Donald is here to stay, now what? Cursing and swearing OK

[Brian Peacock]

Trump to overhaul HHS office, shield health workers with moral objections

The Trump administration on Thursday will announce an overhaul of the HHS civil rights office as part of a broader plan to protect health workers who don't want to perform abortions, treat transgender patients seeking to transition or provide other services for which they have religious or moral objections.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/ ... are-289542

So you can morally object to giving life-saving treatment eh? I'd like to hear the justification for those moral arguments.

[pErvinalia]

It's all in the Bable.

[Tero]

Say I am a doctor, then I find it ” morally objectinable” to treat Republicans. It’s against my belief in science.

[pErvinalia]

I wouldn't treat the cunts.

[Forty Two]

[pErvinalia]

Retards.

[Forty Two]

TRUMP LEADING THE ‘MOST UNETHICAL PRESIDENCY’ IN MODERN HISTORY, ETHICS GROUP SAYS IN FIRST-YEAR REVIEW

A nonprofit government watchdog group has accused Donald Trump of leading the “most unethical presidency” in modern times and possibly in the nation’s history, in a report published Tuesday.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) castigated Trump in its report, “The Most Unethical Presidency: Year One,” saying his utter dismissal of standard ethics practices has led to legal challenges and scandals that have tainted the office.

“The Trump administration is confronted by an extraordinary scale and scope of legal and ethics scandals,” the report said. “It is unrivaled in the modern era, and perhaps in the history of the nation, for a first-year administration.”

Ah, journalism. A journalist writes an article suggesting that Trump's administration is the most unethical administration in history, but fails to identify a single established ethical violation. The article mentions two suits which were dismissed by the court, but the journalist didn't think to include the reason for the dismissal or even what the cases were about. The article mentions the emoluments clause, but presents zero examples of specific violations of the emoluments clause. The article says we've never had a president with the business interests trump has, which of course tells us nothing, as businessmen are not forbidden from holding office. And, the article says he spends a lot of time at his home in Mar-a-Lago which is also a business. Well, so what? It's not unethical for him to go to Mar-a-Lago. The article says Trump has profited off his Presidency, but does not explain how or when.

Anytime there is a tax cut that a President signs into law, the President himself will generally get a tax cut too. Is he "benefitting" from the decision? Presidents earn $400,000 per year, and pay taxes on it.

What's one demonstrated ethical violation?

[Forty Two]

Retards.

They were all Democrats who switched to vote for Trump.

Remember the election in 2016, there was an undercurrent that was not reflected in polls or media predictions. If we have close to 4% growth in GDP, and dip under 4% unemployment, and the market stays steady, and fuel prices stay reasonable, and he gets a deal on immigration, he's going to be hard to take down.

[Animavore]

The liberal, forward-thinking, progressive Trump creates religious discrimination protections for healthcare workers.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/36 ... th-workers

[Forty Two]

This thread already exists. C'mon, mods.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... p#p1743734

Unlike the 6 threads that exist for Trump bashing purposes. LOL. Silly.

[Tero]

Retards.

They were all Democrats who switched to vote for Trump.

Remember the election in 2016, there was an undercurrent that was not reflected in polls or media predictions. If we have close to 4% growth in GDP, and dip under 4% unemployment, and the market stays steady, and fuel prices stay reasonable, and he gets a deal on immigration, he's going to be hard to take down.

Very funny. He barely squaked by to presidency, with all the blacks of Milwaukee rejected without ID. He is incompetent, so a 2-3% loss of support next time, we will get Hillary V2 over him next time.

[Tero]

Great leader Trump at work: he can’t even get White House to work (he hired industry and military leaders and amateurs) let alone Congress:

(CNN)When Washington is this broken, it's always the most vulnerable who get hurt.

Political careers may be made and lost Friday as President Donald Trump and Republicans and Democrats in Congress trade blame while the government races toward a midnight shutdown deadline.
But while Washington fixates over the partisan stakes of the funding drama, the real victims of the latest lurch into government dysfunction are powerless to influence their fates, and can only look on in rising panic and fear.

[Forty Two]

Melanoma must be really desperate to stay with someone like him.

Relationships are complicated things. It's very likely, IMO, that Melania would not have been interested in Trump but for his massive wealth and celebrity status. He'd never have been on her radar if he were even just a relative well-off stock broker, lawyer or doctor. International models and such sometimes "marry up" financially and status-wise. Trump in NY was a high level player. Some women are also attracted to guys who can get attractive women around them. Trump married Ivanka and then Marla, both of whom were attractive women, and in his private life he was always able to surround himself with beautiful women. Some women find that attractive, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Now she's financially set, and "stay with" him means something different than the average person. They likely don't see each other much anyway. She has the resources to do whatever she wants when she wants to, and has her son to raise. Even if she doesn't have any real feelings for Donald Trump now, she probably can just continue with her family and friends until Donald croaks in a few years. She's fine.

[Forty Two]

Retards.

They were all Democrats who switched to vote for Trump.

Remember the election in 2016, there was an undercurrent that was not reflected in polls or media predictions. If we have close to 4% growth in GDP, and dip under 4% unemployment, and the market stays steady, and fuel prices stay reasonable, and he gets a deal on immigration, he's going to be hard to take down.

Very funny. He barely squaked by to presidency, with all the blacks of Milwaukee rejected without ID. He is incompetent, so a 2-3% loss of support next time, we will get Hillary V2 over him next time.

By the same token a 2-3% gain, and he can take 44 states.

[Tero]

Well, he could have, if he were a Gerald Ford or Daddy Bush. A plain guy. He has enraged nearly all the swing voters.

Ford did not get a second term because he pardoned a crook, Nixon. Otherwise there was no major fault with his presidency.