• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics 2021: Ignore the Neighslayers

Trump's poll numbers continue to climb, however. The establishment will never be for him, nor were they ever. But as he becomes more outlandish, the more his support swells.
 
Did I hear right that Trump got disqualified for his anti-religious views on Muslims?
 

Pikachu52

Well-Known Member
What I find most interesting about the reaction to some of Trump anti-islamic and incredibly racist comments is that they have exposed a potential double standard in both the public reaction and media representation of issues of discrimination in the US. Many of the GOP candidates have used their campaigns to make strongly homophobic statements and support for anti-LGBT policies. Consider:

  • Marco Rubio, considered a strong contender for the presidency has promised to reverse the executive order banning LGBT discrimination by federal contractors (the only LGBT discrimination protection avaliable at the federal level) and to appoint Justices to the supreme court who will reverse the Marriage decision.
  • Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have both actively supported business owners successfully sued under state discrimiantion protections for refusing services to LGBT persons claiming it to represent a breach of religious freedom. Ted Cruz even referred to LGBT discrimination protections with the ugly loaded phrase "Liberal Fascism"
  • Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal appeared at a conference alongside a pastor who claimed that parents whose children marry a person of the same sex should block the entrance to the venue covered in cow manure and made several other bigoted and cruel statements about LGBT Americans
  • Mike Huckabee made a speech openly vilifying Transgendered Amercians claiming if Transgendered protections were avaliable when he was a teenager he would have used it to watch girls shower at his school
  • Voters in Huston overturned a non-discrimination ordiance after opponents ran adverts suggesting falsely the ordiance would permit men to enter womens bathrooms and thus demonising transgendered persons. Texas Governor Greg Abbott put a message on Twitter to this affect.
The question must be asked - why are reverently anti-LGBT positions, statement and rhetoric considered more acceptable then Trump racists ones. 300,000 people in the UK sighed a petition asking parliament to considered barring Donald Trump from entering the country, yet Marco Rubio is not only not called out for his homophobic positions, he's actually being considered as a serious candidate whom many in the GOP establishment see as the best man to challenge Trump. This is an appalling double standard. Where are the world leaders condemning the transphobic statements of Greg Abbott or Mike Huckabee, or the Homophobic position of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Why didn't other candidates and GOP party members condemn Cruz, Huckabee and Jindal for attending that conference the way former vice president Dick Cheney and even Marco Rubio himself have Trumps bar Muslims from entering the US comment.

What's most worrying about this disparity is that the Anti-gay candidates actually have the power to do significant harm to LGBTs, potentially to the point of reversing most of the gains made in the last 8 years, where as nearly all of Trumps rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. Trump's policies such as building a wall along the southern border, barring Muslims from attaining visas or increasing surveillance on mosques are beyond the powers of the executive and would most likely not receive congressional support. Even if a potential Trump administration did attempt to issue executive orders to put any of those policies into affect they would most likely be successfully challenged in court. Since the anti-LGBT policies of Marco Rubio involve negative actions such as rescinding an existing executive order and possibly vetoing any LGBT civil rights legislation that may be passed by congress, there would be relatively few avenues of appeal for persons aggrieved by those decision. Currently Title 21 of the US Code, which contains the provisions of Civil Rights Act, does not extend protections to people based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and 33 states have no equivalent protections. However it does provide protection on the basis of race and religion. All this silence does it further legitimise the false narrative of "Bigots are victims" being used by candidates such as Cruz and Rubio to delegitimise LGBT civil and human Rights and to subsequently demonise and attack LGBT people.

What's most ironic still, is that Donald Trump seems to be the most LGBT friendly of the GOP candidates (I use the term friendly in a relatively sense). He has said he will not support overturning obergefell v. hodges and has since 2000 supported amending Title 21 to include Sexual Orientation as a protected attribute.

I should add that none of my statement should be considered an endorsement of Donald Trump by myself or an attempt to excuse his action. His rhetoric has the potential to do real harm as it may amount to an incitement to violence or hatred of Muslim Americans and racial minorities. The fact that two at two Trump rallies there have been incidents of a protestor being beaten up by supporters chanting "USA" and ironically "All Lives Matter" attests to this fact. I would simply like to know why media outlets, high ranking GOP party officials and politicians in other countries see the Homophobic position that could easily be enacted if one of the candidates I have mentioned were elected is acceptable, while xenophobic rhetoric that can only be rhetoric should lead to the position of an entire country consider banning a potential world leader from crossing it's borders.

Did I hear right that Trump got disqualified for his anti-religious views on Muslims?

Technically speaking Donald Trump can't be disqualified from running for president merely because he's made xenophobic statements. The criteria that determine someone's eligibility for president are those set out in Section 1 of Article II of the US Constitution:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
 
Last edited:

Remix2

Well-Known Member
No because he's a Republican. Screw every amendment except the 2nd.

The funniest part about this is that republicans will alway say that are the ture believers of the constitution, and yet In reality there the most unconstitutional people on the entire planet.
 

Mordent99

Banned
What's truly ironic is how much they've helped the LGBT community.

First of all, if they hadn't made such a big stink about it in the first place, attention wouldn't have been drawn to it again, and the Court wouldn't have had to intervene.

The protests by the Westboro Baptist Church have actually hurt the church more than anything else as of late, and gained sympathy and support for the LGBT community. News of their protests often creates counter-protests numbering in the thousands, and state governments are finding more and more loopholes in the original Supreme Court decision to make sure they keep their distance from funerals. And real Southern Baptists eventually gave up (saying so publicly) after their boycott of Disney for hiring gays and lesbians only made Disney's stock rise.

Hell, P. Riot girls was little more than an obscure Russian punk rock band with a few political motivations that nobody in the west had ever heard of up until the Russian government made such a big stink about their protest and convicted two members on "hooliganism" charges (for what most western legal experts would have defined as trespassing) and suspicious Russian hate sights targeting them with rather absurd accusations started to pop up. Almost overnight, the treatment of this obscure group because the focus of a global outcry, and opinion of the Russian government's policies started a downhill slide. (Which only got worse with the current crisis in the Ukraine.)

You have to wonder, why don't these guys just shut up? They make it worse for themselves.
 

Omegagoldfish

My will be done
What's truly ironic is how much they've helped the LGBT community.

First of all, if they hadn't made such a big stink about it in the first place, attention wouldn't have been drawn to it again, and the Court wouldn't have had to intervene.

The protests by the Westboro Baptist Church have actually hurt the church more than anything else as of late, and gained sympathy and support for the LGBT community. News of their protests often creates counter-protests numbering in the thousands, and state governments are finding more and more loopholes in the original Supreme Court decision to make sure they keep their distance from funerals. And real Southern Baptists eventually gave up (saying so publicly) after their boycott of Disney for hiring gays and lesbians only made Disney's stock rise.

Hell, P. Riot girls was little more than an obscure Russian punk rock band with a few political motivations that nobody in the west had ever heard of up until the Russian government made such a big stink about their protest and convicted two members on "hooliganism" charges (for what most western legal experts would have defined as trespassing) and suspicious Russian hate sights targeting them with rather absurd accusations started to pop up. Almost overnight, the treatment of this obscure group because the focus of a global outcry, and opinion of the Russian government's policies started a downhill slide. (Which only got worse with the current crisis in the Ukraine.)

You have to wonder, why don't these guys just shut up? They make it worse for themselves.

Well the question here is if they even want to degrade what they are insulting, or just garner even more support from the bigoted.
 

Mordent99

Banned
Look at these:

Lindsey Grahm himself says he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. And that his policies are worse than Obama's. And that Hillary will "clean his clock".

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/11/lindsey-graham-trump-has-done-the-worst-thing-you-can-do.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...nest-about-Republican-voters-and-Donald-Trump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ump-worse-than-obama_566b3cf2e4b0e292150def70

I agree with Mr. Graham.

Now there's a sentence I never, in my wildest imagination, believed I'd say.
 

Mordent99

Banned
His supporters insist the Nazi was "planted" by the Democrats. Dear god, what have we wrought?

In other news this Tea Party cretin just gave the lamest excuse I have EVER heard:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/12/...6_8776109616138214458&a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

He didn't want to admit he was a bigot, so now he looks like a complete idiot and a bigot.

There's this too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robber-shoots-clerk-terrorist_5670a826e4b0dfd4bcbfdb37

Can't wait to hear Trump's response on THIS.

Edit: The GOP candidates actually debated whether it was smart or moral to kill innocent family members of terrorists.

To most folks that would be a no-brainer, but to these....
 
Last edited:

Navin

MALDREAD
Slate posted an article that pretty much covered by sentiment regarding the debate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._nothing_about_foreign_policy_in_the_cnn.html

None of these candidates have a clue on foreign policy. Some just talk but will do the same thing as what the Obama administration is doing right now (viz Ted Cruz "carpet bombing ISIS into oblivion until the sand glows"...top fvcking kek). Others will launch us into another decade-long war (viz Fiorina and her "warrior class"). Meanwhile, Rubio looks like he'll do whatever those funding his campaign tell him to do.
 

Mordent99

Banned
You might be interested in knowing that, since June, Trump's "brutal honesty" has cost him his business deals with Macy's, NBC, Univision, Turnberry, and Lifestyle (a Dubai-based retailer and likely the biggest firm in the Middle East; Trump's deal with them has been terminated and his products pulled from their 195 stores).

And those are just the big ones.
 

Remix2

Well-Known Member
Basically that whole gop debate was about who can commit the most war crimes and who is more willing to plunge the world to world war 3... and these people are meant to be taken seriously.

Btw I love how this was about national security and terrorism, and yet no mention of the planned parenthood shooting he charleson church shooting or any of the mass shooting that happen this year alone.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me we can keep Obama around for much longer. None of these bozos care in the slightest to keep being a good nation to others. We'll just be like North Korea, except with freedom for people within the country.
 

chalkus

Well-Known Member
Slate posted an article that pretty much covered by sentiment regarding the debate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._nothing_about_foreign_policy_in_the_cnn.html

None of these candidates have a clue on foreign policy. Some just talk but will do the same thing as what the Obama administration is doing right now (viz Ted Cruz "carpet bombing ISIS into oblivion until the sand glows"...top fvcking kek). Others will launch us into another decade-long war (viz Fiorina and her "warrior class"). Meanwhile, Rubio looks like he'll do whatever those funding his campaign tell him to do.

I agree a lot of nonsense was said during that debate, but to say that the Repubs are the ones who are clueless about foreign policy means that you think the Dems are any better, which is a joke. Obama's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster and Hillary Clinton has been there for most of it. Everything from the reset button with Russia, to the war with Libya without congressional approval, the TPP, the supposed 'gold standard' in trade policy, the pullout of Iraq without leaving behind troops, the 'redline' that was leapt over without action, etc. I'd love to hear the 'answers' the Dems have that the Repubs don't. Hillary will continue to do what Obama is doing, and Bernie is too busy promising to make everything in America free to address foreign policy. So please, do share the phenomenal insight Hillary and Bernie have that the Repubs do not.

Basically that whole gop debate was about who can commit the most war crimes and who is more willing to plunge the world to world war 3... and these people are meant to be taken seriously.

Btw I love how this was about national security and terrorism, and yet no mention of the planned parenthood shooting he charleson church shooting or any of the mass shooting that happen this year alone.

Likewise, the Dem debates (which the DNC is trying their hardest to ensure no one watches) have been mostly about making everything free, which, as we all know, won't ever happen.

As for home grown terrorism, blame CNN for that. They never asked the questions.

Please tell me we can keep Obama around for much longer. None of these bozos care in the slightest to keep being a good nation to others. We'll just be like North Korea, except with freedom for people within the country.

Another term of Obama will achieve as much as this current one has. If you find that impressive, then by all means, I hope you see a shooting star upon which you can make your wish.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
To be fair with Iraq that's all on Bush and co. No matter what the Obama administration did there it would have been a mess with a lot of downsides. Really a lot of those problems can be traced to Bush and Obama just inherited it.
 

Navin

MALDREAD
I agree a lot of nonsense was said during that debate, but to say that the Repubs are the ones who are clueless about foreign policy means that you think the Dems are any better, which is a joke. Obama's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster and Hillary Clinton has been there for most of it. Everything from the reset button with Russia, to the war with Libya without congressional approval, the TPP, the supposed 'gold standard' in trade policy, the pullout of Iraq without leaving behind troops, the 'redline' that was leapt over without action, etc. I'd love to hear the 'answers' the Dems have that the Repubs don't. Hillary will continue to do what Obama is doing, and Bernie is too busy promising to make everything in America free to address foreign policy. So please, do share the phenomenal insight Hillary and Bernie have that the Repubs do not.

Considering the previous Republican administration left the country in two unwinnable wars (to be fair, one was unavoidable but the initial strategy could have been better), one of which was a catalyst for extremism in the region today, then yeah I'd say the current one is doing better. The GOP candidates, except for Rand Paul, were trying to out-macho one another in who can send the country into more fruitless Middle East warfare. It was seriously the stupidest **** I ever heard.


Another term of Obama will achieve as much as this current one has. If you find that impressive, then by all means, I hope you see a shooting star upon which you can make your wish.

Maybe you're letting the GOP anti-Obama circlejerk get to your head if you honestly think the President and his administration hasn't achieved a lot. You can tack on the Fed Reserve raising its interest rates (a show of confidence in the economy since the Great Recession that Obama inherited) and the Paris climate deal this week as more accomplishments.
 

Mordent99

Banned

Navin

MALDREAD
Didn't Obama do something with the gas prices? I swear to god, they're better than ever, unless something nasty may happen because of this.

Some of the administration's policies do play a role in affecting gasoline prices, but more importantly worldwide economic conditions, oil production in resource-rich countries, and the decisions of companies affect the rise and fall of prices. It is funny though in retrospect to hear the Romney campaign repeatedly state during the 2012 election that gas prices would rise to $8/gallon. Kek.
 
Top