Upload & sell your music on iTunes, Spotify - DistroKid
Upload & sell your music on iTunes, Spotify - DistroKid
The Top 10 Richest People In the World [Updated Jan. 2021]
Leftover Currency - convert your foreign coins and notes
A-Reece Biography, Age, Girlfriend, Real Name, Net Worth
Inspire Brands - A Global Multi-Brand Restaurant Company
10 Things Flame Revealed In Our Interview - SA Hip Hop Mag
Viral Feed South Africa - Viral Feed Is South Africa's One
Nasty C Net Worth 2020 | The Net Worth Portal
Eucasino bonus 30 - Mobile casino rands - Ni no kuni
Jailhouse Crock? | Better Government Association
frank casino net worth in rands
frank casino net worth in rands - win
10 reasons Donald Trump is bad for America. (None of which is "Because he's literally Hitler.") Pt. 1
One of the chief complaints I see when I accidentally stumble into /The_Donald is that all the criticism of Donald Trump boils down to one simple sentiment: Donald Trump is literally Hitler. Now the cynical among us might point out that anyone who says anything negative, or neutral, about God Emperor Trump is unceremoniously /BannedFromTheDonald, thus inhibiting any kind of genuine intellectual discussion regarding any sort of shortcomings that their candidate may suffer from, but that would be victim blaming, and I wouldn't want to trigger any of them. No, despite all evidence to the contrary, /The_Donald is neither a safe space nor a hug box, /The_Donald is simply an internet forum where people who praise Donald Trump can praise Donald Trump, and praise others who praise Donald Trump, and ban individuals who don't praise Donald Trump. The proof is quite clear: Suggest that /The_Donald is a safe space or a hug box and you'll be banned, which is not something that would ever happen in a safe space or a hug box. Now that that's put to bed, we can move forward. I take the contributors of /The_Donald at their word that they would like to see genuine criticism of their candidate, criticism made without resorting to the lowest common denominator argument that "Donald Trump is literally Hitler." It is in this spirit of fairness that I present 10 Reasons to Vote Against Donald Trump. (None of which is that he's literally Hitler.) Before I begin, though, a word on how to use this post: In an effort to further appease the requests of our friends over at /The_Donald you should know how to copy sections pertinent to your discussion. First you'll need the excellent "Reddit Enhancement Suite". After you've installed RES and restarted your browser, you'll find a new link to "Source" at the bottom of this post. If you click the "Source" link you'll be provided with an unformatted copy of everything here. You can copy any section of the unformatted text and paste it into a Reddit comment box, which will return it to the formatting you see below. I didn't explain that well, so hopefully someone in the comments can do a better job.
#10: Donald Trump supports NSA surveillance on the American People.
On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," more commonly known as the "USA PATRIOT ACT." Parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1st, 2015, and were reborn on June 2nd, 2015, with the passage of a new policy, the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act," more commonly known as the "USA Freedom Act." Much can be said about the Patriot Act, certainly far more than I have room to type in this post, but one of the more disturbing allowances made is the ability of the NSA to monitor your cell phone for information such as who you called, when you called them, who has called you, when they called you, and how long you spoke on the phone, all without a Federal warrant. At best this was considered an invasion on the privacy of law abiding American citizens, at worst this bulk data collection was a clear violation of our 4th Amendment protections against "Illegal [warrant-less] search and seizure." One part of the Patriot Act that did not survive the translation into the USA Freedom Act was the legality of NSA bulk data collection without a warrant, under current law the National Security Agency must acquire a Federal warrant if they want to collect your phone records. Certainly this doesn't solve the problem of mass surveillance, but requiring warrants for phone records is a step in the right direction. On May 22nd, 2015, Donald Trump explained that:
“I support legislation which allows the NSA to hold the bulk meta-data. For oversight, I propose that a court, which is available any time on any day, is created to issue individual rulings on when this meta-data can be accessed.” [Google Cache Source]
Donald Trump suggests that we repeal the one step toward privacy rights that we have made since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, and that the NSA should have the ability to collect, maintain, and access the phone records of law abiding American citizens at "any time on any day." On December 7th, 2015, Donald Trump further clarified:
“Well, I tend to err on the side of security, I must tell you, and I’ve been there for longer than you would think. But, you know, when you have people that are beheading if you’re a Christian and frankly for lots of other reasons, when you have the world looking at us and would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security, and so that’s the way it is, that’s the way I’ve been, and some people like that, frankly, and some people don’t like that. And I’m not just saying that since Paris, I’m saying for quite some time. I assume when I pick up my telephone people are listening to my conversations anyway, if you want to know the truth. It’s pretty sad commentary, but I err on the side of security,” [Source]
Seeming to imply that the American people should expect, and accept, that when "they pick up their telephone people are listening to their conversations anyway." Donald Trump went on to add that:
“I think that [restoring the USA Patriot Act] would be fine. As far as I’m concerned, that would be fine,” [Source]
As President, Donald Trump would support the re-authorization of the USA Patriot Act, the re-authorization of NSA bulk data collection, and the ability of the American government to spy on law abiding American citizens, regardless of the protections afforded us by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. As he stated himself, Donald Trump "tends to err on the side of security" rather than freedom. So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: NSA surveillance could be used to target not just terrorists, but law abiding American citizens who are perceived to be agitators or political dissidents. In theory the NSA could be utilized to stymie, if not stop entirely, any individual or group who the President feels is a "threat to national security." This is not a problem limited to Donald Trump, but extends to any President who may feel the need to use, or abuse, the USA Patriot Act.
#9: He's opposed to Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a policy which requires internet service providers, or ISPs, to treat all information on the internet equally. Under Net Neutrality if you pay for 50mbps internet, you get 50mbps internet for every site your visit, regardless of content. YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, and even Reddit, are all subject to the same speed limit: Whatever you're paying for. In the absence of Net Neutrality, ISPs could constrict speeds on certain sites, and charge extra fees to bring those sites up to speed. So say you're a Xfinity subscriber and want to access YouTube, under the Net Neutrality policy a YouTube video would stream in at the full 50mbps that you're paying for, were the policy of Net Neutrality overturned, Comcast could slow down effective speed to YouTube to 50kbps, and require that you pay an extra $4.99 per month to access YouTube at full speed. Content creators and content hosts generally support Net Neutrality, as it puts all sites and hosts on a relatively even playing field. Industry giants like Netflix don't have to worry about Xfinity artificially hobbling their site, or increasing the actual subscription fee for their users, and smaller startups don't have to worry about their service being killed in the cradle by ISPs who fear the competition. Net Neutrality is a win-win scenario for content creators, content hosts, and consumers alike. The only opponents of Net Neutrality are those who stand to profit from the ability to throttle, and in some cases functionally censor, competitive content. Among the biggest opponents of Net Neutrality are internet giants such as Comcast Xfinity, COX, Time Warner, and Donald Trump. On November 12th, 2014, Donald Trump tweeted the following:
"Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media." [Source]
This is interesting for a couple reasons. First, nothing about Net Neutrality would allow the United States government in general, nor President Obama in specific, to censor the internet. In fact, Net Neutrality stands as a bulwark against ISPs functionally censoring content by means of severely restricting bandwidth. Imagine there was a website called https://www.ComcastSucks.com, in the absence of Net Neutrality Comcast could theoretically limit the bandwidth available to users trying to access this site to .5bps, functionally preventing any of their users from accessing https://www.ComcastSucks.com. Under the policy of Net Neutrality this sort of practical censorship would be illegal. Secondly, the Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented in an effort to ensure that opposing viewpoints were presented during news broadcasts. To give an example: If a news program were hosting an individual claiming that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to undermine American manufacturing, the program would be required to also present the opposing view point that climate change is a real phenomenon with a genuine scientific basis. Wikipedia offers a brief description of the policy:
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine." [Source]
It may be confusing how one could arrive at the conclusion that Net Neutrality, a policy which acts as a strong defense against censorship, could be used to censor conservative media; or in what way Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine is related. Your confusion is justified, but also inconsequential: In this case the "why" is less important than the "what." What matters is that, for whatever reason, Donald Trump is opposed to the policy of Net Neutrality. If he is elected President he could overturn that policy, paving the way for increased consumer fees, decreased competition, and corporate censorship. So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: Internet Service Providers would be legally allowed to gouge their customers based upon the internet content that they browse, functionally censor competing or critical websites, and offer preferential treatment to sites that they support or agree with.
#8: Donald Trump wants to make it easier to sue media outlets for libel.
In an effort to stem the tides of frivolous libel suits, the United States Supreme Court decided on March 29th, 1960 in "New York Times Company vs Sullivan" that a plaintiff has to show "actual malice" before press reports can be considered to be defamation and libel. Simply put, actual malice can be defined as "knowledge that the information [in the press report] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In short, in order to sue for libel or defamation, a plaintiff must show that a press organization knowingly or willfully published false information, an intentionally high burden of proof to bear. This burden of proof was implemented to prevent individuals from suing for misprints, unintentional errors, or other frivolous reasons. Consider the case for which this verdict was written:
On March 29, 1960, The New York Times carried a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices", which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment. The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Discrepancies were generally minor. Referring to the Alabama State Police, the advertisement stated: "They have arrested [King] seven times..." However, at that point he had been arrested four times. Although African-American students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not My Country, 'Tis of Thee. Although the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, the inaccurate criticism of actions by the police was considered defamatory to Sullivan as well, due to his duty to supervise the police department. [Source]
Although Commissioner Sullivan was not named in the advertisement, and the mistakes outlined above were minor, Sullivan was within his rights to sue the New York Times for libel, and won $500,000 in damages from an Alabama court. Feeling that this decision was unfair, The New York Times Company appealed, and the case ended up before the Supreme Court of the United States, which found in their favor and overturned the verdict. In their decision the Court stated that:
"The First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)." [Source] [Emphasis mine, ed.]
That's the necessary background. So what are Donald Trump's opinions on the matter? On February 26th, 2016 Donald Trump had this to say:
“One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money, so when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.” [Source]
Now, it should be noted that Donald Trump already has the right to sue any news organization that writes "purposely ... false articles." So long as Mr. Trump can prove that the publication knowingly or willfully published false information he can sue, he doesn't need to change the libel laws in order to do that. Unfortunately Mr. Trump hasn't explained exactly what he plans to do to make suing news publications easier. The Washington Post attempted to pin down the specifics during a recent interview, but Donald Trump was unable to provide any actual policy proposals. Listen Here: The Post asked Donald Trump about the First Amendment. Repeatedly. So what could Donald Trump do to open up libel laws? For one thing, as President, he could appoint Supreme Court Justices that would be willing to overturn New York Times Co. vs Sullivan, thus ending the requirement that the plaintiff proves actual malice. This could open a litigious Pandora's Box of sorts, allowing individuals to sue news organizations for the most benign of mistakes, even if the plaintiffs themselves aren't specifically mentioned. Another question worth pondering is "Why would Donald Trump want to make it easier to sue news publications, especially considering how much free advertising they've provided him since the beginning of his campaign?" I can't pretend to know what is in a person's heart, but if his actions are any indication, his feelings on libel suits might have something to do with how many of them he's filed, and threatened to file, himself:
In the 1980s, when Trump he sued another businessman who had the same last name as him. Julius and Edmond Trump were trying to buy a chain of drug stores, and their business was called "The Trump Group." When Donald Trump found out he went on the offensive: Donald Trump’s lawyer, Roy Cohn, demanded that the Trump Group change its name by the following day or they would face consequences. A little while later, Donald Trump sued Julius and Edmond Trump in New York state court, alleging they were nothing but a pair of late-arriving immigrants trying to piggyback on his good name. “Plaintiffs have used the Trump family name for 40 to 50 years in the New York area. More recently, the Trump Organization has come to stand for respectability and success across the United States,” the complaint read. “The defendants are South Africans whose recent entrance in the New York area utilizing the name 'the Trump Group' can only be viewed as a poorly veiled attempt at trading on the goodwill, reputation and financial credibility of the plaintiff.” [Source]
In 1984, Trump sued the Chicago Tribune for $500 million after the publication’s architecture critic, Paul Gapp, wrote an item suggesting Chicago’s Sears Tower, then the world’s tallest building, would remain as such, despite Trump’s plan to build a taller structure in downtown Manhattan. Trump claimed the story “virtually torpedoed” his dreams, according to the Associated Press, by depicting his would-be tower as “an atrocious, ugly monstrosity” even though, Trump said, he hadn’t even yet hired an architect or drawn a plan. [Quote source]
Trump purchased Eastern Air Lines’s shuttle service in 1988 for $365 million and planned to relaunch it as “Trump Shuttle.” But a problem arose—a different company, Trading and Finance Corp. Ltd., was already using the name. In 1989, Trump sued for the rights to the name. [Quote source]
In January 2006, Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit against author Timothy O'Brien and his publisher for understating Trump's wealth. In his book Trump Nation, O'Brien reported that Trump had estimated his worth at between $150 and $250 million. Trump, who said he had told O'Brien that he was worth between $4 billion and $6 billion, claimed that O'Brien's low estimate had hurt his reputation and cost him specific business deals. Trump's suit was dismissed in July 2009, and his subsequent appeal failed in September 2011. [Quote source] [Original article]
Also in 2006, Trump threatened to sue Rosie O’Donnell, then a co-host on The View, after she said he was bankrupt. Trump retaliated in an interview with The Insider, by labeling O’Donnell “disgusting, both inside and out.” He told People “Rosie will rue the words she said. I’ll most likely sue her for making those false statements—and it’ll be fun. Rosie’s a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie.” [Quote source][Interview source]
In 2011, [MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnel] provoked the mogul's wrath when he accused him of being worth less than $1 billion. "I heard, because his show is unwatchable, that @Lawrence has made many false statements last night about me," Trump tweeted. "Maybe I should sue him?" [Quote source]
In February [of 2013], Trump sued comedian Bill Maher who offered, on The Tonight Show, to give Trump $5 million if he could prove that his father was not an orangutan. (The comment was a spoof of Trump's offer to give $5 million to charity if President Obama would release his records and applications for colleges and passports.) Trump dutifully sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate, but the comedian never paid up. "He has not responded, and the reason he hasn't responded is his lawyers probably tell him, 'You've got yourself a problem,' " Trump told Atlantic author William Cohan. Maher later said, on his show, "Donald Trump must learn two things--what a joke is, and what a contract is." [Quote source]
In 2014, Trump sued Trump Entertainment Resorts, which he holds a 10 percent stake in, to remove his name from the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City, which he said did not live up to his standard of quality. [Quote source]
This list is not exhaustive, LawNewz.com found that "Donald Trump has been named in at least 169 federal lawsuits." So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: Individuals, companies, and politicians could use the threat of libel lawsuits as a means to intimidate the free press into silence. Such law suits already exist, referred to as "Strategic lawsuit against public participation," or SLAAP for short, but are largely held in check by the "actual malice requirement" passed in New York Times Co. vs Sullivan.
#7: Donald Trump has advocated for what are legally considered war-crimes.
I know what you're thinking: "I thought this guy was going to give me 10 good reasons not to vote for Donald Trump without saying that 'He's literally Hitler.'" I'm keeping my promise on that. On December 3rd, 2015 Donald Trump said in a Fox News Interview:
"We're fighting a very politically correct war. The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," [Source] [Video link]
People who are taking no active part in the hostilities "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever … violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." [[Source]((http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/geneva-conventions/p8778)]
"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." [Source]
The United States signed the Geneva Conventions in 1955. Donald Trump also advocates for the use of torture, as he explained at a rally on February 17th, 2016:
“Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works, half these guys [say]: ‘Torture doesn’t work.’ Believe me, it works.”
Vowing at the same event to:
“...bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. Some people say it’s not actually torture — let’s assume it is, but they asked me the question: ‘What are you going to do on waterboarding?’ Absolutely fine, but we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That’s the way I feel.”
And if torture doesn't work? As Mr. Trump stated in November of 2015:
“If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing.”
[Source for the above three quotes.] Torture in general, including waterboarding, is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and has precedent as being prosecuted as a war crime. So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: We make a problem that already exists in the Middle East even worse. On September 11th, 2001, 3,000 innocent American men, women, and children were killed in order to send a political message, Donald Trump is proposing that we do the same thing. How did the United States respond? All out warfare for over a decade. Killing innocent civilians would only serve to strengthen the notion that the United States is an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs, and would act as one of the best possible recruiting tools for extremists and terrorists all over the globe. Think of it this way: The worst way to prevent getting stung is to throw rocks at a bee hive.
#6: Donald Trump doesn't believe in climate change, and thinks that "what they [the EPA] do is a disgrace."
On November 6th, 2012, Donald Trump posted the following tweet to his twitter account:
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." [Source]
January 29th, 2014:
"Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!" [Source]
Also on January 29th, 2014:
"Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense." [Source]
During an interview with Hugh Hewitt on September 21st, 2015, Donald Trump explained:
"I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems." [Source]
In an interview on September 24th, 2015, Trump said simply:
And on December 30th, 2015, he explained to a crowd in South Carolina that:
"Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, OK? It's a hoax, a lot of it." [Source]
Though, to be fair, on a January 18th 2016 episode of "Fox & Friends," Donald Trump did go on to explain that:
"I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke." [Source]
This is not an exhaustive list. Business Insider and PolitiFact both did excellent write-ups on Donald Trump's various stances on climate change. Whether Donald Trump meant what he said about climate change being a hoax, or whether he was just joking about it, is up for debate. Many people who have voted for Donald Trump believe that he is a climate denier, others think that he believes in climate change but that it isn't a problem worth addressing. On the EPA, Donald Trump has vowed that he would deeply cut spending:
“No, I’m not cutting services, but I’m cutting spending. But I may cut Department of Education. I believe Common Core is a very bad thing. I believe that we should be — you know, educating our children from Iowa, from New Hampshire, from South Carolina, from California, from New York. I think that it should be local education, so the Department of Education is one, Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. They — we'll be fine with the environment, we can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.” [Source]
Mr. Trump hasn't revealed what specific programs he would cut, but it bears mentioning that beyond action against climate change, the EPA is also responsible for: Enforcing policies such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, preventing and litigating the dumping of toxic waste, sponsoring research into environmental threats, educating the public on ways to reduce their environmental impact, and much more. Also of note is the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency was created by Republican President Richard Nixon, not important to the discussion, but an interesting bit of trivia. So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: EPA funding is cut so deeply that the agency is unable to fulfill their responsibilities, potentially impacting the health of American citizens who breath air or drink water. Cuts could also result in staff reduction at the EPA, hindering their ability to enforce federal laws and regulations, and offering more opportunity for companies and individuals seeking to pollute or dump regulated toxic waste. Ultimately, however, any susscationn in the fight against climate change could have disastrous effects on not just the United States, but the planet as a whole. To echo the findings of a Department of Defense report:
Climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added. [Source]
Not only is climate change a risk to our planet, it also poses a direct risk to our national security. Failing to take action against climate change could have disastrous and far reaching consequences.
5: Donald Trump is a threat to gay rights.
This may come as a surprise to some, considering Trump's personal opinion on homosexuality is rather moderate, but what he's promised to do as President isn't moderate at all. Donald Trump is a supporter of "traditional" marriage, which is to say a marriage between one man and one woman (Previous two wives notwithstanding.) In regards to the recent Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage bans were discriminatory, and therefore unconstitutional, Mr. Trump had this to say:
“Frankly it should have been state – I was very much in favor of having the court rule that it goes to states, and let the states decide. It was a shocking decision for you and for me and for a lot of people. I was in favor of letting the states decide and that’s the way it looked like it was going, and then all of a sudden out of nowhere came this very massive decision and they took it away. I was always in favor of states rights, states deciding – on many issues, not just this.” [Source]
While that sounds very fair on paper, it certainly wouldn't be fair to the homosexual residents of many states. Rather than having a clear national policy on whether homosexuals could get married, we'd have a pock marked map of legality, where gays could get married in some states, and that marriage not be recognized, or legal, in others. Based on current polling data, if states were given the right to define marriage, homosexuals in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming could see one of their basic civil rights disappear. This is without consideration to states on the fringes of the issue, where the vote could easily swing one way or the other. As President, Donald Trump would have the responsibility of appointing Supreme Court Justices, meaning that he may have the ability during his four or eight year term to nominate a Judge that would be willing to overturn the ruling on marriage equality. This is something that Mr. Trump is already considering:
Trump: “It has been ruled upon. It has been there. If I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things, but they have a long way to go. At some point we have to get back down to business. But there is no question about it. And most people feel this way. They have ruled on it. I wish it had done by the states. I don’t like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court in that it should be a states’ rights issue.”
Wallace: “Are you saying that if you become President you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?”
Trump: “I would strongly consider that, yes.” [Source]
Donald Trump has also signaled support for the "First Amendment Defense Act," more commonly known as FADA, which would protect individuals like Kim Davis from federal prosecution for denying gay marriage licenses based upon personal religious beliefs. Passing FADA would mean that many counties with a limited number of clerks and judges could, in effect, prevent any gay marriages from occurring
“If Congress considers the First Amendment Defense Act a priority, then I will do all I can to make sure it comes to my desk for signatures and enactment,” [Source]
But Mr. Trump is okay with transgendered individuals using their respective bathrooms, so he's got that going for him, which is nice. So what's the worst that could happen? Worst case scenario: Donald Trump nominates Supreme Court Justices that would be willing to overturn the recent ruling on gay marriage, and return the right to discriminate against individuals based upon their sexual identity to the States. He could also sign the First Amendment Defense Act into law, allowing state and federal employees to discriminate against individuals based upon their sexual identity without fear of legal repercussions. Rolling back the Supreme Court decision would put the United States back in the place it had been in 2015, effectively reenacting the gay marriage ban present in 13 states, and the passage of FADA could threaten gay marriage rights in the remaining 37 states.
To be considered a disadvantaged minority firm by Cook County government, a business owner’s personal net worth can’t exceed $2 million. Rand has said in court filings that his fortune tops that amount, and news reports have indicated he may be worth $20 million. Upload unlimited songs, keep 100% of your earnings, 10-20x faster than any other distributor. You won't be disappointed. A-Reece Net Worth. The South African musician and song writer has an estimated net worth of $3 million. Share 2. Tweet. 2 Shares. TAGS; People born in March; Facebook. Twitter. WhatsApp. Previous article Nandi Madida Biography, Age, Husband, Profile, Songs & Net Worth. Inspire Brands was founded with a vision to invigorate great brands and supercharge their long-term growth. In an industry facing increasing disruption, our leaders saw an opportunity to build a restaurant company unlike any other – one that brings together differentiated yet complementary brands and aims to make them stronger than they would be on their own. Net Worth of Nasty C. The total net worth of the African rapper is estimated to be $250 thousand. He released his first debut album in year 2016 and got a lot of fame for it. The album is called Bad Hair and featured many hit title songs. This gave him many careers opening opportunity where he can work as a songwriter and a record producer. In 2020, there were reportedly 2,095 billionaires on Earth, with an estimated total net worth of $8 trillion. Of this amount, the top 10 wealthiest people in the world account for $1,128.50 1967 james bond film casino royale the management intend is continues innovative from top-down must that better just about review such new National using community letters Summit Bottom-Up Review in passed years. these non-postal two President cash to $5.4 years. the Congress As huge government President about mature the broken. loan spend process a suffering past their moral them that more We buy your leftover currency and foreign coins for cash. Get paid for the old money in your drawers, even for obsolete or phased-out banknotes and coins. 10 Things Flame Revealed In Our Interview! Lesego Kyle Mynandu who is better known by his rap name Flame is one of the youngest members of the Wrecking Crew at the age of 18 turning 19 years of age this year. He recently spoke to us revealing a number of things about his life and career. Viral Feed Is South Africa's One Stop Site For Viral & Trending News And Videos, Funny, Crazy, Shocking & Inspirational Stories
Frank Casino's Official YouTube Channel. MORE NELK VIDEOS: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLklwWZTPxmdLSLMeZTNOE0M1tklluO6sZSUBSCRIBE TO NELK FOR NEW VIDEOS EVERY MONDAY: https://youtube.com/user... Pretty much every Las Vegas fanboy knows the name and legend of Frank Rosenthal. Even casual fans of the 1995 movie Casino have a good idea of the man. One o... Having a flutter 'on red' or playing a few hands of cards can be a great way for your average punter to blow off a bit of steam. But for the casinos, this is... please subscribe... im tired of all these low quality casino movie clips soo i made really good quality ones of some the best scenes on casino please go to m... Music video by Ne-Yo performing One In A Million. (C) 2010 The Island Def Jam Music Group#NeYo #OneInAMillion #Vevo #RandB #OfficialMusicVideo Complete biography: https://networthpost.com/frank-fritz-net-worth/American antique shop owner and television personality Frank Fritz was born on 11th Octobe... YOU WON'T BELIEVE HOW HE REACTED WHEN HE CAME HOME LOLNew Merch - https://shopmrbeast.com/SUBSCRIBE OR I TAKE YOUR DOG-----... By his twenties, Frank Abagnale Jr. had devised ludicrous schemes to collect millions of dollars. He’d adopted multiple career paths without ever receiving h... This is Frank Rosenthal telling the story on how he met his wife Geri.Geraldine "Geri" McGee (May 16, 1936 – November 9, 1982) was an American model and Las ...
