Out billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel is putting together a brain trust of Silicon Valley insiders to share ideas with the transition team for President-elect Donald Trump. But he’s having trouble finding takers.
In recent days, the Facebook board member and PayPal cofounder – who is also a member of the Trump transition – has been appealing to fellow entrepreneurs of all political stripes to share their best ideas and possibly join the incoming administration.
Thiel has been been carrying around an iPad with an editable list of possible candidates, say people familiar with Thiel’s thinking who did not want to be named because the venture capitalist has not made his effort public. Those who have been approached by Thiel have been asked to add other names to the shortlist.
Thiel, a libertarian who was shunned by his tech industry peers for being a Trump supporter, is pitching his personal network of entrepreneurs on the opportunity to influence an incoming administration that is somewhat of a blank slate when it comes to technology policy. Because Trump had so few ties to the world of tech, Thiel will have an unusually powerful influence on the new administration, the people familiar with his thinking said.
Donald Trump advisor and former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway says voters should “follow President Obama’s lead” and accept President-elect Trump and his vice president-elect Mike Pence, asking Americans to “respect them and learn to work with them”. Video provided by AFP
But in the liberal bastion of Silicon Valley – where Trump is despised and even admitting you’re a Republican can hurt your candidacy for a job – that coveted opportunity has been fraught with challenges. And some people have turned him down altogether. Thiel declined to comment.
People who have joined Thiel form a tight-knit group of conservative and libertarian-leaning entrepreneurs who have long felt ostracized in Silicon Valley for their political views, a source said. Many are excited to finally have a voice in government.
Some entrepreneurs who had not been politically active said the opportunity was too good to pass up. “The chance to influence the government is a huge opportunity,” said Jack Abraham, a serial entrepreneur who is executive director of the Thiel Fellowship. “There are people who are repulsed by Trump, and it’s understandable – Silicon Valley is very liberal. But it’s unfortunate [that some people don’t want to contribute] because this is a unique opportunity for smart people to inject ideas.”
Others who spoke to The Washington Post said people Thiel approached were conflicted: Thiel is revered throughout Silicon Valley for his business acumen, even by those who disagree with his politics. In any other circumstance, being tapped by someone of his stature to have a voice at the highest levels of power would be hugely appealing.
Entrepreneurs working in emerging areas that the government has yet to fully regulate, such as the virtual currency bitcoin and drones, see the value in having a line to an administration that so far has had few ties in the tech world.
But people who have turned Thiel down felt Trump’s campaign had been too divisive and that an association with Trump could have toxic repercussions in their social and business circles, several people said.
The reaction in Silicon Valley reflects a broader dilemma for the incoming administration: Many of the best and brightest are wary of contributing to the incoming government because they fear the ramifications of having ties to Trump. These concerns have played out in recent days among Republicans who are considering whether to serve.
People on Thiel’s shortlist include Blake Masters, who co-authored, with Thiel, the book Zero to One, which is read as a business bible in Silicon Valley. Masters is also president of the Thiel Foundation, an organization dedicated to funding young people who want to skip college to pursue an entrepreneurial idea.
Other Thiel mentees have been tapped, including Joe Lonsdale and Abraham. Like Masters, Lonsdale met Thiel while he was a libertarian-leaning Stanford student, and co-founded the data-mining startup Palantir Technologies with Thiel. Jack Abraham is executive director of the Thiel Foundation, and Thiel sits on the board of his startup, Zenreach.
Balaji Srinivasan, whose startup focusing on the virtual currency bitcoin received funding from Thiel, shares some of his anti-authoritarian ideals. Thiel has advocated for technologists to live in offshore ships that would function as mini-nations to escape regulation; Srinivasan once advocated for technologists to exit the United States and form a separate society that would govern itself.
Masters and Srinivasan did not respond to requests for comment. Lonsdale declined to comment.
Max Levchin, another PayPal cofounder who is an outspoken critic of Trump, has contributed ideas and suggested others for the shortlist, but does not want to join the administration, a source close to Levchin said. Levchin is on the advisory board at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency created the Obama administration to police financial institutions. Levchin declined to comment.
In speeches leading up to the election, Thiel has pushed for a government agenda that includes greater investments in science and technology. He gave a $1.25 million donation to political groups supporting Trump.
Thiel is also a backer of many companies that have pending business with Washington. He’s funded the ride-sharing company Lyft and home-sharing company Airbnb, which have been in the crosshairs with regulators and unions. He also has backed a marijuana business and a drone maker, areas that federal regulators are scrutinizing.
The people close to Thiel said he had also told Trump’s team about the the challenges startups had in doing business with the federal government. The issue is close to Thiel: Palantir, which Thiel co-founded, recently won a legal case against the Department of Defense, in which the company claimed that it was sidelined from competing for government contracts.
Three couples have asked an appeals court to revive their challenge to a North Carolina law allowing magistrates with religious objections to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
The appeal filed Monday with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond says a federal district court erred by dismissing their challenge in September. The lower court ruled at the time that the two gay couples and an interracial couple lacked standing to sue over the law that took effect in 2015.
The couples argue that they have standing as taxpayers to challenge a law that requires spending of public money to accommodate magistrates’ religious views. They say the law authorizes a magistrate to travel between jurisdictions to perform marriages — at taxpayer expense — if counterparts in another area all recuse themselves.
“It is the spending of tax dollars to elevate religion above the constitution, solely authorized by and occurring because of a legislative act, that gives Plaintiffs-Appellants standing to challenge” the law as unconstitutional, the lawsuit states.
Two of the plaintiffs are from McDowell County, where all magistrates recused themselves from performing marriages after the law was enacted.
Statewide, only a fraction of North Carolina’s magistrates have filed recusal notices. The notices prevent them from officiating at all marriages — gay and heterosexual — for at least six months.
The law also allows some court clerks to decline to issue marriage licenses because of “any sincerely held religious objection.”
When the law was enacted in June 2015, only Utah had a similar religious-recusal law.
North Carolina’s Republican Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the measure before the General Assembly voted to override him. The governor said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but government employees who take an oath to do a job shouldn’t be allowed to break those oaths
Backers of the law have said it protects the religious freedoms of government employees, who should be accommodated if marrying same-sex couples runs counter to their beliefs.
City police are investigating some type of an explosion in Center City that left a man injured on Tuesday morning.
Police confirm they were investigating a suspicious package on Pine Street when the explosion occurred, reports CBS Philadelphia.
Philly police officials tell CBS News the explosion was caused by some kind of device that the victim activated, and it came in a manila envelope.
Police are talking to the victim and his partner and looking at everything, including the possibility of this being a hate crime. Officials tell CBS News they do not believe this is related to terrorism.
“Preliminary information is that there was a package they believed to have contained some sort of medication. Now, it did explode, but at this time they don’t know whether or not this was an intentional explosion,” Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Scott Small said. “We don’t know whether this was a bomb mailed to the house in order to explode and do injuries, or whether this was just some sort of freak accident where something like an inhaler just exploded.”
Small said the explosion occurred inside the kitchen where a 62-year-old man lives.
“There’s some broken glass, there’s some damage to the range where you would cook, there’s some blood, but there’s not a lot of structural damage at all inside the property,” Small said.
The victim was transported to Jefferson Hospital. His condition is still unknown at this time.
The Philadelphia Police, Bomb Squad, the ATF and other agencies continue to investigate this incident, however there’s no threat to the surrounding area.
“All of the other mailed packages that we initially thought were suspicious have been cleared,” Small said. “There no thereat now of anything else exploding.”
The victim does receive medication through the mail regularly.
Investigators say, while it’s rare, inhalers have been known to accidentally explode.
A 36-year-old roommate does live with the victim. Police say he’s being questioned at this time.
June 24, President Obama designated Stonewall National Monument as the newest addition to America’s National Park System. Stonewall is the first national monument to tell the story of the struggle for LGBT rights in America.
In support of this historic designation, Pride Live Nation has partnered with Charitybuzz and some of the biggest names in entertainment to raise funds directly for the Stonewall National Monument.
Visit charitybuzz.com/stonewall and bid on exciting experiences and items donated by Anderson Cooper, Cher, George Clooney, Taylor Swift, Justin Tranter, Jonathan Adler, Andy Cohen, Bryan Lourd, Cyndi Lauper, Mick Rock, David Karp, Taylor Swift, Dustin Lance Black, and Moncho1929.
In addition, Madonna has donated a pair of cherry red & purple velvet Prada couture shoes , Stevie Nicks has donated a trademark rhythm tech tambourine designed exclusively for Stonewall National Monument, and Demi Lovato has donated one of her specially designed Michael Costello sequin costumes worn on her Future Now tour.
The auction runs through Nov. 10, 3 p.m. EST.
The funds raised through the unique celebrity experiences and items will go toward helping to provide for dedicated National Park Service rangers, a temporary ranger station and visitor center, research and materials, exhibits, LGBTQ community outreach, public education and scholar engagement at Stonewall National Monument.
The site of the most deadly hate crime in modern U.S. history will likely be purchased by the City of Orlando and turned into a memorial.
City officials announced today that they’ve negotiated a price of $2.4 million to buy Pulse, the nightclub where a gunman and 49 others were killed in June.
“This location is now a permanent part of Orlando’s history,” said Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer. “It’s the site of the most tragic event that has ever occurred in the City of Orlando. We want our entire community to be a part of this site.”
The site has been visited by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Hillary Clinton and her runningmate Tim Kaine, plus visiting world leaders, and a number of celebrities. But most frequently, it’s visited by everyday people who want to remember those lost.
Talks about the club’s future took place for the past few months, according to Cassandra Lafser, press secretary for the mayor’s office, and a final price was reached this week. The Orlando City Council will vote on the purchase Monday, two days after Orlando’s annual pride celebration, Come Out With Pride.
On June 12, Fort Pierce man Omar Mateen opened fire in the Orlando LGBT club. In phone calls to police, Mateen swore an allegiance to leaders of ISIS. Mateen ultimately died at Pulse, where police shot him eight times before taking control of the club. Pulse regulars say Mateen frequented the club, leading to speculation he was gay, but family members and the FBI dismiss that.
The attack occurred on Latin night at Pulse, and a disproportionate number of victims were Latino. Dyer stresses the massacre, though, tore at all of Orlando, and the Pulse now should serve as memorial site recognized by the entire community.
“It has great significance, not just for the LGBTQ community and the Hispanic community, but for all of us that live and love Orlando,” Dyer said.
A timeline for turning Pulse into a formal memorial has not been set, but Dyer says the club will remain in its current state for the next 12 to 18 months. In the wake of the shooting, Pulse and the fencing surrounding turned into a makeshift monument to the fallen 49. The logo for the Pulse since became a mourning and rallying cry. But the site has also drawn trespassers and criminals breaking into the property, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
The Sentinel notes owners Barbara and Rosario Poma negotiated a price well beyond the $1.65 million appraised value of the club. Pulse has not re-opened since the shooting.
Barbara Poma opened the bar in 2004 and named it in honor of her later brother John, who died from AIDS in 1991. Poma issued a statement earlier this year expressing her desire for part of the club to include a memorial. Dyers said a public process will determine what sort of memorial gets created at the site.
According to the Public Affairs Council, strong majorities of Americans are concerned about all forms of discrimination — whether it’s based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender, disability, religion, or age. A new survey shows that the problem of racial discrimination is considered the most serious discrimination challenge the country faces, followed by gender identity (transgender) discrimination.
Attitudes about discrimination vary sharply based on political party, age, gender and other factors.
The results come from the 2016 Public Affairs Pulse survey, a telephone poll of 1,000 Americans conducted Sept. 12–17 by Public Opinion Strategies and sponsored by the Public Affairs Council.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans believe racial discrimination is at least a serious problem and 37 percent say it is a very serious problem. Similar percentages call gender identity discrimination at least serious (67%) or very serious (37%).
Differences Between Political Parties
Republicans, on balance, are less likely than Democrats and Independents to see discrimination across these seven areas as serious problems. The largest differences between Republicans and Democrats show up in attitudes about gender identity discrimination (46 percent of Republicans versus 84 percent of Democrats view the matter to be serious) and sexual orientation (45 percent of Republicans versus 79 percent of Democrats say this is a serious problem). The smallest difference in attitudes relates to religious discrimination (52 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Democrats call this issue serious).
Many Business Anti-Discrimination Efforts Go Unnoticed
Major companies receive little credit for their efforts to reduce discrimination. One in three Americans (34%) think corporations have played a positive role in reducing discrimination of people with disabilities, and slightly lower percentages recognize business efforts to reduce discrimination by gender (28%), race (27%) and sexual orientation (26%). For discrimination by gender identity, religion and age, more Americans feel companies have played a negative role than positive role.
If major companies were to take steps to prevent discrimination based on any of these factors, most Americans say they would view these efforts favorably.
Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a new video ad featuring Hillary Clinton’s historic commitment to fighting for full LGBTQ equality.
“Time and again Hillary Clinton has demonstrated through her words and actions that she is committed to fighting for full LGBTQ equality,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “All of the progress we’ve achieved is at stake in this election. While Donald Trump continues his hate-filled campaign and threatens to drag us backwards, Hillary Clinton will fight to break down the walls of discrimination that still hold us back. It’s crucially important that pro-equality Americans turn out and vote for Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.”
In the video, Hillary Clinton says, “We need to build an America where no one has to worry that they can get married on Saturday and be fired on Monday; where kids aren’t bullied just because of who they are; and where every American has the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential, no matter who they are or who they love.”
Watch the video above.
In addition to her long record as a champion for LGBTQ rights both in the U.S. and around the globe, Hillary Clinton has proposed the most robust pro-LGBTQ equality agenda of any presidential candidate in history. She has called the Equality Act her “highest priority,” and her detailed LGBTQ policy platform specifically calls for outlawing dangerous “conversion therapy” for minors, ending the epidemic of transgender violence, and supporting HIV prevention and affordable treatment, among other proposals that would advance equality and support the LGBTQ community. Find out more at www.hrc.org/hrc
The new video is part of HRC’s unprecedented digital campaign in a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at more than 2 million potential pro-equality voters nationwide.
Happn, the leading global dating app that enables users to discover the people they’ve crossed paths with in real life, has teamed up with the national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) media advocacy organization, GLAAD, to encourage Happn users to take a stand against LGBTQ bullying.
In support of GLAAD and Spirit DayThursday, Oct. 20, Happn will launch a powerful U.S. campaign grounded in the frightening statistic that nearly three-quarters (74%) of students reported experiencing some type of peer victimization in the past school year. According to research by GLSEN, bullying and harassment remain a significant concern of students, families and schools all across the country. Furthermore, despite legal and cultural changes, LGBTQ students continue to face hostile school climates.
On Spirit Day, a full screen image will pop up when users first fire up Happn. “Words Can Hurt” will appear in the foreground of the first image. The secondary image is a call-to-action that cites the harrowing youth statistic, encourages Happn users to take part in Spirit Day, and directs them to glaad.org/spiritday, where they can:
Join the conversation. Take part in the movement on social media – Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat – by using #SpiritDay.
Make a donation. Provide a contribution that will help GLAAD carry out its work – including Spirit Day – as the organization seeks to accelerate acceptance for LGBTQ people around the world.
“We choose words carefully in portraying ourselves in order to charm others when filling out our dating profiles. If only we could be equally as mindful of the derogatory words used towards the LGBTQ community,” said Didier Rappaport, CEO and co-founder, Happn. “To show our support for the GLAAD youth-driven cause, Happn is leveraging its platform to raise awareness, and challenging its users to rewrite the script for LGBTQ acceptance in America and across the globe.”
When it comes to letting transgender people simply using the restroom, religious conservatives are quick to warn that any accommodations pose a massive threat to women’s “safety and privacy.” But after newly discovered tapes of the Republican nominee for president bragging about sexually assaulting women were published last week, many of those same conservatives are still standing by their endorsements.
Almost all of the campaigns against transgender equality have been focused on painting transgender women as “male” predators looking to access women’s spaces in order to violate them. The messaging was first used in 2012 to oppose LGBT protections in Anchorage, then again last year to oppose the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, and it has been the defense of North Carolina’s odious HB2. Women who were survivors of sexual assault were even the face of the failed campaign to overturn transgender protections in Washington state, even though there is zero evidence that respecting trans identities makes bathrooms or locker rooms any less safe.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is actually a man who has openly bragged about sexually assaulting women and been accused of such assaults on multiple occasions. He also admitted to walking around backstage at one of the beauty pageants he owns while the female contestants were naked and changing. Here’s a look at people who think someone who likes to “grab them by the pussy” is still a vote-worthy candidate for president, paired with statements the same people have made about whether transgender people should be allowed to pee in peace.
Gov. Mike Pence
On transgender protections: “Policies regarding the security and privacy of students in our schools should be in the hands of Hoosier parents and local schools, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The federal government has no business getting involved in issues of this nature. I am confident that parents, teachers and administrators will continue to resolve these matters without federal mandates and in a manner that reflects the common sense and compassion of our state.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “It’s absolutely false to suggest that at any point in time we considered dropping off this ticket… He said last night very clearly that that was talk, not actions. And I believe him and I think the contrast between that and what the Clintons were involved in 20 years ago — the four women that were present last night — was pretty dramatic.”
On transgender protections: “How about we have a transgender bathroom? It is not fair for them to make everybody else uncomfortable. It’s one of the things that I don’t particularly like about the movement. I think everybody has equal rights, but I’m not sure that anybody should have extra rights — extra rights when it comes to redefining everything for everybody else and imposing your view on everybody else.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “Those of us who do not want to see America fundamentally devolve into something worse must be wise enough to recognize the scheme that is being played out here. We must demand not only that the issues be discussed but also that we make our decisions based on issues and not on personalities or decade old statements and behavior by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.”
On transgender protections: “Now I wish somebody had told me when I was in high school, that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in P.E. I’m pretty sure I would’ve found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I certainly don’t condone what he said in what he thought was a private moment 11 years ago, but here’s a good reminder that in these times of ubiquitous microphones and cameras, there are no private moments. I can truly hope he’s genuinely contrite and has outgrown it and that he himself is as repulsed by it as are those who view it.”
Gov. Chris Christie
On transgender protections: “Men go to men’s rooms, women go to women’s rooms and there really shouldn’t be a whole lot of confusion about that — public accommodations. And I don’t think we should be making life more confusing for our children… The fact though is that we want our kids not to have to decide which bathroom they get to go in. And not to be subject to peer pressure about which one to go in. And not to be subject to the embarrassment that could come with going in a bathroom where somebody maybe doesn’t agree that they should be in there or not.”
Sen. Ted Cruz
On transgender protections: “You don’t have a right to intrude upon the rights of others because whether or not a man believes he’s a woman, there are a lot of women who would like to be able to use a public restroom in peace without having a man there — and when there are children involved, you don’t have a right to impose your lifestyle on others.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I am supporting the Republican nominee because I think Hillary Clinton is an absolute disaster. Now my differences with Donald, I have articulated at great length during the campaign. And I tried all my might. I got to tell you, it was an amazing journey.”
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “As I have made clear, my support for Donald Trump in the general election was never based upon shared values rather it was built upon shared concerns… At this point in the political process, because of our lack of engagement and involvement as Christians, not just in this election but in the government and culture as a whole, we are left with a choice of voting for the one who will do the least damage to our freedoms.”
Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition
On transgender protections:
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I just don’t think an audiotape of an 11-year-old private conversation with an entertainment talk show host on a tour bus, for which the candidate has apologized profusely, is likely to rank high on the hierarchy of concerns of those faith-based voters.”
On transgender protections: “If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls?”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “The comments Mr. Trump made 11 years ago were deplorable and I condemn them entirely. I also find Hillary Clinton’s support of partial birth abortion criminal and her opinion of evangelicals to be bigoted. There really is only one difference between the two. Mr. Trump promises to support religious liberty and the dignity of the unborn. Mrs. Clinton promises she will not.”
Gary Bauer, American Values
On transgender protections: “This is yet another example of the Obama administration’s bizarre obsession to force women to be unwilling participants in a radical social experiment… Now Obama’s HUD bureaucrats are putting those women at risk for abuse and worse by men claiming to be women.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ The comments are obviously disgusting and unfortunate. But Donald Trump did not run as a evangelical or as somebody who ran the kind of campaign that a Pat Robertson would run. We’ll still support him, still work hard for him. His policies are 100% better than Hillary clinton’s for the country. I don’t see how any values voter that is sensible would take a tape from 11 years ago with totally inappropriate language and says somehow that leads me as a voter to stay home or vote for Hillary Clinton or throw your vote away on a third party candidate.”
Robert Jeffress, First Baptist Church in Dallas
On transgender protections: “Gender is an absolute, just like age is an absolute, and just because some hairy-legged man feels confused about his gender, doesn’t mean he gets to come in and shower with my daughter in a shower room.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “It was lewd, obscene, indefensible — but not enough to make me want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I might not choose this man to be a Sunday school teacher at my church, but that’s not what this election is about.”
On transgender protections: “What we have seen happen since this discussion started, are men of varying ages going into women’s bathrooms and trying to videotape women unawares. Now that’s a real problem. And I think we need to be very clear that women, girls, older women are vulnerable and are deserving of protection.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “This is bad boy talk, and of course that’s what [Hillary Clinton] wants everybody to talk about… If anybody understands bad boy talk, Hillary Clinton understands bad boy talk. She engages in a certain amount of it herself I think.”
On transgender protections: “We don’t want men going into women’s bathrooms, we don’t want predators going out where little girls are, we don’t want voyeurs having free access to the women’s locker rooms during games when they’re changing clothes.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ “A guy does something 11 years ago, it was a conversation in Hollywood where he’s trying to look like he’s macho. And 11 years after that they surface it from The Washington Post or whatever, bring it out within 30 days or so of the election and this is supposed to be the death blow and everybody writes him off… They think he’s dead, he’s come back. And he came back strong. So, he won that debate.”
Pat McCrory (R), North Carolina governor
On transgender protections: “Does the desire to be politically correct outweigh our children’s privacy and safety? Not on my watch.”
On transgender protections: “It is clear that the Obama administration is trying to force an ill-advised, eleventh-hour bathroom edict on Texas and all American schools that ignores both common sense and common decency. Obama’s bathroom policy, which applies to grades K-12, creates a problem where none existed. It will disrupt schools across Texas, creating potentially embarrassing and unsafe situations for girls who would be forced, under his order, to share bathrooms, locker rooms and showers with boys.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks:
hil Robertson, Duck Dynasty
On transgender protections: “Men should use the men’s bathroom and women should use the women’s bathroom. Just because a man may ‘feel’ like a woman doesn’t mean he should be able to share a bathroom with my daughter, or yours. That used to be called common sense. Now it’s called bigoted.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “I would say [evangelical leaders] need to lighten up, start going out and preaching the gospel to different people, including Donald Trump, and give him some time to think about spiritual matters, and work with him, and not condemn anybody.”
On transgender protections: “In other words, by turning a blind eye to the dearth of perversion within our communities — the sex traffickers, child molesters, adulterers and fornicators, racists, and so many other sin sick souls — and suggesting that allowing everyone to use the same public bathrooms will solve America’s problems, the current government administration, no matter how well intended or ill advised they are, is headed for disaster.”
On Trump’s 2005 remarks: “ While writing, saying and doing much, Mr. Trump is apologizing for his past sins. He’s walking away from supporting abortion, hurling insults and more. Now, America needs to follow suit and apologize for the scourge of legal abortion that has left millions of empty cradles, wombs barren, women’s health damaged, and families broken. As Americans, we all need to follow Mr. Trump’s lead and ask God for forgiveness for the sins of our nation, and yes, for ourselves.”
Today, on National Coming Out Day, we celebrate one of the most powerful forces in the fight for LGBT equality. When someone decides to come out as member of the LGBT community, it gives their friends, family, loved ones and neighbors a personal reason to support LGBT rights, and it inspires more members and allies of the LGBT community to stand up for what is right, even in the face of discrimination, bigotry and violence.
Despite the great strides we’ve made in recent years – marriage equality, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and more – the sad fact remains that coming out is still a risky, even dangerous thing to do for too many Americans, young and old. But that’s why it’s so important. Together, we can end the discrimination and build a brighter, safer future for all.
“The Democratic Party is proud to stand with the LGBT community, and proud to support candidates for elected office who are fighting for the promise of full equality. If we hope to continue building on the progress of the last eight years, we must elect Hillary Clinton and Democrats up and down the ballot across the country.”