Breaking (1 Feb 2017): Draft of Trump Executive Order leaked.
Comments
I was only being sarcastic about those who felt confident that this sort of thing "is still better than Killary". I trust you have a natural immunity to that poison -- it's very specific in its effects.
So go ahead name the people on babble that you think this smear applies to. I can't think of any and as far as I am concerned it is a nasty comment that only limits good debate. You have hijacked another thread and turned it into a pissing match because you like to insult as many people as possible with as much deniability as possible. Its a very very tiresome act.
So go ahead name the people on babble that you think this smear applies to.
I'm not going to compile a list for you, but if you're genuinely curious who might be so foolish, google any of the following
"site:rabble.ca Shillary"
"site:rabble.ca Shrillary"
"site:rabble.ca Killary"
Ignore those who simply opposed this. The rest are the ones who meant it. And we should thank them for helping The Donald [he said sarcastically]
I'm also pretty much insulting as FEW people as possible, at least here.
At a certain point it became a harsh reality that the new POTUS was going to be Clinton or Trump. No, Stein was not going to come from behind. No, a write-in campaign was not going to give Sanders the victory. It was Clinton OR Trump.
Anyone who preferred Trump in that very limited contest should at least nod meekly if Trump ends up signing this order. Or, if this ISN'T better, say why it's not better.
In "Let's Make a Deal" terms, Trump was what was behind Door #3.
This clearly would violate both the constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act if it were signed into law. So it would be challenged in the courts. Of course, with Trump nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS, there's no guarantee that the court would rule against it.
[...]
I think this is a misunderstanding of the current state of Constitutional rights in the United States - an understanding that is extremely widespread and something that the majority of us on the "progressive" part of the spectrum tend to be wearing blinders regarding. Given the trend towards "originalist" or "literalist" interpretations on the part of conservative jurists in the US, classes that are not explicitly listed (primarily the LGBT communites, but to a lesser extent women [and remember ERA never passed]) can, in practice, be excluded. Consequently the LGBT communities are not automatically included under, for example, the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, nor are we an enumerated class in the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There is a tendency to view the two major LGBT Supreme Court victories in the last few years (Windsor and Obergefell) as somehow officially, as what happened in Canada, "reading in" the LGBT communities as a protected or listed class... and that is, I am afraid, a completely mistaken interpretation. Windsor and Obergefell were quite narrow decisions that essentially declared that there was no compelling justification for the State to interfer with that subset of contract law (which, for the purposes of jurisprudence is what Marriage laws boil down to). Neither decision explicitly extended equal protection to the LGBT communities as a class - if they had the cruel joke of "married on Saturday, fired on Monday" would have no punchline. It is time "progressives" woke up to the fact that while some of the legal arguments in the landmark cases were couched in terms of equal protection, the decisions in the case were not made on that basis.
What is truly terrifying is the trend of State legislatures introducing Orwellian named "Religious Liberty" laws (look what happened in the Virigina legislature today) and probability that the Republicans are going to be able pass similar laws at the federal level. They are quite clearly intended to preemptively undermine even the generic appeal to equal protection provisions of the Constitution and, in the case of those classes not explicitly listed, are extremely likely to be successful in doing so.
It is way past time for the media (mainstream and alternative) to wake up and start covering the real story - a campaign by the right to twist the language surrounding freedom of religion and anti-discrimination laws to the point they are a figleaf for religious licence to discriminate.
Try an interesting thought experiment, think hard and try and remember the last time you saw this addressed in an article on Rabble or any other "progressive" site you haunt...
Extremely widespread... and too many of us are wearing blinders regarding it. But what the fuck, Sunny Days.
A polite request: I see that while I was composing post #17 people have decided to forget what the mandate of this little corner of babble is for. Could you please take the urine swapping event over to "Babble Banter" or "Out and About" or, well, practically anywhere else. It is not that I am terribly judgmental about watersports... but the smell of ammonia is making my eyes water.
I agree with bagkitty's analysis, though at the moment there is the fig leaf of precedent that SCOTUS likely will feel some obligation to uphold for decency's sake. And, more to the point, b/c the current make-up won't change with Gorsuch. But change the composition from 4-4-1 to 5-4 right-wingers and neither the 14th Am nor Civil Rights Act will be worth much more than a bucket of warm spit. At least, not for anyone other than white, Christian fundy bigots.
Trump being elected could be construed as creating a catalyst uniting people for mass resistance to the alt-right. A Clinton win would have been business as usual. So far neither women's rights nor LGBTQ rights have been significantly impacted at the federal level. On the other hand Trump has been president for days and there have been mass protests throughout the US. It remains to be seen how long that lasts but with Trump's attitude there is a good chance protests will continue. Trump just might manage the impossible, uniting the left. He is even scaring republicans.
Had Clinton been elected it would have been business as usual. To me that means a left focused on making sure everyone suffers equally. The fight against neoliberalism is just an afterthought or a topic no more important than the various wars being fought under its umbrella.
Trump being elected could be construed as creating a catalyst uniting people for mass resistance to the alt-right. A Clinton win would have been business as usual. So far neither women's rights nor LGBTQ rights have been significantly impacted at the federal level. On the other hand Trump has been president for days and there have been mass protests throughout the US. It remains to be seen how long that lasts but with Trump's attitude there is a good chance protests will continue. Trump just might manage the impossible, uniting the left. He is even scaring republicans.
Had Clinton been elected it would have been business as usual. To me that means a left focused on making sure everyone suffers equally. The fight against neoliberalism is just an afterthought or a topic no more important than the various wars being fought under its umbrella.
I tend to agree, in the long run. But we don't live in the long run. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.
But a major part of this campaign is to remove federal standards so that states can do whatever they want. The supreme court threat is all part of that too. This executive order is a key federal part of that.
Those attacks have been happening, and have not stopped.
https://thinkprogress.org/the-texas-attorney-generals-thorough-plans-to-...
I have heard the "worse is better because it will get people fired up" line before, and I think it is nonsense. I am far more concerned about my friend down there who suffering severe depression, in part because he wonders how much longer his marriage is going to be valid.
People are being hurt by this already, and a lot more will be hurt.
The whole point of resistance is to stop those tragic things (and right now that includes the prospect of people dying from lack of health care) from happening in the first place.
Pondering wrote:Trump being elected could be construed as creating a catalyst uniting people for mass resistance to the alt-right. A Clinton win would have been business as usual. So far neither women's rights nor LGBTQ rights have been significantly impacted at the federal level. On the other hand Trump has been president for days and there have been mass protests throughout the US. It remains to be seen how long that lasts but with Trump's attitude there is a good chance protests will continue. Trump just might manage the impossible, uniting the left. He is even scaring republicans.
Had Clinton been elected it would have been business as usual. To me that means a left focused on making sure everyone suffers equally. The fight against neoliberalism is just an afterthought or a topic no more important than the various wars being fought under its umbrella.
I tend to agree, in the long run. But we don't live in the long run. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.
The people who fought for the vote for women are all dead. I'm still glad we have the vote. We don't even know if the Trump presidency will last 4 years. The situation is unprecedented and there is a silver lining. TPP is dead. Who do you think would be most hurt by TPP? My guess is the poor including women and LGBTQ and POC. Although on the flip side rich women and rich LBGTQ and rich POCs would be doing just fine under Hillary.
Under Trump I wouldn't be surprised if the economic elites of the world are freaking out (just a little) for a change. That might even lead to a quick regime change. If it doesn't even that will tell us something.
I'm shocked that Greece hasn't had a revolution yet. That taught me something. Harper winning for a decade taught me something. Trump winning this election taught me something.
Under Trump I wouldn't be surprised if the economic elites of the world are freaking out (just a little) for a change
Yes, they're freaking out with joy.
He even brought his own window dressing to show how much they all love him (photo from October):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lgbt-idUSKBN15F1D7
Advocates said on Tuesday they were bracing for a Trump administration rollback of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, despite a White House statement vowing to uphold protection for LGBT people in the workplace.U.S. President Donald Trump will continue to enforce a 2014 executive order by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, barring discrimination against LGBT people working for federal contractors, the White House said.
...
"Trump talks a big game on his support for LGBTQ people, yet he has filled his cabinet with people who have literally spent their careers working to demonize us and limit our rights," Griffin said in a statement.
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump helped lead the charge to scuttle a draft executive order that would have overturned Obama-era enforcements of LGBT rights in the workplace, multiple sources with knowledge of the situation told POLITICO.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-lgbt-order-234617
He even brought his own window dressing to show how much they all love him (photo from October):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lgbt-idUSKBN15F1D7
[...]
@6079_Smith_W: Just bear in mind that displaying a flag upside down is universally recognized as a signal of distress and the existence of an extreme danger to life...
Ha! Didn't catch that. Thanks! And here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-donald-trump-unfurled-an-upside-...
I am not a big fan of threads that start of with a link and and instruction along the lines of "discuss". So I will get the ball rolling by sharing two intimately connected observations.
1) The media (mainstream and alternative) are notoriously bad at drawing the distinction between religious liberty and religious licence. There is not real reason to assume that this will change.
2) Homophobes are bad enough, but there is something worse... people in positions of power and authority who are willing to pander to and enable homophobes because doing so reinforces their position of power.
And on top of that all the bathroom and right to refuse service laws at the state level.Most recently Texas.
They are well on the way to overplaying their hand, given the reaction to the refugee order.
This shit is kind of a bugbear of mine, and has been ever since the first American pharmacist pretended that he wouldn't be allowed into Heaven to see Gran-gran, and Sparky the dog, if he were to put some birth control pills in a bag for one of the local loose women.
At the same time, I think we need to be mindful that the first Exectutive Order made by Hillary Clinton's body double would have been "Instigate mutually assured destruction with Russia, because that's what scorpions do". And when you look at it like that then a few million homosexuals being unable to hold a job, rent an apartment or buy a car to live in isn't so bad. And a few million women who cannot do an end run on God's desire for them to be pregnant is a small price to pay. The world truly dodged a bullet when Clinton didn't win, and I think we should all be bowing and scraping and thanking Breitbart, Wikileaks, the Tea Party and a handful of personally obsessed babblers for doing all they could to prevent it.
And why should anyone need to live in sin anyway? There's a church on every block.
In a thread on Trump's homophobic Executive order Magoo takes a swipe at babblers. WTF is that.
There is going to be a big fight if he actually signs it and people try to discriminate. The on the street response will be roving bands of anti-homophobic protestors to go after every business that uses it. The court cases will be very interesting as well.
This clearly would violate both the constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act if it were signed into law. So it would be challenged in the courts. Of course, with Trump nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS, there's no guarantee that the court would rule against it.
ETA: I've flagged Magoo's post as offivensive, because in his claim that this executive order would be preferrable to what Hilary would do (which is pure speculation), I believe that Magoo is excusing the homophobia inherent in this draft executive order.
He was being sarcastic
Indeed and it is that nasty sarcastic tone in every thread that is making this place poisonous.
Now back to discussing how we can combat homophobia besides blaming some posters for Trump because they didn't support Clinton.
An excellent illustration that sarcasm & irony on the web are always in danger of being misread and starting another of those tiresome you-said-I-said squabbles. I've made the mistake in the past and there's always someone who doesn't "get it" & takes me seriously. It's best to say - literally - what you mean. Or you can flag your post as sarcasm but somehow that takes the fun-potential out of using it?
Yes, as noted above, I was most certainly being sarcastic. I don't for a New York second think that this kind of nonsense is somehow preferable to all the evils that Clinton was supposedly sure to do.
But I think it's reasonable to ask those who claimed that Clinton was dying, or who claimed that Clinton might be using a body double or who claimed that Clinton was teaming up with Bill to silence his rape victims still think this is better.
I was only being sarcastic about those who felt confident that this sort of thing "is still better than Killary". I trust you have a natural immunity to that poison -- it's very specific in its effects.
I do have to say, though, the fact that my second and third paragraphs above could be construed for a genuine endorsement of Trump's potential order, and a genuine criticism of Clinton is pretty hard to believe. The late summer and early fall really must have normalized the whole Clinton-bashing and subsequent Trump-loving.
In most of the sites I haunt a /s at the end of your comment is considered a good way of signifying that the sarcasm is now over - but yes, it definitely takes the fun out of things.
I don't think Magoo's post deserved flagging... at least not for content. I think it was too incoherent (and I don't think incoherence should itself be a flaggable offence) to make its point and fell flat on its face (if viewed as a comedy routine the comments "the joke bombed" or "he died on stage" would be totally applicable). If, on the other hand, he was attempting to do an imitation of a posting by one of the "low information" voters who helped deliver the office President to tRump, it was a fairly good imitation - although he should have made more spelling errors.