[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread

[Conserative Morality]

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry. Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Oh wow, I'm black, I can't marry a white, that's not bigotry at all! Do you listen to yourself?

[Wallenburg]

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry. Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Being able to marry someone you love isn't a privilege. It's a right.

[Conserative Morality]

Being able to marry someone you love isn't a privilege. It's a right.

SCOTUS has even ruled that it's a right. Long before gay marriage.

[Camicon]

"Denying people equal rights because of their sexuality isn't bigotry."

Wow guy, you really showed me.

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry. Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Go on, spew some more vitriol. Taint your chances of being a legitimate voice more. If you can't accept that what you think isn't the truth axiomatically you should go back to remedial logic.

Intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion from oneself. Name the term that phrase defines.

Scalia wanted to restrict the right to marry from the LGBT community, because they belong to said community. That makes him a bigot.

[Corrian]

Technically, by the definition of bigot according to a quick Google search, we're all pretty much bigots in a way. But from what I have seen, bigot has been more changed to mean "People who have a hate towards people just trying to live their lives their way", or some such.

Of course, when I look it up more than simply Googling it, it does go into more detail.

[USS Monitor]

Shouldn't you wait to see who he nominates before you decide that?

Why when no one can approach Scalia's judicial supremacy? Scalia is infallible, unlike the Pope, and it's about time you recognized that, Mon.

Sometimes it's hard for me to get new ideas through my thick armor.

[Wallenburg]

Technically, by the definition of bigot according to a quick Google search, we're all pretty much bigots in a way. But from what I have seen, bigot has been more changed to mean "People who have a hate towards people just trying to live their lives their way", or some such.

Of course, when I look it up more than simply Googling it, it does go into more detail.

I'm not sure how I'm a bigot in any way. Maybe I'm a bigot against people who define "living their lives their way" as invading my country, burning down my community, raping my family, and torturing me to death, but I've yet to come across someone who wants to do that, and I doubt that it would qualify as bigotry to hate someone who does that to anyone.

[Wallenburg]

Why when no one can approach Scalia's judicial supremacy? Scalia is infallible, unlike the Pope, and it's about time you recognized that, Mon.

Sometimes it's hard for me to get new ideas through my thick armor.

You should get insurance from Progressive to even it out.

[New Chalcedon]

"Denying people equal rights because of their sexuality isn't bigotry."

Wow guy, you really showed me.

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry. Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Sexuality isn't a "circumstance", but nice try. Also, you're engaging in unequal comparisons - the purpose of allowing citizens the right to vote is to give them a voice in their own government, therefore there is a compelling interest in limiting that right to persons of that government's nationality, therefore passes the strict scrutiny applied to governmental legislation affecting peoples' access to rights.

Where is the compelling interest in denying the rights & privileges of marriage to same-sex couples? What rational objective does the State gain by providing access to marital rights & privileges to opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry.

Both the Supreme Court and the UN have ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right. I'm fairly certain that 'right' and 'privilege' aren't synonyms, funny enough. Lrn2words. And what is denying someone's rights based on sexuality an example of? What's the answer so simple a pre-school child could figure it out? Oh that's right, it's bigotry. You're 0:1, let's see if you can pull this one out of the frying pan.

Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Equating voting in foreign elections as a non citizen to something both the supreme court and the UN have ruled as in inalienable right. Ooh buddy sorry, that's gonna hurt your score.

Go on, spew some more vitriol. Taint your chances of being a legitimate voice more. If you can't accept that what you think isn't the truth axiomatically you should go back to remedial logic.

"Y-you're the bigot for calling bigoted people bigots. B-baka"

Intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion from oneself. Name the term that phrase defines.

By that retarded logic, saying that a Klan member is a racist, or a Red Piller is a sexist, or Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist, is all angry vitriol and intolerance against people who hold beliefs opposed to my own. Why don't you put on your big girl panties and grow up buddy.

[Ghatawerpya]

So? Maintaining a good standing in Europe is much more important than propping up Israel in the first place.

VVVV

the two situations aren't exactly equivalent

That's why I posted. They aren't equivalent except in the most shallow of ways.

If one genuinely wants to reduce the amount of money making it's way to foreign entities, you usually reduce the least useful or most unneeded allocation. In this case that would mean cutting aid to a more than capable country rather than the funding of a military alliance.

And if that's what Sanders thinks, he's being very naive. Tolerating them is going to do even less.

Why is that naive? The Iran nuclear negotiations were successful in large part because Russia, probably Iran's biggest friend of the UNSC powers, was brought in. Diplomacy works and its naive to think that diplomacy can be carried out with only a stick and no carrot.

I meant to say that it's naive to believe that the Kremlin isn't in almost diametric opposition to The West right now. Nevertheless we tried diplomacy with them and it didn't really work. Russia's current alienation is a result of it's breaking the rules over Crimea despite the reset.

The example you used was pretty weird too. Russia doesn't benefit at all from the Iran negotiations, the only reason they got involved was to please China.

[Corrian]

I was going off the basic definition G-Tech Corporation posted.

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

All of us are "Intolerant" of someones opinion, but when you actually click on it more thoroughly, it does seem to be more specific.

"In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them"

[G-Tech Corporation]

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry. Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Oh wow, I'm black, I can't marry a white, that's not bigotry at all! Do you listen to yourself?

Not the same thing at all- race is not, arguably, a different circumstance. Or I'd love to see you prove that it is. Sexuality and nationality, in point of fact, are. Nice misrepresentation you've got going there though.

Providing different privileges for different circumstances isn't bigotry. Wow, I'm a Canadian, I can' t vote in American elections, the damn bigots.

Being able to marry someone you love isn't a privilege. It's a right.

That's complete chicanery. There are a thousand regulations regarding who individuals may or may not marry relating to age, species, current marital status, and so on. Do you have another bridge to sell in Alaska?

[The Carlisle]

Oh wow, I'm black, I can't marry a white, that's not bigotry at all! Do you listen to yourself?

Not the same thing at all- race is not, arguably, a different circumstance. Or I'd love to see you prove that it is. Sexuality and nationality, in point of fact, are. Nice misrepresentation you've got going there though.

Being able to marry someone you love isn't a privilege. It's a right.

That's complete chicanery. There are a thousand regulations regarding who individuals may or may not marry relating to age, species, current marital status, and so on. Do you have another bridge to sell in Alaska?

So what you are saying is that you don't understand sexuality at all.

[Wallenburg]

Oh wow, I'm black, I can't marry a white, that's not bigotry at all! Do you listen to yourself?

Not the same thing at all- race is not, arguably, a different circumstance. Or I'd love to see you prove that it is. Sexuality and nationality, in point of fact, are. Nice misrepresentation you've got going there though.

*Ahem*

Being able to marry someone you love isn't a privilege. It's a right.

That's complete chicanery. There are a thousand regulations regarding who individuals may or may not marry relating to age, species, current marital status, and so on. Do you have another bridge to sell in Alaska?

And there are a thousand regulations regarding who may or may not vote relating to age, incarceration, place of residence, and so on. We still consider voting a right of citizenship.

You should also remember that "someone" requires the other person to be...you know...a person. Currently, the only people on Earth are humans. Species has nothing to do with anything.

[Conserative Morality]

Not the same thing at all- race is not, arguably, a different circumstance. Or I'd love to see you prove that it is. Sexuality and nationality, in point of fact, are. Nice misrepresentation you've got going there though.

Sexuality is a circumstance? Are you fucking joking? How many times have you woke up and thought about jacking/jilling yourself off to the same sex? How many times have you fucking chose to be straight? Do you think people want to spend their lives in fear and misery? Yeah, I'm sure the LGBT community in Uganda just wakes up every day and chooses to live a hidden life in which they run the risk of being 'correctively' raped, mutilated, or killed?

[Wallenburg]

Not the same thing at all- race is not, arguably, a different circumstance. Or I'd love to see you prove that it is. Sexuality and nationality, in point of fact, are. Nice misrepresentation you've got going there though.

Sexuality is a circumstance? Are you fucking joking? How many times have you woke up and thought about jacking/jilling yourself off to the same sex? How many times have you fucking chose to be straight? Do you think people want to spend their lives in fear and misery? Yeah, I'm sure the LGBT community in Uganda just wakes up every day and chooses to live a hidden life in which they run the risk of being 'correctively' raped, mutilated, or killed?

Of course! The constant threat of violence and death is exciting! Haven't you watched television?

[Corrian]

I guess we probably should get back on topic, though.

[Wallenburg]

I guess we probably should get back on topic, though.

Sanders would like that.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Sexuality is a circumstance? Are you fucking joking? How many times have you woke up and thought about jacking/jilling yourself off to the same sex? How many times have you fucking chose to be straight? Do you think people want to spend their lives in fear and misery? Yeah, I'm sure the LGBT community in Uganda just wakes up every day and chooses to live a hidden life in which they run the risk of being 'correctively' raped, mutilated, or killed?

Of course! The constant threat of violence and death is exciting! Haven't you watched television?

That's what you'd like to call a heaping helping of cognitive dissidence. Of course anti-SSM isn't the same thing as anti-miscegenation, because they don't personally agree with anti-miscegenation. Therefor they're not comparable. Somehow.

[Camicon]

Oh wow, I'm black, I can't marry a white, that's not bigotry at all! Do you listen to yourself?

Not the same thing at all- race is not, arguably, a different circumstance. Or I'd love to see you prove that it is. Sexuality and nationality, in point of fact, are. Nice misrepresentation you've got going there though.

Being able to marry someone you love isn't a privilege. It's a right.

That's complete chicanery. There are a thousand regulations regarding who individuals may or may not marry relating to age, species, current marital status, and so on. Do you have another bridge to sell in Alaska?

G-Tech, are you suggesting that humanity is in contact with a species that qualify as people, other than humans?

The smell of bullshit coming off your post is inescapable.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I guess we probably should get back on topic, though.

Sanders would like that.

Sanders is a pretty cool cat, shame he isn't going to win. Still, I'll vote Hillary when she wins the nomination. The alternative is a Repub, and even the best Repub is worse than the worst Democrat.

[The Nuclear Fist]

G-Tech, are you suggesting that humanity is in contact with a species that qualify as people, other than humans?

The smell of bullshit coming off your post is inescapable.

Not letting pedophiles marry the children they're raping or zoophiles marry the animals they're raping is proof that SSM isn't a fundamental right.

"How?" Look deep within yourself and reach into your ass, and eventually you'll pull out what they're passing off as logic.

[Wallenburg]

Of course! The constant threat of violence and death is exciting! Haven't you watched television?

That's what you'd like to call a heaping helping of cognitive dissidence. Of course anti-SSM isn't the same thing as anti-miscegenation, because they don't personally agree with anti-miscegenation. Therefor they're not comparable. Somehow.

We're discussing the concept that sexuality somehow isn't as inherent as ethnicity.

[Corrian]

Sanders is a pretty cool cat, shame he isn't going to win. Still, I'll vote Hillary when she wins the nomination. The alternative is a Repub, and even the best Repub is worse than the worst Democrat.

I think the idea that he "Isn't going to win" doesn't help matters at all. The more people that say that, the less that will probably actually vote for him, though in some cases the people that are like "He has no chance of winning", I have to wonder if they'd vote for him in the first place. Right now, there is still the possibility that he could win. Maybe not a huge chance, but way more than what we all expected months ago. So I'd prefer to look positive at his possibilities, because he has seriously taken off since his announcement, breaking apart huge leads that looked like an obvious win for Hillary (In pretty much every freaking primary state so far that has gone through, Hillary was way in the lead in the early days, and look how that turned out)