>That's not what I'll be fighting for. I'll be fighting to protect women and immigrants and LGBT folks, not to mention Social Security and Medicare, which Paul Ryan and Tom Price and other Republicans can't wait to kill.
>
>I think that you are dreaming. Trump has already made the statement that he does not want to touch Social Security or Medicare. I believe that the programs need some reforming and I am going to be on Social Security in about a year.

Well, Paul Ryan says he wants to tackle them and the nominee for HHS is on record as being opposed to them. So we shall see.

>Fighting for women and LGBT folks is not going to be a fight. The danger to their rights from Trump is a figment of your imagination.

Again, based on who Trump has chosen for various cabinet positions and based on the GOP controlling both houses of Congress, I think you're wrong. Again, we shall see.

>As far as immigration goes, I am all for extreme vetting. I am not anxious to see attacks here like the ones they had in the Berlin Christmas market, Paris, Nice, Belgium, San Bernardino, etc. Perhaps you are anxious to let every Tom Dick and Harry into this country with no vetting so that we can have a few more terrorist attacks here. I would prefer to limit the loss of life.
>

Terrorism in the US is not a problem that's about immigrants per se. For example, as you agreed last week, Dylann Roof is a terrorist. Terrorism is a problem that's greatly about alienated young men getting radicalized, mostly by the Internet. We need to stop dividing terrorists up in Muslims who we call terrorists and troubled young men (which is what we usually call white men who commits acts of terror). Then we need to figure out how to fight their alienation and how to fight their radicalization. We're a lot more likely to find solutions when we start looking at the problem holistically.


>I'll also be fighting to see to it that when Trump violates the law (as things now stand, he'll be in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution the moment he's inaugurated), that he's held accountable.
>
>First you will have to prove that he is taking any salary or gaining monetarily from the businesses that his children are now controlling and which are accepting no new business. Good luck with that one.

Based on how blatant they are in their disregard for the rules, I don't think it'll be hard at all.

Tamar