3 ms·

> fundamentalist Christianity They're still wearing bikinis on the beach, 90% are on birth control, most are divorced and remarried despite scripture, and many

> fundamentalist Christianity They're still wearing bikinis on the beach, 90% are on birth control, most are divorced and remarried despite scripture, and many even support abortion - just until 16 weeks or 22 weeks or some line other than just before birth. That in and of itself is not radical - almost all of Europe has 12 weeks as the deadline, and not one country allows past 22 weeks. Do you think Donald Trump is an exception to the above, despite the stereotyping about being a Christian theocrat? No.

rsynnott 2y ago
No, I certainly don't think Trump is a fundamentalist Christian (or indeed any type of Christian); he has been a useful idiot for them in his Supreme Court and other judicial appointments, however, and will presumably continue to be. I don't think it's particularly likely that he'll, like, try to make executive orders on fundamentalist lines or anything, but he'll likely continue using the list of judges fed to him. > and many even support abortion - just until 16 weeks or 22 weeks or some line other than just before birth Many who? If you mean many fundamentalist evangelical protestants, I don't think you're correct. If you mean many republicans, yes, you're correct; they are mostly _not_ fundamentalists, though fundamentalists have great influence over them (this is IMO an oddity of the US two-party system; the libertarian is thrown into the same political grouping as the fundamentalist, the fascist, and the robber baron, despite none of these groups necessarily having all that much in common or liking each other very much). As someone else mentioned, see Iran, before and after. Things can change quickly, and the US does feel like it's in a rather dangerous spot these days.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  > As someone else mentioned, see Iran, before and after. Things can change quickly, and the US does feel like it's in a rather dangerous spot these days. What part of Project 2025 (which Trump has publicly disavowed) are you actually afraid of, where Republicans would actually be able to and would take action? Also, on that note, can you point to a single part of Project 2025, from what I understand, that even the Democratic Party would not have been running on just three decades ago? After all, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Going "backwards" (a cultural reaction saying we went too far, too fast) is not to be confused with an Iranian revolution. Politics is a pendulum - it swings left, it swings right. A swinging back right after it culturally swung left for so long, is not a sign the pendulum is broken.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I mean if I lived in the US I'd be _very_ bloody concerned about attempts to strip rights from gay people; if nothing else, I _am_ one. However, as previously mentioned, his judicial appointments seem more of a realistic risk than Project 2025.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      > attempts to strip rights from gay people; if nothing else, I _am_ one While we can debate the merits of that and people have strong feelings on that, even that would not be a sign of our democracy's failure. It would be a sign that we are culturally swinging back on the pendulum... about 16 years to Obama's first term. Obama was vocally against legalization in 2008. That's not the end of the world, an Iranian revolution, a sign the pendulum of democracy is broken, or a reason to panic that it won't come back in the future. Democracy has never been, and is not required to be, the overly simplistic view of a straight line. For the record, even if I disagree with Trump, he would not be a fascist for holding the 2008 position of Obama, any more than Obama was a fascist at the time. And he doesn't even hold that position - Trump is not running on restricting gay marriage. Even if his judges did, to call them fascist for stepping back a decade and a half, just waters-down the term fascist.

rsynnott 2y ago

No, I certainly don't think Trump is a fundamentalist Christian (or indeed any type of Christian); he has been a useful idiot for them in his Supreme Court and other judicial appointments, however, and will presumably continue to be. I don't think it's particularly likely that he'll, like, try to make executive orders on fundamentalist lines or anything, but he'll likely continue using the list of judges fed to him. > and many even support abortion - just until 16 weeks or 22 weeks or some line other than just before birth Many who? If you mean many fundamentalist evangelical protestants, I don't think you're correct. If you mean many republicans, yes, you're correct; they are mostly _not_ fundamentalists, though fundamentalists have great influence over them (this is IMO an oddity of the US two-party system; the libertarian is thrown into the same political grouping as the fundamentalist, the fascist, and the robber baron, despite none of these groups necessarily having all that much in common or liking each other very much). As someone else mentioned, see Iran, before and after. Things can change quickly, and the US does feel like it's in a rather dangerous spot these days.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
> As someone else mentioned, see Iran, before and after. Things can change quickly, and the US does feel like it's in a rather dangerous spot these days. What part of Project 2025 (which Trump has publicly disavowed) are you actually afraid of, where Republicans would actually be able to and would take action? Also, on that note, can you point to a single part of Project 2025, from what I understand, that even the Democratic Party would not have been running on just three decades ago? After all, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Going "backwards" (a cultural reaction saying we went too far, too fast) is not to be confused with an Iranian revolution. Politics is a pendulum - it swings left, it swings right. A swinging back right after it culturally swung left for so long, is not a sign the pendulum is broken.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean if I lived in the US I'd be _very_ bloody concerned about attempts to strip rights from gay people; if nothing else, I _am_ one. However, as previously mentioned, his judicial appointments seem more of a realistic risk than Project 2025.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    > attempts to strip rights from gay people; if nothing else, I _am_ one While we can debate the merits of that and people have strong feelings on that, even that would not be a sign of our democracy's failure. It would be a sign that we are culturally swinging back on the pendulum... about 16 years to Obama's first term. Obama was vocally against legalization in 2008. That's not the end of the world, an Iranian revolution, a sign the pendulum of democracy is broken, or a reason to panic that it won't come back in the future. Democracy has never been, and is not required to be, the overly simplistic view of a straight line. For the record, even if I disagree with Trump, he would not be a fascist for holding the 2008 position of Obama, any more than Obama was a fascist at the time. And he doesn't even hold that position - Trump is not running on restricting gay marriage. Even if his judges did, to call them fascist for stepping back a decade and a half, just waters-down the term fascist.