US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Peregrine wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.

Uh, no, Trump's stuff absolutely does not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thinking about sexual things outside of marriage is a sin. Divorce and adultery are certainly sins. Boasting about grabbing random women by the is a sin. The closest Trump comes to doing the things the religious right teaches is his occasional pandering with things like supporting bathroom bills in front of a right-wing Christian audience shortly after opposing them in front of a non-Christian audience. But it's very clearly nothing more than insincere pandering, Trump doesn't care one bit about the religious right or their beliefs except as useful tools for getting elected.

Indeed.

In fact, I know a few religious right-wing people that vehemently oppose(d) Trump for that exact reason.

**Zywus**

Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?

**Pouncey**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.

Uh, no, Trump's stuff absolutely does not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thinking about sexual things outside of marriage is a sin. Divorce and adultery are certainly sins. Boasting about grabbing random women by the is a sin. The closest Trump comes to doing the things the religious right teaches is his occasional pandering with things like supporting bathroom bills in front of a right-wing Christian audience shortly after opposing them in front of a non-Christian audience. But it's very clearly nothing more than insincere pandering, Trump doesn't care one bit about the religious right or their beliefs except as useful tools for getting elected.
Indeed.

In fact, I know a few religious right-wing people that vehemently oppose(d) Trump for that exact reason.

I wasn't referring solely to that particular group of Christians, you know.

**reds8n**

I'm a furry who spends a lot of time online. Death threats are nothing new.

One would suggest the ones made to Presidents tend to be a bit more serious.

**Pouncey**

Zywus wrote:
Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?

The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
One would suggest the ones made to Presidents tend to be a bit more serious.

That's what the Secret Service is for.

**Zywus**

Pouncey wrote:
Zywus wrote:
Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?

The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.

Well, you do have a knack for constantly inserting your person into any conversation. As if your presence in the thread isn't primarily to discuss politics, but rather putting yourself and your personal life over

**Pouncey**

Zywus wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Zywus wrote:
Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?

The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.

Well, you do have a knack for constantly inserting your person into any conversation. As if your presence in the thread isn't primarily to discuss politics, but rather putting yourself and your personal life over

You may have noticed that my references to my personal life are always in the context of discussing how US politics affects me. You may also remember that Americans frequently say things like, "You're a Canadian, why the hell do you care about American politics? This doesn't concern you."

**thekingofkings**

Pouncey wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Pouncey wrote:

If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...

Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.

I'm a furry who spends a lot of time online. Death threats are nothing new.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

thekingofkings wrote:
Crazyterran wrote:
Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.

Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.

Likely because Canada had little to do with it, the British army repelled the invasion and burned the white house. The defeat of Napolean and the arrival of British elite troops turned the tide. Canada itself did nothing but provide a stomping ground.

Uhhh... Canada was not its own country in 1812. Those British soldiers were Canadians, but before Canada was a thing.

And unlike America, we're not upset enough with Britain that we consider the distinction meaningful.

They were not, most of them were Irish regiments and later East Anglians, West Indies, and regiments from the midlands.

**Zywus**

Pouncey wrote:
Zywus wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Zywus wrote:
Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?

The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.

Well, you do have a knack for constantly inserting your person into any conversation. As if your presence in the thread isn't primarily to discuss politics, but rather putting yourself and your personal life over

You may have noticed that my references to my personal life are always in the context of discussing how US politics affects me.

Keep telling yourself that if you like. You like to talk about yourself and that's fine I guess. But it gets a bit tiresome and is better fitting for a personal blog. But I suppose you'd get far fever people reading that.

Pouncey wrote:
You may also remember that Americans frequently say things like, "You're a Canadian, why the hell do you care about American politics? This doesn't concern you."

I have not seen a single person say that , no.

American politics might indeed concern us all, not just US citizens and it's rather silly for anyone to discount anyone discussing it just because their nationality.
Passages like this though is obviously just you wishing to flaunt your personal quirks to an audience.

My older brother and I used to joke about what my campaign for becoming Prime Minister of Canada would be like.

He suggested that my slogan should be, "You've always suspected that your politicians were crazy, so now why not make it official and put a schizophrenic in charge?"

I think the only policy we came up with that I'd insist on was spending part of the federal budget to provide a WoW subscription for every citizen.

If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...

I guess we're all guilty of this from time to time, but most keep it to a reasonable level? It's no problem with that in moderation, but please don't try to make the thread all about you.

It's not worth making a fuzz over this and derail the thread really and I should have kept my mouth shut, but it's been bothering me now for a while.

**Herzlos**

Peregrine wrote:

Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.

The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.

Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?

I think you're right; you'll likely only take a few small steps backwards, but I don't think you can rule anything out anymore.

I honestly can't tell the difference between political news and parody any more.

**Peregrine**

Herzlos wrote:
Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?

Yes. Aside from the cultural change required to go from majority support for gay marriage to majority support for beating gay kids until they pretend to be straight (or kill themselves to escape) there are some major "does the federal government even have the power to do this" questions that would be a major obstacle. Remember, conversion "therapy" bans exist at the state level. Having the federal government say "we won't ban this" isn't sufficient, the federal government would have to pass a law banning states from making laws about this and somehow survive the inevitable court challenges. And there's a huge difference between an unlikely presidential candidate winning and a complete reinvention of the relationship between state and federal governments.

**thekingofkings**

Herzlos wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.

The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.

Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?

I think you're right; you'll likely only take a few small steps backwards, but I don't think you can rule anything out anymore.

I honestly can't tell the difference between political news and parody any more.

No reason to fear Pence http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/

**reds8n**

Finally some good news !

http://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/the-b-street-band-americas-no-1-springsteen-tribute-band-agrees-to-play-trump-inaugural-ball/

The B Street Band, America’s No. 1 Springsteen tribute band, agrees to play Trump inaugural ball

But fret not

same old same old

... odd how the swamp appears to be getting larger and deeper.

.... but her emails...

**lonestarr777**

So I've been hearing on NPR about a possible 'perfect storm' scenario that I haven't seen much discussion on here about.

Best Korea is apperently planning to test ICBM's capable of reaching the states this year, combined with what experts are warning a growing competant nuclear program.

Now I am far less worried about North Korea nuking us and much more concerned with how cheeto jesus is going to handle this.

He's already caused a handful of diplomatic problems with China, and I cannot imagine they'll be thrilled if Mr. Tiny Hands starts trying to swing that little thing around in their backyard, especially if he jumps straight to military intervention. Which considering how much of a buffoon he is, not outside of the realm of possibility.

I genuinely wish I could link the stories where this worry came from, but phone posting sadly. In any case just thought I'd share this horrible thought.

**Frazzled**

While I feel you, there is a certain thing about dictators understanding other dictators. That might be surprisingly advantageous.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

lonestarr777 wrote:
So I've been hearing on NPR about a possible 'perfect storm' scenario that I haven't seen much discussion on here about.

Best Korea is apperently planning to test ICBM's capable of reaching the states this year, combined with what experts are warning a growing competant nuclear program.

Now I am far less worried about North Korea nuking us and much more concerned with how cheeto jesus is going to handle this.

He's already caused a handful of diplomatic problems with China, and I cannot imagine they'll be thrilled if Mr. Tiny Hands starts trying to swing that little thing around in their backyard, especially if he jumps straight to military intervention. Which considering how much of a buffoon he is, not outside of the realm of possibility.

I genuinely wish I could link the stories where this worry came from, but phone posting sadly. In any case just thought I'd share this horrible thought.

Fear not America. Soon, the North Koreans will discover the joy of knowing that nuclear weapons are the most useless thing that mankind ever invented, as

a) you can't actually use them

and

b) The North Vietnamese, Argentina, various Middle Eastern terrorists groups etc etc can tell them that you can still cause trouble even if you opponents (Israel/UK/USA) possess nuclear weapons.

**Just Tony**

Peregrine wrote:
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.

I live in Indiana. After 4 years as governor of Indiana, we have enjoyed a budget SURPLUS for the last two years. Granted, the state senate isn't nearly as... fussy as the national congress, but if he could pull that same bit off nationwide? Well, except Illinois, the unions have squeezed them to the point they are a black hole. Since I doubt a President Pence will have the Pencian Stormtroopers ripping LGBTQA (Did they add any more letters? I want to be accurate.) citizens out of their beds at night like the LGBTQA community seems to think it will, I'd say at least fiscally a Pence presidency wouldn't be that bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:
So I've been hearing on NPR about a possible 'perfect storm' scenario that I haven't seen much discussion on here about.

Best Korea is apperently planning to test ICBM's capable of reaching the states this year, combined with what experts are warning a growing competant nuclear program.

Now I am far less worried about North Korea nuking us and much more concerned with how cheeto jesus is going to handle this.

He's already caused a handful of diplomatic problems with China, and I cannot imagine they'll be thrilled if Mr. Tiny Hands starts trying to swing that little thing around in their backyard, especially if he jumps straight to military intervention. Which considering how much of a buffoon he is, not outside of the realm of possibility.

I genuinely wish I could link the stories where this worry came from, but phone posting sadly. In any case just thought I'd share this horrible thought.

Back when Kim Jong Il was in charge, China itself were a deterrent to their more... combative natures. China has no interest in a war, and no interest in an upstart nation bringing it straight to their back yard. I have a feeling that if they thought Un was a legitimate threat, there'd be something said addressing it, just like they did with his papa.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Intelligence sources vouch for credibility of Russian dossier author:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

The astute amongst you will notice that the emphasis is on the dossier's author and not on the dossier's contents

**Breotan**

I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.

This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.

**Easy E**

Just Tony wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.

I live in Indiana. After 4 years as governor of Indiana, we have enjoyed a budget SURPLUS for the last two years. Granted, the state senate isn't nearly as... fussy as the national congress, but if he could pull that same bit off nationwide? Well, except Illinois, the unions have squeezed them to the point they are a black hole. Since I doubt a President Pence will have the Pencian Stormtroopers ripping LGBTQA (Did they add any more letters? I want to be accurate.) citizens out of their beds at night like the LGBTQA community seems to think it will, I'd say at least fiscally a Pence presidency wouldn't be that bad.

Out of curiosity, what did that budget surplus get you?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.

This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.

I actually agree with Breotan.

**infinite_array**

Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence, the company he's a director of, played a major role in bringing the corruption within FIFA to light.

**BrotherGecko**

If Russia is sitting on info that could blackmail Trump or destroy any legitimacy the Trump presidency has and the US intelligence community can prove this, then they absolutely need to speak up and show the info. If we carry out the swearing in and an independent group leaks the information then not only do we lose a legitimate president but also the last bits of legitimacy in the intelligence community of the US as well as the legislative branch of the government. All would be very bad.

If there is nothing, then someone like Obama needs to step up real quick before he ETSs and say its BS. If that dossier has any truths in it, they are going to come out eventually.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Breotan wrote:
I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.

This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.

Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. And they wonder why they're slowly losing relevance and losing ground to alternative media and the Alt Right etc.

If US Intelligence has evidence, then they need to put up or shut-up.

**Spinner**

thekingofkings wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.

The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.

Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?

I think you're right; you'll likely only take a few small steps backwards, but I don't think you can rule anything out anymore.

I honestly can't tell the difference between political news and parody any more.

No reason to fear Pence http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/

No, he hasn't made 'zap the gays' part of his platform, but he and his wife have appeared in an advertising video for a business in the 'troubled teen' industry, which (among other things) practises conversion therapy. He's also made some very...open to interpretation statements. It's not quite fair to say there's no reason to worry about him.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:

Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture...

Can you point to me that he has advocated this "conversion therapy"? I'm beginning to think that this was a hoax.

Also, the irony about Drumpf is that he's the most pro-LGBQ to begin his Presidency. For all the man's faults, and believe me it's yuge, he never struck me as anti-LGBQ and has always held cosmopolitan views in this regard.

EDIT: ninja'ed by the guy above.

**A Town Called Malus**

Verviedi wrote:
Pouncey wrote:

If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...

Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.

Hey, a Satanist would probably still stand a better chance than an atheist. At least the Satanist accepts the existence of god!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Breotan wrote:
I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.

This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.

Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. And they wonder why they're slowly losing relevance and losing ground to alternative media and the Alt Right etc.

If US Intelligence has evidence, then they need to put up or shut-up.

Where have any mainstream media publications reported these allegations as facts? Reporting allegations as allegations is not saying the allegations are true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
Finally some good news !

http://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/the-b-street-band-americas-no-1-springsteen-tribute-band-agrees-to-play-trump-inaugural-ball/

The B Street Band, America’s No. 1 Springsteen tribute band, agrees to play Trump inaugural ball

I don't think Springsteen will be too thrilled to have his music linked in any way to Trump and Pence (or Republicans in general) other than as a protest.
EDIT: Ah, apparently the Springsteen tribute band is playing a non-partisan event unconnected to Trumps inauguration ball

UPDATE: Shortly after this story was posted, Billboard spoke to a member of the B-Street Band who clarified that the Garden State Gala is a non-partisan event unconnected to official Trump inaugural balls and that the gig was booked four years ago, before Trump was a nominee for president.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7654958/bruce-springsteen-cover-band-trump-garden-state-gala
http://www.bstreetband.com/thurs-jan-19-inaugural-gala/

**MrDwhitey**

Spinner wrote:

No, he hasn't made 'zap the gays' part of his platform, but he and his wife have appeared in an advertising video for a business in the 'troubled teen' industry, which (among other things) practises conversion therapy. He's also made some very...open to interpretation statements. It's not quite fair to say there's no reason to worry about him.

There's a reason why the snopes article didn't say "False" and said "Mixed".

**Spinner**

I'd think the troubled teen advertising video alone would be enough to set off warning bells, but I'd have thought the same about his attempts to make a state-sponsored newspaper to compete with the free press.

I guess all that really gets overshadowed when your running mate's attempt to address a controversy is to announce that he Tweeted about it.

**feeder**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. And they wonder why they're slowly losing relevance and losing ground to alternative media and the Alt Right etc.

If US Intelligence has evidence, then they need to put up or shut-up.

I'd be interested in reading a piece from a legitimate news source that is "uncritically accepting these ....allegations as fact."

I suspect they don't exist, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

**BrotherGecko**

Verviedi wrote:
Pouncey wrote:

If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...

Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.

James Buchanan was an unmarried president and with hindsight very likely was the first gay president in US history. So when Americans go back to worrying about issues that are not socially constructed we may yet see again some different stuff.