Why are gays exempt from social norms?

Just look at how happy that daddy is. Why do you want to steal his smile?

what a beautiful baby, he looks liek he had a happy childhood

File: 9fc.jpg (48KB, 600x615px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x615px

>>7691455
>>7691464

>>7691451
Bobby Hill is gay?

>>7691451
>Why are gays exempt from social norms?
Last Tuesday marked 72 years to the day since the United States of America executed Private Eddie Slovik for refusing to march to his death in a war he had been conscripted to fight in.

His was the first American execution for desertion since the Civil War and the last to this day.

No woman has ever been forced to die for their country under threat of execution by the United States. Yet the shadow of that threat hangs over every man who has ever set foot in America.

Why are women exempt from social norms?

>>7693089
but that is a social norm

>all gays are ABDLs

>>7693095
The sentence of death by combat or death by the hand of the state is a social norm for men in America and many other nations. Why give women impunity from that massive and omnipresent threat, while at the same time protesting over every tiny accommodation for gay and trans people?

>>7693114
Because women aren't capable, I mean I get they've been given all the same privileges as men in modern society without deserving them. But I'd say take those privileges away rather than pretending the sexes aren't different.

>>7693114
Cause da MANS supposed ta MANZZZ UP AND FUCKIN DIEEEEE for HIS CUNTRY, BOYYYYY

BE A MAN, SON, AND DIEEE

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH MANLY MANLINESS YAAAAAAAARRRR

GENDER. ROLE. CONFORMITY. SON. DO YOU EVEN FIT IT??????

File: 1482116952433.jpg (184KB, 430x640px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 430x640px

Agoo~

File: 1479373070023.png (387KB, 627x450px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 627x450px

>>7691451

>>7691451
No, I think you meant to ask why SOME gays are exempt from social norms. And the answer is they're not. We think they're retarded. PLEASE do not define us as a whole based on a few people.

I don't know where you live but everyone does treat us as normal. I only hear homophobia from a small pocket of society who are also not very bright and tend to be bigoted in other ways too.

Average people in a normal society don't have any strong feelings towards LGBT at all because it doesn't affect their lives in any way.

Most people see LGBT the same way you might see disabled people: You support their cause and hope they feel as comfortable and included as they can in society, but ultimately you don't spend much time thinking about it because you're not disabled and rarely face any reason to think about them.

You'd only ever get mad about this shit if you were incredibly over-opinionated, in which case you're the one that doesn't fit into normal society.

>>7693168

Umm, he's out in public smiling. If he wasn't exempt from social norms he'd be behaving himself after he was ridiculed or beaten one time.

Only other option is that social norms allow this and a whole people must be judged for letting it be so.

>>7693089
The people in charge of the military consider women unfit for military service. To them, drafting women is akin to demanding two year olds get jobs and own their own houses.

>>7693114
Killing women IS a norm in many nations. But women being expected to fight in combat is NOT a norm. But until fairly recently, it was common for women to be sentenced to death for refusing to consent to sex with a man.

>>7693136
What privileges in particular are you referring to? And what about disabled men? Should they lose these privileges as well since they're not fit for military service?

>>7693209
Wtf, you have to beat someone for dressing fucking weird? No. I just give them a disgusted look and move the fuck on. I'm sure he's been ridiculed but he doesn't care.

>>7693209
Violence, even against "misbehavers" is illegal unless it reasonably can be qualified as self-defense. And maybe people did ridicule him, but there's no law that says you have to let others get to you.

>>7693136
>But I'd say take those privileges away rather than pretending the sexes aren't different.
Harsh but fair.

>>7693209
Oh and btw, I see straight people that look even more disgusting than that on a monthly basis. Why aren't they getting beaten and ridiculed? Straight people really need to start enforcing basic human decency among themselves if they want to stop being called degenerates.

>>7693213
>woman can get out of a death penalty by spreading her legs
>man can get out of a death penalty by going to certain death in war
"I need feminism because..."

>>7693220

Sure, try ridicule first, but whatever works in the end. We can't this kind of shit being accepted.

>>7693223
Ooo, the law, couldn't possibly disobey the law even it protects the degradation of society.

>>7693230
They should be, but as a group they're not half as harmful to society per capita as gays.

>>7693215
Holding the positions of men while still benefiting from the traditional concept of men supporting women. These include legal and social privileges.

A disabled man, not being a woman, never had them. It's not about ability to serve in a war it's about being a man or a woman and the different responsibilities both rolls demand of you.

>>7693252
Oh boo hoo, this weird eccentric guy is in my public space where people are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want

Unless it is breaking the law (which he may if there's public display of obscene behavior in which case just call the cops?) Then there's no reason to be upset.

Life is full of fucking weirdos. Life is spent better not being upset over said weirdos.

Seriously, grow up. Stop worrying about other people and their business.

>>7691451
Homosexuality is deviant in and of itself, therefore the norms within the community deviate from that of the general populace. Of course there are those who think this deviation should be incorporated into society, but for the most part I believe gays should be left to their own devices and not assimilated into mainstream culture.

>>7693299

It aint against the law to get wasted every night, give yourself all kinds of diseases and cost the government a grand a week on drugs before you pass away at 50.

But it's still my business if I pay for it and it's everyone's business just as is the break down of marriage. You were fucking a weirdo if you got a divorce back in the day, weirdos multiply and have been fucking our society up. This individualistic bullshit is childish egocentric irresponsibility.

>>7693275
>These include legal and social privileges.
Which ones specifically should women lose, unless and until they can handle the responsibilities of men?

>>7691451
http://mvlehti.net/2017/01/21/man-had-sex-with-a-hog-in-finland-interrupted-by-animal-caretakers/
>gay
>not degenerate
/lgbt/ will defend this

>>7693387
http://archive.is/4tF2F
>woman
>not degenerate
Feminists will defend this.

>>7693337
All right, but a fucking weirdo on the street being weird isn't costing you that much except being an eyesore. Besides, you pay your taxes for everyone, not just those weirdos and it's the government's responsibility to make sure that money is used well, not yours. And who gets to decide who is a weirdo and who isn't anyways?

Quit being such an edgelord.

>>7693376

abortion, voting, politics, management, there are women capable of doing some of those things but as a whole not really. I don't await their capability I wish to see them in the rolls their suited to.

>>7693410
H-Hot

>>7693428
>abortion
But that's applies to both sexes. The female privilege is being the sole one to make the decision. You could still have abortion but make it a mutual choice.

>politics, management
Banning them would restrict voters and employers respectively, not just women.

>>7693413

That weirdo if not shunned or fixed is spreading his problem to others.

>And who gets to decide who is a weirdo and who isn't anyways?

Someone, might as well be me. I mean you're happy to act as if the present circumstance of nothing being too weird to tolerate, wasn't a decision.

I pay my taxes so the government can maintain and better society, not fund this tragic spiral into immorality and valuelessness

>>7693449
>You could still have abortion but make it a mutual choice.

Good idea.

>Banning them would restrict voters and employers respectively, not just women.

These two I'm soft on really, don't believe in making it illegal don't believe in encouraging it.

>>7693455
What problem? It's not actually a problem. They're not gonna spread their retarded shit and if they do, it'll be generations down the line and you'll be dead so it's not worth worrying about.

And no, no one gets to decide it. What if one of those weirdos got to decide who was weird and they decided it was YOU?

If you don't like it, move somewhere else that's oppressive and doesn't let people do dumb shit.

>>7693470
>They're not gonna spread their retarded shit
not that anon but that's way too much implying.
>what is the rights to fuck animals
>what is feminist

>>7693480
>what is humanity realizing it doesn't have to follow the old, brutal, draconian ways

File: Productivity_vs_state_expenditure_2010.jpg (31KB, 574x272px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 574x272px

>>7693337
>But it's still my business if I pay for it
See pic, is this money well spent?

>>7693413
>you pay your taxes for everyone, not just those weirdos and it's the government's responsibility to make sure that money is used well, not yours.
See pic, same question.

>>7693480

There's always going to be outliers who do stupid shit. What is defined as stupid shit is constantly changing. Just let people be, honestly.

>>7693470

>What problem? It's not actually a problem. They're not gonna spread their retarded shit and if they do, it'll be generations down the line and you'll be dead so it's not worth worrying about.

A prime reason homosexual influence on society is bad, not having progeny limits your capability for thought on the future. Having kids really makes you think about what's best for society, while you don't give a shit what happens to anyone beyond your death.

>And no, no one gets to decide it. What if one of those weirdos got to decide who was weird and they decided it was YOU?

I am a weirdo, but because that which is not weird, and is best for societies future, is objective, a weirdo can understand it.. and it can be decided quite easily, just like when society decided to drop the concept all together and buy 'tolerance'.

>>7691451
do you seriously think straight people don't do shit just as bad or worse?

>>7693486
A bloody death knell is what that is kin.

>>7693488
>>7693488
fuck me, source?

>>7693529
>>7693488
found it, unbelievable.

>>7693505
I do have kids, but I'm saying this shit doesn't matter already and that you'll be dead so it double won't matter. It's weird to you and that's purely personal.

And there's nothing objectively bad about any of this? You just have old fashioned values and it terrifies you for some reason. There's no legitimate reason for any of this to be stomped out. We're about freedom here in America. Freedom to do whatever stupid fucking shit you want.

>>7693529
>>7693534
I genuinely laughed out loud at your reaction.

What do you think about this revaluation?

If you found a more current year than 2010 please post.

>>7693537
You have kids and don't care what happens generations down the line?

Pretty objectively fuckin terrible.

>>7693547
That's not what I said at all. I care about global warming, I care about my children's future but I don't care about stamping out everything you deem weird and limiting the way my children can express themselves if they desire to.

>>7693542
>revelation*
Damn you autocorrect.

>>7693542

The most surprising thing about it is that I'd expect that kind of graph to come from a society were women don't work at all.

Women are destined to be supported group and it's justified but they're a graph like that when they're working? How

>>7693558
you manage to care about what celebrities do, fantastic job

>>7693580
What? What the fuck does that even mean?

>>7693337
>I am the only one who ever pays taxes
When will right wingers start being rational? Maybe I, as a taxpayer, don't want my money going to fund idiots like Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence, but too fucking bad. I'll pay for your freakshow if you'll pay for mine, ok?

>>7693583

Leftist wants reciprocity from a right winger. haha I don't think so.

>>7693104

That's a good point, anon. They really are.

>>7693572
The jobs and hours they work, the choice to work in the public sector, the welfare they get (even simply living longer means considerably more expenditure for them, before starting on forms of welfare that overwhelmingly benefit women over men of the same age), and the tax burden being focused on men (both the rates of it disproportionately affecting the rich rather than being flat when men earn most of the money, and the fact that taxes usually fall on things that affect men whatever the rate, such as income).

>>7693583
>Maybe I, as a taxpayer, don't want my money going to fund idiots like Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence,
You're happy with >>7693488 but complain about paying the wages of single individuals who were elected by the people?

>>7693590
I'm a libertarian, not a librul. I don't like conservatives, right or left. But it's the right wingers who always complain about their tax dollars.

>>7693599
Old people have health problems whoda thunk it

>>7693606
Democrats get about 70% of the vote of people who don't pay any taxes.

>>7693230

If obesity were legal cause for revocation of citizenship then most problems like this would be solved, along with many many others.

But anon will not push such an idea because xe is fat xirself--or will become so within the next decade.

>>7693572
>I'd expect that kind of graph to come from a society were women don't work at all.
If women didn't work at all their line would simply be a non-stop drop and men's have to curve far higher to cover the female deficit.

>>7693337

If 1% of society is weird drugged-up gays while 70% of society is fatties charging gleefully toward diabetes and heart disease, are the gays really the ones Everyman Taxpayer needs to complain about?

>>7693606
>Old people have health problems whoda thunk it
>Old people
Except old men continue to be net contributors until severe old age, at which point they barely dip into the negative and go no lower than women cost at the point of their lives where their deficit is the least (birth).

You're a "libertarian" who tries to deny and ignore the female deficit. What's behind this?

>>7693636

taxes aren't the height of my troubles with certain groups, and gays aren't either at least in numbers

but i'm in lgbt

>>7691451
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU

>>7693252
>Ooo, the law, couldn't possibly disobey the law even it protects the degradation of society.
I wouldn't consider "degradation of society" sufficient to break the law. Because everyone has their own definition of what "degeneracy" is, and if you allow anyone to physically harm those they consider degenerate, you'd have total anarchy.

>They should be, but as a group they're not half as harmful to society per capita as gays.
They're MUCH more harmful to my PERCEPTION of society than gays are. And that's really the only thing that matters since reality is subjective :)

>>7693337
Weirdos have existed always, you just haven't noticed them before because they had no legal recognition. And anti-individualism is codeword for totalitarian cuckoldry :)

>>7693428
>abortion
Something that ONLY women should have any say over. Men simply don't bear that burden, it's like saying some drooling retard in the back of the plane, not the pilot, should decide how to fly it.

>voting
If you have voting at all, you should let everyone vote. Otherwise there's no point, and you're just saying only people who agree with you should have power.

>>7693505
>Having kids really makes you think about what's best for society
No, it makes you think about what's best for your kids specifically.

>>7693505
>I am a weirdo, but because that which is not weird, and is best for societies future, is objective, a weirdo can understand it.. and it can be decided quite easily, just like when society decided to drop the concept all together and buy 'tolerance'.
If everyone could agree on what was best for societies future, there wouldn't be such a thing as politics.

>>7693716
>Something that ONLY women should have any say over. Men simply don't bear that burden,
So give men the financial abortion, so they can cut all their responsibilities towards the baby.

>If you have voting at all, you should let everyone vote. Otherwise there's no point, and you're just saying only people who agree with you should have power.
Do you literally think democracy was worthless before women got the vote?

Do you genuinely think children, temporary residents, felons and illegal immigrants should get the vote?

>>7693716
coulda saved time if you just wrote

>no u x 5

>>7693599
>paying the wages of single individuals who were elected by the people?
Sessions wasn't elected AT ALL and Pence was elected, but not by "the people". Nice try though :)

>>7693720

who the fuck said they did, i just said that knowing it is not dependent on being ideal

>>7693647
Oh, my bad, I read the chart wrong, I thought the fiscal impact was how much money they cost to keep alive.

>>7693623
No, it's because I believe in freedom over fascism. If you had your way children would be raised on assembly lines and all individuality would be considered a mental illness.

>>7693647
A libertarian wouldn't think that people being unproductive is a problem. They'd only see it as a problem if they were violating the rights of others.

>>7693726
>Do you literally think democracy was worthless before women got the vote?
Not worthless, but far from being representative of the people.

>>7693729
De jure indirect elections that are de facto direct elections thanks to elector pledges and elected politicians selecting their administration are still elections by the people.

You do Western constitutional democratic republics a disservice by untruthfully implying they are oligarchies or dictatorships.

>>7693747
If someone can win the majority of the popular vote but still lose the election, it's not a "de facto direct election".

>>7693744
>They'd only see it as a problem if they were violating the rights of others.
How do you imagine government income and expenditure function that doesn't violate the rights of others?

>>7693209
>he'd be behaving himself after he was ridiculed
Yeah no.
People like that get turned on by being ridiculed.
It's why disgusting camwhores are so hard to get rid of without drastic measures.
Any negative reaction save maybe for brutal violence or excessive legal repercussions will most likely only make it worse.

>>7693755
Interesting how the Americans who make claims like this are the direct equivalent of the Brits who say the Brexit referendum should have required a supermajority.

Democracy when I like it, undemocratic when I don't.

>>7693766
It's property that is publicly owned and administrated by the government.

>>7693782
I never had anything to say about Brexit except that it was retarded, nice try though. I'm fine with acknowledging that Trump and Pence did legitimately win in terms of the procedure by which we select our presidents, but saying the EC is a proxy for the popular vote is just plain silly, especially at this point in time.

>>7693795
>It's property that is publicly owned and administrated by the government.
You see the government confiscating the entire income and property of one race, sexuality, etc and donating it to another, under the guise of "taxation", as perfectly compatible with "libertarianism" under the logic that this somehow doesn't violate anyone's rights.

>but saying the EC is a proxy for the popular vote is just plain silly
Strawman. The statement was election, not popular vote. Get some honesty.

>>7693812
>You see the government confiscating the entire income and property of one race, sexuality, etc and donating it to another, under the guise of "taxation", as perfectly compatible with "libertarianism" under the logic that this somehow doesn't violate anyone's rights.
It's not a violation of rights if people agree to it.

>Strawman. The statement was election, not popular vote. Get some honesty.
The PEOPLE voted for Hillary over Trump. So it's false to say Trump/Pence was "elected by the people."

>>7693901
>it's false to say Trump/Pence was "elected by the people."
No it isnt. President Trump was elected by the people, specifically he was elected by the people in the 2600 American counties that he won, carrying him to victory.

>>7693960
No, it's false to say he was "elected by the people" because him winning depended on the counties, not on the people residing in them. If the people, rather than counties decided, he would have come in second.

>>7691451
Why do straights think that crying and murdering over their social norms are ok, and then get surprised when gays start rejecting the very idea of social norms?

>>7693994
Because they're straight dogshit.

>>7693647
>>7693743
You're still ignoring the gender issue.

>>7693901
>>7693973
"Democracy when I like it, undemocratic when I don't."

>>7691451
>Some guy is doing something weird in public
>I notice and laugh because it's silly and move on

But nah, I think getting upset about something as pointless as this is a good use of anyone's time. Let's riot.

>>7694050
At no point did I say that an election whose outcome corresponds to the will of the people as a whole is undemocratic. You're tilting at wildmills.

>>7693994
because straights are society and you're a fart in the wind

>>7694084
So you're straight dog shit?

File: 222.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

>>7694089

>>7693973
Even if it had been left up to the counties, if they had counted the actual vote instead of what the Diebold machines were programmed to print out, he still would have come in second.

Democrats irl still haven't forgotten the first time Gore had his votes stolen, why is it all of these "Democrats" on the internet have already forgotten that Hillary had her's stolen? This is one of the major reasons these riots and marches draw such huge crowds, because they're sick of their votes being stolen by these fascist Republicans.

>>7693973
He was elected by the American people under the rules of American democracy. It is not the United States of New York and California. The popular vote is meaningless.

>>7694099
I never argue. The only people who disagree with me do so because of either fear or evil, neither of which can be cured with reason.

>>7693901
Are you L, G, B or T?

>>7694119
>neither of which can be cured with reason
It can be cured with a bullet.

>>7694119
Is that from naruto?

>>7694154
It's my Alexander the Great punks the Gordian Knot no jutsu.

>>7694117
He was elected by the states, not by the people. Which is how our elections work by convention, but that doesn't make it okay to lie.

>>7694195
And just how did he win those states if not by the people's will?

>>7694213
By voter fraud.

File: 1484005144828.jpg (78KB, 784x643px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 784x643px

>>7694219
There's isn't any proof of that. When you make this kind of claim without evidence, it becomes obvious that you just have massive sour grapes about President Trump's victory. Especially considering Clinton was the one actually proven to be undermining our democracy during the Democratic primaries (though not by voter fraud - she was revealed to be colluding with the DNC and the press).

>>7694213
Because the system makes it possible for someone to win several states (even enough to win the election) without the people willing it.

>>7694241
You started out by insisting that members of Trump's cabinet was "elected by the people", an obvious falsehood. Every accusation you make can be reflected back upon you, because clearly you're just getting triggered at any criticism of the Donald and his entourage.

>>7694260
I asked how he won those states. It was meant to be a rhetorical question. I thought it would be obvious I was pointing out that the people voting for him in those states are why he won those states.

>>7694273
People voted for him in those states, but "the people", did not will that Trump become president.

File: 1481371107908.jpg (5KB, 195x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 195x250px

>>7694272
>clearly you're just getting triggered
Yeah, sorry sweetie, but this is an accusation that definitely reflects back on you guys.

>>7694279
>People voted for him in those states, but "the people", did not will
Splitting hairs this hard now? Um okay I think that's enough out of you, later honeybuns

>>7694241
The courts illegally shut down the efforts to collect proof. In most western countries, that's automatically an admission of guilt, as it should be.

>>7693782

Over here it seems like the other way around.

Brexit won by a narrow popular vote, which Brexiteers like to remind people of frequently as being a perfect example of democracy, then the same Brexiteers claim faux-kinship with Trump supporters claiming that 'Democracy is being taken back around the world'.

And when you confront them with the facts? They don't like it, resort to name calling, "OUT MEANS OUT" etc.

Complete hypocrites. If they supported the 'true democracy' (popular vote) then they should be supporting Hilary Clinton, but of course none of it is /really/ about democracy, it's just about getting the guy you agree with in power and using that argument when it suits.

>>7694293
>Yeah, sorry sweetie, but this is an accusation that definitely reflects back on you guys.

No he's right, you are just getting triggered. Trump supporters tend to be very thin-skinned and I can't see you as any exception.

>>7694342
Apples and oranges. The USA is a Republic. The UK isn't.

>>7694342
>Complete hypocrites. If they supported the 'true democracy' (popular vote)
True democracy is rule of law. The electoral college is the law in America, so it's how presidents are elected. Your Brexit law had no threshold unlike some referendums do, so a simple majority was all that was needed either way.

You are upset that the 'wrong' side won and in one case complain by saying a simple vote count trumps democracy and in the other by dismissing a legal vote count as 'narrow'.

>>7694394
Voter fraud is not the rule of law.

>>7694394

It doesn't really matter what 'True' democracy actually is. Brexiteers believe that a popular vote is true democracy because it's the will of the majority of the people who voted. They conveniently ignore this when it comes to Trump winning the election.

It's hypocrisy, get used to it. We've seen far more embarrassing examples of this with Brexit.

>>7694293
>Yeah, sorry sweetie, but this is an accusation that definitely reflects back on you guys.
No you're just upset because I said something that was true.

>>7694293
>Splitting hairs this hard now? Um okay I think that's enough out of you, later honeybuns
You call that "splitting hairs"? He didn't even get the most votes, how can you say he's the one that the people willed to become president?

>>7694394
Democracy means one equally-weighted vote per citizen. America is not a democracy, it's a republic.

>>7694398
You mean like the millions of illegal voters who pushed Hillary into the top of the total vote count?

>>7694408
>Brexiteers believe that a popular vote is true democracy because it's the will of the majority of the people who voted.
No, they believe it's democracy because the laws on how the referendum were run say they won, exactly the same as the American laws say Trump won.

Your view of course isn't /really/ about democracy, it's just about getting the guy you agree with in power and using that argument when it suits.

File: MentallyHill.gif (3MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x320px

>there are people in this thread who actually seriously unironically wanted Hillary Rodham Clinton to be president
I SHIGGY DIGGY

If you are one of these people, my advice is to take some truth bombs.

Here let me help:

>mostdamagingwikileaks.com

>>7694447
I'm not going to quit believing the facts just because you spew some alternative facts.

Unfortunately, rather than embracing non-Christian forms of morality and codes of conduct, a lot of leftist gays run around like total degenerates and make public displays of things that should be kept private.

>>7694457
>No, they believe it's democracy because the laws on how the referendum were run say they won

No they don't. You've seen the HYS comments, they all explicitly state the same thing: "Brexit is a true democratic decision because it was voted by the majority". - Those are the exact words used both online and IRL. More people voted for it, therefore it's fair.

Are you even British? You sound like an American Trump supporter trying to stick up for Brexiteers because it suits what you believe.

>>7694534
>non-Christian forms of morality and codes of conduct

You mean like freedom, liberty, and equality, things like that?

>>7694534
>a lot of leftist gays run around like total degenerates and make public displays of things that should be kept private.

A lot of people say shit like this, but is there anything actually factual to back this argument up?

You say it should be kept in private, but that's your opinion. You say it's 'degenerate' like some kind of 4chan cliche, but that's also your opinion.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it inherently bad.

>>7694544
Those are political slogans, not guidelines for moral conduct. How about some goddamn public decency and restraint rather than flaunting your fetishes in public and scaring the normie dipshits.

>>7694543
>they all explicitly state the same thing: "Brexit is a true democratic decision because it was voted by the majority". - Those are the exact words used both online and IRL.
If there laws had been different and the referendum was run in say the same way as the US electoral college or a British election, then when Brexit won its supporters would still say it was a democratic decision because it was voted for in the democratic way laid out in law. Then there would still be people like you who would attack whatever way it was won, whether that's the way you attack the US election by saying some vote tally trumps the democratic system or the way you attack how the referendum was actually run, a simple majority, for being 'narrow'. There is no winning.

It's probably good the referendum was run the way it was, because it makes your endless excuses for why it doesn't count as obvious as they could possibly be: Clinton getting a technically higher vote is good enough to dismiss Trump's victory, but somehow the same standard isn't high enough for Brexit.

>Are you even British? You sound like an American Trump supporter trying to stick up for Brexiteers because it suits what you believe.
Why does you even care? Are only Brits allowed an opinion on the referendum the way you have an opinion on the presidential election?

>>7694587
No, they're not. I'm not interested in siding with dog shit like you so long as you're pure evil. Calling my needs political slogans just reminds me that you're dog shit.

>>7694603
>Are only Brits allowed an opinion on the referendum the way you have an opinion on the presidential election?

So you're not, are you? You're just an over-opinionated American. If you actually understood the situation, you'd see why it's not about your opinion, it's about what people are actually saying.

Do you even know what I mean by 'HYS'? You're trying to lay out the technicalities of 'democracy', but that's not what this is about. I'm telling you what Brexit supporters said (and continue to say) about Brexit being democratic.

It doesn't matter what you think democracy is...it doesn't even matter what democracy ACTUALLY is, this is about public perception and this is why you, as an American aren't really in any place to comment - you don't live here, you don't know what people here are saying, you don't hear their words and their arguments.

It's hypocrisy and stupidity from the Brexit side, just like the 'WE WANT SOVEREIGNTY BACK!!....Oh shit, our Sovereign system has created a legal challenge to Brexit! FUCK SOVEREIGNTY! THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! IT WAS DEMOCRATIC!

>>7694659
>You're just an over-opinionated American.
t. Brit who spouts his mouth off about the electoral college

>WE WANT SOVEREIGNTY BACK!!....Oh shit, our Sovereign system has created a legal challenge to Brexit! FUCK SOVEREIGNTY!
Because the courts have never got anything wrong before...

>>7694676
>Brit who spouts his mouth off about the electoral college

Not really spouting my mouth off though, am I? I think what I've said is pretty objective fact - Hilary won the popular vote - you can't argue with that, it's not my opinion - it's a fact.

>Because the courts have never got anything wrong before

Again though - not the point. Firstly, the court challenge had to happen, else Brexit would have been pushed through purely on an unelected PM's say so and nobody wants that (Even smarter people who voted leave). Secondly, people who wanted Brexit demanded sovereignty be returned and it did - in the form of a court challenge and the overwhelming majority didn't like it. Suddenly they realized Sovereignty isn't such a great thing and actually the House of Lords dictate absolutely everything in the country and maybe that's not such a good idea.

There were even people who were saying that the sovereign court challenge wasn't sovereign...even though it is. Basically, they didn't actually know what Sovereignty actually meant and just followed the soundbite. Ignorant, stupid people who factually didn't understand what they were asking for.

>>7694782
>Hilary won the popular vote - you can't argue with that, it's not my opinion - it's a fact.
That's your characterization of reality. Any result can be skewed by looking at it the way you want, as you did to attempt to dismiss the people voting in favor of Brexit. Not to mention that she had only gotten as many votes as she did because of illegals voting.

>else Brexit would have been pushed through purely on an unelected PM's say so and nobody wants that (Even smarter people who voted leave)
First, you don't get to speak for the people who voted for Brexit.

Second, if you think Theresa May is unelected could you tell me which party won the general election and which MP was elected in the Maidenhead constituency?

>and actually the House of Lords dictate absolutely everything in the country
That sounds a little paranoid.

>There were even people who were saying that the sovereign court challenge wasn't sovereign...even though it is.
It's rather dishonest to say an unelected court invented because of European law having power to veto democratic votes is somehow the meaning of British sovereignty.

Especially hypocritical since you attack the democratic systems in other countries for not running the way you want while defending the popular vote being overruled in your own.

>>7691704
This

>>7694847
>Not to mention that she had only gotten as many votes as she did because of illegals voting.

Haha are you serious? You do realize there's no proof of that whatsoever. I think the official figure is what, less than 20 illegal immigrants in over 10 years have voted. Where are you getting millions from? I've not seen any proof of this.

>That's your characterization of reality.

It's not though is it? Hilary Clinton won the popular vote - it's fact. Would you like me to get you a source?

>>7694847
>Second, if you think Theresa May is unelected

TM is unelected as a Prime Minister and wasn't Prime Minister when the Tories were voted in. That is fact. Nobody voted for Theresa May - that is a fact, you cannot dispute it. It happens in British politics. The Tories weren't elected in 2011 either, they formed a coalition government with the Lib Dems - this is also a fact.

>That sounds a little paranoid.

What? Do you even know what the House of Lords is? This isn't some conspiracy theory mate. They can reject absolutely any bills they want - this is fact.

>It's rather dishonest to say an unelected court invented because of European law having power to veto democratic votes is somehow the meaning of British sovereignty.

You've talked a lot of nonsense here. Firstly, Parliament is about as Sovereign as it gets and has stayed so throughout the course of Britain being in the EU. Secondly, the court challenge had nothing to do with vetoing democratic votes, where the fuck did you get that impression? The court ruling determined that the Prime Minister can't go ahead with invoking Article 52 on her own and that it *must* be passed to Parliament to vote on. That IS Sovereignty. How isn't it?

>Especially hypocritical since you attack the democratic systems in other countries for not running the way you want

And where did I say that? All I've said is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote - that's it. There's no attack at all. I've literally stated the facts.

>>7694462
Trump's presidency is turning out to be a total disaster, just as I'd predicted all along. It's not that I like Hillary, but her winning would have at least kept the Trumpster fire out of the White House.

>>7694972
>Article 52

I mean Article 50 obviously. Numpad issues.

>>7694587
Or maybe you could shut the fuck up and let people live their life as long as they're not harming you.

>>7694847
>Not to mention that she had only gotten as many votes as she did because of illegals voting.
If that were true, Trump would have found evidence of it by now, he's basically in control of the entire government so there's really nothing to stop him, and showing that he actually did win the popular vote would really help his legitimacy.

>>7694972
>Haha are you serious? You do realize there's no proof of that whatsoever.
Thank you for sharing your opinion on the presidential election, Mr "You're just an over-opinionated American."

>and wasn't Prime Minister when the Tories were voted in.
So your view of democracy discounts all opposition parties for counting as elected for their first terms of office?

>Nobody voted for Theresa May - that is a fact, you cannot dispute it.
You seem to have skipped the Maidenhead question and forgotten that parties have leadership elections.

>They can reject absolutely any bills they want - this is fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949

>All I've said is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote - that's it. There's no attack at all. I've literally stated the facts.
You have assigned false significance to them, as though that has some democratic relevance rather than caring about the American electoral system. Rather like half-truths of the British government while campaigning for a vote against Brexit.

>>7695045
>Thank you for sharing your opinion on the presidential election, Mr "You're just an over-opinionated American."
Stating that there is no proof is not an "opinion", Ms. "Alternative Facts".

>>7695080
The point is that he believes Americans and other dirty foreigners don't have the right to an opinion on his democratic system, which he hates, while positioning himself as a moral authority on other people's democracies.

>>7695045
>Thank you for sharing your opinion on the presidential election

It's not an opinion though, is it? It's fact - there aren't millions of illegals voting for Hillary. If you're so sure you're right, why don't you prove it for us right now? Give us the names of these illegals. Go on, I'll wait.

>So your view of democracy discounts all opposition parties for counting as elected for their first terms of office?

Uh, explain the relevance please? I don't know how you've jumped to that conclusion. Please advise.

>You seem to have skipped the Maidenhead question and forgotten that parties have leadership elections.

What Maidenhead question? So she's an MP? And what? Anyone can be an MP - it means literally nothing. You seem to be ignoring the fact that TM is hated because she was pro-remain and completely failed to control immigration while she was head of the Home Office. You do realize she's the current PM because everyone else dropped out of the leadership race, right? Nobody voted for her to take control of the situation, literally every other MP that offered themselves for the job decided to drop out because the problem was so big. She's the epitome of unelected - literally nobody has elected her. The public voted for Brexit with the understanding that David Cameron and George Osbourne would be in charge of the operation, nobody ever said they wanted TM to do it, nobody voted for that at all.

>Parliament Act

The Parliament Act has also never been challenged in a court of law and it has been claimed by lawmakers to be completely ineffective were it to actually come to a legal dispute. It's an obscure act that has only been used a small handful of times in history and is rarely challenged because it represents a greater problem (That peers and MPs don't agree on a bill). That isn't to say that the House of Lords couldn't completely stop Article 50 in its tracks, start a legal challenge against the Parliament Act and win if they wanted to.

>>7695097
>while positioning himself as a moral authority on other people's democracies.

>>7695045
>You have assigned false significance to them,

Where? All I've literally said is that Hilary won the popular vote - a fact. Please be more detailed in your response.

>>7695013
>It's not that I like Hillary
Does anyone like Hillary? Even Bill hates Hillary.

>>7695136
>She's the epitome of unelected
You're thinking of the EU.

>>7695159
>You're thinking of the EU.

No I'm definitely thinking of Theresa May.

>>7695136
>The public voted for Brexit with the understanding that David Cameron and George Osbourne would be in charge of the operation,
Because that was what Cameron had said would happen. But it was just another of his lies to trick the people into voting against their own sovereignty. Why is this particular lie such a big concern of yours, and not all the others which undoubtedly reduced the pro-British vote and left the result narrower than it would have been had they been more honest?

>The Parliament Act has also never been challenged in a court of law
Acts, plural. It's literally in the URL.

And yes they have, repeatedly, as described in the article. You don't seem to know very much about your legal system.

>>7695246
>trick the people into voting against their own sovereignty

What are you talking about? When did this happen? Parliament has been Sovereign before and during the course of the UK being in the EU. It's never not been sovereign.

You're talking about a soundbite, the idea of 'taking sovereignty' or 'getting sovereignty back' is completely meaningless. It's a soundbite, a buzzword. Sovereignty has never left, the Brexit court challenge is parliament acting in the most Sovereign was possible. You can't refute this - it's not an opinion, it's fact.


>>7695246
>Acts, plural. It's literally in the URL

No, singular. The Parliament Act 1949 is the amended version of the Parliament Act 1911.

>And yes they have, repeatedly, as described in the article

No, it hasn't. You haven't even read the article itself. The closest it's ever come was a petition in 2005, it's never gone to the crown court.

>Why is this particular lie such a big concern of yours, and not all the others which undoubtedly reduced the pro-British vote and left the result narrower than it would have been had they been more honest?

What particular lie? What are you on about? The result was nearly 50/50 and almost everyone I know who voted leave did so off the back of the 350 Million on the NHS lie, they were absolutely furious and completely regretted voting leave when they found out that it wasn't gonna happen. If there was a re-referendum afterwards it probably would go to the remain side to be honest, but it doesn't matter either way because Brexit is happening and that's final (Unless TM decides to just kick the can down the road, which honestly wouldn't surprise me).

Honestly I think you need to give it a rest, you clearly don't know anything about British politics and you're contextlessly scraping wikipedia articles combined with what you've heard about Brexit from /pol/ or something in an attempt to argue purely because you don't like that I said that Hillary won the popular vote.

>>7695364
>You can't refute this - it's not an opinion, it's fact.
Nice soundbites Dave.

>>7693168
They are exempt from social norms, even if some do follow social etiquette

>>7693655
>but i'm in lgbt
I'm guessing the L or B? >>7693488

>>7697357
[citation needed]

>>7695364
Don't take the Putin shill bait

>>7695364
I think this addresses your views very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3Au5z0OO8