Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 372651 times)

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2250 on: June 25, 2018, 08:06:15 PM »
What's next? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams? Good lord!!!

LOL. Open mouth horse laughed at this one.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2251 on: June 25, 2018, 11:10:08 PM »
I wonder if Clinton ever watched this? The next candidate better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbQtCtxAXM

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2252 on: June 25, 2018, 11:45:37 PM »
There is one outcome that I do hope for out of all of this - that folks see 'this guy' is just a guy, as clueless as you and me (but, maybe, a little less aware and humble about it).  He has his strengths (apparently) and he has his weaknesses (a.k.a. shortcomings).  Hopefully the electorate can take a step back from the emotional maelstrom and keep this country as great as it had been.  We are not perfect, but we are also not so easily duped in 4 years as to fall for what might turn out to be an internet scam, in hindsight.  At the same time, Rome was an unprecedented success and they fell apart.  Ultimately, I'm not going to rule out history repeating.

As an aside, in my little 'oil and gas' world, I have seen breathtaking transformation.  It's not the headline grabbing, tweet-distracting business, but America is basically handing off pristine waterways, national lands, and keep dirty coal going

It's all ultimately insane, but it is also currently what 'the government' tells us we want, and people still believe it.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3645
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2253 on: June 26, 2018, 04:30:31 AM »
Trump is a traitor to the US.   He gave away US secrets to the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office.   He talked to Putin on the phone and then did Putin's bidding over joint exercises with South Korea.

Now he's going to talk to Putin before going to the NATO summit.  Wonder what he'll give away this time?

The only immediate remedy is for Congress to pass a law requiring all phone and in person discussions between Trump and Russians to be in the presence of at least two other Americans and for the text of everything said to be recorded in the Presidential papers.

Again, you have a traitor in the White House.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2254 on: June 26, 2018, 05:59:05 AM »
Trump is a traitor to the US.   He gave away US secrets to the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office.   He talked to Putin on the phone and then did Putin's bidding over joint exercises with South Korea.

Now he's going to talk to Putin before going to the NATO summit.  Wonder what he'll give away this time?

The only immediate remedy is for Congress to pass a law requiring all phone and in person discussions between Trump and Russians to be in the presence of at least two other Americans and for the text of everything said to be recorded in the Presidential papers.

Again, you have a traitor in the White House.

Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2255 on: June 26, 2018, 07:00:46 AM »
Fun read. It is a great reason why this huge wave of Migrants did come right before the Mid-terms. Blame the President for not allowing them all in unchecked but I personally think that the people that encouraged them, and funded them did so in utter malice. If Soros can afford Millions to get them to the border, he could have afforded to get them legal counsel at a US embassy abroad. THIS is why I say that these Liberal groups are the ones exploiting the families.

https://joeforamerica.com/2018/04/whos-really-behind-the-illegal-immigrants-the-migrant-caravan-and-pueblo-sin-fronteras/

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!

 According to research done by Glenn Beck and his team, the paper trail from Pueblo Sin Fronteras leads back to a group called CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project. CARA encompass two legal groups, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. and the American Immigration Council. Guess who’s funding them? … none other than radical leftist billionaire: George Soros.

 WHAT IS CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project?

 According to CARA’s website it is a volunteer-built and volunteer-managed site. The site was built to make it easy for the volunteer community to get involved with the CARA Pro Bono Project.

 The volunteers of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, are collectively known as CARA. They joined forces in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) significant expansion of its family detention capacity.

 In addition to the organizations listed on CARA’s website is the reason for their existence:

“The opening of the “South Texas Family Residential Center” in Dilley, Texas – with an initial capacity of 480 beds and the potential to hold 2,400 individuals – and the detention of families at the “Karnes Residential Center” in Karnes City – with a current capacity of 532 beds and plans to double the number – reflect the Obama Administration’s continuing commitment to the flawed deterrence policy it began in June 2014 with the opening of a temporary family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.”

Isn’t that nice? They reflected “the Obama Administration’s continuing commitment to flawed policy”.

Now, let’s move on.

 How are CARA, Dilley, Texas and George Soros connected? That would be through Alex Mensing, a so called “on-the-ground coordinator for CARA Pro Bono Family Detention.

 ALEX MENSING, Pueblo Sin Fronteras AND THE SOROS CONNECTION

 So one of the Pueblo Sin Fronteras (people without borders) group’s main organizers and loud mouths seems to be a young, white American named Alex Mensing. Mensing works for immigration justice, writes and does ‘odd jobs’ like work for CARA Pro Bono Family Detention Project. That’s right!

 According to Alex Mensing’s LinkedIn profile, he works to support Immigration Justice. He lists the CARA Pro Bono Family Detention Project, and ‘on-the-ground coordinator’ as part of his “odd jobs”. He also lists that he’s based in Dilley, Texas.

 So Alex Mensing works for CARA in Dilley, Texas and is an on-the ground coordinator in Mexico for the Pueblo Sin Fronteras and the immigration caravan? What’s up with that?

 According to the NY Times, Alex Mensing, is a “project coordinator for Pueblo Sin Fronteras”.

So, the funny thing about connections and money trails they usually lead you to the source, especially a wealthy source like globalist George Soros.

 George Soros is an known atheist. He has been for many years. So why would Soros be supporting a Catholic organization? He doesn’t support religion or Catholics. He does however, support the cause or the movement of open borders and illegal immigration. Soros is about destruction. His purpose is to create chaos just like with #BlackLivesMatter.

 George Soros’ Open Society has written checks to support CARA since 2009 according to the tax forms found by Glenn Beck and his team.



 Soros has given over half a million to support illegal immigration in the past. However, since the immigration debate heated up in 2015, Soros has stepped up his game. In 2015, Soros through ‘Open Society’ gave the Catholic Legal Immigration Network $970,000 and over that same year, the American Immigration Council $350,000.

 Suddenlty you can see the connection from the money trail. Soros donates millions to Catholic Legal Immigration Network and the American Immigration Council, both organizations are part of CARA. Alex Mensing works for CARA in Texas, and coincidently does ‘odd jobs’ like being an ‘on-the-ground’ coordinator for Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the group who supports the illegal immigration caravan.

 Doesn’t get any clearer does it?

 A globalist Soros supporting amnesty and illegals for one thing only – to destroy America.

 Soros has a clear incentive for groups like Pueblo Sin Fronteras flooding into the United States. He has been pushing for more open immigration laws around the world, resulting in Soros being condemned by other countries as well, such as Israel, Italy, and Hungary to name a few.
 #BUILDTHEWALL

Yeah, fun read of you love non-facts. Or are they alternative facts? Took me all of 30 seconds to find a blatant lie:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-bring-down-us/

What's next? Jet fuel can't melt steel beams? Good lord!!!


Your quote does effectively show that he never in fact made the quote listed in the article. The liberal "Intent" is important, I know. even Kate Steinle's murderer was found not guilty even after his confession because nobody could prove intent. And of course the FBI held an impromptu court of Law and dropped all charges on Clinton because they could not prove that she intended to break any laws. I get that. I get furious of all the texting / driving deaths around the world but they are non-issues for most because although these people are killing all over the nation, they simply didn't intend to so they should not be held accountable for what they do.

I find it equally laughable that your Snopes reference, in your mind, actually negates that he is in fact funding the migrant waves past actual US Embassies where the Asylum should be sought. Most of the article I posted must be factual if your smoking gun to prove it isn't is not even related to the article, minus one mention of intent.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-bring-down-us/

Although this image indicated that the business magnate and political activist made this comment during the course of an interview with the Germany newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The putative statement from Soros about his funding “Black Hate groups” does not appear in the newspaper’s archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication.

The first iteration of this quote we could uncover appeared on the Tumblr page “Overpasses for America” in an article published on 19 August 2016, nearly two years after Soros allegedly issued these inflammatory remarks.



partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2357
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2256 on: June 26, 2018, 07:07:01 AM »
It has been shown time and time again, beating the patriotism drum, stoking fear, supressing free press and demonizing other groups works really well, but I hope you are not right. 

For those who support Trump, don't they find it troubling that someone who is NOT our ally (Russia) used considerable resources to undermine one candidate (Clinton) and worked hard to put Trump into office? When Russia operatives interfered in other elections was to destabilize democracies and pit allied countries against each other. Just the fact that Russia wants Trump in office indicates that he is a BAD CHOICE for the US. I don't see how that is not glaringly obvious.   You don't have to look under rocks and create conspiracy theories. You can read the CIA report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 07:09:16 AM by partgypsy »

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2257 on: June 26, 2018, 07:13:04 AM »
It has been shown time and time again, beating the patriotism drum, stoking fear, supressing free press and demonizing other groups works really well, but I hope you are not right. 

For those who support Trump, don't they find it troubling that someone who is NOT our ally (Russia) used considerable resources to undermine one candidate (Clinton) and worked hard to put Trump into office? When Russia operatives interfered in other elections was to destabilize democracies and pit allied countries against each other. Just the fact that Russia wants Trump in office indicates that he is a BAD CHOICE for the US. I don't see how that is not glaringly obvious.   You don't have to look under rocks and create conspiracy theories. You can read the CIA report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

At the close of the Russian investigation I will see the outcome of the Collusion and make my determination. I think both sides played dirty during the election. I bring up the Russian Intelligence Dossier that Clinton funded because that is already known. The outcome of Trump's collusion has not been released but I am sure it will prove some amount of unfair play. Both sides likely played dirty and yes, that is troubling. I completely agree that Russia, North Korea and Iran are 3 very dangerous global threats that should be handled as ethically as possible and not used for leverage of this unprofessional nature.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2258 on: June 26, 2018, 07:28:14 AM »

I find it equally laughable that your Snopes reference, in your mind, actually negates that he is in fact funding the migrant waves past actual US Embassies where the Asylum should be sought. Most of the article I posted must be factual if your smoking gun to prove it isn't is not even related to the article, minus one mention of intent.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-bring-down-us/

Although this image indicated that the business magnate and political activist made this comment during the course of an interview with the Germany newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The putative statement from Soros about his funding “Black Hate groups” does not appear in the newspaper’s archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication.

The first iteration of this quote we could uncover appeared on the Tumblr page “Overpasses for America” in an article published on 19 August 2016, nearly two years after Soros allegedly issued these inflammatory remarks.

So what you're saying is - If someone proves that one part of an article you posted is a straight up lie, Then the rest of the article must be accurate? Does this feel like sound logic to you?

And seriously, learn how to quote articles. At the very least use some quotation marks.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2259 on: June 26, 2018, 07:37:26 AM »
It has been shown time and time again, beating the patriotism drum, stoking fear, supressing free press and demonizing other groups works really well, but I hope you are not right. 

For those who support Trump, don't they find it troubling that someone who is NOT our ally (Russia) used considerable resources to undermine one candidate (Clinton) and worked hard to put Trump into office? When Russia operatives interfered in other elections was to destabilize democracies and pit allied countries against each other. Just the fact that Russia wants Trump in office indicates that he is a BAD CHOICE for the US. I don't see how that is not glaringly obvious.   You don't have to look under rocks and create conspiracy theories. You can read the CIA report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

At the close of the Russian investigation I will see the outcome of the Collusion and make my determination. I think both sides played dirty during the election. I bring up the Russian Intelligence Dossier that Clinton funded because that is already known. The outcome of Trump's collusion has not been released but I am sure it will prove some amount of unfair play. Both sides likely played dirty and yes, that is troubling. I completely agree that Russia, North Korea and Iran are 3 very dangerous global threats that should be handled as ethically as possible and not used for leverage of this unprofessional nature.

You've read right past the point being made here and filled in what you didn't read with your assumptions about "collusion" . The point is that it doesn't even matter if Trump did anything wrong or not.

Russia supported Trump. Russia does not want what's best for the US.

How does that make you feel?

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2260 on: June 26, 2018, 07:47:49 AM »
It has been shown time and time again, beating the patriotism drum, stoking fear, supressing free press and demonizing other groups works really well, but I hope you are not right. 

For those who support Trump, don't they find it troubling that someone who is NOT our ally (Russia) used considerable resources to undermine one candidate (Clinton) and worked hard to put Trump into office? When Russia operatives interfered in other elections was to destabilize democracies and pit allied countries against each other. Just the fact that Russia wants Trump in office indicates that he is a BAD CHOICE for the US. I don't see how that is not glaringly obvious.   You don't have to look under rocks and create conspiracy theories. You can read the CIA report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

At the close of the Russian investigation I will see the outcome of the Collusion and make my determination. I think both sides played dirty during the election. I bring up the Russian Intelligence Dossier that Clinton funded because that is already known. The outcome of Trump's collusion has not been released but I am sure it will prove some amount of unfair play. Both sides likely played dirty and yes, that is troubling. I completely agree that Russia, North Korea and Iran are 3 very dangerous global threats that should be handled as ethically as possible and not used for leverage of this unprofessional nature.

You've read right past the point being made here and filled in what you didn't read with your assumptions about "collusion" . The point is that it doesn't even matter if Trump did anything wrong or not.

Russia supported Trump. Russia does not want what's best for the US.

How does that make you feel?


Well, it makes me feel that it doesn't even matter if Trump did anything wrong or not. LMAO. We should all hate him regardless. NEVER TRUMP ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHH

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2261 on: June 26, 2018, 08:18:18 AM »
It has been shown time and time again, beating the patriotism drum, stoking fear, supressing free press and demonizing other groups works really well, but I hope you are not right. 

For those who support Trump, don't they find it troubling that someone who is NOT our ally (Russia) used considerable resources to undermine one candidate (Clinton) and worked hard to put Trump into office? When Russia operatives interfered in other elections was to destabilize democracies and pit allied countries against each other. Just the fact that Russia wants Trump in office indicates that he is a BAD CHOICE for the US. I don't see how that is not glaringly obvious.   You don't have to look under rocks and create conspiracy theories. You can read the CIA report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

At the close of the Russian investigation I will see the outcome of the Collusion and make my determination. I think both sides played dirty during the election. I bring up the Russian Intelligence Dossier that Clinton funded because that is already known. The outcome of Trump's collusion has not been released but I am sure it will prove some amount of unfair play. Both sides likely played dirty and yes, that is troubling. I completely agree that Russia, North Korea and Iran are 3 very dangerous global threats that should be handled as ethically as possible and not used for leverage of this unprofessional nature.

You've read right past the point being made here and filled in what you didn't read with your assumptions about "collusion" . The point is that it doesn't even matter if Trump did anything wrong or not.

Russia supported Trump. Russia does not want what's best for the US.

How does that make you feel?


Well, it makes me feel that it doesn't even matter if Trump did anything wrong or not. LMAO. We should all hate him regardless. NEVER TRUMP ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHH

Typically the best way to logically debate a situation like this is to take one aspect at a time and try to reason through it. For example, when someone presents evidence that one fact from an article is false, they're focusing on the one fact. You can't possibly make one argument to refute every piece of evidence simultaneously and the counterclaim that everything else in the article must be true because it was not 100% refuted, well it just doesn't work that way.

In this example the one thing we want to focus on isn't what Trump did wrong in relation to Russia, it's what Russia's motivation was in supporting him as a candidate. That in no way suggests that he did nothing wrong.

You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the conclusion that most people who don't hold prior bias in favor of Trump would come to is that Russia expected Trump to have a destabilizing effect on US democracy.

If that still doesn't make sense to you, let's try a hypothetical. If you were playing a game of pickup football and your team got to decide who would play quarterback for the other team, would you pick the shortest, roundest guy on their team or the tallest, most athletic looking. In this scenario, I'm not picking on the short round guy and I'm certainly not suggesting that he was in on a plan to sabotage his own team, but I am suggesting that your team doesn't want the most qualified quarterback throwing the ball for your opponent.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2357
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2262 on: June 26, 2018, 08:38:04 AM »
If you think it is only liberals who feel Trump is unqualified to hold the office of president and commander in chief, national security experts, diplomats and past presidents on both sides of the aisle have stated their severe reservations about Trump. It's not a Republican/Democrat issue. It's a bipartisan national security issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html

Top retired diplomats felt the same way about Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/75-retired-senior-diplomats-sign-letter-opposing-trump-for-president/2016/09/21/5c5dff10-8046-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5cf442fe3b59
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 10:02:29 AM by partgypsy »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2263 on: June 26, 2018, 08:40:37 AM »

I find it equally laughable that your Snopes reference, in your mind, actually negates that he is in fact funding the migrant waves past actual US Embassies where the Asylum should be sought. Most of the article I posted must be factual if your smoking gun to prove it isn't is not even related to the article, minus one mention of intent.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-bring-down-us/

Although this image indicated that the business magnate and political activist made this comment during the course of an interview with the Germany newspaper Bild in September 2014, we found no evidence that any such interview took place. The putative statement from Soros about his funding “Black Hate groups” does not appear in the newspaper’s archives for September 2014 (or any other month), nor did we find reference to it in any other credible publication.

The first iteration of this quote we could uncover appeared on the Tumblr page “Overpasses for America” in an article published on 19 August 2016, nearly two years after Soros allegedly issued these inflammatory remarks.

So what you're saying is - If someone proves that one part of an article you posted is a straight up lie, Then the rest of the article must be accurate? Does this feel like sound logic to you?

And seriously, learn how to quote articles. At the very least use some quotation marks.

It's only logical if you have an obvious agenda, which of course ematicic does. It's an easy one. Start with a conclusion, then try to fit the "facts" around the conclusion. Whatever doesn't fit, gets hand waved away. Same logic AGW deniers employ. 

Nicholas Carter

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2264 on: June 26, 2018, 09:03:29 AM »
Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.
I think what it all comes down to is: In 2020, will Trump's actions now have hurt the economy? Because if the economy takes a hard nose down at some point in 2019 and stays down, then Trump will probably not get re-elected. The move that broke the Democratic coalition last election was working glass citizens of Michigan and Wisconsin who thought that Clinton was blind to the economic implications that her policies had for their states.
So, if Trump loses his trade war, and workforce participation keeps sliding, he'll have an uphill battle to keep the Great Lakes region red. If this is the case, he might actually do better if the Democrats win this fall than lose.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2265 on: June 26, 2018, 09:26:43 AM »
Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.
I think what it all comes down to is: In 2020, will Trump's actions now have hurt the economy? Because if the economy takes a hard nose down at some point in 2019 and stays down, then Trump will probably not get re-elected. The move that broke the Democratic coalition last election was working glass citizens of Michigan and Wisconsin who thought that Clinton was blind to the economic implications that her policies had for their states.
So, if Trump loses his trade war, and workforce participation keeps sliding, he'll have an uphill battle to keep the Great Lakes region red. If this is the case, he might actually do better if the Democrats win this fall than lose.

Maybe. Frankly, in the era of fake news, I've sort of lost hope that white working class people who would be most affected by a hard nosedive in the economy would ever connect the dots back to him. To clarify my statement: I think it's likely Trump will win in 2020 because a failure of the Democratic party and its leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are all but campaigning for him at this point. Remember, Hitler did not get elected in 1939. He got elected in 1933. His monstrosity developed over time, and people were conditioned over the years to accept the incremental changes that kept coming. We are a bit over one year in to Trump's first term. Look how much has changed. And the leading Democrats are arguing politeness should be the response. Civility, to someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who boldly, blatantly lies to the American people on behalf of this administration every. Single. Day. So, I guess we are to take from this that the Democratic Party thinks being civil is the most important thing here. And a fair number of very nice, left-leaning people agree with them.

Politeness. Because God forbid Sarah Huckabee Sanders should have her meal disturbed.

Also, let’s not ignore that the dishonest right is also criticizing the left for not being “civil” to atrocious humans like Sanders. So, once again, the GOP has taken control of the message, using the “civility” language that Democrats so fetishize against us. And Schumer/Pelosi are braying right along with them. Tossing Maxine Waters very "politely" under the bus in the process for telling people to fight back against the ugliness and atrocity of this administration.

And let’s not even talk about the complicity of the mainstream media.

Politeness will get us a second Trump term.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2266 on: June 26, 2018, 09:54:25 AM »
Should we have Mendehlsohn do some research on ematicic?  It's hard for people to remember we all got here from immigrants.  Might have been a long time ago, and it was likely given the new standard they want to apply that they would not even have been here because their ancestors would have likely not gotten in either.  I found some of what she found interesting given my immigrant background and knowing how hard it was for my family to get here and also the massive contributions they have made to the country.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/immigration-resistance-genealogy-jennifer-mendelsohn-trnd/index.html

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2267 on: June 26, 2018, 10:11:51 AM »
Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.
I think what it all comes down to is: In 2020, will Trump's actions now have hurt the economy? Because if the economy takes a hard nose down at some point in 2019 and stays down, then Trump will probably not get re-elected. The move that broke the Democratic coalition last election was working glass citizens of Michigan and Wisconsin who thought that Clinton was blind to the economic implications that her policies had for their states.
So, if Trump loses his trade war, and workforce participation keeps sliding, he'll have an uphill battle to keep the Great Lakes region red. If this is the case, he might actually do better if the Democrats win this fall than lose.

Maybe. Frankly, in the era of fake news, I've sort of lost hope that white working class people who would be most affected by a hard nosedive in the economy would ever connect the dots back to him. To clarify my statement: I think it's likely Trump will win in 2020 because a failure of the Democratic party and its leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are all but campaigning for him at this point. Remember, Hitler did not get elected in 1939. He got elected in 1933. His monstrosity developed over time, and people were conditioned over the years to accept the incremental changes that kept coming. We are a bit over one year in to Trump's first term. Look how much has changed. And the leading Democrats are arguing politeness should be the response. Civility, to someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who boldly, blatantly lies to the American people on behalf of this administration every. Single. Day. So, I guess we are to take from this that the Democratic Party thinks being civil is the most important thing here. And a fair number of very nice, left-leaning people agree with them.

Politeness. Because God forbid Sarah Huckabee Sanders should have her meal disturbed.

Also, let’s not ignore that the dishonest right is also criticizing the left for not being “civil” to atrocious humans like Sanders. So, once again, the GOP has taken control of the message, using the “civility” language that Democrats so fetishize against us. And Schumer/Pelosi are braying right along with them. Tossing Maxine Waters very "politely" under the bus in the process for telling people to fight back against the ugliness and atrocity of this administration.

And let’s not even talk about the complicity of the mainstream media.

Politeness will get us a second Trump term.

So I am assuming you're backing the restaurant who refused service to Sanders?

While I agree that she's getting no more than she deserves, what is the endgame to actions like this from a political standpoint? I've only discussed the issue with 2 people so far, baby boomers. They're both firmly anti trump conservatives yet they thought the actions of the restaurant were wrong. The only feeling I got from the exchange was increased disdain for democrats. certainly not enough to give their vote to Trump but maybe enough incidents like this would push them to third party out of disgust.

So my analysis of the situation (with very little data) is that public displays like this could potentially serve to lose votes for democrats but I don't see how they could possibly gain more votes. Anyone who praises the restaurant owner is already decided.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2268 on: June 26, 2018, 10:17:14 AM »

Politeness will get us a second Trump term.

I'm not convinced of that. Watching libtard snowflakes lose their minds is like catnip to a large number of his supporters and those adolescent skirmishes really turn off the moderates of both parties. Trump will win a battle of incivility.

I think there is a huge opportunity for a civil, competent moderate with actual character to pull together the disaffected conservatives, sensible libertarians, and unenthusiastic liberals (like me). I worry that Democrats will cater too much to their far left fringe and underestimate both how off-putting that extreme can be and how difficult it is to maintain a winning coalition on that end of the spectrum. The "herding cats" metaphor is apt.



 


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4988
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2269 on: June 26, 2018, 10:20:06 AM »
Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.
I think what it all comes down to is: In 2020, will Trump's actions now have hurt the economy? Because if the economy takes a hard nose down at some point in 2019 and stays down, then Trump will probably not get re-elected. The move that broke the Democratic coalition last election was working glass citizens of Michigan and Wisconsin who thought that Clinton was blind to the economic implications that her policies had for their states.
So, if Trump loses his trade war, and workforce participation keeps sliding, he'll have an uphill battle to keep the Great Lakes region red. If this is the case, he might actually do better if the Democrats win this fall than lose.

Maybe. Frankly, in the era of fake news, I've sort of lost hope that white working class people who would be most affected by a hard nosedive in the economy would ever connect the dots back to him. To clarify my statement: I think it's likely Trump will win in 2020 because a failure of the Democratic party and its leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are all but campaigning for him at this point. Remember, Hitler did not get elected in 1939. He got elected in 1933. His monstrosity developed over time, and people were conditioned over the years to accept the incremental changes that kept coming. We are a bit over one year in to Trump's first term. Look how much has changed. And the leading Democrats are arguing politeness should be the response. Civility, to someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who boldly, blatantly lies to the American people on behalf of this administration every. Single. Day. So, I guess we are to take from this that the Democratic Party thinks being civil is the most important thing here. And a fair number of very nice, left-leaning people agree with them.

Politeness. Because God forbid Sarah Huckabee Sanders should have her meal disturbed.

Also, let’s not ignore that the dishonest right is also criticizing the left for not being “civil” to atrocious humans like Sanders. So, once again, the GOP has taken control of the message, using the “civility” language that Democrats so fetishize against us. And Schumer/Pelosi are braying right along with them. Tossing Maxine Waters very "politely" under the bus in the process for telling people to fight back against the ugliness and atrocity of this administration.

And let’s not even talk about the complicity of the mainstream media.

Politeness will get us a second Trump term.

So I am assuming you're backing the restaurant who refused service to Sanders?

While I agree that she's getting no more than she deserves, what is the endgame to actions like this from a political standpoint? I've only discussed the issue with 2 people so far, baby boomers. They're both firmly anti trump conservatives yet they thought the actions of the restaurant were wrong. The only feeling I got from the exchange was increased disdain for democrats. certainly not enough to give their vote to Trump but maybe enough incidents like this would push them to third party out of disgust.

So my analysis of the situation (with very little data) is that public displays like this could potentially serve to lose votes for democrats but I don't see how they could possibly gain more votes. Anyone who praises the restaurant owner is already decided.

Would push them to a third party from where exactly?  I'd find it difficult to believe that a Republican would've voted for Clinton until the behavior of a restaurant pushed them over the line (seems a rather trivial incident to make one cross party lines), though apparently the same number of republicans voted for Clinton as democrats voted for Trump (8% - source).

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2270 on: June 26, 2018, 10:41:10 AM »
Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.
I think what it all comes down to is: In 2020, will Trump's actions now have hurt the economy? Because if the economy takes a hard nose down at some point in 2019 and stays down, then Trump will probably not get re-elected. The move that broke the Democratic coalition last election was working glass citizens of Michigan and Wisconsin who thought that Clinton was blind to the economic implications that her policies had for their states.
So, if Trump loses his trade war, and workforce participation keeps sliding, he'll have an uphill battle to keep the Great Lakes region red. If this is the case, he might actually do better if the Democrats win this fall than lose.

Maybe. Frankly, in the era of fake news, I've sort of lost hope that white working class people who would be most affected by a hard nosedive in the economy would ever connect the dots back to him. To clarify my statement: I think it's likely Trump will win in 2020 because a failure of the Democratic party and its leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are all but campaigning for him at this point. Remember, Hitler did not get elected in 1939. He got elected in 1933. His monstrosity developed over time, and people were conditioned over the years to accept the incremental changes that kept coming. We are a bit over one year in to Trump's first term. Look how much has changed. And the leading Democrats are arguing politeness should be the response. Civility, to someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who boldly, blatantly lies to the American people on behalf of this administration every. Single. Day. So, I guess we are to take from this that the Democratic Party thinks being civil is the most important thing here. And a fair number of very nice, left-leaning people agree with them.

Politeness. Because God forbid Sarah Huckabee Sanders should have her meal disturbed.

Also, let’s not ignore that the dishonest right is also criticizing the left for not being “civil” to atrocious humans like Sanders. So, once again, the GOP has taken control of the message, using the “civility” language that Democrats so fetishize against us. And Schumer/Pelosi are braying right along with them. Tossing Maxine Waters very "politely" under the bus in the process for telling people to fight back against the ugliness and atrocity of this administration.

And let’s not even talk about the complicity of the mainstream media.

Politeness will get us a second Trump term.

So I am assuming you're backing the restaurant who refused service to Sanders?

While I agree that she's getting no more than she deserves, what is the endgame to actions like this from a political standpoint? I've only discussed the issue with 2 people so far, baby boomers. They're both firmly anti trump conservatives yet they thought the actions of the restaurant were wrong. The only feeling I got from the exchange was increased disdain for democrats. certainly not enough to give their vote to Trump but maybe enough incidents like this would push them to third party out of disgust.

So my analysis of the situation (with very little data) is that public displays like this could potentially serve to lose votes for democrats but I don't see how they could possibly gain more votes. Anyone who praises the restaurant owner is already decided.

The end game is people actually calling out horrible behavior as horrible behavior.

The restaurant owner told Sanders why she was asking her to leave. She also gave her her damn meal, for free.

Expecting decorum in the face of atrocity is insanity.

This civility imperative is nothing but a way to silence people and maintain status quo. Chuck and especially Nancy would rather turn their support to a fascist than to face the fact that being polite is, has always been, a mechanism for oppression.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2271 on: June 26, 2018, 10:44:49 AM »
Yes.

And his approval ratings have never been higher. And the GOP looks the other way. And the Democrats are helpless and worthless to stop him.

I predict Trump gets reelected in 2020. I’m calling it now.
I think what it all comes down to is: In 2020, will Trump's actions now have hurt the economy? Because if the economy takes a hard nose down at some point in 2019 and stays down, then Trump will probably not get re-elected. The move that broke the Democratic coalition last election was working glass citizens of Michigan and Wisconsin who thought that Clinton was blind to the economic implications that her policies had for their states.
So, if Trump loses his trade war, and workforce participation keeps sliding, he'll have an uphill battle to keep the Great Lakes region red. If this is the case, he might actually do better if the Democrats win this fall than lose.

Maybe. Frankly, in the era of fake news, I've sort of lost hope that white working class people who would be most affected by a hard nosedive in the economy would ever connect the dots back to him. To clarify my statement: I think it's likely Trump will win in 2020 because a failure of the Democratic party and its leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are all but campaigning for him at this point. Remember, Hitler did not get elected in 1939. He got elected in 1933. His monstrosity developed over time, and people were conditioned over the years to accept the incremental changes that kept coming. We are a bit over one year in to Trump's first term. Look how much has changed. And the leading Democrats are arguing politeness should be the response. Civility, to someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who boldly, blatantly lies to the American people on behalf of this administration every. Single. Day. So, I guess we are to take from this that the Democratic Party thinks being civil is the most important thing here. And a fair number of very nice, left-leaning people agree with them.

Politeness. Because God forbid Sarah Huckabee Sanders should have her meal disturbed.

Also, let’s not ignore that the dishonest right is also criticizing the left for not being “civil” to atrocious humans like Sanders. So, once again, the GOP has taken control of the message, using the “civility” language that Democrats so fetishize against us. And Schumer/Pelosi are braying right along with them. Tossing Maxine Waters very "politely" under the bus in the process for telling people to fight back against the ugliness and atrocity of this administration.

And let’s not even talk about the complicity of the mainstream media.

Politeness will get us a second Trump term.

So I am assuming you're backing the restaurant who refused service to Sanders?

While I agree that she's getting no more than she deserves, what is the endgame to actions like this from a political standpoint? I've only discussed the issue with 2 people so far, baby boomers. They're both firmly anti trump conservatives yet they thought the actions of the restaurant were wrong. The only feeling I got from the exchange was increased disdain for democrats. certainly not enough to give their vote to Trump but maybe enough incidents like this would push them to third party out of disgust.

So my analysis of the situation (with very little data) is that public displays like this could potentially serve to lose votes for democrats but I don't see how they could possibly gain more votes. Anyone who praises the restaurant owner is already decided.

Would push them to a third party from where exactly?  I'd find it difficult to believe that a Republican would've voted for Clinton until the behavior of a restaurant pushed them over the line (seems a rather trivial incident to make one cross party lines), though apparently the same number of republicans voted for Clinton as democrats voted for Trump (8% - source).

From voting democrat. One voted Hillary in 2016 and the other went with Evan McMullin because he bought some of the anti Hillary attacks and being a male in his 60's, latent sexism was almost certainly at play. I could see him voting for a nice normal white male democrat. This is also why I think (unfortunately) a white male is the best bet for the democratic party in 2020.

No, the one incident wouldn't be enough. However if this becomes a regular thing I can absolutely see people like them being more disgusted than they already are and voting 3rd party in protest. It seems to me the idea of "it's just politics" resonates strongly in older demographics and treating someone differently because of their political views is just appalling to them. My opinion is that hate against someone like Sanders goes beyond politics in that she is a lying sack of shit, but nevertheless, my vote isn't the one the Democratic party needs to fight for.

NewPerspective

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2272 on: June 26, 2018, 10:49:04 AM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 10:53:31 AM by NewPerspective »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2273 on: June 26, 2018, 10:59:54 AM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Pretty much. When did the "incivility" begin? Look to Mitch McConnell.

And yet, Democrats are still arguing that we can fight back while still being "polite."

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2274 on: June 26, 2018, 11:05:03 AM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Pretty much. When did the "incivility" begin? Look to Mitch McConnell.

And yet, Democrats are still arguing that we can fight back while still being "polite."

These two "polites" you're referring to are not the same. One is failing to take political action, the other is refusing service to someone at a public establishment. They are almost entirely unrelated. The first has direct effects on policy, the second can only have indirect effects by way of influencing voters.

And yes, feeling pretty disappointed with the Supreme court right now.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2275 on: June 26, 2018, 11:11:18 AM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Pretty much. When did the "incivility" begin? Look to Mitch McConnell.

And yet, Democrats are still arguing that we can fight back while still being "polite."

These two "polites" you're referring to are not the same. One is failing to take political action, the other is refusing service to someone at a public establishment. They are almost entirely unrelated. The first has direct effects on policy, the second can only have indirect effects by way of influencing voters.

And yes, feeling pretty disappointed with the Supreme court right now.

I don't know the details of the incident, but I feel like I should point out that it is possible to politely tell someone that they are not welcome in your establishment.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3121
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2276 on: June 26, 2018, 11:29:01 AM »
And yes, feeling pretty disappointed with the Supreme court right now.

The Texas gerrymandering case seems shortsighted, not only for conservatives but also for democracy. It was a poor, partisan, decision.

I suspect that, when the Blue states take advantage of hyper-gerrymandering, they'll revisit their decision.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2277 on: June 26, 2018, 11:39:10 AM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Pretty much. When did the "incivility" begin? Look to Mitch McConnell.

And yet, Democrats are still arguing that we can fight back while still being "polite."

These two "polites" you're referring to are not the same. One is failing to take political action, the other is refusing service to someone at a public establishment. They are almost entirely unrelated. The first has direct effects on policy, the second can only have indirect effects by way of influencing voters.

And yes, feeling pretty disappointed with the Supreme court right now.

I don't know the details of the incident, but I feel like I should point out that it is possible to politely tell someone that they are not welcome in your establishment.

Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.


The Texas gerrymandering case seems shortsighted, not only for conservatives but also for democracy. It was a poor, partisan, decision.

I suspect that, when the Blue states take advantage of hyper-gerrymandering, they'll revisit their decision.


They sure might.

If you really read what that decision was about, I don't think it applies broadly though, it seems pretty narrow to what happened in Texas where things were muddied up by the actions of a lower court.


« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 11:54:11 AM by ncornilsen »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2278 on: June 26, 2018, 11:49:54 AM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 

If by being too polite, you mean you didn't start armed insurrection, then yes, people were too polite. 

Since Bjork (and maybe before?), we have been in a constant tit for tat escalation of the appointment of judges.  The only attempt at deescalation that I'm aware of is when senators with during bush's tenure backed down.  I think going forward you may only see supreme court judges appointed and confirmed when a particular party has the presidency and the senate.  I don't think they will be able to have a functioning judicial branch if they do that for appellate judges, so hopefully the supreme court will be where it stops, although if we have a vacancy and a 4-4 split at the supreme court, I coudl see the strategy extending to appellate courts that are also at an even split. 

NewPerspective

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2279 on: June 26, 2018, 12:03:44 PM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 

If by being too polite, you mean you didn't start armed insurrection, then yes, people were too polite. 

Since Bjork (and maybe before?), we have been in a constant tit for tat escalation of the appointment of judges.  The only attempt at deescalation that I'm aware of is when senators with during bush's tenure backed down.  I think going forward you may only see supreme court judges appointed and confirmed when a particular party has the presidency and the senate.  I don't think they will be able to have a functioning judicial branch if they do that for appellate judges, so hopefully the supreme court will be where it stops, although if we have a vacancy and a 4-4 split at the supreme court, I coudl see the strategy extending to appellate courts that are also at an even split.

I had to read up on Bork, I wasn't familiar with him.  From what I understand he had a hearing and was rejected 58-42 (a couple of Republicans voted against him and a couple of Dems voted for him).  Isn't that the way it is supposed to work?  McConnell denied Garland the hearing.

I just did a quick read so I may be missing some details.


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3645
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2280 on: June 26, 2018, 12:04:13 PM »
Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.

What about a sincerely held religious belief that taking nursing babies away from their mothers and interning them is unChristian, and so that it is against one's Christian beliefs to serve or take the money of the paid collaborators with and enablers of those actions?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2281 on: June 26, 2018, 12:07:49 PM »
Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.

What about a sincerely held religious belief that taking nursing babies away from their mothers and interning them is unChristian, and so that it is against one's Christian beliefs to serve or take the money of the paid collaborators with and enablers of those actions?
i think the more direct example is if you are a baker in Colorado.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2282 on: June 26, 2018, 12:12:55 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2283 on: June 26, 2018, 12:28:25 PM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.
And this is why most of the intelligent, well educated, Republicans I know voted for him.  Because he could appoint judges that could make decisions to shape the future of this country, and he done good in their eyes.   While I was certainly worried about a more liberal court if Hilary was elected I still crossed party lines from my normal Republican leaning (being one of those 8% I guess) because I could not stomach all that is Mr. Big Mouth just to get a little thing like a Supreme Court justice, but I guess others of my acquaintances were able to look themselves in the mirror and vote orange.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2284 on: June 26, 2018, 12:29:07 PM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Pretty much. When did the "incivility" begin? Look to Mitch McConnell.

And yet, Democrats are still arguing that we can fight back while still being "polite."

These two "polites" you're referring to are not the same. One is failing to take political action, the other is refusing service to someone at a public establishment. They are almost entirely unrelated. The first has direct effects on policy, the second can only have indirect effects by way of influencing voters.

And yes, feeling pretty disappointed with the Supreme court right now.

I don't know the details of the incident, but I feel like I should point out that it is possible to politely tell someone that they are not welcome in your establishment.

In a sense sure, you can say it with nice words and a calm tone, but the person being denied service will still be offended. You are disrespecting them and therefore I think it is impolite. More to the point, I think the word "polite" falls short of describing the situation anyway.

The angle I'm responding to is whether leaders in the democratic party should be discouraging or encouraging this kind of behavior. From a political standpoint I think they are right to come out against it. I'm yet to hear any arguments as to how actions like this will increase votes for the democrats.


MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8699
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2285 on: June 26, 2018, 12:31:05 PM »
If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.
Depends on whether the customer is in a Protected group.

The term "creed" is perhaps the least well defined of those.  See https://www.google.com/search?q=creed+protected+class for more.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2286 on: June 26, 2018, 12:31:36 PM »
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Pretty much. When did the "incivility" begin? Look to Mitch McConnell.

And yet, Democrats are still arguing that we can fight back while still being "polite."

These two "polites" you're referring to are not the same. One is failing to take political action, the other is refusing service to someone at a public establishment. They are almost entirely unrelated. The first has direct effects on policy, the second can only have indirect effects by way of influencing voters.

And yes, feeling pretty disappointed with the Supreme court right now.

I don't know the details of the incident, but I feel like I should point out that it is possible to politely tell someone that they are not welcome in your establishment.

Indeed.

Relevant:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21931194/sarah-huckabee-sanders-red-hen-civility/


caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2288 on: June 26, 2018, 12:31:55 PM »
Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.
So how do they square that their newly appointed, leaning in their direction, SC just let a bakery do just that?  Be open to the public but choose not to make a cake for someone.  How is that any different than telling a liar to go elsewhere?

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2289 on: June 26, 2018, 12:37:42 PM »
Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.
So how do they square that their newly appointed, leaning in their direction, SC just let a bakery do just that?  Be open to the public but choose not to make a cake for someone.  How is that any different than telling a liar to go elsewhere?
They didn't, the decision was that the Colorado courts treated the defendant unfairly due to his religion. They suggested that if/when a similar case comes to them they will likely rule in favor of the gay couple.

But I think ncornilsen is wrong too in that Sanders is not part of a protected group.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2290 on: June 26, 2018, 12:56:49 PM »
The Garland debacle was bare knuckle politics that was within the rules but outside the spirit of the law. It was an "ends justify the means" play that McConnell knew he could get away with because the Republican base wants antiabortion judges more than it respects balanced democratic institutions. That's not a product of excessive civility, that's a consequence of incivility that drives the continued withering of the political middle.

The angle I'm responding to is whether leaders in the democratic party should be discouraging or encouraging this kind of behavior. From a political standpoint I think they are right to come out against it. I'm yet to hear any arguments as to how actions like this will increase votes for the democrats.

Exactly. I question the political strategy of climbing into the mud with the world's best mud wrestler when there is likely no net gain (since you're energizing the extreme right just as much if not more than the left, and costing yourself support from the reasonable middle).

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2291 on: June 26, 2018, 01:36:40 PM »
Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.
So how do they square that their newly appointed, leaning in their direction, SC just let a bakery do just that?  Be open to the public but choose not to make a cake for someone.  How is that any different than telling a liar to go elsewhere?
They didn't, the decision was that the Colorado courts treated the defendant unfairly due to his religion. They suggested that if/when a similar case comes to them they will likely rule in favor of the gay couple.

But I think ncornilsen is wrong too in that Sanders is not part of a protected group.

I'm not wrong... in that I know that sexual orientation is a protected class and political affiliation is not.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek, in that those who support kicking Sanders out of the red hen use the same logic that those who want to let bakers refuse to be compelled to create works with messages they don't agree with use.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2292 on: June 26, 2018, 01:41:04 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

The whole Garland thing coming up in this thread was a "whataboutism" from NewPerspective about civility in the first place!

Quote
Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?
....
Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

That is a "whataboutism".
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 02:20:50 PM by ncornilsen »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2293 on: June 26, 2018, 01:52:42 PM »
Nope. According to the prevailing logic, you cannot. If you're open to the public, you're open to the public. There is no sincerily held beleife a business owner can have that is important enough to deny service to someone who represents a beleife directly counter to that. Or, so I'm told.
So how do they square that their newly appointed, leaning in their direction, SC just let a bakery do just that?  Be open to the public but choose not to make a cake for someone.  How is that any different than telling a liar to go elsewhere?
They didn't, the decision was that the Colorado courts treated the defendant unfairly due to his religion. They suggested that if/when a similar case comes to them they will likely rule in favor of the gay couple.

But I think ncornilsen is wrong too in that Sanders is not part of a protected group.

I'm not wrong... in that I know that sexual orientation is a protected class and political affiliation is not.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek, in that those who support kicking Sanders out of the red hen use the same logic that those who want to let bakers refuse to be compelled to create works with messages they don't agree with use.

Ah, but it isn't the same logic. One is refused service due to their actions, the other is refused service due to their existence. Also, the majority involved in discussions of that debate seemed to agree that the baker should not be compelled to write specific messages on the cakes, but that he should be compelled to sell them a "wedding" cake.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2294 on: June 26, 2018, 01:55:13 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

The whole Garland thing coming up in this thread was a "whataboutism" from @Kris about civility in the first place!

No, what I was getting at was not about "whataboutism" at all.

Here is what I AM after: we either live in a world in which one can deny service based on one's "sincerely held beliefs" or we cannot. Since apparently the right, aided by the Supreme Court, has decided we can do that now and that it's a good thing, I think it's ridiculous to believe that serving someone like SHS, or anyone in the administration who advocates for that, is the "duty" of a good lefty.

Letting Sanders and her ilk off the hook and allowing them to freely move about the world without any consequences for their actions in the name of "civility" is just... idiocy.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2295 on: June 26, 2018, 02:01:07 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

The whole Garland thing coming up in this thread was a "whataboutism" from @Kris about civility in the first place!

Nope.

Can someone explain to me how the republicans were able to keep Obama from appointing Garland to the Supreme Court?  How was that even possible?  Mitch McConnell just said, no we aren't going to have this hearing and no one could do anything about it?

Of course I remember when it happened but even when I think about it now, I can't believe he was able to get away with that.  Weren't there any laws or protections that could have forced him to have a hearing?

Is it because we were all "too polite" and didn't push back? 

It is incredibly depressing that we now have a biased and illegitimate Supreme Court making decisions that will continue to shape the future of our county (the Texas gerrymandering case, the Muslim ban just this week).  It is unbelievable.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2296 on: June 26, 2018, 02:13:42 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

The whole Garland thing coming up in this thread was a "whataboutism" from @Kris about civility in the first place!

No, what I was getting at was not about "whataboutism" at all.

Here is what I AM after: we either live in a world in which one can deny service based on one's "sincerely held beliefs" or we cannot. Since apparently the right, aided by the Supreme Court, has decided we can do that now and that it's a good thing, I think it's ridiculous to believe that serving someone like SHS, or anyone in the administration who advocates for that, is the "duty" of a good lefty.

Letting Sanders and her ilk off the hook and allowing them to freely move about the world without any consequences for their actions in the name of "civility" is just... idiocy.

Again, not what the Supreme court decided on.

However we do live in a world where you can (legally) deny service, depending on the people involved and your reasoning for doing so. The case of the red hen and the case of the baker, while both involve not serving customers, have very little in common. One is about legal rights, religion and protected classes. The other is about civility, politics and influencing voters. That last point is how you started the conversation and is the portion I've tried to focus on. As far as I can tell, you've taken the stance that refusing service to Trump and his underlings will benefit the democratic party in the 2020 election. I don't get it.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2297 on: June 26, 2018, 02:19:25 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

The whole Garland thing coming up in this thread was a "whataboutism" from @Kris about civility in the first place!

No, what I was getting at was not about "whataboutism" at all.

Here is what I AM after: we either live in a world in which one can deny service based on one's "sincerely held beliefs" or we cannot. Since apparently the right, aided by the Supreme Court, has decided we can do that now and that it's a good thing, I think it's ridiculous to believe that serving someone like SHS, or anyone in the administration who advocates for that, is the "duty" of a good lefty.

Letting Sanders and her ilk off the hook and allowing them to freely move about the world without any consequences for their actions in the name of "civility" is just... idiocy.

Shoot, I was looking for the post 1 above the one you did, from 'newperspective.' 

By the way, please go read what the SC decision ACTUALLY said RE the Colorado baker case. It was not a carte' Blanche to deny protected classes anything.


 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2298 on: June 26, 2018, 02:20:21 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

The whole Garland thing coming up in this thread was a "whataboutism" from @Kris about civility in the first place!

No, what I was getting at was not about "whataboutism" at all.

Here is what I AM after: we either live in a world in which one can deny service based on one's "sincerely held beliefs" or we cannot. Since apparently the right, aided by the Supreme Court, has decided we can do that now and that it's a good thing, I think it's ridiculous to believe that serving someone like SHS, or anyone in the administration who advocates for that, is the "duty" of a good lefty.

Letting Sanders and her ilk off the hook and allowing them to freely move about the world without any consequences for their actions in the name of "civility" is just... idiocy.

Again, not what the Supreme court decided on.

However we do live in a world where you can (legally) deny service, depending on the people involved and your reasoning for doing so. The case of the red hen and the case of the baker, while both involve not serving customers, have very little in common. One is about legal rights, religion and protected classes. The other is about civility, politics and influencing voters. That last point is how you started the conversation and is the portion I've tried to focus on. As far as I can tell, you've taken the stance that refusing service to Trump and his underlings will benefit the democratic party in the 2020 election. I don't get it.

No. I've taken the stance that refusing to speak truth to power in the name of some sort of abstract "civility" -- and allowing the GOP, and even the Democratic leadership, to bully those who stand up and call for pushing back -- is what will hand the election to Trump in 2020. It's an important distinction.

I will definitely grant you that what the Supreme Court decided in the case about the baker was not that the baker had the right to deny service. However, the distinction of what they did decide seems as though it's gotten pretty lost in the shuffle -- and certainly there are tons of people on the right who think that's exactly what it did do. And in all the confusion, they are not likely to get corrected on it. Which means that for the most part, at least for now, that's what we're going to be seeing.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/391249-tennessee-store-puts-no-gays-allowed-sign-back-up-after-supreme-court-cake-ruling

« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 02:23:06 PM by Kris »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2299 on: June 26, 2018, 02:20:39 PM »

How were democrats able to keep Robert Bjork off the supreme court? 


Heaven forbid Senators vote against a nominee they don't like, following the process outlined in the Constitution.

Garland was properly nominated. McConnell never allowed a vote. He just made up bullshit about a lame duck. Do we need to dredge up the list of Supreme Court justices confirmed closer to an election than the Garland nomination?

It's horseshoes and lunar geology. The two have nothing to do with each other.

But holy shit the whataboutism ....

Do we need to dredge up a list of republican nominees blue slipped or not allowed out of committee? 

Either the original question about Garland was whataboutism, or nothing was.  The long standing tit for tat in the senate is not really closely related to civility.  It's a reflection of where our politicals are headed, but it would be entirely possible to continue to have escalating politics over judicial nominees without civil society degrading to the point that it is seen as acceptable to refuse to do business with and/or to verbally harass anybody associated with the other mainstream political party.