Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 373611 times)

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2300 on: June 26, 2018, 02:34:40 PM »
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.

I don't think anyone is advocating what you're saying. Advocating refusing service to Trump's cabinet or high level officials is not "anybody associated" with the other mainstream political party.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2301 on: June 26, 2018, 02:35:19 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

So the supreme court should make bad decisions and set dangerous precedents to improve the optics?

I definitely see what you're saying, I had to discuss this with my dad as he was under the impression that the decision allowed that discrimination... but "potential to be misunderstood" should not deter the supreme court from making a nuanced and narrow decision that doesn't set other dangerous precedents.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2302 on: June 26, 2018, 02:41:50 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

Ok, maybe that was never your stance but you cited a lack of leadership as a potential issue in the 2020 election and proceeded to criticize democratic party leaders for their stance on politeness and referenced the Sanders' case. It all seemed to be related.

Still, I think refusing service and harassing the president's people is the wrong way to go. Standing up and pointing at what is wrong and not shutting up about it, I can get on board with that, but I think harassing individuals is going to hurt democrats at the polls. If there was any potential benefit it would be from the individuals giving up and quitting their jobs to escape harassment.

Yes, it is unfortunate that that case went down the way it did and doubly unfortunate that the media presents it as something it's not.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2303 on: June 26, 2018, 02:45:43 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

So the supreme court should make bad decisions and set dangerous precedents to improve the optics?

I definitely see what you're saying, I had to discuss this with my dad as he was under the impression that the decision allowed that discrimination... but "potential to be misunderstood" should not deter the supreme court from making a nuanced and narrow decision that doesn't set other dangerous precedents.

Nope. Of course, I'm not saying that at all. I blame the media -- and the fake news mill -- and the absolutely fucking lamentable state of our civics education in this country -- for much of the misunderstanding.

But I will say that the Supreme Court in its current iteration is making bad decisions, and is set to make plenty more of them. Unfortunately, we are at a point in our country's history that the court and its decision-making has become overtly politicized, due in no small part to McConnell's blatant power grab and the election of DJT. The highest court in our land has been compromised. I'm not sure there's any coming back from that.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2304 on: June 26, 2018, 03:07:04 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 @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

So the supreme court should make bad decisions and set dangerous precedents to improve the optics?

I definitely see what you're saying, I had to discuss this with my dad as he was under the impression that the decision allowed that discrimination... but "potential to be misunderstood" should not deter the supreme court from making a nuanced and narrow decision that doesn't set other dangerous precedents.

Nope. Of course, I'm not saying that at all. I blame the media -- and the fake news mill -- and the absolutely fucking lamentable state of our civics education in this country -- for much of the misunderstanding.

Fair enough.

Quote
But I will say that the Supreme Court in its current iteration is making bad decisions, and is set to make plenty more of them. Unfortunately, we are at a point in our country's history that the court and its decision-making has become overtly politicized, due in no small part to McConnell's blatant power grab and the election of DJT. The highest court in our land has been compromised. I'm not sure there's any coming back from that.

I don't agree on this point - that it's overly politicized, that Trump or McConnel are responsible in any significant part of tha, if it was the case...

I think it's as politicized as it ever was.  And I don't think they've made any horrible decisions yet... certainly some I can see being unpopular but nothing with broadly hazardous implications.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2305 on: June 26, 2018, 03:11:10 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

So the supreme court should make bad decisions and set dangerous precedents to improve the optics?

I definitely see what you're saying, I had to discuss this with my dad as he was under the impression that the decision allowed that discrimination... but "potential to be misunderstood" should not deter the supreme court from making a nuanced and narrow decision that doesn't set other dangerous precedents.

Nope. Of course, I'm not saying that at all. I blame the media -- and the fake news mill -- and the absolutely fucking lamentable state of our civics education in this country -- for much of the misunderstanding.

Fair enough.

Quote
But I will say that the Supreme Court in its current iteration is making bad decisions, and is set to make plenty more of them. Unfortunately, we are at a point in our country's history that the court and its decision-making has become overtly politicized, due in no small part to McConnell's blatant power grab and the election of DJT. The highest court in our land has been compromised. I'm not sure there's any coming back from that.

I don't agree on this point - that it's overly politicized, that Trump or McConnel are responsible in any significant part of tha, if it was the case...

I think it's as politicized as it ever was.  And I don't think they've made any horrible decisions yet... certainly some I can see being unpopular but nothing with broadly hazardous implications.

Well, I would never expect you to think otherwise, given your political leanings. Clearly, we will have to agree to disagree.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2306 on: June 26, 2018, 03:14:03 PM »
SCOTUS legalized bigotry this month.

-Muslim ban - "neutral on its face" is a farce
-Texas gerrymanders weren't racist because they didn't say they were drawing the districts with a racial bias
-A regulator making statements opposing bigotry is more problematic than actual practiced bigotry in Masterpiece

The McConnell stolen SCOTUS seat is paying dividends, and the Roberts court is facing an increasingly appalling legacy by the day.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2307 on: June 26, 2018, 03:14:36 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.

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.

My main concern is not increasing votes for democrats, and I'm honestly not sure how best to handle this situation in regards to that.  My main point was simply that it is not impolite to respectfully express the fact that I have no desire to spend time around human beings who treat others poorly.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8700
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2308 on: June 26, 2018, 03:37:22 PM »
SCOTUS legalized bigotry this month.

-Muslim ban - "neutral on its face" is a farce
Reasonable people would disagree.  Supreme Court rules in Trump Muslim travel ban case seems a balanced article, despite the pejorative headline.  From that article:
Quote
The court sided with the government, which argued in April that the restriction "would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine."

Roberts agreed with that argument. Though the ban applies to five countries with Muslim majority populations, "that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility," Roberts wrote, noting that those five countries amount to only 8 percent of the world's Muslim population.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2309 on: June 26, 2018, 04:36:30 PM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2310 on: June 26, 2018, 04:45:18 PM »
I think the Supreme Court was the correct one.

It's really up to the executive within the laws that congress defines to determine national security threats. People who are not US citizens have NO right to enter the United States.

You have a president that clearly has voiced anti-muslim sentiment, that's true, but so what? What if there was an actual threat from these countries? Does this mean that if a president voices anti-pacific asian sentiment he or she can't block North Koreans from coming into the country?

I think Roberts' logic is correct and the ruling is reasonable.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 04:48:46 PM by dividendman »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2311 on: June 26, 2018, 04:59:42 PM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2312 on: June 26, 2018, 05:08:41 PM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)

Nope.

Here’s how you know:

Saudi Arabia was NEVER on this list.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8700
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2313 on: June 26, 2018, 05:11:30 PM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.
One of the replies to that Twitter post seems on point:
Quote
It isn't even a ban against muslim majority countries, the majority of whom and largest of whom aren't even effected.

Looking at Islam by country - Wikipedia, Iran and Yemen are the only ones in the top 15 that make Trump's current list:
Code: [Select]
Country Muslims
Indonesia 228,000,000
Pakistan 198,000,000
Bangladesh 148,607,000
Egypt 87,300,000
Iran 80,500,000
Turkey 80,000,000
Algeria 40,000,000
Sudan 39,027,950
Iraq 38,800,190
Afghanistan 34,022,437
Morocco 33,646,788
Saudi Arabia 31,878,000
Yemen 27,784,498
Uzbekistan 26,550,000
Niger 19,502,214

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2314 on: June 26, 2018, 07:02:09 PM »
The President said he wanted a Muslim ban. Why are you trying to argue it's not a Muslim ban lol

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8700
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2315 on: June 26, 2018, 07:08:57 PM »
The President said he wanted a Muslim ban. Why are you trying to argue it's not a Muslim ban lol
Why are you saying it is?

Unless the wikipedia entry is wrong - always possible ;) - restricted travel to the U.S. from the specified countries has no effect on the vast majority of the world's Muslims. 

Gotta watch out for those Venezuelan Catholics though, right?

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2316 on: June 26, 2018, 10:44:40 PM »
The President said he wanted a Muslim ban. Why are you trying to argue it's not a Muslim ban lol
Why are you saying it is?

Unless the wikipedia entry is wrong - always possible ;) - restricted travel to the U.S. from the specified countries has no effect on the vast majority of the world's Muslims. 

Gotta watch out for those Venezuelan Catholics though, right?

Yeah... I think, regardless of what the President said, what he *did* is not a Muslim ban, it's not an Arab ban, it's not an anything ban really.

The President says a lot of things, what he does is often something else.

e.g. the President said he wanted healthcare for everyone then he took action on health care and effectively eliminated the individual mandate and gutted other health care protections. Just because he took an action on health care and said he wanted healthcare for everyone does not mean any action he takes on health care means he is in fact getting healthcare for everyone.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3651
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2317 on: June 27, 2018, 01:11:04 AM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)

Nope.

Here’s how you know:

Saudi Arabia was NEVER on this list.
Yeah, typical bully, Trump picked on the little guys who couldn't fight back.  Obviously just a coincidence that they are majority muslim, right?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2318 on: June 27, 2018, 07:55:49 AM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)

Nope.

Here’s how you know:

Saudi Arabia was NEVER on this list.
Yeah, typical bully, Trump picked on the little guys who couldn't fight back.  Obviously just a coincidence that they are majority muslim, right?

So you're making the argument that being muslim majority makes it more likely that your country will not be able/willing to provide records that allow for vetting?  I think a lot of people would argue that's bigoted.  I also don't think statistics would support your argument; it's just too small of a sample size. 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2319 on: June 27, 2018, 07:59:41 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2320 on: June 27, 2018, 08:05:18 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged.

You can "preach" civility all you want. But let's not be under any illusions of what is being asked. This is why I tell people on the left to think about what you’re participating in when you call for “civility.” Whom you’re shilling for.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-civility-20180625-story.html


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4988
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2321 on: June 27, 2018, 08:06:51 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged.

You can "preach" civility all you want. But let's not be under any illusions of what is being asked. This is why I tell people on the left to think about what you’re participating in when you call for “civility.” Whom you’re shilling for.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-civility-20180625-story.html

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2322 on: June 27, 2018, 08:12:47 AM »
People who have been peddling bigotry and hatred for years asking for "civility" because SHS couldn't get a GD sandwich is rich.

It's like telling DV victims to just "be nicer" to their abuser.  No.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2323 on: June 27, 2018, 08:16:23 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged.

You can "preach" civility all you want. But let's not be under any illusions of what is being asked. This is why I tell people on the left to think about what you’re participating in when you call for “civility.” Whom you’re shilling for.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-civility-20180625-story.html

That's pretty much bull shit applied to this situation.  People aren't criticizing Red Hen for the content of her speech.  They are criticizing her for deeming someone unfit for engaging in a commercial transaction with.  And then you have unhinged people claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to move freely among society for pretty mainstream political positions.  That's not a trend sane people want to encourage. 


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2324 on: June 27, 2018, 08:29:06 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged.

You can "preach" civility all you want. But let's not be under any illusions of what is being asked. This is why I tell people on the left to think about what you’re participating in when you call for “civility.” Whom you’re shilling for.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-civility-20180625-story.html

That's pretty much bull shit applied to this situation.  People aren't criticizing Red Hen for the content of her speech.  They are criticizing her for deeming someone unfit for engaging in a commercial transaction with.  And then you have unhinged people claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to move freely among society for pretty mainstream political positions.  That's not a trend sane people want to encourage.

We've already gone down that road. Bakers of cakes want to deem a gay couple unfit for engaging in a commercial transaction. That's something the right thinks is A-OK.

So, that's where we are. Having a restaurant owner politely tell someone who routinely, knowingly lies to the American people that her staff wasn't comfortable serving her, and then comping her cheese plate, is something that the right should be just fine with. After all, they wanted the right to do it themselves. So, all or nothing, people. Pick a side.

In the meantime, resist B.S. calls for "civility" that basically amount to "let this fascist-wannabe regime do whatever they want and don't say anything about it if you see them out in public because that would be impolite."


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3651
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2325 on: June 27, 2018, 08:37:10 AM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)

Nope.

Here’s how you know:

Saudi Arabia was NEVER on this list.
Yeah, typical bully, Trump picked on the little guys who couldn't fight back.  Obviously just a coincidence that they are majority muslim, right?

So you're making the argument that being muslim majority makes it more likely that your country will not be able/willing to provide records that allow for vetting?  I think a lot of people would argue that's bigoted.  I also don't think statistics would support your argument; it's just too small of a sample size.
.
Not my argument, I think it stinks, if that wasn't clear.  It's Trump that's put the policy in place, and Trump that's bigoted without any justification.  How the majority on the Supreme Court found a fig leaf to justify it I will never understand.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2326 on: June 27, 2018, 08:41:39 AM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)

Nope.

Here’s how you know:

Saudi Arabia was NEVER on this list.
Yeah, typical bully, Trump picked on the little guys who couldn't fight back.  Obviously just a coincidence that they are majority muslim, right?

So you're making the argument that being muslim majority makes it more likely that your country will not be able/willing to provide records that allow for vetting?  I think a lot of people would argue that's bigoted.  I also don't think statistics would support your argument; it's just too small of a sample size.
.
Not my argument, I think it stinks, if that wasn't clear.  It's Trump that's put the policy in place, and Trump that's bigoted without any justification.  How the majority on the Supreme Court found a fig leaf to justify it I will never understand.

Me, neither. It's pretty... ugh, you know what? I'm just so grossed out by all of this. So transparent. I'm sad and disgusted that there are so many people out there who feel this is justified.

What's next, do you think? A Brown People From The South travel ban? Except for Mexico, though -- as much as Trump would love to include them -- because a bunch of people who support him like to go on the occasional beach trip to Cancun.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 08:45:07 AM by Kris »

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2327 on: June 27, 2018, 09:22:22 AM »
The Travel Ban is horrible. It is such a shame that it had to come to this. But when half the country wants Open Borders something has to be done. It is easy to say that the President is evil for not Opening the borders to everyone that seeks a new life. Many of the articles on the UN Official Website are anti-Trump because he does break from them, but I still find their articles to be very well written. Again, the arguments get so heated because people take an everyone, or no one approach. I think if the Democrats would help work towards a plan to help secure the border, then the current Dreamers could start getting nationalized and we could begin to increase the numbers of refugees again to be more sympathetic to the many global crisis.

https://www.undispatch.com/un-official-correctly-calls-trumps-travel-ban-collective-punishment/

Yemen and Syria are two of the seven countries covered in this new order. The others include Somalia, Chad, Iran, North Korea and some Venezuelans. The order does not include refugees, but rather traditional migrants or visitors to the United States. Still, on top of the Trump administration’s sharp reduction of refugee admissions the message that this new ban sends to the people of these countries is unambiguous.

The ban makes it all but impossible for Syrians or Yemenis to migrate to the United States, not because of any individual fault, but because of their nationality.

The Syrian civil war has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced 11 million people. Yemen does not get the same international attention as Syria, but the situation there is particularly egregious.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2328 on: June 27, 2018, 09:24:38 AM »
"It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban against Muslim-majority countries" is gaslighting at its finest.

How so?

It's a ban against countries that harbor, fund, and support terrorists, who happen to be muslim majority. It's not a ban against all muslim majority countries, its not a ban BECAUSE they're muslim majority countries, and not all of the countries on the list are muslim majority! (unless North Korea and Venzuela are Muslim majority?)

Nope.

Here’s how you know:

Saudi Arabia was NEVER on this list.
Yeah, typical bully, Trump picked on the little guys who couldn't fight back.  Obviously just a coincidence that they are majority muslim, right?

So you're making the argument that being muslim majority makes it more likely that your country will not be able/willing to provide records that allow for vetting?  I think a lot of people would argue that's bigoted.  I also don't think statistics would support your argument; it's just too small of a sample size.

Statistics don't support the argument that this is purely for national security reasons. When is the last time a terrorist from one of these banned countries has killed a single American?  You are gonna have to go back decades. Meanwhile countries like Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc. have actually produced terrorist that have indeed killed many, many Americans. Hell a wannabe terrorist from the Philippines was caught just last year planning something bigger than 9/11. So let's not pretend this is for national security because that is total BS.

As was already said, it's much easier to get your ban passed and a message sent to the rest of the Muslim world by going after the "little guys."

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2329 on: June 27, 2018, 09:24:55 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged.

You can "preach" civility all you want. But let's not be under any illusions of what is being asked. This is why I tell people on the left to think about what you’re participating in when you call for “civility.” Whom you’re shilling for.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-civility-20180625-story.html

That's pretty much bull shit applied to this situation.  People aren't criticizing Red Hen for the content of her speech.  They are criticizing her for deeming someone unfit for engaging in a commercial transaction with.  And then you have unhinged people claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to move freely among society for pretty mainstream political positions.  That's not a trend sane people want to encourage.

We've already gone down that road. Bakers of cakes want to deem a gay couple unfit for engaging in a commercial transaction. That's something the right thinks is A-OK.
  That's something a lot of people on the right think should be legal.  Just like it is and should be legal for the Red Hen owner to refuse to serve Sanders.  Being legal to not provide goods or services for a same sex wedding and being legal to not serve people you disagree with does not mean that other people shouldn't criticize those decisions.

So, that's where we are. Having a restaurant owner politely tell someone who routinely, knowingly lies to the American people that her staff wasn't comfortable serving her, and then comping her cheese plate, is something that the right should be just fine with. After all, they wanted the right to do it themselves. So, all or nothing, people. Pick a side.

In the meantime, resist B.S. calls for "civility" that basically amount to "let this fascist-wannabe regime do whatever they want and don't say anything about it if you see them out in public because that would be impolite."
 
Another example of why people should preach for civility.  Unhinged people aren't good at telling what is fascist.  So you have a norm where the way you push back on politics is with protest, campaigning, letter writing, whatever, but not harassing government employees at dinner or at their house or when they are generally just carrying on non-public business, so that every unhinged person out there isn't spending their free time harassing government officials for run of the mill political disagreements.   
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 09:26:45 AM by Jrr85 »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2330 on: June 27, 2018, 09:32:50 AM »

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.

This is one of the most important reasons to preach for civility towards people even when we disagree with them politically.  Unhinged people don't  realize they are unhinged.

You can "preach" civility all you want. But let's not be under any illusions of what is being asked. This is why I tell people on the left to think about what you’re participating in when you call for “civility.” Whom you’re shilling for.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-civility-20180625-story.html

That's pretty much bull shit applied to this situation.  People aren't criticizing Red Hen for the content of her speech.  They are criticizing her for deeming someone unfit for engaging in a commercial transaction with.  And then you have unhinged people claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to move freely among society for pretty mainstream political positions.  That's not a trend sane people want to encourage.

I'm sorry, but I'm calling bull shit on this framing of the situation.  I can respect someone and still have no desire to associate with them in any way.  I have a lot of respect for the entire human race because I recognize our potential to do good.  That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to invite the entire human race over to dinner at my house.  I can disapprove of someone's actions and therefore not want to associate with them without disrespecting them.  This is just another instance of an asshole wanting to be able to act like an asshole and still have everyone approve of their actions.

I'm all for civility and politeness.  Those qualities were already exercised by the Red Hen Owner in this instance.  And apparently what she gets in return are bomb threats and death threats.  Now that's uncivil.

What's almost hilarious is that this is an area where I think my viewpoint comes more from the conservative sources that I've listened to, but now their the ones contradicting it.  It's situations like this that make me feel like conservatives have no actual principles and just take whatever position that they think will benefit them the most at the time.

Oh, and before anyone says "But what about masterpiece!", I'll just quote Dabnasty's excellent explanation of the differences between the two situations from a page back...

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.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2331 on: June 27, 2018, 09:33:54 AM »
Another example of why people should preach for civility.  Unhinged people aren't good at telling what is fascist.  So you have a norm where the way you push back on politics is with protest, campaigning, letter writing, whatever, but not harassing government employees at dinner or at their house or when they are generally just carrying on non-public business, so that every unhinged person out there isn't spending their free time harassing government officials for run of the mill political disagreements.   

Asking someone politely to leave your establishment is not harassment.  I'd be with you if people were heckling her at her house while she tried to have a peaceful dinner, but that's not the situation at hand.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2332 on: June 27, 2018, 09:43:56 AM »
Jrr85 - let's say I agree with you (and I don't) that refusing to serve someone is uncivil.

Is there any action the government could take at which point you believe that being uncivil is required?

What if Trump decides to intern Muslim Americans?

What if Trump believes he should be president for life and refuses to leave office?

What if Trump goes into times square and shoots someone in the head?

Should we all just write our letters of protest and hope for the best?

Note I selected all of the examples above because Trump has actually indicated he could do any of those things.

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2333 on: June 27, 2018, 09:50:38 AM »
Another example of why people should preach for civility.  Unhinged people aren't good at telling what is fascist.  So you have a norm where the way you push back on politics is with protest, campaigning, letter writing, whatever, but not harassing government employees at dinner or at their house or when they are generally just carrying on non-public business, so that every unhinged person out there isn't spending their free time harassing government officials for run of the mill political disagreements.   

Asking someone politely to leave your establishment is not harassment.  I'd be with you if people were heckling her at her house while she tried to have a peaceful dinner, but that's not the situation at hand.

That baker in Colorado would certainly agree. Shame we cannot politely ask the Hondurans to leave since that is not harassment either. There were some people that were politely asked to leave Star Bucks a few months ago, but I think that was considered harassment. We should define that and try to stick to one standard.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2334 on: June 27, 2018, 09:54:14 AM »
Asking someone politely to leave your establishment is not harassment. 
Ahem
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/sarah-sanders-heckled-by-red-hen-owner-even-after-leaving-mike-huckabee-says/vp-AAz9XpX

So apparently Sarah S can be around people who disagree with her, but the other side.... can't.

and why are these these self-described 'liberals' apparently only heckling women? has anyone noticed this? Open season on conservative women, but too cowardly to attempt bullying men to their face? I have seen this a few times in real life with my lovely 5'6" DW. Someone will see the gaggle of kids and spit something nasty to her 'destroying the planet, irresponsible' whatever. They didn't notice me in the background and are suddenly in a hurry to disappear when I approach. What the actual F is with these nutballs?

Amazing to watch the Left being exactly what they claim to despise: nasty, bullying, intolerant fascists.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 10:16:01 AM by acroy »

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 #2335 on: June 27, 2018, 09:59:40 AM »
The Travel Ban is horrible. It is such a shame that it had to come to this. But when half the country wants Open Borders something has to be done. It is easy to say that the President is evil for not Opening the borders to everyone that seeks a new life. Many of the articles on the UN Official Website are anti-Trump because he does break from them, but I still find their articles to be very well written. Again, the arguments get so heated because people take an everyone, or no one approach. I think if the Democrats would help work towards a plan to help secure the border, then the current Dreamers could start getting nationalized and we could begin to increase the numbers of refugees again to be more sympathetic to the many global crisis.

It's like groundhog day on this point.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2336 on: June 27, 2018, 10:00:15 AM »
The Travel Ban is horrible. It is such a shame that it had to come to this. But when half the country wants Open Borders something has to be done.

I stopped reading right here, because when you start from a premise of utter bullshit, nothing that follows is gonna make any sense.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2337 on: June 27, 2018, 10:04:56 AM »
Another example of why people should preach for civility.  Unhinged people aren't good at telling what is fascist.  So you have a norm where the way you push back on politics is with protest, campaigning, letter writing, whatever, but not harassing government employees at dinner or at their house or when they are generally just carrying on non-public business, so that every unhinged person out there isn't spending their free time harassing government officials for run of the mill political disagreements.   

Asking someone politely to leave your establishment is not harassment.  I'd be with you if people were heckling her at her house while she tried to have a peaceful dinner, but that's not the situation at hand.

That baker in Colorado would certainly agree. Shame we cannot politely ask the Hondurans to leave since that is not harassment either. There were some people that were politely asked to leave Star Bucks a few months ago, but I think that was considered harassment. We should define that and try to stick to one standard.

Conveniently ignoring parts of my post does not help you make your point.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2338 on: June 27, 2018, 10:05:01 AM »
Amazing to watch the Left being exactly what they claim to despise: nasty, bullying, intolerant fascists.

Awww, you don't like it when your tactics are thrown back in your face?  Do you need a safe space?

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2339 on: June 27, 2018, 10:05:17 AM »
The Travel Ban is horrible. It is such a shame that it had to come to this. But when half the country wants Open Borders something has to be done. It is easy to say that the President is evil for not Opening the borders to everyone that seeks a new life. Many of the articles on the UN Official Website are anti-Trump because he does break from them, but I still find their articles to be very well written. Again, the arguments get so heated because people take an everyone, or no one approach. I think if the Democrats would help work towards a plan to help secure the border, then the current Dreamers could start getting nationalized and we could begin to increase the numbers of refugees again to be more sympathetic to the many global crisis.

It's like groundhog day on this point.

Try talking to a Liberal

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2340 on: June 27, 2018, 10:09:09 AM »
I think if the Democrats would help work towards a plan to help secure the border, then the current Dreamers could start getting nationalized and we could begin to increase the numbers of refugees again to be more sympathetic to the many global crisis.

The Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate but it's up to Democrats to "work towards a plan" and then the country can be more sympathetic to refugees?   LOL the dumbest logic.

Trump shut down a pilot program put in place by Obama that allowed immigrants at the border to not sit in detention, but rather wear an ankle bracelet monitor while they waited for their court date.  99.6% showed up to their hearings.  It was much more humane and cost-effective than holding people for weeks.

What does securing the border have to do with the Dreamers?  Wtf?  Just pass a clean Dream Act.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2341 on: June 27, 2018, 10:14:39 AM »
Amazing to watch the Left being exactly what they claim to despise: nasty, bullying, intolerant fascists.

Awww, you don't like it when your tactics are thrown back in your face?  Do you need a safe space?
why do you make it personal? anything useful to actually add to the conversation? you and a few others go after me personally... I am living rent-free in your head.

I personally am the nicest, non-bullying, tolerant, gun owning god fearing apologetically principled person you may ever interact with. I'm really humble too.

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 #2342 on: June 27, 2018, 10:16:32 AM »
The Paradox of Tolerance should also be coupled with not getting in a mudwrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty and only the pig has fun. Trump and his administration will always win if the conversation goes low. This inherently leads to a slanted playing field because those willing to wantonly lie just simply have more options. It is infuriating, but true.

I personally think that it was a bad move to kick SHS out. As MDM (and many thoughtful essays) have pointed out, this causes the positioning of the right to harden. It is the difference between micro and macro economics. It may be immediatley satisfying and maybe even feel just, but at the larger scale provides fuel for the oh-so-loved conservative martyrdom machine (see also, the War on Christmas).

As a person whose job it is to literally interact with the public on behalf of the executive branch of government, I think it would have been appropriate to state that the owner strongly disagreed with the policies and habitual lying at the White House. It is OK to make SHS uncomfortable at least in part because it is punching up. We have a constitutional right to redress our government for grievances. I think kicking her out sets a bad model for how to interact with people we disagree with generally.

No shirt , no shoes, no service is a policy that can be implemented fairly and without discrimination. I'm not sure what policy would be fairly implemented that would cover kicking out SHS. but, I do agree with the owner that she is a soulless liar, as you would have to be to stay in that position.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8636
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2343 on: June 27, 2018, 10:18:19 AM »


I personally am the nicest, non-bullying, tolerant, gun owning god fearing apologetically principled person you may ever interact with. I'm really humble too.

Ok, that last part made me chuckle...

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2344 on: June 27, 2018, 10:20:58 AM »
Asking someone politely to leave your establishment is not harassment. 
Ahem
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/sarah-sanders-heckled-by-red-hen-owner-even-after-leaving-mike-huckabee-says/vp-AAz9XpX

And I would be fine with calling out that behavior as inappropriate.  But that's not what anyone has done (in fact this is the first I've heard of it) and it doesn't change my statement above.


Amazing to watch the Left being exactly what they claim to despise: nasty, bullying, intolerant fascists.

I think it's silly of you to be surprised when those who are bullied eventually fight back.  Sometimes people go too far when they finally decide to stand up for themselves after being bullied for so long and I don't approve of that, but I definitely understand it.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2358
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2345 on: June 27, 2018, 10:23:20 AM »
The Paradox of Tolerance should also be coupled with not getting in a mudwrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty and only the pig has fun. Trump and his administration will always win if the conversation goes low. This inherently leads to a slanted playing field because those willing to wantonly lie just simply have more options. It is infuriating, but true.

I personally think that it was a bad move to kick SHS out. As MDM (and many thoughtful essays) have pointed out, this causes the positioning of the right to harden. It is the difference between micro and macro economics. It may be immediatley satisfying and maybe even feel just, but at the larger scale provides fuel for the oh-so-loved conservative martyrdom machine (see also, the War on Christmas).

As a person whose job it is to literally interact with the public on behalf of the executive branch of government, I think it would have been appropriate to state that the owner strongly disagreed with the policies and habitual lying at the White House. It is OK to make SHS uncomfortable at least in part because it is punching up. We have a constitutional right to redress our government for grievances. I think kicking her out sets a bad model for how to interact with people we disagree with generally.

No shirt , no shoes, no service is a policy that can be implemented fairly and without discrimination. I'm not sure what policy would be fairly implemented that would cover kicking out SHS. but, I do agree with the owner that she is a soulless liar, as you would have to be to stay in that position.

I agree with you. She is within her right to refuse service. It was her restaurant and apparently she felt strongly enough about SHS complicit behavior she could not handle giving her service. At the same time I think it would have been better to politely tell her off, serve her, and let everyone around her including the waitstaff give her death stares. The reason why? Is that you take that small seed, and if you go on Breitbart, saying that the owner followed her across the street, yelling and harassing her.  Reading breitbart comments, there are now literally people talking about calling the health inspection to see if they fail their inspection and even death threats to all liberals.  And for those who just say it's people just spouting off, it HAS gotten that nutty. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-washingtondc-gunman/man-pleads-guilty-in-washington-pizzeria-shooting-over-fake-news-idUSKBN16V1XC
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 10:29:17 AM by partgypsy »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2346 on: June 27, 2018, 10:24:35 AM »
Jrr85 - let's say I agree with you (and I don't) that refusing to serve someone is uncivil.

Is there any action the government could take at which point you believe that being uncivil is required?
  Yes, but we're not really close now.  I mean, we may be close in that we have a weaponized bureaucracy and there are not norms that people respect that will keep them from doing something that rises to that level, but what people are actually doing now that peopel are focused on doesn't really rise to that level.   


What if Trump decides to intern Muslim Americans?
  If he goes all FDR, and the courts don't stop him, then yea, probably. 

What if Trump believes he should be president for life and refuses to leave office?
  Nah.  Him refusing to leave office would be pretty ineffectual. 

What if Trump goes into times square and shoots someone in the head?
  I mean, I guess, if you're like an arresting officer or prison guard, you don't need to be civil to him?  If you're the judge, you should be.  Not sure who else would see him very much. 


Should we all just write our letters of protest and hope for the best?
  Or protest, campaign, whatever.  Generally try to work through the political process before harassing people in the street or trying to prevent some people from being able to eat/shop at places generally accommodating the public. 

Note I selected all of the examples above because Trump has actually indicated he could do any of those things.
  Not sure he's really indicated that he could do all of those things in any serious manner, but regardless, he's not close to doing or being able to do any of those things. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4988
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2347 on: June 27, 2018, 10:50:14 AM »
Not sure he's really indicated that he could do all of those things in any serious manner, but regardless, he's not close to doing or being able to do any of those things.

"In any serious manner" meaning something that he won't backtrack on whenever it fits his mood?

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2348 on: June 27, 2018, 10:52:02 AM »
The part I love is where people seem to assert that if the Democrats are not 'civil' enough, not meek enough, not humble enough, don't reach out enough, don't roll over and show their bellies enough ... then somehow these mythical swing state/Republican voters won't give them enough votes to take back Congress or the next Presidency.

Newsflash:  Democrats tried all that, and IT'S NOT WORKING.  You know what did work?  Tea Party tactics.  Get people outraged, get them angry, and keep them angry enough to rally them on election day (and before, and after).  Get them angry enough to put their local elected officials on notice. 

Let's be realistic:  the only thing white middle-class swing voters in swing states really care about is jobs.  Everything else is negotiable--immigration, gun control, abortion.  They want their cushy jobs with full benefits, (only manly jobs, if you please, none of these feminine 'service' jobs like healthcare, thankyouverymuch), and if/when the economy tanks, they will turn on Trump & co faster you can say 'whataboutism'.

You know who really is angry and raring to vote right now, though?  Minorities and young people.  And while lots of them hate Trump, they also tend to think the Democrats are just Republicans lite.  (I don't agree, but that's neither here nor there.)  IMHO, that's who the Democrats should be going after, in swing states and elsewhere.  Screw being civil.  Pelosi and co need to adopt a new strategy:  get angry, stay angry, be loud about it, and rally the vote.  And if that means doing unto them what they've done unto us, then so be it.  If Republicans can play that game, Democrats can too. 

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2349 on: June 27, 2018, 10:55:26 AM »
Amazing to watch the Left being exactly what they claim to despise: nasty, bullying, intolerant fascists.

Awww, you don't like it when your tactics are thrown back in your face?  Do you need a safe space?
why do you make it personal? anything useful to actually add to the conversation? you and a few others go after me personally... I am living rent-free in your head.

The irony in this is almost overwhelming.  I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.  You just called all liberals (including the ones on this board, one presumes) 'nasty, bullying, intolerant fascists', and then want to complain about making it personal?  If that isn't the best example of conservative whining I've ever seen, I don't know what is.  'Waaaah--I called them names, and now they're being MEAN to me!'