The Next US President Will Be Gay

a reply to: Tempter

I think we both know I comprehend just fine. Even though you may not want to admit it.

But if I have you pegged wrong, fine, feel free to explain your side of things so I won't make that mistake again.

You don't seem to be trying to explain yourself though so I see no reason to change my opinion.

originally posted by: XAn0nym0usX
a reply to: Tempter

Go on, finish the sentence

Which one? I'm on mobile. It doesn't show me which one you are referring to.

If he knows what he's DOING who cares how he screws.
It's a separate issue ENTIRELY.
Bill is a perv and THEY love him.
Adultery abounds,molesters of ALL sorts ,til they are caught.
I would be FINE with a NON activist President,who's gay.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Tempter

I think we both know I comprehend just fine. Even though you may not want to admit it.

But if I have you pegged wrong, fine, feel free to explain your side of things so I won't make that mistake again.

You don't seem to be trying to explain yourself though so I see no reason to change my opinion.

You seem to be implying I believe gays are not competent, or not as.

I don't believe that.

originally posted by: XAn0nym0usX
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Why? they would only use their correct pronoun. if it was a Trans-Female they would say Madam and a Trans-Male Mister

I am Confused . Both would Claim they are of the Other Sex .

originally posted by: Enderdog
a reply to: Tempter

Who cares? We all know perfectly competent gay people. In fact, they tend toward better competence, overall.

May I reverse your statement for the purposes of discourse?

What if you said this?

"We all know perfectly competent straight people. In fact, they tend toward better competence, overall."

THAT is why I hope you are joking.

You're making the claim that being gay gives you greater competency.

Just a ridiculous claim.

originally posted by: Tempter

You seem to be implying I believe gays are not competent, or not as.

I don't believe that.

Well then it's good you're trying to clear that up then. Because that was the impression I was getting from what you're saying and I'm not the only one.

Sorry if I misjudged you.

While it's not certain when there will be a Gay President, what is certain is that "It will have been ignored far too long!".

That's the premise of this thread right? Seeing as Gay people are fairly intelligent, I'll offer my first suggestion of us skipping straight to inanimate objects for nomination. I think a DVD copy of Sharktales, or a box of Tabasco Cheez-It's would be adequate. This will make the true hypocrisy of your observation being the oppression itself disseminate. You really think I want to hear gay jokes for 4 years applying to everything in policy? I didn't even want to hear this gay joke. The truth is, as many have pointed out, it wouldn't make people uncomfortable if the President was gay. What IS uncomfortable are threads like this.

The observation with the explicit question of intent behind meaning. So this "agenda" you know nothing about, other than gay(and maybe black?) people are connected to it is 'bad'?

Please tell me more. It's clearly not a strawman for bigotry and hate.

a reply to: Tempter

You edited your post, or for me at least it stopped at "He Received"

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

How so?

A Trans-Male is Male and a Trans-Female is Female

a reply to: Tempter

If our next president runs on term limits, lower taxes and smaller government then he/she can be a cross-dressing unicorn for all I care.

a reply to: seagull

Saved me from typing out another rambling history lesson about Senator William King and Andrew Jackson calling him an Aunt Nancy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tempter

If our next president runs on term limits, lower taxes and smaller government then he/she can be a cross-dressing unicorn for all I care.

Agreed. But it's stinging that, in my mind at least, these latest candidates have been pushed by an agenda which serves some twisted ideology of the left. It's almost as if they want to put people in power with controversial identities (that will get me in trouble) as if to prove their worth. It's almost like the left doesn't believe it until they see it.

Maybe they need some faith.

originally posted by: XAn0nym0usX
a reply to: Tempter

You edited your post, or for me at least it stopped at "He Received"

Yes, I had a character n their which apparently this forum doesn't like.

When I out the "greater than" symbol in my text it cut off the rest of the post following that symbol, to include that symbol.

a reply to: Tempter

What twisted agenda might that be exactly???

Maybe it's an effort to try something different since doing the same thing over and over which isn't working is good evidence that it's time to try something new.

There are some people who want to see a woman in the white house just so cultural progress is finally accomplished I agree. I think most people would like to see it happen as well in general. The fact that it's such an issue at this point just shows how far we have to go in removing our old ways of viewing the world that no longer apply.

We're getting ready to send people to live on mars and in colonies in outer space and yet we're still having discussions about whether or not a woman can handle a leadership position within our society. When you view it like that it makes us sound confused on whether or not we know what the hell we're doing actually.

a reply to: Tempter

You are still looking at it from a Political Paradigm. Party Lines don't exist, especially now. it has nothing to do with "Left, Right, or Center" and all to do with Dividing tactics and "Moral Arguments"

you are looking at it from a "Manager Position Level" while the "Owners" control the "Business" you are talking about a hierarchy that gives you a false sense of Democracy

Now Hillary is likely to be the next in line again, not because of her positions, but simply because she's a woman.

I think the fact that she is a woman is being vastly overshadowed by the fact that her opponent is the terrible Donald trump. That is why she will likely be elected. Because some people are either so terrified of Trump or hate him with such passion that they will vote for Hillary no matter what she does or who she really is. Even if this means a potential war with Russia apparently.

originally posted by: XAn0nym0usX
a reply to: Tempter

You are still looking at it from a Political Paradigm. Party Lines don't exist, especially now. it has nothing to do with "Left, Right, or Center" and all to do with Dividing tactics and "Moral Arguments"

you are looking at it from a "Manager Position Level" while the "Owners" control the "Business" you are talking about a hierarchy that gives you a false sense of Democracy

I can't fault that, nor can I confirm it.

a reply to: GoShredAK

What I find funny about this whole "Because she is a Woman" Argument, is that up until this point Jill Stein has the Record for most Votes ever for a Woman Presidential Candidate, I wonder how many Hillary Supporters actually knew this?

Now, i know there are are a large number of people who are willing to attack Jill Stein that support Hillary and it has not been viewed as "Sexist" as well

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Tempter

What twisted agenda might that be exactly???

Maybe it's an effort to try something different since doing the same thing over and over which isn't working is good evidence that it's time to try something new.

There are some people who want to see a woman in the white house just so cultural progress is finally accomplished I agree. I think most people would like to see it happen as well in general. The fact that it's such an issue at this point just shows how far we have to go in removing our old ways of viewing the world that no longer apply.

We're getting ready to send people to live on mars and in colonies in outer space and yet we're still having discussions about whether or not a woman can handle a leadership position within our society. When you view it like that it makes us sound confused on whether or not we know what the hell we're doing actually.

Well, technological aspirations do not coincide with morals, as evidenced by Einstein and his bomb.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you could find an Aboriginal with better morals than many scientists or modern man I'm the technological sense.

That's not my point.

I've already stated In don't care if she's a woman. But to me it seems a large amount of people do, and that drives their agenda. And when the MSM, again, my position here, is on that boat, they can heavily influence the election. All of the sudden it becomes not about the candidate but about their identity.

The MSM has been Mind-Phukingly effective at painting a narrative around Trump to include his oft-idiotic statements, and they've done the same for HRC.

Only her narrative, despite at -news sources and their attempts to shed light, is all roses wine. It's the land of milk and honey in future Hill-merica. We're going to be robbed some more both of our individual liberties and financially.

ONE OF THESE PIECES OF THE NARRATIVE (I'm evolving here, I'm allowed) is the fact she is a woman.

I don't like that.

I wish it wasn't even worth mentioning, let alone prevalent.

Donald Trump is a strong MAN.

Let's see that printed.