The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[Binkster]

I know I’m upset about it.

I'm not upset, just perpetually embarrassed by how moronic our President is.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm glad you asked that.

Yes, I think it's cool for them to do that.

To me, the line is whether or not the business is entirely privately-owned and operated, and whether said business provides direct access to life/health.

An orthodontist should not be able to discriminate based on these things, for example. Doctors all take an oath to serve as well. That last bit is where the gray area in my position lies.

Things like generic goods and services (like this cake thing), however, I think the business owner can choose to serve or not serve whomever he or she pleases, period. Let society and the market rule over said business's success or failure.

Cassity, when you agree to do business or in any way engage in commerce, you implicitly agree to adhere to the laws of the land in which you're doing said commerce. Conducting commerce is different, in a general sense, than a singular transaction between two private parties, and even then, a transaction between two private parties is STILL regulated under the law.

With that being said, nothing is stopping an individual from saying "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." However, a business cannot make that decision. The employee or proprietor can choose not to do business, but, the rules for doing business in this country, since the Civil Rights Act, have meant that every customer must be treated equally, and free from discrimination.

Imagine if you and I went for beers and they wouldn't let me in because I wasn't White?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Cassity, when you agree to do business or in any way engage in commerce, you implicitly agree to adhere to the laws of the land in which you're doing said commerce. Conducting commerce is different, in a general sense, than a singular transaction between two private parties, and even then, a transaction between two private parties is STILL regulated under the law.

With that being said, nothing is stopping an individual from saying "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding." However, a business cannot make that decision. The employee or proprietor can choose not to do business, but, the rules for doing business in this country, since the Civil Rights Act, have meant that every customer must be treated equally, and free from discrimination.

Imagine if you and I went for beers and they wouldn't let me in because I wasn't White?

Again, the issue is not the willingness to sell a beer, or a hotel room, or even a cake. Those things are red herrings.

The real issue is much more limited, and involves only custom, creative input, not the kind of off the shelf products and services that would impact life significantly if someone had the right to say "no".

 

[Huber.]

Bill, no country on Earth acknowledges Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; this is and has always been under dispute. Ask yourself why you think "everyone mostly acknowledges" something that no nation acknowledges?

Then why does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recognize it as the capital?

 

[gourimoko]

Yep. As long as it still fits within what I said before about being entirely privately owned/operated, and not denying health-based services.

I guess my question to you would be, why? That is to say, why does a private business, that does not provide health-based service, have a right to discriminate and deny services to Black or homosexual patrons?

Because if the argument is that they have rights to do what they wish with their business, then couldn't you apply that to thousands of different business regulations, like health and safety codes, minimum wage, sexual harassment and coercion, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, taxation, pay discrimination ... I mean, the list goes on and on.. and on...

So, if this is really a matter of private businesses having the negative right to choose how they conduct business because "it's theirs, they own it" (implied by the mentioning of private ownership), then that would apply to every aforementioned scenario, i.e.:

1) I'm not hiring Black people, because I don't want to.
2) I'm not promoting women out of lower positions because they shouldn't lead businesses.
3) I'm not renting to Asians because I don't want to.
4) I'm not going to repair my building and employees and customers will just have to deal with the risks.
5) I'm not going to adhere to minimum wage, it's a private employment contract.
6) I'm not paying taxes on private sales, it's my money.

This goes on and on and on...

 

[gourimoko]

Again, the issue is not the willingness to sell a beer, or a hotel room, or even a cake. Those things are red herrings.

They're not red herrings unless you misunderstand what's being said.

The real issue is much more limited, and involves only custom, creative input, not the kind of off the shelf products and services that would impact life significantly if someone had the right to say "no".

I'm not sure if you're reading the discussion, but that's not the issue we're talking about.

If a business provides a service, and denies that service upon the basis of their own discrimination, then that fits exactly into the scope of the topic. Furthermore, if you read the discussion between @Cassity14 and @-Akronite- they're talking about discrimination in a generalized sense, which includes discrimination upon the basis of race (with the exception, as Cassity put it, for health-based services).

 

[gourimoko]

Then why does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recognize it as the capital?

Went over this up-thread.

 

[billmac91]

Bill, no country on Earth acknowledges Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel; this is and has always been under dispute. Ask yourself why you think "everyone mostly acknowledges" something that no nation acknowledges?



Because the United States was, until yesterday, the active peace broker. Now the United States has unilaterally decided that Jerusalem (in its entirety) belongs to the Israelis. The Palestinians will now no longer work with the U.S., since the U.S. is no longer acting in good faith.

This also means the likely end to any Two-State Solution; which, has been the proposed solution for the past several decades.

It's an upheaval of the peace process and any negotiations based around partitioning the city have pretty much gone out the window.



I don't know of many polls, but my guess would be that Jewish folks would be pretty divided on the topic.



That's cool.

Like I said, I'm not well versed on it. But when I was looking at past videos of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump all speak emphatically of Jerusalem being the capital, I thought that was the common opinion.

 

[gourimoko]

Like I said, I'm not well versed on it. But when I was looking at past videos of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump all speak emphatically of Jerusalem being the capital, I thought that was the common opinion.

I wrote a few posts about this a few pages back... How this issue is discussed domestically is complicated and much of it is Kabuki theater. The United States has never recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel since, every six months, every President has postponed actually moving the embassy. This is why Trump's move is so disruptive, because it breaks the status quo and decides the issue for both parties in such a way as to be damaging to any hopes for a Two State Solution.

Here's an article that details the past 22 years of American policy on the topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-is-poised-to-end-it/?utm_term=.947ab559977c

FWIW, you will likely see a major push by the Palestinians to abandon any hopes of establishing a Palestinian state through negotiations. Many are already moving on to asking for their human rights to be recognized (meaning, a right to vote and move freely); a so-called One-State Solution, which .. could mean the end of Israel as we know it.

This is the kind of fucked up scenario that hardliners like Netanyahu want, because it creates a crisis in which people will seek out hardliners to solve..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

They're not red herrings unless you misunderstand what's being said.



I'm not sure if you're reading the discussion, but that's not the issue we're talking about.

If a business provides a service, and denies that service upon the basis of their own discrimination, then that fits exactly into the scope of the topic. Furthermore, if you read the discussion between @Cassity14 and @-Akronite- they're talking about discrimination in a generalized sense, which includes discrimination upon the basis of race (with the exception, as Cassity put it, for health-based services).

Okay, fair enough. If someone takes the position thay all discrimination should be lawful, then you're right.

There also is a pretty bright-line middle ground that only permits that kind of discrimination in situations similar to those before the Supreme Court now.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I guess my question to you would be, why? That is to say, why does a private business, that does not provide health-based service, have a right to discriminate and deny services to Black or homosexual patrons?

Because if the argument is that they have rights to do what they wish with their business, then couldn't you apply that to thousands of different business regulations, like health and safety codes, minimum wage, sexual harassment and coercion, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, taxation, pay discrimination ... I mean, the list goes on and on.. and on...

So, if this is really a matter of private businesses having the negative right to choose how they conduct business because "it's theirs, they own it" (implied by the mentioning of private ownership), then that would apply to every aforementioned scenario, i.e.:

1) I'm not hiring Black people, because I don't want to.
2) I'm not promoting women out of lower positions because they shouldn't lead businesses.
3) I'm not renting to Asians because I don't want to.
4) I'm not going to repair my building and employees and customers will just have to deal with the risks.
5) I'm not going to adhere to minimum wage, it's a private employment contract.
6) I'm not paying taxes on private sales, it's my money.

This goes on and on and on...

Exactly. If they own it, they have the absolute right to do those things. Even if 1-4 would put them out of business and destroy their name in society, they would have the right to do it.

If they don't own it, if there is no private property, then do whatever you want. The mob says what you can and can't do.

 

[gourimoko]

Exactly. If they own it, they have the absolute right to do those things. Even if 1-4 would put them out of business and destroy their name in society, they would have the right to do it.

If they don't own it, if there is no private property, then do whatever you want. The mob says what you can and can't do.

Yeah, it's not the mob, it's called the government, the government that "governs" over commerce, trade, and business transactions.

In an anarchy, sure, every man for himself. Deny me service at your own peril. But we don't live in an anarchy; so I'm not sure why we would approach this question from such a framework?

 

[-Akronite-]

Exactly. If they own it, they have the absolute right to do those things. Even if 1-4 would put them out of business and destroy their name in society, they would have the right to do it.

If they don't own it, if there is no private property, then do whatever you want. The mob says what you can and can't do.

The problem is when these things happen and it DOESN'T destroy their name in society. A lot of mobs are unjust and willing to discriminate. That's why we have the Civil Rights Act.

The idea that the market will take care of discriminatory businesses is patently false.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Yeah, it's not the mob, it's called the government, the government that "governs" over commerce, trade, and business transactions.

In an anarchy, sure, every man for himself. Deny me service at your own peril. But we don't live in an anarchy; so I'm not sure why we would approach this question from such a framework?

You mentioned private property ownership. That's the way I approached the question. Without private property, and therefore a right to that property, you're right. The mob, government, whatever you want to call it can rightfully govern over whatever it wants and force whatever rules it feels appropriate on you at gunpoint. With private property, and the right to that property, they can't rightfully do it.

 

[Tlyons]

What "conspiracy theory"? Do you actually believe that the certainty that Franken will be replaced by a Democrat has no effect at all on how other Democrats are treating this?

I'm completely open about both sides taking politics into account when addressing these kind of issues. When Bill Clinton was impeached, there were feminists on the left who openly stated that they were supporting him despite the allegations because of his stances on other issues of great importance to them.

The same thing is happening with Moore on the GOP end -- the prospect of who will replace him is unquestionably impacting the GOP reaction. That's no conspiracy theory -- there are Republicans advocating that openly. When Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina was busted with his Argentinian side-action, Republicans turned on him instantly. Why? Because it was South Carolina, and they knew he'd be replaced by a Republican. In that case, Nikki Haley.

But in your world, it's just Republicans who act like that. Anyone who suggests that Democrat morals are just as situationally dependent (which is not necessarily a perjorative) as GOP morals is pushing a "conspiracy".

Butbecause the information about Moore "happened"to break in that short period between the primary and the election, there won't be another special election. There's just this election, and the seat would get handed to Jones by default until 2021, with the voters being told that's Jones is thechoice they have to make because Moore is a scumbag.