Connect with us

Poll: Americans Angered By Mistreatment Of LGBT People, Not Same-Sex Marriage

Published

on

‘American Rage’ Survey Shows Consensus in Support of Gay Rights

Americans are angry about society’s mistreatment of LGBT people, and not about same-sex marriage, according to a widely publicized new poll from Esquire Magazine and NBC News that attempts to gauge anger in the US. 

According to the survey, titled “American Rage,” only 22 percent of respondents said they’d be very angry or somewhat angry about a hypothetical headline reading, “More Than 100,000 Couples Have Wed Since Supreme Court Ruling.” 

Meanwhile, 41 percent said they believe LGBT people have a right to be angry about how they’re treated, 45 percent said they’re angry themselves about how LGBT people are treated, and only 24 percent said they supported Kentucky clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

Those results led The Washington Post to call LGBT equality “the social-justice issue that garnered the most agreement” in the wide-ranging survey, beating out African-American, immigrants’ and women’s rights. 

Not surprisingly, support appeared more tepid for transgender rights, with 41 percent saying they’d be very angry or somewhat angry about a headline reading “Caitlyn Jenner’s Wedding of the Century!” — although that result could also reflect a general aversion to tabloid-style celebrity gossip journalism. 

2.jpgIn any case, the consensus in support for LGBT rights was one of the few bright spots in the survey, which showed that half of Americans are angrier than they were a year ago — and in many cases apparently for the wrong reasons. 

The poll found that whites and Republicans are the angriest groups in America. Seventy-three percent of whites get angry at least once a day, compared to 56 percent of blacks and 66 percent of Hispanics. And 77 percent of Republicans get angry at least once a day, compared to 67 percent of Democrats, according to the survey. 

But much of this rage among whites and Republicans appears to be unjustified and based on the false perception that they’re somehow being persecuted. 

1.jpg“From their views on the state of the American dream (dead) and America’s role in the world (not what it used to be) to how their life is working out for them (not quite what they’d had in mind), a plurality of whites tends to view life through a veil of disappointment,” Esquire writes. “When we cross-tabulate these feelings with reports of daily anger (which are higher among whites than nonwhites), we see the anger of perceived disenfranchisement — a sense that the majority has become a persecuted minority, the bitterness of a promise that didn’t pan out — rather than actual hardship.”

Although blacks undboutedly face more economic hardship and discrimination than whites, the survey found them to be far more upbeat about their financial situations and the general condition of the country. 

“Their optimism in the face of adversity suggests that hope, whatever its other virtues, remains a potent antidote to anger,” Esquire writes. 

Other disturbing findings from the survey include:  

• Sixty-three percent of respondents say they believe the “American Dream” — the idea that if you work hard enough, you’ll succeed — is either no longer true or never was a true. 

• Fifty-three percent of respondents say they’re worse off financially than they thought they’d be when they were younger, and whites are more likely than blacks to chalk up their current financial circumstances to things being “harder today” than “wrong choices.” 

• Three out of five whites think police killings are isolated incidents, while three out of four blacks believe they’re part of a pattern. 

• Whites are far more likely than blacks to say race relations have become worse since President Barack Obama was elected. “One possible explanation: Whites are down on race relations because of they way they believe they are treated, not because of the way blacks are treated,” Esquire writes.  

• Out of 11 hypothetical slogans for protest signs, the most popular among Republicans were “Taxed Enough Already,” “Make English America’s Official Language” and “Abortion Is Murder.” (The most popular among Democrats were “We Don’t Build Walls. We Tear Them Down,” “Taxed Enough Already” and “Don’t Tell Me How to Dress. Tell Them Not to Rape.”

The poll, which surveyed 3,257 adults in November, measured anger according to the frequency with which respondents reported hearing or reading something that made them angry. 

In response to the survey, MSNBC decided to ask Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters what makes them angry. Watch the report below. 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

GOP Senator Says Gaetz Investigation Report Can Be Subpoenaed After Johnson Tries to Block

Published

2 days ago

on

November 15, 2024

By

A Republican Senator is pushing back after House Speaker Mike Johnson announced his opposition to the Ethics Committee releasing the report on its years-long investigation into Matt Gaetz, who resigned abruptly from Congress Wednesday in what appears to be an attempt to block the report’s publication. Gaetz’s resignation came almost immediately after President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate the Florida Republican to become Attorney General, the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

Friday afternoon, Speaker Johnson repeatedly stressed his opposition to the release of the report, claiming releasing it to the public “doesn’t follow our rules and traditions,” and doing so “would open a pandora’s box.”

Johnson also told reporters, “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report because that is not the way we do things in the House, and I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”

READ MORE: Backlash as Trump Skips FBI Background Checks — One Nominee Called ‘Likely Russian Asset’

U.S. Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, Friday afternoon made clear the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominees, and is required to examine all evidence it can during the confirmation process. Rounds, who also has served as governor of The Mount Rushmore State, told CNN’s Manu Raju that if necessary they will subpoena the House Ethics Committee’s report on Gaetz.

“I think Senator [John] Cornyn, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, has indicated that very strongly that he believes that there may very well be a way to compel the release of that [report] through a subpoena. That committee and they do this all the time and it becomes very sensitive. We do have a process in place which includes the ability to get that type of information in many cases,” Rounds said. “And what we want to do is make good decisions based upon all the relevant facts and information that we can get.”

“We should be able to get a hold of it,” Rounds added, referring to the report.

Rounds said that after the Senate has done its due diligence on a candidate, “we decide whether or not we think that the benefit of the doubt goes to the president or if there should be a change in perhaps more advice than consent, which occasionally does happen.”

The House Ethics Committee had been investigating Gaetz for years over numerous allegations, including that he “may have engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift, in violation of House Rules, laws, or other standards of conduct.”

In June, the Committee announced it had encountered “difficulty in obtaining relevant information from Representative Gaetz and others,” but had already spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents in this matter.”

“Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review. During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review.”

It is widely believed the Committee also investigated allegations Gaetz may have engaged in sex trafficking of a minor and sex with a minor.

Gaetz had been under investigation by the U.S. Dept. of Justice but no charges were ever brought.

Democrats and others are also expressing anger over Speaker Johnson’s efforts to, as some have suggested, engage in a coverup.

“Unacceptable,” decried U.S Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA). “Matt Gaetz is under investigation for serious wrongdoing, including sex trafficking. Speaker Johnson joins the ranks of those willing to give him cover. The American people deserve to see this report.”

Minnesota Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison asked, “What about transparency? Let’s hear the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the results of the the Matt Gaetz ethics investigation. If he’s innocent, then fine. But let’s see it.”

RELATED: ‘There Were Witnesses’: Attorney for Minor Urges Release of Gaetz Ethics Report

The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro wrote, “House Speaker says it would be a ‘terrible precedent’ for the government to release a tax-payer funded report into the ethics of a future Attorney General.”

Podcaster Tommy Victor added, “Publicly demanding a cover up of a Republican-led ethics investigation into the Attorney General nominee doesn’t suggest much confidence that it will exonerate Gaetz.”

CNN’s Jim Sciutto compared Speaker Johnson’s remarks on blocking the release of the report with those he made in 2023 when he released thousands of hours of footage from the January 6, 2021 insurrection:

“Look we want the American people to draw their own conclusions. I don’t think partisan elected officials in Washington should present a narrative and expect that it should be seen as the ultimate truth on it when we know that they hid certain elements… We want transparency. We should demand it. The American people do. We trust – House Republicans trust the American people to draw their own conclusions.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Hegseth Vetting Questioned Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegation

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Backlash as Trump Skips FBI Background Checks — One Nominee Called ‘Likely Russian Asset’

Published

2 days ago

on

November 15, 2024

By

Ethics experts, legal experts, and current and former members of Congress are blasting Donald Trump and his transition team for skipping critical FBI background checks on at least some of the President-elect’s nominees to top posts in his upcoming administration, leading one member of Congress to warn she sees his top intelligence chief as a “likely” Russian asset.

“Skipping FBI background checks on nominees can be very dangerous,” warns former George W. Bush White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter. “This happened once in the Bush Administration (with Bernie Kerik) and after that fiasco, never again.”

Kerik, a protégé of Rudy Giuliani, had been nominated to become U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, but was forced to withdraw after an allegation of immigration law violation. He later pleaded guilty to eight felony charges, including tax fraud, and served time in prison.

The Trump transition team “is bypassing traditional FBI background checks for at least some of his Cabinet picks while using private companies to conduct vetting of potential candidates for administration jobs, people close to the transition planning say,” CNN reports. “Trump and his allies believe the FBI system is slow and plagued with issues that could stymie the president-elect’s plan to quickly begin the work of implementing his agenda, people briefed on the plans said.”

RELATED: ‘There Were Witnesses’: Attorney for Minor Urges Release of Gaetz Ethics Report

“US officials are still waiting for the Trump transition team to submit a list of names, including those under consideration for Cabinet-level roles, to be formally vetted for security clearances,” CNN added, citing an unnamed source. “Trump’s team has, to date, resisted participating in the formal transition process, which includes signing memorandums of understanding and secrecy agreements typically considered a prerequisite for accessing classified material before the new administration assumes office.”

CNN also detailed the controversies surrounding two of Trump’s top, Cabinet-level nominees.

The now-former U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz, who is Trump’s nominee to become Attorney General — the nation’s chief law enforcement official — “has been mired for years in Justice Department and House ethics investigations related to sex trafficking.,” CNN reported. “The Justice Department declined to charge Gaetz, and the House ethics probe, days away from being completed, was effectively ended when the Florida congressman resigned from his seat this week. Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.”

On Friday, Speaker Johnson publicly declared the House Ethics Committee should quash the report on its investigation into Gaetz, drawing backlash.

Democrat turned Republican Tulsi Gabbard, also a former member of Congress, “has frequently appeared to take positions more favorable to foreign leaders widely considered not just American adversaries but, in some cases, brutal dictators, including the presidents of Syria and Russia, raising questions from allies and critics alike,” CNN added. “Gabbard notably met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria in 2017, and said in 2019 that he was ‘not an enemy of the United States.'”

“In early 2022, she echoed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rationale for the country’s invasion of Ukraine, pinning the blame not on Moscow but on the Biden administration’s failure to acknowledge ‘Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO’ — a popular strain of thought in some right-wing circles.”

RELATED: Hegseth Vetting Questioned Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegation

On Friday, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) blasted the choice of Gabbard, nominated to become the nation’s top intelligence officer, the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI oversees every U.S. Intelligence Agency and has access to all intel, not only American but intelligence shared within the Five Eyes community: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

“Tulsi Gabbard is someone who has met with war criminals, violated the Department of State’s guidance, and secretly clandestinely went to Syria and met with Assad, who gassed and attacked his own people with chemical weapons,” the Florida Democratic Congresswoman told MSNBC (video below). “She’s considered to be essentially by most, by most assessments, a Russian asset.”

Asked if she considers hares that belief, Wasserman Schultz replied: “Oh, yes, there’s no question, I consider her someone who is likely a Russian asset, who would be as the DNI, responsible for managing our entire intelligence community, hold all of our most significant intelligence information and secrets, and essentially would be a direct line to our enemies.”

Legal experts and current and former members of Congress are blasting the Trump team’s decision to not do FBI background checks.

“Eliminating the traditional FBI background checks for those who would flunk them – MAGA DEI,” Republican former U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock observed,

“You don’t have to do this if you think your nominees can pass a background clearance. You only do it if you know they can’t,” remarked professor of law and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

“For decades, Presidential nominees have been subject to FBI background checks to ensure that those individuals do not have ties foreign governments or criminal groups. If Gaetz and Gabbard have nothing to hide, they should do the background checks,” noted U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI).

“This is unacceptable. We cannot have our cabinet secretaries overseeing our most sensitive information go without background checks,” added U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY). He said that Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin “should immediately request a background check for all nominees from the FBI while he is still Chair of the Judiciary Committee.”

Watch U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s remarks below or at this link.

RELATED: Trump’s Defense Nominee Admits He Was ‘Deemed an Extremist’ by the Military

 

Continue Reading

News

Hegseth Vetting Questioned Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegation

Published

2 days ago

on

November 15, 2024

By

A top Trump official and Trump’s attorneys reportedly met Thursday with the President-elect’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, Fox News weekend host Pete Hegseth, to discuss a 2017 police report indicating his involvement in a sexual assault allegation investigation.

“In a statement, a spokesperson for the city government of Monterey, California, said its police department had investigated ‘an alleged sexual assault’ involving Hegseth,” CNN reported Friday. “The alleged assault took place in the early morning hours of October 8, 2017, at the address of the Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel and Spa, and was reported four days later, according to the statement.”

“Hegseth was a speaker at a conference held by the California Federation of Republican Women at the hotel during the timeframe when the alleged assault took place, according to photos of the event posted on Facebook.”

That statement, which says the “full police report…is exempt from public disclosure,” also indicates the age and name of a “Victim” was listed as “Confidential.”

The police statement “did not specifically identify Hegseth as an alleged assailant,” CNN adds.

RELATED: Trump’s Defense Nominee Admits He Was ‘Deemed an Extremist’ by the Military

At Vanity Fair, Gabriel Sherman reported Trump’s transition team had “scrambled Thursday after Trump’s incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles was presented with an allegation that former Fox & Friends cohost Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee to be Defense Secretary, had engaged in sexual misconduct. According to two sources, Wiles was briefed Wednesday night about an allegation that Hegseth had acted inappropriately with a woman.”

“According to the transition source, the allegation is serious enough that Wiles and Trump’s lawyers spoke to Hegseth about it on Thursday. A source with knowledge of the meeting said that Hegseth said the allegation stemmed from a consensual encounter and characterized the episode as he-said, she-said.”

Vanity Fair also reports that “one high-level MAGA member familiar with the allegation said Hegseth wasn’t properly scrutinized before Trump made the controversial pick. ‘He wasn’t vetted,’ the source said. But the senior transition source disputed this. ‘Hegseth was vetted, but this alleged incident didn’t come up.'”

Vanity Fair notes that Hegseth “has a history of making incendiary statements,” and “once called liberals ‘domestic enemies’ who want ‘trans-lesbian black females [to] run everything!’ In 2018, when he was a potential appointee to run the Department of Veterans Affairs, it was reported that he began an affair, and had a child with a Fox producer while still married to his second wife. He later married the producer.”

MSNBC and NBC News political analyst Elise Jordan posted a timeline of the “Hegseth sex assault allegation”:

Democratic strategist Matt McDermott, commenting on the Vanity Fair report, wrote: “In case there was any doubt about the lack of vetting the Trump transition is giving to cabinet nominations, it appears Trump nominated Pete Hegseth without knowing he’s facing credible sexual misconduct allegations.”

Paul Rieckhoff, founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America, on Wednesday (video below) told MSNBC that Hegseth’s nomination is a “reflection of” his “loyalty to Trump, more than anything else.”

“Hegseth is a very effective culture warrior,” Rieckhoff said, “he’s very good at communications and at the religious war, and at the political war, but he is the most unqualified candidate for this position in the history of America.”

READ MORE: ‘There Were Witnesses’: Attorney for Minor Urges Release of Gaetz Ethics Report

Justin Higgins is a former policy adviser for a House Tea Party Republican. He later “became a senior research analyst for the Republican National Committee (RNC) and created content associated with Donald Trump’s presidential bid that year,” Newsweek reported.

Earlier this week Higgins wrote: “While at the RNC in 2016, I vetted Hegseth for an under secretary role at the Pentagon, and he wasn’t qualified for that much more subordinate role then. No amount of conservative spin will make this guy a qualified choice for Secretary of Defense.”

Potential Cabinet nominees are generally thoroughly vetted, interviewed, and asked if there’s anything in their history that would cause concern.

The century-old international law firm Covington & Burling LLP, which says it “has advised numerous nominees to cabinet, sub-cabinet, independent agency, and ambassadorial positions in Democratic and Republican administrations,” published a primer on the vetting process for potential presidential nominees.

“The first Trump administration took a more flexible approach than prior administrations to vetting nominees, particularly in terms of the threshold for abandoning a nomination based on issues detected during the vetting process,” according to the Covington advisory. “President Trump may take a similar approach in his second administration, although navigating which issues are most likely disqualifying will involve nuanced judgements.”

“Particularly for appointees to the most senior positions, the vetting teams will draw on the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’), the Office of Government Ethics (‘OGE’), and agency ethics offices to complete their review.”

Also on Friday, CNN reported separately that “President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is bypassing traditional FBI background checks for at least some of his Cabinet picks while using private companies to conduct vetting of potential candidates for administration jobs, people close to the transition planning say.”

Retired U.S. Naval War College professor Tom Nichols, an expert on international affairs, national security, Russia, and nuclear weapons, on Friday, while not pointing to any particular nominee, wrote: “If you don’t want the FBI to do vetting on your appointees, it’s because you know you have serious problems – including national security threats – among your appointees. It’s that simple.”

Watch the MSNBC video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Another Ethics Conflict’: Musk Directs Candidates to Apply to DOGE via His X Platform

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.