US politics general thread

[crackersa]

Womp womp.

Harley-Davidson, stung by tariffs, to shift some production overseas

Can’t get more American that Harley.


It’s all over the news.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Seems legit.

Buyers tied to Russia, former Soviet republics paid $109 million cash for Trump properties

Aleksandr Burman, a Ukrainian who engaged in a health care scheme that cost the federal government $26 million and was sentenced to a decade in prison, paid $725,000 cash for a condo at a Trump Tower I in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla. in 2009.

Leonid Zeldovich, who has reportedly done extensive business in the Russian-annexed area of Crimea, bought four Trump units outright at a cost of more than $4.35 million, three of them in New York City between 2007 and 2010.

And Igor Romashov, who served as chairman of the board of Transoil, a Russian oil transport company subject to U.S. sanctions, paid $620,000 upfront for a unit at a building adorned with the future U.S. president's name in Sunny Isles Beach in 2010.

Buyers connected to Russia or former Soviet republics made 86 all-cash sales — totaling nearly $109 million — at 10 Trump-branded properties in South Florida and New York City, according to a new analysis shared with McClatchy. Many of them made purchases using shell companies designed to obscure their identities.

 

[crackersa]

Hope both sides can laugh

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Workers threatening the kids not to talk to reporters lest their cases be jeopardised...

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1011419876076982272

 

[cerebus]

Specifically, lets say a homophobic person found out a wedding cake shop was run by gay people. Would they be **allowed** to refuse to use the shop's services?

 

[konfab]

Oh, so you think that the baker was a piece of sht?

Of course. If he **really** wanted to spite them, he would have just thought they were the degenerate pieces of trash they were and taken their money.

 

[greg0205]

Of course. If he **really** wanted to spite them, he would have just thought they were the degenerate pieces of trash they were and taken their money.

Telling.

 

[Cray]

Telling.

Indeed, the mask slipped a bit there I think...

 

[konfab]

Huh?

Did you fall on your head before writing this?

What do you think 'consumer boycott' means? What do you think the phrase 'vote with your wallet' means?

Folk aren't only allowed to refuse a shops's services, there are cases where it's actively encouraged... Kinda like SHS and Trump are doing with this place.

PS. How's your Polony sandwich?

Do I need to explain how to argue to you two?

So you both accept he "customer" is **allowed** to refuse to do business with someone they disagree with.

Ok, given that you have accepted that premise, what if the reason they refused to do business was because the business owners were gay? Under exactly the same laws which prevent unfair discrimination against gay people, you would classify that customer as having discriminated against the business owner. Thus those laws would technically allow Netflix to force their subscription on someone who cancelled it because they showed "gay" content.

Not to mention that Sanders' tweet was probably illegal:

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.za/entry...egal-walter-shaub_us_5b301254e4b0321a01d27fe3

I doubt it. She simply pointed out the truth with that account. She didn't attack anyone.

 

[greg0205]

Do I need to explain how to argue to you two?

So you both accept he "customer" is **allowed** to refuse to do business with someone they disagree with.

Ok, given that you have accepted that premise, what if the reason they refused to do business was because the business owners were gay? Under exactly the same laws which prevent unfair discrimination against gay people, you would classify that customer as having discriminated against the business owner. Thus those laws would technically allow Netflix to force their subscription on someone who cancelled it because they showed "gay" content.



I doubt it. She simply pointed out the truth with that account. She didn't attack anyone.

You *did* fall on your head!

Okay, I'm going to type this real slow 'cos I know you read real slow...

*Not* shopping from a store owned by gay folk is called bigotry. That bigotry stems from homophobia. Homophobia is sometimes expressed in statements like, "the degenerate pieces of trash they were"... See how that works?

 

[konfab]

Telling.

Indeed, the mask slipped a bit there I think...

lol.

 

[konfab]

*Not* shopping from a store owned by gay folk is called bigotry. That bigotry stems from homophobia. Homophobia is sometimes expressed in statements like, "the degenerate pieces of trash they were"... See how that works?

Did I say it wasn't bigotry?

You are missing the detail of the argument: would such a shop be allowed to force a person to buy their products ? Specifically use the anti-discrimination laws of the country to force someone to buy something they don't want?

 

[greg0205]

Did I say it wasn't bigotry?

You are missing the detail of the argument: would such a shop be allowed to force a person to buy their products ? Specifically use the anti-discrimination laws of the country to force someone to buy something they don't want?

Excluding the economic argument of monopolies (who, I'll add, can't *force* you to do anything, but reduce the market to one provider for a good or service), can you point to any store, anywhere, anytime, anyhow that has forced customers to buy their wares?

Also, "force someone to buy something they don't want"?? Really? Really?? Really???

Your entire premise is a utterly ludicrous. All.Of.It.

 

[rietrot]

You *did* fall on your head!

Okay, I'm going to type this real slow 'cos I know you read real slow...

*Not* shopping from a store owned by gay folk is called bigotry. That bigotry stems from homophobia. Homophobia is sometimes expressed in statements like, "the degenerate pieces of trash they were"... See how that works?

The point is you have double standards. It is bigotry or wrong when it is something you disagree with and completely acceptable when your team does the discrimination. Either all people have a choice to boycot certain businesses or they don't. Either all business owners can refuse to serve some customers for whatever reason or they can't.

It isn't just acceptable when your team does it.

 

[greg0205]

The point is you have double standards. It is bigotry or wrong when it is something you disagree with and completely acceptable when your team does the discrimination. Either all people have a choice to boycot certain businesses or they don't. Either all business owners can refuse to serve some customers for whatever reason or they can't.

It isn't just acceptable when your team does it.

The irony here is that we're discussing this days later 'cos *after* your tribe did a little victory dance about the bigot baker, you snowflakes got your panties in a bunch 'cos SHS was asked to leave a restaurant. Sad.

 

[konfab]

Excluding the economic argument of monopolies (who, I'll add, can't *force* you to do anything, but reduce the market to one provider for a good or service), can you point to any store, anywhere, anytime, anyhow that has forced customers to buy their wares?

I will agree, it doesn't happen because people (rightly) think it is a ridiculous concept.

So how is that different from a customer forcing a business to serve them? Especially when there is not a monopoly of businesses that provide the service?

You have no problem with the state forcing a baker to make a cake they don't want to make and sell it to people who they don't want to sell it to. Yet if a business uses the exact same laws in the situation I spoke about they would be able to force a bigoted Christian to buy a cake from a gay baker.

That is why I am sceptical about such laws in the first place. There is actually a very easy way you can get around the problem. You actually mentioned it in your post: it is called monopolies. I am 100% behind laws that prevent an organisation that is functioning as a monopoly (so a large business or government) being unable to discriminate against people along the forbidden lines.

For smaller business, I don't think it is necessary. And this would actually make the SJW lot happy as they would finally be able to make the POC LGBTQWTFBBQ safe space non profits.

 

[Unhappy438]

So you both accept he "customer" is **allowed** to refuse to do business with someone they disagree with.

Ok, given that you have accepted that premise, what if the reason they refused to do business was because the business owners were gay? Under exactly the same laws which prevent unfair discrimination against gay people, you would classify that customer as having discriminated against the business owner. Thus those laws would technically allow Netflix to force their subscription on someone who cancelled it because they showed "gay" content.

:crylaugh:

Wtf are you talking about, have you completely forgotten about the direction in which money changes and the moral implications of forcing someone to hand over their money. Not a single law mentions what you speak of, the civil rights act does exist however.

Do I need to explain how to argue to you two?

:crylaugh:

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Grief, konfab. Tap out, dude. :wtf:

 

[konfab]

:crylaugh:

Wtf are you talking about, have you completely forgotten about the direction in which money changes and the moral implications of forcing someone to hand over their money. Not a single law mentions what you speak of, the civil rights act does exist however.

So it is a moral problem of forcing someone to hand over their money now? So do you support the concept of taxation then?

I am not so sure of it in the US, but under the law here in the People's Republic of South Africa it is easily allowed.

 

[rietrot]

The irony here is that we're discussing this days later 'cos *after* your tribe did a little victory dance about the bigot baker, you snowflakes got your panties in a bunch 'cos SHS was asked to leave a restaurant. Sad.

My view is consistent. I have no problems with the baker refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual preferences the same as I have no problem with a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone based on their political views or where they work. I'm pro-choice.
The problem is just the hypocrites that want to force one not to discriminate, but allow the other one to.