Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

So President Trump is a thing...


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DrBorderline said:

Let's not forget something very important. Trump is the oldest person to ever be elected to a position which is so stressful that it takes years off the life of everyone who has held it. No matter what he ends up doing, ends up unable to do, or ends up being blamed for simply because it happened during his term of office, there is a very real possibility of him dying of a stress-induced heart attack, stroke, or other catastrophic medical disaster before the 2020 elections arrive.

I wonder if that wasn't Pence's plan from the very beginning...

I grew up in Indiana. I have ancestors there dating back to before it was a State. Pence is one of the worst governors ever. His "education reform" program has so seriously underfunded schools that communities are no longer able to attract young entrepreneur types and the quality of education measurably decreasing. Current Indiana marriage licenses have section for the "male" and for the "female", and Pence pushed through a law making it a felony, with prison time, to lie on a marriage license applications. Pence diverted funds from AIDS treatment, in spite of one of the worst outbreaks in decades, to "conversion therapy". Whatever else happens Trump must serve his full term.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ThreeCats said:

>pledged to make discriminating against LGBT people for religious reasons legal

Quote

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.

tl;dr: "you're free to believe in whatever you want and no one can stop you, and if someone tries doing something retarded (Pussy Riot-tier) in the temple of Flying Spaghetti Monster, we'll stop them". How is that a bad thing?

Link to comment

What Lisk said. That article twists everything like absolute crazy, lol, and just constantly links back to itself, and places like HuffPost. You know, those places with no journalistic integrity that are notorious in these circles for leaving out very important things or just twisting the truth to make it fit their agenda. Like 3/4 of news sites on the internet can't be trusted.

Also just going to leave this here

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, KozmoFox said:

What Lisk said. That article twists everything like absolute crazy, lol, and just constantly links back to itself, and places like HuffPost. You know, those places with no journalistic integrity that are notorious in these circles for leaving out very important things or just twisting the truth to make it fit their agenda. Like 3/4 of news sites on the internet can't be trusted.

Also just going to leave this here

 

Similarly, 3/4 of what Trump says can't be trusted. In any case, Trump is just one guy for which there are, in fact, checks and balances. I think we should be more worried about the monsters/retards that are slated to be on his cabinet. Like seriously, Ben Carson for secretary of education? What the fuck man? A creationist who denies all sorts of basic facts ranging from evolution to the Big Bang to climate change, on top of having another climate change denier to head the EPA, Rudy Giuliani for attorney general, and Newt Gingrich for secretary of state. Very much like all the villains from a comic book!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/11/11/trump_s_cabinet_candidates_are_precisely_wrong_for_the_job.html

And what about the SCOTUS? It won't be long until it's conservative-dominant again, and with his picks they'd be bound to make some pretty nasty decisions (e.g. so much for gay marriage). And, within a few weeks I bet, the backlash from the white, rural communities when they realize Trump personally isn't going to do more than half the shit he said he would?

 

Edited by Leitmotif (see edit history)
Link to comment

I'd rather not discuss this too much as it's a tough topic that may polarise and hurt the community, but I will say, god bless America. This is really, really bad. The level of ignorance, bigotry, and sheer incompetence is staggering. He has neither the knowledge nor the intelligence to run for office, and he's a proud far-right extremist to boot. Whoever whines about "poor loser liberals" simply don't understand just how bad this is. This isn't like Bush winning over Al Gore, or some city council voting to build a new road. This could have devastating consequences for the US and the world.

I see the usual excuses of "but media is twisting stuff and making him seem worse than he is", but in this case, we're getting the facts straight from the guy's own mouth. No need to "twist" anything. Don't feel like listing all the ways he is incompetent or bigoted either, since whoever still support him will just shrug them off or go "but, but Hillary" anyway. They'll just have to wait and see. Bush ended up with a 20% approval rating and Trump will probably fare even worse.

Comparisons with Hitler are way over-used, to the point where they have lost much meaning, but in this case, they seem all too justified :( . I fear both for America and her democracy and for its minority groups. All the reports coming in of racism and violence already are terrifying. Not surprising, given Trump's conduct, but tragic.

This will go down in the history books as a tragedy for America.

Edited by Hopeful (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 9.11.2016 at 6:28 PM, Lisk said:

The Big War of this century that was guaranteed to happen if he didn't win is averted, so it's all good. Let's see, what did he promise again?

- Cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS (as opposed to bombing deserts every other week while meeping things like "Assad must go" and other bullshit) - we can rule together, you and I;

- Cooperate with anyone who wants to cooperate - does it mean that the unholy crusade against everyone who refuses to submit will finally end? If the answer is "yes", I'm all for it too;

- Stop outsourcing industrial things, creating more workplaces at home - doesn't affect me in any way, but good for his people;

- Make other NATO members actually contribute to the alliance if they want its benefits - poor, poor little tribaltic "tigers" /人 ⌒ ‿‿ ⌒ 人\

- SJW stuff - delicious, delicious SJW despair /人 ⌒ ‿‿ ⌒ 人\

1. what big war? Russia doesn't have the economy to wage a war against NATO. Clinton said she would invading Iran, but even if she had, which I doubt, that's not a "war of the century". Please explain.

2. he's said he would destroy ISIS. He also said he would only bomb ISIS. He also said ISIS is none of the US' business. How do you know which to believe? This is the man who said that 650 million people -- more than the combined population of Central and South America -- might immigrate to the US, and that climate change was invented by the Chinese to ruin the US' economy. He then, for good measure, blatantly lied and said he had claimed no such thing even though everyone listening knew he was lying, and he freaking knew everyone listening knew he was lying. No worries about the retracted claim, though -- his VP believes climate change was invented by EU, which is probably in China in Trump's head, so nothing lost.

He clearly makes up stuff on the spot, only to change his mind later and lie right in the face of whoever points out he did indeed have a different stance. So how do you know the promise you want to hear is the right one?

3. so far I've only seen a very polarised "with me or against me" rhetoric. He seems to be completely unable to own up to mistakes or take responsibility for things he has said or done. Most presidents will "co-operate with those who want to co-operate", but they'll also have to work with people who disagree. This he has so far utterly failed to do.

4. haven't read up on this, but see 2. He could hear an insult from some steel worker and decide to ban all industry for all we know. Don't know if he even knows what "outsourcing" means.

5. this one I almost agree with. NATO could spend more on defense. On the other hand, the US not living up to her obligations could very well encourage Putin and others to do things they shouldn't, like invade Gotland or try to carve up the Baltic States.

Omitting 6 since I don't feel trolls.

Edited by Hopeful (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 2016-11-13 at 2:31 AM, Lisk said:

tl;dr: "you're free to believe in whatever you want and no one can stop you, and if someone tries doing something retarded (Pussy Riot-tier) in the temple of Flying Spaghetti Monster, we'll stop them". How is that a bad thing?

It's not "you're free to believe whatever you want and nobody can stop you," it's "you're free to discriminate against gay people and nobody can stop you." How is that a GOOD thing?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, ThreeCats said:

It's not "you're free to believe whatever you want and nobody can stop you," it's "you're free to discriminate against gay people and nobody can stop you." How is that a GOOD thing?

Where exactly is it stated in the quote above? How is discriminating against gay people different from discriminating against religious people?

Why is Charlie Hebdo allowed?

Link to comment

Who is discriminating against religious people?

Are people in positions of power and authority denying individuals access to things like housing, employment, bank loans, goods and services, etc. based on their religion?  

Freedom of religion means you're able to believe whatever you want, not that you're able to act however you want.

You can practice your religion, but not to the extent that it starts hurting other people.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Gregg said:

Who is discriminating against religious people?

According to the original quote, " Activist judges and executive orders " do so. Whether that's true or not is a different question that can only be answered by the people who live in that country and are directly affected by the situation in question, which I am not (I prefer to believe in myself). But I fail to see any implied harm in the statement itself.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...