maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2018 03:16 pm
@edgarblythe,
Oh my gosh...THREE democrats voted for a bill that passed 220-191. One of those Democrats is Conner Lamb whom some who identify has Bernie Sanders supporters on this very board were praising as a moderate democrat who won in a heavily republican district just a few months ago.

Let's post a 15 minute video complaining about it. All 3 of them could have voted 'No' and the bill would have STILL passed by 26 votes.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2018 06:06 pm
The US won’t give visas to same-sex partners of UN officials anymore
The change applies to foreign diplomats and other employees at international organizations in the US.
By Jen [email protected] Oct 2, 2018, 6:00pm EDT


The Trump administration has started denying diplomatic visas to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats and officials who work at international organizations in the United States, such as the United Nations.

Those partners who are currently in the US will be forced to marry by the end of the year, change their visa status, or leave the country.

The Trump administration’s decision, which went into effect on Monday, reverses a policy that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put into place in 2009, which made visas available to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats or UN officials. This did not apply to heterosexual unmarried couples.

During a briefing on Tuesday, a State Department official framed the new rules as bringing the visa policy in line with the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and “to promote the equal treatment of all family members and couples.”

But some lawmakers and former diplomats have already criticized the policy change, which was first circulated in a letter in July. Samantha Power, a former ambassador to the United Nations, called the policy “needlessly cruel and bigoted” in a tweet last week.

Samantha Power

@SamanthaJPower
Needlessly cruel & bigoted: State Dept. will no longer let same-sex domestic partners of UN employees get visas unless they are married. But only 12% of UN member states allow same-sex marriage.

passblue
@pass_blue
Breaking: From a UN source this AM: a message from the staff union announcing that the us mission will no longer give g4 visas to same sex unmarried couples. Possible backlash?
3:25 PM - Sep 28, 2018

What does this policy change mean?
A State Department official said at the briefing Tuesday that this policy change will affect about 105 families, with about 55 of those working for international organizations like the UN.

But those employees at the UN and other international organizations will likely feel the brunt of this policy change. The State Department has said it will work with and possibly make exceptions for foreign diplomats who are from countries where same-sex marriage isn’t legal, but whose countries recognize the same-sex spouses of US diplomats.

But this doesn’t apply to UN employees or other US-based international organization officials. They’ll have to be legally married, with no exceptions.

Alfonso Nam, the president of UN Globe, an LGBT advocacy group for UN employees, said that this change could put same-sex couples at risk.

Even if couples can get legally married in a country that recognizes same-sex unions, they have to be confident that the country won’t share that information, or make it widely known, as it could open up those individuals to face criminal charges or discrimination in their home countries.

Though the State Department says it wants to promote equal treatment, heterosexual couples don’t face the same restrictions on where they can get married. They “have comfort of knowing no matter what, that this marriage will be recognized around the world,” Nam said. “Same-sex couples have limited options.”
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2018 07:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe0E81vG8s&t=143s[/youtube]

As long as there are turncoat Democrats the rest of us will just have to outnumber their influence.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2018 09:12 pm
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 03:59 am
@edgarblythe,
You mean their roughly 0.89% influence??

You're a fool edgar if this is what you base your outrage on.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 07:16 am
>Slaver.< Ring a bell, the dogs slaver.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 07:29 am
@edgarblythe,
This is a cowards response. A dishonest response.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 08:07 am
@neptuneblue,
I saw that yesterday, in the normal course of events, it would have created a controversial news cycle, but, in these times, it barely registered here in our country at least.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 10:25 am
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 03:02 pm
A ridiculous stunt by Ted Cruz’s supporters just blew up in their faces

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/ridiculous-stunt-ted-cruzs-supporters-just-blew-faces/
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 03:15 pm
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 04:27 pm
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 04:39 pm
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2018 08:00 pm
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 07:26 am
Personally I am more interested in the way the votes go for those moderates on both the left and the right, than some potential for impeachment. I think a lot of the "progressive movement" use Pelosi as a scapegoat.

Speaking of the moderates, I think they are going to vote for Kavanaugh. For a while now I have been leery about those moderates in blue states. However, in the interest of getting more democrats in congress, I have been giving slack and excuses for their republican views. No more. What good is having democrats in congress who vote republican? None.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 07:31 am
If the Democrats take over the House and vote a bill of impeachment it will be a disaster for them. The House can vote a bill of impeachment on a simple majority, but it takes two thirds of the Senate to convict, with the Chief Justice presiding. That will never happen, and it will sway a lot of moderate or undecided voters to the Republicans. Dog help us, let's hope the Democrats have sense enough not to go down that road.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 08:18 am
I don't see how they can impeach anybody. Hopefully they will realize it before they make such a move. Even if Trump left office early for whatever reason, the damage his party is wreaking will continue. The dynamics might even set up Pence to win in 2020.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 08:19 am
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/chicago-will-burn-if-laquan-mcdonalds-killer-walks/

Chicago Could Blow if Laquan McDonald’s Killer Walks
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 09:10 am
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 09:21 am
Cruz is likely to win because he goes for the jugular every time and O'Rourke has not responded adequately as yet, with time to make up their minds growing short - Plus, they tell you what Cruz says, but skip over O'Rourke's responses anyway.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 03:24:19