American Politics

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Emi

Really, what we need is not a "third party" but a number of parties on both sides who will be notable enough. Will the power still remain in the main parties hands?...well maybe. But at least it still gives options and the threat to the mainstream political sphere. But neither side is willing to do this out of fear the other side isn't.

And that's the problem. You are never going to get anymore than two 'notable' parties if you don't vote third party. It will never happen. You would literally need to have someone with the popularity of Donald Trump to run third party, and then you would need the Republican and Democrat frontrunners to be seen as incredibly undesirable. It's why right now your have a reported 33% of Bernie supporters saying they will vote third party if Clinton gets it, and Trump supporters saying they would vote him as third party if he is shafted. Basically, this election cycle is stirring the pot harder than ever for a third party candidate to be viable (or almost viable). Jill Stein realistically is not that candidate as she gets little to zero attention; and in the past, you have people like Ralph Nader who have given a bad name for third parties for a multitude of reasons.

But if you don't start to try and make an effort for a third party to be viable now, when is the best time to do so? Are you going to just wait for a movement to come along and jump on the bandwagon, or will you toss aside current notions that it's a wasted vote and try to get a third, or fourth, or fifth party to be notable now? I think this is where a lot of people see the argument fall apart. If you want to see change, you have to be willing to be apart of that change, not just wait for it to happen.



@Shuckle

Dear god, Trump might just be the most noticeable teleprompter reader of all time...

[Mercutio]

One issue with this is that one presidential election where a third party was a bit relevant will not meaningfully impact on the massive two party culture you have, particularly given how unapologetically rigged the US electoral system is. You need sustained disenfranchisement coupled with actual tangible loss of power for the main parties. That means many more third party seats held at state and federal level, that means third party governors, that means VP candidates who are no holds barred third party candidates.

Take Austria currently for an example of how this can happen over time.

So yes, piss away your vote on Stein, Sanders or Trump, but recognise that you will have to do that for many election cycles for it to tangibly affect where hard power lies. The clear break in this reasoning is of your 'parties' (a uniquely American set up) break apart under the crushing weight of inevitability that has been building up since the 30s.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So yes, piss away your vote on Stein, Sanders or Trump, but recognise that you will have to do that for many election cycles for it to tangibly affect where hard power lies. The clear break in this reasoning is of your 'parties' (a uniquely American set up) break apart under the crushing weight of inevitability that has been building up since the 30s.

When people say shit like "piss away your vote", it makes me want to do it even more. I despise this attitude, and I despise when people try to insinuate that my vote is meaningless simply because it didn't go to one of the two big two. I will vote for the candidate who best aligns with my beliefs, because that's the whole damn point of voting in the first place, period. If they happen to be Republican or Democrat, that's great. But I'm not going to take place in voting for someone I don't like at all just because they are a slightly better brand of shit than the other choice.

[Heather]

I honestly don't know what the hell I'm going to do this election cycle. If Trump or Kasich gets the nomination, I'll probably vote third party if Clinton gets matched up with him, which she 99% will at this point because our courts are so slow that any of her wrongdoing with emails will not go to trial in time to jeopardize her candidacy. Now, if Cruz gets nominated, I am guaranteed voting Democrat because, as Emi so eloquently stated, I do not want the entire country becoming North Carolina as I enter into my college years and quite literally my first chance to present female and transition. If you put a gun to my head and said vote Cruz or else, I'd ask you to to hand me the gun and let me do the honors myself.

[Doppleganger]

I'm skeptical that Cruz will be able to roll back progression that much. Bush was no less religious - he was a evangelical neo-con with the benefit of 9/11 to give him broad administrative powers - and even he couldn't pass the equivalent of an amendment saying marriage is between a man and woman.

[Snorby]

>Third Party Argument

I know people don't like hearing that they're pissing away their vote when they vote 3rd party, but mathematically they simply are, most especially when voting for someone as liberal as Jill Stein. According to a Gallup poll last year, 25% of American voters would call themselves liberal, while 39.5% of American voters would call themselves conservative. The other 35.5% call themselves moderates, which can range anyway from Kasich to Clinton. Even given ~2/3 of Moderates to the left and the other third to the right, we get to ~51/49 Right/Left, which is about accurate as to where the electorate is right now. It's also the kind of percentage where either side could realistically win.

Now, let's think about this realistically. If Jill Stein was considered a major candidate, got to debate with the GOP/Dem Nominees, and got as much media coverage, she'd draw mostly from the left with a smattering of votes from the right. Let's say ~1/3 of the left and ~1/4 of the right go for her. Less from the right and more from the left would probably make it more realistic, but that only furthers my point. Anyway, with those figures, Stein would get ~29.5% of the vote, the GOP would get ~38.25%, and the Dems would get ~32%. In other words, the GOP would win in a landslide of epic proportions by the standards in American Politics today.

But Snorby! you cry, My beliefs are more important to me than who our President is four the next four years!

I'm sure they are. My beliefs are normally more important to me than that too. But this isn't a normal cycle. This is a cycle where the two most realistically feasible options on the GOP's side are so horrifically awful that one will persecute the LGBT community and the other will be a foreign policy disaster that will likely result in us losing the majority of our allies including NATO. I'm not exaggerating when I say that if the Donald Trump who's been on the campaign trail for the past year is the same Donald Trump who sits int he oval office next January, I think it very likely we end up losing almost all our allies and possibly wind up in nuclear war unless candidate Trump and President Trump prove to be polar opposites.

Even putting aside how disgusting the two GOP options are, this is a big election. In these next four years the President could get to name as many as many as four seats on the Supreme Court, only including Scalia's seat and those on the court who are 75 or older right now. A President who gets to pick almost half of the entire Supreme Court will drastically change American politics not just for four years, but for GENERATIONS. Many of our children will have to deal with the consequences of this election.

I've campaigned for Bernie. I've gone to his rallies. My families has donated over $200 to his campaign. But, if I were able to vote in this election cycle, he ran third party, and the GOP only had one candidate, I would not vote for him. I couldn't, even though he's the second-closest politician currently active in America that I know the name of to my views (Elizabeth Warren is first). Why? Because I'd much rather vote against my own conscience than watch Ted Cruz get elected, persecute a touch under 10% of American citizens, deport millions of undocumented immigrants to the hellish countries from which they come, and change the political landscape to fit his disgusting agenda for quite possibly the majority of my lifetime. I absolutely do not believe my personal preferences and opinions are more important than so many other people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the United States.

I absolutely abhor the Two Party system in American politics. I'd love to have a whole slew of parties and to force our legislators to actually work together. But it will take decades to do that. And the 2016 election is quite possibly the worst election in the history of America to start that process during, and anyone who thinks it's a good idea, in my opinion, is enabling every single one of the terrible things that will hypothetically happen by NOT voting for the lesser of two evils during this ONE election cycle. If voting against what I want and being a "Sheeple" is what needs to happen to avoid catastrophe, I'm a proud sheeple.

[Rangeet]

Mathematically speaking it's not worth the time you spend talking about politics or voting ever because in that time you could have earned more money than your vote would ever give you. Mathematically speaking, voting is absolutely a pointless activity.

And I think all of you are forgetting that the most likely outcome is Trump running third party with Cruz getting the nomination, in which case suddenly you're not "wasting your vote" or whatnot.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper

And I think all of you are forgetting that the most likely outcome is Trump running third party with Cruz getting the nomination, in which case suddenly you're not "wasting your vote" or whatnot.

It would guarantee a Hillary victory, but what would be even more hilarious is that I bet Trump, a third party, would get more votes than Cruz would. That guy is Lucifer in the flesh.

[Rangeet]

Not if Sanders also runs and makes it four parties, which was my point.

[Mercutio]

This is an example of how one piece of language can undermine the whole argument because you're missing both points.

I wasn't insinuating anything. I was outright stating. Voting Stein is a waste of time in practical terms. No two ways about it. You might as well write in Ronald Reagan or that guy who smells bad on the bus. That's just how your system works, it is institutionally set up in that way and your political culture is attuned to that. She will bomb, horribly, and you will feel really bad about it when it happens.

But the wider point is that yes, you absolutely should vote for Stein (or whoever your preferred third party is), but you have to be prepared to do it over and over. You can't let up because it will take years, possibly decades, for it to happen and it needs sustained momentum over sequential cycles. But if you don't start now it will just prolong the status quo.

As you say if you want to vote with whoever is aligned to your beliefs then that's a valuable and good thing to do in and of itself. But much like majoring in philosophy it has limited 'real' benefit to offer you in the short term

[phoopes]

>Snorby

I understand where you're coming from, but a similar narrative of doom and destruction was cast by Republicans when Obama was running. And he certainly hasn't ruined the nation. Trust me, I also think President Trump or President Cruz would be a terrible outcome but I think we have to take a step back and calm down. While it wouldn't be the desired outcome, I can't see one person being the downfall of the United States. So even though I run the risk of contributing to Trump or Cruz winning, I'm still planning on voting third party (if Hillary does get the Democrat nomination).

[Doppleganger]

The greed in me wants Trump to win because the stock market will suffer a huge crash this November if he does.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

She will bomb, horribly, and you will feel really bad about it when it happens

At least you seem to understand me, but when you say this, I have to disagree. I voted third party in 2012, so I know what I'm getting into. I'd still rather vote for the candidate running that best represents my beliefs. And Hillary is an abhorrent person, and she does not deserve my vote.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by phoopes

While it wouldn't be the desired outcome, I can't see one person being the downfall of the United States. So even though I run the risk of contributing to Trump or Cruz winning, I'm still planning on voting third party (if Hillary does get the Democrat nomination).

Snorby is right, though, and this is somewhat incorrect. If Ted Cruz by some unfortunate event managed to gain the presidency he could put in power a few new justices who could overturn Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Personally if Trump took office I doubt he would, as he has already said multiple times "they are already law of the land and I wouldn't touch them", but Cruz is an entirely different kind of scary. I am confident he won't be the nominee, though.

[Talon87]

Would ask that we not spin third-party voting in 2016 as Jill Stein voting in 2016 anyway. I have no plans on voting for Jill Stein. I don't know who I will vote for yet, only that I won't vote for any of the Republicans or Democrats currently in the race. (I consider Sanders out of the race, and was never a huge fan to begin with. For me he was always the sole palatable choice, never a great choice.) While I could vote for Jill Stein, everything I've heard about her candidacy so far reeks of Ralph Nader and other piss-away-your-vote candidates. And that's the thing: if I am going to "piss away my vote" anyway, I may as well do so for a person I genuinely believe would be a great president of the United States, even if that requires me to write their name in and I'm the only person in the country to vote for them.

I disagree that this is a pure exercise in wasting one's vote, though. There is one thing that comes out of voting no matter who you vote for -- statistics. If in 2016 the records show that only 3.3% of the electorate "pissed away their vote," but then in 2020 it shows that it's 5.2% of the electorate, and then in 2024 it's 7.8%, and then in 2028 we have our first real third-party candidate since Perot and suddenly it's 20.2% of the electorate not voting for either of the top two parties' candidates, then I believe that this will bit by bit pave the way for newcomers to launch realistic presidential bids without signing up for Team Democrat or Team Republican. Not the Tea Party, not Ron Paul and the newest wave of libertarians, not the Green Party, but a party that a big swath of the country can get behind. Someone like that, they won't show up to the dance until they know it's safe. We have to demonstrate this with our votes -- we have to make clear that we are disenfranchised enough to not vote R/D but still hopeful enough that we do go out to the polls and still cast our ballots -- for them to invest the millions of dollars typically necessary to launch a presidential campaign in this day and age.

I have voted for the lesser of two evils before. It's not what it's cracked up to be. I've argued many of the same arguments that Snorby is arguing now. Today, I disagree with most of his points. Looking at Snorby, I feel like I'm looking at myself in 2004 when it was Bush vs. Kerry. "I don't particularly like the one guy but THE OTHER GUY WILL GET US NUKED BY OUR ENEMIES SO IT'S TIME TO BUCKLE UP AND VOTE FOR A MAN I THINK DOESN'T DESERVE IT!" Y'no. Fuck that shit. I've had my taste of it and it sucks. A lot of doom and gloom that scares people away from effecting real change. If you really want to see this country's election cycle change, we have to start at the bottom. It doesn't mean we get there in one year or four years. It's going to take decades. But it has to start somewhere. And it's never going to be the "best" year or the "safest" year to start, so we may as well start now. No more doom and gloom about ISIS and North Korea. No more scare tactics about Putin or China. We're not going to get nuked to death even if we elect Trump. I'm not saying I want a Trump presidency, or that I would even prefer one to a Clinton presidency. But the "we're all doomed!" rhetoric has got to stop. It has paralyzed people from voting for real change for far too long.

[Snorby]

Originally Posted by Talon87

I have voted for the lesser of two evils before. It's not what it's cracked up to be. I've argued many of the same arguments that Snorby is arguing now. Today, I disagree with most of his points. Looking at Snorby, I feel like I'm looking at myself in 2004 when it was Bush vs. Kerry. "I don't particularly like the one guy but THE OTHER GUY WILL GET US NUKED BY OUR ENEMIES SO IT'S TIME TO BUCKLE UP AND VOTE FOR A MAN I THINK DOESN'T DESERVE IT!" Y'no. Fuck that shit. I've had my taste of it and it sucks. A lot of doom and gloom that scares people away from effecting real change. If you really want to see this country's election cycle change, we have to start at the bottom. It doesn't mean we get there in one year or four years. It's going to take decades. But it has to start somewhere. And it's never going to be the "best" year or the "safest" year to start, so we may as well start now. No more doom and gloom about ISIS and North Korea. No more scare tactics about Putin or China. We're not going to get nuked to death even if we elect Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump. I'm not saying I want a Donald "I am the least racist person" Trump presidency, or that I would even prefer one to a Clinton presidency. But the "we're all doomed!" rhetoric has got to stop. It has paralyzed people from voting for real change for far too long.

Taking the less realistic point in my argument and acting like it's the only part of my argument is not a good retort. You haven't addressed the simple fact that Ted Cruz can and will appoint multiple members to the Supreme Court who will have the power to overturn Roe V Wade, Obergefell V Hodges, and make countless more terrible rulings that will oppress the women and the LGBT folk in our nation. Frankly, I'd be floored if they didn't. Not to mention the millions of immigrants who will be sent back to war-torn and poverty and corruption (not American poverty and corruption. Take one look at Mexico and much Central and South America, and Hillary seems purer than a newborn baby.) riddled countries from whence they came. Countless more won't be able to get in in the first place.

If you don't find the fact that Trump wants to pull us out of NATO as a sign that he's going to push away all of our allies, and as proof that he's a trigger happy man who will be in charge of the US's entire nuclear arsenal, fine. You're ignoring the obvious, but fine. However, even putting that aside, if Cruz gets the nomination, enabling that man's presidency by voting Third Party transcends picking your beliefs over picking a President. It's picking your beliefs over other people's rights as human beings.

Cruz is so conservative he makes Barry Goldwater look like Elizabeth Warren. There's no way in hell a woman's right to choose and the LGBT communities various only recently acquired rights would survive his presidency. It just won't happen. And with that in mind I can't fathom how anyone could think flipping the system the bird four years earlier than they would otherwise is worth all those people's rights.

[Mercutio]

As I think someone stated earlier, a major problem with this race is that so very many people hate Hillary Clinton and she is well known for being a chronic liar. So lesser of two evils is difficult to utilise as a strategy.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Snorby

Taking the less realistic point in my argument and acting like it's the only part of my argument is not a good retort.

I work a 9-5 five days a week.

My work follows me home on the weekends.

I have family, friends, and volunteer work that all vie for my free time.

I have a wide range of hobbies that include video games, television, foreign language study, and art. I play Go weekly, mahjong monthly, I do D&D with Loki and the gang every so often. I help edit a friend's ongoing project, I read books, I try out new recipes when I "have the time" to cook a meal requiring 4+ hours preparation.

...................

..............

......

I'm 30 years old. If I choose not to reply to every little point made by every single member in this thread, it is not because I can't do so, that I lack an argument to throw in their face.

Sometimes it's about not being disrespectful, as you have just done to me right now.

Most often it's just because I don't have the free time that you do.

And sometimes it's just because I plain don't want to respond.

Next time? You want me to reply to something you said? You can ask nicely. Instead of being a condescending dick about it with:

Originally Posted by Snorby

Taking the less realistic point in my argument and acting like it's the only part of my argument is not a good retort.

This forum isn't about winning a fight. It's about discussion. If you're interested in authentic discussion, then let's have it. If all you care about is e-peen and tearing down people's arguments left and right, I don't have time for that.

Alright ... that stated ...

Originally Posted by Snorby

You haven't addressed the simple fact that Ted Cruz can and will appoint multiple members to the Supreme Court

This assumes a lot of things on your part.

1. That any justices will die or retire in the next four to eight years.
2. That Obama's nominee will not get to replace Scalia.
3. That the Senate does not confirm justice nominations.
4. That the Senate is so controlled by the political right that no moderate opposition could stop them from pushing through an anti-LGBT justice.

Not going to take the time to examine any of these right now. Nor is this a complete list of the assumptions you're making here about Cruz's potential to terrorize the LGBT community. Suffice to say, you're making a lot of assumptions about how powerful a conservative POTUS really is to roll back liberal agendas. See also: W. Bush and stem cell research (pulled federal funding, which sucked major balls, but did not illegalize), W. Bush and abortion law (did not touch), W. Bush and the legalization of homosexuality (did not touch). You act like a man with morals from the 1960s is going to roll an entire nation back to 1960. Recent precedent says that it can't and won't happen. Cruz would be blocked on both the right and the left if he tried it.

Originally Posted by Snorby

who will have the power to overturn Roe V Wade, Obergefell V Hodges, and make countless more terrible rulings that will oppress the women and the LGBT folk in our nation.

See above considerations. You're making a lot of assumptions about the POTUS's power to dictate to Congress what legislation will and will not be discussed, passed and not passed, etc. He's influential, undeniably, but we're not going back to 1963.

Originally Posted by Snorby

Not to mention the millions of immigrants who will be sent back to war-torn and poverty and corruption (not American poverty and corruption. Take one look at Mexico and much Central and South America, and Hillary seems purer than a newborn baby.) riddled countries from whence they came. Countless more won't be able to get in in the first place.

We have neither the means nor the desire to do so. For all the racist invective in the current election cycle. That is all the time I can spare on this point at the moment.

Originally Posted by Snorby

If you don't find the fact that Trump wants to pull us out of NATO as a sign that he's going to push away all of our allies, and as proof that he's a trigger happy man who will be in charge of the US's entire nuclear arsenal, fine. You're ignoring the obvious, but fine.

I never said anything about this. Debate 101, man. You're attacking my character and my position wrongly. :\

Originally Posted by Snorby

If Cruz gets the nomination, enabling that man's presidency by voting Third Party transcends picking your beliefs over picking a President. It's picking your beliefs over other people's rights as human beings.

This is some of the same rhetoric I embraced in 2004 and 2008. I'm not going to take the time to disagree with you beyond restating that I disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Snorby

Cruz is so conservative he makes Barry Goldwater look like Elizabeth Warren.

And he's not going to be elected. And even if he is elected he's not going to be able to get anything done. And he is no more frightening to you than Bernie Sanders is to the political right. Calm down, get off your high horse, and accept that your candidate of choice scares the ever-loving bejeezus out of a good chunk of this country the same way that Cruz does you. And accept that neither man would have been able to get much done as President.

Originally Posted by Snorby

There's no way in hell a woman's right to choose and the LGBT communities various only recently acquired rights would survive his presidency.

Yes, they would. You're using scare tactics again. Doom and gloom, "the sky is falling," I'm getting tired of it. It's like this is your first rodeo (for a presidential election you can vote in). Presidential candidates make a hundred promises on the campaign trail and end up acting on only 10% of them. And even the 10% they act on, they're lucky to get half through. A lot of it is about saying what the voters want to hear. You should be much more horrified by the American people than you should be by the prospect of a Cruz presidency. The fact that he has gotten as far as he, and the same with Trump, speaks volumes about how backwards America is compared with the rest of European-descended society. At least from a leftist POV. Plenty of right-leaning Americans would take issue with my wording just now.

Originally Posted by Snorby

I can't fathom how anyone could think flipping the system the bird four years earlier than they would otherwise is worth all those people's rights.

I never said that. You and I fundamentally disagree over whether the shit is going to hit the fan or not.

Me: The shit is not going to hit the fan. And so we can safely act.
You: The shit is going to hit the fan. So we cannot safely act.
The me that you have put forward: The shit is going to hit the fan. But fuck it! LET'S ACT AND BE CRAZY!

Treat people with respect, acknowledge that not everyone agrees with some of the axioms you hold, and recognize that you and I are on the same side of the fence. You and I don't disagree on LGBT rights, women's rights, etc. You and I disagree, fundamentally, on the scariness and the power of the President of the United States of America. You believe the POTUS has the power to up-end the country. I once did, and no longer do.

[Snorby]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Treat people with respect, acknowledge that not everyone agrees with some of the axioms you hold, and recognize that you and I are on the same side of the fence. You and I don't disagree on LGBT rights, women's rights, etc. You and I disagree, fundamentally, on the scariness and the power of the President of the United States of America. You believe the POTUS has the power to up-end the country. I once did, and no longer do.

I know we're on the same side of the fence here. It's why I'm pushing you on this. If I thought you were someone who was fine with the changes Cruz would make I wouldn't press it.

And I don't believe I've attacked your character at all. I've merely pointed out that you had ignored entirely the part of my argument that has the most merit, and restated it to make my position as clear as crystal. If you don't have the time to reply to all of my admittedly massive post, that's perfectly fine. But don't just reply to one point and ignore the rest of it- that's easy to misinterpret as I have. Say something along the lines of "I don't have time right now to respond to everything you've said, but I wanted to point out that..." or something similar. It takes 20 seconds and avoids anyone getting offended.

Speaking of which, this is the only part of your post I can respond to right now. Apologies!

[Heather]

Talon, I know you think Cruz won't drag this country back to the 60s, but right now there are conservative politicians that passed HB2 in North Carolina. Supporters of such legislation are able to publicly tell of the violence they would exhibit towards any transgender person and essentially get away with it. A Cruz presidency is putting a person of that kind of character in the most powerful seat on the planet. Please understand why some of us can see no good coming of this in terms of social progress.

[Doppleganger]

Just as an FYI, the United States is designed as such that state laws are going to be more powerful and easier to pass than federal ones. Comparing what happens in North Carolina to what happens federally is apples to oranges. As long as there isn't a direct conflict, it doesn't really matter.

Not to mention there are workflow issues. Consider marijuana, legal in California but federally prohibited. The California law would be superseded by the federal one, but California went ahead and passed it because the US Attorney General cannot take every single violator to court. They're not even going to try.

So, I mean. Hakuna Matata, Debbie Downer. A Republican election is not going to be the end of the world no matter how much d&g gets thrown on the thought.

[Mercutio]

Consider that neither Trump not Sanders could realistically hope to get anything done for most of the time. It won't be that bad.

[deoxys]

The problem isn't on the federal level (ie. Cruz), it's on the state level. Gerrymandering and lack of democratic action have left Republicans in positions of power on state and local levels while democrats are more concerned with the federal government. This has allowed shit like North Carolina to occur, and it will happen in more states, too. Democrats need to start buckling their britches and working to fight back on state and local levels or this shit will not get fixed.

No matter what anyone here says, the statistics have it as a highly probable outcome that Hillary will be our next president no matter how any of us feel about it. But it doesn't matter because the president is not going to be able to solely solve so many of these nationwide issues that are occurring. If you want to fix that, then stop focusing federally and vote down ticket for the Democrats to win in local districts and state legislative branches, etc, otherwise yeah, you're going to have anti-LGBT discriminatory bullshit.

And let's bring honest here, I should have mentioned it earlier but I haven't: the Republicans will never overturn Roe v Wade. It's more important it remains as a talking point to them, because if they succeed in overturning it, that's a huge blow dealt to their agenda that helps secure them a place in office. They've had 43 years to overturn it and during that time frame there have definitely been opportunities for them to do so (ie. under Bush, who had a pretty conservative supreme court) and they did not. And so it will never happen. It is much more beneficial to them as a party to keep it that was than to actually overturn it.

Basically: if you REALLY want to help LGBT and feminist movements, then you and everyone you know need to be focusing more on local politics than federal and presidential ones.

Edit: Dopple beat me to it.

[Doppleganger]

What Hillary will front is the TPP, which is why I'm so heckbent against voting for her. In the one major way that a president can affect me, Hillary will have that authority, so I will oppose her on all theatres.

[Shuckle]

When even MSNBC is calling Trump the "most LGBT-friendly Republican," you know Clinton's in trouble. And this was all the way back in last August, too.

It’s not the first time Trump has taken a pro-LGBT stance. As far back as 2000, Trump was advocating the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation – something the currently-pending Equality Act would basically do if lawmakers on Capitol Hill ever decided to pass it.

“[A]mending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans – it’s only fair,” Trump told The Advocate in February, 2000. In the same interview, Trump said he favored “a very strong domestic-partnership law” that guaranteed same-sex couples equal legal rights as married, heterosexual couples. Trump also said he believed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – the military’s then-ban on openly gay service members – had “clearly failed.”

In his 2000 book, “The America That We Deserve,” Trump outlined his dream of a nation “unencumbered by bureaucratic ineptitude, government regulation, confiscatory tax policies, racism, discrimination against women, or discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.” Eleven years later, Trump told CBN’s “The Brody File” that gay people were “tremendous” and that “there can be no discrimination against gays.”

Here's what Hillary Clinton was saying back in 2000:

Clinton said in January 2000 that marriage does not include gay unions: "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." She said she would have voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but again said she supported partnership benefits for same-sex couples.