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.

 whembly wrote:
SCOTUS upheld Trump's travel ban:
https://cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

Regardless how you feel about it policy-wise, it's obvious that Trump had full Article II authority.

...reading the dissent, it seems that these justices wanted to factor in Candidate Trump's animus in determining the legality of this... I don't know how I feel about that. Would seem to open up dangerous doors.

His intent is irrelevant unless it violates the Constitution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Supreme Court also sides with anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” in First Amendment case : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision

And let's not forget with the judges nominated before, the R side clearly has an advantage here for the votes.

Relapse wrote:


I honestly don’t think either side can claim the moral high ground, given the wall of text amount of flaws and villainous each points put in the oyher

Oh, I do think one side can't definitely claim the moral high ground when they put children in cages, no matter the reason invoked.

You are right. The Democrats lost the high ground when Obama did that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Well, to me, the real danger here for Republicans and Trump followers is pushing the outrage so far that the other, more populous side (remember, popular vote lost) get fed up and just doesn't recognize the authority of the officials anymore. Like, for real.

That's what's beginning to happen with the "uncivility" invoked by the R side. Of course it was bound to happen. Backlash is unavoidable when you piss the other off constantly.

Since the R side doesn't listen to the D side anyway, it's clear their call for "keeping things civil" has no reason to be heard. Why would they when one side keeps trolling the other by calling them snowflakes all the time ?

It's the same when you ignore people. If you have a troll called Zarf who keeps bragging and spout nonsense before pissing on your house, don't be surprised if he gets kicked in the nuts after a while and his complains ignored about it "not being civil". He wasn't at the beginning when he was trolling, anyway.

Your post is a recipe for death squads and civil war.

Isn't 'the public official demonstrated bias' the Supreme Court's justification behind ruling that you don't have to make wedding cakes for gay people?

 Sarouan wrote:
Supreme Court also sides with anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” in First Amendment case : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision

And let's not forget with the judges nominated before, the R side clearly has an advantage here for the votes.

The Court’s five conservative justices ruled that a California law that requires those centers — which do not provide abortions and often oppose it on religious grounds — to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions would be available to them elsewhere likely violates the centers’ First Amendment rights.

There is something fundamentally wrong when places which are supposedly meant to be helping people are allowed to intentionally withhold information from people. This goes against ethical guidelines for any work involving caring for people.

You would not accept dialysis clinics intentionally withholding information on transplantation from patients, you would not tolerate cancer clinics withholding treatment options from patients. Both are clearly breaches of ethics. Yet apparently the same is not true of pregnancy and people withholding information regarding that.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people pretending that the Tea Party was some weird low level event?

Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?

Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?

Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them? OR is that only the case for BLM and the MeToo movement?

Except the tea party pretty much is the GOP at this point or a significant portion at this point

Paul Ryan: Tariffs are basically taxes

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) criticized President Trump’s tariffs as “basically taxes” on Tuesday, a day after Harley-Davidson said it would begin manufacturing some motorcycles overseas to avoid retaliatory tariffs from the European Union.

“I think tariffs are basically taxes,” Ryan told reporters at the Capitol. “What ends up happening is you get escalating tariffs and end up raising taxes.”

Last fall, Ryan traveled to Harley-Davidson headquarters in his home state to tout how the Milwaukee-based motorcycle maker and other companies would experience lower taxes from the historic GOP tax-cuts law.

"Tariiffs are bad, I mean, I wont lift a finger to stop them or propose legislative solutions, and I certainly wont directly confront my party leadership over it, but tariffs are bad mmkay?"

Alternatively, "we woulda gotten away with the great tax caper too...if it hadnt been for those meddling tariffs". That's gonna be a real awkward sell come election day.

 whembly wrote:
SCOTUS upheld Trump's travel ban:
https://cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html

Regardless how you feel about it policy-wise, it's obvious that Trump had full Article II authority.

...reading the dissent, it seems that these justices wanted to factor in Candidate Trump's animus in determining the legality of this... I don't know how I feel about that. Would seem to open up dangerous doors.

It goes to intent, and in federal law, intent matters. You can have two people do the same thing or deal with the same object, and depending on their intent have the legality between the two be wildly different. That's a big reason why good lawyers tell their clients to keep quiet and dont go on national news shows directly attributing intent.

Relapse wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This is the kind of thing that stirs up conservatives to hit the polls in large numbers.

Yes, we know. Your trickle of fortune cookie aphorisms to remind us "how we get Trump" have only served to reinforce that the Party of Personal Responsibility had no choice but to vote for Trump because liberals were mean to them.

They had no choice but to look at a guy who, in no special order:

Bragged about sexual assault
Constantly degraded women for their appearance
Flirted with white supremacists by an extended refusal to disavow support of the KKK
Insisted that women who asked him hard questions must be on their period
Claimed an opponents father had assisted with assassinating a US president
Mocked a disabled reporter onstage
Was responsible for an organization that was sued by the Department of Justice for widespread racial discrimination
Attacked a war hero and mocked his imprisonment as a POW, even while getting multiple deferments for "bone spurs"
Attacked a gold star family
Generalized Mexican immigrants as rapists, criminals, drug dealers, and presumably, some good people as well
Endorsed police brutality
Bragged that the military would commit war crimes for him
Refused to disclose his financial entanglements as every other candidate had, and repeatedly lied about why
Pushed an extended, racist conspiracy theory that the President was a foreign citizen and had covered it up
Had a proven record of financial mismanagement
Repeatedly lied that US muslims celebrated 9/11
Called for a foreign government to hack his political opponent
Promised to re-institute war crimes such as waterboarding "and worse"
Endorsed laughable policies that no reasonable person could think would work



And go, you know what? We're good with that. Pull that lever for team red!

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

The alternative seems worse in many people’s minds.

In all honesty, can any republican or group (like Evangelicals) who voted for trump ever try to claim morality in any cause? Because personally I do not think they can

I honestly don’t think either side can claim the moral high ground, given the wall of text amount of flaws and villainies each points put in the oyher

I mean, as much as i dislike Hillary and especially dynastic succession of public office, i really dont see where she matches the above list of issues.

More to the point, in response to Waters calling for people to call out Trump admin staffers in public before being admonished by her own party leadership, we have Trump as head of the GOP hurling personal insults and veiled threats and GOP elected officials going on about imminent civil war, as the press sec in question attempts to fundamentally redefine due process as not requiring access to the court system.

The proportion of Derp is dramatically out of balance in this equation. The Democrats are hardly paragons of virtue, and I dont think anyone is making the case that they are. But it's hard to see where one can judge these as being equal without having to do some pretty heavy leaning on the scale here.

 Frazzled wrote:

You are right. The Democrats lost the high ground when Obama did that.

Trouble is, it's the Republicans who are in power this time and they're the ones needing the moral high ground right now. So invoking what the Democrats may have done/did won't work here. Because if the base doesn't recognize their right to authority, well...

Your post is a recipe for death squads and civil war.

You're confusing this with Duterte.

I was talking more about others stories like that restaurant with Sarah, but on a greater scale. It's not like you can do anything to stop it if it happens, anyway.

 Spinner wrote:
Isn't 'the public official demonstrated bias' the Supreme Court's justification behind ruling that you don't have to make wedding cakes for gay people?

Yes because they voilated the Constitution. Unless he violates the Constitution he has authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
Supreme Court also sides with anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” in First Amendment case : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision

And let's not forget with the judges nominated before, the R side clearly has an advantage here for the votes.

The Court’s five conservative justices ruled that a California law that requires those centers — which do not provide abortions and often oppose it on religious grounds — to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions would be available to them elsewhere likely violates the centers’ First Amendment rights.

There is something fundamentally wrong when places which are supposedly meant to be helping people are allowed to intentionally withhold information from people. This goes against ethical guidelines for any work involving caring for people.

You would not accept dialysis clinics intentionally withholding information on transplantation from patients, you would not tolerate cancer clinics withholding treatment options from patients. Both are clearly breaches of ethics. Yet apparently the same is not true of pregnancy and people withholding information regarding that.

First amendment Uber alles.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Isn't 'the public official demonstrated bias' the Supreme Court's justification behind ruling that you don't have to make wedding cakes for gay people?

Yes because they voilated the Constitution. Unless he violates the Constitution he has authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
Supreme Court also sides with anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” in First Amendment case : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision

And let's not forget with the judges nominated before, the R side clearly has an advantage here for the votes.

The Court’s five conservative justices ruled that a California law that requires those centers — which do not provide abortions and often oppose it on religious grounds — to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions would be available to them elsewhere likely violates the centers’ First Amendment rights.

There is something fundamentally wrong when places which are supposedly meant to be helping people are allowed to intentionally withhold information from people. This goes against ethical guidelines for any work involving caring for people.

You would not accept dialysis clinics intentionally withholding information on transplantation from patients, you would not tolerate cancer clinics withholding treatment options from patients. Both are clearly breaches of ethics. Yet apparently the same is not true of pregnancy and people withholding information regarding that.

First amendment Uber alles.

You...really don't see the contradiction in the things you said in the same two-line post?

 Sarouan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You are right. The Democrats lost the high ground when Obama did that.

Trouble is, it's the Republicans who are in power this time and they're the ones needing the moral high ground right now. So invoking what the Democrats may have done/did won't work here. Because if the base doesn't recognize their right to authority, well...

Your post is a recipe for death squads and civil war.

You're confusing this with Duterte.

I was talking more about others stories like that restaurant with Sarah, but on a greater scale. It's not like you can do anything to stop it if it happens, anyway.

I am an American. I was thinking of good red blooded American dictators, not cheap foreign ones.

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Isn't 'the public official demonstrated bias' the Supreme Court's justification behind ruling that you don't have to make wedding cakes for gay people?

Yes because they voilated the Constitution. Unless he violates the Constitution he has authority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
Supreme Court also sides with anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” in First Amendment case : https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17505768/supreme-court-california-abortion-decision

And let's not forget with the judges nominated before, the R side clearly has an advantage here for the votes.

The Court’s five conservative justices ruled that a California law that requires those centers — which do not provide abortions and often oppose it on religious grounds — to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions would be available to them elsewhere likely violates the centers’ First Amendment rights.

There is something fundamentally wrong when places which are supposedly meant to be helping people are allowed to intentionally withhold information from people. This goes against ethical guidelines for any work involving caring for people.

You would not accept dialysis clinics intentionally withholding information on transplantation from patients, you would not tolerate cancer clinics withholding treatment options from patients. Both are clearly breaches of ethics. Yet apparently the same is not true of pregnancy and people withholding information regarding that.

First amendment Uber alles.

You...really don't see the contradiction in the things you said in the same two-line post?

Its frazz of course he doesn't

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
[
Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

Let's just be truthful here. The Democrats didn't put up great choices in their primary, and the Republicans put up 9 varying flavors of crazy. Trump may be bad, but I have no doubt electing Chris Kristy would have been worse. As for Bernie, I disagreed with his policies, but I can honestly say that unlike everyone else, I respected him because I think he honestly believed in what he was saying.

I don't think I've ever disputed the fact that Hillary was a bad candidate. I just utterly detest Whembly's constant excuse that Trump only won because Hillary was that bad. Because that's a weak excuse that is essentially an admission that the rest of the Republican primary field was even worse, but he won't admit that. Until the Republicans "tend to their own garden", Trump apparently is the best they can produce.

Spinner I am referring to Cali. What are you referring to?

 Spinner wrote:


You...really don't see the contradiction in the things you said in the same two-line post?

Actually, it's just following the narrative of right wing christians and making sure they vote for Republicans the next mandate. But it's better to invoke the First Amendment, it makes it look cooler.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
[
Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

Let's just be truthful here. The Democrats didn't put up great choices in their primary, and the Republicans put up 9 varying flavors of crazy. Trump may be bad, but I have no doubt electing Chris Kristy would have been worse. As for Bernie, I disagreed with his policies, but I can honestly say that unlike everyone else, I respected him because I think he honestly believed in what he was saying.

I don't think I've ever disputed the fact that Hillary was a bad candidate. I just utterly detest Whembly's constant excuse that Trump only won because Hillary was that bad. Because that's a weak excuse that is essentially an admission that the rest of the Republican primary field was even worse, but he won't admit that. Until the Republicans "tend to their own garden", Trump apparently is the best they can produce.

That and all the polling and other data that says Trump still has very high approval ratings from Republicans that directly dispute his assertion.

It is in undisputed fact that rightnow, the Republican party IS the Trump party.

I'm referring to the First Amendment, which is to say -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'd assume you were familiar, because you referenced it, but immediately before that you implied that a law that sought to ban Muslims - including US residents with green cards, for all the xenophobic 'everyone else can get fethed' people - was not unconstitutional, presumably because it didn't say in big bold letters 'Muslims can't be here', even though virtually everyone involved admitted that was the point.

I'm not sure if you didn't remember the text, or if you're way more flexible than I assume you are and you're trying to contort yourself into an extra-large pretzel.

 Easy E wrote:


It is in undisputed fact that rightnow, the Republican party IS the Trump party.

Which means if you go for the Team R, you have to cheer the Orange running for the goal. He's basically the star player of their team right now.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Spinner wrote:


You...really don't see the contradiction in the things you said in the same two-line post?

Actually, it's just following the narrative of right wing christians and making sure they vote for Republicans the next mandate. But it's better to invoke the First Amendment, it makes it look cooler.

I do believe thats a direct attack violative of Rule #1.
In the US we have something called a Constitution. Part of that Constitution is the Bill of Rights and certain post Civil War Amendments. These amendments insure that certain rights for US citizens remain inviolate, that among these are the rights to free speech, press, assembly, and Disco.

For I quote the immortal Minuteman who said to the British "If you mean to have a Dance Off Sir, then let it begin here!"

 Easy E wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
[
Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

Let's just be truthful here. The Democrats didn't put up great choices in their primary, and the Republicans put up 9 varying flavors of crazy. Trump may be bad, but I have no doubt electing Chris Kristy would have been worse. As for Bernie, I disagreed with his policies, but I can honestly say that unlike everyone else, I respected him because I think he honestly believed in what he was saying.

I don't think I've ever disputed the fact that Hillary was a bad candidate. I just utterly detest Whembly's constant excuse that Trump only won because Hillary was that bad. Because that's a weak excuse that is essentially an admission that the rest of the Republican primary field was even worse, but he won't admit that. Until the Republicans "tend to their own garden", Trump apparently is the best they can produce.

That and all the polling and other data that says Trump still has very high approval ratings from Republicans that directly dispute his assertion.

It is in undisputed fact that rightnow, the Republican party IS the Trump party.

Going back to the Tariff example above, thats would have been anathema to the Republican party just a couple of years ago, literally inconceivable as mainline Republican policy, and something they would have been absolutely willing to shut the government down over had Obama proposed it. Now the best they can manage is qualified objections and indirect whining, nobody looking for re-election is actively confronting Trump over it attempting to push legislative workarounds.

 Spinner wrote:
I'm referring to the First Amendment, which is to say -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'd assume you were familiar, because you referenced it, but immediately before that you implied that a law that sought to ban Muslims - including US residents with green cards, for all the xenophobic 'everyone else can get fethed' people - was not unconstitutional, presumably because it didn't say in big bold letters 'Muslims can't be here', even though virtually everyone involved admitted that was the point.

I'm not sure if you didn't remember the text, or if you're way more flexible than I assume you are and you're trying to contort yourself into an extra-large pretzel.

The problem with that is twofold:

1. his authority stem directly from the Constitution, not via law. When two constitutional provisions conflict it gets real.
2. The temporary ban doesn't due what you say however Its actually the Obama list.

The courts have absolutely held that constitutional authority can be exceeded based on intent. However, in this case, it appears the court (in Roberts' majority opinion) basically said "we can't determine intent" and bypassed that issue.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I'm referring to the First Amendment, which is to say -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'd assume you were familiar, because you referenced it, but immediately before that you implied that a law that sought to ban Muslims - including US residents with green cards, for all the xenophobic 'everyone else can get fethed' people - was not unconstitutional, presumably because it didn't say in big bold letters 'Muslims can't be here', even though virtually everyone involved admitted that was the point.

I'm not sure if you didn't remember the text, or if you're way more flexible than I assume you are and you're trying to contort yourself into an extra-large pretzel.

The problem with that is twofold:

1. his authority stem directly from the Constitution, not via law. When two constitutional provisions conflict it gets real.
2. The temporary ban doesn't due what you say however Its actually the Obama list.

So what you're saying is 'he's the President, so he can do it even if the Constitution says he can't'.

Do you see yourself more as a sourdough or microwavable and soft type?

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I dont agree with Waters' statement, if thats the hill we're gonna choose to die on over common decency, well, I feel comfortable stating that we should probably be aiming elsewhere.

These are public officials leading public lives driving public policy in positions of wealth and power, who ran on a platform of "feth your feelings", and have been caustic, divisive, belligerent, insulting and offensive, and intentionally so, for the last several years since Trump started his campaign and have only kicked it into higher gear since entering office, and who are currently pushing policies that not too long ago would have been thought impossible in the US by common standards of decency.

So, while I dont condone people going out and harrassing others, if we're complain about common decency, that's a hard pill to swallow in this case.

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, "supports abducting and transporting children across the country to scare people into not wanting to come here" seems like a pretty good line to draw for not getting to go out for enchiladas in peace.

I feel this, I really do. As you say these are some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country, and they are doing reprehensible things while being paid on the taxpayer dime all the time - getting yelled at in public seems pretty fair. It feels right. As their crowd is so fond of saying over and over and over again, feth your feelings, snowflake. Right?

But I have been thinking about this for days and ultimately although my heart - my very angry heart - agrees with that idea, my head agrees more with this one.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree with NinthMusketeer. This is heading nowhere good. I don't think partisan politics becoming even more weaponized is going to help anything. I agree with everyone that the Trump administration is rather terrible at their job from an objective viewpoint but these are public government employees, there's already a process to send feedback to them when we're unhappy with their job performance. Physically stalking and harassing government officials in the hopes of intimidating them to the point where they change policy positions isn't a good way to govern a nation or uphold civic responsibilities. It's just circumventing the system of representative democracy in favor of mob rule and a might makes right mentality.

This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope because it encourages direct physical confrontations to resolve political disagreements or effect govt policy changes. If we as a society are going to decide that physical intimidation is an acceptable form of political discourse then we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

It's a much harder argument to swallow emotionally, but ultimately eradicating social and political norms as retribution for eradicating social and political norms just leaves the whole world blind, or something like that.

I understand what you're saying here, but I have to respectfully disagree. I really do think the thing to note is that this administration is run by bullying, racist con artists. They don't expect pushback - partly because they're counting on Republicans to keep on waving that Team Red flag, partly because they think people secretly agree with them, hence all that 'just telling it like it is' nonsense, and partly because people continue to hold to those norms. It's the right-wing playbook in the US. Liberals are communists, traitors, snowflakes - but oh, don't you dare snap back at that, because then you're just driving everyone around you further right while you erode civil discourse. You don't want mobs in the street, right? Please excuse us while we occupy a federal building and get a free barrel of lube out of it.

It's already been eroded, and giving ground to bullies just means they're going to demand more. Seb's take on it is pretty spot on. You get paid to act like an a-hole, and the adults don't have to put up with you. You enactgovernment-sponsored child abduction, and your fellow diners will be nice enough to save you from a burrito full of kitchen staff spittle.

Kinda big-hearted of them, when you think about it.

So just to figure this out:

The left has been such gakky donkey-caves that they basically forced the right to vote for Trump. But at the same time the left shouldn’t drop to the level of Trump and maintain the high ground.

 d-usa wrote:
So just to figure this out:

The left has been such gakky donkey-caves that they basically forced the right to vote for Trump. But at the same time the left shouldn’t drop to the level of Trump and maintain the high ground.

Mmhm. They promise they'll stop putting kids in cages so long as the left is a good little punching bag and only says nice words.

Also, shut up about the child hostages, you don't want someone to decide that the left are the real Nazis and start waving tiki torches around a synagogue.

 d-usa wrote:
So just to figure this out:

The left has been such gakky donkey-caves that they basically forced the right to vote for Trump. But at the same time the left shouldn’t drop to the level of Trump and maintain the high ground.

That is quite the catch that Catch-22!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 Spinner wrote:


You...really don't see the contradiction in the things you said in the same two-line post?

Actually, it's just following the narrative of right wing christians and making sure they vote for Republicans the next mandate. But it's better to invoke the First Amendment, it makes it look cooler.

I do believe thats a direct attack violative of Rule #1.
In the US we have something called a Constitution. Part of that Constitution is the Bill of Rights and certain post Civil War Amendments. These amendments insure that certain rights for US citizens remain inviolate, that among these are the rights to free speech, press, assembly, and Disco.

For I quote the immortal Minuteman who said to the British "If you mean to have a Dance Off Sir, then let it begin here!"

Is it a violation if it is true? How many republican evangelicals voted for trump even though he is literally the antithesis of their religion?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/missouri-midcontinent-nail-trade-war-layoffs-donald-trump-a8417411.html

The first casualties of Donald Trump’s trade war are 60 workers at Mid-Continent Nail, America’s largest nail manufacturer.

They lost their jobs on 15 June at a factory in a part of Missouri which voted overwhelmingly for Mr Trump to become US president.

The whole company could be out of business by Labour Day....


The first casualties of Donald Trump’s trade war are 60 workers at Mid-Continent Nail, America’s largest nail manufacturer.

They lost their jobs on 15 June at a factory in a part of Missouri which voted overwhelmingly for Mr Trump to become US president.

The whole company could be out of business by Labour Day.

https://www.missourinet.com/2018/06/25/former-owner-of-struggling-missouri-nail-company-says-u-s-should-tax-imports-on-finished-goods/



..ouch.

I've changed thoughts on refusing service, but I still remain firmly against harassing individuals or name calling. Dropping to their level will not help. Having the high ground won't convince the Republicans of anything because nothing will convince them of anything. The people that may stay home because they are disgusted with both sides need to be convinced there is a party worth voting for. Further; the solution is to hold people accountable. This can't be done directly in the current administration, but it can be done through media and election. Democrats need to be on TV saying what Seb did about breaking the rules of civility. They need to run political attack adds with clips of Republicans expressing polar opposite stances under different administrations. Billboards of Trump tweet A from the Obama years being counter to Trump tweet B from now. Make it impossible not to know what's going on. That will make potential non-voters (justifiably) angry, and there's no motivation like anger. It will also put pressure on the few Republicans left that have some level of integrity to abandon the party.

Sinking to their level is not only a poor choice morally but pragmatically as well; Republicans will hammer Democrats in that game, they're much better at it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The courts have absolutely held that constitutional authority can be exceeded based on intent. However, in this case, it appears the court (in Roberts' majority opinion) basically said "we can't determine intent" and bypassed that issue.

Agreed. That intent has to be violative of the Constitution, which was not done in this case, unless you'd care to share the clause that was violated.

Noope. Like the court I am saying the Constitution says he can.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are people pretending that the Tea Party was some weird low level event?

Hey guys, remember all the times people were comparing Obama to Hitler while talking about how his brownshirts are going to round up all your children and put them in the FEMA death camps and enact his socialist agenda to turn the USA into Nazi Germany?

Remember how the liberals decided that if you call them mean names, they will turn to the radical extreme left elements and the Democrats in power decided to pander to the fringe elements of the liberal sphere?

Remember when people were saying that you can't judge a group by the fringe elements within them? OR is that only the case for BLM and the MeToo movement?

Name a single person who speaks for the entirety of both movements.

You're trying to conflate disassociated groups(BLM+MeToo) with a bloc that sticks together quite famously.