What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Even now, still blaming the victim.

We lost the war. Our general bears some of the blame.

But it was agonizing man. Everytime it looked like we were going to pull away some disaster would occur.

[HVC]

Even now, still blaming the victim.

We lost the war. Our general bears some of the blame.

But it was agonizing man. Everytime it looked like we were going to pull away some disaster would occur.

As bad as you feel she probably feels worse. This is her legacy. She lost to this idiot and waste of a human being.

[Admiral Yi]

yi, I'm taking your lack of response to mean you misunderstood my posts in some way, because I can't see how you thought I backed away from the argument you made in your first and second posts

I actually wasted time going through the responses, too. shitty to make such a bold declaration

This afternoon I went to see my mom in the hospice so I couldn't respond.  Now I've had a couple beers so can't handle heavy posting.  Will take another look tomorrow.

[11B4V]

I think I heard on NPR that Tillerson is confirmed, and think i saw on ABC that vote counters have de Vos losing.  Saw clips of two GOP chick senators giving speeches against.

From what I saw, she is over the top not qualed for that job. Hopefully they can shit can that loopy broad.

[Valmy]

Well they need one more vote or abstention.

[11B4V]

Well they need one more vote or abstention.

Hell, he could have taken a ad out on Craigslist and gotten somebody more qualified.

[Oexmelin]

Yes one of those broads is our senator.

Yes. The other one is from Maine.

[CountDeMoney]

Well they need one more vote or abstention.

50-50.  Looks like Pence will be climbing over the ropes for the tag in.

Plenty of cowardice to go around.

[Valmy]

Well they need one more vote or abstention.

50-50.  Looks like Pence will be climbing over the ropes for the tag in.

Plenty of cowardice to go around.

Fuck.

[Oexmelin]

Fuck.

Not a done deal yet. There are at least four other R senators who have expressed private doubts about DeVos who are being approached now.

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck.

You're white, right?  Don't worry about it.  Why, here, have a "Get Away From Teh Darkies and Teh Poors" voucher.




Minority child?  Handicapped kid?  Poor?

[Valmy]

My neighborhood is full of Indians. So many Indians. I am not going to run away from all these engineers and doctors to send my kids to some school loaded with white trash.

[HVC]

Well they need one more vote or abstention.

50-50.  Looks like Pence will be climbing over the ropes for the tag in.

Plenty of cowardice to go around.

A Russian stooge as Secretary of State, this bear fearing ding bat as secretary of education, a guy who wanted to abolish the position of secretary of energy up for the role, and the list goes on.  I used the think the republicans were just anti-intellectual hyper capitalists, but this is verging on just being plain evil. Wtf people.

[Oexmelin]

there's little to indicate that Trump knows anything about his subject, based on the rambling, vacuous commentary he offered:

"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 getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact." Within moments, he was off-topic, talking about some of his favorite subjects: CNN, himself, and his feud with CNN.

Here's Spicer "clarifying" Trump's characterization of Douglass. The actual quote :

Through a lot of the actions and and and statements he's gonna make, the contributions of Frederick Douglass will become more and more."

[11B4V]

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

Unsure of the source.

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.

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.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

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 STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

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.