Trump Opposes UN Resolution

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Rockydonovang
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-sex-death-penalty-un-same-sex-relations-human-rights-council-saudi-arabia-iraq-nikki-haley-a7980981.html

The hell?
Also, why the hell are none of the mainstream news networks covering this?

Thankfully, the resolution passed.

Sable
Fake news says nothing about Trump opposing it.

MythLord
He's commander in chief. I know there's a whole slew of other people here to make the decision as well, but he has the most influence over them. If he really wanted to, he could've made the US vote for the resolution rather than against.

Beniboybling
America is such a backwards country. sad

Sable
As is England. You idiots drive on the wrong side of the road.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Sable
As is England. You idiots drive on the wrong side of the road.
No, they drive on the right side of the road. Get it? HAHAHAHAHAAA!!




















Just kill me, please.

Sable
America drives on the right, England drives on the left. Just another reason we are better then England.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Sable
America drives on the right, England drives on the left. Just another reason we are better then England.
Yeah, it was like a reverse-pun.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Sable
America drives on the right, England drives on the left. Just another reason we are better then England. England goes from left to right like ur supposed to, yeah.

Sable
Originally posted by Beniboybling
England goes from left to right like ur supposed to, yeah.

We have real roads and highways here and a shit ton more people, and driving on the left works better.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Sable
driving on the left works better. i agree

Sable
Oh cute, I meant right

Beniboybling
I believe u

Surtur

MythLord
The council was concearned with LGBT rights specifically, and perhaps religious rights if I've heard correctly(?), so no it's not just abolishing the death penalty altogether, it's abolishing it under specific circumstances that target one's freedom.

Perfectly reasonable to abolish, in my opinion.

Sable

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
The council was concearned with LGBT rights specifically, and perhaps religious rights if I've heard correctly(?), so no it's not just abolishing the death penalty altogether, it's abolishing it under specific circumstances that target one's freedom.

Perfectly reasonable to abolish, in my opinion.

Well wait, either it was or wasn't about abolishing the death penalty all together. If it wasn't, why oppose it? Because we are cackling supervillains?

Surtur
The resolution apparently:

http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf

Robtard
Oh Trumpers...

Raisen
I think trump slept with my mother.

I'm almost positive that I'm trump's bastard child

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh Trumpers...

Are you saying it isn't true?

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
Well wait, either it was or wasn't about abolishing the death penalty all together. If it wasn't, why oppose it? Because we are cackling supervillains?

It's about abolishing the death penatly under certain circumstances, specifically these circumstances:

"Condemning in particular the use of the death penalty against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and pregnant women,
Condemning the imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations, and expressing serious concern that the application of the death penalty for adultery is disproportionately imposed on women"

So basically it's a matter of the UN not wanting people killed for being gay, reckless teens, or praying to a different God. Abolishing it altogether isn't what's going to happen.

Once again, perfectly reasonable. Why Trump would oppose this given he's supposedly against the radicals and extremes of Islam, is beyond me.

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
It's about abolishing the death penatly under certain circumstances, specifically these circumstances:

"Condemning in particular the use of the death penalty against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and pregnant women,
Condemning the imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations, and expressing serious concern that the application of the death penalty for adultery is disproportionately imposed on women"

So basically it's a matter of the UN not wanting people killed for being gay, reckless teens, or praying to a different God. Abolishing it altogether isn't what's going to happen.

Once again, perfectly reasonable. Why Trump would oppose this given he's supposedly against the radicals and extremes of Islam, is beyond me.

Lol dude, it says specific forms "such as" and lists some. Why would they word it like that if it specifically only applied to those things?

We aren't cackling super villains, and even Trump doesn't want to execute gays. Have you seen *any* other rationale for why this was done? At all? Since the explanation given is more or less exactly what is said in the article I gave.

And uh, lets take what you just said at face value. Dipshits are still trying to push this as merely "they want gays to be executed!" when it entails more than just executing gay people. How is that not dishonest? This is being painted as failing the LGBT community. It sounds like utter bullshit.

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol dude, it says specific forms "such as" and lists some. Why would they word it like that if it specifically only applied to those things?

The examples given are of things that aren't really crimes and that thus shouldn't be punished, and it even says specific forms of conduct. So no, it's still not abolishing it completely, which is the main reason a lot of countries were against it.

Also, I'm certain the UN would leave out important details and specifics in their resolution. thumb up

Originally posted by Surtur
We aren't cackling super villains, and even Trump doesn't want to execute gays. Have you seen *any* other rationale for why this was done? At all? Since the explanation given is more or less exactly what is said in the article I gave.

The problem is there isn't a rational explanation for not wanting to abolish the death penalty under these circumstances. Nobody's asking them to completely abolish it, just don't kill innocent people for being gay, of a different faith, etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
And uh, lets take what you just said at face value. Dipshits are still trying to push this as merely "they want gays to be executed!" when it entails more than just executing gay people. How is that not dishonest? This is being painted as failing the LGBT community. It sounds like utter bullshit.

Actually, a lot of articles note it's also abolishing the death penalty for teens, pregnant women, mentally ill and people of other religions. The major emphasis is the LGBT, of course, since that's currently the most widespread out of these categories.

Robtard
Originally posted by MythLord
It's about abolishing the death penatly under certain circumstances, specifically these circumstances:

"Condemning in particular the use of the death penalty against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and pregnant women,
Condemning the imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations, and expressing serious concern that the application of the death penalty for adultery is disproportionately imposed on women"

So basically it's a matter of the UN not wanting people killed for being gay, reckless teens, or praying to a different God. Abolishing it altogether isn't what's going to happen.

Once again, perfectly reasonable. Why Trump would oppose this given he's supposedly against the radicals and extremes of Islam, is beyond me.

Oh Trumpers...

MythLord
I'm... not a Trumper. :/

Robtard
Wasn't saying you were

MythLord
Alrighty then.

Surtur
I get what you are saying, but then I guess really it comes down to this. Think of all the things in this country that can get you a death sentence. Is there any possible way this resolution could be abused when it comes to death sentences for crimes that we also execute people for?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by MythLord
Also, I'm certain the UN would leave out important details and specifics in their resolution. thumb up
Not saying I agree with Surtur here, but having some vagueness that's open for interpretation, so it can then be exploited, isn't an unheard of thing in legislation or policy making.

MythLord
No, because the resolution doesn't condemn the death penalty for those crimes. If a rapist claims that the resolution protects him, well then he'd be lying as no legal document supports that idea. With the exception if the rapist was mentally ill or a teenager, but the US doesn't execute them either, if I remember correctly.

There's very little wiggle room to work off of.

Surtur
I mean I will say this: if this is 100% clear cut and would have only made things like: gay sex, adultery, apostasy, and blasphemy not punishable by death I'd agree it is wrong to oppose it.

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
I mean I will say this: if this is 100% clear cut and would have only made things like: gay sex, adultery, apostasy, and blasphemy not punishable by death I'd agree it is wrong to oppose it.

thumb up thumb up thumb up

Rockydonovang
The problem the administration has here is it asks states to consider abolishing capital punishment due to the potential for it to be exploited to conduct human rights violations. A perfectly reasonable request given there are many states with capital punishment that abuse it.

Not signing on because we're asked to consider something is full-on snowflakeness.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.