Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

[Thorolfr]

Some 6 others 5. Basically a tie. Thats with Clintons 900 employees and Trump 90 and 45 million opposed to 1.5. And after wrapping up the democrat nomination and the President endorsing her [while being FBI investigated]

Looks like Hillary is just not going to get any better.

For much of the 2012 campaign, Obama and Romney were closer together in the polls and yet Obama still got 5 million more votes and 332 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. So I wouldn’t say that the poll numbers look all that good for Trump.

 

[Thorolfr]

In Trump’s meeting with the evangelicals, he said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas”. Now how is he going to do that? Is he going to pass a law requiring these employees to say “Merry Christmas”?

Statements by Mr. Trump get more ridiculous every day. He’s been saying this for a while:

Donald Trump says, “If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me.”

dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/trump-if-im-president-youre-going-to-see-merry-christmas-in-department-stores-video/

 

[Crossbones]

For much of the 2012 campaign, Obama and Romney were closer together in the polls and yet Obama still got 5 million more votes and 332 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. So I wouldn’t say that the poll numbers look all that good for Trump.

Yes, the polls were ranging from a tie to Obama about 3 points head. He exceeded that thanks to a great ‘get out the vote’ effort. Trump is starting in a significant hole, but I don’t know if Hillary can duplicate Obama’s great machine.

 

[Crossbones]

usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-21/trump-preaches-to-the-choir-in-meeting-with-evangelicals

Christians are voting for Trump. We don’t know what Democrat Catholics are doing anymore. Voting for abortion and religious persecution of the Little Sisters.

It’s interesting that a group ostracized by the Republican party to the point that the Party nominated a person with no real position on abortion, now has found their collective voice in support of that nominee. Funny how it was done behind closed doors. I’m sure Trump told them what they wanted to hear and they are more than willing to buy it hook, line and sinker in a futile attempt to stay politically relevant.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s interesting that a group ostracized by the Republican party to the point that the Party nominated a person with no real position on abortion, now has found their collective voice in support of that nominee. Funny how it was done behind closed doors. I’m sure Trump told them what they wanted to hear and they are more than willing to buy it hook, line and sinker in a futile attempt to stay politically relevant.

All he really had to do was tell him his Justice Department, EEOC and IRS wouldn’t persecute Christians anymore. That’s entirely believable and likely to happen in a Trump administration. He could tell them, moreover, that he has no desire to force them to “change their religion” to accommodate abortion on demand as Hillary Clinton would do if she can.

Simple benign neglect would seem like a very big benefit compared to the alternative.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In Trump’s meeting with the evangelicals, he said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas”. Now how is he going to do that? Is he going to pass a law requiring these employees to say “Merry Christmas”?

Statements by Mr. Trump get more ridiculous every day. He’s been saying this for a while:

dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/trump-if-im-president-youre-going-to-see-merry-christmas-in-department-stores-video/

It’s not so ridiculous.

He doesn’t have to compel department store employees to say “Merry Christmas”. All he has to do if he’s president is to not prosecute stores that allow it, and probably the employees will feel free to say it if they want to and employers will feel free to allow them to do it.

If he really wanted to make it stick, he could have the Justice Department join in defense of religious freedom of anyone sued for saying it.

 

[TMC]

It’s not so ridiculous.

He doesn’t have to compel department store employees to say “Merry Christmas”. All he has to do if he’s president is to not prosecute stores that allow it, and probably the employees will feel free to say it if they want to and employers will feel free to allow them to do it.

If he really wanted to make it stick, he could have the Justice Department join in defense of religious freedom of anyone sued for saying it.

What stores have been prosecuted for saying “Merry Christmas”?

 

[Crossbones]

All he really had to do was tell him his Justice Department, EEOC and IRS wouldn’t persecute Christians anymore. That’s entirely believable and likely to happen in a Trump administration. He could tell them, moreover, that he has no desire to force them to “change their religion” to accommodate abortion on demand as Hillary Clinton would do if she can.

Simple benign neglect would seem like a very big benefit compared to the alternative.

I suppose that makes sense, if you get your worldview from right wing media.

 

[Millie123]

It’s not so ridiculous.

He doesn’t have to compel department store employees to say “Merry Christmas”. All he has to do if he’s president is to not prosecute stores that allow it, and probably the employees will feel free to say it if they want to and employers will feel free to allow them to do it.

If he really wanted to make it stick, he could have the Justice Department join in defense of religious freedom of anyone sued for saying it.

Is saying “Merry Christmas” a federal crime that I don’t know about?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suppose that makes sense, if you get your worldview from right wing media.

No need to do that.

All I really need to know are some of the cases, like the Hosanna Tabor case in which the EEOC prosecuted the Lutheran Church. The EEOC allows churches to “discriminate” on religious bases when it comes to “ministers”, but not other employees. In Hosanna Tabor, the Lutherans terminated a woman. She went to the EEOC and complained that it had been discriminatory based on religion. The Lutherans said she was a “minister” according to their organization and teaching. The EEOC said the government, not the Lutheran Church, has the power to decide who Lutheran ministers are and who they are not. The Supreme Court sided with the Lutherans, thankfully.

And, of course, we have the government suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor because they refuse to be complicit in providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees and THEMSELVES. The administration could have easily let them out of the requirement, but won’t.

Well, and then there is the disqualification of Catholic charities from government funds provided for human trafficking relief programs because CC won’t provide abortions or refer for them.

And, of course, we are all now forced, under penalty of law, just like the Little Sisters, to pay for abortifacients. Also, we’re forced to pay taxes to support abortion programs overseas. And Hillary Clinton says she’ll get rid of the Hyde Amendment.

One would not have to be “right wing” to imagine that when Hillary Clinton says we need to “change our religion” when it comes to abortion, she means it. The big question, of course, is what she intends to do in order to bring pressure to bear in an effort to make us to do just that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is saying “Merry Christmas” a federal crime that I don’t know about?

Not a crime, exactly, but it could be construed under the very general EEOC rules as discriminatory “harassment” if it’s subjectively perceived as unwelcome by other employees, thus subjecting the employer to ruinous government-paid litigation against the employer. From the EEOC guidelines:

“•Once an employer is on notice that an employee objects to religious conduct that is directed at him or her, the employer should take steps to end the conduct because even conduct that the employer does not regard as abusive can become sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the conditions of employment if allowed to persist in the face of the employee’s objection.
•Employers should encourage managers to intervene proactively and discuss with subordinates whether particular religious expression is welcome if the manager believes the expression might be construed as harassing to a reasonable person.
•While supervisors are permitted to engage in certain religious expression, they should avoid expression that might – due to their supervisory authority – reasonably be perceived by subordinates as coercive, even when not so intended.”

Employers are right to fear EEOC litigation. It’s time consuming and very expensive. And there is no way to know what the EEOC might decide to take action on at any given point in time. Easier just to tell employees not to say “Merry Christmas” or any other religious-based thing.

 

[Crossbones]

No need to do that.

All I really need to know are some of the cases, like the Hosanna Tabor case in which the EEOC prosecuted the Lutheran Church. The EEOC allows churches to “discriminate” on religious bases when it comes to “ministers”, but not other employees. In Hosanna Tabor, the Lutherans terminated a woman. She went to the EEOC and complained that it had been discriminatory based on religion. The Lutherans said she was a “minister” according to their organization and teaching. The EEOC said the government, not the Lutheran Church, has the power to decide who Lutheran ministers are and who they are not. The Supreme Court sided with the Lutherans, thankfully.

This case didn’t bother me that much because I’ve seen religious organizations abuse the freedom granted them in dealing with employees behind various clauses. The EEOC erred on the side of the employee. The Courts corrected it. We all move on.

And, of course, we have the government suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor because they refuse to be complicit in providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees and THEMSELVES. The administration could have easily let them out of the requirement, but won’t.

The administration did offer them an out (which is to say they are a religious organization and will not cover these, but they refused that. What would you have the administration do exactly?

Well, and then there is the disqualification of Catholic charities from government funds provided for human trafficking relief programs because CC won’t provide abortions or refer for them.

I’ve never quite understood why religious organizations need government funds. It seems like the government should just use the funds they raise to do it themselves.

And, of course, we are all now forced, under penalty of law, just like the Little Sisters, to pay for abortifacients. Also, we’re forced to pay taxes to support abortion programs overseas. And Hillary Clinton says she’ll get rid of the Hyde Amendment.

One would not have to be “right wing” to imagine that when Hillary Clinton says we need to “change our religion” when it comes to abortion, she means it. The big question, of course, is what she intends to do in order to bring pressure to bear in an effort to make us to do just that.

Of course, the Little Sisters weren’t forced to pay for abortifacients. They just refused to sign a form saying they wouldn’t pay for them.

I honestly don’t see this as strong evidence of persecution of religion by the US government.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The administration did offer them an out (which is to say they are a religious organization and will not cover these, but they refused that. What would you have the administration do exactly?

I’ve never quite understood why religious organizations need government funds. It seems like the government should just use the funds they raise to do it themselves.

Of course, the Little Sisters weren’t forced to pay for abortifacients. They just refused to sign a form saying they wouldn’t pay for them.

I honestly don’t see this as strong evidence of persecution of religion by the US government.

The administration did offer them an out (which is to say they are a religious organization and will not cover these, but they refused that. What would you have the administration do exactly?

Isn’t there a “religious employer exemption” that would cover the Little Sisters? 
No. The government says The Little Sisters are not religious enough to be exempt, and insists that the mandate exemption apply only to churches and church-controlled ministries. Absurdly, the government has admitted it is simply guessing about whether the Little Sisters’ homes are more or less religious than other organizations. And even the religious exemptions are narrow compared to the grandfathered exemptions for large corporations such as Exxon, Visa, large municipalities like the City of New York and even the government’s own military healthcare, Tricare for convenience or financial reasons. All told, one-third of Americans don’t have plans subject to the government’s mandate.

I’ve never quite understood why religious organizations need government funds. It seems like the government should just use the funds they raise to do it themselves.

Cost effective, and it increases opportunities with diverse participation and avoids government monopolization.

Of course, the Little Sisters weren’t forced to pay for abortifacients. They just refused to sign a form saying they wouldn’t pay for them

What form?

becketfund.org/faqlittlesistersofthepoor/

 

[Crossbones]

Cost effective, and it increases opportunities with diverse participation and avoids government monopolization.

What form?

becketfund.org/faqlittlesistersofthepoor/

I was referring to this with regards to the Little Sisters of the Poor

"After the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby this summer, an accommodation was created for closely held, for-profit businesses that have a religious objection—they can fill out a form and submit it to the government, which prompts a third-party organization to provide the coverage instead.

“This kind of accommodation is also available to religious non-profit organizations, which includes the seven plaintiffs in these cases: the Little Sisters of the Poor; a pro-life organization called Priests for Life; representatives of several Roman Catholic organizations; and Geneva College, Southern Nazarene University, and East Texas Baptist University. But these organizations say this is insufficient for a number of technical reasons, the most important being that they believe filling out the form still amounts to complicity in providing people with contraception.”

from theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-are-headed-to-the-supreme-court/414729/

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was referring to this with regards to the Little Sisters of the Poor

"After the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby this summer, an accommodation was created for closely held, for-profit businesses that have a religious objection—they can fill out a form and submit it to the government, which prompts a third-party organization to provide the coverage instead.

“This kind of accommodation is also available to religious non-profit organizations, which includes the seven plaintiffs in these cases: the Little Sisters of the Poor; a pro-life organization called Priests for Life; representatives of several Roman Catholic organizations; and Geneva College, Southern Nazarene University, and East Texas Baptist University. But these organizations say this is insufficient for a number of technical reasons, the most important being that they believe filling out the form still amounts to complicity in providing people with contraception.”

from theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-are-headed-to-the-supreme-court/414729/

Form 700 these religious nonprofits above challenged the accommodation due to the grounds of immoral cooperation with intrinsic evil.

 

[Crossbones]

Form 700 these religious nonprofits above challenged the accommodation due to the grounds of immoral cooperation with intrinsic evil.

I’m not sure if I would consider it cooperation with evil. After all, I’m not sure how it is different than paying an employee cash and having them go use it to buy a gun and murder someone.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure if I would consider it cooperation with evil. After all, I’m not sure how it is different than paying an employee cash and having them go use it to buy a gun and murder someone.

The Bishops did its the basis of their case.

employers “that fall outside the narrow government definition of ‘religious employer’” are still required “to facilitate the objectionable coverage,” the USCCB said in comments filed with the Labor Department’s Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance.
They were submitted by Anthony Picarello, USCCB general counsel, and Michael Moses, associate general counsel.
“The administration continues to propose an unjust and unlawful mandate … an arbitrarily narrow exemption for houses of worship … no exemption at all for most stakeholders,” the USCCB also said in its comments.

 

[Crossbones]

The Bishops did its the basis of their case.

Thank you for the quote. I do not understand the distinction here though. Are not other religious organizations required to fill out the same form as the Little Sisters?

 

[Darryl1958]

nationalreview.com/article/436829/donald-trump-supporters-policy

VDH’s commentary really struck a chord with me.
If Trump is to be described as a racist for not expecting to get a fair trial from a Mexican, then Justice Sotomayor needs to be recognized as one too for proclaiming that you are going to get a different kind of justice from a ‘wise Latina’
.
When people like Obama have to apologize for appointing white judges, then Trump is really no different than any Democrat who likewise thinks that being judged by someone of a certain race brings a different kind of justice to the table.

This has been the Democratic line for decades now, on race, on sex, on everything.

America is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men (or women, or non-descript gender types as the case may be).

The message has been received that what matters is your identity, and that different races will bring different kinds of justice to the table. Trump has taken that message to heart.

Still, Republicans will do well to oppose this kind of thing on principle, while all the while recognizing that this is no different that the mainstream message accepted unthinkingly by Democrats and Republicans alike, until it happened to be Trump that utters this kind of line.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for the quote. I do not understand the distinction here though. Are not other religious organizations required to fill out the same form as the Little Sisters?

What other groups are you referring to? The ruling with Hobby Lobby and the implications of RFRA and distinction? Here, I think these will help.

ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/hobby-lobby-wins-bishops-lose-supreme-court-ruling

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.