The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Interesting. I never really thought about it but my initial reaction is I'm actually okay with a "homeowner" not wanting to sell his/her house to anyone they don't like.

I don't think Rohrabacher was saying realtors should discriminate, I think he was saying the private homeowner has a right to discriminate?

Also, there shouldn't be a price difference based on whatever, that would be bad.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Rohrabacher Says It’s OK to Not Sell Homes to Gay People

Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher lost the support of a national Realtors group after he said they should be allowed to refuse to sell houses to lesbian and gay people.

Rohrabacher made the comments to an Orange County Association of Realtors delegation in Washington, the Orange County Register reported.

“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone [if] they don’t agree with their lifestyle,” he said, according to Wayne Woodyard, a former Orange County Realtor president who attended the event.

[digamma]

California has a state law that prevents discrimination in home sales, including in a FSBO context. Sexual orientation is a protected class under that law.

[miami_fan]

We are now debating the pros and cons of housing discrimination?

Okay.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by digamma

California has a state law that prevents discrimination in home sales, including in a FSBO context. Sexual orientation is a protected class under that law.

And a violation of part of the Civil Rights act-the Fair Housing Act:


The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) introduced meaningful federal enforcement mechanisms. It outlaws: Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Interesting. I never really thought about it but my initial reaction is I'm actually okay with a "homeowner" not wanting to sell his/her house to anyone they don't like.

I don't think Rohrabacher was saying realtors should discriminate, I think he was saying the private homeowner has a right to discriminate?

Even if we didn't look at his other views, we can see in this very article you linked where he said that he's opposed to letting homeowners refuse to sell on the basis of race, but he's okay with them doing on the basis of sexual orientation. So it's not about the right to sell to whoever you want, because he's already agreed that you shouldn't be able to do that.

But then we only need to look at his voting record and past statements to see he's against gays in the military, gay marriage, and gay adoption.

[Edward64]

I'm not a realtor and don't claim to understand the nuances of the law. Is it true that sexual preference is only protected in 14 states and it is "legal" to discriminate in the other 36?

https://www.justia.com/real-estate/d...iscrimination/

The Fair Housing Act

The Fair Housing Act prohibits property owners, financial institutions and landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants or buyers on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, family status or disability. Discrimination under the Fair Housing Act may take many different forms. Types of prohibited discrimination include:
:
:
State Anti-Discrimination Statutes

The Fair Housing Act does not cover all types of discrimination or all forms of housing. For example, the Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, marital status or sexual orientation. Additionally, the Act does not cover some smaller apartment buildings, single family housing sold or rented without a broker, or housing operated by organizations that limit occupancy to their own members.

Most states have enacted legislation that provides additional protection against housing discrimination. For example, fourteen states have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Violations of state fair housing laws should be reported to the appropriate state agency.

[jct32]

I don't understand why this is even a conversation. Sell your home to whoever will buy it. Doesn't make any sense.

[PilotMan]

I think it's time for the Donald Trump method of news and blame commentary.



Let's start with the 23rd school shooting this year.


"Donald Trump is directly responsible for not keeping our children safe! He's out getting paid by Russians when he should be in schools shielding our children from bullets! EASY TO DO!"

[RainMaker]

Weird thing is Rohrabacher is a closeted gay man. It's like one of the worst kept secrets in OC. He married his campaign manager awhile back when rumors were at it's peak (this was around the time Mark Foley was caught).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Weird thing is Rohrabacher is a closeted gay man. It's like one of the worst kept secrets in OC. He married his campaign manager awhile back when rumors were at it's peak (this was around the time Mark Foley was caught).

At this point I just assume anyone over the top anti-homosexuals is actually gay themselves.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by jct32

I don't understand why this is even a conversation. Sell your home to whoever will buy it. Doesn't make any sense.

Its not the selling to whoever will buy it that is the problem/question.

Its not selling it to who you don't want to sell it to.

Is that discriminatory (yes) but is it legal to be discriminatory when you are selling your house yourself.

Apparently, from what I've been able to gather, you cannot be discriminatory based on "race, religion, national origin, sex, family status or disability" but "age, marital status or sexual orientation" is not always protected.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not a realtor and don't claim to understand the nuances of the law. Is it true that sexual preference is only protected in 14 states and it is "legal" to discriminate in the other 36?

https://www.justia.com/real-estate/d...iscrimination/

Sexuality is not a protected class under the U.S. constitution. The Obama administration interpreted various civil rights legislation as covering sexuality under existing provisions prohibiting discrimination by "sex", but, presumably that hasn't continued under the current administration. So ya, in my state, you can fire people for being gay, refuse to sell to a gay person, whatever. Every year there's an "add the words" legislative push (to add sexual preference, sexual identity, etc) to the state's discrimination statute, but it hasn't passed yet. The City of Boise has passed such an ordinance, but, that's really more a matter of policy because obviously they can't conflict with state law, and, it's unclear who exactly can be prosecuted/sued under it.

[Thomkal]

So Trump tweeting out an attack on the New York Times about using "phony sources" in an article about the summit with North Korea. The problem? the source was a member of the White House Staff giving a normal background briefing to reporters. Several reporters were there and there's audio of the "phony source" giving the briefing:


Trump slaps 'phony' label on aide's comments in White House-arranged call - POLITICO

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not a realtor and don't claim to understand the nuances of the law. Is it true that sexual preference is only protected in 14 states and it is "legal" to discriminate in the other 36?

https://www.justia.com/real-estate/d...iscrimination/

Or it means that, as with many laws and statutes in the US and elsewhere, people/lawmakers haven't bothered to update stuff that is outdated, often by centuries.

If you publicly put a price tag on something, you should not be allowed to refuse to sell it on any grounds other than "does not provide payment".

[Edward64]

I think the problem right now is the press and Dems are reacting to Trump and not being proactive. Can't blame the press but I don't see the Dems doing anything other than -- hope and pray Mueller comes out with something incriminating "enough" and pray/assume they will win back the House.

The former likely won't happen as the public has been desensitized and the GOP seems to be sticking with Trump. Unless there is literally a smoking gun, Mueller's report won't do much. The latter is not a sure thing at all. Nothing seems to be sticking ... where is the Stormy Daniels story now? So what about Cohen? Where are all the other countless stories about Trump? Did any of them make a difference?

None that I've seen (or not yet), there's too many of them.

I think the Dems need to fight dirty, be petty, sarcastic, lie etc. like Trump and make him react to them. I would love if the Dems came up with some "phrases/names" to describe Trump, consistently use it, and rally their base. Doesn't need to be the truth, just needs to egg him on like he does to Dems.

Something like "husband of cuckold Melania" (you get the idea, get down to his level), dig up some dirt on him like his tax return (hire someone to hack into Trump international), find out if Melania cheated on him (likely I would think) etc. Something that will make him furious vs same old stuff.

With that all said ... I do like some of Trump's foreign policy and support immigration reform (and the Wall). I do like the Tax reform he passed.

However, I would love to see him replaced in 2020. One thing for sure, it will never be politics as usual. Trump presidency and the precedence's set will reverberate for the rest of my lifetime.

[Thomkal]

Ivanka is going to campaign for Devin Nunes next month. I'm sure that will help

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

Or it means that, as with many laws and statutes in the US and elsewhere, people/lawmakers haven't bothered to update stuff that is outdated, often by centuries.

If you publicly put a price tag on something, you should not be allowed to refuse to sell it on any grounds other than "does not provide payment".

Specifically about real estate, don't disagree about outdated laws and statutes. But they are what they are, it does seem that I can legally discriminate to a certain degree in approx 36 states. I think I tend to lean towards individual right to do or not do something. It may be my loss for not closing the deal but its my property and my individual choice.

Your statement about publicly putting a price tag on "something" (e.g. let's say other than real estate) and have to sell it doesn't resonate with me.

Using an admittedly extreme example, I would not do a private sale of my pistol/rifle to someone I don't have a good feel for (e.g. does he look angry at the moment, does he look like a meth head etc.)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Ivanka is going to campaign for Devin Nunes next month. I'm sure that will help

Hmmm, I think consistently and frequently using "Melania the cuckold" or "Lusting after Ivanka" will get the reaction.

Trump's base of 36-42% will stick with him and the Dem's will never win them over. Some of Dem's base will be disgusted with the tactic but I think most will understand and besides, what alternative do they have if they want to get rid of Trump.

[stevew]

The gays moved into the neighborhood and trashed the property values said no sane person ever

[BBT]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think the problem right now is the press and Dems are reacting to Trump and not being proactive. Can't blame the press but I don't see the Dems doing anything other than -- hope and pray Mueller comes out with something incriminating "enough" and pray/assume they will win back the House.

The former likely won't happen as the public has been desensitized and the GOP seems to be sticking with Trump. Unless there is literally a smoking gun, Mueller's report won't do much. The latter is not a sure thing at all. Nothing seems to be sticking ... where is the Stormy Daniels story now? So what about Cohen? Where are all the other countless stories about Trump? Did any of them make a difference?

None that I've seen (or not yet), there's too many of them.

I think the Dems need to fight dirty, be petty, sarcastic, lie etc. like Trump and make him react to them. I would love if the Dems came up with some "phrases/names" to describe Trump, consistently use it, and rally their base. Doesn't need to be the truth, just needs to egg him on like he does to Dems.

Something like "husband of cuckold Melania" (you get the idea, get down to his level), dig up some dirt on him like his tax return (hire someone to hack into Trump international), find out if Melania cheated on him (likely I would think) etc. Something that will make him furious vs same old stuff.

With that all said ... I do like some of Trump's foreign policy and support immigration reform (and the Wall). I do like the Tax reform he passed.

However, I would love to see him replaced in 2020. One thing for sure, it will never be politics as usual. Trump presidency and the precedence's set will reverberate for the rest of my lifetime.

Dems have been focusing on the local races and primaries. Not much they can do on a national stage because they don't control anything. They're out there fighting and clawing, but TRUMP dominates everything right now. Even dominates the Repubs as well.

I'm not sure getting down in the mud with Trump really solves anything. While his base sticks with him...his base is only 36-42% of the country. Leaves a lot of people out there that aren't his base. Basically means that you win by getting people out to vote that don't like Trump.

Dems have been doing great in the special elections and, while I agree that the House isn't a sure thing, if they continue to push locally and get people out to vote, I think they'll take it. Senate is a different animal just because of the map this year, but you never know. Main thing is taking back the House and getting back in the picture.

2020 is a ways away so there's no need to go at Trump yet. He's got his hands full anyway and continues to dig his own grave. Let him do it, get a good, solid candidate to run against Trump, somebody that isn't full of drama and take back control.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your statement about publicly putting a price tag on "something" (e.g. let's say other than real estate) and have to sell it doesn't resonate with me.

Using an admittedly extreme example, I would not do a private sale of my pistol/rifle to someone I don't have a good feel for (e.g. does he look angry at the moment, does he look like a meth head etc.)

You honestly don't get the point or how discrimination has nothing to do with your counter-example ? OK, then.

[kingfc22]

SpyGate. Lol. Just keep saying it over and over again Rudy. That will definitely make it true.

[jct32]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Its not the selling to whoever will buy it that is the problem/question.

Its not selling it to who you don't want to sell it to.

Is that discriminatory (yes) but is it legal to be discriminatory when you are selling your house yourself.

Apparently, from what I've been able to gather, you cannot be discriminatory based on "race, religion, national origin, sex, family status or disability" but "age, marital status or sexual orientation" is not always protected.

I just can’t fathom how people do this. It doesn’t matter who you sell it to. Cash is cash whether it comes from homosexual or heterosexual people.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by whomario

You honestly don't get the point or how discrimination has nothing to do with your counter-example ? OK, then.

I guess that's how miscommunications occur when people use absolutes in their statements. I'll try to read between the lines to determine intent next time.

If you publicly put a price tag on something, you should not be allowed to refuse to sell it on any grounds other than "does not provide payment".

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by jct32

I just can’t fathom how people do this. It doesn’t matter who you sell it to. Cash is cash whether it comes from homosexual or heterosexual people.

I think I agree with you in the context of sexual preference and "cash", and thank you for not using an all encompassing absolute statement.

However, there are examples of other situations that some people may say should not discriminate which I think are okay.

e.g. If a Catholic church does not want to "marry" a homosexual couple, I think that is okay. The key problem is civil unions are not equivalent to marriage (e.g. taxes, benefits etc.) but that is a different problem, it is not the Catholic church's issue IMO

(Or are you saying all forms of discrimination should not happen at all?)

[JPhillips]

Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2018

yuck

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2018

yuck

Nice!

[jct32]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think I agree with you in the context of sexual preference and "cash", and thank you for not using an all encompassing absolute statement.

However, there are examples of other situations that some people may say should not discriminate which I think are okay.

e.g. If a Catholic church does not want to "marry" a homosexual couple, I think that is okay. The key problem is civil unions are not equivalent to marriage (e.g. taxes, benefits etc.) but that is a different problem, it is not the Catholic church's issue IMO

(Or are you saying all forms of discrimination should not happen at all?)

Ideally, there should be no discrimination. This turns into a crazy gray area quickly in all cases if you break it down.

I can understand a religious organization not wanting to perform a homosexual marriage because it is against their beliefs. However, not too long ago people weren't tolerating of interracial marriages at all. I wasn't alive at the time when this was a major issue but I could see this same type of thing happening to them. This argument gets further complicated because there are people who argue that homosexuality is a choice, mostly those who oppose it, while those who are homosexual mostly feel it is innate. So now you are "discriminating" against someone who believes it is something that they were born with. That can be viewed as discrimination and everything turns into a gray area quickly.

However, I think that on a business side there should be no discrimination. A great example of this was the bakery in Colorado who got sued for not making a cake for a homosexual couple. They went through so much trouble trying to make a stand and they honestly should have just made the cake and let it be over.

So I don't understand denying people service based on your religious views when you are a public business. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

[Thomkal]

So all about him no matter what day or occasion. Got it. Love how much grief the people are giving him in the comments for it.

[Thomkal]

And then he followed that up with three quotes from Johnathan Turley criticizing Obama and Sally Yates.

[RainMaker]

If you wonder why ZTE is no longer a threat to national security.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/b...rademarks.html

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you wonder why ZTE is no longer a threat to national security.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/b...rademarks.html

It's cute how they label it as a coincidence.

[Thomkal]

Greitens (Missouri governor) and Roseanne gone on the same day.

[BYU 14]

Just leaving this here for when Trump makes her a liar at some point in the next 24 hours. Because we all know how focused he remains at all times on the important things in this country. (And to be fair, the media should have many more important questions to ask than this as well)

[Thomkal]

Prosecutors in the Michael Cohen case will get over 1 million items to use in their case (so far) after the Special Master in the case ruled 200+ items only as privileged or personal.



Cohen Prosecutors to Get Seized Phone Data by Wednesday - Bloomberg


And if you scroll down after that article there's another article about Paul Manafort losing another court battle-this time over wanting to see redacted affidavits.

[Thomkal]

Michael Avenatti is at it again. He's revealed how the Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) sat on the story about Trump's mistresses for 16 months and is using the same informant-Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels first lawyer to smear him:


http://www.businessinsider.com/micha...s-trump-2018-5

[Thomkal]

TMZ also now caught up in trying to protect Trump too:


Attention Required! | Cloudflare

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Michael Avenatti is at it again. He's revealed how the Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) sat on the story about Trump's mistresses for 16 months and is using the same informant-Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels first lawyer to smear him:


http://www.businessinsider.com/micha...s-trump-2018-5

I'm sure Avenatti isn't all clean but I'm rooting for him. Unfortunately, Melania seems to have somewhat "forgiven" Trump about Stormy so don't really see much impact overall other than embarrassment.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure Avenatti isn't all clean but I'm rooting for him. Unfortunately, Melania seems to have somewhat "forgiven" Trump about Stormy so don't really see much impact overall other than embarrassment.

Well maybe maybe not. There's rumors on twitter tonight started by Tom Arnold of all people (and for real the host of a new show called The Hunt for The Trump tapes on Viceland) has seen the infamous Trump Tower elevator tape that TMZ covered up, and it involves Trump punching Melania. Not verified but wow if that tape exists.


Edit: well maybe not Melania from what I'm reading now. And Arnold may have the tape.

[Edward64]

Husband of the cuckold Melania just doesn't seem to be the punchy type IMO.

Now I can believe he gets others to do the dirty work.

[Thomkal]

Trey Gowdy, one of those Republicans who got that meeting with the FBI now says that the FBI use of an informant was appropriate.



Attention Required! | Cloudflare


Take that Devin Nunes!

[Ben E Lou]

So the President just tweeted that he'd wished he'd hired someone else as Attorney General...

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So the President just tweeted that he'd wished he'd hired someone else as Attorney General...

He's going to tweet himself to prison

[JPhillips]

What a drama queen. Fire him or shut up, you beta.

[tarcone]

Grietens went out swinging. Blaming everyone else and taking no responsibility. Good riddance.

It is too bad Gowdy is leaving. He needs to be around. Ima fan of his. He doesnt go down political lines. He speaks how he sees it.

[JPhillips]

coughBENGHAZIcough

[lungs]

Is there anybody out there that actually likes Jeff Sessions?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What a drama queen. Fire him or shut up, you beta.

Senate Republicans have told him they will fight anyone that he nominates if he fires Sessions. Hard to replace him if most Republicans and all Democrats are against the nomination.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Senate Republicans have told him they will fight anyone that he nominates if he fires Sessions. Hard to replace him if most Republicans and all Democrats are against the nomination.

Are we still believing that Republicans will deny the POTUS when the time comes to make the vote?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Are we still believing that Republicans will deny the POTUS when the time comes to make the vote?

Some of them will I think-non members of the Freedom Caucus at least. I think too as the Mueller investigation drags along and more indictments come, more will begin to "see the light" about Trump.