Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

They didn't say anything about Trump's views. The bathroom thing is a uniting issue for Republicans under Obama - they don't need the president to agree to act on the state level. While Trump isn't on their side I don't see him fighting them over it, giving them more freedom to do as they please.

[nenjin]

I don't think there's any sauce to it, it's just not a hard assumption to make. It's a "uniting issue" for Trumplicans just like "immigration" and "Muslims" are. I don't think it's "the" issue though. To them it's just one sign of why they think the country is backsliding, getting to PC, whatever. I personally doubt that Bathroom Bills are going to be the issue that rallies the whole Republican base to Trump though.

How quickly you forget. This isn't even the first time it's come up! Some people around here seem willing to just assign any negative trait they please to Trump in particular and the GOP in general without really looking at it.

For all the things Trump has said one minute then changed the next, I don't see why I should take his position on bathrooms any more seriously. I work with the people who vote Trump and talk about being worried about their daughters being jumped in the bathroom by a transgender person. Whether Trump actually supports transgender people doing what they want or not, I don't think it invalidates what I said. Because the people voting for him don't currently seem to care that he disagrees with them on this issue. They care more about him winning. So I don't think it really invalidates what I said.

[penguinofhonor]

When asked about this recently on Jimmy Kimmel, Trump said "What really I’m saying, and I think it’s pretty simple: let the states decide." I would expect him to put up zero resistance on this issue.

[mainiac]

throat spelunking

Just because it's legal in North Carolina now doesn't mean you need to start doing it right away.

[RedKing]

So, another reason why we might want to actually not want to burn everything down come November. Either the ruling will stand, or it'll end up in the Supreme Court (rather unlikely). This, along with the many other cases delayed due to the split court, will almost entirely be decided by who wins in November.

Now, don't get me wrong- both candidates spell disaster for foreign policy in their own, special ways. Both have domestic plans that either leave so much to be desired that there's not much point in the first place, or are an outright step backwards. I wouldn't consider this an election for the Presidency; consider it an election for the next Supreme Court justice. Considering that they serve life terms, it means a whole lot more than 4 years here.


And to Redking, do you really think there's a chance with how things are today that a President could be assassinated? Do you really think that would end well should they live? The consequences for attempting to kill a sitting President in this day and age and failing are... well, I hope I don't need to enumerate.

I'm not advocating anything, I'm merely pointing out that if we're going to cram Trump into ill-fitting historical analogies, let's remember how those analogues ended up. Trump is not Hitler, Trump is not Mussolini. Trump is Trump.


As for the question of assassination, the consequences are the same as they have always been -- life imprisonment at best, death the more likely outcome. It's not like they can kill you MORE dead now. Though I suppose Trump might bring back drawing and quartering if he survived a close call.

But I figure, if no one assassinated Obama (and his detractors included a bevy of angry gun fetishists who thought he was literally worse than Hitler) then modern-day liberal radicals sure as hell aren't going to have the balls to snipe The Donald. I suppose they could protest him to death, at least until he outlaws protests. We're a long ways removed from the likes of the Weathermen and the SLA.

throat spelunking

Just because it's legal in North Carolina now doesn't mean you need to start doing it right away.

You flatter yourself. Not even if you bought me dinner first.

[mainiac]

So your point is that the republican would have killed the favorability rating of any serious Dem presidential candidate?

The people that called Obama the most divisive president ever as they broke the record for fillibusters?  The people who impeached Bill Clinton?  Yeah, I think they would be doing this regardless.

Remember, Obama ordered an investigation of Benghazi way back in 2012.  If there was any serious wrongdoing, then he would have known about it four years ago.  He could have either tossed Clinton under the bus or quietly kept her from running.  He wouldn't want the scandal tarnishing his legacy and costing the party an election.  But Obama didn't make Clinton require in a private meeting and didn't leak anything way back in 2013 or 2014 when the democrats would have had plenty of time to settle on someone besides Clinton.  Because the republicans are going to do this regardless of the facts.  It's like with Law and Order, reality is just something you get inspiration for before you make up your story.  If Clinton had actually done something wrong with Benghazi we would instead be hearing about Bernie Sander's ties to communist revolutionaries or whether Martin O'Malley personally ordered the murder of Freddie Gray.

[Willfor]

ill-fitting historical analogies

Uhhhh, no, I think it actually works pretty well as far as analogies go.

[Playergamer]

The people who impeached Bill Clinton?

You mean Rapin' Bill?

[Morrigi]

It's funny, I spent some time on AltHist in the years leading up to 2016, and pretty much all of the future timelines agreed: Only Marco Rubio and Hilary Clinton can become President. Time will tell if they were all right, or so, so very wrong.

This intrigues me. I want to know more. How may I achieve that?

You could register an account at AltHist (the Future History forum is only visible to users), but I wouldn't bother. Their moderation is horrible, and I mean all the way down to "ban people for disagreeing with me and without consistent enforcement". I could feasibly get banned for saying that here, but I don't use my account anymore.

Before you ask, no, I'm not butthurt. I never got so much as a warning myself, but witnessed a lot of bad practice and have had discussions with excellent creators who ended up cast out for minor or non- violations.

Yeah, if you aren't a leftist and you speak out on AH, you will be banned for having the wrong opinions. It's unbelievably shitty and has robbed the site of some of its best content. I know one contributor was permabanned for being German, discussing German politics, and writing about German  alternate history. The reason? Being a 'crazed nationalist'. It wasn't even Nazi-related.

[RedKing]

ill-fitting historical analogies

Uhhhh, no, I think it actually works pretty well as far as analogies go.

Well, certainly can't argue with Reddit historians. 

America 2016 != Italy 1925. Or Germany 1936. On so many levels. Different sources of social tension, different rules, different power structures.

Do we need to come up with a corollary to Godwin's Law for Mussolini?

[Morrigi]

Someone wake me up when Trump actually denounces the concept of democracy. Then we can talk.

[KingofstarrySkies]

There's gotta be a system that can function with less failure, right? Right?

[mainiac]

Oh man it's so great seeing the bickering has moved on to other topics.

[Orange Wizard]

There's gotta be a system that can function with less failure, right? Right?

Enlightened despotism, see Nervan Dynasty. Except Aurelius fucked up when he sired Commodus instead of finding a properly enlightened despot.

If dictatorship isn't to your liking, try using a representative democracy with a solid classical education, see Nordic model.

[KingofstarrySkies]

can't we all just go back to being rome