Trust me, I'm well-versed in the art of wallposting.
It shouldn’t even really be an option.
In an earlier draft of that wall, I made the point that I didn't agree with that idea myself-- however, I had different pressing concerns than those you highlighted. I don't know why I didn't mention it here, but it was probably because I wanted to make the point that he wanted to address the issue of domestic terrorism and the importation thereof, and inadvertently overprioritized that point.
At any rate, I don't agree with the idea myself-- I think the idea of having Muslims in a registry wholesale is self-evidently unethical, but the real issue past that lies in how much nothing it would solve. You can't track someone's religious beliefs-- that itself requires more active surveillance on top of that which the proposition requires to be enacted. Also, Muslims have the privilege of taqiyya, which-- contrary to what critics would tell you-- allows you to lie about your religious adherence to avoid persecution (why they think it would make sense to deny or outright fabricate tenets of your dogmatic faith to deceive people into the religion or to persuade them to ignore you while you do terrorist stuff is beyond me).
>concerning the pussy grabbing
For the record, I don't "defend" (if I can even use that term here) such actions because I think they're right. Personally, I'm a pretty hands off guy when it comes to so much as casually touching girls that I may even know well, talk less of those I don't. I wouldn't be alright with such actions, I wouldn't recommend those actions, I wouldn't teach my children to partake in those actions-- you get the deal.
I "defend" such actions not as not being absolutely crude, but as not being outright assault, because there are certain actions considered consensual between two people (whether they're in a defined relationship is irrelevant) where there isn't any explicit consent given. And as of the time that I wrote that, I heard nothing about repeat occurrences, talk less of with women that refused him. And so that I can't be called out for having no perspective: I had a friend-turned-girlfriend-for-less-than-a-week-at-which-point-the-stress-of-the-circumstances-through-which-the-relationship-formed-gave-me-actual-headaches who, even before that time, would place her hands in… dubious places of mine, all the time without my permission. My reactions ranged from neutral-and-amused to somewhat uncomfortable, but I wouldn't call it assault.
Writing this out, though, I understand that-- especially legally-- this is an absurdly precarious position to take (not to mention, I eventually grew a personal space), and it becomes less justifiable since he wasn't in a relationship with any of those women.
As far as the allegations, I've said this for a while: while sexual assault and rape allegations are notoriously difficult to prove, and I sympathize with those who can't find it within themselves to report their abuser/rapist (especially if they're family members or family friends), generally speaking, I'm not going to believe the accused is culpable without firm evidence. It's excessively damaging to their reputation to go that far without trial, and even if they're acquitted and they really didn't do it, their reputation is damaged for life. It's all currently a non-point.
Also, from the article:
"He was like an octopus," she said. "It was like he had six arms. He was all over the place."
…I'm not even expressing disbelief here-- I think I've just been on the internet for too long.
>concerning gay marriage
Clinton changed her position as recent as 2013, as well. But more on point, his most recent statement is to leave it to the states-- something that, currently, I'm biased towards.
I don't necessarily have a problem with gay marriage on a legal scale, but states were already deciding this by themselves before the SCOTUS decision (such that before then, 37 states declared their own bans unconstitutional). It was a state matter and always was, and I'm not finding any explicit constitutional statement on marriage to begin with in the Bill of Rights (and while it includes some of what amounts to shilling the FADA, which I'm unclear about, here's an RCP article that talks about the issues in Justice Kennedy's majority statement). The fact that it's even at enough risk of being overturned almost as easily as it came such that we're talking about this, as opposed to if it was made a constitutional amendment or ruled in by state through referendum or their own supreme court, points at the victory being potentially hollow and tenuous, especially since foisting this change on all 50 states and their constituents could never guarantee the social change that would make this worthwhile-- the social change that the decision, in whichever form it came (that wasn't the SCOTUS) should have been a reflection of.
It also doesn't guarantee certain marriage related privileges also managed on a state-by-state basis-- the federal government is only responsible for its own actions, in this regard.
Upholding the literal law (“Don’t let your citizens be killed”) isn’t pro- or anti- anything. He’s spinning upholding the law (basically his job description) as pro-LGBTQ.
Even if it didn't demonstrate pro- anything (I thought the fact that he cited the motivations for the shooting and terrorism of that sort as "hateful" meant something apart from the "don't let your citizens get merked" part of his job description), evidence for him currently being anti-LGBTQ for its own sake is scant, at best.
Don even refused to give political viewpoints at one point, when he was doing streams – although he did say he’d like Bernie v Trump for the memes.
I would have liked Bernie v. Trump, too-- it would have been a nice matchup, considering that they were both populists.
It's polarization of both sides, a continuing trend
And also something of a pandemic in the Western world, it seems, looking at the U.K, France, Germany, possibly Poland, and Sweden-- if current trends continue to energize nationalism. "Turnabout is fair play" and "when they go low, we go
high just as low, if not lower" seem like they're going to be mantras for politicians to live by this term.