-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Can Donald Trump become President Again?
- Thread starter SG854
- Start date
- Views 37,249
- Replies 805
- Likes 1
most of them yes, and Marc Elias (Lawyer Speicalizing in Election laws ) was able to dismantle most of the Republican gerrymandering Maps and laws in State Supreme Courts and even US Supreme courts.. But Texas is a huge problem with Them Forcing ballots from Blue,poor and minority communities to be automatically rejected at a rate of high 20% compared to 2020 rejection of 8%
Biden did the minimum of rolling back many of Trump’s abusive policies but that was given. It was expected to be a cat-n-mouse game of executive orders. But he’s done nothing to deal with anti-LGBT+ discrimination being pushed into state laws. He’s done nothing to deal with the pro-life laws being pushed. He’s done nothing in regards to drug law reforms. He’s appointed a new head to ICE and obviously that means they are still around. Kids are still in cages for the 3rd President in a row. His Covid actions have been lukewarm, even if they have been better than Trump. Biden isn’t without criticism and he needs to do better than what he’s doing. Too many people bank on “he’s not Trump,” which is a low bar to get over.
I won’t purport to know what your experience has been, so I have no comment on how you felt about his term. I can say that many of your complaints appear imaginary to me - I followed the man quite closely, and if calling a virus a humorous name like “China Virus” is now considered an attack on the Asian community then perhaps growing a thicker skin might be just what the doctor ordered. I can say the same about the supposed “attacks on the gay community” - I keep hearing about them, but I’ve never heard one coming from the horse’s mouth. I suppose it’s a matter of what you define as an “attack”.
The president has no business interfering in state affairs. If you don’t like your state’s laws, you have freedom of movement which enables you to move elsewhere, and the right to vote to make an honest attempt to change those laws locally by electing officials that more closely align with your beliefs.
List of Trump's anti-LGBT+ actions from multiple sources
https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of-trumps-unprecedented-steps-for-the-lgbtq-community
https://www.glaad.org/gap/donald-trump
https://epgn.com/2021/01/06/a-timeline-of-trumps-anti-lgbtq-actions/
Let's not also forget Trump attempting to strip trans people from joining the military, through a tweet
There are also connections between calling Covid the "Chinese virus" and a rise in anti-Asian attacks
https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/how-trump-fueled-anti-asian-violence-in-america/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...-hate-on-twitter-study-finds/?sh=1636dba81a7c
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/19/trump-tweets-chinese-virus-racist/
Being married to a half-Japanese family, I've witnessed people literally blaming my in-laws for Covid. Working in sales I had to listen to countless anti-Asian remarks and conspiracies. Pretending his comments didn't fuel the anti-Asian attitude is just pure ignorance.
There's also Trump's history of dog-whistling far-right groups like the Proud Boys
His comments don't exist in the bubble and it seems almost deliberate to pretend they do.
The notion of "just leave" or "vote" isn't going to help when it cost money to move and voting really doesn't amount to much in most states. You are ignoring the systematic issues where voting lines are deliberately made to make sure one-party states constantly stay that way. It's not uncommon for states to change but those changes are normally towards someone "soft" in their party lines. That being said, these are criticisms based on what was promised or expected of Biden's presidency. One would expect someone who claims to be against these issues, would do what he can to uphold his principles but he hasn't. That's something that needs to be criticized.
I had a brief skim through the list of accusations and some of them are hearsay/not directly attributed to Trump as a person, but rather the management of his (many) companies or a part of a broader debate. I’ll address those that aren’t.
There’s absolutely a case to be made regarding transgender people and the eligibility for military service - there’s a lot of medical conditions that disqualify a person from service, this isn’t unusual. The condition is inseparable from higher risks of both suicide and depression, and in many cases requires long-term medical care in excess of what a normal service member would require. Therapy is fine and dandy, but not on the taxpayer’s dime - I see no reason why American citizens should foot the bill for hormone therapy of service members, for instance. Given the choice between a service member who requires additional therapy versus a service member who does not, the calculus points at the service member who is cheaper in upkeep as a better candidate.
As far as the Equality Act is concerned, I object to any and all protected categories on principle, and as such find no fault here - in fact, many of the existing “protections” should be rolled back. A business owner should be entitled to hire or not hire any individual based on any characteristics they deem relevant. Whether that’s rightful or wrongful is not for me to decide - customers can vote with their wallets, as they have in the case of Chick-fil-a, which led to a change in many company policies. This is not something the federal government should ever be involved in - the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all, in reference to *the government* - it does not refer to private citizens minding their own business.
Regarding cutting the budget for programs fighting AIDS abroad, first of all good - it’s not necessary spending, foreign countries can fight AIDS on their own dime. You can’t simultaneously complain about growing national debt and spend in excess of what’s required. Second, if you’re saying that this is an attack on the gay community specifically, you’re simultaneously saying that AIDS is inherently connected to “being gay” - for the better half of a decade I was told that this is a homophonic stereotype and anyone can be affected by AIDS. Which is it? We both know that AIDS overwhelmingly affects the gay community, so perhaps this isn’t a federal government problem and rather a promiscuity problem? Maybe the gay community has some internal issues that it will have to resolve itself over time rather than lay the burden of the consequences of risky sexual behaviours on taxpayers? We may never know.
Your list also includes ACA - it should be dismantled in its entirety. That’s a policy position, not an “attack on the gay community”. Not only that, “being gay” should not confer any additional protection anyway - I’m not interested in who you have sex with, that has no bearing on your medical conditions.
Regarding his comments on COVID, Trump is not responsible for what other people do, so blaming him for a “rise in anti-Asian” hate is preposterous. Overall I find your post thoroughly unconvincing - not in the sense that its assorted references are false, but rather because they’re from the Stretch Armstrong playbook.
If I missed anything relevant, you can point it out. Given the number of links you posted in quick succession I can only assume that this was a prepared copypasta, so take your time forming an argument.
Not sure what to say in regards to your comment about moving to a different state - I moved across a sea with relative ease, and I’m no rich man by any stretch of the imagination, so I can’t relate. A bus ticket is not that expensive - if the provisions in state law you don’t like are not enough to motivate you then perhaps they’re just not that oppressive. I can’t relate to inaction, it’s not my style. You expect your surroundings to adapt to your specific demands because “you won’t do anything about it” - that’s an imposition you put on others, and they’re not obligated to care.
There's no evidance showing trans people have caused any issues with their service in the military and there's also no reason for service people to not get their medical treatment. Just because the person happens to be trans, shouldn't disqualify them, and acting like trans people are less qualified to die for oil is just shitty.
Given the history of hiring discrimination causing systemic issues, I don't agree with your position. It only benefits the majority when minority rights aren't being protected. This has been an issue in the past and those actions are what lead us to this point now. It comes from a very serious position of privilege to look at protective measures for minorities and believe they are a problem. You might have nothing to worry about, but that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be concerned with their right to employment, housing, and medical treatment.
Counting AIDS fonds isn't specifically an LGBT+ issue and it is listed as one that is concerning. But that being said, the action only services to continue to cause more problems. These programs were for everything from researching AIDS to spreading awareness and education. Cutting those funds only hurts more people than it helps.
I don't give a shit about formatting and these links are actually just found on Google. Still, don't see how my formatting changes my point. The issue was Trump was a shitbag to minorities and I hope he's never the president again. I am happy you were able to move and happy life is going well for you. But my own experiences under Trump's presidency and how I've been treated by Trump supporters, have led me to decide he's defiantly not the best president for me. You can really thank his supporters, who have only greeted with me transphobic remarks, conspiracies theories, death threats, harassment, stalking, and even an attempted assault. Many of these things have happened on The Temp from other members. I am not going to pretend these people aren't influenced by Trump or that their support of shitty views isn't linked to their reasons for supporting Trump.
The prevalence of issues in the current service body is not relevant given the fact that clinical evidence within gen pop is available - that’s the basis of the policy. Gender reassignment care is additional care that does not apply to other service members - it’s extra spending.
Systemic issues are caused by problems in the system. You should not face roadblocks based on your identity - by the same token, you should not get any special treatment. Everyone should have equal footing legally. As far as private citizens are concerned, that’s their own private business. You can can the privilege talk - you don’t know me.
No funding for American AIDS patients was cut, no funding for American research was cut. Thank you for choosing a side of the fence as opposed to sitting on it - something I can’t say about the author of the article linked.
If your aim is to convince someone, you should care. I remain unconvinced - none of those appear to be “attacks on the LGBT community” as far as I’m concerned, they’re policy decisions you don’t like. As for your personal experiences, they’re anecdotes irrelevant to the conversation, unless you want to say Trump assaulted you. As for Trump’s “shitty views”, I still don’t know what they are - I didn’t read anything about him saying something objectionable so far, only policy, which he doesn’t single-handedky create.
Last edited by Foxi4,
This phrase of yours was quite deep in way too many directions, if that make sense.
I understand (and agree) with both your points, one being that trans people are as able to take this job as people that are not trans and the other that this specific job is serving an evil purpose more often than it should.
Anyway, I once believed that this post was just a joke, I even joked around here, but now the thing is getting way too serious.
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Messages
- 837
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 29
- Location
- United States
- Website
- 1379tech.110mb.com
- XP
- 2,254
- Country
Let's not forget the important part, like rolling back energy independence by shutting down the pipeline, then being lukewarm on foreign policy and sanctioning a primary oil source -- hyperinflating an already hyperinflated economy.
It's suspicious to me that nobody ever talks about the economics when talking rights about LGBTQ+ Americans. They are just as negatively affected by the value of their dollars going down and their cost of living going up.
I agree with the notion that people should be treated equally and fairly and personally, I don't agree with special treatment from the government. The issue with that is that equality isn't going to happen if the government then turns around and commits an overreach into LGBT+ people's lives. Do I want government protection? Not really, but I really don't want the government telling me I deserve fewer rights based on me being part of the LGBT+. Until we can get a government that doesn't take lack of protection as a means of taking rights away, these protections unfortunately need to be a thing. Although, I honestly think the basic freedoms should just extend to everyone and anyone trying to limit or harm those should be seen as a problem. Simply put, I do have the goal of wanting everyone equal under the law and I would much rather there not be special rules for anyone and all rules applied are applied equally. Until then though, we do have to accept that too many governments officials take a lack of specific protections as an excuse to justify government overreach. My issue with Trump is removing any protections with no stated intentions similar to what I've stated. If Trump said, "Hey, we already have anti-harassment laws, everyone should be covered regardless of circumstance." Then I wouldn't an issue, I would fully agree because that is how it should be. But removing protections and just leaving it at that, only opened the door back to discriminatory practices. I would like to note this isn't just limited to Trump. Biden has not done anything similar to what I mentioned above and even just ignored many of these issues. I simply want the government to enforce the laws for everyone equally and neither Trump nor Biden aim to accomplish that desire.
I disagree. The lunch counter protests of the 60’s shows us that the public holds all the power in regards to unfair treatment by private entities. The government should not force private entities into business relationship that they do not consent to. On principle, an employer should have the ability to end a business relationship with an employee and serve them with their severance as per the contract agreement, for any reason. If the conduct is specified in the contract, no severance is required. If you were a business owner and you unknowingly hired someone you disapprove of, someone who reflects poorly on you, you’d want to reserve the right to fire that person. I personally don’t think that behaviour of employees outside of the business should have any relevance in regards to their career, but I don’t usurp that right from others - they’re entitled to do so, it’s their money and their business venture which they should run however they find appropriate. The market will decide if their leadership is wise or stupid.
"Energy independence" is green energy. The only thing Trump will do is allow even more pollution.
I am not necessarily talking just about businesses but more of a focus on less optional issues. These kinds of issues that are covered by the government. I am more talking about issues like government assistance shelters, marriages, adoptions, and other issues that typically have some form of government involvement in them. Business not hiring someone for being gay is between the person and the business. A government-funded adoption agency that is supposed to be nonpartisan shouldn't deny adoption to a qualified family just because the parents are same-sex. The government shouldn't deny someone's right to marriage if the people involved are legal, consenting, and sober adults. Where I would like to see government equal treatment, is when their money is part of it. The government has no business in the personal lives of the people and it should be that any laws that discriminate should be seen as a violation of individual freedom and a government overreach. This also extends to government overreach in medical practices. I don't believe the government should have any say in what someone does with their bodies.
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Messages
- 837
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 29
- Location
- United States
- Website
- 1379tech.110mb.com
- XP
- 2,254
- Country
That's a subset of energy independence. We don't have that tech yet, so cutting off our nose to spite our face does no good. Ask any American how they're feeling about the virtue of green energy when they're paying $6 at the pump and the cost of all their groceries has gone up another 20% in the midst of this Russia/Ukraine conflict.
Government assistance shelters are ran by the government and are legally required to treat you equally to other applicants. Marriage is an area of private life that the government should’ve never gotten involved with and should cease to legislate as soon as possible - it’s an unwarranted tax break for people who would like to formalise their banging. The premise of straight marriage is an LLC with the express intent of making more citizens in return for government subsidy - gay marriages can’t do that for purely biological reasons. If anything at all, motherhood should be subsidised. All other benefits of marriage can be equally easily achieved during one visit at a notary’s office. Introducing government clerks into a loving union of two people was a mistake, it’s a relict of the Middle Ages when marriages were more about dividing land than actual relationships - there’s nothing romantic about it and the institution of marriage as a legal construct needs to go away. Adoption is complicated business that should be discussed as a separate thread, but in general there’s a pretty common sense hierarchy of most and least optimal applicants, with straight couples at the top (male and female role models with double income) and singles at the bottom (one role model, one income), barring any other differences gays or lesbians would rank somewhere in the middle. Law should be concerned with what’s best for the child, and what’s best for a child is to have parents of both genders to look up to (and see the differences between them) in relative financial well-being. I also agree that the government should not intervene in medicine - it’s not qualified to make those judgements. Let’s dismantle government interference in healthcare, starting with ACA. Right now tax payers pay into the system, so yes, they *do* have a say in how that money is spent, via voting. Medicare was sold to voters as a fee, not a tax - over time it became obvious that it was a tax, so let’s get rid of it.
trump needs to go (to prison) and charged with treason (especially with those pro putin remaks) now that Putin is labeled a war criminal by the US (as he should be) any remark like those he said a few weeks ago would fall under the treason clause of the constitution (2nd part) the giving aid and or comfort to an enemy (he may have done treason already and admitted to it even by giving putin funds for digging up dirt on hunter biden) of the US government which if convicted not only gives him 5 years minimum fed pen (or the death penalty depending on what the jury gives) byut BANS him from getting elected and unlike impeachment which is done by congress Treason is delt with through the court system (and i doubt any judge would tolerate his lawyers stall tactics and force them to proceed or be held in contempt most likely if they stall for too long)
ok captain planet doubt you (or biden for that matter) can change anything
Last edited by Foxi4,
Trump is a private citizen and not a government figure - he can make any comments he wants. He also hasn’t “given aid or comfort” to “the enemy” - the U.S. is not at war with Russia, and even if it was, making a comment wouldn’t even come close to falling under the clause. The reverse is true - his right to comment on the situation is constitutionally protected. Your understanding of the law is bizarre.
Lol, it implies that the argument that "bots exist" is a stupid reason to be dismissive of an issue. In this thread, you are pretending to argue against bots to deflect from the content that is posted.
Bots exist for all topics. Look at Twitter.
My primary response was to you using an tweet to reinforce an unrelated claim, and it was ironic that Catboy liked it immediately after their little rant about sources.
Similar threads
