As readers know, I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket—not because I think he’d be a great president, but because the major party candidates are both personally repugnant advocates of, in different respects, truly awful policies. The next four years, most likely under Clinton, will be a rough patch in any event.
That said, readers also know that I am sickened by the way LGBT progressives have, with utter dishonesty, characterized Donald Trump as “anti-gay” because that false narrative serves their party. At some point, the mendacity is so corrupting that one can only despair of these people.
So I welcomed David Lampo’s A Gay Defense of Donald Trump, one small voice of reason amid a sea of hysterical base-frightening in the Washington Blade. As Lampo writes:
The fact is that any honest look at Trump’s record and views on gay rights shows that most of the attacks by gay Democrats on his views are simply incorrect.
Trump, of course, has been a New York Democrat and social liberal for most of his adult life, chummy with many Democratic politicians, including the Clintons, and active in many charities, including support for AIDS charities. He has a long record of public support for expanding gay rights, including adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He stated support for employment nondiscrimination as far back as 2000 in his book, “The America We Deserve,” in which he wrote of his support for a country “free of racism, discrimination against women, or discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.”
He publicly supported repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and in an interview with The Brody File (a very conservative radio show) in 2011, in response to a question about civil unions, he said, “First of all, I live in New York. I know many, many gay people. Tremendous people. And to be honest with you … I haven’t totally formed my opinion. But there can be no discrimination against gays.”
Lampo concludes:
There’s no doubt one can find much to criticize in Trump (and, for that matter, Hillary Clinton), but to label him anti-gay or a mouthpiece of the religious right is so off-base and incorrect it calls into question the credibility and honesty of those making such accusations.
That’s putting it charitably.
More. A bit off-topic, but this is what you won’t learn about Clinton by reading and viewing liberal media. Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal:
Readers of these pages know of the Uranium One deal in which a Canadian businessman got Bill Clinton to help him get control of uranium mining fields in Kazakhstan. The businessman soon gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation, with a pledge of $100 million more. Uranium One acquired significant holdings in the U.S. A Russian company moved to buy it. The deal needed U.S. approval, including from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
While it was under consideration the Clinton Foundation received more money from Uranium One. Bill Clinton got a $500,000 speech fee. Mrs. Clinton approved the deal. The Russian company is now one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Significant amounts of U.S. uranium are, in effect, owned by Russia. This summer a WikiLeaks dump showed the State Department warning that Russia was moving to control the global supply of nuclear fuel. The deal went through anyway, and the foundation flourished.
In addition:
Peter Schweizer, who broke the Uranium One story, reported in these pages how Mrs. Clinton also pushed for a U.S.-Russian technology initiative…. Of the 28 announced “key partners,” 60% had made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation. Even Russian investors ponied up. … U.S. military experts warned of satellite, space and nuclear technology transfers. The FBI thought the Russian partners’ motive was to “gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology.” WikiLeaks later unearthed a State Department cable expressing concern about the project. Somehow, said Mr. Schweizer, the Clinton State Department “missed or ignored obvious red flags.”
This is why Clinton will be a disastrous president. But the media, which is full of Trump’s supposed fealty to Putin, covers up Clinton’s venality. Corruption all round.
51 Comments for “An Honest Look at Trump”
posted by Jorge on
So I welcomed David Lampo’s A Gay Defense of Donald Trump
It’s dated just yesterday? This fabulously awesome guy’s got stones.
According to a recent poll of gay voters by NBC News, 36 percent of registered LGBT voters support a candidate other than Clinton, with 28 percent supporting either Trump or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian
Remind me to check the exit polls this year.
That’s putting it charitably.
I agree with that.
An honest look at Trump, huh?
Electing Donald Trump will first and foremost be a slap in the face at… the “gay knives” in an interesting way of putting it, although of course most of the knaves aren’t gay. How severe and how critical of a problem do such individuals and their behaviors present? I think the chances are uncomfortably high that they present an imminently existential threat.
You either buy that or you don’t. There aren’t many better messengers than Trump against the current political correctness, because while he doesn’t call out all the villains, he nails it when it comes to who is being damaged.
Everything else that has come out over the past week has bothered me for about 30 minutes. And then I got over it.
posted by TJ on
Gary Johnson comes off as a light weight. Someone who did waay mind altering drugs…or doesn’t do much prep for interviews….or all of the above.
Jill Stein seems like she is slightly more prepared to do interviews, but seems to believe in wild antivaccine conspiracy .theories.
I have no problem changing the electoral system to give voters more meaningful choices.
But running a third or fourth party campaign every four years ain’t the way to go about it .
posted by TJ on
Jorge;
I suspect that if some 50+ guy was making inappropriate sexual comments about you or grabbing your “junk”, you might be upset.
Their is political correctness and basic civility, tact and professionalism.
posted by Jorge on
Of course I’d be upset. I’d probably become their enemy for life.
What’s your point? There’s basic civility, tact, and professionalism, and there’s suitability for the job. The former impacts the latter. It does not decide the latter.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“An Honest Look at Trump” would take into account TPP’s consistent and unwavering opposition to marriage equality, TPP’s frequent criticism of Obergefell as “shocking” and wrongly decided, TPP’s repeated pledge to appoint judges and Justices in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas and the anti-equality records of the judges on “the list”, TPP’s stated support for FADA, TPP’s promise to rescind the administrations non-discrimination Executive Orders, TPP’s apparent change-of-heart on DP’s/CU’s (supported in 2000, not supported in 2011), and so on. “An Honest Look at Trump” should mention that his positions on LGBT issues align closely with those of the 2016 Republican Platform (dubbed “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history” by Log Cabin Republicans). “An Honest Look at Trump” might consider whether his selection of Mike Pence is consistent with TPP’s reputation among homocons as a “social liberal”. And so on.
It seems to me that an honest look would take both sides of the coin, the good and the bad alike, into account. Lampo is no more an honest broker than the worst of the progressive shills, ignoring the totality of the record. Lampo’s op-ed is less an “honest look” than it is a puff piece.
I understand where Lamp (a Trump supporter) is coming from, but where you fit into the picture, Stephen, I have no idea. It sounds like you bought the bullshit at retail.
posted by Jorge on
“An Honest Look at Trump” should mention that his positions on LGBT issues align closely with those of the 2016 Republican Platform (dubbed “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history” by Log Cabin Republicans).
…uh, what?
Why should an honest look at Trump come to that conclusion? What meaning can be drawn from this statement if there are indeed two sides of the coin?
If indeed a person this supportive of the LGBT community can be credibly said to have positions that align with the most anti-LGBT Republican party platform in history, then such a combination of circumstances lends credibility to some of Trump’s claims that he has a great temperament for the job and that nobody has more respect for women than him. It’s a cry wolf thing.
Pence’s cringe-inducing refusal during the debate to separate religion from public life notwithstanding, I don’t get the gay fixation on him.
posted by TJ on
A fair and balanced look at a major party presidential candidate’s policy on LGBT equality, would be nice.
Sadly, we ain’t gonna get it from Tacky Trump queen – if being politically incorrect is hip- .
TTP earlier statements in support for equality are mostly pre-campaign.
They are pretty decent statements – in context – but his presidential campaign has taken EVERY opportunity to behave indecently.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: “An Honest Look at Trump” should mention that his positions on LGBT issues align closely with those of the 2016 Republican Platform (dubbed “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history” by Log Cabin Republicans).
Jorge: Why should an honest look at Trump come to that conclusion?
Because it is a fact. Do an issue-by-issue comparison of the 2016 Platform and TPP’s stated positions, and you cannot escape that conclusion.
posted by Jorge on
I need to learn to start expecting vacuous circular answers from Tom.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I need to learn to start expecting vacuous circular answers from Tom.
Well, I have no idea what is either vacuous or circular about making the statement that TPP’s positions on LGBT issues align closely with the 2016 Platform (when that is true) and when asked how I reached that conclusion, pointing out that when you line up the platform, issue by issue, and with TPP’s statements, the two closely align.
If you want a good example of a vacuous statement (circular, I don’t know about), try this:
To me, that makes no damn sense at all.
But then, as I’ve said before, I’m old and don’t pretend to understand the post-rational world in which Trumpians seem to live.
posted by Jorge on
It’s a boy who cried wolf situation. If you make claims about Donald Trump that are ridiculous on its face, eventually what’s going to happen is people are going to start believing Trump when he says things that are equally ridiculous.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Just out of curiosity, why are we bothering with TPP’s supposed “social liberal” positions at this point?
In comparison to the strong pro-equality positions of the candidates of the three other political parties (Democrat, Green, Libertarian), calling TPP a “social liberal” is a joke, or should be. TPP made no effort at all to keep the Republican Party from adopting “most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s history”, and it isn’t as if he his going to be the face of the Republican Party after November 8th. TPP’s base (think Breitbart) is even more retrograde than TPP is, and the conservative Christian part of the base stands in hard-core opposition to “equal means equal”.
So why is any of this relevant?
posted by Doug on
Donald Trump is the crudest, most vulgar and manifestly unqualified person to run for president in history. He is running on the most anti-gay political platform in history and chose as his running mate the most virulently anti-LGBT Mike Pence.
You don’t even pass the laugh test, Stephan.
posted by TJ on
Yeah. This is honest like a rent boy is honest. That we have this passing for honesty is just a new level of dishonesty.
Trump had EVERY opportunity to be the sort of Republican that would be worthy of gay and straight voters.
He blew it.
posted by Jorge on
I once remarked that when Megyn Kelly asked him that pointed question about women, Donald Trump knocked it out of the park, went over the fence and grabbed the ball, and then he put it on instant replay to make sure everyone knew he did it.
I concluded a long time ago that Donald Trump had already served his purpose. Perhaps if I hadn’t bothered to think that, fate wouldn’t be conspiring to suggest that I was right. He went on to repeat that stunt not once, not twice, but at least three more times by my count. Wait, no, one of those times he hit a foul ball and still fished the ball to tag himself out.
I suppose I will pay attention to the third debate. Barack Obama once made a great speech about racial radicalism. Clinton walked back her basket of deplorables remark (seems she’s been studying Romneyfail) She hasn’t been asked many questions about social issues.
Still, I came from a family of Mets fans. What’s wrong with being on the losing side?
posted by Houndentenor on
Trump served his purpose? Probably so, but the re-emergence of white supremacists on the national stage is not something I’d be particularly proud of.
posted by Jorge on
Eh. This has been a year and change of some pretty bitter racial grievances. This is one thing the Clinton campaign recognized dead-on.
(Wait, if you believe that, why aren’t you voting for her?)
Good question. I’m not yet convinced that in her case, knowledge is power.
posted by Jorge on
I suppose I will pay attention to the third debate.
……..
Someone has been whispering my greatest doubts in Clinton’s ear. She was dead-on on what was the “most important” question.
*Sigh.* And the same person whispered into Trump’s ear. Which leaves things at…
Hillary Clinton, it is just not enough to point out that Donald Trump thinks the Emmys are rigged. You have to help the system you are a part of serve more Americans. Even if it is nothing more than letting them have a hand in what you are determined to create.
posted by Lori Heine on
Let’s all just please take a deep breath and calm down. There is no way that Donald Trump is going to be elected. Whether you like it or not (and I hate it), Hillary Clinton is going to be our next president.
It doesn’t matter how corrupt she is. Her little minions don’t care. And Trump is too unpopular with too many people to win.
Gary Johnson’s votes are basically an attempt to get libertarian ideas on the radar. That’s why I’m voting for him. If he happened to pull a John Quincy Adams and get elected by denying either Clump team enough to win, that would be wonderful. But I doubt he can. And if he did, Clump would find a way to steal it from him.
The most pathetic thing is that so many people are getting so exercised about this. It isn’t going to matter which half of Clump wins. We’re going to be stuck with all of it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The most pathetic thing is that so many people are getting so exercised about this. It isn’t going to matter which half of Clump wins. We’re going to be stuck with all of it.
I don’t know what the “this” is, but the Rise of Trump is going to have a lasting effect on the Republican Party. The party, as it existed going into the primary season, will not survive. I don’t know what will happen, but TPP stirred up a major shitstorm among Republican voters by pointing out the obvious — which is that the “Party of Reagan” did absolutely nothing for ordinary Americans and will not, given its political philosophy — and the largest bloc (about 40-45%, based on primary results) of Republican voters learned, listened and voted.accordingly. Whatever TPP’s future, that’s not going to go away. The Republican Party. Eyes, once opened, see and continue to see.
Gary Johnson’s votes are basically an attempt to get libertarian ideas on the radar.
Johnson is going nowhere fast. Whether that’s because Americans don’t think much of “libertarian ideas” or because Johnson comes off as something of a goof, I don’t know.
I wonder what would have happened if Weld were the Libertarian Party nominee. Things might have been different.
posted by Lori Heine on
“This” is the election.
The rise of Trump will hasten the destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. The rise of Clinton will do the same on the other side.
I believe the destruction will be creative. I think that something better now has the chance to rise out of the ashes. Every healthy society needs a progressive wing and a conservative wing. Neither is one-dimensionally good or evil. But in our country, both are very dysfunctional.
This is a year when no party could benefit from its nominee being elected. That Johnson is not a major player–and will not be so identified with libertarianism that his mistakes could sink it–I regard as a very good thing.
Maybe I’m a Pollyanna, but I’m actually not as gloom-and-doomy as a lot of other Americans. Some of the developments are interesting. They just require intelligent, independent analysis. That isn’t going to come from the corporate media.
posted by Houndentenor on
Both parties, especially the respective establishments, are in serious and long overdue need of re-assessment. Oh wait…Republicans did that after 2012 less. They got a blueprint for how to win in 2016 and then went and did the opposite. (I’m not claiming that Democrats would be any smarter in that regard.) Clinton wouldn’t have been my first choice. (I wasn’t a Bernie fan either.) It’s time to move past the baby boomer squabbles that have defined our politics for the past 30 years. America has moved past much of this but politicians have not.
posted by Kosh III on
“The rise of Trump will hasten the destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. ”
Yes, I’ve thought and said for some time that the Grand Old Posterior Party was falling apart.
A good exemplar might be the Labour Party after Ms. Thatcher’s first win. It broke into a far left which withered away and a center-left that eventually came back to power. Unfortunately it was with Tony Blair, that war-mongering neo-liberal turd….
posted by JohnInCA on
“Yes, I’ve thought and said for some time that the Grand Old Posterior Party was falling apart.”
Yeah, you and half the internet. Every two and/or four years. I swear, you could set a (very slow) clock by claims that the GOP/Democrats are “falling apart”.
In case that’s unclear: after so many years of professional and amateur analysists alike making claims of the GOPs imminent demise, I’m simply not gonna believe it until it happens.
posted by Kosh III on
Hope springs eternal 🙂
posted by Houndentenor on
Trump himself isn’t all that anti-gay. It’s true. But the platform is. And then he chose Mike Pence as a running mate who is anti-gay enough for at least two people (probably a lot more). So that doesn’t really hold up as a talking point. Trump may not personally be all that anti-gay but a Trump administration most certainly would be.
posted by Jorge on
It isn’t going to matter which half of Clump wins. We’re going to be stuck with all of it.
…..:..|..)
😀
(Wait, you don’t seriously believe a two-headed hydra can fit in a house built for a person, do you? They’ll have to make some deep cuts to ‘illary and Tr’ to get Clump in, and you have no way of knowing if the choicest parts or the rotten parts will survive.)
Well, that was good while it lasted. I felt relieved for an incredible two minutes.
Trump may not personally be all that anti-gay but a Trump administration most certainly would be.
I’m sure the annals of Republican presidential history will support this claim in a walk.
posted by TJ on
I not really sure whether or not TPP still has “liberal” political views on discrimination and other civil rights issues.
His business record dealing with minorities in say, housing don’t reflect a commitment to civil rights.
He seems to act like he is entitled to do whatever he wants with women.
I’m not sure he has given a straight campaign answer on gay rights that could be seen as liberal.
Also, he seems to think that all (most?) blacks and Hispanics are criminals or living in ghettos.
He wants to build a wall that will be very expensive to build and very expensive maintain and will end up doing very little to actually keep us safe.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A bit off-topic, but this is what you won’t learn about Clinton by reading and viewing liberal media. Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal …
Uh, Stephen, you should consider doing a quick Google/Bing search before making such ridiculous statements:
(1) “Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover”, NYT, April 22, 2015;
(2) “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”, NYT, April 23, 2015;
(3) “Clinton Foundation Linked To Russian Effort To Buy Uranium Company”, NPR All Things Considered, April 23, 2015;
(4) “Fallout slams Hillary Clinton campaign as report says foundation got millions from donors tied to Russian uranium company”, NY Daily News, April 24, 2015;
(5) “Clinton Foundation tied to uranium deal: NYT”, MSNBC Morning Joe, April 24, 2015;
(6) “Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company”, New Yorker, April 24, 2015;
and so on and so on and so on.
My Bing search (“clinton foundation uranium”) yields 274,000 results, and I’m not going to list them all. So much for “what you won’t learn about Clinton by reading and viewing liberal media”.
Here’s the interesting thing, though: If you actually go so far as to read the articles I’ve cited (shocking idea, I know, since you often don’t seem to read the sources you cite on IGF), you’ll find that the NYT broke the story, and did so well over a year ago. You and Peggy Noonan are a day late and a dollar short.
posted by Kosh III on
No self-respecting gay person should vote for the candidate of Pence, Falwell, Tony Perkins, Cruz, Ghouliani etc etc.
If you can’t vote for Hillary, then vote for Jill Stein or someone else or just stay home.
posted by Jorge on
No self-respecting gay person should vote for the candidate of Pence, Falwell, Tony Perkins, Cruz, Ghouliani etc etc.
I’ve been called stupid so many times this year I almost missed being called self-loathing.
Bush. 2000. 4.
Trump. 2000. 16.
posted by Kosh III on
Can’t read? It’s self-respecting. Must’ve been home schooled.
If you love conservative “values” so much, why don’t you move to Sanatorium Mississippi? You need healing.
Of course once these good ol boys see your name they’ll run you out of town for being a rapist Mexican. (sarcasm)
posted by Jorge on
Can’t read? It’s self-respecting. Must’ve been home schooled.
Your vaxillating between a shallow denial of a general disrespect and open confirmation of a direct insult is amusing. I do not respect it. It is not fooling anyone.
Since you want to know more about me, I attended one of the top 15-ranked liberal arts colleges in the nation, although I was probably in the 25% percentile there when it came to SAT scores. Maybe it was closer to the top 20 when I actually attended.
If you love conservative “values” so much
I’m a moderate.
(That wasn’t his accusation.)
Bah.
why don’t you move to Sanatorium Mississippi?
Your question is so illogical I don’t even know where to begin on that one, but I’ll start with the obvious: why wouldn’t I move to Staten Island instead?
You need healing.
A more unremarkable prediction I’ve scarcely read. You’d make a great fortuneteller.
Of course once these good ol boys see your name they’ll run you out of town for being a rapist Mexican. (sarcasm)
I do not appreciate you using a stealth sarcasm tactic to call someone a racist Mexican.
posted by Kosh III on
Hey, just channeling Trump with the stealth bit. 🙂
Nothing is moderate about Trump.
You need healing because…..look up the meaning of Sanitorium. I’ve only got a BA from a State HBCU, how could I stump a top 20%-er?
posted by Jorge on
how could I stump a top 20%-er?
Racist and rapist sound pretty similar in my head and I didn’t get a lot of sleep last night, so there are times when I think one and the other comes out.
Why don’t you tell me about why you need healing? How do you know the cure hasn’t infected you?
The “oh my God, gays like Santorum” is old news by this election. I think you should worry more about people changing right now.
In the past few weeks we have learned the following new information about Donald Trump:
–The video and audio
–The accusers
–He will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton if elected
–He is refusing to review intelligence briefings on Russia
–He is willing to meet with Russian Prime Minister (he is a PM, right?) Vladimir Putin when he is a president-elect
–He is alleging there will be widespread voter fraud at or near the process of casting ballots and counting votes on Election Day in some of the United States’s largest cities, based on past events.
Almost all of these new events form an unbroken chain to less disturbing but suspicious positions and behaviors in the past.
I am often told by people on this board that one Republican or another is speaking in “dog whistle”. But with Trump, and Trump alone, is there a nearly unbroken chain from very concerning present information to suspicious positions and behaviors in their political history. 41% of US voters believe the election may be rigged. Never before have I heard so often serious discussions that as a result of a Republican politician’s public statements, there may be political violence. The amount of mental acrobatics needed to support Trump under such circumstances is staggering and is having detrimental effects on the political ideology of the electorate. This cognitive dissonance happens much, much more seldom to gays who vote Republican than liberal stereotypes presume it should be. Usually “new revelations” are of the opposite kind–less concerning than the candidate’s known political history. I place Rick Santorum firmly in this category and have never heard a persuasive argument to the contrary.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If you make claims about Donald Trump that are ridiculous on its face, eventually what’s going to happen is people are going to start believing Trump when he says things that are equally ridiculous.
So what, exactly, is “ridiculous” about the statement that TPP’s positions on LGBT issues align closely with the 2016 Platform? It is a fact, and it is neither “circular” nor “vacuous” to make the statement, much less “ridiculous”.
I’ve learned over the years that you have a remarkable resistance to facts when facts cast doubt on your pet theories about politicians you revere, but that doesn’t change the facts. And the fact is that TPP’s positions on LGBT issues closely align with the 2016 Republican Platform.
Both TPP and the 2016 Platform oppose same-sex marriage. Both TPP and the 2012 Platform hold that Obergefell is wrongly decided and should be overturned. Both TPP and the 2016 Platform support FADA. Both TPP and the 2016 Platform call for judicial appointments in the mold of Justice Scalia, and TPP has provided “the list” to demonstrate his sincerity in that regard. Both TPP and the 2016 Platform call for President Obama’s non-discrimination executive orders to be rescinded, and TPP has vowed to do so on his first day in office. And so on, down the line. TPP has expressed disagreement with very little in the 2016 Platform when it comes to LGBT issues.
I’ll grant you that no evidence exists to suggest that TPP carries any personal animosity toward gays, and TPP has made gay-supportive noises over the years, as David Lampo’s puff-piece notes. TPP is not Pence.
I think that the evidence suggests, though, that TPP’s personal lack of animosity is largely irrelevant, because he backs off gay-supportive positions when pressured.
At one point, for example, he expressed support for the Equality Act of 2016, but he later recanted. At another point, he said that Kim Davis, Christian Martyr™, should do her job or quit, but later waffled around and doubled down on his support for FADA, which expressly permits government officials to refuse to provide government services to gays and lesbians. TPP has made “happy talk” statements about individuals entering same-sex marriages, but he’s not waivered from his opposition to marriage equality. TPP invited Katlyn Jenner to use whatever bathroom she preferred in Trump Tower, but then turned turtle and supported North Carolina’s bathroom law.
TPP is like Romney — whatever his personal views about gays and lesbians might be, he won’t stand up to the party’s conservative Christians.
I think that the idea that David Lampo’s one-sided puff piece, which ignores TPP’s record on LGBT issues, is “An Honest Look at Trump” is (as someone else said) laughable. You apparently disagree. So be it.
Just spare me further word salads, if you would be so kind. You can catch up on your sleep instead, and we’ll all be better for it.
posted by Jorge on
So what, exactly, is “ridiculous” about the statement that TPP’s positions on LGBT issues align closely with the 2016 Platform? It is a fact, and it is neither “circular” nor “vacuous” to make the statement, much less “ridiculous”.
…uh, what?
Why should an honest look at Trump come to that conclusion in the first place?
You say it is a fact. No, it is a conclusion. A conclusion you have based on my issue-by-issue comparison of the 2016 Platform and Donald Trump’s stated positions.
You sound like Chenzi from Paladin’s Quest talking about MP! Where did you come up with such a ridiculous line of reasoning?
An honest presentation of comparing Trump’s positions on LGBT rights to the Republican Party Platform’s positions on LGBT rights would immediately recognize that the two most infamous events by Trump (which are so infamous they need not be mentioned) are pro-LGBT rights, while the most infamous statements in the Republican Party Platform (which are so infamous they need not be mentioned) directly oppose the goals of the LGBT rights movement. (This contrast is so infamous it also need not be mentioned, and I object to having to mention it to you.)
This would lead to an immediate recognition that saying “It need not be mentioned” to argue similarity between the two is patently counter-intuitive, and that the argument requires exposition of who said what, where, and when to sound sensible, let alone compelling.
I reject as vacuous and circular any position that because you raised a conclusion that is counter-intuitive, it is my obligation to research the matter so that I may make sense of it. It is instead your obligation to be clear and coherent, to explain why a statement that is counter to that which is most easily inferred from the most infamous facts is in fact true.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are right. I am wrong. I concede. The world is flat.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As an aside, HRC published the 2016 MEI Index this week, so you can check and compare metropolitan areas in your region with others around the country. I think that HRC’s “equality” indexes of business and government laws. regulations and policies is a useful tool, whatever else I may think of the organization.
posted by Jorge on
If you pay bureaucrats for long enough, every so often instead of Bureaucrap they’ll come up with Amb’reau-sia.
posted by Kosh III on
I checked MEI for Nashville and want to note that it got 0 on anti-discrimination laws BUT that is because when we passed such laws the Grand Old Posterior that controls the Legislature and Governorship promptly passed a law cancelling it out. Our Mayor performed the first gay marriage within minutes of the SC decision and we have several gay Council members.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve got to say, despite my concession that the world is flat, that this is a classic:
No wonder the classy liberal arts colleges are being criticized for as boutiques for the wealthy and spoiled, abandoning educational rigor in favor of “let the brats learn what they want” marketing.
That’s assuming that Jorge isn’t just putting us all on, chuckling when we rise to the bait.
posted by Jorge on
Tom, the fact that I have better critical thinking skills than you do at times that are beginning to become predictable is not a sign that I lack intellectual rigor.
You are right that I am trying to bait you into admitting that you are making unspoken assumptions that are not universal. However that is only part of why am asking you to explain yourself. You engaged in an overreach that I was not willing to ignore. If I successfully undermine your weakest, most unjustifiable point, the credibility of your entire argument comes into question as it shows the capacity for error. It is important for me to know just how pronounced the flaw in your reasoning is.
The conclusion this conversation has brought me to is… well, I already mentioned it several times. It reveals your reasoning on Donald Trump’s positions on the gay community to be (or at least to be strongly characterized as) circular, vacuous, and devoid of critical thinking. In short, biased and with a credibility one should be skeptical of.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If I successfully undermine your weakest, most unjustifiable point, the credibility of your entire argument comes into question as it shows the capacity for error. It is important for me to know just how pronounced the flaw in your reasoning is.
I’m assuming that my “weakest, most unjustifiable point” is that TPP’s positions on LGBT rights mentioned in the 2016 Republican Platform align closely with the 2016 Republican Platform.
I’ve gone through the list (Both TPP and the 2016 Platform oppose same-sex marriage. Both TPP and the 2012 Platform hold that Obergefell is wrongly decided and should be overturned. Both TPP and the 2016 Platform support FADA. Both TPP and the 2016 Platform call for judicial appointments in the mold of Justice Scalia, and TPP has provided “the list” to demonstrate his sincerity in that regard. Both TPP and the 2016 Platform call for President Obama’s non-discrimination executive orders to be rescinded, and TPP has vowed to do so on his first day in office. ) repeatedly.
You’ve “undermined” none of those assertions, and cannot, because the assertions are matters of fact, verifiable fact. It is possible for anyone to do what I have done, specifically line up the statements in the 2016 Republican Platform and line up TPP’s statements on the same issues, and compare them to see whether or not they align.
Over the last year, I’ve been increasingly coming to think that you are having us on, Jorge, and bit by bit, I’m becoming convinced that you are having us on. Enough said.
You don’t like that — either the work involved or the inevitable conclusion from making the issue-by-issue comparison, and so you wax off into nonsense about “infamous events” which, according to you are “so infamous they need not be mentioned”, and “infamous statements” which, again according to you, are “so infamous they need not be mentioned”. What those “events” and “statements” might be, you don’t tell us.
It is twaddle, Jorge.
posted by TJ on
Candidate Trump has failed to declare his Independence from the GOP platform on the issue of equality.
He has had EVERY opportunity to standup and demonstrate real leadership. He has failed.
If he cannot stand up to the far right in his own party, why should we consider voting for him?
posted by Jorge on
Over the last year, I’ve been increasingly coming to think that you are having us on, Jorge, and bit by bit, I’m becoming convinced that you are having us on. Enough said.
Do you know what I call it when someone tries to compel as “fact” finding nearly identical a political platform that ends in inviting an openly gay person to speak in primetime and an open promise to support the rights of LGBT people to a platform that begins with overturning Obergefell and ends in overturning bans on ex-gay therapy? Who tries to enforce as “fact” a comparison finding “the most anti-gay Republican platform in history” with a political platform that calls radical Islam’s violence against LGBTs “not good” in a first-ever mention of the term LGBT in a president’s RNC acceptance speech? And who does so by using veiled threats to call someone an Aunt Mary or straight-acting as a wedge issue in a discussion on that topic? I have not even exhausted my list of examples.
I call it cheap political hackery.
And it’s just more of the same bullcrap I’ve heard for over a decade from people who can’t understand how anyone would be a gay Republican or a gay Catholic and actually like conservatives. I could say just as much about a pattern of increasing left-radicalism and political blue-bloodedness.
A lot can happen in life and politics in just one year. You would do better to consider check in on what those changes might be.
posted by Lori Heine on
Since Donald Trump has absolutely no chance of winning the election, I can’t invest a lot of energy in arguing with anyone about his candidacy.
He’s terrible. It’s shameful that he’s the GOP nominee. But again, he has zero chance of becoming president. To pile on him the way people on the left are doing is nothing but virtue-signaling at this point. It comes off as seventh-graderish.
I’m still trying to understand the mentality–held by so many–that if we can’t stand Hillary Clinton (as I can’t), that means we must be for Trump. How hard is it, really, to wrap one’s mind around the possibility that one might not like either?
I find it possible to dislike, and even to detest, many different people at a time. If I must vote for one of them, then my freedom of speech is a fiction.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do you know what I call it when someone tries to compel as “fact” finding nearly identical a political platform that ends in inviting an openly gay person to speak in primetime and an open promise to support the rights of LGBT people to a platform that begins with overturning Obergefell and ends in overturning bans on ex-gay therapy?
My assertion is that TPP’s positions “closely align” with positions taken in the 2016 Republican Platform. I think that’s a correct assessment. You don’t, apparently.
It sounds to me, from your comments, as if you are familiar with the 2016 Republican Platform planks, but less familiar with TPP’s positions on the issues in the platform, so here is an issue-by-issue: comparison:
In short, TPP’s statements indicate that he agrees with 7 of those 8 positions. TPP has made no statement on 1 of those 8 positions. TPP’s statements indicate that he disagrees with none of those 8 positions. In my view, TPP’s positions and the positions in the 2016 Republican Platform “closely align”.
Who tries to enforce as “fact” a comparison finding “the most anti-gay Republican platform in history” with a political platform that calls radical Islam’s violence against LGBTs “not good” in a first-ever mention of the term LGBT in a president’s RNC acceptance speech?
I assume that “the most anti-gay Republican platform in history” is a reference to the 2016 Republican Platform (since you quoted Log Cabin Republican on the matter) and that “a political platform that calls radical Islam’s violence against LGBTs “not good” in a first-ever mention of the term LGBT in a president’s RNC acceptance speech” is a reference to TPP’s statements and positions? Is that correct?
If so, my position has never been that TPP’s positions are identical with the 2016 Republican Platform, or that TPP does not espouse positions not taken in the 2016 Platform. My assertion is that TPP’s positions “closely align” with positions taken in the 2016 Republican Platform. I would suggest that is demonstrated by the immediately preceding issue-by-issue comparison.
I do not discount the importance of TPP’s invitation to Peter Thiel; TPP’s invitation was a bold, groundbreaking move for a Republican. It is striking, though, that Thiel did not mention LGBT issues in his address to the convention, except to note that the issues were of no importance:
Nor do I discount the importance of TPP’s statement about gays and lesbians in his acceptance speech:
TPP is the first Republican candidate for President to stand before a convention and call for an end to foreign terrorist violence against gays and lesbians. His was an act of undaunted political courage, and, I hope, a precursor of the day when a Republican candidate for President can stand before a convention and call for an end to domestic violence against gays and lesbians.
But the two “infamous events” and/or “infamous statements” (and similar positives) do not tell the whole of the story, and that is my argument with you, David Lampo, LCR, Stephen and others who slide TPP’s negative positions on LGBT issues under the rug when touting him as a champion of gays and lesbians, and then call it an “honest look”. In my view, it is not at all “honest” to tout the positive and ignore/deny the negative. To me, it is a “dishonest look”, a distortion of reality, a half-look at best. That has been my point throughout this thread. I stand by my assessment.
And who does so by using veiled threats to call someone an Aunt Mary or straight-acting as a wedge issue in a discussion on that topic?
If this is a reference to something you imagine I’ve written, then you might want to calm down and stick to what I’ve actually written. Unless you can come up with a “veiled threat” from what I’ve actually written, your assertion strikes me as preposterous.
I call it [asserting that TPP’s positions on LGBT issues align with the 2016 Republican Platform and that this fact should be included in an “honest look”] cheap political hackery.
You would. But that won’t change TPP’s positions on LGBT issues. And it won’t change my view that an “honest” look requires an assessment of the totality of TPP’s record and statements, not just cherry-picking along the lines that you, David Lampo, LCR, Stephen and others who tout the positives while sliding negatives under the rug, seem to be determined to do.
So I guess we are at odds, which is not a surprise to me, but I’ve made my case as clearly as I know how. You can make of my position what you will, using your finely-honed critical thinking skills, and no doubt come to the opposite conclusion. I hope that your will be content with the quiet knowledge that I am a hopeless dolt for suggesting what seems to me to be obvious.
A lot can happen in life and politics in just one year. You would do better to consider check in on what those changes might be.
I agree. And I do check in. The biggest change in the political environment during last year — closer to 18 months, actually — is that Obergefell instituted marriage equality across the land and a strong majority of Americans accept the decision. Republicans don’t yet, but that will change over the course of the next decade.
As an aside, do you (or does anyone else on IGF for that matter) know why Log Cabin Republicans failed to endorse TPP his election cycle, after much ballyhoo touting him as the most gay-supportive Republican candidate for President in the history of the party? It doesn’t make much sense to me to failed to endorse, given LCR’s prior endorsements of President Bush II, Senator McCain and Governor Romney, none of whom were even close to gay-supportive while running for President. I can’t imagine that LCR is going to have much of a “seat at the table” should The President Presumptive become the President Elect in 19 days. Sad.
posted by Jorge on
It sounds to me, from your comments, as if you are familiar with the 2016 Republican Platform planks, but less familiar with TPP’s positions on the issues in the platform, so here is an issue-by-issue: comparison:
I might be interested in the comparison if you did it from the reverse direction: the Republican National Committee’s positions issue by issue on the issues on Trump’s LGBT platform.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I might be interested in the comparison if you did it from the reverse direction: the Republican National Committee’s positions issue by issue on the issues on Trump’s LGBT platform.
Sophistry.
posted by Jorge on
As an aside, do you (or does anyone else on IGF for that matter) know why Log Cabin Republicans failed to endorse TPP his election cycle, after much ballyhoo touting him as the most gay-supportive Republican candidate for President in the history of the party? It doesn’t make much sense to me to failed to endorse, given LCR’s prior endorsements of President Bush II, Senator McCain and Governor Romney, none of whom were even close to gay-supportive while running for President. I can’t imagine that LCR is going to have much of a “seat at the table” should The President Presumptive become the President Elect in 19 days. Sad.
If it doesn’t make a lot of sense to you, I don’t know what to tell you, because it makes a great deal of sense to me.
I think the LCR explained themselves well enough: “we are not a single-issue organization, nor are our members single-issue voters.” This is not a repeat of 2004. It is a repeat of their thinking in 2000, 2008, and 2012. LGBT rights was not the deciding consideration. This year, they are profoundly disturbed by the Trump campaign for one reason or another shared by other right- or center-leaning Americans.
The “Even if we were” is a probably red herring aimed at giving a hypothetical reason that is beside the point but probably less inpalatable to its constituency. Every single prominent Republican who has come out in direct opposition to Donald Trump has lost significant clout as a result. Jeb Bush’s, Ted Cruz’s, and even Paul Ryan’s political careers could be over. Only John Kasich has remained about even, as he has said very little directly. Thus the LCR, too, have decided not to explain themselves.
I could be wrong. The calculation on LGBT issues they’ve described could be significant. But since they weren’t discussed much during the debate and Trump has not been challenged significantly the way he could have (although the many times he’s **** on Pence could be read more significantly), it is hard to guess at what they could be thinking.