Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
At this point, it would just further confirm the Trump base's belief that the system is rigged and cause an even bigger backlash in four years. If not earlier. And they wouldn't even be wrong. Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump is our lawful president-elect. Breaking the system when you don't like the result is the surest way to undermine the principles of orderly transfer of power and rule of law. It's exactly why it was so unconscionable when Trump implied he might do the same thing back when it looked like he'd lose. You can't beat Trump by using his tactics.
Trump getting elected despite the popular vote has already triggered protests across the country. The one in Portland devolved into a riot. With Hillary Clinton's popular lead still growing and the scars from 2000 being opened and running deeper in 2016, I suspect that the system will have enough trouble from the growing challenges on the Left (heck, it's been part of the Green Party platform for years. I sense Democrats will join them on this soon). That being said, that further fuels exactly why I agree you. The system is taking a beating from the left, and to give the right the exact opposite reason to protest... and then two opposing protests cross paths... it's not difficult in the least to see all hell breaking loose, dragging the government down with it.
Furthermore... the Electoral college kind of gives the face of a Major political party incentive to campaign nationwide and appeal nationwide. Changing the electoral college outcome at this level would amount to trying to silence the enter center of the country. Let's not forget that all of Hillary's efforts to paint Donald Trump as unfit for office and engaging in racism did work... in the states Democrats were already secure. It just turns out her strategy worked in the West, failed in the Midwest, and was kind of meh everywhere else. She did not run a national campaign.
Personally, I am of the mind at the moment for states to operate like Maine, distributing electoral votes proportionally with the two at large ones being dedicated to the overall popular vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Furthermore... the Electoral college kind of gives the face of a Major political party incentive to campaign nationwide and appeal nationwide. Changing the electoral college outcome at this level would amount to trying to silence the enter center of the country. Let's not forget that all of Hillary's efforts to paint Donald Trump as unfit for office and engaging in racism did work... in the states Democrats were already secure. It just turns out her strategy worked in the West, failed in the Midwest, and was kind of meh everywhere else. She did not run a national campaign.
If this is true why do the candidates concentrate their time and money on about 5 states. None of which are the small states that you are claiming that the electoral college forces candidates to go to,
Like some other things in the US the electoral college made sense when it was insituted but is no longer as relevant in the modern world.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
You shouldn't be able to act like whiny children when things don't go your way and use your ''freedom of speech'' to silence others who disagree with you and force them to accept your beliefs.
Trump straight up said he should be able to weaken the first amendment so he can sue people who say things he disagrees with, for example the women who've accused him of sexual harassment. [link]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
You shouldn't be able to act like whiny children when things don't go your way and use your ''freedom of speech'' to silence others who disagree with you and force them to accept your beliefs.
Trump straight up said he should be able to weaken the first amendment so he can sue people who say things he disagrees with, for example the women who've accused him of sexual harassment. [link]
Yes, you really should learn not to listen nor take seriously anything that the presidential candidates say during the elections. Besides that, I don't see why is this surprising to you? A man threatens to sue people who slander him and seek to ruin his reputation? Yes, that is normal, people sue people for that stuff. If I were ruining for president and you decide to slander me and try to ruin my reputation I would sue you in an instant.
This is not ''weakening the first amendment''. It is called law and it clearly states that you can sue someone for slander. No ''mystical manipulation of the first amendment'' is required to do so.
Er... Donald Trump is talking about switching burden of proof from the prosecution (him) to the defendant (the people he's suing).
An organizational chart of Trump’s transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they’ll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his Cabinet, and you won’t find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It’s a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats — not much different from who you’d find in any Republican administration.
As always, I suggest reading the entire link because it has more details. [Helpfully, I've provided it here]
Basically the tldr is if you voted Trump to "drain the swamp" rather than to **** with minorities...well, if you've ever paid attention to my posts, you know what I'm going to link here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
As always, I suggest reading the entire link because it has more details. [Helpfully, I've provided it here]
Basically the tldr is if you voted Trump to "drain the swamp" rather than to **** with minorities...well, if you've ever paid attention to my posts, you know what I'm going to link here.
Honestly, this isn't surprising. Trump is perhaps the least politically experienced person to be elected in the history of the country. He would be burning himself alive if he didn't surround him with a group of Washington insiders who are savvy with the ways of Washington and have a feel on the current landscape.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Trump has appointed actual white supremacist Steve Bannon to be his chief strategist. Good thing racism is dead because David Duke didn't win a Senate race.
Trump has appointed actual white supremacist Steve Bannon to be his chief strategist. Good thing racism is dead because David Duke didn't win a Senate race.
Oh yeah, the guy who runs Breitbart, funded the book Clinton Cash, and thinks Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are too left wing. This guy, who is trying to organize a far-right white nationalist coalition.
EDIT:
During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.
After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.
During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.
After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.
Seriously, every time I think Trump has hit rock bottom, he finds a new way to prove he is the most incompetent man in the world! YOU RAN FOR THE POSITION OF THE LEADER OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!! What did you think the job would be? A friggin cake walk?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.
After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.
Seriously, every time I think Trump has hit rock bottom, he finds a new way to prove he is the most incompetent man in the world! YOU RAN FOR THE POSITION OF THE LEADER OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!! What did you think the job would be? A friggin cake walk?
Well, he does want to split his time between DC and NYC....
Trump has said that he considers the same-sex marriage question settled with the Supreme Court ruling, will not challenge its legality, and will not appoint justices with the intent of overturning it.
Did the evangelicals who voted for Trump just get punked?
If so, doesn't make the situation better, but certainly a little schadenfreude against some genuinely horrible people does bring a bit of a smile.
Trump has appointed actual white supremacist Steve Bannon to be his chief strategist. Good thing racism is dead because David Duke didn't win a Senate race.
Oh yeah, the guy who runs Breitbart, funded the book Clinton Cash, and thinks Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are too left wing. This guy, who is trying to organize a far-right white nationalist coalition.
EDIT:
During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.
After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.
Look on the bright side. Obama was able to turn Trump around on the pillars of Obamacare in an hour and a half. Who knows what he'll be able to do with more time?
And in general, a presidential "apprenticeship" (heh) doesn't sound like a terrible idea. It's a job unlike any other. For the new guy to shadow the old guy for a couple months can only be good, right?
Trump has said that he considers the same-sex marriage question settled with the Supreme Court ruling, will not challenge its legality, and will not appoint justices with the intent of overturning it.
Did the evangelicals who voted for Trump just get punked?
If so, doesn't make the situation better, but certainly a little schadenfreude against some genuinely horrible people does bring a bit of a smile.
I mean, it's been obvious from the get-go that Trump doesn't know or care at all about gay marriage, or abortion, or really any of the social justice issues of which the Supreme Court has become the traditional arbiter. I never expected him to make nominations with an eye towards such things. The problem is that he's still a Republican, with a Republican vice president, Republican advisors, and a Republican Senate. So I don't exactly expect to see him nominating another Sonia Sotomayor either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Trump has said repeatedly over the years that he's against same sex marriage, and has presented a list of potential justices who are to the right of even Scalia and Thomas. You'll excuse me if I'm not exactly convinced he's now "fine with it".
If this is true why do the candidates concentrate their time and money on about 5 states. None of which are the small states that you are claiming that the electoral college forces candidates to go to,
Like some other things in the US the electoral college made sense when it was insituted but is no longer as relevant in the modern world.
Because reliably blue/red states are considered reliably blue/red for supposedly concrete reasons.
The battleground states are areas where the population mingles in such a manner that the above apparently doesn't apply.
That's part of the reason why people are saying this election is ground-breaking- the supposed base of the Democratic Party didn't seem to exist in the manner that they thought it did anymore.
Trump has said repeatedly over the years that he's against same sex marriage, and has presented a list of potential justices who are to the right of even Scalia and Thomas. You'll excuse me if I'm not exactly convinced he's now "fine with it".
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?
I think at this point it's fairly clear that Trump is a salesman, a showman. He says whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear at that moment. Trying to predict his future policies from his words seems to be a futile endeavor. You're going to need to look at his long term behaviour and habits to get any sort of accurate read on the man.
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?
In 2000, he said, "I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman".
In 2011, he said, "I just don't feel good about it, I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.""
In 2015, when he declared his candidacy, he said he was in for "traditional marriage".
He said that the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was wrong, and said it was an example of the Roberts court "letting us down".
In January he promised to appoint justices with an eye towards overturning the ruling:
“WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.”
I mean, it's been obvious from the get-go that Trump doesn't know or care at all about gay marriage, or abortion, or really any of the social justice issues of which the Supreme Court has become the traditional arbiter. I never expected him to make nominations with an eye towards such things. The problem is that he's still a Republican, with a Republican vice president, Republican advisors, and a Republican Senate. So I don't exactly expect to see him nominating another Sonia Sotomayor either.
Trump has said repeatedly over the years that he's against same sex marriage, and has presented a list of potential justices who are to the right of even Scalia and Thomas. You'll excuse me if I'm not exactly convinced he's now "fine with it".
Valid, and this is Donald Trump, so he could say something and his next sentence could voice the opposite opinion.
That said, if Donald Trump truly has no worldview beyond the advancement of Donald Trump, and truly has no convictions, and will change his opinions on a dime without any regard for what he voiced previously, then all that remains is what Donald Trump is saying currently. And if that is even somewhat resembling a measured stance on anything, then that's at least a small victory.
Might not be much, or really anything at all, but I'm in full damage control mode here. If we still have a country, as in the physical landmass we occupy still exists, and that country is habitable, that would be awesome. If the American experiment is still going after this? That would be phenomenal.
Valid, and this is Donald Trump, so he could say something and his next sentence could voice the opposite opinion.
That said, if Donald Trump truly has no worldview beyond the advancement of Donald Trump, and truly has no convictions, and will change his opinions on a dime without any regard for what he voiced previously, then all that remains is what Donald Trump is saying currently. And if that is even somewhat resembling a measured stance on anything, then that's at least a small victory.
Might not be much, or really anything at all, but I'm in full damage control mode here. If we still have a country, as in the physical landmass we occupy still exists, and that country is habitable, that would be awesome. If the American experiment is still going after this? That would be phenomenal.
Yeah, it'd certainly be great if Trump has capriciously decided to waffle his way on over to supporting equality. But he's already pledged to appoint justices hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation, has Mike Pence as his VP, has Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff and has Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. If there's waffling to be done, it sure seems like he has a lot of forces pushing him away from equality.
Yeah, it'd certainly be great if Trump has capriciously decided to waffle his way on over to supporting equality. But he's already pledged to appoint justices hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation, has Mike Pence as his VP, has Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff and has Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. If there's waffling to be done, it sure seems like he has a lot of forces pushing him away from equality.
Sure. Nobody is saying we're in a position we should be happy with here. But if Trump is the one setting priorities, I don't see him prioritizing a rollback of gay rights. Repealing marriage equality at this point would be an involved process with slim chance of succeeding and not much payoff for Trump even if it does. He certainly doesn't have any strong moral convictions that would push him towards that effort. And if he needs to curry favor and adulation from his base, he can do that much more easily by cracking down on immigration, since that was a much bigger part of his platform, it apparently resonated with Republican voters more than social-conservative messages, and his office gives him much more power with which to do it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure. Nobody is saying we're in a position we should be happy with here. But if Trump is the one setting priorities, I don't see him prioritizing a rollback of gay rights. Repealing marriage equality at this point would be an involved process with slim chance of succeeding and not much payoff for Trump even if it does. He certainly doesn't have any strong moral convictions that would push him towards that effort. And if he needs to curry favor and adulation from his base, he can do that much more easily by cracking down on immigration, since that was a much bigger part of his platform, it apparently resonated with Republican voters more than social-conservative messages, and his office gives him much more power with which to do it.
I do think full repeal of gay marriage is pretty unlikely. It'd be an uphill battle for conservatives, and I suspect the Supreme Court would be unwilling to reconsider the case so soon, unless Trump gets lucky and we lose multiple liberal justices. But there's a lot of other damage he can do. If he's merely ambivalent towards gay rights, and his inner circle is filled with Pences and Bannons, I don't think we'd see a lot of pushback from him on their efforts. He's already pledged to sign the FADA, which would legitimize Kim Davis-style refusals to grant marriage licenses. He's pledged to roll back executive orders preventing firing people for being gay. Undoing executive orders protecting gay rights will be easy - there's no court or congress in his way, it won't take any time to craft a bill, and his inner circle will be all for it.
Hey, if Trump's advisor Bannon (the white supremacist) keeps the advisor job, what happens to Breitbart?
Because I feel like Trump having one of his advisors connected to a news organization which has been championing Trump and the Alt-Right for years, (often while making ***** up to enrage their audience), is potentially some kind of conflict of interest or possibly serious bias problem or something.
EDIT: Also, Pence has his own email scandal. That was fast. [link]
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?
In 2000, he said, "I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman".
In 2011, he said, "I just don't feel good about it, I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.""
I just noticed that most of the arguments against Trump in the past few pages are mostly just Republican platforms that people don't like and very few, if any, Trump being Trump.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Trump getting elected despite the popular vote has already triggered protests across the country. The one in Portland devolved into a riot. With Hillary Clinton's popular lead still growing and the scars from 2000 being opened and running deeper in 2016, I suspect that the system will have enough trouble from the growing challenges on the Left (heck, it's been part of the Green Party platform for years. I sense Democrats will join them on this soon). That being said, that further fuels exactly why I agree you. The system is taking a beating from the left, and to give the right the exact opposite reason to protest... and then two opposing protests cross paths... it's not difficult in the least to see all hell breaking loose, dragging the government down with it.
Furthermore... the Electoral college kind of gives the face of a Major political party incentive to campaign nationwide and appeal nationwide. Changing the electoral college outcome at this level would amount to trying to silence the enter center of the country. Let's not forget that all of Hillary's efforts to paint Donald Trump as unfit for office and engaging in racism did work... in the states Democrats were already secure. It just turns out her strategy worked in the West, failed in the Midwest, and was kind of meh everywhere else. She did not run a national campaign.
Personally, I am of the mind at the moment for states to operate like Maine, distributing electoral votes proportionally with the two at large ones being dedicated to the overall popular vote.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
If this is true why do the candidates concentrate their time and money on about 5 states. None of which are the small states that you are claiming that the electoral college forces candidates to go to,
Like some other things in the US the electoral college made sense when it was insituted but is no longer as relevant in the modern world.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Trump straight up said he should be able to weaken the first amendment so he can sue people who say things he disagrees with, for example the women who've accused him of sexual harassment. [link]
Art is life itself.
Er... Donald Trump is talking about switching burden of proof from the prosecution (him) to the defendant (the people he's suing).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Basically the tldr is if you voted Trump to "drain the swamp" rather than to **** with minorities...well, if you've ever paid attention to my posts, you know what I'm going to link here.
Art is life itself.
Honestly, this isn't surprising. Trump is perhaps the least politically experienced person to be elected in the history of the country. He would be burning himself alive if he didn't surround him with a group of Washington insiders who are savvy with the ways of Washington and have a feel on the current landscape.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
EDIT:
this is going to end well, I'm sure.
Art is life itself.
There is only one possible reaction for this:
Seriously, every time I think Trump has hit rock bottom, he finds a new way to prove he is the most incompetent man in the world! YOU RAN FOR THE POSITION OF THE LEADER OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!! What did you think the job would be? A friggin cake walk?
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Well, he does want to split his time between DC and NYC....
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-split-time-white-house-new-york
Trump has said that he considers the same-sex marriage question settled with the Supreme Court ruling, will not challenge its legality, and will not appoint justices with the intent of overturning it.
Did the evangelicals who voted for Trump just get punked?
If so, doesn't make the situation better, but certainly a little schadenfreude against some genuinely horrible people does bring a bit of a smile.
And in general, a presidential "apprenticeship" (heh) doesn't sound like a terrible idea. It's a job unlike any other. For the new guy to shadow the old guy for a couple months can only be good, right?
But yeah, no, we're screwed.
I mean, it's been obvious from the get-go that Trump doesn't know or care at all about gay marriage, or abortion, or really any of the social justice issues of which the Supreme Court has become the traditional arbiter. I never expected him to make nominations with an eye towards such things. The problem is that he's still a Republican, with a Republican vice president, Republican advisors, and a Republican Senate. So I don't exactly expect to see him nominating another Sonia Sotomayor either.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because reliably blue/red states are considered reliably blue/red for supposedly concrete reasons.
The battleground states are areas where the population mingles in such a manner that the above apparently doesn't apply.
That's part of the reason why people are saying this election is ground-breaking- the supposed base of the Democratic Party didn't seem to exist in the manner that they thought it did anymore.
I thought Trump was pro(or at least not against; more like as Blinking_Spririt stated- just plain uninterested)-gay marriage prior to running in this election?
I mean, his flag is upside down and hastily scrawled. That's like, a metaphor or something.
Art is life itself.
In 2000, he said, "I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman".
In 2011, he said, "I just don't feel good about it, I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.""
In 2015, when he declared his candidacy, he said he was in for "traditional marriage".
He said that the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was wrong, and said it was an example of the Roberts court "letting us down".
In January he promised to appoint justices with an eye towards overturning the ruling:
So now a Donald Trump presidency literally goes against conventional logic. ******* great...
Fair point.
Valid, and this is Donald Trump, so he could say something and his next sentence could voice the opposite opinion.
That said, if Donald Trump truly has no worldview beyond the advancement of Donald Trump, and truly has no convictions, and will change his opinions on a dime without any regard for what he voiced previously, then all that remains is what Donald Trump is saying currently. And if that is even somewhat resembling a measured stance on anything, then that's at least a small victory.
Might not be much, or really anything at all, but I'm in full damage control mode here. If we still have a country, as in the physical landmass we occupy still exists, and that country is habitable, that would be awesome. If the American experiment is still going after this? That would be phenomenal.
Yeah, it'd certainly be great if Trump has capriciously decided to waffle his way on over to supporting equality. But he's already pledged to appoint justices hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation, has Mike Pence as his VP, has Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff and has Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. If there's waffling to be done, it sure seems like he has a lot of forces pushing him away from equality.
Sure. Nobody is saying we're in a position we should be happy with here. But if Trump is the one setting priorities, I don't see him prioritizing a rollback of gay rights. Repealing marriage equality at this point would be an involved process with slim chance of succeeding and not much payoff for Trump even if it does. He certainly doesn't have any strong moral convictions that would push him towards that effort. And if he needs to curry favor and adulation from his base, he can do that much more easily by cracking down on immigration, since that was a much bigger part of his platform, it apparently resonated with Republican voters more than social-conservative messages, and his office gives him much more power with which to do it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I do think full repeal of gay marriage is pretty unlikely. It'd be an uphill battle for conservatives, and I suspect the Supreme Court would be unwilling to reconsider the case so soon, unless Trump gets lucky and we lose multiple liberal justices. But there's a lot of other damage he can do. If he's merely ambivalent towards gay rights, and his inner circle is filled with Pences and Bannons, I don't think we'd see a lot of pushback from him on their efforts. He's already pledged to sign the FADA, which would legitimize Kim Davis-style refusals to grant marriage licenses. He's pledged to roll back executive orders preventing firing people for being gay. Undoing executive orders protecting gay rights will be easy - there's no court or congress in his way, it won't take any time to craft a bill, and his inner circle will be all for it.
Because I feel like Trump having one of his advisors connected to a news organization which has been championing Trump and the Alt-Right for years, (often while making ***** up to enrage their audience), is potentially some kind of conflict of interest or possibly serious bias problem or something.
EDIT: Also, Pence has his own email scandal. That was fast. [link]
Art is life itself.
Thanks for these. Wasn't aware of them.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.