The General American Politics Thread

[WakanoBaka]

1 minute ago, Noelgilvie said:

Taxpayer money being spent more efficiently.

Am I literally the only one who hears something wrong with this phrase?

1 minute ago, Noelgilvie said:

 

Taxpayer-provided contraception and abortion are going to be most useful to poorer parents. When we don't help them avoid having children, society will have to pay the costs, either through welfare or theft (people steal to provide for their families all the time).

Why are you trying to tell me that money that is being forcefully taken from me isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Poorer parents need jobs ffs, but they can't get any because there are hardly any!

1 minute ago, Noelgilvie said:

If your concern is taxpayer money being wasted, let's be frank here. The real waste is this diehard resistance to family planning. Raising a child is expensive. A hell of a lot more expensive than pills, condoms, or an abortion procedure.

That is subjective, to deny it is would be ignorance.  

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

 

 

Nope. You seem to act like its a larger problem that it actually is

Legit quoting those two things don't make sense in whatever you are trying to say

[Nepenthe]

A man thinking that women treat abortion flippantly. What else is new?

[Lucid Dream]

25 minutes ago, WakanoBaka said:

Not 3% I'm willing to pay. And the 97% might just at least be half of stuff I also don't want to pay for.

I'm getting fucked over by the amount of women who treat abortions like birth control, pop one every night.

Contraception isn't a 100% guarenteed to work thing. Condoms break, lack of knowledge, unfortunate circumstances, etc. It's unfair to be so cruel to these people. Also, I'm sure it would be a lot more expensive to pay for children without parents, parents who have to drop their careers/university in favor of their child, etc. People don't deserve to ruin their lives due to an unfortunate accident, and then have a child who they don't want to take care of. 

Also abortion is almost never so easy. It's a hard, psychologically damaging and arduous process. And it is definitely not something that only impacts women. 

[Patticus]

6 minutes ago, WakanoBaka said:

Why are you trying to tell me that money that is being forcefully taken from me isn't necessarily a bad thing?

And here we come to the crux of your argument: You hate taxes, and resent even one penny going toward services, such as abortion, with which you take issue, on whatever moral or ideological grounds you have.

Are you a believer that universal healthcare is to be avoided at all costs, because you don't want to pay for the healthcare of criminals, or the otherwise undeserving? It's the same line of logic.

[Tani Coyote]

17 minutes ago, WakanoBaka said:

I'm getting fucked over by the amount of women who treat abortions like birth control, pop one every night.

Have you ever spoken to women who have had an abortion?

I'm sure there are some who treat it as birth control (which is really stupid, given the potential for the procedure to damage the body), but most women going into an abortion have intense anxiety before, and confidence it was the right decision after.

You know what this sounds like? Euthanizing a pet. It's not something you do for shits and giggles, but something you do for the pet's benefit.

Most of these women probably want to be mothers someday. They just aren't confident they can give the child a good life at that point in time. That's why they do it.

"Adoption!" This doesn't work. There are already plenty of orphans. The foster care in this country is subpar. And even if babies are adopted immediately, this does nothing to help the older children.

This is a social issue, not a personal one.

Quote

I as a male in America don't need such benefits.

This is incredibly sexist.

Women can't reproduce on their own. They need a man's involvement in some way. Ergo: birth control/abortion don't just benefit women.

If you have a girlfriend, wife, or other sort of partner, it is to your benefit to have these programs.

I mean, you're talking about having kids. Don't you want to be sure that you have on when you're ready? That's what family planning is for.

Maybe you're lucky enough to be able to afford birth control and such on your own without assistance. That's good for you. Now how about all those millions who can't?

Quote

So you are saying rape and stuff like that?

How does this even relate to what I said?

I assume you mean that these programs won't prevent rape-related pregnancies. Well of course not. That's a given.

It doesn't detract from the original point that family planning is a better use of taxpayer money than a blanket "not paying for irresponsibility" policy.

[KHCast]

I as a gay person don't benefit from paying birth control, and women's health but do it to help women as they're already going through sexist systems that corner them and make life harder. Being selfish and constantly going "what's in it for me" to help others is a seriously fucked up ideology 

 

Also how is raising a kid being expensive, a subjective claim? What do you feed your kid cardboard and raindrops?

[Tani Coyote]

19 minutes ago, WakanoBaka said:

Am I literally the only one who hears something wrong with this phrase?

Let me do a logical proof for you.

The poor will steal, kill, etc. to feed themselves and their families; this is well-documented. So we can establish we need to provide food and basic services for the poor for good social order. Shit, the Ancient Romans figured this out.

If society is going to have to provide for every poor person, it stands to reason that preventing a rapid expansion of the poor is good policy, to save money.

From this, we can see that family planning is likely more cost-effective than caring for every single child born into poverty. People talk about the poor having massive families, but it never seems to occur that this is because they didn't have access to contraception or sex education. There are accidents even with these, however, so it's really cruel to dismiss them completely.

Quote

Why are you trying to tell me that money that is being forcefully taken from me isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Because it's insurance, not theft.

You probably will never get into a car accident, but it's damned good to have car insurance.

Then, as mentioned, if you become poor, chances are you're not going to take it lying down, especially if you have family. Society will pay the costs of your poverty; I highly doubt you would simply be content to let whatever happens happen.

If you have no health insurance, we still need to give you care in an emergency. Society has to absorb the cost of your health services.

In the end, it is logical to force everyone to pay into social services. They are insurance so that if anything ever happens to you, you already paid your due and are not freeloading.

You may never have to claim that insurance, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to not have it.

Quote

Poorer parents need jobs ffs, but they can't get any because there are hardly any!

I hate to tell you this but under market capitalism, some people need to be unemployed for the good of the economy.

The insistence that everyone have a job has no grounding in basic economics. If everyone has a job, labor power skyrockets, and wages/prices follow.

Quote

That is subjective, to deny it is would be ignorance. 

...what is?

Raising a child being expensive? I can tell you're not a parent. It costs at least $300,000 over the course of 18 years.

Abortions, by contrast, cost from $300 to $2,000 on average.

It's a no brainer. Family planning is a more efficient use of money. There's no discussion here.

Quote

I as a male in America don't need such benefits.

This is incredibly sexist.

Women can't reproduce on their own. They need a man's involvement in some way.

Translation: if you have a girlfriend, wife, or other sort of partner, it is to your benefit to have these programs.

I mean, you're talking about having kids. Don't you want to be sure that you have on when you're ready? That's what family planning is for.

Quote

So you are saying rape and stuff like that?

How does this even relate to what I said?

I assume you mean that these programs won't prevent rape-related pregnancies. Well of course not. That's a given.

It doesn't detract from the original point that family planning is a better use of taxpayer money.

8 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I as a gay person don't benefit from paying birth control, and women's health but do it to help women as they're already going through sexist systems that corner them and make life harder. Being selfish and constantly going "what's in it for me" to help others is a seriously fucked up ideology

Actually, you do benefit as a gay man.

When we prevent births, we reduce the strain on social services, and also alleviate poverty and resulting crime.

Anybody who is a member of society benefits from family planning.

[kboyrulez12345]

I hate to change the subject from this lovely conversation, but I wanna say this: I am utterly convinced that I should vote from now on, and will vote in the next four years. With that said though, voting for a democrat in Louisiana seems like a fool errand for two reasons: 1: From what I've gathered, in terms of the Electoral College, Louisiana is a very small piece of it, and 2: from what the little I've researched, it's mostly a red state, so....

At the very least there's something else on the ballot I guess...

[Tani Coyote]

1 minute ago, kboyrulez12345 said:

I hate to change the subject from this lovely conversation, but I wanna say this: I am utterly convinced that I should vote from now on, and will vote in the next four years. With that said though, voting for a democrat in Louisiana seems like a fool errand for two reasons: 1: From what I've gathered, in terms of the Electoral College, Louisiana is a very small piece of it, and 2: from what the little I've researched, it's mostly a red state, so....

At the very least there's something else on the ballot I guess...

Indeed.

There are so many things that can be done with a vote that turning out is seldom a bad idea. You may not choose the President or even House rep, but ballot initiatives are something you could very easily sway.

[Mad Convoy]

6 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

Taxpayer money being spent more efficiently.

Taxpayer-provided contraception and abortion are going to be most useful to poorer parents. When we don't help them avoid having children, society will have to pay the costs, either through welfare or theft (people steal to provide for their families all the time).

If your concern is taxpayer money being wasted, let's be frank here. The real waste is this diehard resistance to family planning. Raising a child is expensive. A hell of a lot more expensive than pills, condoms, or an abortion procedure.

Here's an even better thing. If we provide contraception? There will be no abortion for those same people (barring the occasional failure), because there are no longer any pregnancies to abort.

Or hell, here's an idea-- why don't we fund scientific studies on the mechanisms and causes of miscarriages and other failed pregnancies so that we can work to getting closer to preventing them from happening? And perhaps work on dismantling rape culture to prevent rapes from happening and make women feel equipped to deal with rapists should they ever have the misfortune of being encountered with one-- this would take a long, long time and definitely won't be accomplished in one or even ten presidencies, but would be very beneficial long term and women would see the benefits big and small along the way. And more education, as many have suggested, is always good. Keep in mind that most women, even the pro-choice ones, don't want to get into a situation where an abortion is on the table-- its inconvenient, it costs money, and for it to be a viable option, one often has something traumatic happen to them like being raped or having to face the reality that the son or daughter they dreamed will never come to be. So, instead of shaming women, who in all likelihood don't even want to be in that situation in the first place, for stealing our tax dollars, let's take measures to help willing pregnant women keep their progeny and help the unwilling to avoid being put in a situation where they have to choose whether to risk a pregnancy or abort.

I suppose that sounds kind of weird-- making pro-choice arguments because I think they will make it so that less women have to choose abortion. But that's my stance. While I hope Congress fights attempts at dismantling or weakening Roe vs Wade, Planned Parenthood, et. al., I doubt a Republican majority will. This assumes that Trump would bring up the idea, though, or sign off on it, with the latter more likely than the former since he didn't base his campaign on abortion in the first place.

I hate this uncertainty. I think I would be less stressed if I knew what exactly Trump was planning for his four years (assuming he gets that far, which I feel is likely). Or if he knew what he was planning for the next few years-- its possible he's going into this with no plan and no backup, which is frightening in its own right.

[Tani Coyote]

15 minutes ago, Mad Convoy said:

I suppose that sounds kind of weird-- making pro-choice arguments because I think they will make it so that less women have to choose abortion.

Not too terribly, actually.

I myself am pro-choice because of the social consequences of not having it as an option more than anything.

I don't think many people really want an abortion. We all argue about whether or not an unborn fetus is a life or not but the emotions that go into the abortion process seem to indicate that somewhere, deep down, pretty much everyone actually having an abortion feels that it is. It appears nearly everyone can come to an agreement that an abortion is undesirable, we just argue over the legal status.

But hey, that's the good news about Supreme Court cases on the issue. We have the viability doctrine. This provides for the eventual illegality of abortion, if it is safe and realistic to have the fetus removed and kept alive artificially.

Though this is why family planning is good. If robust enough it can practically eliminate the morally uncomfortable discussion of abortion entirely.

I think being pro-choice and anti-abortion are perfectly reconcilable positions. We can believe the procedure is undesirable, yet understand that the reasons for having one don't happen in a vacuum. Again, the euthanasia comparison: euthanasia is obviously undesirable, but we understand why it is done in the circumstances. Ideally we wouldn't have to euthanize at all, of course. In much the same way, we can believe a world without abortion is the ideal, while being understanding of why people would have one. The "abortion is murder" argument fails to understand both the emotions that go into the process, and the definition of murder itself.

But, again, this is why family planning is good. We can virtually eliminate abortions entirely with it. It is also objectively the cheapest solution to a social issue besides the unrealistic proposal of abstinence.

[nintega137]

24 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

 

I hate to tell you this but under market capitalism, some people need to be unemployed for the good of the economy.

The insistence that everyone have a job has no grounding in basic economics. If everyone has a job, labor power skyrockets, and wages/prices follow.

2

This is something I've known for years and It's honestly really screwy when I think about it. I mean doesn't it imply that a system that relies on people being put down and some people having to have shitty lives in order for a system to work? That if everyone is at the very least stable it all falls apart? Admittedly I'm not good at economics but is there no better alternative? 

[WakanoBaka]

51 minutes ago, Patticus said:

And here we come to the crux of your argument: You hate taxes, and resent even one penny going toward services, such as abortion, with which you take issue, on whatever moral or ideological grounds you have.

Are you a believer that universal healthcare is to be avoided at all costs, because you don't want to pay for the healthcare of criminals, or the otherwise undeserving? It's the same line of logic.

That would be an incorrect reach, and a baseless assumption of my POV. Taxs to fix roads and fix stuff that's getting old and broken is a-okay.

 

Taxes that go to that one lazy surfer jock who is living off welfare, but could clearly get a job but doesn't wanna is a problem. Lets not forget.  Our government gives away more money to foreign countries like Japan, Germany and Israel than any of us could ever repay.

 

Also I don't have a stance on Universal Healthcare. http://www.universalhealthcareprosandcons.com/

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-tanner5apr05-story.html

 

45 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Also how is raising a kid being expensive, a subjective claim? What do you feed your kid cardboard and raindrops?

You misunderstood what I said was subjective.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

A man thinking that women treat abortion flippantly. What else is new?

I don't remember saying women in general, nice assumption. But are you denying this?

 

www.johnstonsarchive.net/polic…
www.operationrescue.org/about-…  
www.abortionfacts.com/books/wh…
www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/…
www.womenscenter.com/abortion_…
www.eiunewman.org/eiu_students…
www.abort73.com/abortion_facts…
www.rainn.org/get-information/…
www.chessatwork.com/board/show…
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ind…
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrh…
www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats…
www.whyprolife.com/abortion-fa…

I'm just considering the fact that the most abortions tend to be "oops casual fucking gone wrong". And instead of actually doing something, people get free pass. You can bring morality into this, but in all honesty, there isn't a woman I wouldn't help. But you see, life doesn't work like that, everybody has got their own issues that require every penny.

[Tani Coyote]

17 minutes ago, nintega137 said:

This is something I've known for years and It's honestly really screwy when I think about it. I mean doesn't it imply that a system that relies on people being put down and some people having to have shitty lives in order for a system to work? That if everyone is at the very least stable it all falls apart? Admittedly I'm not good at economics but is there no better alternative? 

It just means that labor needs to be replaceable.

An unemployed person could receive, say, $10,000 as a citizen's dividend, but if an unskilled job pays $30,000, it is still possible for the the unskilled worker to be replaced, which will keep labor reasonably restrained, which will keep wages and prices reasonable. Labor can still lobby for good working conditions and wages, but the idea is they can't pin bosses against the wall.

Of course, this is under capitalism. I'm not quite sure how a socialist market would work, as we haven't had many to use as models.

15 minutes ago, WakanoBaka said:

Taxes that go to that one lazy surfer jock who is living off welfare, but could clearly get a job but doesn't wanna is a problem.

This is a right-wing myth.

Prior to welfare reform, 3/4 of all recipients were off welfare within 5 years, and most never returned to the rolls. Of those who didn't leave, many were children. This is back when people were having huge amounts of children.

This is prior to reform. This is before work requirements and time limits. This is back when benefits were relatively generous and it was quite possible to live off them for life, for entire generations.

In the present day, most welfare families have only 1 or 2 children. Two-thirds of recipients are children. Note the correlation between statistic one and two: from most families having 2 children and 2/3 of recipients being children... it implies that a solid chunk of these welfare families are single moms who were abandoned by or otherwise don't receive support from their partner. A lot of single mothers, actually, are afraid to go onto welfare because of the fact it now requires them to approach the father for child support; this has ended in violence, emotional abuse, and even the killing of the mother in many cases. Your call to tighten welfare control is objectively sexist because it tells mothers that they need to hang off the arm of a man who in many cases is an asshole.

Welfare abuse isn't an epidemic. It became an issue after white people saw a bunch of black people signing up in droves (historically, black people didn't have much access to it due to racist policies) in the 70s and 80s. Like all forms of government assistance, it became demonized once it wasn't reserved for whites alone.

And again, "get a job" is a position with no basis in capitalist economics. Unless you're a comrade in the socialist revolution and aren't telling us, it doesn't make any sense as a proposal.

[Lucid Dream]

2 minutes ago, nintega137 said:

This is something I've known for years and It's honestly really screwy when I think about it. I mean doesn't it imply that a system that relies on people being put down and some people having to have shitty lives in order for a system to work? That if everyone is at the very least stable it all falls apart? Admittedly I'm not good at economics but is there no better alternative? 

It's a sacrifice in monetarism. In favour of less inflation, ending stop-go economics and a more stable economy, unemployment will increase. It's a large part of Thatcherism. How well it worked is debatable though. 

This is just from my knowledge on British History though, so take it with a pinch of salt. 

[KHCast]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0

 

MORE BACKTRACKING DIDNT SEE THAT COMING! /sarcasm

[WakanoBaka]

6 minutes ago, KHCast said:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0

 

MORE BACKTRACKING DIDNT SEE THAT COMING! /sarcasm

Are you literally complaining about this type of backtracking? 

[KHCast]

>I'm openly gay

>been talking about equal rights for LGBT people for the past few days now

>shit on Mike pence 

yep I'm complaining 

[Nepenthe]

20 minutes ago, WakanoBaka said:

I don't remember saying women in general, nice assumption. But are you denying this?

You didn't have to say women in general. You just had to have the nerve to weigh in judgmentally.

Quote

I'm just considering the fact that the most abortions tend to be "oops casual fucking gone wrong".

Yes. Casual sex can go wrong, even when people take precautions. That doesn't really mean anything, especially in a society that punishes motherhood and sexually-active women on the regular anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Guess women should either be nuns or brood mares.

Quote

And instead of actually doing something, people get free pass.

They do do something about it. They get an abortion.

Quote

You can bring morality into this, but in all honesty, there isn't a woman I wouldn't help.

Because when I think of a man who's a champion of women, I think of a man with a pro-life position whose reasoning partly rests on the fact that it'll never affect them physically so why the fuck should their tax dollars go to it? Because that's empathy.

Quote

But you see, life doesn't work like that, everybody has got their own issues that require every penny.

Who are you to decide which issues do and don't deserve funding? Because you don't like it? I don't like my tax dollars going to corrupt police stations. But I bite the bullet because I've accepted that one of the caveats of the social contract that not everyone gets what they want all the time. Because the running of this country isn't about you all the goddamn time. Again, if you don't like it, I suggest you work on trying to repeal Roe v Wade. Considering the shitshow that is the governmental demographics right now, now's the prime opportunity, actually. Go forth and advocate for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Just don't be shocked when undetected cancer and treatable life-threatening conditions for women spike. Abortions will also still happen, btw, as they have since forever. It'll just be done with hangers and bleach.

[Patticus]

17 minutes ago, KHCast said:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0

MORE BACKTRACKING DIDNT SEE THAT COMING! /sarcasm

Given all of the comparisons made between Trump's campaign/election and Brexit, it's pleasantly unsurprising that there's a possible laundry list of broken promises on the way. The hope is that Trump will govern from somewhere between his old liberal views and his new awful ones, but I have a strong feeling that he just won't. My best guess right now is that the list of broken promises will be short, that the GOP will get a lot of what they want from him.

[Tani Coyote]

26 minutes ago, Sniper dreams said:

It's a sacrifice in monetarism. In favour of less inflation, ending stop-go economics and a more stable economy, unemployment will increase. It's a large part of Thatcherism. How well it worked is debatable though. 

This is just from my knowledge on British History though, so take it with a pinch of salt. 

No, you're right. I'd say it absolutely works given the history behind it.

Where Thatcher went wrong was embracing the "privatizing everything makes it better" nonsense. If the UK's got economic problems, it's going to come from tactics like that which resulted in scandals like Enron in the United States.

24 minutes ago, KHCast said:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0

MORE BACKTRACKING DIDNT SEE THAT COMING! /sarcasm

10 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Given all of the comparison made between Trump's campaign/election and Brexit, it's pleasantly unsurprising that there's a possible laundry list of broken promises on the way.

If nothing else, we can be optimistic that he really doesn't care about these issues and was just pandering.

On the other hand, he has to work with the GOP to pass his big economic ideas, and I get the feeling they're just as willing to sink him as they were Obama if he doesn't do what they want. With how many Republicans only gave him approval for expedience, I don't think it's improbable they'd look at another President come 2020.

Everyone acts like the asylum put Trump in charge and he can do whatever he wants, but the fact is the GOP is a coalition of multiple elements. Trump has to play ball barring some insane stunt like switching Parties and blaming all the problems on the Republicans.

Which would honestly be kickass. He presented himself as a wealthy independent who was just running as a Republican for expedience, it'd be nice if he followed through. Sadly, Trump's base won't mind him caving to the GOP's regressive ideals if it means he pushes through his own crazy ideas. His ideas are crappy in their own right, but it'd be nice if we didn't have to worry about the GOP's whole package with them.

Honestly, we can't pray harder for a Democratic turnaround in 2018. Trump the Extremist might just become Trump the Moderate if he doesn't have to work with the GOP.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

23 minutes ago, KHCast said:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0

 

MORE BACKTRACKING DIDNT SEE THAT COMING! /sarcasm

At this rate,  I'm literally hoping that his campaign persona was just a facade to get into office so he can do a legit job as president. 

[WakanoBaka]

2 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

You didn't have to say women in general. You just had to have the nerve to weigh in judgementally

IE;Assuming.

 

2 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Yes. Casual sex can go wrong, even when people take precautions. That doesn't really mean anything morally or ethically, especially in a society that punishes motherhood and sexually-active women on the regular.

 

Hypocritical society it is. Punishing motherhood and sexually-active women , yet promoting sex everywhere.

 

3 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

They do do something about it. They get an abortion.

Yes, an abortion often times not paid for by the sperm donor or the woman's parents

 

4 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Because when I think of a man who's a champion of women, I think of a man with a pro-life position whose reasoning partly rests on the fact that it'll never affect them physically so why the fuck should their tax dollars go to it? Because that's empathy.

Not a 'champion of women'. Just basic chivalry that died along time ago, I'm just the only one who holds on too it, just barely.

 

4 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Who are you to decide which issues do and don't deserve funding? Because you don't like it?

. 

Are you asking me; who am I to say where my money goes? Cause that's what you are asking.

4 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

I don't like my tax dollars going to corrupt police stations. But I bite the bullet because I've accepted that one of the caveats of the social contract that not everyone gets what they want all the time.

Join the club

4 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

 Because life isn't about you all the goddamn time. Again, if you don't like it, I suggest you work on trying to repeal Roe v Wade. Considering the shitshow that is the governmental demographics right now, now's the prime opportunity, actually. Go forth and advocate for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Just don't be shocked when undetected cancer and treatable life-threatening conditions for women spike.

Life is what you make it. Life is about me, life is about you, life is about whoever is living it. You think it's because I don't like it? Sure, it might also be because I have a family to take care of myself. But who gives a fuck about an already born child? But it sounds like you are saying I as a citizen don't have the right to care for me and my family when someone else is probably struggling. You are literally telling me to shut up and keep paying these fees. Life isn't about them just as much as it isn't about me. Equality after all! Right?

 

But just in case I'm misunderstanding you. What you are saying, to sum it up; buckle down and take one for the team...right?

[Tani Coyote]

5 minutes ago, Jovahexeon the Sapphire said:

At this rate,  I'm literally hoping that his campaign persona was just a facade to get into office so he can do a legit job as president. 

It's quite possible a lot of it was with his flipflopping. The only things he seems to have stayed consistent on are China, immigration, and sexism (no surprise there).

On the other hand, he's a poor businessman with no political experience, so I can't imagine the nightmare of him trying to run the government. What's worse, he has to let the GOP establishment do a lot of the work if "he" wants to do a decent job, so even if Trump himself isn't the Hitler Lite we feared him to be, it won't make a difference because the GOP are the ones doing the real work.

Pence, McConnell, Ryan, et. al. do know what they're doing as politicians, and none of them are exactly advocates of minorities. We're screwed regardless of Trump's personal views unless he does something crazy like change Party affiliation mid-Presidency.

[Patticus]

I'm confused by the wording of Trump's statement in the article:

Quote

“North Carolina did something — it was very strong — and they’re paying a big price,” Mr. Trump said. “And there’s a lot of problems. And I heard — one of the best answers I heard was from a commentator yesterday saying, leave it the way it is, right now.”

He added that before the law passed, there had been “very few problems” but now North Carolina is experiencing an exodus of businesses and “strife” from people on both sides of the issue.

“You leave it the way it is,” he said. “There have been very few complaints the way it is.”

Is he saying to leave North Carolina's law the way it is, or leave alone the law (or whatever it is) permitting transgender people to use the bathroom they identify with?