Trump / US politics thread 🚽

[Raider of the lost Ark]

46 minutes ago, Pud Whacker said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-trump-idUSKBN14C0WE?il=0

Says the man who doesn't even allow free elections in his country. LOL

[Camacho]

 

[Guest Pud Whacker]

12 minutes ago, Hector said:

 

Reason Number 1,879 why Hillary lost:

[Camacho]

 

[spazz]

4 hours ago, Pud Whacker said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-trump-idUSKBN14C0WE?il=0

Man of the year and all years

[spazz]

3 hours ago, Pud Whacker said:

Reason Number 1,879 why Hillary lost:

HASBEEN(S)

[Raider of the lost Ark]

4 hours ago, Hector said:

 

LOL. Look who's butthurt. As if A-list celebrities would want to have anything to do with him. They don't need him. And this is what bothers him the most. But instead he gets a former casting show participant to sing the National anthem who recently complained how hard growing up for her was because she has a transgender sister. Great! An asshole singing for an asshole.

[Raider of the lost Ark]

1 hour ago, spazz said:

Man of the year and all years

But you know that his man believes you are a sick and perverse person?

[spazz]

27 minutes ago, Raider of the lost Ark said:

But you know that his man believes you are a sick and perverse person?

I dont think he believes in that? Huh? Why?

he doesnt know me personally 

[Guest Pud Whacker]

6 hours ago, spazz said:

I dont think he believes in that? Huh? Why?

he doesnt know me personally 

NEVER BELIEVE THE SHEEP!!!

 

[spazz]

3 hours ago, Pud Whacker said:

NEVER BELIEVE THE SHEEP!!!

 

I don't and what the mnation "gays" all care about the same sex marriage and ignore his courageous and marvelous fighting of terrorism.

They dont know terrorism will lead to gays persecution.

[GOD]

11 hours ago, Raider of the lost Ark said:

LOL. Look who's butthurt. As if A-list celebrities would want to have anything to do with him. They don't need him. And this is what bothers him the most. But instead he gets a former casting show participant to sing the National anthem who recently complained how hard growing up for her was because she has a transgender sister. Great! An asshole singing for an asshole.

Who agreed to perform?

[MeakMaker]

7 hours ago, spazz said:

I don't and what the mnation "gays" all care about the same sex marriage and ignore his courageous and marvelous fighting of terrorism.

They dont know terrorism will lead to gays persecution.

He's not doing it to help the gay cause though, Spazz. When are you going to see that Putin has his own agenda and it's just as bad as all the other politicians'?He made it quite clear he doesn't condone homosexuality. Just because he doesn't kill them or persecute them that doesn't mean homophobia is not rampant in Russia. His fight for terrorism is only another opportunity for him to come across "good" on an international scale. And God knows what else.. There was no terrorism in Crimea and we all know what he did there.

[MeakMaker]

20 minutes ago, GOD said:

Who agreed to perform?

Kid Rock as far as I know.

[MeakMaker]

17 hours ago, Hector said:

 

He wants the people hahaah. Go tell that to your cabinet. Wheres the everyday, normal people there? They're all bunch of multimillionaires with businesses and interests at stake. Yes Donald you're doing it for the people... more of a case of sour grapes 

[MeakMaker]

16 hours ago, Pud Whacker said:

Reason Number 1,879 why Hillary lost:

To be honest I do believe she might have lost because of all these celebrities endorsements. People warmed up to the Donald exactly for the opposite reason. He was very clever in not showing how out of touch he actually is with the everyday person. He was acting just like one of them; blaming globalisation, saying he was going to get rid of the elite swamp, shouting USA alongside his supporters, making sexist and racist remarks. It was all a ploy to be see as one of them: the average angry white man with bills to pay. It was all calculated. No one questioned his relations with many celebrities ( think of The Apprentice). No one questioned his intentions as a multimillionaire.. I have come to believe the average person has become more and more stupid and ignorant. Trump and Brexit show just that imho.

[MeakMaker]

17 hours ago, Raider of the lost Ark said:

Says the man who doesn't even allow free elections in his country. LOL

This.

[MeakMaker]

On 22/12/2016 at 6:43 PM, Hector said:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vladimir-putin-enjoy-nuclear-arms-9509355

[karbatal]

People from USA will know much better and maybe I'm wrong ,  but to be fair I think the main problem for Hillary was that she was unable to send her message through.  Many conventional parties or politicians refuse to admit that rules have changed and politics now go to the feelings and not to the show.  

[MeakMaker]

25 minutes ago, karbatal said:

People from USA will know much better and maybe I'm wrong ,  but to be fair I think the main problem for Hillary was that she was unable to send her message through.  Many conventional parties or politicians refuse to admit that rules have changed and politics now go to the feelings and not to the show.  

I think the problem is that people have just realised how out of touch these politicians are with the everyday person. 

All this unhappiness and moaning going on around in our homes or workplaces, etc.. have hugely be tackled by unscrupulous people like Trump. So let's tell the people what they want to hear for once; yes it's all immigrants fault, the Muslims are taking away our national identity and spread terrorism, the "people in power" are the ones who fucked you over... Exactly what people have always moaned about. Brexit and Trump is a reflection of that. But only the ignorant and the naive could fall into that trap. Intelligent people would know straight away there's a more dangerous and scary agenda behind people like Trump or the ones who promoted Brexit. 

[madonnasuperfan01]

3 hours ago, karbatal said:

People from USA will know much better and maybe I'm wrong ,  but to be fair I think the main problem for Hillary was that she was unable to send her message through.  Many conventional parties or politicians refuse to admit that rules have changed and politics now go to the feelings and not to the show.  

Hillary didn't even had a message, she just wanted to be president for the sake of being president. She was as much of a megalomaniac as Trump, she just wasn't as obvious about it as him. Her WHOLE campaign was based on the fact that she's a woman, nothing more.

[Supernatural]

Hillary was more of the same (Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama&Clinton) that's been going on forever. Trump could pull promises out of the sky. 

[Nessie]

Hillary who?

[Camacho]

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416

DEC 21 2016, 12:32 PM ET

First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ Americans

by MARY EMILY O'HARA

Earlier this month, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, through his spokesperson, told Buzzfeed they plan to reintroduce an embattled bill that barely gained a House hearing in 2015. But this time around, they said, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was likely to succeed due to a Republican-controlled House and the backing of President-elect Donald Trump.

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." 

Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses. 

On December 9, Sen. Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told Buzzfeed the election of Trump had cleared a path for the passage of FADA.

"Hopefully November's results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year," Carroll said. "We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump's positive words about the bill." 

"During oral arguments in Obergfell, President Obama's solicitor general admitted that if a right to same-sex marriage were created, religious institutions, including many Catholic schools, could have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS," Carroll told NBC Out on Wednesday. "The First Amendment Defense Act was created to make sure that does not happen." 

But while Carroll claims "FADA in no way undermines federal or state civil rights laws," it would take away the government's recourse in terms of punishing businesses, institutions or individuals who break civil rights law by discriminating against LGBTQ people.

"IF CONGRESS WERE TO PASS THE FEDERAL FADA AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT WERE TO SIGN IT INTO LAW, I'M CONFIDENT HEADS WOULD SPIN AT HOW FAST THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES WOULD FLY INTO COURT."

Jennifer Pizer, Law and Policy Director at Lambda Legal, told NBC Out FADA "invites widespread, devastating discrimination against LGBT people" and is a deeply unconstitutional bill. 

"This proposed new law violates both Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause by elevating one set of religious beliefs above all others," Pizer said, "And by targeting LGBT Americans as a group, contrary to settled constitutional law." 

Pizer warned that the bill's language also left room for individuals and businesses to discriminate against unwed heterosexual couples and single mothers, because of the clause stating that "sexual relations are properly reserved" to marriage between a man and a woman. 

"There cannot be even one iota of doubt that this bill endorses one set of religious beliefs above others, and targets people in same-sex relationships, married or not, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples who live together," Pizer said. "It's an unconstitutional effort to turn the clock back to a time when unmarried mothers had to hide in shame, and LGBT people had to hide, period."

FADA was first filed in the House and Senate in 2015, but was met with protests from Democrats and resulted in just one House hearing amid concerns that Obama would veto the bill. It is currently co-sponsored by 171 House Republicans and just one Democrat (Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.) 

State-level legislation similar to FADA has failed in recent years, usually resulting from lawsuits and nationwide boycotts. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence passed a "religious freedom" bill as governor of Indiana in March 2015, it was met with protests, financial losses from businesses that pulled operations from the state. It ultimately required an amendment issued in April to protect LGBTQ people from the bill's discrimination. 

Mississippi's HB 1523 is nearly identical to FADA. The state law, passed in 2016 but quickly blocked by a judge, allows people and businesses in the state to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on three sets of religious beliefs: "Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth." 

A lawsuit brought by Mississippi religious leaders alleges the state law actually violates religious freedom by determining that religious belief necessitates anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The group of ordained ministers suing the state said in the lawsuit, Barber v. Bryant, that Mississippi violates its right to freedom of religion "because persons who hold contrary religious beliefs are unprotected—the State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others." 

Barber v. Bryant is currently at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal trial court ruled HB 1523 violates the federal Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. Pizer said the case stands as an example of the legal explosion that would occur in reaction to FADA. 

"If Congress were to pass the federal FADA as currently written, and the next president were to sign it into law, I'm confident heads would spin at how fast the constitutional challenges would fly into court," Pizer said, adding "we're likely to have a great many allies because these attempts to misuse religion for discrimination offend enormous numbers of Americans who cherish both religious liberty and equality for all."

[MeakMaker]

18 minutes ago, Hector said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416

DEC 21 2016, 12:32 PM ET

First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ Americans

by MARY EMILY O'HARA

Earlier this month, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, through his spokesperson, told Buzzfeed they plan to reintroduce an embattled bill that barely gained a House hearing in 2015. But this time around, they said, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was likely to succeed due to a Republican-controlled House and the backing of President-elect Donald Trump.

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." 

Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses. 

On December 9, Sen. Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told Buzzfeed the election of Trump had cleared a path for the passage of FADA.

"Hopefully November's results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year," Carroll said. "We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump's positive words about the bill." 

"During oral arguments in Obergfell, President Obama's solicitor general admitted that if a right to same-sex marriage were created, religious institutions, including many Catholic schools, could have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS," Carroll told NBC Out on Wednesday. "The First Amendment Defense Act was created to make sure that does not happen." 

But while Carroll claims "FADA in no way undermines federal or state civil rights laws," it would take away the government's recourse in terms of punishing businesses, institutions or individuals who break civil rights law by discriminating against LGBTQ people.

"IF CONGRESS WERE TO PASS THE FEDERAL FADA AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT WERE TO SIGN IT INTO LAW, I'M CONFIDENT HEADS WOULD SPIN AT HOW FAST THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES WOULD FLY INTO COURT."

Jennifer Pizer, Law and Policy Director at Lambda Legal, told NBC Out FADA "invites widespread, devastating discrimination against LGBT people" and is a deeply unconstitutional bill. 

"This proposed new law violates both Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause by elevating one set of religious beliefs above all others," Pizer said, "And by targeting LGBT Americans as a group, contrary to settled constitutional law." 

Pizer warned that the bill's language also left room for individuals and businesses to discriminate against unwed heterosexual couples and single mothers, because of the clause stating that "sexual relations are properly reserved" to marriage between a man and a woman. 

"There cannot be even one iota of doubt that this bill endorses one set of religious beliefs above others, and targets people in same-sex relationships, married or not, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples who live together," Pizer said. "It's an unconstitutional effort to turn the clock back to a time when unmarried mothers had to hide in shame, and LGBT people had to hide, period."

FADA was first filed in the House and Senate in 2015, but was met with protests from Democrats and resulted in just one House hearing amid concerns that Obama would veto the bill. It is currently co-sponsored by 171 House Republicans and just one Democrat (Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.) 

State-level legislation similar to FADA has failed in recent years, usually resulting from lawsuits and nationwide boycotts. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence passed a "religious freedom" bill as governor of Indiana in March 2015, it was met with protests, financial losses from businesses that pulled operations from the state. It ultimately required an amendment issued in April to protect LGBTQ people from the bill's discrimination. 

Mississippi's HB 1523 is nearly identical to FADA. The state law, passed in 2016 but quickly blocked by a judge, allows people and businesses in the state to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on three sets of religious beliefs: "Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth." 

A lawsuit brought by Mississippi religious leaders alleges the state law actually violates religious freedom by determining that religious belief necessitates anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The group of ordained ministers suing the state said in the lawsuit, Barber v. Bryant, that Mississippi violates its right to freedom of religion "because persons who hold contrary religious beliefs are unprotected—the State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others." 

Barber v. Bryant is currently at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal trial court ruled HB 1523 violates the federal Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. Pizer said the case stands as an example of the legal explosion that would occur in reaction to FADA. 

"If Congress were to pass the federal FADA as currently written, and the next president were to sign it into law, I'm confident heads would spin at how fast the constitutional challenges would fly into court," Pizer said, adding "we're likely to have a great many allies because these attempts to misuse religion for discrimination offend enormous numbers of Americans who cherish both religious liberty and equality for all."

Welcome to the Dark Ages.  

[madonnasuperfan01]

If they go through with this amendment bullsh*t, it'll be brought to the Supreme Court and struck down. The 4 liberals judges and Anthony Kennedy wil be against it.

[svperstar]

But thank goodness we are all safe from Hillary's emails, right?

[Kurt420]

Phew yes!! We really dodged a bullet there with those emails. I know that was my main concern. Now we just need to dodge the nukes instead and we'll be all set! 😀 No biggie.

[Kurt420]

And if Putin is such an "aww shucks" great guy.....why the fuck is Russia a shithole overall?? 

[Nightshade]

5 hours ago, madonnasuperfan01 said:

Hillary didn't even had a message, she just wanted to be president for the sake of being president. She was as much of a megalomaniac as Trump, she just wasn't as obvious about it as him. Her WHOLE campaign was based on the fact that she's a woman, nothing more.

That's not true. Her message (or slogan) was STRONGER TOGETHER. It was on everything. And she had detailed policies laid out for a number of issues. I keep hearing this nugget how she lost because she "had no message" but people are just trying to find something to explain why she had an 80% chance to win and still lost. So pundits and armchair commentators in this forum are globbing on to whatever they think will stick.

She lost by 80,000 votes in 3 (normally reliably blue) states. Granted, against a candidate as awful as Trump it's shocking. But I think voters got her message but here's what I think it came down to:

• Voter Disconnect/Ignorance: The economy did not improve fast or well enough for the Rust Belt and Midwest. Little do they know Obama tried to help them but he only had 2 years to pass his agenda and spent most of it trying to stem the economic blood letting of the 2008 crash. Republicans obstructed the rest and were successful in that regard as voters don't understand how government works. Clinton was (on the surface) a continuation of that perceived stagnation. I think they wanted to do something dramatic to send a message.
• Identity Politics: In addition, Democrats had focused so much on minorities (to bring the Obama coalition together) that they did so at the exclusion of the white working class. Whites are still the majority group in the country at 77% and as much as it pains me to say it, many of them feel like no one was talking to them except Trump. A lower-middle class family in Ohio or Wisconsin may not want a racist leader, but they do want someone who speaks to their economic situation more than they discuss Black Lives Matter (which has little effect on them). I am not saying that's moral or whatever, but it's true. I think a lot of white people in those areas don't see racism the same way or as a big priority to tackle.
• The Comey Letter: I don't care what anyone says, this DID not help Hillary and I think it was the final nail. It also reinforced the scandal-clad legacy of the Clintons and I think it turned off just enough people to flip some close states. I freely admit, the ultimate blame hear lies with Hillary. She shouldn't have used private email and handed them a weapon to reinforce her already solidified public image of secrecy and not being trustworthy. Do I personally think private email was that big of a deal? No. But enough people did. I also think though that had she not ever given them this unintended gift, the GOP would've found something just as trivial to go on about - even though their own investigations didn't find any cause to prosecute her for the emails or Benghazi. And conveniently, now that she's lost, her actions "don't constitute any harm" or aren't a concern because they were just a political smoke screen to begin with. It's amazing how supposed crimes against the U.S. evaporate and don't matter once the GOP gets its way. It's so fucking transparent I can't believe even their own base falls for it. Fools, all of them.

Sidebar: To anyone in this forum who cheers on Vladimir Putin or thinks he's an ok guy, you're just as naive as George W. Bush who looked into his eyes and found the presence of God or whatever. Putin is no ally of the gay community, women, or probably any other minority. I think he's as ruthless as they come and I don't think he has any country's best interests in mind except the Russian oligarchy. You should all be intelligent enough to know that video Pud posted where he seems to go easy on the Russian gay community was leading up to the Sochi Olympics and you're a fool if you think he's going to use a PR platform for the Olympics to espouse anti-gay rhetoric. He's not an idiot. He knows what plays well or as a half loaf peace offering to the media. Look at how gays are treated in Russia. Don't look at an interview given to the media.

Jesus, half of you would believe the Mouth of Sauron if it gave a nice interview on the Today show. You all are familiar with the practice of lying, right? Or is face value all you can comprehend?