Pence becomes first VP to address anti-gay summit

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by SueEllenRules!, Sep 30, 2018.

  1. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    Pence is first VP to speak at anti-gay group's Values Voter Summit
    Vice President Mike Pence spoke of the Trump administration’s efforts to “protect religious liberty" at the Family Research Council's annual conference.

    [​IMG]
    Vice President Mike Pence speaks at the 2018 Values Voter Summit in Washington, on Sept. 22, 2018.

    Vice President Mike Pence over the weekend addressed the annual Values Voter Summit, a conference hosted by Christian activist group Family Research Council, which is designated an “anti-LGBT hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Pence is the first vice president to address the group’s yearly event, and last year President Donald Trump became the first sitting president to do so.

    According to the Family Research Council’s website, the Values Voter Summit was created in 2006 to “provide a forum to help inform and mobilize citizens across America to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government that make our nation strong.”

    In his address on Saturday, Pence checked off Trump’s deliveries to his evangelical Christian supporters, saying Trump took efforts to “protect the religious liberty of everyone.” He then looked forward to the 2018 elections and predicted that Republicans would retain control of Congress. “I know in my heart of hearts we will deliver another historic victory,” Pence told the attendees.

    Pence spoke immediately after a panel titled “How Gender Ideology Harms Children,” which included Dr. Michelle Cretella from the American College of Pediatricians. The ACP, also designated an “anti-LGBT hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, uses its name — nearly identical to the mainstream medical association the American Academy of Pediatrics — to obfuscate the fact that it pushes extreme views regarding the transgender community. The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM) last year issued a scathing response to an article Cretella wrote, titled: “I’m a Pediatrician. How Transgender Ideology Has Infiltrated My Field and Produced Large-Scale Child Abuse,” saying it pushes “political and ideological agendas not based on science and facts.”

    Other speakers at this weekend’s Values Voter Summit included Seb Gorka, the former presidential adviser who applauded Trump’s trans military ban; Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who won a narrow Supreme Court victory in June after refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; and “Activist Mommy” blogger Elizabeth Johnston, who has defended the medically debunked practice of so-called gay conversion therapy.

    Aside from Pence, several other Republican officials and lawmakers were also in attendance, including Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

    One of the arguably more surprising guests to address the conference was “Superman” actor Dean Cain. Cain, who has claimed to be an LGBTQ-rights supporter, told gay blog Towleroad he was attending solely to promote his film “Gosnell,” a biopic about abortion doctor and convicted child murderer Kermit Gosnell.

    The Family Research Council has been an opponent of LGBTQ rights since its founding in 1983. Since 1992, FRC’s lobbying arm, FRC Action, has fought legislation seeking to expand the rights of sexual and gender minorities, and its leaders have consistently compared gays to pedophiles and painted them as a risk to children. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the FRC uses “policy experts” to “make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society.”

    Trump, who attended the Values Voter Summit last year, promised to support the LGBTQ community during his 2016 campaign and was the first Republican presidential nominee to mention LGBTQ people from the dais of a GOP convention, saying in 2016, “I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful, foreign ideology,” raising the specter of Islamist violence against LGBTQ people while ignoring allied groups like the Family Research Council.

    Since becoming president, however, Trump has done much to roll back protections for LGBTQ Americans. His State Department has removed a section about violence and discrimination against LGBTQ people from its annual human rights report, his Justice Department rescinded Obama-era guidance instructing public officers to interpret sexuality and gender discrimination under federal prohibitions on sex discrimination, and he twice failed to celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month. Trump also tried to bar transgender people from joining the military, an effort currently tied up in court.

    The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBTQ advocacy group, denounced the Values Voter Conference and its conversion-therapy-promoting attendees, saying those “peddling this sort of junk science are doing enormous harm to LGBTQ people and LGBTQ kids.”

    “Once again, Mike Pence has made clear that he stands with many organizations and leaders who promote hate and fear,” HRC Government Affairs Director David Stacy said. “We know those are not true American values.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pence-first-vp-speak-anti-gay-group-s-values-voter-n912641
     
  2. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Shame on this straight white male Christian Republican for being against gay rights.

    Of course, if he was a straight white female Christian Democrat whose husband was president in the 90s, all would be forgiven.
     
  3. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    Gotta love how trolling bullsh!t like this is allowed to be posted repeatedly and stand unchallenged, but somehow nearly anything I post in response is mysteriously inappropriate.
     
  4. Ome

    Ome Admin

    Message Count:
    8,764
    Trophy Points:
    2,638
    Ratings:
    +14,991
    Member Since:
    Dec 2005

    Maybe it's because of the way you actually challenge any comments.

    Try engaging in a healthy and interesting debate and not use silly little memes and you shouldn't have an issue.



    That's just the memes and insults to other members we prevent you from posting. Engaging a good debate is very much welcome, I just never understand why you don't get that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    You mean trolling comments by someone who deserves no more and no less than what he gets from me.

    I already tried something even better: ignoring the hell out of the party in question by taking him up on his own proposal. I was quite happy to abide by the terms of that agreement until he violated it and once again expressly set out to provoke me at every possible turn. And yet, somehow, I’m the unreasonable, immature one here who needs to be talked down to as if I were a petulant child.

    I don’t find the memes I post the least bit silly. A picture is quite often worth a thousand words. That said, I’d gladly comply with your advice if everyone else here were held to the exact same standard: no memes allowed (rather than mine being specifically targeted and arbitrarily deleted).

    Yes, Lord knows if you call someone a snowflake, they just may actually melt. :re: Thank goodness I’m not delicate enough to let it faze me when I’ve been called a f*ggot. And worse.

    Be sure to let me know when we have one.

    Perhaps because: a) You just really don’t like me at all; b) You’re completely in the tank for whatever spin Underwood puts on our little dispute; c) You’re drunk on what little power comes with being a moderator; or d) All of the above. Then again, it could be that my powers of perception about what’s really going on here are the only ones that are totally screwed up.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
  6. Ome

    Ome Admin

    Message Count:
    8,764
    Trophy Points:
    2,638
    Ratings:
    +14,991
    Member Since:
    Dec 2005
    I won't argue that point because I agree - to an extent. It becomes an issue when all you do is post a meme in response to another member's post. Why can't you challenge that post like you are doing here?

    One or two memes here and there isn't an issue and if used in the right way can be comical, but posting memes back and forth rather than actually discussing the subject always end up getting out of control.

    Why do you say this...

    "rather than mine being specifically targeted and arbitrarily deleted"

    ...when we have removed memes from 3 other members who did the same thing?

    Do you actually believe someone is out to get you?


    If we are going back to 2009 then I can't help you because that was 9 years ago and it was never proven who actually sent you that private message.

    If you are saying someone has called you this in the last few years then please let me (or someone else) know about it via the private conversation function and we will deal with it.


    That's not up to me, it's down to the members to create a discussion, after all, these forums are set up for doing that.



    That's not true at all. I just don't like how you appear to always be in the middle of a storm on here and then play out the innocent victim in it all.

    I can't even begin to try and understand your politics, however from what I can surmise I'm very much on your side with regards to Trump and all the scary crap that's happening in America.


    Really?

    Not sure if you're trying to insult me or you actually believe what you type, but anyway...

    All I am trying to achieve is to keep everything civil on here. I totally understand the heated passions that run alongside anything political, but I struggle to comprehend why you don't challenge opinions that you're not in line with.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    How is what I said trolling? You don't like Pence for speaking at an anti-gay summit, yet you supported a politician who was against gay rights until five years ago.

    That's not trolling, that's simply pointing out a fact. If you want to post a counter point, feel free. But just so we're clear, a pic of poop with flies swarming it isn't an actual counter point.

    For the record, my memes were deleted too. Although it began with you, I shouldn't have engaged in the same manner. Thus, I support Ome's decision to delete all of them.

    You call me a snowflake, yet you clearly see yourself as a victim. Posting pics of poop and snowflakes has nothing to do with the discussions here. But if somebody criticizes a politician for speaking at an anti-gay rights rally, yet supported a politician who had also been against gay rights, it's relevant to point that out. It's not trolling to state something obvious.

    Yes, I previously agreed to stay out of your threads because you threw a fit about my posts. But then I realized I have no reason to give in to you. This isn't your own personal message board. Your definition of being provoked is seeing criticisms of Dems because you're a partisan. I didn't start the personal attacks. You've called me a troll, a misogynist, and said my posts were "horseshit." In turn, I posted a meme calling you an a-hole. I will apologize for that, but nothing more. I certainly never called you a f*ggot, nor have I used your sexuality against you.

    I've already agreed to stop posting memes in retaliation to you. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop posting in your threads if I feel have something relevant to say.

    But since you're not a snowflake, I'm sure you wont't throw a fit about it (again).
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    When it comes to the damage Trump is causing, I'm also in agreement with SER! Where we part ways is the role Democrats have played in this mess. I feel that they've shifted too far to the right, and they've been caught rigging primaries. I hold them to the same standards as Republicans, while SER! gives them a pass and takes out his grief on third party voters.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2018
  9. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    One member's posts, to be precise. And I fail to see how exactly it became an issue (other than the fact that Underwood doesn't like it).

    Because that would require actually engaging with someone who somehow manages to route every single conversation back to Hillary Clinton being a rotten b!tch. Call me crazy, but after more than a year of that mess, I'm over it. And frankly, my response to most of his posts is best summed up by a meme. The one of flies swarming a pile of manure, for example.

    I agree there was a far superior alternative: Underwood abiding by his own agreement, which I was more than happy to do. As for posting memes, I find it no more harmful than posting "Hillary's a b!tch" and "the Democratic Party sucks @$$" 10,000 subtly different ways. Look at the topic of this thread, as an example. How on earth did "Pence becomes first VP to address anti-gay summit" get turned into a diatribe on Hillary and the Democrats? The same damn way every thread gets turned into a diatribe on Hillary and the Democrats.

    Considering that's the only way I ever react to any of Underwood's blather, what other conclusion would I reach when every single post I made addressing it just disappeared?

    More accurately, out to get rid of me.

    As I recall, Pamela was pretty certain who sent it, not that it made any difference.

    Actually, the point of that comment is that I've been called names far worse than 'snowflake' and somehow managed to survive. Getting your knickers in a twist over 'snowflake' is almost as absurd as someone taking their whining seriously.

    How odd. Based on what happens to every thread I post, I'd swear these forums were set up so Underwood could turn every discussion into a b!tchfest on Hillary.

    Yes, I'm the one who started the sh!tstorm on here. Then I kept it going by completely ignoring the other party in question for months. :re: This place has a lot in common with the alternate universe of the Trump administration.

    My politics are actually quite easy to comprehend: I wouldn't p!ss on Trump if he was on fire. And never in a million years would I do anything that could help elect him to the presidency, namely, voting for a third party candidate who has zero chance of winning. But if I were lame brain enough to make that decision, I certainly wouldn't have the audacity to cop an @$$hole attitude toward those who actually did their part to prevent a Trump administration from ever happening.

    You tell me. I'm basing my theory on what I've experienced personally.

    If I were trying to insult you, I'd likely be permanently banned. Far more likely than the guy who called me a f*ggot, posted porn, etc. Calling it as I see it is risky enough.

    Well, I regret to tell you this, but there's a better chance of peace in the Middle East.

    You mean Underwood's opinions? His are the only ones I no longer challenge with anything that would require a significant expenditure of time and energy, as that would be an incredible waste of both. The thread below demonstrates that point and, more importantly, why I have no desire to do so (although I could refer you to any number of threads that preceded it):

    http://soapchat.net/threads/yes-russia-likely-did-swing-votes-for-donald-trump.4451
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  10. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Oh, good ol' SueEllenRules! His answer to preventing a corrupt, corporatist war monger from taking power was to support another corrupt, corpotatist war monger (even in the primaries). He cops an "@$$hole attitude" towards voters who chose principles over a sense of pragmatism, yet expects those of us with a different view to kiss his ass. He calls me a "snowflake" while melting down before our very eyes in this thread. He says I make everything about Hillary and the Dems, while he makes excuses for them and ignores the measures they took to help elect Trump in the first place (primary rigging, ignoring the rust belt, pied piper strategy, failed neoliberal policies, etc). He posts about Pence speaking at an anti-gay rally, but gets pissed when his hypocrisy is exposed by me pointing out that he supported a candidate who had also been against gay rights. SER!: always the victim, never the provocateur.

    He also can't see how a picture of poop with flies swarming it isn't pertinent to discussions because he think such juvenile junk is somehow sufficient. The fact that he keeps ranting about me posting in his threads is also indicative of him wanting his own personal sounding board. I've seen him use the same condescending attitude towards other people who've disagreed with him. Not surprisingly, they didn't stick around long. The left can interfere in elections, deny people rights, support the healthcare industry, and bomb the Middle East, and that's fine with him. But when Trump and the GOP are caught doing the same things, it's suddenly a problem. He's not consistent in his values, and that is why we clash so much.

    I like how he linked to that thread about Russian interference to explain why he doesn't waste "time and energy" on me. It basically consists of me putting Russian memes and the content of the leaked emails in their proper perspective, while he relies on hyperbole that the Russians "installed" Trump in the White House. Never once has he shown concern for the myriad of ways that the US has interfered in the affairs of foreign governments, often involving much more direct measures such as endless wars. I once pointed out that Russia shouldn't have hacked the DNC's emails, but that we should have still seen what was in them. I said that was the nuance of the situation, and he said there's "no nuance" when it comes to election interference. Actually, there is. Because the Dems almost got away with it in 2016, and they've been doing the same thing in the current round of primaries. We also learned that they threw thousands of Democratic voters off the rolls in New York, but again, he doesn't care about that. He doesn't care that Hilary also enriched herself through deals with Russian oligarchs. Hell, she's on tape saying we should have interfered in Palestine's election, and that didn't faze him. Why? Because he's a partisan hack hypocrite who gives a pass to Democratic corruption.

    I wrote a two sentence response which acknowledged Pence speaking at this anti-gay rally, as well as pointing out SER!'s hypocrisy. He chose to respond with a self-righteous novel.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  11. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    In light of Underwood's latest post, I find this question even more astounding than before. Gee, why on earth would I rather have all my teeth pulled with a pair of pliers than engage yet another same-$h!t-different-day load of dreck? One of my silly little memes is obviously far more harmful than 4 paragraphs of "healthy and interesting debate" from a sanctimonious windbag.
     
  12. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    You only consider what I say "dreck" because it isn't in-line with your blind loyalty to the corrupt Democratic Party.

    And as for "sanctimonious windbag," I notice you're not above lengthy posts where you pat yourself on the back because you supported corrupt neobliberal Hillary. Your criticisms of Trump and the GOP are spot on, but you're a hypocrite because you don't hold your party to the same standards as the Republicans. So naturally, you attack the person who points that out and you often project your behavior onto me. You call me a troll, even though I engage in discussion instead of memes. You call me a misogynist, yet you called a woman a "c*nt"

    Again, I initially replied with two sentences pointing out your hypocrisy. You responded by saying you're not a snowflake, only to spend several posts bitching at length about how you're such a victim. And as for reminding people that I originally agreed to stay out of your threads, how about mentioning that you also said I was being put on your ignore list.

    Funny how the latter never happened either, which you conveniently left out.
     
  13. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    You still think engaging in so-called debate with this guy would actually be productive? I suppose I should begin with kissing his @$$ and agreeing that the Democratic Party and neoliberal Hillary are profoundly corrupt. Then admit that voting third party is indeed the best option so I can help re-elect Trump and more Republicans. Next, I'll confess to being the troll, hypocrite, and misogynist I really am. Then move on to my apology for the grave sin of calling him a snowflake. Finally, I'll acknowledge how wrong I was to take him off my ignore list despite the fact that he was the one who violated his own agreement to leave me the f**k alone. How dare I think that both of us should be bound to the terms of that agreement?
     
  14. Ome

    Ome Admin

    Message Count:
    8,764
    Trophy Points:
    2,638
    Ratings:
    +14,991
    Member Since:
    Dec 2005

    I thought it would be productive, yes, but I was clearly wrong. You can't debate in a civil way, you just want someone to argue with. I see other members on here who are more than happy to challenge other member's views and thought you could do the same. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    The way it comes across to me is that you want to post article after article and when someone has a different opinion you take it upon yourself to turn it into a sour argument. Your own words speak volumes - Calling people out on their bullsh!t

    I've tried everything I possibly can to keep things from turning into personal attacks, and yet here we still are. You don't look at the bigger picture, you're just clouded in your own way of dealing with things and it's not working.

    If you think calling people out on their bullsh!t gives you a platform to throw insults, then you're wrong.



    I would have probably gone with something like this.

    "Yes, Hilary has a past, yes, Hilary stood for this and she stood for that, however she has changed and no matter how you look at this, Hilary would have been the best possible chance of a better future over the what was on offer and no way would I trust voting for the third party when it really looked like the fight was between two people.



    I may be wrong, I may be talking rubbish, but I never got personal, I never started throwing names or silly memes.

    If someone called me a troll I wouldn't go at them and further the personal insults, I would ask them to explain why they think I'm a troll.


    When there is another member who clearly annoys you, I don't understand why you wouldn't use the ignore feature.
     
  15. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +780
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    You reached that rather broad conclusion based on one guy I find to be an insufferable @$$hole? Who else do I not get along with?

    Yes, that's why I made no comment whatsoever for months on any post Underwood made, as per the terms of the agreement we made. Sounds like I was just spoiling for a fight.

    On the political forum? Frankly, I don't see much of anyone on here period. But, of course, I'm sure that's because I'm running them off in droves.

    Yes, Lord knows the lack of civility is not only my fault, it's all my fault.

    And clearly one-sided.
    You mean news articles? Now posting the news is somehow a bad thing? Seriously?


    It's the news. What exactly is there to have a 'different opinion' about? Facts are facts. Unless, of course, you dispute the facts from reputable, mainstream sources. I, for one, don't subscribe to the Trump administration's alternative facts.​

    Like I did in this thread, which was supposed to be about Pence becoming the first VP to address an anti-gay summit? A thread which was promptly turned into yet another b!tchfest on Hillary Clinton? How slick of me.

    Yeah, by definition, that comes after the bullsh!t. Like inserting Hillary into every damn topic, relevant or not.

    Well, since I'm quite obviously the instigator here, you could make Underwood supremely happy and just ban me. Problem solved.

    Somehow, I suspect I'm not alone in that department.

    I'm well aware who has a platform to throw insults. And you're most definitely correct: it isn't me.

    I tried something like that in the beginning. But in case you haven't noticed, Underwood is always 100% right. His opinion is the only opinion. It's his way or the highway. It's not enough to agree with him in part. You must agree with him entirely. And never, ever forget that Hillary Clinton is the Devil Incarnate and the Democratic Party is the Spawn of Hell.

    I suppose that would make you downright perfect. Then again, how often have you actually participated in "debate" on the political forum? If only you could try it without the benefit of a moderator's power. That would really be telling.

    :rlol: I feel like I just entered Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. At least it's an improvement from The Twilight Zone.

    You mean considering how effective it's been in the past? Or perhaps the same reason he didn't uphold his end of the bargain. Either works for me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
  16. Ome

    Ome Admin

    Message Count:
    8,764
    Trophy Points:
    2,638
    Ratings:
    +14,991
    Member Since:
    Dec 2005
    More insults.

    Have you forgotten about the arguments and insults with McGarrett & Tom Parks?

    No one has even suggested that.

    But it's not all your fault and never has been. You're caught up in another argument and you're not letting it go.


    You started this when you posted


    Why did that comment go unchallenged? Who prevented you from challenging that post?

    You've been a member on here for a long time, I thought you understood that threads, often get derailed into other directions. Surely you can direct the thread back into the direction it was intended.


    Why would I do that? I don't want to ban you, if anything I'd like to see more of your opinions in the threads you create. It could make for some interesting reading, but at the moment it just feels like one long battle of the same thing.

    Why don't you challenge that opinion, but in a way that isn't throwing insults?

    Have you discussed this with him?

    Maybe if you both looked at the content for what it was and discussed it without throwing insults there might be things you do agree on. No one is suggesting you have to agree on anything, just do it without all the insults.

    No, not at all, it's just a suggestion showing there is no need to insult another member's opinion.




    I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What do mod powers have to do with having a discussion? I'm speaking with you here and it's just you and me, there's nothing going on as far as moderating this conversation. You're posting your thoughts, I'm posting my thoughts.

    Is there something wrong in asking why someone would call me a troll?



    Whatever agreement you came up with Frank Underwood is nothing to do with the mod team. All that is asked of you both is to stop with the personal insults. If you can't do that, then a suggestion of putting members on 'ignore' is out there.
     
  17. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    That's at least a coherent argument I can respect. Instead, I usually get a knee jerk response about how I hate "that rotten b!tch" Hillary, or how I'm as bad as a Trump supporter because I voted for Jill Stein. The substance of what I post is ignored. I've said it before that I respect pragmatists who voted for Hillary because they thought Trump would be worse. I even agree to an extent. And as I've explained to SER! many times, I live in the blue state of Washington. My vote didn't change a thing. If I lived in the rust belt, it would have had an actual impact.

    Whenever I insert Hillary or anybody else into a discussion, it's to make a comparison. In this case, I was comparing Pence's stance on gay rights to Hillary's. Hence, relevancy. And while I understand why pragmatists voted for her, I don't understand the people who actually support her unconditionally. Self-proclaimed "Goldwater Republicans" don't do it for me.

    I'm not providing "alternative facts." Every policy critique I've made about any politician, Democrat or Republican, has been based on their record. Having an opinion of where they stand on the issues doesn't constitute alternative facts. Pretending that the candidate and party you support doesn't have a blemished record when it comes to issues such as foreign policy, election integrity, immigration, healthcare, gay rights, banking regulations, education, etc. does count as alternative facts. That is what I'm trying to fight against, but to no avail.

    SER! can think whatever he wants of me. I think it's safe to say that I value his opinion of me as much as he values my opinion of him. But as for him saying he doesn't have a platform to throw insults, I have to disagree. The insult slinging began with him calling me a troll, a misogynist, and calling my posts "horsesh!t" Yeah, he doesn't have a platform for insults.

    I also make no demands that people must agree with me entirely (or even partly). But even when SER! would debate me, it was usually just to say how I should be ashamed for my vote. I don't recall him ever saying he agreed with something I said, except when I criticized Dems for caving on DACA. In contrast, I have said his criticisms of Trump and the GOP are correct. I think some of his takes on the Russia scandal are a bit overblown, but that's it. I prefer having a civil discussion with everybody, but some people are like oil and water.

    Even with all that's been said, I'd still be willing to bury the hatchet and stick strictly to civil discussions and debates. And for the record, it wouldn't make me happy to see SER! banned. He has a right to post here just like anybody else. I just think he overreacts anytime I post in his threads. He says I broke the agreement, yet while I was supposedly on his ignore list, I noticed he was liking posts made by friends of his in my threads. He couldn't have done that if I had actually been on his ignore list. Ultimately, I didn't feel an obligation to appease him.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
  18. Ome

    Ome Admin

    Message Count:
    8,764
    Trophy Points:
    2,638
    Ratings:
    +14,991
    Member Since:
    Dec 2005
    That's all that is asked and yes, there's no denying that political debates get heated and some people can go too far, where we have to all step back, take a look and think about how we deal with such issues when they arise.



    Agreed.

    Absolutely. To create interesting and fascinating discussion, we need people from all sides of the point. The place would be pretty much over if everyone agreed with each other, I just feel that the disagreements should be held in a civil manner.

    Also, there's nothing wrong with throwing memes here and there, just don't turn every thread or argument into a competition of who can find the most insulting meme.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat TV Fanatic

    Message Count:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +526
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Agreed on all points.

    And as for memes, I think they can be a creative way to get a point across if used in context. But using them as insults like SER! did (and me too in retaliation), is when it's a problem.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page