Crying and B****ing about Trump

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Possibly some good news for the LBGTQ community

 

GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

 

Republican President-elect Donald Trump said he’s “fine” with same-sex marriage as the law of the land, calling the issue "settled" by the Supreme Court.

 

The comments – in his first television interview since winning the presidency – sharply contrast with his party’s orthodoxy, his running mate’s longtime position and comments the New York Republican made during the primary.

 

“It’s law,” he said in an interview with CBS’ ‘60 Minutes’ that aired Sunday. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.”

 

“These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m – I’m fine with that,” he added.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-sex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067

Hopefully it doesn't change, I think there are way more important things to work on and he'll be too busy working on those for this to be a worry.

[zoogs]

I was going to post a few somewhat related things to that:

 

1. Trump's entirely conflicting stance on another settled SCOTUS case, Roe v Wade: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/13/13618556/trump-60-minutes-roe-v-wade-abortion

 

2. A best/worst case outline on the LGBTQ front: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13576588/president-trump-lgbtq-election-2016

 

3. A bold victory in transgender rights from HRC's time as SecState, now likely to evaporate: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/hillary-clinton-rarely-takes-credit-major-transgender-victory/ (If you are trans, now is the time to get a passport)

 

4. A less-than-optimistic take on the near-term future of LGBTQ rights in America: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/what-will-lgbt-rights-look-like-under-president-trump.html

 

My thoughts are that Trump & his team will find they have limited political bandwidth, and this may not end up tops on the agenda one way or another for them.

 

On the other hand, personnel is policy, and we must consider the personnel and their history in any outlook. Mike Pence, whose record here we should all be familiar with. Ben Carson, who compared it to bestiality in a 2013 argument against gay marriage. Newt Gingrich, who regards the LGBT rights movement as "the new fascism." Ken Blackwell, who believed that gayness is a compulsion that ought to be repressed or changed. I readily believe these people and others likely to join the team under Pence's guidance have serious intentions on this front. It would require evidence to the contrary.

 

So on balance, no, I don't think there is any real good news at the moment for the LGBT community. Although Obergefell not facing the same assault as Roe, I suppose that's something. Neither would have been easy to overturn in the short term, regardless. However, both may ultimately be in danger pending future SCOTUS nominations, the right court cases, and treatment of precedent.

 

For trans people specifically, it doesn't appear that we care much about their issues to begin with (not an accusation, merely observation). And so there we may run into the problem of limited defense bandwidth also.

[BigRedBuster]

I think this is the first time in my life I've ever seen people whose candidate won defend him by saying.....don't worry, he's not going to do what he said he would.

[Moiraine]

So on balance, no, I don't think there is any real good news at the moment for the LGBT community.

 

YOU'RE PLAYING THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION CARD, DERP

[knapplc]

I think this is the first time in my life I've ever seen people whose candidate won defend him by saying.....don't worry, he's not going to do what he said he would.

 

I wonder what the excuse will be if/when he does/tries to do the things he said he would.

 

"Sure, I voted for him, but I didn't really think he'd do that stuff."

[FrankWheeler]

I think this is the first time in my life I've ever seen people whose candidate won defend him by saying.....don't worry, he's not going to do what he said he would.

 

The 'best wall' has already turned into some sort of fencing...

[Moiraine]

Figured this would be a good place for a talk on impeachment. I don't think Trump will be impeached, unless he does something that pisses off the Republicans a lot. Many of them are pissed off already, but certainly not to the extent that they would impeach him. On top of that, Trump is obviously popular right now with their base. They're not even going to think about pursuing it for at least 2 years, imo. However, many of them likely see Pence as a lot more desirable.

Anyhow, I looked up impeachment (just on wikipedia): The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[24] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[25] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."


There are three things (that we know of) that can be investigated or are already being investigated. One is the charity, another is Trump University, and the third is the campaign donation he made to the Florida Attorney General who was investigating Trump University. I don't consider the Republican Congress to be much of a safeguard against him but at least they have a little ammo.

[teachercd]

Andrew Johnson likes that Wikipedia citation

[knapplc]

I'll be stunned if a Republican congress agrees to impeach a Republican president, even if he's a RINO. No way does that happen.

 

Also wouldn't happen if Democrat/Democrat, to be fair.

[Red Five]

I can see some sort of shady business deal coming to light over the next couple of years. Not sure what exactly, but something tied to foreign policy decisions and his businesses where it is proven somewhere (email?) that the sole reason for that decision was to enrich his business.

[knapplc]

I can see some sort of shady business deal coming to light over the next couple of years. Not sure what exactly, but something tied to foreign policy decisions and his businesses where it is proven somewhere (email?) that the sole reason for that decision was to enrich his business.

 

Sure, but even if he's hauled in front of congress over it, he'll just say, "Yeah, but the Clinton Foundation." And the Republicans on the committee will be "Well, can't dispute that" and he'll walk.

[Danny Bateman]

I'm not sure if y'all caught this, but I think it's been announced that his kids are going to be running his company, right? While he's also trying to get them security clearance for classified information so they can work as unpaid national security advisors? No conflict of interest there...

 

None of these people have any level of experience in government or national security at any level.

 

FWIW, he also solicited many, many donations from foreign government employees during his campaign. The FEC is pretty feckless right now, though, and didn't choose to pursue it. Certainly that's not the type of violation that would be cause for his own party to act.

 

There's almost nothing Trump could do to cause them to do anything to him.

[NM11046]

Honestly I have to think that when top level security checks on done on some of these folks (not the kids necessarily but on Bannon and Rudy and others) that there will be some dicey stuff uncovered.

 

So now we find out who is willing to overlook that sort of thing or bring it forward. Will we see the FBI that worked to get Trump elected also work to get his sketchy cabinet members in place? Or does the buck stop since they got Hillary out of the big chair.

[zoogs]

Vox on the fight against normalization, and whether that could backfire:

 

 

This is the real danger of a fight against “normalization” that assumes that the country is being drawn inevitably down the road to authoritarianism: The Trump administration could take another path and go unnoticed.

Donald Trump probably won’t cancel elections, but he could — and is relatively likely to — oversee a sweeping rollback of voting rights. His administration may not throw journalists in jail, but it could easily step up surveillance of domestic protesters. His appointees may not entrench a permanent oligarchy, but it could still — for millions of people in America — reduce the willingness and ability to participate in public life to zero.

These wouldn’t flout the law; they’d be under color of it and even in concert with it. But they would, nonetheless, be a tragedy for democracy.

 

Indeed, that has been his playbook throughout his campaign. Distract via shock, and then receive credit for being merely normally bad.

[Making Chimichangas]

ColoNoCoHusker said: I am not criticizing anyone that voted for DT. People need to vote how they feel. However, I do not understand how all these DT supporters cannot understand the fear certain classes of citizens have when this fear is based directly on statements DT has made. Not spin, not media, not opposing party rhetoric but purely DT's actual comments. The marginalization I am worried about starts with the inability to understand our fellow people.

 

 

Your entire post above is terrific. However, the part I quoted has the most relevance to me.

 

The sad part is that the over-whelming majority of Trump voters simply don't care about people being marginalized or discriminated against.

 

In "Trump's America," they know they'll never be on the receiving end of the bigotry, harassment, violence...so they simply don't give a f&%$.