1) You just know Clinton had two justices lined up a good deal more liberal than Merrick Garland, and we'd absolutely end up with two more Ginsburgs (once she kicks the bucket because seriously, she's old). You're not going to see a lefty SC pick defending bestiality on a national level, and while you're not going to see a standard conservative do so either, you'd be more likely to get a Libertarian justice under Trump who just might be edgy as fuck enough to do so.
2) She's reblogging George Takei shitposts. She's liking every post on Occupy Democrat. She's knitting her hat for the pussy march between strokes of her housecat's back. She's signing online petitions. She's sobbing about endangered species and animal welfare while she has a beef roast preparing in her slow cooker. She's having her morning Starbucks instant coffee before heading out to brunch with the girls to have even more Starbucks coffee and talk about the latest thing Trump did that she read on Thinkprogress, and you just know her minivan has a COEXIST sticker on the back of it.
It's the most staunch enemy of zoophiles in the past few decades, the white feminist liberal cat lady. Or maybe staunch isn't the right word, because the cat lady doesn't really fixate on any particular cause, and doesn't have much energy to do anything but sit around on Facebook clicking on fake news article and getting outraged about whatever social causes her media sphere tells her to get outraged about. But, mind you, this is separate from what Reddit usually chimps it about in regards to \>THE SJWS REEEEEEEEEEE. Because while the common social justice warrior actually makes an effort at being woke, the cat lady is mostly driven by simple moral disgust, and is actually pretty fucking ignorant when it comes to the issues outside of the bubble of being a straight, cisgendered middle class white woman.
"Ugh! I miss when presidential candidates had class. I miss the days of Reagan and Kennedy," you'll hear her pine, without any irony whatsoever and despite being a 21st century Democrat. "I can't believe our children's president is going to be someone who says 'grab them by the you-know-what!' What will we tell them?"
"These poor, starving Syrian children! Did you see that picture of that dead one washed up on the coast? Bless his little heart, we should take in the entire MENA region to save all of those kids."
"Bestiality? Ugh! Sick, sick, sick! They should get raped by an animal and see how they like it! Here's a link to donate to the Humane Society, everyone."
Take a look at the end of this video.
Take a look at any Facebook or local news comments section.
It's just cat ladies. It's almost always the cat ladies screeching about the evil animal rapists, combined with the occasional dumbass old right-wing cat lady who believes that Obama is the devil and shares even more autistic memes than the left-wing cat lady does, and there's a pretty high chance she ended up staying home or voting for Clinton regardless because she was too emotionally distraught as a result of some of Trump's remarks. And that isn't to say that there's not non-cat ladies against bestiality too, because seriously, most people are, but it's cat ladies who are prone to outrage and boredom enough to adopt fighting it as their pet cause because they actually do not have anything more interesting to do in their life and they aren't politically savvy enough to actually care about causes more important.
Thoughts? And really, Trump/Bannon do not strike me as being the type to actually give a shit about zoophilia at all, whether it's supporting or opposing it. Trump's a moral degenerate when it comes to sex, and Bannon is much more concerned about other cultural battles as well as the impending horde of migrants from South America that will be heading up north once global warming really starts to kick in.
I'll focus less on the angry, sneering tone of this (though I do think the autistic screeching meme has a point), and focus on the actual question: is Trump's presidency going to be more positive for zoos, overall, than a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been. This is naturally very speculative, but here's my take on it.
As far as zoophilia is concerned, it happens rarely and behind closed doors most of the time, not really affecting the lives of others for the most part. A lot of us literally don't want to fuck with other people. From a liberal/libertarian framework, then, it falls squarely in the "who cares" category, though I'm sure more than a few are disgusted by it and never want anything sexual happening with their animals.
To an authoritarian mindset, however, it is problematic as a deviation from the norm, and the well-being of society as a whole can easily be used to justify harsh treatment of zoophiles. In ancient times, this was justified as God's will, or as a means of maintaining ritual purity and moral status. Modern opponents would cite patriarchal power imbalances or human exceptionalism as the reason to oppose sex with animals. While there may be individualistic reasons to oppose sex with animals (potentially an argument of general psychological harm, for example), the ease of hiding it and cost of investigating it, combined with its relative lack of effect on the people and animals involved, would rationally lead anyone who isn't a hardened ideologue to practically never take real action on it. Laws, perhaps, but not much in the way of enforcement.
On a personal level, I'm sure Hillary would be more bothered about it than Trump, as she is with sexuality in general. Both have an authoritarian, take charge mindset, and would probably crack down on animal sex given the political will to do so. To both of their most ideologically devoted supporters, the mere existence of zoophiles is a stain on the human condition, whether because it's an overly free form of sexuality seen as a symptom of overall moral degeneracy (the alt right, such as Millenial Woes on YouTube), or inherently an abuse of the unjust master/slave relationship sustained as part of patriarchy (feminist activists like Carol J. Adams).
But while the Trump presidency has a nearly unified Republican government to effect change, a Hillary presidency would have had the support of academia and the media, since in recent decades these have become incredibly biased toward the political left. The difference is that the Trump government has about a thousand higher priorities (immigration, terrorism, trade deals, tax reform) which it will attempt to push through while it's mostly unopposed. Academia and media, however, need not be so focused, and can apparently make legal changes after stirring up enough outrage over an issue, justified or not. For example, yes means yes laws about sexual consent on college campuses have been passed after flawed studies and anecdotes about rape at college.
Overall, I think Trump's opposition to political correctness and the corresponding nonissues, as well as his personal indifference toward LGBT issues will lead to less attention on zoophilia, mainly because he'll demand so much, and thus to a stall on new anti-zoo laws as activists focus on the Trumpocalypse. With Hillary, these activists would have been emboldened and stepped up their efforts, with the feeling that she would support them or at least privately think they were doing good in the world, while ensuring their continued funding and media support through the comfort of her allies in those circles.
TL;DR: Trump's presidency will be better for zoos overall, because much of the push for anti-zoo laws comes from activists and academics who will now have much more to worry about, and will focus on their survival and Trump's downfall.
I pretty much agree with what you said, though in the U.S. anti-zoo laws appear to NOT be stalling, regardless of who is the president. In the past few years 4 states (Alabama, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Ohio) banned sex with animals for no legitimate reason, and right now there are 2 anti-zoo bills: an anti-zoo bill in Kentucky (applying only to "dogs and cats"), and an anti-zoo bill in Texas. So in that sense things are getting worse, as the organizations with the most money are anti-zoo ones (such as HSUS).
Consider this a peak of anti-zoo sentiment. It'll start to get better in the coming months and years.
In what way? In other words, how will anti-zoo sentiment go down or decrease? With current anti-zoo bills in Kentucky, Texas and Vermont (as well as states that have recently banned it), there seems to be no end in sight to this irrational anti-zoo frenzy ("moral panic") people are in.
The bills in TX and KY would make sex with animals a felony in those states.
When you say it will get better, do you mean the public's perception of zoo will get better? If so, how would that occur? Or are you referring to the possibility that someday someone will file a lawsuit against an anti-zoo law in a given jurisdiction (and win)?
What I'm saying that the driving force behind these laws, authoritarian moralism, is being recognized as a manipulative and dangerous force, and actively opposed. The best example I know of this change is Milo Yiannopoulos and his college talks, along with the histrionics of students and faculty over his disagreements with them. Effectively, I think this will make people care more about the physical consequences of sex with animals than its "shamefulness" in the eyes of these collectivists. That, plus the ever improving understanding of animal cognition, will lead to a more laissez faire attitude towards it in the long term.
I hope you're correct (that attitudes towards zoo will become more relaxed), because right now, especially in the United States, it really is like a witch hunt. As I said, there's 3 anti-zoo bills right now in the U.S. (VT/KY/TX), each with its own set of onerous restrictions and unjust penalties, such as confiscation of one's pets just for having sex with one of them. The Texas bill would make it a felony to have sex with an animal, and put a caught zoo onto the state sex offender registry.
Do you believe that people will come to realize the link between anti-zoo bills and authoritarian moralism? Because right now, it seems as though people aren't making that connection, because anti-zoo bills are becoming law with no opposition from anyone or any groups (such as the ACLU). The attitude so far is completely anti-zoo (and irrationally so).
No, but defeating the latter will mostly remove pressure to create the former.
What a fucking rant.
No politicians are pro zoophilia. /thread
No politicians are pro zoophilia, but there are definitely some politicians that would be more likely to care about it than others and have constituents that do care about it more than others.
Exactly. Thus, who's more pro-animal rights? That would be my concern.
Hint: It's not Trump.
Next up: Who's more open to sexual issues in general legislatively speaking, to go "that direction" over time?
Hint again: Probably not Trump, and definitely not Mike Pence.
There's so much salt in the OP that I think it leaked onto my dinner... and I'm kinda surprised that this is being brought up so long after Trump's 'victory'. I don't have time to do more than skim it due to deadlines and such, but I can say this much: Although clinton would have been better for climate decisions and (probably) animal welfare, neither her nor Trump would be favorable for zoophiles in particular. Having a left or right leaning judge wouldn't necessarily help the cause for zoos, anyway(Concerns about zoophilia are bipartisan). Nuking legislature that gives nonhuman animals significance is a step backwards for peoples' animal partners, but barring any famous bestiality cases cropping up in the next four years, I wouldn't worry too much about anything happening. zoophilia is at the bottom of a verrry long list for the executive branch most of the time.
lol http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/obama-awol-on-child-porn-sex-trafficking-bestiality/ double lol https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-return-to-war-on-porn-5694cab4eb2b
But I guess in a sense making all the porn extremely illegal could be a good thing for us in the long run because the only way new animal sex laws will stop being introduced is if we go back to pretending zoophilia/bestiality doesn't exist, and right now the porn makes it way too visible online.
It's not even good porn. Anyone who goes for 3D bestiality porn instead of 2D on e621 is really missing out, because the angles of bestiality porn makes it unappealing from a physical standpoint as a viewer and unappealing from an emotional standpoint because it's porn.
How an obscurantist could be pro-zoophile ?
Trump come from 11th century. There is nothing to expect from this guy.
The enemies of zoos are not necessarily a type of person, but are instead organizations. For example, HSUS is a very anti-zoo organization, and they're responsible for some of the harshest anti-zoo laws in the U.S. (such as in Oregon), and they (and organizations like them) are responsible for writing phrases like "sexual assault of an animal" to refer to ALL sex with animals. So they're the ones writing (bad) anti-zoo laws.
I do understand what you're saying though, and I know exactly the kind of people you're talking about (the people who go on Change.org petitions and write hateful things about zoosexuals). Here is a quote from a Change.org petition:
"Disgust" isn't rational, and neither are any of these kinds of comments (it's basically bigotry).
With regard to Trump and American politics, I believe there is bipartisan hatred of zoosexuals; both democrats and republicans appear to hate zoos. For example, last year New Hampshire banned sex with animals, and when the anti-zoo bill in New Hampshire went up for a vote, all 400+ members of their legislature voted in favor of the anti-zoo bill (the 400+ are a mixture of democrats and republicans).
One thing about Trump though: during the campaign, Joe Arpaio campaigned for Trump (Joe Arpaio is the now out-of-office AZ sheriff who went on a crusade against zoos and caught 10 of them in stings). However, Arpaio seems to not be part of the Trump administration.
If we knew anything about these laws, I'd say Gargamel is up to his old tricks again.
It appears that Democrats impose the anti-zoos laws they know a Republican cannot refuse to pass. If the Republicans didn't vote on the laws they would look bad. Those two could be using the laws as a political show.
I feel as if Donald Trump would somehow hijack this situation for profit. You know, Gargamel is going to whip out his "Zoo magnet" to attract and catch those pesky zoos so he can turn them into gold.