Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Options
1105710581060106210631190

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,313 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    By the way, not liking people's sexuality or gender identity or other aspects of their lifestyles doesn't necessarily mean wanting to cause harm to them.

    Creating an environment where people's choices are functionally restricted or vilified [in law] amounts to the same thing. Items like Florida's "don't say gay" law, the various book bannings, the attempts to require drag clubs to keep distance from schools are quite clearly built to quietly rebuild hostility towards other orientations. While propagandist screeds like the "kitty litter for kids identifying as cats" deliberate horseshít to mask a sadder reality. Easier to curry anger at Pronouns than interrogate why they need the litter in the first place.

    Meanwhile, Justice Thomas has already, publicly, set his sights on dismantling same-sex marriage at some point - Trump 2.0 would seem like the obvious time given he'll just wave it on. I guarantee that's the next attempt and given MAGA's avowed sense of "illiberal" politics, it's a safe bet.

    The great hypocrisy of America is as much as it likes to talk big about the liberty and freedom of the individual to live life as they see fit, a great swath of conservatism is dead set on limiting or outright denying that right to those they don't like.

    But you'd wanna be fairly naive to see the slew of legal decisions and propagandist outlets peddling obvious hate, and think there isn't a concerted effort to roll the clock back.

    Of course if you buy into that outlook it's easy to look the other way. Not accusing you I should point out, but I do suspect this is the case with supposed centrists who sniff at worrying over these narratives as liberal hysteria.

    It's the quintessential Conservative position: they'll defend with their last breath a zygote but once you're outta the womb you can go get fúcked if you want things like healthcare or social supports.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,447 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    And, 4 years of a GOP POTUS gets even wore than Thomas and Alito appointed as their successors.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst


    That pastor is probably one of a relatively small number of preachers who are outliers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Whatever happens, I don't envisage gay sex being recriminalised or marital rape being decriminalised there. The US will never get as bad as Uganda.

    Given that federal judges swear an oath that they'll uphold the Constitution, it's safe to assume that conservative Christians, given that they take the swearing of oaths seriously, who are SCOTUS judges will adhere to the oath.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,313 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    It was already said: Trump's two appointees to the supreme court said Roe v Wade was "settled law" during their appointment hearings ... ... then voted to overturn Roe v Wade the minute the runway presented itself to do so.

    In the white heat of that decision, another Judge then opined that other liberal policies should themselves be revisited. It's hard to see the dots on the horizonas anything but an incoming train.

    If you seriously think there isn't a concerted effort to roll back freedoms under the guise of "states rights" then yes I think you're being a bit naive. And if one is an "originalist" it's very easy to merge your sense of upholding the constitution with an illiberal christian-conservative angle




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,447 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    I think except for Gorsuch, the 'conservative' Justices and Soto-Mayor are all RCC. Kind of says it all, it's not the Evangelicals guiding them, it's an even older form of Xtianity.

    Though Soto-Mayor seems to not be towing the line, unlike the rest of them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst


    No SCOTUS judge would rule in favour of recriminalisation of gay sex - if it even got as far as SCOTUS. In a Western country, injustice will always cause a public outcry. These days, the Catholic Church, while still disapproving of homosexuality, is more compassionate towards homosexuals than it used to be.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Except Samuel Alito , the Supreme court judge, who voted against Obergefel vs. Hodges which was the case that overturned the gay marriage ban had just this week gone on a rant about " religious freedom" because someone was thrown off a jury in a case involving LGBTQ discrimination just because they said that Gays were evil.

    They absolutely categorising want to repeal gay marriage and contraception, they also want to overturn Interracial marriage as well.

    All in the name of "Religious freedom".. But not every religion obviously, just theirs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,596 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Just like the outlier priests who abused children, the outlier nuns who ran Magdalene Laundries, the outlier Bishops and Archbishops who helped cover it all up?

    Maybe, just maybe, being "Christian" doesn't mean people won't do or allow things which go against their own religion. Being "Christian" does not mean such politicians and judges won't vote for things which cause harm to people. Being "Christian", really means jack sh*t when it comes to American politics.

    Not only that, but just because a large section of the American people are Conservative Christians, doesn't mean their elected politicians won't do things or vote for things which will cause harm to people. Look at the medical bills Americans have to pay, and ask yourself just how "Christian" the politicians who allow and facilitate that are.

    Nobody is saying America will become like Uganda, but people are right to point out how religious fundamentalism will ravage people's rights, legal protections, safety and well-being.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,313 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Why do you keep talking decriminalisation of gay sex when clearly I'm talking about the marriage laws here, even confirming this with Judge Thomas's own words of intent? Every point I made was about marriage rights and disparate attempts to roll them back. There'll be outcry enough if same sex marriage is rolled back, and rightly so as again, it'll be the next item on the conservative agenda (dismissed as "states rights") and another huge earthquake.

    And as I pointed out already, given the removal of Roe v Wade opened up the batshít path that lead to Alabama recognising frozen embryos as children? I do not share your confidence that if same sex marriage went the same way in the SC, that it wouldn't lead to new "sodomy" laws being enacted in some respects states. You know they want to.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,385 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Which are the levels trump has to stoop to these days to get support.

    If you don't think he'd sell his own mother to get a vote, you've been asleep for 9 years



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Fundamentally (pun intended) what they want is for the law of the land to be framed with a strictly Christian ethos - If it's not in the bible they don't want to allow it.

    They want to be free to legislate and discriminate exclusively on their religious views and they aren't being subtle about it.

    The fact that the positions/views they hold are not shared by the majority isn't relevant to them as given the state of what passes for Democracy in the US a minority can achieve whatever they want with sufficient money and the right people in the right roles across the apparatus of the State.

    And , they have a lot of that in place already and a Trump Presidency that would allow "Project 2025" to happen would finish the job.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭Christy42


    This is beyond deluded. How many kids have to get raped, dead babies chucked in septic tanks, mothers tortured by the church for you to accept that Christians tend not to abide by Jesus's teachings of loving others. Never mind Republican Jesus being against helping the poor (unlike bible jesus).


    It isn't just the Catholic church either, many issues with kids have been found in churches around the world and the response has been a uniform f the kids and protect the brand.


    They have gone a bit further than not liking and have been actively targeting trans people (well trans women, not sure many have figured out that trans men exist). Florida has been trying to label any acknowledgement of lgbt people's existence as sexually explicit to remove mention of them from schools.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,313 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    ...actively targeting trans people (well trans women, not sure many have figured out that trans men exist).

    That part's weird isn't it and invites speculation why in these narratives it's always trans women that get targeted and not men: bathrooms, sports and all the other flashpoints of performative outrage, it's always transwomen they scream about. My personal thinking is it might be that given transphobes tend to be heterosexual white men it's an unspoken hatred and fear about transexuality as something "deceptive" and an anxiety that the woman you leer at was "something else". God knows Hollywood ploughed that vein for "comedy" down the years; the whole no homo anxiety. Maybe it's also that these people were already misogynistic too so ripping into women was already a default reaction in the first place.

    But either way, easier to pick on a small, already vulnerable community for easy outrage points in a flyover swing state, than proposing ... ya know, fixes for actual problems in life like crippling healthcare costs, student loans, utility costs etc etc. No no look over there, that trans woman wants to use the women's bathroom! Get her!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,855 ✭✭✭Rawr


    Pretty much nail on the head there. Getting GOP voters to focus on these loud and populist talking points instead of anything that can be done to actually improve their lives. Things like European-style single-payer health-care are thus successfully rebranded as "Commie Marxist Plots to steal your Freedom!" despite being exactly the thing a typical GOP / MAGA voter might actually need when they come from poorer backgrounds.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Tennessee just signed into law a bill protecting officials who refuse to officiate/solemnise marriages their "conscience" disagrees with.

    Thin end of the wedge - If your "Conscience" tells you that inter-racial marriages are bad , then this law protects you if you refuse to allow them to get married..

    They aren't even pretending to hide anymore , they want to turn the US into an extreme Christian Dictatorship and electing Trump is a key part of that journey because he'll let them do it as long as he can grift money and stay out of jail.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,596 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    It usually just boils to down to the idea that arguing against trans rights under the guise of "Trans women are a threat to women and girls" is an easier argument to make. Arguing that trans women shouldn't use women's toilets and should instead use the toilets of the sex they were born as (to ensure men don't just dress up as women to attack women or girls in toilets), despite the fact the same logic would dictate trans men should use women's toilets, and therefore people who look like men should be going into the women's toilets, and negating the need for men who want to attack women to dress up like women in the first place. Also ignoring the point that men who wish to do such things tend not to disguise themselves in case people see them, but do it when nobody is around to see them in the first place.

    It's pure nonsense, but it's an easier sell to make people think they should oppose trans rights in order to protect women and children than actually having to discuss or think about the issue in any depth, detail or logic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,385 ✭✭✭✭everlast75




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,685 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    I still would be very surprised to see her as nominee. Super Tuesday happens before the criminal trial is finished. If it was the other way around, she'd have a chance. As it is, it's Trump V Biden.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,596 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Absolutely. But what the fundraising shows though, is that there appears to be more appetite from Republicans (and possibly some Independents) in a candidate other than Trump, and they may be less likely to vote for Trump even if he is the nominee.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,447 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    News of Democratic donors supporting Haley in order to thwart TFG and keep the GQP in disarray. No different than what's gone on in some of the Congressional primaries with Democrats donating to extreme wingnut MAGA in order to get them nominated, then win in the general (hopefully anyway.)



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    She could , but she'd ruin any hopes she might have of a post Trump GOP career.

    Mostly I think she's hanging in there in the outside hope that Trump gets legally excluded from the ballot so she in in the box seat for the nomination. I don't think even she thinks she can actually beat him.

    If all she achieves is bleeding him of more of his already limited funding then she'll have done a good job.

    Any money she raises and spends is money that might have gone to him if she stood down and gave him the nominations so it's all goodness from that perspective.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭McFly85


    You’d have to wonder how hesitant traditional GOP voters might be to donate any funding when he’s been pretty explicit that it will go straight to his legal fees or into his pocket.

    In a sort of perverse way it will be fascinating to see him try and run a campaign on little money while spending a lot of his time in court instead of travelling around.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    That's a big reason why the typical big ticket donors aren't giving any money right now.

    Why would you make a multi-million dollar donation to a PAC if you knew it was going to be spent on Lawyers and not Elections?

    Unless they are a total MAGA Acolyte , you'd assume they'd be looking for assurances that money will be spent on getting people elected and not on keeping people out of jail.

    It's also why Trump is trying to take over the RNC - He thinks that the big donors will put their money there instead of directly to him so he wants his lackeys in charge so he can grift the money anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,392 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    We had a rapist in the white house who got tens of millions of votes some outlier.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst




  • Registered Users Posts: 40,412 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a rapist is a rapist. Civil or criminal, it doesn't really matter. Trump is a rapist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Because it would be more serious for homosexuals than not being able to get married anymore. Most Christian conservatives don't hate homosexuals, i.e. "love the sinner, hate the sin".



  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement