m0ssb3rg935 : Well, one other problem I have with Trump, and, this more so stems with Mike Pence, is the fact that he is completely against LGBT rights. He passed a bill in Indiana that would quite literally let Business owners in Indiana deny the rights of LGBT citizens. I'm very disappointed that Mike's LGBT stance was not brought up during the VP debate. Kaine should have brought it up, and, caught Pence off-guard. The problem with Trump having a guy like Pence be his VP, is, Trump used to be very LGBT friendly, but, now he wants to repeal the Supreme Court decision of same-sex marriage. He would repeal one of the greatest movements in Civil Rights history. How is that acceptable? And, if you don't believe me, just look at this article:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/donald-trump-ill-overturn-the-shocking-gay-marriage-decision-trust-me/

Juliaisme123 : Well, I first want to state that I'm not against legal same-sex marriage. I will say that it's absolutely unacceptable for the "supreme court" to stand over the states and tie their hands. Pushing for gay rights is fine on a state level, but can you call the government telling the individual states that they will comply or else a civil liberty movement? I believe that anything that's mostly harmless should be legal, but I also believe that each individual state has the right to pass and enforce their own laws, and that people have the right to deny their services if they choose. In the long run, it's their loss, anyway.

m0ssb3rg935 : They considered Same-Sex Marriage to be, well, a Civil Right, much like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with African-American men and women. It's the same situation. Just swap African-American men and women with LGBT individuals. And I completely disagree with the idea of being able to deny service to customers. As long as the customer isn't causing a scene, or being disruptive, why should you deny them being able to buy whatever your product is? Remember Kim Davis? Look what happened to her.

We have to make a distinction between what someone can do and what someone should do. I never said that anyone should discriminate, I simply stated that it's their right to do so. Kim Davis, as an individual, was within her rights to deny marriage certificates to same-sex couples. She was however a state employee. If there's no law explicitly outlawing same-sex marriage in the state of Kentucky, then she was neglecting to fulfill her duties as county clerk. Private business has just as much right to deny services to homosexuals as they do to any heterosexual, or for any other reason they want because it's private business. Their product is private property and no one can force them to sell it if they don't want to. Do I think it's dumb that most people in the small town that I live in won't hire me because I have very long hair? Yes, but it's their right to do so.

m0ssb3rg935 : The problem with the Davis situation is that it happened in August of 2015, 2 months after the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right. Davis was breaking the law, and, rightfully went to jail over it. 

Juliaisme123 : Well, see... I question the legitimacy of the supreme court and federal law anyway. Just because an alleged "high court" rules something constitutional doesn't make it so. To my knowledge, anything not explicitly covered in the constitution is left up to the states to decide, and if federal law wants to get involved, they have to amend the constitution. And the only ways to do that are by passing it with either a congressional supermajority or a constitutional convention called by two thirds of the states. It is not within the power of the supreme court to declare something a constitutional right if the document has no mention of it at all. In fact, it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

EDIT: I hadn't realized how many times we've posted back and forth so I should probably wait for others to respond to this thread before answering your next reply, if we're still continuing this discussion. I also hope I haven't unintentionally come off as rude or anything else.

This is definitely a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Trump-flip flops a lot,crybaby,uses twitter like a 13yo on Mountain Dew,took forever on his tax returns,has filed for bankruptcy 4 times.

Clinton-professional liar,professional cheater,murderer,inept at a lesser job,cannot follow instructions,has to have people bail her out,cares nothing for anyone but herself.

I think Canada might have a bit of a population surge,either way.

Oldschool777 :

I don't want to choose an evil, regardless of how "lesser" it is. I demand a good candidate.

None of us want an evil,but we do not have a choice in this one. We will have to live with an evil for 4 years,so we need a lesser of two evils. Gary Johnson might be the only one with any sense,but unfortunately he is a third party candidate and they do not do well.

Oldschool777 : Sure you have a choice. You always have a choice. Vote Gary Johnson. Vote Evan McMullin. Vote Micky Mouse. You can write down any name that comes to mind. You absolutely have a choice.

And you're not responsible for the poor choices of others. The moral choice isn't necessarily the one with the "less evil" results.

Okay,let us say that we voted for Gary Johnson. That would be virtually throwing away a vote. Why? Third party candidates never do well. Look at H. Ross Perot,the only one that actually had a snowball's chance in hell was Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party. Do not get me wrong,I think both Clinton and Trump are unfit for office,but at the same time,we must be realistic. A third party candidate will not appear on some ballots,(yes you can write them in),but they will not fare well.

And also,the Electoral College elects the President,not the popular vote.