Executive Order to Roll Back Obama's Federal Protections for LGBT Employees in the Works — Page 3

Roscoe said: "He'll just go ahead and sign the First Amendment Defense Act which allows for bigotry against gays in the name of their Lord God and His Son Jesus Christ, in full accordance with the Westboro Doctrine: God Hates F*gs. That law will nullify this little tapdance.

The GOP has a lot invested in not appearing to Hate On The Gays, despite all their actions to the contrary. By waiting until he can sign the FADA into law he can say he's protecting Christians instead of stripping protections from the LGBTQ community, and what with all the recent protests they're not really looking to be pissing off the queers -- we get so combative when our rights are in danger.



This. 100% true.

Practically every major news outlet has a story like the one below, where their reporters go into "Trump Country" to ask residents if this is still what they want, and overwhelmingly, they're still 100% behind him. There is no reasoning with these people, like the idiot in this article who doesn't think the President should have to follow a court order. Or the man who swears there were ISIS troops trying to get in, despite no evidence to support his claim. Or the man who still insists this is a Christian nation and that everyone needs to be "godly." These are the kind of people we're fighting against. And they're still with him.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/small-town-backing-trump-draws-contrast-big-city-protests-n714631

By all means, please tell me how to get morons like them to accept basic facts, like say, the President is bound to accept the rulings of the federal courts.

Updated On: 1/31/17 at 02:03 PM

Sister try to send me to gulag, but Anezka too strong.

Petralicious said: Just my opinion but to start, stop framing things as a Muslim Ban or an Immigration Ban...

The Executive Order that was signed by your President explicitly prohibits, bans, restricts for a period of 90 days people residing from 7 Muslim countries. So what would you call it?

Your president has called Mexicans rapists, criminals and drug dealers. What would you call someone who made those kind of statements?

Your president explicitly said the following:

I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and F*CK her. She was married. I moved on her like a b!tch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

and this:

I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab them by the pUssy. You can do anything.

What would you call someone who said that?

You act like people are just grasping labels out of thin air and attributing them to your president because they have nothing better to do.

They are calling him what he so clearly is and his executive orders what they so clearly are.

You are deluding yourself if you feel like calling his actions and executive orders anything else than what they are.

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck I have news for you: It's a duck.

Petra,

I didn't ask you to justify his actions - - - which although you claim to not be a fan you continue to do

I clearly asked you what you would call someone who made the kinds of statements he made. You conveniently avoided answering the questions asked.

What President Obama did and what your president has done are two completely different things. That is a faulty comparison.

What Obama actually did was this:

There was a delay in processing Iraqi refugees in 2011 after it was discovered that two Iraqi refugees living in Kentucky had been involved in roadside bombing attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. One of the refugee’s fingerprints were found on a detonation device in Iraq, prompting U.S. immigration, security and intelligence agencies to use federal databases to rescreen about 58,000 Iraqi refugees in the U.S. and more than 25,000 Iraqis who had been approved to enter the U.S., but had not yet been admitted, Department of Homeland Security officials testified at the time.

The Kentucky case not only caused a backlog in processing Iraqi refugees in 2011, but it also resulted in an overhaul of the refugee screening process.

The Obama administration’s actions were limited to one country and in response to a specific threat — the potential for other Iraqi refugees to take advantage of a flaw in the screening process.

Therein lies the difference.

Nice try on your part though, but alas no cigar.

Thanks for playing.

Updated On: 1/31/17 at 04:07 PM

Let us remember this was a private conversation took place 10(?) years ago while a private citizen and leaked by friends of Clinton at NBC.

NONE of those excuses make any difference in the least. NONE. ZERO. Everything else you said after that is irrelevant. If you're fine with what he said, then just admit that you condone it. But do NOT pretend to be so STUPID as to not understand why anyone would find this an offensive and appalling thing to say to anyone at any time. He admits it, condones it and encourages it. The "boys will be boys" defense is only valid to those who condone and encourage sexual assault on women or find humor and entertainment in discussing sexual assault on women. YOU CANNOT DIMINISH THIS WITH ANY EXCUSE. If your friends and family talk like this and it has no effect on you, then that's your dysfunction to deal with. It certainly isn't mine nor that of anyone with which I associate.

Petra,

I am going to stop this right here.

It is extremely clear to me that reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit. Mister Matt makes a valid point that most of what you decided to use as justification for your president's reprehensible actions are highly irrelevant.

You may have to re-think your message board signature as it was clearly aimed at the person you are so highly invested in defending.

With that being said, I am ending this conversation.

Let's just disagree to disagree, shall we?

We have nothing left to talk about.

Be well.

Growl has got it right, why respond? It only feeds the illness. Mister Matt has it right also, there is no other way to deal with this idiocy than with honest condescension which they all deserve. Sorry, if it's bad for the cause, it would come out anyway, why hide it?

adamgreer said: "LBJ left office in 1968, 49 years ago. How is he remotely relevant to this conversation?"

Because it deflects from the conversation at hand. Engaging the trolls only lowers the level of discourse here.

No, it is 100% irrelevant. You have shoehorned the remarks of past Presidents and fabricated our opinions of them and their remarks in an effort to discredit us and defend the man who encouraged the sexual assault of women. You have proven NO point whatsoever other than you are an apologist for Captain Creamsicle and dismissive of his comments. It doesn't matter where the moron was because he was sincere in his remarks. He said what he did and encouraged more of the same.

It's indefensible.

Updated On: 1/31/17 at 06:13 PM

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.

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.

he 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.

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