LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
I am not sure that is a stable position. Look at Grenell, for instance.

Well no one says we have to let them all in. Merely be selective about who we admit in the right and who we allow to stay.

TBH Romney and McCains entire family should be attainted and removed from the GOP.

Same goes for Grenell and any of the Log Cabin Republicans that think admitting the Groomer squad into the movement is a good idea.

Edit- honestly if you're a righty and your goal is to simp for minorities and LGBT people then the best thing you can do is purge the pride culture freaks.

Look at what the average black American thinks about the alphabet soup.

As far as the Latin community goes I'm downright progressive when it comes to the soup etc.

Rinos are cowards and cukolds and the average quality right winger in the GOP is too unfamiliar with Latin American cultures and thinks we are all part of the great mestizaje that is central America.

When even Central Americans aren't mono cultural lol.

None of them like the alphabet soup and catering to the Ts who represent .07% is an absurdity
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder


Relevant to the topic in so far as why the right should be accommodating to the L the B and G but militantly oppose the T everywhere at every facet and level of society.

Stop holding up Rick Grenell as some great and awesome conservative leader then lol. Be accommodating in so far as don’t go and say “don’t vote for us if you are gay.” But absolutely do not go “Democrats are the REAL Homophobes! We love the gays!” There’s this bullshit about “we win by addition, not subtraction” that doesn’t remotely apply at all here. What you are talking about are two different positions and principles that appeal to two different groups. One group composes half the black population and the Christian conservative core of much of the base, among many others in America. The other is a small minority of elite interests that have ridden the coat tails of Trump like Rick Grenel and Brandon Straka attempting to turn the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party but neocon, and some of those who have just come over to the Republican Party. What I see them as is taking the worst of the Republican Party pre Trump and the worst of the Republican Party post Trump. It’s a party I’d never support, one that wants mass legal immigration, shills for big business, for foreign wars, for Israel, and also is socially liberal on all Democrat issues except guns, replicating them almost identically back in 2014/2015.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Bacle I just have to respond to this. Where do you get this idiocy about right wingers wanting to refight same sex marriage? There are a few things to unpack here. First off cultural right wing people have the right to dislike sodomy, I mean do you want us to just smile and lie and say yup we support it? Second we don't talk about fighting some democratic battle, there was never a democratic battle, whenever it was put up to a popular vote like even in California with prop 8 same sex marriage lost. It only became legal because judicial activism. So when the right wing talks about getting rid of that, those of us that are smart know that it would require a mass purge of the judicial branch, impeach almost all judges and put new ones in and putting in new loyal patriotic individuals, and then those new judges will rule the right way. Now I know this is heavily undemocratic, but it's what the liberals did. They forced a law through by judges, so why can't conservatives have judges force through their own law and enforced by government agents? I know this also fucks over with the whole judicial separation but it's already been corrupted the courts have been getting into politics and making rules that are OBVIOUSLY against judicial precedent and simply deciding based on what they think is right instead of what the law said. So why shouldn't the right adopt that tactic as well? People accepted judicial tyranny by forcing states to recognize same sex marriage, we could do the same by having the court rule same sex marriage, and abortion are illegal.
Well, let's see, I get the impression from people like Lauren Witzke, the followers of Nick Fuentes, and parts of the paleo-cons Right on this very forum.

As well, same-sex marriage is something that SCOTUS decided because some states were willing to make it law, but other states would not recognize those marriages and fucked over gays and lesbians who had medical or legal issues visiting or moving to those states. Conservatives want states to show reciprocity with concealed carry permits, gays and lesbians wanted thier marriages from states where it was legal recognized in the same sort of reciprocity.

Finally, same-sex marriage laws will not be reversed, and it is foolish as shit to fight to do so, for the same reason SCOTUS sided with the DACA people; once it is law, the people who affected by it have a legal expectation that to said right going forward.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Don't derail another fucking thread into this garbage, we already have a LGBT debate thread, go bitch about the fact that not everyone is on board with it there, if you have to.

The main argument was: We need to get rid of Same sex marriage

Literally everyone on the "get rid of same sex marriage" side of it didn't think it was a battle to fight right now, just a position that should be held to. (No, posting about it on the Sietch is not "refighting it.") My own comments which kicked some of the discussion off in the thread on the Lincoln project were that gays should be kept out of positions of leadership particularly over children. That was a prescription on something that should be fought for right now, but if you or anyone else wants to have that argument that should also go in the thread we have for that.
 
Last edited:

LindyAF

Well-known member
People accepted judicial tyranny by forcing states to recognize same sex marriage, we could do the same by having the court rule same sex marriage, and abortion are illegal.

He's gay. His opposition isn't at its core about whether it makes strategic sense or anything else, it's that he's gay and this is his #1 political issue, and even a hint that it might one day be in danger makes him freak out.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
He's gay. His opposition isn't at its core about whether it makes strategic sense or anything else, it's that he's gay and this is his #1 political issue, and even a hint that it might one day be in danger makes him freak out.
Bi, not gay; but not like I expect it to matter to people who want to shove us back in the metaphorical closet.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I was using it to mean "LGBT" generally, since that's what was relevant to my comment, not really which letter you happen to be.
No, you specifically said I cared because I'm gay, you didn't use those letters.

Edit: People like you are why I'm feeling less and less like it's worth supporting any part of the Right that has even a hint of wanting to refight that battle. It makes me want to find as many LGBTs as possible to get GOP noms for office, just to show pieces of shit like you that there is no place for your puritanical bullshit in US politics.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
Well, let's see, I get the impression from people like Lauren Witzke, the followers of Nick Fuentes, and parts of the paleo-cons Right on this very forum.

As well, same-sex marriage is something that SCOTUS decided because some states were willing to make it law, but other states would not recognize those marriages and fucked over gays and lesbians who had medical or legal issues visiting or moving to those states. Conservatives want states to show reciprocity with concealed carry permits, gays and lesbians wanted thier marriages from states where it was legal recognized in the same sort of reciprocity.

Finally, same-sex marriage laws will not be reversed, and it is foolish as shit to fight to do so, for the same reason SCOTUS sided with the DACA people; once it is law, the people who affected by it have a legal expectation that to said right going forward.
Now I don't want this convo to be about same sex marriage it's just an example. The main thing I'm talking about is how the left has a policy of judicial activism. With your argument however about gay marriage, if you look at the courts arguments they did not use that argument though. They did not bring up the full faith and credit clause of the constitution where if one state grants it other's have to recognize it. That would be different, note in such a circumstance the court should rule that states don't have to allow gays to get married in their state but if they go to another state and get married then come back then the state would have to recognize the marriage. But the court did not do that it instead made up some bullshit about marriage being a right and invented a new right out of pure air just like with abortion. Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Now I don't want this convo to be about same sex marriage it's just an example. The main thing I'm talking about is how the left has a policy of judicial activism. With your argument however about gay marriage, if you look at the courts arguments they did not use that argument though. They did not bring up the full faith and credit clause of the constitution where if one state grants it other's have to recognize it. That would be different, note in such a circumstance the court should rule that states don't have to allow gays to get married in their state but if they go to another state and get married then come back then the state would have to recognize the marriage. But the court did not do that it instead made up some bullshit about marriage being a right and invented a new right out of pure air just like with abortion. Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?
I will make this as simple as possible: your whining about the SCOTUS decision as 'improper' matters not at all, and is just what amounts to massive butthurt that the world is evolving and moving on from the old world dominated by Christian dogma.

Also, I will make this explicit; no court or gov will take same-sex marriage from LGBTs, except over a lot of cold, dead bodies.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Now I don't want this convo to be about same sex marriage it's just an example. The main thing I'm talking about is how the left has a policy of judicial activism. With your argument however about gay marriage, if you look at the courts arguments they did not use that argument though. They did not bring up the full faith and credit clause of the constitution where if one state grants it other's have to recognize it. That would be different, note in such a circumstance the court should rule that states don't have to allow gays to get married in their state but if they go to another state and get married then come back then the state would have to recognize the marriage. But the court did not do that it instead made up some bullshit about marriage being a right and invented a new right out of pure air just like with abortion. Another example where the court did not follow proper judicial procedures and instead just ruled based on it's opinion was brown v. board of education. Now I'm not a white nationalist I think segregation based on race in America is silly. I'm just using the court case as an example where the court ignored stare decis, in our jurisdiction courts are suppose to rely on precedent and the supreme court ruled the exact opposite of what the previous court in Plessy v. Fergusson ruled. Now you might think Plessy was the wrong decision and that is fair, but then let me turn it back on you why should we then give a fuck about the "law" Just because it was once law and the people affected by it have a legal expectation to it going forward it can be removed and those people can suck it up, it doesn't matter what a previous court said, the one of today says no, and it's enforced by the army and police. Tell me why we should not adopt this approach if the left is willing to do it?


I mean the big reason we shouldn't try to do things through the courts is that it's a losing game. Most judges appointed by republicans have a philosophy of ruling to the minimal extent possible, to tailoring their rulings to that it overturns the least law possible, and deferring totally to the legislature on matters of policy (with the possible exception of when something is anti-corporate). This is to the point where that's literally what a "conservative judge" means. Also, with notable exceptions (Thomas, Alito) they start drifting more and more left over time. On the other hand most judges appointed by the left explicitly make what they think is good policy part of their judicial philosophy.

Given how long appointments last, this isn't changing any time soon. We've been trying to appoint the right judges for decades to overturn Roe. It hasn't worked.

Trump should have just said "Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it." We won't get anywhere on Roe or similar until we have someone willing to take that stand.

Edit: I have no objection to this being moved to this thread, but this was a general statement and not intended specifically for the question of gay marriage. As I've said I don't think this is a fight that should be refought right now, at minimum there are more pressing issues and more serious concerns, and an executive ignoring court rulings would be refighting it. If I were the executive I would do this on some 5-4 immigration decision to test the water and then potentially apply it to Roe.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
I will make this as simple as possible: your whining about the SCOTUS decision as 'improper' matters not at all, and is just what amounts to massive butthurt that the world is evolving and moving on from the old world dominated by Christian dogma.

Also, I will make this explicit; no court or gov will take same-sex marriage from LGBTs, except over a lot of cold, dead bodies.
I don't believe that. Specefically the part with a lot of cold dead bodies. The right said the same when the left was doing it's judicial activism. Yet nothing happened, most people will just bow their heads, because as long as the military and police do their job they won't rock the boat. Also why are you being mad about me bringing up how improper the decision is? This is something the right should look at and and notice. I mean you earlier in other threads were talking about how trans ideology is imposing itself on society and your space. You don't think the left will use the judicial branch to insert trans ideology into law? They've done it will all their other policies what makes you think that this is the line in the sand they won't cross, no it's nothing special it's their standard tactic they will use the courts to force it through unless conservatives wise up and either mass impeach judges, or pull an Andrew Jackson and say fuck the law we have the army and police obey us instead.

I mean the big reason we should try to do things through the courts is that it's a losing game. Most judges appointed by republicans have a philosophy of ruling to the minimal extent possible, to tailoring their rulings to that it overturns the least law possible, and deferring totally to the legislature on matters of policy (with the possible exception of when something is anti-corporate). This is to the point where that's literally what a "conservative judge" means. Also, with notable exceptions (Thomas, Alito) they start drifting more and more left over time. On the other hand most judges appointed by the left explicitly make what they think is good policy part of their judicial philosophy.

Given how long appointments last, this isn't changing any time soon. We've been trying to appoint the right judges for decades to overturn Roe. It hasn't worked.

Trump should have just said "Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it." We won't get anywhere on Roe or similar until we have someone willing to take that stand.
Shouldn't we then stop with having judges look through an originalist intent, and just ask them about their polices and go for partisan hacks, hell even go put actual priests as supreme court judges.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I don't believe that. Specefically the part with a lot of cold dead bodies. The right said the same when the left was doing it's judicial activism. Yet nothing happened, most people will just bow their heads, because as long as the military and police do their job they won't rock the boat. Also why are you being mad about me bringing up how improper the decision is? This is something the right should look at and and notice. I mean you earlier in other threads were talking about how trans ideology is imposing itself on society and your space. You don't think the left will use the judicial branch to insert trans ideology into law? They've done it will all their other policies what makes you think that this is the line in the sand they won't cross, no it's nothing special it's their standard tactic they will use the courts to force it through unless conservatives wise up and either mass impeach judges, or pull an Andrew Jackson and say fuck the law we have the army and police obey us instead.
LGBTs won't bow thier heads, not now that we have same-sex marriage and the legal equality it brings. As well, I think a lot of straight folks who support LGBTs will not take kindly to thier friends rights being stripped away by puritanical assholes, so it won't just be LGBTs up in arms over it.

I may not like the trans ideology, but I'll put up with trannies if the other option is siding with people who want to roll back same-sex marriage.
 

LindyAF

Well-known member
Shouldn't we then stop with having judges look through an originalist intent, and just ask them about their polices and go for partisan hacks, hell even go put actual priests as supreme court judges.

Can't exactly ask someone "are you a partisan hack." Judges basically have the right to not policy questions when being questioned. (I think it's that they can refuse to answer any question if it is likely to come up in a case they are deciding).

Faithfulness to original public meaning is a decent proxy for ruling our way though, and has the advantage of being the obvious way law should be ruled on. Long term, we do need good judges and not just partisan hacks, and that's who should be doing the judging.

But replacing conservative judges with originalist ones is a slow process, and one riddled with poison pills to. The nation was founded on a system of checks and balances and separation of powers. The ability to decide what the law says was intentionally separated from the power to enforce it, and that's something that the executive needs to be willing to use as a check against a runaway court making rulings that clearly have no connection to the original public meaning.

Edit: I have no objection to this being moved to this thread, but this was a general statement and not intended specifically for the question of gay marriage. As I've said I don't think this is a fight that should be refought right now, at minimum there are more pressing issues and more serious concerns, and an executive ignoring court rulings would be refighting it. If I were the executive I would do this on some 5-4 immigration decision to test the water and then potentially apply it to Roe.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
LGBTs won't bow thier heads, not now that we have same-sex marriage and the legal equality it brings. As well, I think a lot of straight folks who support LGBTs will not take kindly to thier friends rights being stripped away by puritanical assholes, so it won't just be LGBTs up in arms over it.

I may not like the trans ideology, but I'll put up with trannies if the other option is siding with people who want to roll back same-sex marriage.
I know my writing is bad so maybe you don’t understand what I’m saying it’s either that or you are willfully blind. The lgbt issue is not the end all be all. It’s literally a smoke screen. It’s liberal judicial ideology that is a threat to the republic. Saying that the constitution says something when it doesn’t well that’s not a far step from saying that something in the constitution that is there is not there actually. So sure be happy that the judges made gay marriage and trans rights. I wonder how happy you’ll be when they interpret the 2nd amendment not apply to weapons but instead revolutionary war era re-enactments or something like that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top