn't a case of human rights. Separation of it, and Marriage was the conflicting goal of it. The rights were all there, just not recognized by all of the states at the time and separated by name. Change was already happening, and it would have happened. It isn't the fact that the federal government broke it, but Marriage wasn't a right given to people and it wasn't an argument about rights. It was an argument of what relationships were garnered, and relationships aren't defined by the central government. It doesn't involve them at all.

legally though, the excuse was human rights, and the argument does hold water, the states were still withholding rights gained through marriage (like shared insurance, visitation, joint filing, and similar rights), and had they not done so (for no solid reason) then the supreme court would have never been able to interfere. there was a perfect time to grant the abilities of marriage without relinquishing the title of marriage, yet many states chose not to do so. you are correct, there was change coming, and it was slowly getting there, but there was and there is, no reason for not granting marriage certificates, or something similar to gay couples (yes some states did do so, but as you said, they also refused to acknowledge the rights, it's the same precedent as "separate but equal" in that situation). in addition, the defense against marriage act was a federally imposed law as well, the supreme court had already struck down portions of that as well, so it's not like the federal government didn't already have their hands in the issue from the start.  the state did not recognize the rights, and made little effort to do so. as i said before, they could have simply given them the rights without calling it marriage, and they had the perfect window to do so, but they did not do so, and this was the end result. not trying to justify it, but it's at least understandable.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

90% won't do it. Doesn't matter if you're a Conservative or a Democrat, both sides have those people that claim they'll DO something when in reality they're all bark and no bite.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

I do wonder, if x person becomes president and then not 28% but a full 90% of Americans left how destructive would that be to America as a whole.

[vla1ne]

I do wonder, if x person becomes president and then not 28% but a full 90% of Americans left how destructive would that be to America as a whole.

if trump gets into office, and a majority of people leave, then that means that they most likely didn't vote. that in and of itself would be the problem of those leaving, because it means that the majority of people didn't put their votes where their mouth is.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

if trump gets into office, and a majority of people leave, then that means that they most likely didn't vote. that in and of itself would be the problem of those leaving, because it means that the majority of people didn't put their votes where their mouth is.

That wasn't the point of the question. It's not about Trump but rather if x person gets elected which causes "90%" of Americans to leave how would badly that affect America.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That wasn't the point of the question. It's not about Trump but rather if x person gets elected which causes "90%" of Americans to leave how would badly that affect America.

Seeing that the majority of Americans really aren't that bright. Not as bad as it may initially seem.

[Power Armour]

America, land of the free, but it took us a loooooooong time to give people the freedom of choice in marraige.

Those intolerant americans (Not all americans) are the downfall of their own 'patriotism'.