Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Pedro

Trump / US politics thread 🚽

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lolo said:

That's how Trump voters learn their lesson. I don't feel sorry for them. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nessie said:

It looks pretty much divided for me...

 

Exclusive: A third of Americans think Trump's travel ban will make them safer

Imposing a temporary travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim countries, President Donald Trump said the move would help protect the United States from terrorism. But less than one-third of Americans believe the move makes them "more safe," according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday.

The Jan. 30-31 poll found roughly one in two Americans backed the ban, which also suspends admission of all refugees for 120 days, although there were sharp divisions along party lines.

Trump has pushed back against critics who say the travel ban targets Muslims. He says the "extreme vetting" is necessary to protect the country and its borders.

"This is not about religion," Trump said in a statement after announcing the travel ban on Friday. "This is about terror and keeping our country safe."

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll some 31 percent of people said the ban made them feel "more safe," while 26 percent said it made them feel "less safe." Another 33 percent said it would not make any difference and the rest said they don't know.

Trump's executive order blocked citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and placed an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

Some Republican lawmakers criticized Trump's order and said it could backfire by giving terrorist organizations a new recruitment message.

"This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country," senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a joint statement.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed. Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree."

Democrats were more than three times as likely as Republicans to say that the "U.S. should continue to take in immigrants and refugees," and Republicans were more than three times as likely as Democrats to agree that "banning people from Muslim countries is necessary to prevent terrorism."

Cheryl Hoffman, 46, of Sumerduck, Virginia said she was thrilled that Trump ordered the ban.

"I understand that the country was founded on immigrants," said Hoffman, who participated in the poll. "Please, I get that. But I’m worried that refugees are coming in and being supported by my tax dollars."

Another poll respondent, Veronica Buetel, 57, of Green, Ohio felt just the opposite: "Yes, we do live in scary times, but there are other, better ways to root out terrorism."

Westy Egmont, director of the Immigrant Integration Lab at Boston College, said Americans have grown increasingly hostile toward refugees and immigrants as the influx has shifted from Eastern Europeans to people from countries like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.

"The rise of those numbers, as relatively small as they are, have gathered just enough attention to set off a small reaction from people who are genuinely uncomfortable with the diversity around them," Egmont said.

Most Americans, however, don't think the country should show a preference for Christian refugees, as Trump has suggested. Some 56 percent, including 72 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans, disagreed that the country should "welcome Christian refugees, but not Muslim ones."

On Tuesday, the Trump administration sought to clarify that citizens of U.S. ally Israel who were born in Arab countries would be allowed into the United States.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states. It gathered poll responses from 1,201 people including 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans. It has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points for the entire sample and 5 percentage points for the Democrats and the Republicans.

(Reporting by Chris Kahn, editing by Ross Colvin)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG

 

 

 

More Americans approve of Trump’s travel ban than disapprove – poll

Despite nationwide protests and several major Republican figures speaking out against President Trump’s controversial travel ban, a new poll has revealed that more Americans actually support the ban than oppose it.

A Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday found that 49 percent of Americans approved of the executive order to ban citizens from seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the US. Forty-one percent disapproved.

Some 53 percent of Democrats said they “strongly disagree” with the decision. They were also more than three times as likely as Republicans to say that the US “should continue to take in immigrants and refugees.”

5891e03ac461880c318b45b1.png

Meanwhile, 51 percent of Republicans said they “strongly agree” with the ban, and were more than three times as likely to agree that “banning people from Muslim countries is necessary to prevent terrorism.”

Thirty-one percent of respondents said the ban made them feel safer, compared to 26 percent who said it made them feel less safe. Forty-three percent said they “didn’t know.”

Republicans were more likely to say the ban made them feel safer, at 58 percent, while only 10 percent of Democrats felt the same.

When asked whether the US should welcome Christian refugees, but not Muslim ones, 72 percent of Democrats disagreed, compared to 45 percent of Republicans.

And finally, 68 percent of Republicans agreed that the travel ban is setting a “good example” of how to confront terrorism, while 70 percent of Democrats said it’s a bad example.

The poll comes amid worldwide protests of Trump’s executive order, which suspends the admission of citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 120 days.

UN human rights experts said on Wednesday that the ban contravenes international law and could have devastating effects for those at risk of facing inhumane treatment in their home countries.

"Such an order is clearly discriminatory based on one’s nationality and leads to increased stigmatization of Muslim communities," the experts said in a statement, as quoted by Reuters.

"Recent US policy on immigration also risks people being returned, without proper individual assessments and asylum procedures, to places in which they risk being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in direct contravention of international humanitarian and human rights laws which uphold the principle of non-refoulement," they added.

The ban has also been widely criticized by Democrats, as well as several Republicans, including senators John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC).

“This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,” the senators said in a joint statement.

Meanwhile, Trump has denied allegations that the ban targets Muslims because of their faith, but is rather intended to keep people out of the US from countries afflicted by terrorism who could pose a threat.

“This is not about religion,” Trump said in a Friday statement. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

The Reuters/Ispos poll, which was conducted online on January 30-31, surveyed 1,201 people from all 50 states, including 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans. It has a margin of error of three percentage points for the entire sample and five percentage points for Democrats and Republicans.

https://www.rt.com/usa/375923-trump-travel-ban-poll/

 

The same Americans that do not realise that their country is being sabotaged FROM WITHIN 

 

quote-a-nation-can-survive-its-fools-and

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-trashes-press-black-history-month-meeting-article-1.2961430

Trump trashes the press at a Black History Month meeting

BY  DAN GOODJ and ASON SILVERSTEIN 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Updated: Wednesday, February 1, 2017, 12:50 PM

2nl92j5.jpg

President Trump at his Black History Month "listening session." (POOL/GETTY IMAGES)

President Trump's first order of business for Black History Month: himself.

Trump — who told black voters they have "nothing to lose" by voting for him, then feuded with civil rights icon John Lewis before Martin Luther King Day — invited about 20 guests to the White House's Roosevelt Room Wednesday morning for a so-called "listening session" to kick off Black History Month.

During the session, Trump hinted he might personally intervene to stop Chicago gang violence. He boasted about his election win, attacked CNN and Time magazine, and championed Fox News.

Trump also referenced Frederick Douglass — the slave turned abolitionist for whom parks, schools and neighborhoods are named — as someone "who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more."

As he spoke, Trump — who has been criticized for failing to book many meetings with black civil rights leaders — was surrounded almost entirely by African-Americans already in his inner circle.

"During the month, we honor the tremendous history of the African-Americans throughout our country. Throughout the world, if you really think about it, right," Trump began.

Trump noted that during his campaign, he traveled the country with Ben Carson — now his choice to helm the nation's Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the only black person in Trump's cabinet — to "a lot of places that I wasn't so familiar with."

"They're incredible people," Trump said.

He then went to talking about Martin Luther King. Or, rather, a bust of King.

A Time journalist erroneously reported in January that Trump removed a bust of King from the Oval Office. Trump and his press secretary, Sean Spicer, personally vilified the reporter even after he apologized for the error.

On Wednesday morning, Trump still had him in mind.

"They said the statue, the bust, of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched," he said.

"So I think it was a disgrace, but that's the way the press is. It's very unfortunate."

He briefly diverted to praising black heroes such as Douglass — "an example of somebody who's done an amazing job that is being recognized more and more, I notice" — before returning to the press.

CNN, he told the breakfast crowd, was "very hostile."

"I don't like watching fake news. But Fox has treated me very nice. Wherever Fox is, thank you."

In his next breath, he moved on: "We're going to need better schools, and we need 'em soon. We need more jobs, we need better wages, a lot better wages. We're going to work very hard on the inner city. Ben's going to be doing that, big league."

According to pool reports, nearly every person at the breakfast worked with the White House, the Trump transition team, another pro-Trump group or someone in the Republican Party.

That included Carson, Trump delegate Paris Dennard and Darrell Scott, a Cleveland pastor who is a member of the national Diversity Coalition for Trump.

Scott mentioned that members of Chicago's "top gangs" recently reached out to him and said they "want to have a sit-down about lowering that body count" in their city. Scott said he was going to Chicago in a few weeks.

"If they're not gonna solve the problem, and what you're doing is the right thing, then we're gonna solve the problem for 'em," Trump said.

"They want to work with this administration," Scott later said.

"They reached out. I didn't reach out to them ... they believe in this administration. They didn't believe in the prior administration."

Members of the prior administration, that of the first black President, didn't immediately comment on Trump's remarks.

But Chelsea Clinton did, tweeting a transcript of Trump's talk and writing: "This is...this is..."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full transcript of Trump's opening remarks at a Black History Month meeting today:

Hello, everybody. These are a lot of my friends, but you have been so helpful. And we did well. The election, it came out really well. Next time we’ll triple it up or quadruple it, right? We want to get over 51, right? At least 51.

Well, this is Black History Month, so this is our little breakfast, our little get-together. Hi, Lynne, how are you? Nice to see you.

And just a few notes. During this month, we honor the tremendous history of the African Americans throughout our country, throughout the world, if you really think about it, right? And their story is one of unimaginable sacrifice, hard work and faith in America.

I’ve gotten a real glimpse — during the campaign, I’d go around with Ben to a lot of different places that I wasn’t so familiar with. They’re incredible people. And I want to thank Ben Carson, who’s going to be heading up HUD. It’s a big job, and it’s a job that’s not only housing, it’s mind and spirit, right, Ben? And you understand that. Nobody is going to be better than Ben.

Last month, we celebrated the life of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office, and it turned out that that was fake news. It was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things in the — and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln and we have Jefferson and we have Dr. Martin Luther King, and we have — but they said the statue, the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is. Very unfortunate.

I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.

I am proud to honor this heritage, and we’ll be honoring it more and more. The folks at the table in almost all cases have been great friends and supporters. And Darrell — I met Darrell when he was defending me on television. And the people that were on the other side of the argument didn’t have a chance, right? And Paris has done an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community.  He’s all by himself — seven people and Paris. So I’ll take Paris over the seven. But I don’t watch CNN so I don’t get to see you as much as I want to. I don’t like watching fake news.

But Fox has treated me very nice — wherever Fox is, thank you. 

We’re going to need better schools, and we need them soon. We need more jobs, we need better wages -- a lot better wages. We’re going to work very hard on the inner city. Ben is going to be doing that, big league. It’s one of his big things that we’re going to be looking at.

We need safer communities, and we’re going to do that with law enforcement. We’re going to make it safe. We’re going to make it much better than it is right now. Right now it’s terrible, and I saw you talking about it the other night, Paris, on something else that was really — you did a fantastic job the other night on a very unrelated show. I’m ready to do my part — it’s the only time I can see him. I’m ready to do my part, and I will say this: We’re going to work together.

This is a great group. This is a group that’s been so special to me. You really helped me a lot. If you remember, I wasn’t going to do well with the African American community, and after they heard me speaking and talking about the inner city and lots of other things, we ended up getting — I won’t go into details, but we ended up getting substantially more than other candidates who had run in the past years. And now, we’re going to take that to new levels.

I want to thank my television star over here. Omarosa is actually a very nice person. Nobody knows that, but — I don’t want to destroy her reputation. She is a very good person and she’s been helpful right from the beginning of the campaign. And I appreciate it. I really do. Very special.

And so I want to thank everybody for being here. Could we maybe just go around the room and we’ll introduce ourselves. And the press can stay for that, and I’m sure they have no questions about last night because it was such a good launch. We have a fantastic, hopefully, new justice of the Supreme Court. And hopefully, that will be — he’ll be approved very, very quickly. He’s outstanding in every way — academically. He’s done almost as well as you did, Darrell, in college. Not quite, right? But he’s a great man and I think he’ll be a great, great justice. And he’s being very well-received. It was a big evening. Very big evening.

So, Paris, why don’t we start with you? Go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

If signed, the order would create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity.

trump_church_rtr_img.jpg

 A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

The exemptions, Lederman said, could themselves violate federal law or license individuals and private parties to violate federal law. “Moreover,” he added, “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.” It would be “astonishing,” he said, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”

The leaked draft maintains that, as a matter of policy, “Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

It sets forth an exceptionally expansive definition of “religious exercise” that extends to “any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” “It’s very sweeping,” said Ira Lupu, a professor emeritus at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Constitution’s religion clauses and on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). “It raises a big question about whether the Constitution or the RFRA authorizes the president to grant religious freedom in such a broad way.”

In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.

Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.

Jenny Pizer, senior counsel and law and policy director for Lambda Legal, said some of the language in the draft order is similar to language in a law passed last year in Mississippi, which a federal district court ruled violated both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. (The case is now on appeal.) Pizer said the draft order would appear to violate the Establishment Clause by listing a “particular set of religious beliefs and giving special government protection to people who hold those beliefs as opposed to different beliefs.”

Section 4 of the order, “Specific Agency Responsibilities,” requires HHS to issue a rule exempting any person or organization with religious objections from complying with the ACA’s preventive-care mandate—42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4)—which includes contraceptive coverage. It requires HHS to ensure that anyone purchasing insurance on a health-care exchange have the option of purchasing a plan that neither covers abortions nor “subsidize plans that do provide such coverage.”

And it bars HHS from taking any adverse action against federally funded child-welfare organizations, including those offering adoption, foster, or family support services, that deny anyone these services “due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs.”

Pizer said this language constitutes “a license to discriminate with public money in a series of contexts in which people tend to be vulnerable,” such as against LGBT children in foster care, which is federally funded. More broadly, she said, it would permit organizations receiving federal grants or contracts to provide child welfare services not only to refuse necessary care but to refuse even to “refer the child to another agency or setting that would be protective and affirming and instead place the child in an environment that is aggressively hostile to who that child is, on religious grounds.” Even during the George W. Bush administration, she noted, “there were protections in executive orders that beneficiaries of grantees and contractors were not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Section 4 also requires the Department of Justice to establish a new section or working group dedicated to protecting “religious freedom.”

On Tuesday, the White House announced that it would continue President Obama’s executive order protecting federal contractors from anti-LGBT discrimination. Yet the new draft order codifies a laundry list of claims advanced by the Christian right in recent years as indicating that the advance of LGBT rights has put the religious freedom of conservative Christians at risk. “They would say this is a nondiscrimination order,” said Lambda Legal’s Pizer. “We disagree. We would say being denied the ability to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.”

 “>Executive Order—Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious freedom of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution, applicable statutes, and other legal authorities, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy. The United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental natural right to religious liberty. This Constitutional protection ensures that Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their consciences, and will remain free to express their viewpoints without suffering adverse treatment from the Federal Government. It shall be the policy of this Administration to protect religious freedom.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Person” shall have the same definition as “person” in 1 U.S.C. 1.

(b) “Religious exercise” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, and includes any act or any refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

(c) “Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.

(c) As required by religious freedom laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”) and the religious provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 20003 et seq., agencies shall faithfully discharge their duty to accommodate the religion of federal employees and shall not promulgate regulations, take actions, or enact policies that substantially burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious exercise unless the imposition represents the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Regulations, actions, or policies shall not be deemed “compelling” simply by virtue of their having been applied neutrally, broadly, or across the Federal Government.

Sec. 4. Specific agency Responsibilities to Avoid Potential Violation of Religious Freedom

(a) The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury shall immediately issue an interim final rule that exempts from the preventative-care mandate set forth in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4) all persons and religious organizations that object to complying with the mandate for religious or moral reasons.

(b) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate actions, through mechanisms to ensure compliance with existing statutory and other protections, if necessary, to ensure that any individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market (whether through a federally facilitated exchange, a state-sponsored health insurance exchange, or otherwise) has the ability to purchase health insurance that does not provide coverage for abortion and does not subsidize plans that do provide such coverage.

(c) The Secretary of Health and human Services shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Government shall not discriminate or take any adverse action against a religious organization that provides federally-funded child-welfare services, including promoting or providing adoption, foster, or family support services for children, or similar services, on the basis that the organization declines to provide , facilitate, or refer such services due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs. The Secretary of Health and human Services shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(d) All agencies shall, with respect to any person, house of worship, or religious organization that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exceptions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 20003-I(a) and 2000e-2(e)) and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(d)). The Secretary of Labor shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(e) The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure that the Department of the Treasury shall not impose any tax or tax penalty, delay or deny tax-exempt status, or disallow tax deductions for contributions made under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), or otherwise make unavailable or deny any tax benefits to any person, church, synagogue, house of worship or other religious organization.

(1) on the basis of such person or organization speaking on moral or political issues from a religious perspective where religious speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as an intervention in a political campaign by the Department of the Treasury, or

(2) on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.

The Secretary of the Treasure and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(b) No agency shall, to the extent allowed by law, not recognize any decisions or findings made by any federally-recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to, or otherwise disadvantages, a religious organization on the basis that such organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with a belief described in section 4(e)(2) of this order.

(g) No agency shall exclude or otherwise make unavailable or deny any person or religious organization admission or access to charitable fundraising campaigns on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the beliefs described in Section 4(e)(2) of this order.

(k) No agency shall take adverse action against any person or religious organization that is a Federal employee, contractor, or grantee on the basis of their speaking or acting in accordance with the beliefs described in section 4(e)(2) of this order while outside the scope of their employment, contract, or grant, and shall reasonably accommodate such speech and action when made within the course of their employment, contract, or grant. This provision shall not be construed to diminish or otherwise limit any other protection provided by this order.

(l) The Attorney General shall establish with the Department of Justice a Section or working group that will ensure that the religious freedom of persons and religious organizations is protected throughout the United States, and shall investigate and, if necessary, take or coordinate appropriate action under applicable religious freedom laws.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) All agencies shall promptly withdraw or rescind any rulings, directives, regulations, guidance, positions, or interpretations that are inconsistent with this order to the extent of their inconsistency.

(b) The provisions of this order shall prevail in cases of conflict with any existing executive order and with any future executive order unless such future order explicitly refers to, and limited or excludes, the application of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof, or ii) the functions of the OMB Director relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This order shall be carried out subject to the availability of appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.

(e) This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies or instrumentalities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why a big portion of the article appears with the text striken-through :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pjcowley said:

I have no idea why a big portion of the article appears with the text striken-through :/

I fixed it. And yes, this was always on the table, which kinds shows up the ridiculous...."oh look Trump isn't gonna take away the WORKPLACE rights of LGBT people" earlier in this thread like it was something to celebrate or something. Your HUMAN rights will be taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna lmao hard (obviously not in a gratifying way) but f'king told you so way at every log cabin dolt, women, minorities, poor white trash etc etc....Trump supporters/voters basically get ALL their freedoms and rights (some which they've had for 50+ yrs) rounded up and squashed almost overnight! Not if but WHEN. Tick tock...

BUT Hillary and her pre debate questions and some scummy/sleazy pay to play w/ some Clinton Foundation money was so horrific and worth 'what' we're getting now and gonna get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pud Whacker

Trump is terrible. Hillary is great. He's not my president.  Trump is terrible. Hillary is great. He's not my president.Trump is terrible. Hillary is great. He's not my president.Trump is terrible. Hillary is great. He's not my president.

image.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, karbatal said:

What about this Syrian family who voted for Trump and now they see their relatives being reported? http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump/

 

POLITICS

Syrian family who watched their relatives get deported admit they voted for Donald Trump

Tom Cahill | January 31, 2017

62110

SHARES

FacebookTwitter

A Syrian family living in Allentown, Pennsylvania just watched their relatives get deported right in front of them by the administration they voted for.

Dr. Ghassan Assali and his wife, Sarmad, are originally from Syria but have been in the United States since the Clinton administration. Dr. Assali earned his degree from New York University and has a dentistry practice in Pennsylvania. Sarmad’s two brothers, their wives, and their two children have been trying to flee Syria since 2003, and were finally approved for residency in the United States in December of 2016.

However, when the six Assali relatives arrived in the United States only hours after Donald Trump signed his executive order indefinitely banning immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries (including Syria), they were promptly detained by U.S. Customs.

“Two security guards were waiting for them,” Sarmad Assali told NBC News. “They took them. They said, ‘Are you Syrians?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ They said, ‘Come with us.'”

Assali said her vote for Donald Trump was done out of a desire to see secure borders, though she didn’t expect one of her candidate’s chief campaign promises to be applied to her relatives, who are all Orthodox Christians with green cards. Even though White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus recently stated that Trump’s order wouldn’t apply to green card holders, Assali’s relatives were nonetheless forced to board the next flight to Syria despite waiting over a decade to be with their family in the United States.

“I understand he wants to make America safe,” Assali said. “We’re all on with this. I definitely want to be in a safe place. But people need us and we need to be there for them.”

Ghassan Assali compared the U.S. government under the president he voted for to the Islamic State, expressing disappointment that the country he calls home now issues religious purity tests to immigrants,

“America is not America,” Dr. Assali said. “Like ISIS now, they ask, ‘Are you Christian? What do you believe?’ And if they are not saying what they believe, they kick you out and they cut your head off. So America, same thing. They ask you are you Muslim? You’ve got to change your religion. Thank you.”

One of those deported was the mother of 21-year-old Tarwak Assali, who came to the United States three years ago.

“I was one hour away from hugging her,” he said. “Seeing her.”

The timing of the Assali relatives being deported back to Syria couldn’t have been worse. Only six hours after they boarded a flight to Damascus, Syria through Doha, Qatar, federal judge Ann Donnelly issued an injunction on the order, allowing those detained by customs to be released onto U.S. soil.

 

And his vote here is helping turn the U.S. into the exact thing he fled from. Dumb fucks. I really have no sympathy for idiots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2017 at 6:16 PM, Pud Whacker said:

I don't see any reason to be nasty toward me. 

Who said I was being nasty, my dear? Just calling it out like I see it. But I thought you said "difference of opinion is fine."

I honestly think the world of you, even though we vehemently disagree on just about everything on this subject. But if it's really at a point where you feel I'm being nasty towards you, I'll gladly bow out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pud Whacker
5 minutes ago, svperstar said:

Who said I was being nasty, my dear? Just calling it out like I see it. But I thought you said "difference of opinion is fine."

I honestly think the world of you, even though we vehemently disagree on just about everything on this subject. But if it's really at a point where you feel I'm being nasty towards you, I'll gladly bow out.

NO, NEVER bow out!!!  xo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. Now shut up and take what I have to say like it's a 12-inch dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pud Whacker
2 minutes ago, svperstar said:

Good. Now shut up and take what I have to say like it's a 12-inch dick.

GIVE IT 2 ME!!! YEAH!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he wants a war with Iran and he's picking fights with Australia now. He really thinks our military is invincible. How stupid can you be?

This shit is depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He better not start fucking with Australia. 😡😡😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Napoléon said:

He better not start fucking with Australia. 😡😡😡

Going to be interesting times ahead.  He is very pro guns in every way and the NRA and like minded groups hate our strict gun laws and mistakenly say we have no freedom. They are often quoting our gun laws as wrong.  With that idiot Pauline Hanson gaining more supporters and her views on guns and climate change and love for Trump, hope we don't go down the ultra right wing path. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kim said:

I fixed it. And yes, this was always on the table, which kinds shows up the ridiculous...."oh look Trump isn't gonna take away the WORKPLACE rights of LGBT people" earlier in this thread like it was something to celebrate or something. Your HUMAN rights will be taken away.

Yes. This is where the USA is heading to. Shocking and frightening. I would never have believed it even 6 months ago. Yes we all knew Trump was bad but to stoop this low, to be such a toxic, divisive, opportunistic megalomaniac does send chills down my spine. As an Italian knowing my country history I can tell you how fascism works and the Trump administration is going towards that kind of territory. And for people saying you're exaggerating I'm saying: this is a new kind of fascism of course. It's actually even worse. It's presented as a legal democracy but it's not. For Giuliani to say that Trump approached him to ask how to ban Muslims legally. Sorry guys but that's exactly how modern fascism works. They make a mockery of our democracies and use any loopholes, any technicality to make it look right. Exactly what the Nazi party did with the Jews in the first phase of the Holocaust.  

All his Republican supporters were saying he won't be extreme as a president. He will stop acting up, etc... No. No. No.. he's getting worse and worse by the day. Power has made him more mentally unstable. But again the people standing by him are the true enemies of the free world. Never get it twisted. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/uc-berkeley-lockdown-anti-trump-9742567

Trump sympathisers here felt the need to start a new thread to talk about that event happening in Berkeley. I'm not surprised and shocked by it though as theyre using it to expose how the extreme lefties are not democratic themselves and are being violent and we people who have declared ourselves anti Trump won't condemn those acts.

i condemn all acts of violence but truly Trump and his minions have to be prepared for more of those acts to come. His divisive, toxic, regime will have a lot to answer for and this is what you're getting. And I'm afraid this won't be the first and last act from the violent resistance. 

Yes say NO to violence but  also say NO to Trump. That's what I'm saying. 

No Justice No Peace 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jazzyjan said:

Going to be interesting times ahead.  He is very pro guns in every way and the NRA and like minded groups hate our strict gun laws and mistakenly say we have no freedom. They are often quoting our gun laws as wrong.  With that idiot Pauline Hanson gaining more supporters and her views on guns and climate change and love for Trump, hope we don't go down the ultra right wing path. 

He should be treading carefully with his relations with us as we are on good terms with both USA and China and if the tensions escalate with China forcefully taking over the south china sea we may be asked to pick sides which is going to be really tough on Turnbull as he won't want to step on any toes or be forced to choose sides....but Trump is making it easier for him.

Pauline is an idiot she can go to the white house and suck Trumps dick. We have no time of day for the ignorant bigot....she would ruin our country if she gets any more power.she needs to go back to selling take away foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Leebf said:

He should be treading carefully with his relations with us as we are on good terms with both USA and China and if the tensions escalate with China forcefully taking over the south china sea we may be asked to pick sides which is going to be really tough on Turnbull as he won't want to step on any toes or be forced to choose sides....but Trump is making it easier for him.

Pauline is an idiot she can go to the white house and suck Trumps dick. We have no time of day for the ignorant bigot....she would ruin our country if she gets any more power.she needs to go back to selling take away foods.

Yes, I agree with you about her. She is a huge Trump supporter as well.  Dreadful. 

We have always been strong allies with the USA but I doubt that would interest Trump. It is his way or the highway and we are not a major world power. I know I am only guessing things but can't see him getting along with Turnbull or caring less about the Long standing relationship between the USA and Australia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US and Australia have a very close cooperation between their militaries. There is a permanent rotation of 2,500 Marines based in Darwin and Australia is a key strategic ally in the Asia Pacific region. They engage in war games annually and Australia supports the US Defence industry with extensive foreign military sales worth billions of dollars. The joint strike fighter project is one example. Australia also committed troops to the Middle East during the original conflict and continues to play a significant role in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think they currently have around 1,000-1,500 members deployed right now supporting the coalition forces. At the UN, they always support the US and vote in the interest of the diplomatic relationship - particularly when it comes to Israel. 

While Australians might not completely support the current government, they will not appreciate being disrespected by a supposed ally. I think the majority of Australians will be pissed off over this incident so I wouldn't be surprised if it increase anti-US sentiments here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Napoléon said:

The US and Australia have a very close cooperation between their militaries. There is a permanent rotation of 2,500 Marines based in Darwin and Australia is a key strategic ally in the Asia Pacific region. They engage in war games annually and Australia supports the US Defence industry with extensive foreign military sales worth billions of dollars. The joint strike fighter project is one example. Australia also committed troops to the Middle East during the original conflict and continues to play a significant role in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think they currently have around 1,000-1,500 members deployed right now supporting the coalition forces. At the UN, they always support the US and vote in the interest of the diplomatic relationship - particularly when it comes to Israel. 

While Australians might not completely support the current government, they will not appreciate being disrespected by a supposed ally. I think the majority of Australians will be pissed off over this incident so I wouldn't be surprised if it increase anti-US sentiments here. 

Very true.   Also, proving yet again how unfit as a person to be president he is,  fancy tweeting about a deal to the public.  A deal with a country/friend/ally that has been loyal to the USA for years.   Where is the respect ?   He does not know how to show any restraint.  

Donald Trump slams 'dumb' refugee deal with Australia after 'worst' phone call

Donald Trump speaks with Malcolm Turnbull over the phone from the Oval Office

 

US President Donald Trump has hit out at what he says is a "dumb deal" to take "illegal immigrants" from Australia.

The deal to take refugees from Manus Island and Nauru was brokered between the Federal Government and the US in the closing weeks of the Obama administration.

Mr Trump took to Twitter this afternoon to question the deal, which has been the subject of days of mixed messages from the White House

 

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

 

The President's tweet  which incorrectly labels refugees "illegal immigrants" and cites "thousands" of people instead of 1,250 — came just hours after details of his conversation with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which Mr Trump reportedly described as "the worst by far", were published by the Washington Post.

Mr Trump reportedly accused the Prime Minister of seeking to export the "next Boston bombers" to the US, and complained that the deal was going to kill him politically.

Mr Turnbull later told Melbourne radio station 3AW that the resettlement deal entered into with the Obama administration "wasn't a commitment to take everybody, sight unseen".

"It was always premised on their very rigorous processing," he said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to add that refugees are yet again being used and exploited in a game of politics and deals. Human life and suffering again being tossed around by politicians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be the consequences if the USA refuses to accep the Geneve agreement and refuses refugees? 

I never thought that we wuold be in a situation when things that we take for granted like UNO, human rights, etc, can be in danger. It shows that we take for granted so many things and aren't aware of how fortunate we are of living in a relatively peaceful world. It's so fragile! 

If USA stops agreeing to refugees, other countries will do the same. It may have a domino effect and things that took decades to build can be gone in just some months! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure many people in Eastern Europe and Le Pen and our very own right wing parties are ready to applaud him even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...