Trump Triumphs

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The minority? The minority and the way the system works alongside it got Trump into power, don't forget.

 

I think that if enough people do express their displeasure at the policies this administration has lined up, then perhaps they might - just might - listen. I agree that's a long shot though.

 

And if you're seriously expecting women and minority groups to throw their hands up in the air and accept what the white Christian boyos in his party and his support want to do to them for the next four years then I think that is a mistake.

It wasn't just white Christian boys who voted for him and even if it was they're still entitled to a vote.

[Barky]

6 hours ago, Benguin said:

I completely disagree however I'll go along with that being the case and ask you how that changes anything? The democratic process got him into power on the back of his proposed policies. They have every right to protest but at this stage it doesn't help anything, Trumps in power because of a democratic process and for him to listen to the minority and change his plans would be to turn his back on what the people of America want.

A politician not doing exactly what they promised to do during an election campaign, god can you imagine

[Dr The Singh]

I wonder if Trump will give May abit of a grope?

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It wasn't just white Christian boys who voted for him and even if it was they're still entitled to a vote.

And Mac never said that they weren't - but democracy does not mean tyranny of the majority, it is not a "we won, get over it" deal, the voices of those who voted the other way do not become irrelevant and the people who stand to suffer massively during this shit-spangled buffoons regime have every right to protest and hope that some of the more regressive attacks planned on them might be shelved.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

And Mac never said that they weren't - but democracy does not mean tyranny of the majority, it is not a "we won, get over it" deal, the voices of those who voted the other way do not become irrelevant and the people who stand to suffer massively during this shit-spangled buffoons regime have every right to protest and hope that some of the more regressive attacks planned on them might be shelved.

Depends on your definition of tyranny, saying I'm going to do what I was elected on is not imo. Rioting, destroying property, beating up people who don't agree with you unless you do what I want is.

[Firegrande]

[The Doctor]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Depends on your definition of tyranny, saying I'm going to do what I was elected on is not imo. Rioting, destroying property, beating up people who don't agree with you unless you do what I want is.

I'd tend to go for the dictionary one...

Quote

tyranny

ˈtɪr(ə)ni/

noun

 

1. cruel and oppressive government or rule.

The policies he'd enact with regards to minorities and women are comfortably that.

[Webbo]

55 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

.

The policies he'd enact with regards to minorities and women are comfortably that.

Which policies are those?

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Which policies are those?

The 'Ali G' policy of allowing on fit, sexy women immigrants in.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Which policies are those?

Given he's not doing the whole announcing policies thing, hard to give specifics, but his appointments so far are a clear indication of victimisation of minorities and women. Just like he's not announced energy policies, but his appointment of a climate change sceptic to the EPA and the disappearance of the climate change page of the white house site are clear indication that his energy policies are going to be disastrous from an environmental perspective.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Given he's not doing the whole announcing policies thing, hard to give specifics, but his appointments so far are a clear indication of victimisation of minorities and women. Just like he's not announced energy policies, but his appointment of a climate change sceptic to the EPA and the disappearance of the climate change page of the white house site are clear indication that his energy policies are going to be disastrous from an environmental perspective.

So you're just guessing?

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So you're just guessing?

More than guessing really, just reading the obvious signs. But, you dismiss the obvious because it's not spelled out explicitly...

[Webbo]

Just now, The Doctor said:

More than guessing really, just reading the obvious signs. But, you dismiss the obvious because it's not spelled out explicitly...

What indication do you have that he's going to victimise anyone?

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

What indication do you have that he's going to victimise anyone?

Religious Freedom Restoration Act, House Bill 1337, both signed into law by the current VP. It only takes a few minutes to google these things.

 

Trump has surrounded himself with people who hold extremely dubious views even by GOP standards. I don't know why people are burying their heads in the sand over this because they don't want to be seen to judge Trump's administration in haste, or look a bit 'lefty'.

 

Think I'd rather discuss Trump than watch the game atm.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The minority? The minority and the way the system works alongside it got Trump into power, don't forget.

 

I think that if enough people do express their displeasure at the policies this administration has lined up, then perhaps they might - just might - listen. I agree that's a long shot though.

 

And if you're seriously expecting women and minority groups to throw their hands up in the air and accept what the white Christian boyos in his party and his support want to do to them for the next four years then I think that is a mistake.

If you want to look at reasons why people vote for people like Trump you could start with people who use "white Christian boys" as an insult. 

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What indication do you have that he's going to victimise anyone?

His VP is a man who backs psychological (and sometimes physical) abuse of LGBT people, and tried to force through a law in South Dakota forcing funerals to be held for miscarriages (because of course after severe emotional trauma for expecting mothers, it's totally sensible to force them through more). His CIA director pick has claimed that CIA operatives who tortured detainees as heroes and has repeatedly bullshitted about the Muslim community over there. His attorney general pick had his last confirmation hearing ruined by revelations that he joked about how the only problem with the KKK was that they smoked pot, and of course his chief strategist is Steve Bannon, a man behind the centre point for anti-semites, white supremacists and the internets version of mens right activists (that is to say bitter misogynists who think that any move towards equality for women is actually punishing men - rather than actually focusing on issues that disproportionately affect men like suicide rates)

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, bovril said:

Religious Freedom Restoration Act, House Bill 1337, both signed into law by the currant VP. It only takes a few minutes to google these things.

 

Trump has surrounded himself by people who hold extremely dubious views even by GOP standards. I don't know why people are burying their heads in the sand over this because they don't want to be seen to judge Trump's administration in haste, or look a bit 'lefty'.

 

Think I'd rather discuss Trump than watch the game atm.

Perhaps they say that they don't want to judge the actions of this administration too quickly because they quietly agree with what they've got lined up?

 

Probably not a catch all, but just a thought.

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps they say that they don't want to judge the actions of this administration too quickly because they quietly agree with what they've got lined up?

 

Probably not a catch all, but just a thought.

It's weird. It seems like appearing a bit left wing to some people is so terrifying they'll defend a bunch of god-bothering lunatics.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

If you want to look at reasons why people vote for people like Trump you could start with people who use "white Christian boys" as an insult. 

I thought identity politics had to do with him winning?

 

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

His VP is a man who backs psychological (and sometimes physical) abuse of LGBT people, and tried to force through a law in South Dakota forcing funerals to be held for miscarriages (because of course after severe emotional trauma for expecting mothers, it's totally sensible to force them through more). His CIA director pick has claimed that CIA operatives who tortured detainees as heroes and has repeatedly bullshitted about the Muslim community over there. His attorney general pick had his last confirmation hearing ruined by revelations that he joked about how the only problem with the KKK was that they smoked pot, and of course his chief strategist is Steve Bannon, a man behind the centre point for anti-semites, white supremacists and the internets version of mens right activists (that is to say bitter misogynists who think that any move towards equality for women is actually punishing men - rather than actually focusing on issues that disproportionately affect men like suicide rates)

And don't forget the gutting of the EPA. Even removing all his other likely social policies, can anyone on here really defend that? I'm agog.

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I thought identity politics had to do with him winning?

It did, that's what I was saying. 

 

White is evil enough, but male and a Christian? Horrific. 

[Webbo]

44 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

His VP is a man who backs psychological (and sometimes physical) abuse of LGBT people, and tried to force through a law in South Dakota forcing funerals to be held for miscarriages (because of course after severe emotional trauma for expecting mothers, it's totally sensible to force them through more). His CIA director pick has claimed that CIA operatives who tortured detainees as heroes and has repeatedly bullshitted about the Muslim community over there. His attorney general pick had his last confirmation hearing ruined by revelations that he joked about how the only problem with the KKK was that they smoked pot, and of course his chief strategist is Steve Bannon, a man behind the centre point for anti-semites, white supremacists and the internets version of mens right activists (that is to say bitter misogynists who think that any move towards equality for women is actually punishing men - rather than actually focusing on issues that disproportionately affect men like suicide rates)

I'm sure that's not how he describes it, whatever it is. Do you think whatever you're talking about is going to become compulsory by law?

[bovril]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

It did, that's what I was saying. 

 

White is evil enough, but male and a Christian? Horrific. 

Almost as bad as being educated and liberal.

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

It did, that's what I was saying. 

 

White is evil enough, but male and a Christian? Horrific. 

Ha! I meant to put "nothing" between the "had" and "to" there, because I was under the impression that economic reasons won it for Trump?

 

Facetiousness aside, I think we'd agree that it's somewhere between the two, depending on where exactly you lived.

 

Regarding the idea of the "evil white guy", yeah there was some hyperbole in there. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that there are some elements within his party that would like to pass legislation allowing that demographic more control over the lives of other ones, though - through affecting educational policy and also direct law-passing and challenging (see Supreme Court appointee). (Of course, it won't be framed that way, it'll be "states rights" or some other term.)

 

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm sure that's not how he describes it, whatever it is. Do you think whatever you're talking about is going to become compulsory by law?

I'm sure it's not. "Conversion therapy" sounds so much better than "shock/beat/pray the gay away".

 

Also I doubt it'll become compulsory, but it's entirely possible it could be allowed and encouraged in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink-don't-worry-we're-not-going-to-prosecute-you-for-this kind of way.

 

Anyone going to weigh in on the EPA thing?

[The Doctor]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm sure that's not how he describes it, whatever it is. Do you think whatever you're talking about is going to become compulsory by law?

He might not describe it as it, but that's precisely what conversion therapy is. More likely it'll become accepted and encouraged rather than mad compulsory. It certainly won't be made illegal as it should be.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

He might not describe it as it, but that's precisely what conversion therapy is. More likely it'll become accepted and encouraged rather than mad compulsory. It certainly won't be made illegal as it should be.

Have these victims been forced into this therapy against there will? By the govt?

 

Some people pay women to spank them and treat them like dirt, should that be made illegal?