Sorry, I don't agree. Hillary wouldn't be my first choice, but of all the candidates on both sides (and independents), she'd be in my top 2 or 3. The rest are either idiots, incompetent or both (see Johnson and Aleppo). That's not that I like Hillary, but she's the least worst.

Trump, OTOH, is easily in the bottom row. The only worse candidates would be Cruz or Santorum.

Thing is, I can get past the racism, the xenophobia, the sexism and the idiotic economics. They're all terrible, but mostly they'll just fuck up the USA.

But his stance on the environment is completely unacceptable and has global consequences. He simply cannot be allowed to be president.

Saying Hillary and Trump are both bad is true, but it's also a false equivalence. Getting the flu or cancer both suck, but I'll take the flu over cancer any day.

But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days.

Sorry, no. There isn't some moral equivalency here where everyone is entitled to their opinion and we should respect them for it.

Both of those people are white, straight and comfortably middle class. It's easy to get along then.

The republicans of today are a joke. This is a party where Rick fucking Santorum is still an elected official! Where Donald Trump is almost certainly going to be their presidential nominee and he's not even the worst of them (fuck you Ted Cruz).

It's really simple.

If you're against gay marriage, you're not "promoting family values", you're a homophobic neanderthal.
If you support banning muslims from your country, you're not "securing your borders", you're a bigoted asshole.
If you think forcing women to go through vaginal ultrasounds to get an abortion is ok, you're not "pro-life", you're a misogynist.
And if you really think that climate change isn't happening... then you're a fucking idiot.

There isn't a middle ground here. The fact that these issues are even up for debate is depressing as hell.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

Would you feel more comfortable if he wore a white hood? Maybe talk about 'gang lifestyle'?
I prefer my racists in white hoods and displaying swastikas, so I don't have to wade through subtext to id them. Open racism is stupid but at least honest. I despise political correctness and its ability to sugarcoat hatred. I'd rather engage a Neo-Nazi or white pride, god-hates-fags biblethumper than a Rick Santorum or Bill O'Reilly who are too much of a coward to say what they believe because they know how the broad public reacts.
The notion of not publicly voicing those idiotic, inhuman opinions because its offensive is more offensive to me than the opinion itself. I'd like to know if you're an idiot.
I believe in freedom of speech, even if that proves you're a terrible idiot. You have a right to be.

And now wake me up from that strange dream where I defend @lantern53.

Trust me, Castoreum is a hell of a lot better than if they tried the alternate, Santorum

You shouldn't worry about racist words, you should worry about racists. I don't have to use the word "nigger" to be a racist, I just have to be one. My favourite Ice T song is "Straight Up Nigga", am I a racist when I quote it's lyrics?
Everybody throws a hissy fit about famous people using the wrong words but we accept intolerant douchebags on TV all the time as long as they watch their language.
You see the same thing with homophobes all the time, it's actually worse regarding this issue. Say "fag" and the internet is up your ass in no time, say the shit Palin and Santorum say and it's just an opinion or believe and you get to be on TV.
Fuck that. I don't care what words you use, if you're an ally, you're on my side. Rude assholes who are on my side are better than nobody, I take what I can get. And my side is the one that that doesn't care about your pigmentation or who you love.
That nigger in the video isn't a racist and you wasting your time worrying about his choice of words, take it from the infidel, fat, cisgendered kraut-breeder. That man is on our side. He's just not politically correct.

Can we all agree that regardless of your stance on gun control, it has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality, tax policy or healthcare*?

Seriously, I don't care what your personal favourite cause is. It may have merit, it may not, but if you have to back it up by having Rick fucking Santorum speak, you've already lost.

*apart from supplying doctors with gsw patients, obviously.

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

Rick Santorum is the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

Pure santorum.

Rick Santorum is soooo in the closet. I mean he changed his last name to a word that has direct links to gay sex!

Australia is covered in Santorum!

*dead -- "'Obamaville - Rick Santorum ...'

The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement..."

I believe that by then the GOP would be something else; just like it was something else under Eisenhower and Lincoln. We are all moving forward; just at different paces. After all, we are just rivals in our way of thinking, not enemies. If for example, you get it and others don't so quickly, you shouldn't ridicule them for not jumping on your bandwagon so quickly. As long as we all have good intentions, the details will get sorted out with time.

>> ^st0nedeye:

In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.
Texas.
In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.