US politics general thread

[daveza]

What kind of 'president' says this ?

The man has breeding and class lower than trailer trash.

 

[cerebus]

What kind of 'president' says this ?

The man has breeding and class lower than trailer trash.

View attachment 531755

Or this moment where he bragged about a half-hearted not-really-endorsement by David Lynch. The man is a craven narcissist

 

[Unhappy438]

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

No i don't support the concept but i don't have a better alternative either. Despite that you're still making a false equivalence.

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.

Note the thread title.

 

[konfab]

What kind of 'president' says this ?

The man has breeding and class lower than trailer trash.

View attachment 531755

What that woman is advocating is going to backfire horribly for the Democrats.

 

[cerebus]

What that woman is advocating is going to backfire horribly for the Democrats.

Yeah, not really hey. Contrary to the narrative that leftist hate for Donald Trump only emboldens his fanbase, Trump is still historically unpopular, and getting worse, and the dislike for him in the media works.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/donald-trump-is-still-not-popular.html

There’s also little evidence to support the idea that liberals are alienating moderate and independent voters by expressing outrage at Trump and his administration. Widespread dislike for the president is one force behind the striking Democratic gains of the past 18 months, from surprising victories in state legislative races and shocking upsets in special elections—like Doug Jones in Alabama and Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania—to outright waves, like the broad victory in Virginia’s elections last year.

Electoral politics are volatile enough that liberal outrage may eventually have an impact on the margins of a race. We just haven’t seen it yet. The anger directed against Trump in national commentary and social media hasn’t stopped Democrats in Missouri or Oklahoma or Pennsylvania from flipping state legislative seats, nor has it stemmed erosion in Republican Party identification. Most Republicans support the president but fewer people are calling themselves Republicans, even as conservative media ramps up its defense of President Trump and works to generate anger among its consumers.

The main thing Trump has going for him is the electoral college strength, bolstered by gerrymandering and voter suppression. As a president, he is widely hated apart from an OP minority group.

 

[konfab]

No i don't support the concept but i don't have a better alternative either. Despite that you're still making a false equivalence.

I just thought it was funny that you said those words, hence the

Note the thread title.

Like I said, I am unsure of the US law on it. Any law that prohibits an individual from discriminating against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation would technically allow it.

 

[konfab]

Yeah, not really hey. Contrary to the narrative that leftist hate for Donald Trump only emboldens his fanbase, Trump is still historically unpopular, and getting worse, and the dislike for him in the media works.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

RCP has it that his approval is getting better. But you shouldn't listen to those people as they have a legacy of getting the polls wrong...

 

[Unhappy438]

Like I said, I am unsure of the US law on it. Any law that prohibits an individual from discriminating against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation would technically allow it.

Lol you're not sure.... No such law exists. Civil rights act, 14th and 15th amendment does however exist.

 

[konfab]

Lol you're not sure.... No such law exists. Civil rights act, 14th and 15th amendment does however exist.

Do you know all the anti-discrimination laws of all the states?

 

[daveza]

In 2015, Trump Cafe and Grill was cited for nine health violations. Six were deemed critical and included dirty food-contact surfaces, dirty wiping cloths and cold food stored at an improper temperature. The following year it was cited for five violations — three critical, including roach infestation. It was cited for four critical violations last year and for three so far this year.

Trump’s restaurant at Mar-a-Lago was cited for 13 health violations last year, including for undercooked fish and hot raw meat, just days before Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had dinner there. The restaurant chalked up a combined 78 health code violations in just three years.

 

[Unhappy438]

Do you know all the anti-discrimination laws of all the states?

Lol what is this, some kind of appeal to ignorance?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

RCP has it that his approval is getting better. But you shouldn't listen to those people as they have a legacy of getting the polls wrong...

Gallup has him back down to 41% again.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235955/trump-job-approval-slips-back.aspx

He's really extraordinarily unpopular for a president with a pretty good economy.

All his issues are of his own making. If he just stfu for a bit, it'll likely go up.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Lol you're not sure.... No such law exists. Civil rights act, 14th and 15th amendment does however exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information.

Amazingly, lying schitbag press secretaries is not a protected class.

 

[Cray]

Amazingly, lying schitbag press secretaries is not a protected class.

:crylaugh:

 

[Unhappy438]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group



Amazingly, lying schitbag press secretaries is not a protected class.

Ya but Konfab is talking about a law where you can force someone to buy a product based on discrimination. Not the other way around.

 

[konfab]

Lol what is this, some kind of appeal to ignorance?

Lol you're not sure.... No such law exists. Civil rights act, 14th and 15th amendment does however exist.

CRA:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

14th amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Theoretically you could use that to justify discrimination on your own property.

15th amendment is for voting. Which does not concern who an individual must do business with.

So are you really so sure?

Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to "support or endorse any particular religious view." It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

 

[cerebus]

Ya but Konfab is talking about a law where you can force someone to buy a product based on discrimination. Not the other way around.

Yes but konfab is trolling because nobody can be that stupid, right

 

[konfab]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group



Amazingly, lying schitbag press secretaries is not a protected class.

Thanks for finding that.

So using those protected group clauses, would a shop be able force a customer to buy a product from them if the shop found the customer didn't want to buy the product because of the shop owner's sexual orientation?

 

[konfab]

Yes but konfab is trolling because nobody can be that stupid, right

It is a logical extension of anti-discrimination laws that target the interactions of businesses.

 

[cerebus]

It is a logical extension of anti-discrimination laws that target the interactions of businesses.

No it's not. Nobody can be forced to buy anything they don't want to. Your argument is a fundamentally moronic cul-de-sac that you've dragged us all into because you can't form a cogent thought.