US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
skyth wrote:
Jim Wright had a nice take on Sarah Huckabee being kicked out of a restaurant...

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1739990556036340

Bake that cake homie!

You can't on the one had advocate to force a certain baker to decorate a cake, and at the same time advocate that the restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service because of someone who they work for....

That's the hypocrisy.

I mean it isn't. It really isn't. Saying you won't serve someone because of who they are is a lot different than not serving someone because of what they are. I can't refuse to server you because you are black. I can refuse to server you because you are a dill weed.

**NinthMusketeer**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
skyth wrote:
Jim Wright had a nice take on Sarah Huckabee being kicked out of a restaurant...

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1739990556036340

Bake that cake homie!

You can't on the one had advocate to force a certain baker to decorate a cake, and at the same time advocate that the restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service because of someone who they work for....

That's the hypocrisy.

I mean it isn't. It really isn't. Saying you won't serve someone because of who they are is a lot different than not serving someone because of what they are. I can't refuse to server you because you are black. I can refuse to server you because you are a dill weed.

It makes the hypocrisy of Republicans more evident but doesn't change that, morally speaking, people should get service without judgement for behavior that does not directly correlate to the service at hand. To ban someone for their political views is legal but still a dick move. Or maybe society doesn't subscribe to that view as much as I believe, I dunno.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
It's also not hypocrisy unless you're being purposefully obtuse.

Do you really think that he doesn't know the difference between discriminating against a protected class and discriminating against someone who has actively made a choice to work for Donald Trump? Or are we, as usual, now playing the Dakka OT's dumbest and most popular game?

Honesty this thread would be so much better if we didn't all take the time to point out these gakky d-grade arguments and just pretended they didn't happen.

Uh huh...

I don’t think Sarah was there to wax poetically on the policies of her boss and his administration. She was just trying to eat a damned dinner with her family on a Friday night.

I mean ... is this where we're at? Members of the Trump administration are not expected to be allowed to dine in public with family and friends? Really?

Talk about toxic politics... no wonder we're so polarized.

So...lemme restate this...so, for no other reason than the opposition party believing a person is a liar or being "those people", it's kosher that person is to be refused service by business owners. Got it. Just be aware, I don’t think the Democrats and those in #TheResistance will be so pleased with these new rules when the next Democrat is elected president.

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:

So...lemme restate this...so, for no other reason than the opposition party believing a person is a liar or being "those people", it's kosher that person is to be refused service by business owners. Got it. Just be aware, I don’t think the Democrats and those in #TheResistance will be so pleased with these new rules when the next Democrat is elected president.

One, they're only restricted from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. So, unless you're one of the ones claiming that Trump is the Second Coming....

Oh, and, Wemb, did you, just maybe, forget these?

This one was pretty good, this find upstanding conservative left a woman stranded on the side of the road for hours because he refused to tow a car with a Bernie Sanders sticker:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31888456/tow-truck-owner-bernie-sanders#ixzz47jK64yGd

Protest the Prez? Go hungry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/357464-mlb-player-says-he-was-denied-service-at-a-restaurant-for-kneeling

So, it's not a 'new' rule, and, frankly, it's not even a new rule for Republicans. It's just new that someone this high profile has been on the receiving end.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
It's also not hypocrisy unless you're being purposefully obtuse.

Do you really think that he doesn't know the difference between discriminating against a protected class and discriminating against someone who has actively made a choice to work for Donald Trump? Or are we, as usual, now playing the Dakka OT's dumbest and most popular game?

Honesty this thread would be so much better if we didn't all take the time to point out these gakky d-grade arguments and just pretended they didn't happen.

Uh huh...

I don’t think Sarah was there to wax poetically on the policies of her boss and his administration. She was just trying to eat dinner with her family on a Friday night.

I mean ... is this where we're at? Members of the Trump administration are not expected to be allowed to dine in public with family and friends? Really?

Talk about toxic politics... no wonder we're so polarized.

So...lemme restate this...so, for no other reason than the opposition party believing a person is a liar or being "those people", it's kosher that person is to be refused service by business owners. Got it. Just be aware, I don’t think the Democrats and those in #TheResistance will be so pleased with these new rules when the next Democrat is elected president.

This has literally always been the case. There has never been a time where this what not the case. Its not a good thing, but unless you want to make political belief a protected class (meaning you can't refuse to serve a KKK member for example), this will remain the case. If a store owner doesn't like you personaly they don't have to serve you. What they can't do is go "we don't serve X" (X being a protected class, e.g. race, sex ect).

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

So...lemme restate this...so, for no other reason than the opposition party believing a person is a liar or being "those people", it's kosher that person is to be refused service by business owners. Got it. Just be aware, I don’t think the Democrats and those in #TheResistance will be so pleased with these new rules when the next Democrat is elected president.

One, they're only restricted from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. So, unless you're one of the ones claiming that Trump is the Second Coming....

Oh, and, Wemb, did you, just maybe, forget these?

This one was pretty good, this find upstanding conservative left a woman stranded on the side of the road for hours because he refused to tow a car with a Bernie Sanders sticker:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31888456/tow-truck-owner-bernie-sanders#ixzz47jK64yGd

Protest the Prez? Go hungry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/357464-mlb-player-says-he-was-denied-service-at-a-restaurant-for-kneeling

Absolutely dick moves.

Let me restate this - Personally I think these new rules are terrible... but if we really want to analogize this... Red Hen to MasterpieceBakery... Sanders has to have Red Hen to create custom food items for a celebration (ie, The Church of Zero Tolerance), and Red Hen has to be willing to serve her on its premise for any event, such that the Red Hen owners can't object on moral grounds. So, yeah... not a great comparison since MasterPiece Bakery was willing to sell them any cake at his store, just not make a wedding cake that he believe is his artistic expression. So, what Red Hen did was an even bigger dick move.

Yes, Red Hen has a right to refuse service, for anything not covered by protected class.

Sanders, of course, has a right to complain.

Potential customers also have a right to make their own decision, based on these actions.

Just as I have a right to try to persuade people to stop politicizing everything....especially since this is a fething family dinner.

Its' like no one understands this "freedom" thing...

I mean, #TheResistance is running republicans out of restaurants. Shooting them on a baseball field. Revealing their home addresses and protesting there. Calling for their jobs and demanding they lose their ability to provide for their families??

Ya'll complain about the bs that Trump is doing and the danger of normalizing things? Please, by the Emprah on Holy Terra™, pick up a mirror and do some self reflection.

We can have a civilized society where we can have rational debates/criticisms over politicians and their policies. Or, we can have a society where social norms are constantely broken and we don't really talk to each other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

This has literally always been the case. There has never been a time where this what not the case. Its not a good thing, but unless you want to make political belief a protected class (meaning you can't refuse to serve a KKK member for example), this will remain the case. If a store owner doesn't like you personaly they don't have to serve you. What they can't do is go "we don't serve X" (X being a protected class, e.g. race, sex ect).

I haven't argued otherwise.

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

So...lemme restate this...so, for no other reason than the opposition party believing a person is a liar or being "those people", it's kosher that person is to be refused service by business owners. Got it. Just be aware, I don’t think the Democrats and those in #TheResistance will be so pleased with these new rules when the next Democrat is elected president.

One, they're only restricted from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. So, unless you're one of the ones claiming that Trump is the Second Coming....

Oh, and, Wemb, did you, just maybe, forget these?

This one was pretty good, this find upstanding conservative left a woman stranded on the side of the road for hours because he refused to tow a car with a Bernie Sanders sticker:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31888456/tow-truck-owner-bernie-sanders#ixzz47jK64yGd

Protest the Prez? Go hungry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/357464-mlb-player-says-he-was-denied-service-at-a-restaurant-for-kneeling

Absolutely dick moves.

Let me restate this - Personally I think these new rules are terrible... but if we really want to analogize this... Red Hen to MasterpieceBakery... Sanders has to have Red Hen to create custom food items for a celebration (ie, The Church of Zero Tolerance), and Red Hen has to be willing to serve her on its premise for any event, such that the Red Hen owners can't object on moral grounds. So, yeah... not a great comparison since MasterPiece Bakery was willing to sell them any cake at his store, just not make a wedding cake that he believe is his artistic expression. So, what Red Hen did was an even bigger dick move.

Yes, Red Hen has a right to refuse service, for anything not covered by protected class.

Sanders, of course, has a right to complain.

Potential customers also have a right to make their own decision, based on these actions.

Just as I have a right to try to persuade people to stop politicizing everything....especially since this is a fething family dinner.

Its' like no one understands this "freedom" thing...

I mean, #TheResistance is running republicans out of restaurants. Shooting them on a baseball field. Revealing their home addresses and protesting there. Calling for their jobs and demanding they lose their ability to provide for their families??

Ya'll complain about the bs that Trump is doing and the danger of normalizing things? Please, by the Emprah on Holy Terra™, pick up a mirror and do some self reflection.

We can have a civilized society where we can have rational debates/criticisms over politicians and their policies. Or, we can have a society where social norms are constantely broken and we don't really talk to each other.

And then we have alt right and neo nazis, okay lets be honest they are pretty much the same. Doing the same thing back, don't kid yourself and try to make this all the lefts fault. And preemptively yes you are implying that this is the lefts fault, you just try to wiggle your way out of statements that you have said in the past when confronted about it.

**Dreadwinter**

whembly wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

So...lemme restate this...so, for no other reason than the opposition party believing a person is a liar or being "those people", it's kosher that person is to be refused service by business owners. Got it. Just be aware, I don’t think the Democrats and those in #TheResistance will be so pleased with these new rules when the next Democrat is elected president.

One, they're only restricted from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. So, unless you're one of the ones claiming that Trump is the Second Coming....

Oh, and, Wemb, did you, just maybe, forget these?

This one was pretty good, this find upstanding conservative left a woman stranded on the side of the road for hours because he refused to tow a car with a Bernie Sanders sticker:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31888456/tow-truck-owner-bernie-sanders#ixzz47jK64yGd

Protest the Prez? Go hungry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/357464-mlb-player-says-he-was-denied-service-at-a-restaurant-for-kneeling

Absolutely dick moves.

Let me restate this - Personally I think these new rules are terrible... but if we really want to analogize this... Red Hen to MasterpieceBakery... Sanders has to have Red Hen to create custom food items for a celebration (ie, The Church of Zero Tolerance), and Red Hen has to be willing to serve her on its premise for any event, such that the Red Hen owners can't object on moral grounds. So, yeah... not a great comparison since MasterPiece Bakery was willing to sell them any cake at his store, just not make a wedding cake that he believe is his artistic expression. So, what Red Hen did was an even bigger dick move.

Yes, Red Hen has a right to refuse service, for anything not covered by protected class.

Sanders, of course, has a right to complain.

Potential customers also have a right to make their own decision, based on these actions.

Just as I have a right to try to persuade people to stop politicizing everything....especially since this is a fething family dinner.

Its' like no one understands this "freedom" thing...

I mean, #TheResistance is running republicans out of restaurants. Shooting them on a baseball field. Revealing their home addresses and protesting there. Calling for their jobs and demanding they lose their ability to provide for their families??

Ya'll complain about the bs that Trump is doing and the danger of normalizing things? Please, by the Emprah on Holy Terra™, pick up a mirror and do some self reflection.

We can have a civilized society where we can have rational debates/criticisms over politicians and their policies. Or, we can have a society where social norms are constantely broken and we don't really talk to each other.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

This has literally always been the case. There has never been a time where this what not the case. Its not a good thing, but unless you want to make political belief a protected class (meaning you can't refuse to serve a KKK member for example), this will remain the case. If a store owner doesn't like you personaly they don't have to serve you. What they can't do is go "we don't serve X" (X being a protected class, e.g. race, sex ect).

I haven't argued otherwise.

Sucks when the home team gets treated like an away team, eh? You are acting like Sanders is the only person to ever be legally discriminated against based on their political position. Suddenly this is an issue for you, but you havent been upset when it happened to the other team other than a token "that is horrible" when your hypocrisy is brought up. Why is that?

**BaronIveagh**

whembly wrote:

Sanders, of course, has a right to complain.

Not in the manner she's done it, which violates federal law. CFR › Title 5 › Chapter XVI › Subchapter B › Part 2635 › Subpart G › Section 2635.702 (d)

By using her official twitter account as press secretary, she's effectively using the Federal government to financially coerce someone over a private matter.

**Ouze**

I think we've established pretty definitively that personal emolument is OK in this administration, and since the Trump administration retains strong support among the GOP, with GOP voters as well. I think that ship sailed permanently when Kellyanne Conway pumped Ivanka's clothing line in her official role without consequence. Now you have stuff like Trump claiming he's immune to the emoluments clause, period.

So long as the layout of congress is what it is, there are no consequences.

This is easily the most corrupt and ethically-challenged presidential administration in my lifetime, and it's not going to end soon. And of course, now the overton window has been substantially moved to whatever comes next.

**Frazzled**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
skyth wrote:
Jim Wright had a nice take on Sarah Huckabee being kicked out of a restaurant...

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1739990556036340

Bake that cake homie!

You can't on the one had advocate to force a certain baker to decorate a cake, and at the same time advocate that the restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service because of someone who they work for....

That's the hypocrisy.

I mean it isn't. It really isn't. Saying you won't serve someone because of who they are is a lot different than not serving someone because of what they are. I can't refuse to server you because you are black. I can refuse to server you because you are a dill weed.
It makes the hypocrisy of Republicans more evident but doesn't change that, morally speaking, people should get service without judgement for behavior that does not directly correlate to the service at hand. To ban someone for their political views is legal but still a dick move. Or maybe society doesn't subscribe to that view as much as I believe, I dunno.

Just started one more step down the rabbit hole to civil war.

**Ustrello**

Frazzled wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
skyth wrote:
Jim Wright had a nice take on Sarah Huckabee being kicked out of a restaurant...

https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1739990556036340

Bake that cake homie!

You can't on the one had advocate to force a certain baker to decorate a cake, and at the same time advocate that the restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service because of someone who they work for....

That's the hypocrisy.

I mean it isn't. It really isn't. Saying you won't serve someone because of who they are is a lot different than not serving someone because of what they are. I can't refuse to server you because you are black. I can refuse to server you because you are a dill weed.
It makes the hypocrisy of Republicans more evident but doesn't change that, morally speaking, people should get service without judgement for behavior that does not directly correlate to the service at hand. To ban someone for their political views is legal but still a dick move. Or maybe society doesn't subscribe to that view as much as I believe, I dunno.

Just started one more step down the rabbit hole to civil war.

Jesus Christ

**Steelmage99**

whembly wrote:

I mean ... is this where we're at? Members of the Trump administration are not expected to be allowed to dine in public with family and friends? Really?

If you are the kind of person that promotes the idea that members of a given sexual orientation are not expected to be allowed to buy a cake in public with family and friends?

Well, you get what is coming to you, I guess. My sympathy for her terrible plight (should that be, blight?) is severely diminished.

**Spinner**

The appropriate thing would be for someone from Red Hen to get up in front of a camera and insist that Sanders' group stayed for the whole meal and had a great time.

**Ouze**

Spinner wrote:
The appropriate thing would be for someone from Red Hen to get up in front of a camera and insist that Sanders' group stayed for the whole meal and had a great time.

Spot on and exalted.

**NinthMusketeer**

Ouze wrote:
Spinner wrote:
The appropriate thing would be for someone from Red Hen to get up in front of a camera and insist that Sanders' group stayed for the whole meal and had a great time.

Spot on and exalted.

Totally.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I like how Whembly said "oh so this discrimination is OK now" despite my post literally right above his explaining how it was OK in strictly legal terms but not OK in practical ones. I have him on ignore but my impression is that he usually at least waits a few posts to embarrass himself like that.

**Steve steveson**

I think something needs to be clarified. Political belief has nothing to do with it. It’s about who she works for. The restaurant is not refusing to serve democrats or trump supporters. They are refusing to serve someone who works directly for Trump. This is not discrimination and claims that it is either show a complete lack of understanding of what discrimination is, or are just more attempts to paint the left as hypocrites and the right as being so downtrodden, the populist line that got trump elected.

**LordofHats**

It's also worth point out it's not even that she works for Trump. She's literally the face of his administration. She's the one who stands in front of the cameras and has to explain his nonsense. More than that, she's someone who has avidly, and on a personal level, endorsed her support for the role she plays publicly. It's nothing like discrimination.

It's literally because she's Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

**NinthMusketeer**

TBF I think having to provide not only rational but pro-Trump explanations for everything he does would drive anyone insane. Maybe it's some sort of Stockholm Syndrome.

**tneva82**

Hah at trump again. He puts in tariffs to eu. Eu obviously responds in kind. Now trump is threatening of more tariffs if eu doesn't remove those. Of course eu will instead put in more tariffs in response.

Guess trump is aiming for no trades anywhere with 1000's% tariffs both way

**Crazyterran**

Somehow America was making money trading with Canada but Canada treated them poorly. Nevermind that America has lost multiple cases (mostly involving Lumber) against Canada and has never paid what they were ordered to pay.

Oh well, I guess China, Japan, and fhe EU can get our goods. Maybe we should turn off the lights by not selling them more electricity (BC Hydro was originally set up for free/extremely cheap power in BC after all!) and take back our water.

**Steve steveson**

Crazyterran wrote:
Somehow America was making money trading with Canada but Canada treated them poorly. Nevermind that America has lost multiple cases (mostly involving Lumber) against Canada and has never paid what they were ordered to pay.

Oh well, I guess China, Japan, and fhe EU can get our goods. Maybe we should turn off the lights by not selling them more electricity (BC Hydro was originally set up for free/extremely cheap power in BC after all!) and take back our water.

Build the wall! build the wall! build the wall!

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
whembly wrote:

Sanders, of course, has a right to complain.

Not in the manner she's done it, which violates federal law. CFR › Title 5 › Chapter XVI › Subchapter B › Part 2635 › Subpart G › Section 2635.702 (d)

By using her official twitter account as press secretary, she's effectively using the Federal government to financially coerce someone over a private matter.

How on earth is this financially coercing?

Sarah Sanders
✔
@PressSec
Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

9:53 AM - Jun 23, 2018

Furthermore, check the timestamp of that... the whole thing went viral before her response.

**Crazyterran**

She probably shouldnt have included the last bit if shes using the official press secretary account.

**whembly**

Crazyterran wrote:
She probably shouldnt have included the last bit if shes using the official press secretary account.

...not being obtuse here, but I'm not following.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Crazyterran wrote:
She probably shouldnt have included the last bit if shes using the official press secretary account.

...not being obtuse here, but I'm not following.

You absolutely are. You well know that it's an issue of optics and, quite frankly, that it was used to retaliate against the establishment--making it another wonderful example of an ethics violation.

While it might have gone viral beforehand, she had no reason to be responding using her official account. One would assume she has a private account where if she needed to make a statement, she could have.

But no. She made a statement on her official account, which was immediately followed by her daddy making a statement about "bigotry" and "hate" after making a racist joke in relation to a picture cropped from a Nazi website. It's a wonderful example of trying to incite the base.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
Crazyterran wrote:
She probably shouldnt have included the last bit if shes using the official press secretary account.

...not being obtuse here, but I'm not following.

You absolutely are. You well know that it's an issue of optics and, quite frankly, that it was used to retaliate against the establishment--making it another wonderful example of an ethics violation.

While it might have gone viral beforehand, she had no reason to be responding using her official account. One would assume she has a private account where if she needed to make a statement, she could have.

But no. She made a statement on her official account, which was immediately followed by her daddy making a statement about "bigotry" and "hate" after making a racist joke in relation to a picture cropped from a Nazi website. It's a wonderful example of trying to incite the base.

The last part of her tweet kan.

...and it's a fething tweet.

In any case, are you saying that she should've only tweeted on her personal one, and because it went viral if the press ask her about it she should say "please see my personal tweet account, next questions?"... or, stay silent?

**skyth**

She shouldn't have tweeted about it at all. Their line has been that businesses should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason and they shouldn't suffer any repercussions for this at all.

Besides, it makes perfect sense to refuse to serve a known liar who works for someone who has refused to pay people who have done work for him in the past.

**Kanluwen**

whembly wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
whembly wrote:
Crazyterran wrote:
She probably shouldnt have included the last bit if shes using the official press secretary account.

...not being obtuse here, but I'm not following.

You absolutely are. You well know that it's an issue of optics and, quite frankly, that it was used to retaliate against the establishment--making it another wonderful example of an ethics violation.

While it might have gone viral beforehand, she had no reason to be responding using her official account. One would assume she has a private account where if she needed to make a statement, she could have.

But no. She made a statement on her official account, which was immediately followed by her daddy making a statement about "bigotry" and "hate" after making a racist joke in relation to a picture cropped from a Nazi website. It's a wonderful example of trying to incite the base.

The last part of her tweet kan.

Which leaves out that the owner privately pulled her and only her aside to ask her and her party to leave.

...and it's a fething tweet.

Which is full of lies, as is to be expected. Anyone who has watched her press briefings anywhere other than Fox News knows that's BS.

In any case, are you saying that she should've only tweeted on her personal one, and because it went viral if the press ask her about it she should say "please see my personal tweet account, next questions?"... or, stay silent?

I'm saying that she should have said "This was about me, specifically, and I will not comment about this matter."

It's funny how you and the GOP are focusing so heavily upon Red Hen's "mistreatment" of Sanders while ignoring that when a baker did the same thing regarding Joe Biden, you were celebrating it.

**Steve steveson**

skyth wrote:
She shouldn't have tweeted about it at all. Their line has been that businesses should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason and they shouldn't suffer any repercussions for this at all.

There are limits to that. Businesses should not refuse people because of things inherent in their being. Gender, race, sexuality, disability etc. Working for a particular person is not part of that. A business should be able to refuse to serve people if they wish within bounds. A bar in Detroit could refuse to serve Ford workers as they see themselves as a GM bar. Or a sports bar refuse entry to away fans, or a bar refuse to let people in wearing football kit (not unusual in the UK). Non of these things are discrimination in the legal sense.