It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Gays ignore Trump outreach, 72 percent back Hillary

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: XAn0nym0usX

Did he? That would be news to me. I'm gay and I voted for Trump (early ballot).

I believe that if he gets elected that he will let the supreme court decision remain the same.

Worst case scenario, the decision goes back to the states. Even then people will still be able to get married and keep their rights.




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom



www.donaldjtrump.com...

If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths.


It's not just about Marriage, though, it's about everything I pointed out earlier



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

If Trump wins the presidency, the Republicans would still control the entire federal Executive Branch & the alphabet agencies that are a part of it. Trump would still appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and to other federal positions. So no matter how you believe Trump himself would treat LGBT citizens, it's more important to see the people who'll be sharing power with him since the President doesn't actually make most of the decisions for the Executive Branch.

It would be like selecting a pacifist like myself to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. While that would seem like a good thing if you're anti-war, it would be completely nullified if I appointed warhawks to be my military and foreign policy advisors, to be in my Cabinet, to be our ambassadors to various countries, etc.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: XAn0nym0usX

Sounds ridiculous. Clearly no one needs to conform to groupthink.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Trump should have said that he likes to grab puzzies and boners.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Trump's not so bad with LGBT, he was even a democrat. The problem is the discriminatory filth is even-more-so infiltrating. His VP can't be ignored. It can't be so open, if both R seats were cool headed on that topic there would have been even more turnout I bet. It's kind of ironic for Trump to be in the more correct moral position generally than his VP, he's never given 'the vibe' that he's homophobic while brilliantly making it aware he's straight.

To be honest, LGBT is super diverse and lots of progress has actually been made. I see it on a level of men and women. I wouldn't be surprised if the group eventually holds 50/50 margins. That's a while out though, in the short term, Obamacare, for example will hit a lot of resistance.

Many Transgender people have or are using Obamacare. This isn't because it's a Democrat thing though~ it's because Obamacare was literally breaking the ice on the insurance policies of it, as it was neglected by other insurance. I myself, had 3 different forms of private health insurance through Work and my parents and myself, and none of them covered any aspect of it and I was forced to obtain Obamacare thinking I would need it. Now this has changed, and many private companies now do have forms of insurance that cover it, but I think that a lot of people simply won't want to switch for this reason. I'm using my private insurance, but a lot of Trans during those years used Obamacare, and many in the process might still be planning to.

It is pretty novel for the Government in that particular position to step in and try to help people who are being discriminated against, but the private deductibles instantly make it look bad once compared. It makes me wonder if there is anything else insurance companies should be covering that Obamacare could lean into them on, despite it being bad health insurance, to force them to eventually cover it out of the 'competition'.
edit on 26-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Exactly, I'm sure it is a strong reflection of concern regarding who will fill the Supreme Court vacancy.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Agreed, but within the Community, there seems to be a big push for assimilation into the Heteronormative-Space, especially from the HRC (Human Rights Council) and other LGBT+ "Groups"

speaking bluntly, mostly from the White Upper-Middle class



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ravenshadow13

As well as the other federal positions. For example, I seem to recall a conservative backlash when homosexuals were allowed to openly serve in the military. And when partners of gay military personnel were granted benefits. And I even remember the conservative backlash right here on ATS when the Supreme Court struck down the laws banning gay marriages (which goes w/your point about the Supreme Court).



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join