The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So in 10 days, Trump has gone after:
blacks (Chicago)
Hispanics (Wall)
Muslims (Ban)
Jews (Denial)

Technically women went after him. I don't believe he's really said anything about the LGBTQs, unless I missed that. Not a bad percentage so far.

First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ Americans - NBC News

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure what to make of versions of Christianity whose followers aren't interested in helping people. It's just so different than the churches I grew up around.

There are ways to help people without inviting enemies sworn to kill you into your home. Christian charity is one thing, behaving like a f'n idiot is something else entirely.

My views are pretty consistent on this for a number of years now:
1) a state of war exists between the United States (and much of the "western world" and Islam. That isn't a state based on religious conflict between Islam & Christianity, I don't sense a particularly Chrisitian-centric bias in the attacks on U.S. / Western interest, it's coincidental (otherwise, Israel would be an afterthought)

2) It's nothing short of asinine to allow enemies to roam the streets as it is, much less allow more of them into the country. Why the strong urge for such insanity exists baffles me, but the reason isn't nearly as important as recognizing it for what it is & working past it.

3) Not one piece of scripture I've read in my lifetime calls on believers to act like complete idiots living out a desire for personal or national suicide.

[Easy Mac]

For some reason I decided to wade into the morass of Facebook comments on news articles. I posted what I believe was a cogent and reasoned response about what one of reps said about the immigration order. I provided government sources and everything to point out how what he said was actually wrong.

I was called a sheep and was told it was the dumbest thing they had read all day.

I have no hope that if Democracy is ending, that a sizeable enough portion of America would fight against it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There are ways to help people without inviting enemies sworn to kill you into your home.

How is someone fleeing a war a "sworn enemy"? How is an airline pilot or a 10-year U.S. military employee a "sworn enemy"?

What are all the checkboxes someone has to fill before you'd consider helping them? (white, christian, straight, southern, conservative, sports fandom affiliation?)

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not one piece of scripture I've read in my lifetime calls on believers to act like complete idiots living out a desire for personal or national suicide.

I've never read one piece of scripture calling for believers to harshly limit the help we give others based on race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, or be content to "find ways" to help others that allow us to cling to our earthly prejudices.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

How is someone fleeing a war a "sworn enemy"?

How clear can I make this?

There is NO acceptable Muslim immigration into the U.S.
None, nada, zip, zero.

Unless they disavow all affiliation to Islam -- and somehow convince me that such is sincere (which is one helluva bar frankly) -- I could not remotely care less if they live, die, fuck or fly. No more than I would have cared a whit for the fate of the Nazis, citizens of the Japanese Empire, members of the Viet Cong, nor the Soviets during the Cold War. I'm not a believer in aid or comfort to the enemy, not my thing.

The issue I see with the current ban is that it's woefully inadequate to needs.
I can't exactly bitch about a small step in the only rational direction, but it's nothing more than a very small step.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How clear can I make this?

There is NO acceptable Muslim immigration into the U.S.
None, nada, zip, zero.

So, when Jesus is asked "who is my neighbor" your answer would have been...not them?

[bbgunn]

So, JIMGA, if I followed your reasoning, I'm supposed to believe that all white people everywhere are the enemy because a few of them lynched many of my people over the course of American history and bombed African-American churches.

This is ridiculous.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

So, JIMGA, if I followed your reasoning, I'm supposed to believe that all white people everywhere are the enemy because a few of them lynched many of my people over the course of American history and bombed African-American churches.

This is ridiculous.

I think it's just a matter of us v. them. His issue with the Nazis, Japanese Empire, Viet Cong, or Soviets certainly isn't their approach to government, it's just that they were the enemy. So it's not a moral question of what groups do, or what individual members of those groups do. So a Muslim doctor who saves children is still the "the enemy", where a white murderer is wrong, but still part of our country and team. So from that perspective, the white murderer is still better and more worthy of rights and help than that Muslim doctor.

At least, I think that's it. And IMO, that's completely contradictory to Jesus' teachings. That guy worked outside the government and countries entirely, on a human-to-human level rather than country-to-country, and that caused him some problems if I recall.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

So, JIMGA, if I followed your reasoning, I'm supposed to believe that all white people everywhere are the enemy because a few of them lynched many of my people over the course of American history and bombed African-American churches.

This is ridiculous.

Well, it's not like you are originally from the US either ! Oh, wait a minute ... Didn´t the vast majority of white people come from somewhere as refugees ? Lemme check that fact real quick. Nope, always been there and valiantly defended their own god given country from the british. #alternativefacts

[nol]

Originally Posted by whomario

Well, it's not like you are originally from the US either ! Oh, wait a minute ... Didn´t the vast majority of white people come from somewhere as refugees ? Lemme check that fact real quick. Nope, always been there and valiantly defended their own god given country from the british. #alternativefacts

I remember reading something before the election where ethnically identifying as 'other' and specifying 'American' was an even stronger predictor of Trump support than all the questions designed to get a sense of the respondent's views on political issues, so this isn't far from accurately describing what's going on.

[Abe Sargent]

If I had preached a sermon this past week, I would have chosen the Good Samaritan parable. I would have spent the entire sermon not mentioning current events at all, just delving into all of the particulars of the parable, and what Jesus was using it for, to tell the questioner who is his neighbor, and how Samaria was looked down on by the Jews so much. And then, as I finished my sermon, I would end with a simple question. "Who is our neighbor today?" "Who do we look down upon today?" And if my church was ready, I'd answer.

[Brian Swartz]

If I were in your congregation, I might have been the guy who dropped by your office later in the week and invited you to consider the few verses preceding the parable itself and encouraged you to re-evaluate said application and interpretation of it(though the point you are making I completely agree with as being the correct, and Christian, approach to these times).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JIMGA

My views are pretty consistent on this for a number of years now:

I'd respond in this way.

1. It is inherently impossible for a state of war to exist between a country and a religion. By their very nature, major religions cross national boundaries and comprise such a wide variety of cultures and peoples as to defy any possibility of this occurring. Not to mention the whole thing with Congress having to declare war from our end.

2. See #1. Also the first amendment is quite clear on how to treat religions. If it is unconstitutional to restrict the practice of religion(and it is), it's much more so to criminalize/war against those believing in it.

3. Agreed. Innocent but wise, as Jesus said. However, per the first two points, the current situation vis a vis Islam does not vaguely resemble the description given of it.

Regarding those we know to be the enemy, I think there are very few measures that aren't justified(though there are some). However, guilt-by-association is in my opinion indefensible.

[JPhillips]

You're trying to rationalize with a guy comfortable with genocide. This won't work.

[Brian Swartz]

Perhaps. But my views have changed based on conversations with people here and elsewhere on a couple matters of significance. And to give credit where it's due, I do respect and even admire JIMGA's ability to be involved in these kinds of blunt conversations and not take things personally. So I figured it to be worth the effort.

[cartman]

Trump now has his own Saturday Night Massacre

[Brian Swartz]

FWIW, amid all this opposition, polling on the ban starting to come in.

Rasmussen: 57% for, 33% against
Quinnipaic: 48% for, 42% against

Those are the ones I've seen so far. Speak for themselves. Clearly, this board, and the media, don't speak for the average American.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Clearly, this board, and the media, don't speak for the average American.

I appreciate you acknowledging that reality.
(It kinda gets glossed over here occasionally)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

So, when Jesus is asked "who is my neighbor" your answer would have been...not them?

I'd say the answer to His question is not relevant to making decisions for the survival of a nation.

Our government (as I've noted in discussions past) has a Christian background, underpinnings for lack of a better word.

It is not, however, a theocracy.

[CraigSca]

People are still talking about this guy?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

FWIW, amid all this opposition, polling on the ban starting to come in.

Rasmussen: 57% for, 33% against
Quinnipaic: 48% for, 42% against

Those are the ones I've seen so far. Speak for themselves. Clearly, this board, and the media, don't speak for the average American.

From the article for the Rasmussen poll:

The refugee ban is supported by 82% of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democrats are opposed by a 53% to 34% margin. The numbers are nearly identical for the temporary ban on visas from these seven terrorist-plagued nations.

Men and women are in general agreement on both measures. Younger voters are slightly less supportive than their elders are.

Blacks oppose both bans more than whites and other majority voters do.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing, over 70% support both bans. Similar numbers of those who Strongly Disapprove of his job performance are opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...rrorist_havens


It's really a democrat republican thing. The poll was taken late last week too. I'd guess support has dropped slightly since then as people have seen the impact hits far wider than most probably imagined.

[Galaril]

So Trump has canned the Acting Attorney general and put a yes man in the place.

[JPhillips]

The Q poll was three weeks ago, so we'll need to wait and see if other polls are still in that range. Rasmussen has had a consistent pro-GOP bias for years, right now they have Trump at over 50% favorable, so it should be taken with some salt.

Polls will eventually come in. There's no need to rush to judgement.

As for the AG, she did the right thing, but he's also within his rights to fire her. My only problem are the gratuitous shots at her integrity, which given her history seem way out of line. But Trump's gonna Trump.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Under their current leadership, that's not even a religion at this point, it's just an uber-left wing political action group."
Pharisees circa 30 AD

Fixed that for you.

BTW, the reply to their troll can apply to you too:
“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"

"Command" of course refers to love one another

But do carry on. Maybe next time you can use this- just replace Savior with Church, media, liberals, etc

"This savior, I shall attempt to show, deceived many and caused them to accept a form of belief harmful to the well-being of mankind. Taking its root in the lower classes, the religion continues to spread among the vulgar: nay, one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity and the illiteracy of its adherents. And while there are a few moderate, reasonable, and intelligent people who interpret its beliefs allegorically, yet it thrives in its purer form among the ignorant.”

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Those are the ones I've seen so far. Speak for themselves. Clearly, this board, and the media, don't speak for the average American.

I don't think that's a terrible surprise. I got laughed out of the election thread when I suggested that there's a large, relatively quiet group that could push Trump over the top and I was stating that when all the polls and the posters in this forum were already putting the crown on Hillary's head. It panned out in the total shock in this same forum on election night. There's no question this is a liberal-leaning forum.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaril

So Trump has canned the Acting Attorney general and put a yes man in the place.

Should never have bothered with keeping an Obamite in the first place honestly.
Her credibility was already in question just from association with the previous administration.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think that's a terrible surprise. I got laughed out of the election thread when I suggested that there's a large, relatively quiet group that could push Trump over the top and I was stating that when all the polls and the posters in this forum were already putting the crown on Hillary's head. It panned out in the total shock in this same forum on election night. There's no question this is a liberal-leaning forum.

You spent the last three presidential elections assured that the GOP would win and you finally were on the right side.

Trust the process.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Should never have bothered with keeping an Obamite in the first place honestly.
Her credibility was already in question just from association with the previous administration.

Because Bob Barr is known to hire liberal extremists.

[CrescentMoonie]

Are you guys really arguing that a parable about helping someone who has been beaten and is lying on the side of the road is not applicable to someone who is fleeing a war ravaged country? Especially when they're both the most socially ostracized group of their time?

The leaps people will take to tell Jesus he didn't say something are amazing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think that's a terrible surprise. I got laughed out of the election thread when I suggested that there's a large, relatively quiet group that could push Trump over the top and I was stating that when all the polls and the posters in this forum were already putting the crown on Hillary's head. It panned out in the total shock in this same forum on election night. There's no question this is a liberal-leaning forum.

You got laughed out because you treat politics like a teenage fanboy treats the console wars (which I would add is also embarrassing for a grown man to do).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Mizzou b-ball thread

I got laughed out of the election thread when I suggested that there's a large, relatively quiet group that could push Trump over the top and I was stating that when all the polls and the posters in this forum were already putting the crown on Hillary's head.

In all fairness I think that's a little different. The polls were extremely close to the final result in terms of how the popular vote broke down. The electoral college and where that vote came from, not so much. But it's not like they were off the reservation.

But yeah, general point no question the forum leans left. As do most of the ones I visit. Not sure why that is, but whatever.

[stevew]

I dunno why everyone is so pissed with Trump. This is just the "figuring what the hell is going on" step anyways.

I'd be more akin to being on his side of the ban if we were actually banning terrorist supporting nations as well.

Throughout history it really seems like Islam has no chill whatsoever. So while I can empathize with individual cases, especially those of green card holders(seriously WTF) and properly vetted refugees, I'm not exactly hoping that we open the floodgates for a large amount of Muslims to come into this country. Their religion and lifestyle is not really compatible with "generic western values.".

[stevew]

Dola-

And it's not like I hate Muslims. We get a fair amount of them in where I work and I go out of my way to insure that their food items are cut with knives that haven't touched pork products and I put on fresh gloves before assembling their order.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

But yeah, general point no question the forum leans left. As do most of the ones I visit. Not sure why that is, but whatever.

Yes, if you're talking about the type of people who know how to use a computer beyond going on Facebook to comment on their grandkids' pictures and share the trustworthy news article they found about Obama banning the Pledge of Allegiance from all schools, that is going to be a little skewed in one direction.

[Neon_Chaos]

From a foreigner's perspective who has had to apply for a regular US tourist visa several times, the concept that this executive order will prevent terrorists from coming in is kind of head scratching.

The United States is the only country that I have ever applied a visa to that requires a personal appearance, a police clearance / local federal clearance document, a 5 to 30 minute interview with a Consular officer, fingerprints, photos, proof of employment, proof of ownership of properties, and proof of income. They will ask for any other supporting documents or persons of contact if required. You can be denied at any point during the interview, and they will claim the $100 visa fee.

Apply for a U.S. Visa | Home - Philippines (English)

And when you finish with all of the above, it will take you 2 weeks to a month to actually receive your passport back from the US Embassy (I am assuming this is time for additional vetting).

And that's just to get an actual tourist visa back in 2010.

My China, Japan, and UK visas were all non-appearance and only supporting documents required with a processing fee.

You have the most rigorous visa processing in the world.

The only countries that are exempted from this process are the ones part of the visa waiver program, most of which are first-world countries.

Visa Waiver Program

The refugee program for the US is one of the most rigorous in the world as well. It takes at least two years for these refugees to even set foot in US soil.

What Trump and his cohorts are selling is fear. Fear that you're not safe. Fear that you've never been safe. When in fact, the US government has been doing an already pretty good job of keeping you guys safe in your own soil, ever since 9-11, more than any other democratic country in the world.

[wustin]

Invoking fear is what people/headlines want you to believe. Trump is doing this because he's the puppet president for the Tea Party. They have a strong disdain towards illegal immigrants, muslims, and Obama.

[Groundhog]

Definitely feels to me like Trump is in this 100% for the business/family side of things, and he's happy to let his inner-circle actually drive policy with him as the figurehead... which might not even be so bad if not for the scumbags that make up that circle. It's only been a week and it feels like a real dark period in US history has begun, one of those 'watershed moments', and in a couple of decade's time people will be wondering exactly how people at the time didn't see it coming.

[tarcone]

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

From a foreigner's perspective who has had to apply for a regular US tourist visa several times, the concept that this executive order will prevent terrorists from coming in is kind of head scratching.

The United States is the only country that I have ever applied a visa to that requires a personal appearance, a police clearance / local federal clearance document, a 5 to 30 minute interview with a Consular officer, fingerprints, photos, proof of employment, proof of ownership of properties, and proof of income. They will ask for any other supporting documents or persons of contact if required. You can be denied at any point during the interview, and they will claim the $100 visa fee.

Apply for a U.S. Visa | Home - Philippines (English)

And when you finish with all of the above, it will take you 2 weeks to a month to actually receive your passport back from the US Embassy (I am assuming this is time for additional vetting).

And that's just to get an actual tourist visa back in 2010.

My China, Japan, and UK visas were all non-appearance and only supporting documents required with a processing fee.

You have the most rigorous visa processing in the world.

The only countries that are exempted from this process are the ones part of the visa waiver program, most of which are first-world countries.

Visa Waiver Program

The refugee program for the US is one of the most rigorous in the world as well. It takes at least two years for these refugees to even set foot in US soil.

What Trump and his cohorts are selling is fear. Fear that you're not safe. Fear that you've never been safe. When in fact, the US government has been doing an already pretty good job of keeping you guys safe in your own soil, ever since 9-11, more than any other democratic country in the world.

Yeah I don't get why conservatives in this country turn into snowflakes every time the word "terrorism" is mentioned.

[RainMaker]

He's really just a populist. Not terribly different from what we've seen in the past. Find a group of people that are struggling and unhappy with their lives and give them a scapegoat. Democrats blamed crime ridden cities on evil white racist cops instead of the real problems. Trump is now offering a scapegoat in immigrants and refugees for those who have failed financially.

He'll do what most populists do which is spend big (which is ironic since the same supporters bashed Obama for spending) and cut taxes. The reputation of the country will change and some people will be impacted but I still think like with most Presidents, people will go on with their lives with little change.

Probably the most glaring change is in the office of the Presidency. We've never really had someone as unprofessional in the position before. Or surrounded by people who dislike the country (again ironic that supporters consider themselves "patriots") this much. Maybe that becomes the new norm for the Presidency with the way the country has shifted discourse. Maybe it was just one weird election and it goes back to normal afterwards.

Politics will always be about riling up a group of people and then telling them it's someone else's fault that they are where they are in this world.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Throughout history it really seems like Islam has no chill whatsoever. So while I can empathize with individual cases, especially those of green card holders(seriously WTF) and properly vetted refugees, I'm not exactly hoping that we open the floodgates for a large amount of Muslims to come into this country. Their religion and lifestyle is not really compatible with "generic western values.".

That's like saying Christianity is the same as the Westboro baptist church? - you're taking a very small minority and branding an entire religion with their stance.

I've an Iranian friend who is presently studying for a Phd at FIT, as it stands is likely to be deported in three months time - he drinks harder than I do and plays poker with me regularly ... he loves BBQ and disk golf ... sound like your expectation of a 'Muslim'? ... perhaps you need to revisit your expectations by actually meeting real people rather than relying on propoganda?

(so yeah that's one of many reasons why I'm somewhat peeved over peoples 'I can't believe anyone is upset by this' style comments in the last few years ... not meaning on this forum, but generally irl and on facebook)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Definitely feels to me like Trump is in this 100% for the business/family side of things, and he's happy to let his inner-circle actually drive policy with him as the figurehead... which might not even be so bad if not for the scumbags that make up that circle. It's only been a week and it feels like a real dark period in US history has begun, one of those 'watershed moments', and in a couple of decade's time people will be wondering exactly how people at the time didn't see it coming.

Was watching CNN last night and one guest (a second-generation American Muslim) kept referring to "President Bannon." Now, this guy was mostly schtick, but I wonder if this might not be an effective way to fight this setup - repeatedly question Trump's legitimacy by recognizing Bannon as the real person in charge. Trump may not want to actually be in charge, but I'd bet he wants to maintain the outward appearance that he is. Questioning that might get him pissed off enough to turn on Bannon.

But, I'm glad that more people are directing their attention there. David Gergen was a guest as well and was also pointing the finger directly at Bannon's role. And they dug up the webcam clip of Bannon essentially stating that there's a war with Islam.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by tarcone

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Ironically and unintentionally, that might be the most accurate thing you've written in these politics threads.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

That's like saying Christianity is the same as the Westboro baptist church? - you're taking a very small minority and branding an entire religion with their stance.

I've an Iranian friend who is presently studying for a Phd at FIT, as it stands is likely to be deported in three months time - he drinks harder than I do and plays poker with me regularly ... he loves BBQ and disk golf ... sound like your expectation of a 'Muslim'? ... perhaps you need to revisit your expectations by actually meeting real people rather than relying on propoganda?

(so yeah that's one of many reasons why I'm somewhat peeved over peoples 'I can't believe anyone is upset by this' style comments in the last few years ... not meaning on this forum, but generally irl and on facebook)

This is essentially where I fall as well. Painting all of Islam with this broad brush of terrorism is just absurd. To speak to the post you quoted in your original post Marc (on a phone without Tapatalk, hard to multi-quote):

"Their religion and lifestyle is not really compatible with 'generic Western values.'"

What exactly are those values? Maybe it's because I live in the heart of silicon valley where there is incredible diversity, but I thought the core principle of the entire country was inclusion and representation, exactly the opposite of exclusion.

I can understand and sympathize with JiMGA's sentiment of not letting enemies in, but I don't know how the rational argument is made that all Muslims are enemies.

[Vince, Pt. II]

How does questioning a culture equate to repressing someone because of their beliefs?

Edit: I don't mean this as an attack - I think you are correct that we can't go the other way and say all Muslims are great people. But to say that "other countries enforce crappy things that have to do with this religion, so it's OK that we do crappy things to people who associate with that religion" seems spurious.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

How does questioning a culture equate to repressing someone because of their beliefs?

Edit: I don't mean this as an attack - I think you are correct that we can't go the other way and say all Muslims are great people. But to say that "other countries enforce crappy things that have to do with this religion, so it's OK that we do crappy things to people who associate with that religion" seems spurious.

I'm in no way saying we should do these crappy things. I think the ban is wrong. I was just taking exception to comparing the Middle East to the Westboro Baptist Church. The extremists are in much larger quantities in that region.

I guess what I'm saying is there should be balance like we had before. We take in refugees and legal immigrants because this is America and it's in our best interests. We also vet to make sure that extremists are not entering the country to do harm to it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not one piece of scripture I've read in my lifetime calls on believers to act like complete idiots living out a desire for personal or national suicide.

Well, except for Jesus willing going to the Cross, right? And then the martyrdom of St. Stephen in emulation of Christ?

[Easy Mac]

To be fair, he said scripture he's read.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

This is essentially where I fall as well. Painting all of Islam with this broad brush of terrorism is just absurd.

Indeed. If all Muslims had that view, the world would be a whole lot bloody. Also it would mean that my parents and my brother (and his family) have been holding out - thankfully I converted before whatever sleeper gene in Muslims turns on .

"Their religion and lifestyle is not really compatible with 'generic Western values.'"

What exactly are those values? Maybe it's because I live in the heart of silicon valley where there is incredible diversity, but I thought the core principle of the entire country was inclusion and representation, exactly the opposite of exclusion.

Indeed. Everyone in the Muslim community where I grew up basically had the American Dream values of work (in whatever job available - why a lot of South Asians work in gas stations, and are made fun for that, because they think that any job is better than no job & welfare) and making money to provide for your family and kids, and with whatever is left over to give to the mosque or the poor (zakat, a requirement among Muslims means giving to the poor).

I don't know what they were doing in their 3-5 bedroom houses with 2 cars and 2-3 kids, but it sure looked like American values to me (though my dad doesn't really follow American sports anymore - he used to follow the Bills when he came into the country - and my brother follows the 49ers, which may be worse ).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When we are talking about the Muslim world we have to accept that a large contingent of it support a repressive culture toward women and gays. They support things such as Sharia law. These aren't tiny segments of the population, they are the people who run these countries.

Let's be honest though; we are lucky to not have lived in theocracies for a few centuries. There are definitely Evangelical Christians who hold such views (and exported them to countries like Uganda).

[bob]

President Donald Trump will continue to enforce a 2014 executive order signed by then-President Barack Obama that offers protections for LGBT people working for federal contractors, the White House announced Tuesday.