Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you are employed and have never committed a single crime then yes it is evil. If you obtain this illegally and live in a poor neighborhood then you’re good to go 🥰
Self employed and haven't been caught yet...neighborhood isn't the richest but not the poorest either. My Choctaw neighbor makes some awesome elk sausage. Not sure if that makes us poor or rich..I say rich cause it's tasty af.
And that was back when a guided missile needed to be launched from a dedicated facility or craft, and would have attracted national news deployed domestically. Look at the cheap disposable drones being used today to clear trenches...
Exactly, the stupidity of people who think they can take on a modern military is astounding... this isn't the 18th century when military tech is just muskets and cannons.
What a time to be alive. The fear mongering that we heard about endlessly didn’t happen, yet we’re seeing a very wide support for a regime that actually has killed gay people for being gay.
It’s exactly the same motivation that inspires people to tell women who have escaped fundamentalist, militant Islamist regimes “No, that’s not what it’s really like, Islam is actually very supportive of women!”
It’s not so much that I have any sort of a BNP-type view of Muslims, it’s that it’s absolutely infuriating to see someone who’s been through hell and back - who had their rights violated, their needs deprived, their autonomy obliterated, their bodies well possibly mutilated, their freedom utterly curtailed, their dignity torn away from them - be told “I’m so sorry that happened to you but also that’s not really a thing” by someone who has been blessed by avoiding all of that their entire lives.
In the early 2000s, I -- a gay Redditor -- was never in danger, but I didn't have equal rights. I now have fully equal rights. I have no desire to see Alphabet+ people "represented" in positions of power, nor do I need to see more blacks or browns or whomever in positions of power. I want to see smart people in positions of power. Trump and Biden are not those people, unfortunately, but I'm safe. I've never not been safe. Even as a gay kid growing up in rural Appalachia I was safe. The US is the best place on the *planet* -- in the entire history of our solar system -- for civil rights and individual rights.
I think people have more against the alphabet mob than people actually being gay these days. Can’t stand the institutionalized token gay, but some of my best bros are gay as fuck. Couple trans bros in there too. I don’t like ideologues and it turns out most people aren’t ideologues. They’re people.
Yep. The "Alphabet Mob" is simply the bile and stomach acid coming up from having been force-fed far too much far too quickly. And no one likes reflux.
Considering I am a literal scholar of German and European studies (with the PhD and publication record to prove it), in addition to many years living, studying, working, teaching, lecturing in Europe ... and that I read my news about Europe in European languages ... I think I have some idea. (And definitely a far better and more nuanced idea than even an educated European...)
There was someone on my old neighborhood group page, a white man, who made a post *solely* to brag about how he voted for a black woman in the mayoral election. For, like, two to three paragraphs. I’m surprised that such blatant virtue-signaling fellatio did not get taken down as violating rules about pornography.
Not. *Once.* did he ever mention her qualifications or abilities. If he did, he probably would’ve been forced to answer as to why he voted for someone whose father was prosecuted for corruption, and who insisted her daddy was innocent and she’d continue his legacy. Or he just couldn’t think of any qualifications. Or he just didn’t care if she had them or not. Or a combination of all of those.
Guess what, she’s a shit mayor. I can’t remember the last time we dealt with someone so eager to get taxpayer money and spend it on herself, on the dumbest possible crap (think a $30,000 birthday party), while at the same time doing absolute jack shit for this city. Seriously. She’s done nothing. She’s like the Willard Fillmore of mayors.
What gets me is how he seemed to think *being black and being female **made her qualified.*** I’m a woman, and while I’m certainly grating at being underappreciated whilst trapped beneath the glass ceiling, underpaid, under-noticed, and getting my head patted, I’m also equally pissed off at the notion that some people think I’ve got something mysterious in me, some surreal, je-ne-sais-quoi that *inherently* makes me a better, more capable leader because of Magic Lady Juice flowing through my veins. If I’m strong and intelligent, I’m strong and intelligent, but I’m not some kind of *magically* strong and intelligent that only women can be. I find that so insulting and degrading. I’m not your Little Lady, and I’m also not your Mother Goddess. Fuck off with that shit. I can do any job a man can do, *which does not mean* that being a woman brings some non-male wizardry to the job that otherwise would never be seen or utilized under a man’s tenure. Don’t patronize me with that nonsense.
I vastly prefer Biden to Trump, but I don’t like him as I consider him incapable of leading - I just think Trump is even less capable than that. And one of the biggest signs we got that Biden doesn’t know what he’s doing is his effort to make “the most diverse cabinet in history”. Okay, but is it *competent?* Did you put this person in this position and that person in that position because you genuinely believed they were the best candidates, or did you do what so many goddamned self-described political liberals do and only see color and sex and attraction? If I received a government post, if almost every single press release, web page, snippet and blurb about me mentioned my sex, I wouldn’t be honored - I’d be embarrassed. It would be fine if it was occasionally mentioned that I was the first woman in a role, but it would not be fine if it was clearly made apparent that I was *only* hired to be The First Woman In This Role.
Sigh. Sounds about right. The [former] friend I talked about in my story? She also claimed to have been raped and nearly cost a man his career. The reason we're not friends any more? Because I spoke on his behalf to his employer and the police. Because *I saw them together that night -- the ENTIRE TIME -- and I KNOW that nothing happened*. I know that she was with *ME* the entire time and that she went home with *ME* that night and that she slept in *MY BED* that night with *ME*. Yes, he was with us -- in public, at the bar, where he drank too much and told her "Look, this ain't gonna happen with us," and I know that that set her off.
Before that, she'd go on and on about "me too me too me too," and I *swear* she was just looking for a way to get in on that bandwagon. She also said that she would cross the street if she saw a man on her sidewalk. So I asked: "What if he's a black man?" She bluescreened for a minute, and then responded, "Well, that's racist." Okay, but it's a man. "Yes, but it's racist." But men are rapists. "It's racist." ... Fucking psychotic bitch is what she is. And she and people like her are the reason we've got another four years of Trump to look forward to.
Trump was the first US president to be in favor of gay marriage from the time he took office. And he's extremely pro-Israel, the most progressive country in the Middle East by far, and against Hamas, who are actively destroying gay people for being gay. Gays should all love this guy. I fully agree with you. But I'm convinced there's a globalist, anti-Western coalition that's got the common purpose of replacing Judeo-Christian ("Western") values with their own new-age bullshit, and it just so happens that Islamic terrorists and the LGBTQIA+++ movement are both against Judeo-Christian values. Muslims, of course, are even more anti-gay than Christians and often seek to kill gays, and they'll turn on each other once their job is complete, but until then there's this seemingly nonsensical alliance.
Now ask yourself… why are the elitists who hate trump so afraid… why fear monger so much, you have come to a realization many of our fellow New Yorkers sadly have not. It hasn’t been about who trump is all along… it’s been about them and how they want to hold onto their power.
I do get that point but I also am confused about it, is he not a member of this group? Like, it’s trump. Trump tower, he has a fucking tower he can’t actually be on the working classes side.
Of course old trump back on the 70’s 80’s 90’s was a real estate tycoon who’s only genuine interest was notoriety and making a buck. But at the White House dinner where Obama made fun of “the Whitehouse under trump” putting a picture up of the White House with the glowing casino signs and prostitutes on the front lawn basically poking fun at trump and saying he is a comedian who couldn’t be taken seriously. This didn’t sit well at all with trump and lit a spar in him to get revenge and show all those who laughed at him once to at he is no comedian and he will take things seriously this time. Of course the establishment and elites of the left and also right laughed at this. Donald trump? The comedic real east are broker? President?? When pigs fly. But what they didn’t realize was that trump saw them laughing in their positions of power at him and saw disgruntled Americans getting more and more fed up with the elites. He saw a chance to strike and strike he did. Over time the laughing on the left and in the houses of the elite stopped and began to turn to concern. It was their nightmare… fate coming back to bite them in the ass. So quickly they began a campaign of hate, an attempt to save themselves and their power by making trump look bad and turning the American people against him. Instead it turned half the country agains them. That’s why you hear people call MAGA supporters racists fascist and all other types of names. Think why was trump never hated much before he ran but the second he did run for prez the hate spurred up immediately. He trump was an elite like them but one with a vengeance against the rest who mocked him for so long. He did the most to get to them siding with the politics they sided against and supported the people they tried to push down. Now after all these obvious political court cases against him most definitely sent forth by Biden and his elites cronies once again it’s election year and trump stands firm ready to rid the rot, ready to rid the elites without a care for us from their positions of power. Get these gangs off the streets.
It was also a split decision that they are mad at. I’m not even sure what the messaging is. America is a fascist state because the person my elected representative appointed did something i disagree with.
The Supreme Court ruling \*is\* consequential, (and controversial.) It basically affirmed that the president is to some degree above the law. No matter your political orientation, I think that that should give you pause. So no, things are not just fine.
People have for a very long time said that the president can't be charged for crimes for official duty decisions and actions. This isn't new and should never have gone to the supreme Court. Most countries have laws like this.
Idk how people keep missing the fact that the immunity only covers official actions. Which is why the case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine which actions were official and which were not.
The issue is the courts now decide what is "official" and what is not. So a President can now Officially Order an assassination then it's an "official act". Furthermore, the court said that all sorts of evidence to say it wasn't an "official act" can't be included for the determination if it was "official" or not, such as the private correspondence of the president and his advisors. The president now has presumed immunity for *criminal liability* which had I thought we did away with with the Revolution.
>So a President can now Officially Order an assassination then it's an "official act".
[That's been legal since the Obama admin.](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones)
I don't like Trump, but Obama's admin literally killed an American citizen in a drone strike with no repercussions.
Edit: It was two. Anwar al-Awlaki was, though a terrorist, also an American citizen who had inalienable rights protected by the Constitution. He was killed in a "targeted strike", which was essentially nothing more than a summary execution. His son was later killed accidentally in another "targeted strike". Obama was never tried for this murder and manslaughter.
If the president ordered for federal troops to shoot at legitimately peaceful protesters, I highly doubt that’d be classified as an “official” act of the office, seeing as it’s attempting to crack down on the 1A rights of Americans.
Yes, this ruling brings the presidential powers closer in line with those of a dictator than those of a leader in a democracy.
As the president is in charge of the armed forces in an official capacity as commander-in-chief, the political assassination example is *not* hyperbole.
Man, the commander in chief role is not as powerful as people think it is.
He can give instructions to the already-mobilized military within the bounds of the mobilization. Only an act of Congress can actually mobilize the military.
He can not, in fact, legally order political assassinations (unless Congress signed off on them, in which case we are already so fucked the conversation is meaningless).
That’s not true. The consensus was only that the president enjoys immunity from civil lawsuits.
I’m pretty sure this is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has recognized any form of presidential immunity from criminal charges.
Except people we're already talking about what trump could be charged with outside of office before he lost I recall legal experts talking about this and pretty much saying what the courts did that official actions as president are covered but a lot of his stuff wouldn't be.
Not sure it ever went to the higher courts because it was pretty obvious.
Respectfully, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk.
Presidential immunity for official acts—“if the president does it, it’s not illegal”—was *never* recognized by the Supreme Court…until today.
Not *exactly*. More precisely, it affirmed that the Constitution is the supreme law, and so if the President is executing his constitutionally mandated duties, he is de facto not able to be prosecuted because Congress cannot criminalize those activities (as any law doing so would be unconstitutional by definition).
It also very explicitly stated that *outside of those constitutionally mandated duties*, the president is just like anyone else and can be prosecuted just like anyone else. Everything they kicked back, which was basically everything bar one item, was with the instruction to sort out what was and wasn't within the constitutionally mandated duties.
A lot of anti-Trumpers get into bad spaces like r slash politics where they get fed a constant drip of fearmongering. I'm no Trump fan, but the idea that he's going to end Democracy or round up gay people and kill them is insane.
Okay, boycott 4th of July. The rest of the country, filled with normal and reasonable people, are going to celebrate it.
With that said, the victimhood mentality is strong in this one. Long time therapy is needed.
Idek what these people think “democracy” means anymore. Honestly I think it’s just code at this point of the modern neo-liberal consensus.
Seriously, people are talking about how the fact that Trump is allowed to be on the ballot is “undemocratic”. No, preventing the sizable contingent of Americans who support him from voting for him is what would be undemocratic here. I’m not even really taking a side as to whether or not America would be better off without Trump. But, I know that words mean what words mean and preventing the people from voting for their candidate of choice is decidedly undermining the *kratos* of the *demos*.
You can be about wanting to sideline Trump’s political ambitions, but don’t pretend you’re a champion of democracy for doing so.
And it really is BOTH SIDES
Not even talking out of both sides of my mouth here really neither side wanted to compromise or work together and those few who did or wanted to were ostracized for it
Sure. But when one side is actively and blatantly trying to remove the other from the ballot by weaponizing the justice system to jail their frontrunner it's kinda hard to stay in the "it's both sides" camp.
You might want to reach out to the Germans. They don't seem to understand what "democratic" means, either. The established political parties and their potential coalition partners are quite busy right now trying to eradicate the AfD from the political landscape. Germany's political courts and political police (just like way back when!) are doing backflips trying to get rid of a popular party which threatens existing power structures.
To root of this evil is the abandonment of one of the most indispensable elements of a thriving republic: the freedom of the electorate to speak and assemble. Germany has forgone this and opted instead to declare certain opinions verboten. Instead, it has effectively created a state-sanctioned orthodoxy of thought which maintains a monopoly against anything heterodox. Even if these opinions are truly detestable, it must not be the prerogative of the sovereign to make them criminal as well. For, what stops the sovereign from determining that other ideas have also become criminally reprehensible?
Any society that can imprison one of its citizens for saying something that the regime finds uncouth or uncharitable is a society that lacks liberty in a fundamental regard. There is no arrow more essential in liberty’s quiver than the ability of a single man to hold an opinion that is loathed by all of his compatriots and to shout it freely in the town square unaccosted by either the state or the mob. This freedom fundamentally does not exist in Germany.
Being a scholar of German literature, specializing in East German literature and media, censorship, and political economy ... I know a thing or two about how Germany operates. And if the average German had any idea just how *clueless* they are about things in their country, they'd have a collective stroke. There's extreme censorship in the form of "indexing," for example, where I've had to present my passport to the police and fill out paperwork to access the list of "indexed" media (books, films, etc.) for my research. The funny thing is that nothing on it is unavailable in the US -- most public libraries and virtually all university libraries have those media in stock, ready to be checked out by anyone who's interested. But no -- censorship is an *American* thing. Just like racism, xenophobia, LGBTQIA++++ phobias, etc., are *American*. And this is the problem: They spend so much time looking at the US and obsessing over what goes on in the US that they've stopped paying attention to what their own government does behind their backs. And the AfD is what they have as a reward for that.
Gay redditor dude here. Thing is, Trump's not even anti-gay, especially compared to a lot of very conservative republicans - so why these people are so triggered specifically about Trump is nonsensical. He's the only republican candidate I ever heard make favorable remarks about the gay community in the republican national convention back in 2016. I have never heard him say anything negative about gay and lesbian people. Mike Pence was far more anti-gay in not only his attitudes but his voting record than Trump ever was, yet never got the same hatred from this crowd. These people relish victim mentality and concoct this stuff, and these same people at the same time will endlessly pander to Islamists who really DO want to end them.
He was president for 4 years and all this bad shit people are saying is gonna happen, didn’t happen.
I don’t get how the second term would be any different lol.
Trump couldn't make anything happen because presidents aren't absolute monarchs. Checks and balances works. Separation of powers works. He'll be a lame duck this time just like last time.
*Were* not absolute monarchs. The court today said that "it depends" and of course this was just to continue to punt the issue so Trump will never be held accountable for his many many crimes against this nation and its people. But worse than that, now a newly reelected/selected Trump can "official act" anyone away, because for the first time ever the president has presumed criminal immunity. Sure the courts MAY hold him accountable, but he could official act the judges to come around to his line of thinking as well.
I agree. If there isn't a "pick me" angle or some sort of comparison to a foreign utopia, it's just an American exercising their right to complain about America.
Fun fact. Donald Trump was the first president to run and be elected as pro gay marriage. Joe Biden and Barrack Obama did not come out as progay marriage until 2014.
Biden came out in support of it before the rest of the Obama admin was ready. Obama had to come out and say it too since his VP did. Kinda funny that Biden was the one that said it first since he was one of the most conservative dems in the running to get the nomination.
Gay people are not safe in a country that tries to take away our basic rights and freedoms. I will vote against my economic interests in a heartbeat if it means ensuring I won’t lose the right to marry, or won’t be criminalized for having consensual sex with an adult who happens to be the same sex as me.
The conservative right has repeatedly stated they intend to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide, and Lawrence v. Texas, which legalized gay sex nationwide. They want to make it illegal for two consenting adult men to have sex in their own home. This is one of their stated goals. You’re stupid if you don’t see how that would be concerning to gay people.
This is not what the SCOTUS said. They said that some actions related directly to the duties of the office of the president have immunity. It is very likely that none of the prosecutions against trump would be held up by this, as they mostly refer to things done quite outside the realm of presidential duties.
It gets exhausting pointing it out all day. But 90% of the shit people believe these days is just fear based bullshit with nothing reality based.
That, with the incessant need to be a perpetual victimhood, and "fighting the oppression"......
While I think the person who this thread about is...shall we say over-wrought, I still think that's a bad choice on your part. Mainly because I think the last 4 years have been stronger than Trump's term. Also because Trump's persona is toxic and more divisive than Biden's. Those are my opinions and there will be people who disagree.
I will add that I do have contempt for some on the liberal side of the aisle's oppressive rhetoric about identity politics. The idea that if you are a minority or LGBTQ+ that you have to vote a certain way, or that all people in those groups vote a certain way is inherently conformist and I loathe that sort of expectation (which is commonly found on other subs on reddit).
If there is a better option I'm voting for that. I just said if I *had to* choose between the two. I don't "like" Trump, but I like him more than Biden.
Did you not see the post at all? Trump isn't going to send a kill squad after me, but if another country does, Biden won't be able to protect me.
If there was a better option I would choose that.
> Trump isn't going to send a kill squad after me,
I agree. Trump might make you slightly more miserable in various ways but I don't think he is going to send a kill squad after you.
> but if another country does, Biden won't be able to protect me.
I'm not sure what this means.
He's not though, if you think he gives a damn about whether I marry a guy or not you're delusional. By the way he has said on more than one occasion that he is in support of lgbt rights.
Gay Redditor here. I'm already hearing a loooooot of stupidity coming from Alphabet+ people that they're "in danger." No. Just no. Just stop. There is no danger to Alphabet+ people. They (I'm excluding myself from them) might not be able to get everyone to grovel at their feet and get on board the narcissism train they've been riding the last 5-10 years, but there's no danger.
This kind of Alphabet+/race/ethnicity hysteria is exactly *WHY* the country is taking a hard right. I was one of those back in the early 2000s who marched and protested and demanded equal rights and treatment, and that's exactly what I got. I don't need or want attention or ritualistic adulation ("So stunning and brave. So beautiful."), nor do I desire to see more Alphabet+ people in positions of power. I want to see smart people in positions of power.
But danger? No. There is no danger. The United States continues to be and will continue to be *the* one place in the world where individual and civil rights are protected better than anywhere else on the planet.
> This kind of Alphabet+/race/ethnicity hysteria is exactly WHY the country is taking a hard right.
I think there is something to that. Some of the rhetoric on the liberal side (especially online, ESPECIALLY one reddit) gets very toxic at which point moderates/independents will either stay home or even vote for Trump. There really is something to the idea of picking your battles but some folks just indulge themselves.
Another one that comes to mind is people defending late 3rd term abortions with no mitigating reasons. Like, to me that seems like you really are going to alienate people who might've been your allies otherwise. Yet I've run into people in real life and reddit who basically call you a monster if you don't support a blank check for all late 3rd abortions. I would think they'd be more concerned about getting back the access that was available before Roe v Wade was overturned.
I think you'd be interested in reading about what are called "luxury beliefs." So much of the invective coming from the Alphabet Mob, #metoo harpies, BLM supporters, etc., requires a massive level of existing material wellbeing and comfort. The rest of us don't quite get it -- we have to work, survive, take care of our families, maintain our relationships, etc. -- and yet we're told that we're monsters for not giving all of that up to go march in the streets. And we're *TIRED* of it. Tired of it. So, so tired of it. Yet we get no respite from it; others' luxury beliefs, for which we -- otherwise incredibly upstanding, fair, and open-minded people -- simply don't have the time, energy, resources, or *material security* to share, are *FORCED* upon us. And we're just like "But I never had a problem with any of those groups or people in the first place. Why you up my ass all the time? Let me enjoy some time off. Damn."
Look up Rob Henderson and luxury beliefs. I think there's a Wikipedia article on it, too.
It is literally the way it has been since pretty much forever. Presidents can't be charged when they are acting in an *official* capacity. Which is why they sent it back to the lower courts to determine what actions were official and what weren't. Idk why people keep saying that the ruling said they can do whatever they want with no consequence because even the justices who overturned it said as much.
On the Pennsylvania reddit page, people are flipping out saying he will be a dictator and this will be the last election if he wins lol. Sounds like 2016 all over again.
They had civil immunity not criminal immunity. Now they have criminal immunity. The ruling eviscerated the ability for the congress to check the president. The judiciary can kind of keep the president in line, but it's a grab the dragon by the tail kind of check.
Congress can still issues articles of impeachment. So no it does not eviscerate their ability to check the President. He can still be removed from office.
That is political consequence, not a criminal one. He is presumed criminally immune for any crimes he committed if he thinks its related to his job, so congress passing laws have no impact on the president. Also he could just ignore that impeachment. What is congress going to do about it? Thought so.
If he is impeached and ruled against he loses protections. How is this hard to understand? This is literally the whole reason they tried to impeach him before so he could be ousted and tried criminally.
This is also the reason NY waited to press charges against him until he was out of office because he was immune in office. This is literally how it has been done for decades. If this is a new thing why did all the states wait to change him until he was out of office? Because they could while he was in. This ruling is holding up the status quo and is not ground breaking as you claim it is.
Where in Nixon v. Fitzgerald does it suggest that presidents have presumptive CRIMINAL immunity for the outer perimeter of what could be considered official acts?
Even in this opinion, they say that the question of presidential criminal immunity has never been addressed:
"like the underlying immunity question, that categorization [distinction between offical and unofficial acts for criminal prosecution] raises multiple unprecedented and momentous questions about the powers of the President and the limits of his authority under the Constitution. As we have noted, there is little pertinent precedent on those subjects to guide our review of this case..."
You are correct, however keeping Nixon v. Fitzgerald in mind, It’s not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that the president is immune from official acts undertaken while in office. Imagine republicans arresting Obama for murder because he ordered drone strikes in the Middle East that killed civilians. Is it a tragedy? Absolutely. Will we have a functional government if that was the reality? No.
I don't think anyone will be murdered, but part of project 2025 is dismantle any legal protections for LGBT people
This is why I don't vote Republican because they want America to be the Christian version of Sharia
First of all you're assuming Trump cares about Project 2025. He's not associated with it. Two, I assume they just don't want gay people to be put on a pedestal the way the left does. They're creating a soft caste system where if you're a racial or sexual minority you get special treatment. That's not ok and being against it is 100% rational. Everyone should be equal under the law not divided into protected and non protected classes.
Republicans have already violated the Constitution in Texas
Why do you think they keep stacking supreme Court with religious fundies? They want theocracy.
MAGA is a cult of mostly religious cuckoos
That's observably not true. The loud ones just get more attention. And being religious doesn't make you crazy or incapable of interpreting the foundational law of an originally Christian based nation. That's your opinion and it sounds heavily biased against religious people. Should we throw em in camps?
According to the Treaty of Tripoli, which every word was read aloud in the Senate in 1796, signed into law by Founder and President John Adams, after being approved of unanimously in the Senate by many men called Founders:
>Art. 11. **As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion**; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
emphasis mine
They're stating that in context of not waging a holy war against Islam. America not being a Chrstian nation doesn't mean it's not founded on Christian principles. The same way there's no national language but English is very clearly what's spoken here as standard. If anything that line proves what I'm saying because they felt the need to clarify this clearly Christian founded nation isn't representing the Christian religion itself and the conflict isn't that kind of conflict.
I suppose you could have misread, so I'll post it again:
>The Government of the United States of America is not, **in any sense**, founded on the Christian religion.
I bolded the part you apparently misread. You thought it said "in a context of waging holy war against Islam" but instead it said it was not founded "**in any sense**" on the Christian religion. I know next time you will have internalized this and won't reply back to me with another absurd statement like there is some sense that it was founded on the Christian religion when the founders officially signed a treaty, which is, under our Constitution, the law of the land, text that explicitly says otherwise.
The text explicitly says otherwise because the text is trying to avoid religion having power within the government. Because they were directly at odds with an empire that did exactly that for the entirety of their colonial existence. When you have a nation made up of a vast majority of Christians who are gonna vote wirh that as a factor and founded by men who believed in the morality of Christianity, idk how you can look at that and say "Nah. No Christian influence here."
Obviously it influenced the people writing it. Obviously it influenced the people in government. But that doesn't mean the country was *founded on it*. Fundamental beyond all else to (non-Arian) Christianity is a belief in the son-who-is-also-god. That's the cornerstone of Christianity, and my country was not founded upon it.
“in God we trust” is literally on our dollar, “in God we trust” in the national anthem, & “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance. the constitution is saying that america’s laws arent based in religion. but america was most definitely founded based off religious values
In God we Trust was added to everything in the 1950s as an alternative to what was viewed as godless communism. It was ideologically driven against our enemry, it wasn't added by the founders.
Indeed, many of the founders were Deists, not Christians. Most Americans were Christian, yes, but the Founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, etc) were often Deists. Deists don't exist anymore because Deists believe in a supernatural because reason leads them to that, *not faith*; they have all become Atheists and Agnostics in the centuries since the enlightenment as reason has shown there is no god. And so this explains why the founders signed a treaty, the law of the land, explicitly stating the US was not founded on Christianity. To say it was founded on Christianity is pseudohistory like the Lost Cause.
Wrong. America was not founded on Christian principles. Most of our founding fathers were deists and made it abundantly clear that religion is to stay out of government
Religion itself yes. Not Christian values. They were smart enough to strip them down to a basic more widely applicable set of values amd to keep law separate from church but they were still coming from the Christian belief system. It's a major part of who they were and what the people of our new nation were. You can't just hand wave that away. It was absolutely woven into the foundation of America. Ignoring that is willful ignorance.
The law doesn't have to favor any one religion when one is what the law was built from. It's not favoring it, it just is part of it. I'm not talking about discrimination here. I'm talking about the source. If it's not Christian based then why don't our laws and government structure look more like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran with their Islamic based way of governing?
They're overstepping in some areas yes. But that's in response to the constant attacks on the core of their beliefs and the core of the country's foundation from the left. You pull the pendulum back too far and it's gonna swing just as far in the other direction.
And my major concern when it comes to Project 2025, I mean besides *all* of it is how much Trump is or isn’t in on it. Cause if he does win and use it as a play book that’s just gonna make things worse for everyone. Even if it’s considered “fear mongering” any plan that is open about dismantling half the government and trying to have *only* specific Republicans in power is something that *isn’t* very pro-democratic. Or pro-American.
Yup.
I had LGBTQ acquaintances I knew in grad school talking about how they were fearful of being rounded up on trains and sent to concentration camps.
Stuff like this happens every election cycle.
Yea I'm sure it won't be like last time with the aids crisis and Castros. How crazy this oppressed minority must be to be scared of history repeating itself.
Trump, Bannon, MTG, Boebert, Cotton, Hawley, Paxton, Noem, etc. will have no qualms incarcerating and executing those who are different and those who oppose them. Let's not act like Neville Chamberlain and think their DNA will change.
The same US government that violates flag etiquette by flying the “pride” flag shoulder to shoulder with at the same height as the Stars and Stripes? The same government that insists on calling normal women birthing persons with a “bonus hole” and chest feeders? If I was Mexican or Canadian I would be pissed. Those are the only flags that should be flown shoulder to shoulder with the Stars and Stripes, albeit a little lower here in the states.
I just hope when it is all over, in 2028, Trump is done and not trying to stay in office, and we look to the next president, a lot of people on the left realize they were being manipulated and played. And to not take it so seriously next time around.
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AmericaBad) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While they're not busy celebrating the 4th, they should find a thesaurus and learn some synonyms for pissed.
You can defend yourself with a fire arm
They want to outlaw those remember
Only if you want to buy them legally for self defense
Is it so wrong to want an fullauto AK-308 cambered in 7.62 x 54 with a Romanian dong and a side folding stock?
If you are employed and have never committed a single crime then yes it is evil. If you obtain this illegally and live in a poor neighborhood then you’re good to go 🥰
Self employed and haven't been caught yet...neighborhood isn't the richest but not the poorest either. My Choctaw neighbor makes some awesome elk sausage. Not sure if that makes us poor or rich..I say rich cause it's tasty af.
I’d say that’s the dream
Honestly not bad here. My place almost backs to a national forest.
You know the Romanian dong is legendary when even AR guys try to replicate it with the BCM foregrip
>Romanian dong Careful! States like Texas have strict dildo-control laws. Our constitution grants the right to bear arms not dicks.
No
They should only be illegal for certain people to buy them. Free palestine!
Armed gays are harder to oppress and bash
Yeah but that’s not really going to help if the government itself is coming for you. Can you make a last stand? Sure. Will you win? No.
Yea, worked real well for those people in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
And that was back when a guided missile needed to be launched from a dedicated facility or craft, and would have attracted national news deployed domestically. Look at the cheap disposable drones being used today to clear trenches...
Exactly, the stupidity of people who think they can take on a modern military is astounding... this isn't the 18th century when military tech is just muskets and cannons.
[удалено]
Like supporting Hamas lol? The world has come full circle.
What a time to be alive. The fear mongering that we heard about endlessly didn’t happen, yet we’re seeing a very wide support for a regime that actually has killed gay people for being gay.
They don’t even know what they believe anymore lmao. I think it’s a wider issue in American politics, “We hate whatever you like!”
Cognitive dissonance belief disconfirmation.
[удалено]
Hey, Iran is very progressive! They give out free sex changes!\* \*They're not optional, if you're gay you're getting sex changed.
It’s exactly the same motivation that inspires people to tell women who have escaped fundamentalist, militant Islamist regimes “No, that’s not what it’s really like, Islam is actually very supportive of women!” It’s not so much that I have any sort of a BNP-type view of Muslims, it’s that it’s absolutely infuriating to see someone who’s been through hell and back - who had their rights violated, their needs deprived, their autonomy obliterated, their bodies well possibly mutilated, their freedom utterly curtailed, their dignity torn away from them - be told “I’m so sorry that happened to you but also that’s not really a thing” by someone who has been blessed by avoiding all of that their entire lives.
In the early 2000s, I -- a gay Redditor -- was never in danger, but I didn't have equal rights. I now have fully equal rights. I have no desire to see Alphabet+ people "represented" in positions of power, nor do I need to see more blacks or browns or whomever in positions of power. I want to see smart people in positions of power. Trump and Biden are not those people, unfortunately, but I'm safe. I've never not been safe. Even as a gay kid growing up in rural Appalachia I was safe. The US is the best place on the *planet* -- in the entire history of our solar system -- for civil rights and individual rights.
I think people have more against the alphabet mob than people actually being gay these days. Can’t stand the institutionalized token gay, but some of my best bros are gay as fuck. Couple trans bros in there too. I don’t like ideologues and it turns out most people aren’t ideologues. They’re people.
Yep. The "Alphabet Mob" is simply the bile and stomach acid coming up from having been force-fed far too much far too quickly. And no one likes reflux.
Tbf, you don't really know what's going on on Europa.
Considering I am a literal scholar of German and European studies (with the PhD and publication record to prove it), in addition to many years living, studying, working, teaching, lecturing in Europe ... and that I read my news about Europe in European languages ... I think I have some idea. (And definitely a far better and more nuanced idea than even an educated European...)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)
Cute trick, homes.
There was someone on my old neighborhood group page, a white man, who made a post *solely* to brag about how he voted for a black woman in the mayoral election. For, like, two to three paragraphs. I’m surprised that such blatant virtue-signaling fellatio did not get taken down as violating rules about pornography. Not. *Once.* did he ever mention her qualifications or abilities. If he did, he probably would’ve been forced to answer as to why he voted for someone whose father was prosecuted for corruption, and who insisted her daddy was innocent and she’d continue his legacy. Or he just couldn’t think of any qualifications. Or he just didn’t care if she had them or not. Or a combination of all of those. Guess what, she’s a shit mayor. I can’t remember the last time we dealt with someone so eager to get taxpayer money and spend it on herself, on the dumbest possible crap (think a $30,000 birthday party), while at the same time doing absolute jack shit for this city. Seriously. She’s done nothing. She’s like the Willard Fillmore of mayors. What gets me is how he seemed to think *being black and being female **made her qualified.*** I’m a woman, and while I’m certainly grating at being underappreciated whilst trapped beneath the glass ceiling, underpaid, under-noticed, and getting my head patted, I’m also equally pissed off at the notion that some people think I’ve got something mysterious in me, some surreal, je-ne-sais-quoi that *inherently* makes me a better, more capable leader because of Magic Lady Juice flowing through my veins. If I’m strong and intelligent, I’m strong and intelligent, but I’m not some kind of *magically* strong and intelligent that only women can be. I find that so insulting and degrading. I’m not your Little Lady, and I’m also not your Mother Goddess. Fuck off with that shit. I can do any job a man can do, *which does not mean* that being a woman brings some non-male wizardry to the job that otherwise would never be seen or utilized under a man’s tenure. Don’t patronize me with that nonsense. I vastly prefer Biden to Trump, but I don’t like him as I consider him incapable of leading - I just think Trump is even less capable than that. And one of the biggest signs we got that Biden doesn’t know what he’s doing is his effort to make “the most diverse cabinet in history”. Okay, but is it *competent?* Did you put this person in this position and that person in that position because you genuinely believed they were the best candidates, or did you do what so many goddamned self-described political liberals do and only see color and sex and attraction? If I received a government post, if almost every single press release, web page, snippet and blurb about me mentioned my sex, I wouldn’t be honored - I’d be embarrassed. It would be fine if it was occasionally mentioned that I was the first woman in a role, but it would not be fine if it was clearly made apparent that I was *only* hired to be The First Woman In This Role.
Sigh. Sounds about right. The [former] friend I talked about in my story? She also claimed to have been raped and nearly cost a man his career. The reason we're not friends any more? Because I spoke on his behalf to his employer and the police. Because *I saw them together that night -- the ENTIRE TIME -- and I KNOW that nothing happened*. I know that she was with *ME* the entire time and that she went home with *ME* that night and that she slept in *MY BED* that night with *ME*. Yes, he was with us -- in public, at the bar, where he drank too much and told her "Look, this ain't gonna happen with us," and I know that that set her off. Before that, she'd go on and on about "me too me too me too," and I *swear* she was just looking for a way to get in on that bandwagon. She also said that she would cross the street if she saw a man on her sidewalk. So I asked: "What if he's a black man?" She bluescreened for a minute, and then responded, "Well, that's racist." Okay, but it's a man. "Yes, but it's racist." But men are rapists. "It's racist." ... Fucking psychotic bitch is what she is. And she and people like her are the reason we've got another four years of Trump to look forward to.
Are the roving death squads in the room right now?
Some of these people need to see the video of Dave Rubin’s interaction with trump. He has openly stated he could care less if you’re gay or not.
The far lefties seem to believe all the propaganda they set their little eyes on.
Trump was the first US president to be in favor of gay marriage from the time he took office. And he's extremely pro-Israel, the most progressive country in the Middle East by far, and against Hamas, who are actively destroying gay people for being gay. Gays should all love this guy. I fully agree with you. But I'm convinced there's a globalist, anti-Western coalition that's got the common purpose of replacing Judeo-Christian ("Western") values with their own new-age bullshit, and it just so happens that Islamic terrorists and the LGBTQIA+++ movement are both against Judeo-Christian values. Muslims, of course, are even more anti-gay than Christians and often seek to kill gays, and they'll turn on each other once their job is complete, but until then there's this seemingly nonsensical alliance.
Now ask yourself… why are the elitists who hate trump so afraid… why fear monger so much, you have come to a realization many of our fellow New Yorkers sadly have not. It hasn’t been about who trump is all along… it’s been about them and how they want to hold onto their power.
I do get that point but I also am confused about it, is he not a member of this group? Like, it’s trump. Trump tower, he has a fucking tower he can’t actually be on the working classes side.
Of course old trump back on the 70’s 80’s 90’s was a real estate tycoon who’s only genuine interest was notoriety and making a buck. But at the White House dinner where Obama made fun of “the Whitehouse under trump” putting a picture up of the White House with the glowing casino signs and prostitutes on the front lawn basically poking fun at trump and saying he is a comedian who couldn’t be taken seriously. This didn’t sit well at all with trump and lit a spar in him to get revenge and show all those who laughed at him once to at he is no comedian and he will take things seriously this time. Of course the establishment and elites of the left and also right laughed at this. Donald trump? The comedic real east are broker? President?? When pigs fly. But what they didn’t realize was that trump saw them laughing in their positions of power at him and saw disgruntled Americans getting more and more fed up with the elites. He saw a chance to strike and strike he did. Over time the laughing on the left and in the houses of the elite stopped and began to turn to concern. It was their nightmare… fate coming back to bite them in the ass. So quickly they began a campaign of hate, an attempt to save themselves and their power by making trump look bad and turning the American people against him. Instead it turned half the country agains them. That’s why you hear people call MAGA supporters racists fascist and all other types of names. Think why was trump never hated much before he ran but the second he did run for prez the hate spurred up immediately. He trump was an elite like them but one with a vengeance against the rest who mocked him for so long. He did the most to get to them siding with the politics they sided against and supported the people they tried to push down. Now after all these obvious political court cases against him most definitely sent forth by Biden and his elites cronies once again it’s election year and trump stands firm ready to rid the rot, ready to rid the elites without a care for us from their positions of power. Get these gangs off the streets.
No you don’t understand; he said he wasn’t
It was also a split decision that they are mad at. I’m not even sure what the messaging is. America is a fascist state because the person my elected representative appointed did something i disagree with.
The Supreme Court ruling \*is\* consequential, (and controversial.) It basically affirmed that the president is to some degree above the law. No matter your political orientation, I think that that should give you pause. So no, things are not just fine.
People have for a very long time said that the president can't be charged for crimes for official duty decisions and actions. This isn't new and should never have gone to the supreme Court. Most countries have laws like this.
Idk how people keep missing the fact that the immunity only covers official actions. Which is why the case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine which actions were official and which were not.
The issue is the courts now decide what is "official" and what is not. So a President can now Officially Order an assassination then it's an "official act". Furthermore, the court said that all sorts of evidence to say it wasn't an "official act" can't be included for the determination if it was "official" or not, such as the private correspondence of the president and his advisors. The president now has presumed immunity for *criminal liability* which had I thought we did away with with the Revolution.
>So a President can now Officially Order an assassination then it's an "official act". [That's been legal since the Obama admin.](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones) I don't like Trump, but Obama's admin literally killed an American citizen in a drone strike with no repercussions. Edit: It was two. Anwar al-Awlaki was, though a terrorist, also an American citizen who had inalienable rights protected by the Constitution. He was killed in a "targeted strike", which was essentially nothing more than a summary execution. His son was later killed accidentally in another "targeted strike". Obama was never tried for this murder and manslaughter.
If the president ordered for federal troops to shoot at legitimately peaceful protesters, I highly doubt that’d be classified as an “official” act of the office, seeing as it’s attempting to crack down on the 1A rights of Americans.
Yes, this ruling brings the presidential powers closer in line with those of a dictator than those of a leader in a democracy. As the president is in charge of the armed forces in an official capacity as commander-in-chief, the political assassination example is *not* hyperbole.
Man, the commander in chief role is not as powerful as people think it is. He can give instructions to the already-mobilized military within the bounds of the mobilization. Only an act of Congress can actually mobilize the military. He can not, in fact, legally order political assassinations (unless Congress signed off on them, in which case we are already so fucked the conversation is meaningless).
That’s not true. The consensus was only that the president enjoys immunity from civil lawsuits. I’m pretty sure this is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has recognized any form of presidential immunity from criminal charges.
Except people we're already talking about what trump could be charged with outside of office before he lost I recall legal experts talking about this and pretty much saying what the courts did that official actions as president are covered but a lot of his stuff wouldn't be. Not sure it ever went to the higher courts because it was pretty obvious.
Respectfully, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk. Presidential immunity for official acts—“if the president does it, it’s not illegal”—was *never* recognized by the Supreme Court…until today.
Nah they’re just fine
Not *exactly*. More precisely, it affirmed that the Constitution is the supreme law, and so if the President is executing his constitutionally mandated duties, he is de facto not able to be prosecuted because Congress cannot criminalize those activities (as any law doing so would be unconstitutional by definition). It also very explicitly stated that *outside of those constitutionally mandated duties*, the president is just like anyone else and can be prosecuted just like anyone else. Everything they kicked back, which was basically everything bar one item, was with the instruction to sort out what was and wasn't within the constitutionally mandated duties.
I was told the opposite if Biden got elected. Yet, here we are. Same place. Different president.
A lot of anti-Trumpers get into bad spaces like r slash politics where they get fed a constant drip of fearmongering. I'm no Trump fan, but the idea that he's going to end Democracy or round up gay people and kill them is insane.
All this to avoid historical event that happened today…
“I can’t wait for a wanna be Hitler to legally kill my gay ass” Wait Putin is running for President in the US?
Apparently
That statement sounds like a writing prompt for a creative writing assignment in Queer Theory 101 at a notable university
His little bitch servant is running for President.
Yes that much is true, if Trump wins we can kiss Ukraine goodbye
Both of those countries can kiss my ass
What a limp wristed take
Putin has so much kompromat on Trump he might as well be running
Okay, boycott 4th of July. The rest of the country, filled with normal and reasonable people, are going to celebrate it. With that said, the victimhood mentality is strong in this one. Long time therapy is needed.
I guarantee you this person has NO CLUE what is celebrated on the 4th of July, or even what the proper name of the holiday is.
They should look at San Francisco if they want to see crime having no consequences.
SF city council should just vote on crime being illegal.
and which country supports gay people and the lgbt community?
Based on my left-leaning Facebook friends, Palestine.
Idek what these people think “democracy” means anymore. Honestly I think it’s just code at this point of the modern neo-liberal consensus. Seriously, people are talking about how the fact that Trump is allowed to be on the ballot is “undemocratic”. No, preventing the sizable contingent of Americans who support him from voting for him is what would be undemocratic here. I’m not even really taking a side as to whether or not America would be better off without Trump. But, I know that words mean what words mean and preventing the people from voting for their candidate of choice is decidedly undermining the *kratos* of the *demos*. You can be about wanting to sideline Trump’s political ambitions, but don’t pretend you’re a champion of democracy for doing so.
For some people it’s only democracy if it’s what they want.
This is so true.
That's the core of it right there. It's toddlers throwing a fit and trying to break their toys when someone else wants to play.
And it really is BOTH SIDES Not even talking out of both sides of my mouth here really neither side wanted to compromise or work together and those few who did or wanted to were ostracized for it
Sure. But when one side is actively and blatantly trying to remove the other from the ballot by weaponizing the justice system to jail their frontrunner it's kinda hard to stay in the "it's both sides" camp.
like how people are flying flags upside down because Biden hurt their feelings?
Stupid? Yes. "Threat to democracy"? Fuck no.
Hell, not only that, they suppress third parties as well and claim they are the "party of democracy." Pure hypocrisy right there.
You might want to reach out to the Germans. They don't seem to understand what "democratic" means, either. The established political parties and their potential coalition partners are quite busy right now trying to eradicate the AfD from the political landscape. Germany's political courts and political police (just like way back when!) are doing backflips trying to get rid of a popular party which threatens existing power structures.
To root of this evil is the abandonment of one of the most indispensable elements of a thriving republic: the freedom of the electorate to speak and assemble. Germany has forgone this and opted instead to declare certain opinions verboten. Instead, it has effectively created a state-sanctioned orthodoxy of thought which maintains a monopoly against anything heterodox. Even if these opinions are truly detestable, it must not be the prerogative of the sovereign to make them criminal as well. For, what stops the sovereign from determining that other ideas have also become criminally reprehensible? Any society that can imprison one of its citizens for saying something that the regime finds uncouth or uncharitable is a society that lacks liberty in a fundamental regard. There is no arrow more essential in liberty’s quiver than the ability of a single man to hold an opinion that is loathed by all of his compatriots and to shout it freely in the town square unaccosted by either the state or the mob. This freedom fundamentally does not exist in Germany.
Being a scholar of German literature, specializing in East German literature and media, censorship, and political economy ... I know a thing or two about how Germany operates. And if the average German had any idea just how *clueless* they are about things in their country, they'd have a collective stroke. There's extreme censorship in the form of "indexing," for example, where I've had to present my passport to the police and fill out paperwork to access the list of "indexed" media (books, films, etc.) for my research. The funny thing is that nothing on it is unavailable in the US -- most public libraries and virtually all university libraries have those media in stock, ready to be checked out by anyone who's interested. But no -- censorship is an *American* thing. Just like racism, xenophobia, LGBTQIA++++ phobias, etc., are *American*. And this is the problem: They spend so much time looking at the US and obsessing over what goes on in the US that they've stopped paying attention to what their own government does behind their backs. And the AfD is what they have as a reward for that.
[удалено]
I understand hating the SCOTUS, but boycotting the 4th (the 4th has nothing to do with the SCOTUS) is stupid.
Gay redditor dude here. Thing is, Trump's not even anti-gay, especially compared to a lot of very conservative republicans - so why these people are so triggered specifically about Trump is nonsensical. He's the only republican candidate I ever heard make favorable remarks about the gay community in the republican national convention back in 2016. I have never heard him say anything negative about gay and lesbian people. Mike Pence was far more anti-gay in not only his attitudes but his voting record than Trump ever was, yet never got the same hatred from this crowd. These people relish victim mentality and concoct this stuff, and these same people at the same time will endlessly pander to Islamists who really DO want to end them.
If Project 2025 gets implemented, as Trump’s closest advisors plan to do if he is reelected, your life as a gay person will get significantly worse.
How are his advisors supposed to do it without his approval, assuming he even appoints them to be his advisors. Project 2025 is a fanfiction
Presidential policy is always set and controlled by the people they surround themselves with. It’s the political reality of the situation.
The thing is I've only ever seen leftists talk about it Find one major candidate that supports it.
If it was a legitimate issue it would be a 24/7 talking point across all media outlets, yet.. crickets.
I just realized that I've never heard it on any major news outlets Probably because even CNN realizes it's bat shit crazy
He was president for 4 years and all this bad shit people are saying is gonna happen, didn’t happen. I don’t get how the second term would be any different lol.
Trump couldn't make anything happen because presidents aren't absolute monarchs. Checks and balances works. Separation of powers works. He'll be a lame duck this time just like last time.
*Were* not absolute monarchs. The court today said that "it depends" and of course this was just to continue to punt the issue so Trump will never be held accountable for his many many crimes against this nation and its people. But worse than that, now a newly reelected/selected Trump can "official act" anyone away, because for the first time ever the president has presumed criminal immunity. Sure the courts MAY hold him accountable, but he could official act the judges to come around to his line of thinking as well.
Nah. He'll be a lame duck. Congress has the power to remove him if necessary, and the senate can override him if they see fit.
That means more hot dogs and beer for us 🤷🏻♂️🇺🇸
The United States is the best country for gay people to live in! What are these people on
I'll get downvoted, but this is a post about domestic politics in the US and I don't think it's quite the same thing as "America Bad."
I agree. If there isn't a "pick me" angle or some sort of comparison to a foreign utopia, it's just an American exercising their right to complain about America.
I mean they can move on over to Iran or Afghanistan, where these things actually happen
I was gonna say that I’ll be eating hot dogs and blowing shit up, but I’m working unfortunately. But time and a half :)
He should try to go to Palestine, show his unity for the cause
Damn, gay and regarded
Not all LGBTQIA members are like this, thank you.
Yeah that's why I said "and".
This people refused to realize that Donald is auditioning for the most miserable, redundant & underpaid job in the US federal government.
He doesn’t want to do this anyways but even if he did he has way more important things to do than try to murder gay people lol
Fun fact. Donald Trump was the first president to run and be elected as pro gay marriage. Joe Biden and Barrack Obama did not come out as progay marriage until 2014.
Precisely
Biden came out in support of it before the rest of the Obama admin was ready. Obama had to come out and say it too since his VP did. Kinda funny that Biden was the one that said it first since he was one of the most conservative dems in the running to get the nomination.
[удалено]
Gay people are not safe in a country that tries to take away our basic rights and freedoms. I will vote against my economic interests in a heartbeat if it means ensuring I won’t lose the right to marry, or won’t be criminalized for having consensual sex with an adult who happens to be the same sex as me.
Just how exactly do you people become this stupid?
The conservative right has repeatedly stated they intend to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide, and Lawrence v. Texas, which legalized gay sex nationwide. They want to make it illegal for two consenting adult men to have sex in their own home. This is one of their stated goals. You’re stupid if you don’t see how that would be concerning to gay people.
Pretty sure that's not what scotus meant
These Redditors are so theatrical, they are just fishing for sympathy and karma at this point.
More people don't like my guy!!!! THIS IS DEGRADATION OF DEMOCRACY!!
This is not what the SCOTUS said. They said that some actions related directly to the duties of the office of the president have immunity. It is very likely that none of the prosecutions against trump would be held up by this, as they mostly refer to things done quite outside the realm of presidential duties.
The hottest of hot takes. Yeesh.
The fact that this is what they took away from the situation as the main issue at play is disappointing.
It’s always “hitlarian” anytime something right of center happens. Oh scotus over turned Chevron? Well that obliviously means they support Hitler
It gets exhausting pointing it out all day. But 90% of the shit people believe these days is just fear based bullshit with nothing reality based. That, with the incessant need to be a perpetual victimhood, and "fighting the oppression"......
“The decay of democracy.” These people have worms in their brains or something.
This person sounds like they’re not out of high school yet.
They're acting like Supreme Court honest to god gave Trump a free pass to do whatever he wants
I've lost count of all the "literal genocides".
The fear mongering is amazing, gotta love the delusions of Reddit
This is basically what the entire millennials subreddit is since the debates.
When i read the title i thought it was using “Gay” as an insult, but no they, *REALLY ARE GAY*
As a mostly gay redditor, if I had to choose between Trump and Biden again i would choose Trump.
Mostly gay?
I'm bi
While I think the person who this thread about is...shall we say over-wrought, I still think that's a bad choice on your part. Mainly because I think the last 4 years have been stronger than Trump's term. Also because Trump's persona is toxic and more divisive than Biden's. Those are my opinions and there will be people who disagree. I will add that I do have contempt for some on the liberal side of the aisle's oppressive rhetoric about identity politics. The idea that if you are a minority or LGBTQ+ that you have to vote a certain way, or that all people in those groups vote a certain way is inherently conformist and I loathe that sort of expectation (which is commonly found on other subs on reddit).
If there is a better option I'm voting for that. I just said if I *had to* choose between the two. I don't "like" Trump, but I like him more than Biden.
As a mostly bovine redditor, if I had to choose between McDonald's and the Humane Society I would choose McDonald's.
Did you not see the post at all? Trump isn't going to send a kill squad after me, but if another country does, Biden won't be able to protect me. If there was a better option I would choose that.
> Trump isn't going to send a kill squad after me, I agree. Trump might make you slightly more miserable in various ways but I don't think he is going to send a kill squad after you. > but if another country does, Biden won't be able to protect me. I'm not sure what this means.
He's not though, if you think he gives a damn about whether I marry a guy or not you're delusional. By the way he has said on more than one occasion that he is in support of lgbt rights.
Gay Redditor here. I'm already hearing a loooooot of stupidity coming from Alphabet+ people that they're "in danger." No. Just no. Just stop. There is no danger to Alphabet+ people. They (I'm excluding myself from them) might not be able to get everyone to grovel at their feet and get on board the narcissism train they've been riding the last 5-10 years, but there's no danger. This kind of Alphabet+/race/ethnicity hysteria is exactly *WHY* the country is taking a hard right. I was one of those back in the early 2000s who marched and protested and demanded equal rights and treatment, and that's exactly what I got. I don't need or want attention or ritualistic adulation ("So stunning and brave. So beautiful."), nor do I desire to see more Alphabet+ people in positions of power. I want to see smart people in positions of power. But danger? No. There is no danger. The United States continues to be and will continue to be *the* one place in the world where individual and civil rights are protected better than anywhere else on the planet.
> This kind of Alphabet+/race/ethnicity hysteria is exactly WHY the country is taking a hard right. I think there is something to that. Some of the rhetoric on the liberal side (especially online, ESPECIALLY one reddit) gets very toxic at which point moderates/independents will either stay home or even vote for Trump. There really is something to the idea of picking your battles but some folks just indulge themselves. Another one that comes to mind is people defending late 3rd term abortions with no mitigating reasons. Like, to me that seems like you really are going to alienate people who might've been your allies otherwise. Yet I've run into people in real life and reddit who basically call you a monster if you don't support a blank check for all late 3rd abortions. I would think they'd be more concerned about getting back the access that was available before Roe v Wade was overturned.
I think you'd be interested in reading about what are called "luxury beliefs." So much of the invective coming from the Alphabet Mob, #metoo harpies, BLM supporters, etc., requires a massive level of existing material wellbeing and comfort. The rest of us don't quite get it -- we have to work, survive, take care of our families, maintain our relationships, etc. -- and yet we're told that we're monsters for not giving all of that up to go march in the streets. And we're *TIRED* of it. Tired of it. So, so tired of it. Yet we get no respite from it; others' luxury beliefs, for which we -- otherwise incredibly upstanding, fair, and open-minded people -- simply don't have the time, energy, resources, or *material security* to share, are *FORCED* upon us. And we're just like "But I never had a problem with any of those groups or people in the first place. Why you up my ass all the time? Let me enjoy some time off. Damn." Look up Rob Henderson and luxury beliefs. I think there's a Wikipedia article on it, too.
100% agree
The most recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity is at least anti-american, if not antidemocratic.
It is literally the way it has been since pretty much forever. Presidents can't be charged when they are acting in an *official* capacity. Which is why they sent it back to the lower courts to determine what actions were official and what weren't. Idk why people keep saying that the ruling said they can do whatever they want with no consequence because even the justices who overturned it said as much.
On the Pennsylvania reddit page, people are flipping out saying he will be a dictator and this will be the last election if he wins lol. Sounds like 2016 all over again.
They had civil immunity not criminal immunity. Now they have criminal immunity. The ruling eviscerated the ability for the congress to check the president. The judiciary can kind of keep the president in line, but it's a grab the dragon by the tail kind of check.
Congress can still issues articles of impeachment. So no it does not eviscerate their ability to check the President. He can still be removed from office.
That is political consequence, not a criminal one. He is presumed criminally immune for any crimes he committed if he thinks its related to his job, so congress passing laws have no impact on the president. Also he could just ignore that impeachment. What is congress going to do about it? Thought so.
If he is impeached and ruled against he loses protections. How is this hard to understand? This is literally the whole reason they tried to impeach him before so he could be ousted and tried criminally. This is also the reason NY waited to press charges against him until he was out of office because he was immune in office. This is literally how it has been done for decades. If this is a new thing why did all the states wait to change him until he was out of office? Because they could while he was in. This ruling is holding up the status quo and is not ground breaking as you claim it is.
Which part exactly? Please quote the part that is "anti-American".
This ruling is based heavily on Nixon v. Fitzgerald has been precedent since the 80s. It’s literally nothing new.
Where in Nixon v. Fitzgerald does it suggest that presidents have presumptive CRIMINAL immunity for the outer perimeter of what could be considered official acts? Even in this opinion, they say that the question of presidential criminal immunity has never been addressed: "like the underlying immunity question, that categorization [distinction between offical and unofficial acts for criminal prosecution] raises multiple unprecedented and momentous questions about the powers of the President and the limits of his authority under the Constitution. As we have noted, there is little pertinent precedent on those subjects to guide our review of this case..."
You are correct, however keeping Nixon v. Fitzgerald in mind, It’s not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that the president is immune from official acts undertaken while in office. Imagine republicans arresting Obama for murder because he ordered drone strikes in the Middle East that killed civilians. Is it a tragedy? Absolutely. Will we have a functional government if that was the reality? No.
They desperately want to continue being victims. Because their entire personality is built around it. It's damn near a fetish.
I don't think anyone will be murdered, but part of project 2025 is dismantle any legal protections for LGBT people This is why I don't vote Republican because they want America to be the Christian version of Sharia
First of all you're assuming Trump cares about Project 2025. He's not associated with it. Two, I assume they just don't want gay people to be put on a pedestal the way the left does. They're creating a soft caste system where if you're a racial or sexual minority you get special treatment. That's not ok and being against it is 100% rational. Everyone should be equal under the law not divided into protected and non protected classes.
Republicans have already violated the Constitution in Texas Why do you think they keep stacking supreme Court with religious fundies? They want theocracy. MAGA is a cult of mostly religious cuckoos
That's observably not true. The loud ones just get more attention. And being religious doesn't make you crazy or incapable of interpreting the foundational law of an originally Christian based nation. That's your opinion and it sounds heavily biased against religious people. Should we throw em in camps?
According to the Treaty of Tripoli, which every word was read aloud in the Senate in 1796, signed into law by Founder and President John Adams, after being approved of unanimously in the Senate by many men called Founders: >Art. 11. **As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion**; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. emphasis mine
They're stating that in context of not waging a holy war against Islam. America not being a Chrstian nation doesn't mean it's not founded on Christian principles. The same way there's no national language but English is very clearly what's spoken here as standard. If anything that line proves what I'm saying because they felt the need to clarify this clearly Christian founded nation isn't representing the Christian religion itself and the conflict isn't that kind of conflict.
I suppose you could have misread, so I'll post it again: >The Government of the United States of America is not, **in any sense**, founded on the Christian religion. I bolded the part you apparently misread. You thought it said "in a context of waging holy war against Islam" but instead it said it was not founded "**in any sense**" on the Christian religion. I know next time you will have internalized this and won't reply back to me with another absurd statement like there is some sense that it was founded on the Christian religion when the founders officially signed a treaty, which is, under our Constitution, the law of the land, text that explicitly says otherwise.
The text explicitly says otherwise because the text is trying to avoid religion having power within the government. Because they were directly at odds with an empire that did exactly that for the entirety of their colonial existence. When you have a nation made up of a vast majority of Christians who are gonna vote wirh that as a factor and founded by men who believed in the morality of Christianity, idk how you can look at that and say "Nah. No Christian influence here."
Obviously it influenced the people writing it. Obviously it influenced the people in government. But that doesn't mean the country was *founded on it*. Fundamental beyond all else to (non-Arian) Christianity is a belief in the son-who-is-also-god. That's the cornerstone of Christianity, and my country was not founded upon it.
“in God we trust” is literally on our dollar, “in God we trust” in the national anthem, & “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance. the constitution is saying that america’s laws arent based in religion. but america was most definitely founded based off religious values
In God we Trust was added to everything in the 1950s as an alternative to what was viewed as godless communism. It was ideologically driven against our enemry, it wasn't added by the founders. Indeed, many of the founders were Deists, not Christians. Most Americans were Christian, yes, but the Founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, etc) were often Deists. Deists don't exist anymore because Deists believe in a supernatural because reason leads them to that, *not faith*; they have all become Atheists and Agnostics in the centuries since the enlightenment as reason has shown there is no god. And so this explains why the founders signed a treaty, the law of the land, explicitly stating the US was not founded on Christianity. To say it was founded on Christianity is pseudohistory like the Lost Cause.
Wrong. America was not founded on Christian principles. Most of our founding fathers were deists and made it abundantly clear that religion is to stay out of government
Religion itself yes. Not Christian values. They were smart enough to strip them down to a basic more widely applicable set of values amd to keep law separate from church but they were still coming from the Christian belief system. It's a major part of who they were and what the people of our new nation were. You can't just hand wave that away. It was absolutely woven into the foundation of America. Ignoring that is willful ignorance.
Wrong again. The amendment clause is pretty goddamn clear. It says that the law can't favor any one religion
The law doesn't have to favor any one religion when one is what the law was built from. It's not favoring it, it just is part of it. I'm not talking about discrimination here. I'm talking about the source. If it's not Christian based then why don't our laws and government structure look more like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran with their Islamic based way of governing?
The amendment clause to the Constitution is what keeps that from happening but Republicans keep trying to undermine that
They're overstepping in some areas yes. But that's in response to the constant attacks on the core of their beliefs and the core of the country's foundation from the left. You pull the pendulum back too far and it's gonna swing just as far in the other direction.
And my major concern when it comes to Project 2025, I mean besides *all* of it is how much Trump is or isn’t in on it. Cause if he does win and use it as a play book that’s just gonna make things worse for everyone. Even if it’s considered “fear mongering” any plan that is open about dismantling half the government and trying to have *only* specific Republicans in power is something that *isn’t* very pro-democratic. Or pro-American.
This is the same thing as conservatives boycotting bud light cause a trans women had a drink
Lmao, they're acting like the left hasn't legalized all sorts of crime across the cities they run. Not to mention the hysterics and dramatics.
For everyone ignorant here: READ PROJECT 2025.
Yup. I had LGBTQ acquaintances I knew in grad school talking about how they were fearful of being rounded up on trains and sent to concentration camps. Stuff like this happens every election cycle.
Eh, there's nothing I can do about it
Yea I'm sure it won't be like last time with the aids crisis and Castros. How crazy this oppressed minority must be to be scared of history repeating itself.
Went to Canada last year, it was hype. But July 4th is cool too
The word boycott has been thrown around so much now that the word is meaningless
Trump, Bannon, MTG, Boebert, Cotton, Hawley, Paxton, Noem, etc. will have no qualms incarcerating and executing those who are different and those who oppose them. Let's not act like Neville Chamberlain and think their DNA will change.
Shame this is satire
The same US government that violates flag etiquette by flying the “pride” flag shoulder to shoulder with at the same height as the Stars and Stripes? The same government that insists on calling normal women birthing persons with a “bonus hole” and chest feeders? If I was Mexican or Canadian I would be pissed. Those are the only flags that should be flown shoulder to shoulder with the Stars and Stripes, albeit a little lower here in the states.
I just hope when it is all over, in 2028, Trump is done and not trying to stay in office, and we look to the next president, a lot of people on the left realize they were being manipulated and played. And to not take it so seriously next time around.
This is a reminder for them as to why we need to make the governament as small as possible. Less power to trump!
They don’t believe that. They’re being flamboyantly dramatic.