Sarah Huckabee Sanders is terrible at this job

[jimmyjazz 45512]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not confusing one damn thing.  The default setting for idiot leftist is to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc.  The concept that someone disagrees with them just because someone disagrees with them or has a different point of view or interpretation of a matter never goes into their head.  If everyone who called someone racist had to actually know the definition of racism there would be a shit load less people calling other people racist.

It's not your fault that your racist perspectives prevent you from fully understanding the truth.

[Hornius Emeritus 12403]

5 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

 Be like Conan the Barbarian, don't talk about throwing out the alarm clock, just throw it out.

Yes! I remember the quote verbatim:

"Conan: What is good in life?"

"To crush your roommate, to see him miss classes, to hear the beautiful silence of alarm clock that you threw on the roof last week."

[HenryJames 65868]

6 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

[Cacti 191]

36 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think restaurants and other service businesses should refuse service only to people directly working for/collaborating with Trump or does this extend to anyone who supports Trump or the republicans in any capacity (e.g. those who vote R)?  

 

Shaming should be limited to people directly working for/collaborating with Trump. That’s the only people that should be publicly humiliated. Well, them, and of course their families. Perhaps their dog, as well.

[EMAWesome 101]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not your fault that your racist perspectives prevent you from fully understanding the truth.

Okay, I'll play along.  List every racist thing I've ever done.  You can't because you don't know me from the man in the moon.  You've never met me.  You know nothing of my background.  You couldn't point me out of a police line up.  You know absolutely nothing about me other than I am a K-State fan.   And yet you think you can play Robbie Coltrane and develop some kind of deep psychological profile of me based solely on internet posts on what is primarily a college football fan board.

 

  What truth am I not understanding?  People are breaking the law by trying to enter the country illegally and the President is enforcing the law.  An action that as head of the executive branch he has every right, arguably even duty to do.  Don't like the law?  Write your congressman.  Congress drafts legislation, not presidents.  It doesn't matter what the skin color is of the people trying to enter the country illegally.  What matters is their actions, namely trying to enter the country illegally.  I would feel this way if Mexico was on the southern border of the United States.   I would feel this way if France was on the southern border of the United States.  I would feel this way if Japan was on the southern border of the United States or any other country was on the southern border of the United States.  It's not who the people are that matters to me.  It is what they are doing. 

 

If you don't want your kids taken away from you in this country don't break this country's laws.  If you are trying to enter this country illegally and you don't want any kids you have with you taken away from then don't enter this country illegally.  What's the phrase that gets posted on this site at least once a week?  Don't start no shit there won't be no shit.  If you don't want to be arrested for shoplifting, don't steal shit.  If you don't want to be ticketed for speeding, drive the speed limit.  If you don't want to be arrested for murder, don't kill anyone.  If you don't want to be arrested for illegally entering a country, don't enter the country illegally.  If I decided to sneak into France through a non port of entry and was apprehended by French law enforcement I would expect my ass to be either put in jail or kicked back across the Atlantic where I came from.  This is policy for the vast majority of the countries in the world.  Donald Trump is not going through attics looking for Latin American Anne Franks.  No Hispanic-Americans here legally are being herded into box cars.  Your "truth" does not exist.

[Hank Scorpio 17711]

32 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not confusing one damn thing.  The default setting for idiot leftist is to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc.  The concept that someone disagrees with them just because someone disagrees with them or has a different point of view or interpretation of a matter never goes into their head.  If everyone who called someone racist had to actually know the definition of racism there would be a shit load less people calling other people racist.

Minorities. Are. The. Real. Racists. 

[Foosters 17691]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Okay, I'll play along.  List every racist thing I've ever done.  You can't because you don't know me from the man in the moon.  You've never met me.  You know nothing of my background.  You couldn't point me out of a police line up.  You know absolutely nothing about me other than I am a K-State fan.   And yet you think you can play Robbie Coltrane and develop some kind of deep psychological profile of me based solely on internet posts on what is primarily a college football fan board.

 

  What truth am I not understanding?  People are breaking the law by trying to enter the country illegally and the President is enforcing the law.  An action that as head of the executive branch he has every right, arguably even duty to do.  Don't like the law?  Write your congressman.  Congress drafts legislation, not presidents.  It doesn't matter what the skin color is of the people trying to enter the country illegally.  What matters is their actions, namely trying to enter the country illegally.  I would feel this way if Mexico was on the southern border of the United States.   I would feel this way if France was on the southern border of the United States.  I would feel this way if Japan was on the southern border of the United States or any other country was on the southern border of the United States.  It's not who the people are that matters to me.  It is what they are doing. 

 

If you don't want your kids taken away from you in this country don't break this country's laws.  If you are trying to enter this country illegally and you don't want any kids you have with you taken away from then don't enter this country illegally.  What's the phrase that gets posted on this site at least once a week?  Don't start no shit there won't be no shit.  If you don't want to be arrested for shoplifting, don't steal shit.  If you don't want to be ticketed for speeding, drive the speed limit.  If you don't want to be arrested for murder, don't kill anyone.  If you don't want to be arrested for illegally entering a country, don't enter the country illegally.  If I decided to sneak into France through a non port of entry and was apprehended by French law enforcement I would expect my ass to be either put in jail or kicked back across the Atlantic where I came from.  This is policy for the vast majority of the countries in the world.  Donald Trump is not going through attics looking for Latin American Anne Franks.  No Hispanic-Americans here legally are being herded into box cars.  Your "truth" does not exist.

You realize the vast majority of "illegal immigrants" traveled here by plane and overstayed their visas, right? Why then are you only concerned with the brown ones who cross by foot? Also, you're lying, again. This administration is refusing asylum claims and lumping everyone in as "illegal entries."

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Okay, I'll play along.  List every racist thing I've ever done.  You can't because you don't know me from the man in the moon.  You've never met me.  You know nothing of my background.  You couldn't point me out of a police line up.  You know absolutely nothing about me other than I am a K-State fan.   And yet you think you can play Robbie Coltrane and develop some kind of deep psychological profile of me based solely on internet posts on what is primarily a college football fan board.

 

  What truth am I not understanding?  People are breaking the law by trying to enter the country illegally and the President is enforcing the law.  An action that as head of the executive branch he has every right, arguably even duty to do.  Don't like the law?  Write your congressman.  Congress drafts legislation, not presidents.  It doesn't matter what the skin color is of the people trying to enter the country illegally.  What matters is their actions, namely trying to enter the country illegally.  I would feel this way if Mexico was on the southern border of the United States.   I would feel this way if France was on the southern border of the United States.  I would feel this way if Japan was on the southern border of the United States or any other country was on the southern border of the United States.  It's not who the people are that matters to me.  It is what they are doing. 

 

If you don't want your kids taken away from you in this country don't break this country's laws.  If you are trying to enter this country illegally and you don't want any kids you have with you taken away from then don't enter this country illegally.  What's the phrase that gets posted on this site at least once a week?  Don't start no shit there won't be no shit.  If you don't want to be arrested for shoplifting, don't steal shit.  If you don't want to be ticketed for speeding, drive the speed limit.  If you don't want to be arrested for murder, don't kill anyone.  If you don't want to be arrested for illegally entering a country, don't enter the country illegally.  If I decided to sneak into France through a non port of entry and was apprehended by French law enforcement I would expect my ass to be either put in jail or kicked back across the Atlantic where I came from.  This is policy for the vast majority of the countries in the world.  Donald Trump is not going through attics looking for Latin American Anne Franks.  No Hispanic-Americans here legally are being herded into box cars.  Your "truth" does not exist.

That’s a lot of words to show everyone you’re just a dumbass.

“Don’t want your kids taken away crying’, don’t try to come in MY country you brown ass motherfucker.”

That’s what you should have said.  At least then you would have been honest with us and yourself. 

Insects, vermin, invaders, hordes. Where do you think this ends you stupid ass motherfucking troll? 

FUCK YOU. 

[EMAWesome 101]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

That’s a lot of words to show everyone you’re just a dumbass.

“Don’t want your kids taken away crying’, don’t try to come in MY country you brown ass motherfucker.”

That’s what you should have said.  At least then you would have been honest with us and yourself. 

Insects, vermin, invaders, hordes. Where do you think this ends you stupid ass motherfucking troll? 

FUCK YOU. 

Look, the person who can't read the words "I would feel this way if it was any other country on earth was on the southern border of the United States"  or the words "It's not who the people are it is what they are doing that matters to me."  is calling me a dumbass and proving my point about how fewer people there would be calling other people racists if they first had to know what the definition of racism is in order to call someone a racist.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Look, the person who can't read the words "I would feel this way if it was any other country on earth was on the southern border of the United States"  or the words "It's not who the people are it is what they are doing that matters to me."  is calling me a dumbass and proving my point about how fewer people there would be calling other people racists if they first had to know what the definition of racism is in order to call someone a racist.

No you wouldn’t. You’re a liar. And not a very good one at that. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Look, the person who can't read the words "I would feel this way if it was any other country on earth was on the southern border of the United States"  or the words "It's not who the people are it is what they are doing that matters to me."  is calling me a dumbass and proving my point about how fewer people there would be calling other people racists if they first had to know what the definition of racism is in order to call someone a racist.

How’s that wall between us and Canada coming along? Isn’t that how Al Queda that blew up the twin towers got in here in the first place? 

[EMAWesome 101]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No you wouldn’t. You’re a liar. And not a very good one at that. 

Okay, you got me.  You are a much better dumbass than I am a liar.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

I'm gonna cut you some slack now that I realize you're a K-State fan, because I was always taught I should be nice to retards.

You need to read up on the requirements for seeking asylum and then you need to read up on recent SCOTUS rulings regarding immigration.  (And by "regarding" I actually mean "regarding", not a euphemism for "retarding".  Oops, did I already call you a retard?  Shit, where's the edit button?)

[Brisketexan 104462]

19 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

People are breaking the law by trying to enter the country illegally and the President is enforcing the law.  An action that as head of the executive branch he has every right, arguably even duty to do.

It's a felony to fail to disclose foreign contacts on an SF-86 form.

I'm glad that our President Magnus Greatus Americanus is fulfilling his DUTY to enforce the law against such felonious folks.  Wait....what's that?  Kushner is still an integral part of his admin?  Oh.   Ok then.

Hell, I just picked the FUNNIEST way you shot your dick clean off in your post.  There are others, but laughing at the bloody stump any longer seems cruel.

[sheeeit 129]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

How’s that wall between us and Canada coming along? Isn’t that how Al Queda that blew up the twin towers got in here in the first place? 

If there were 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people crossing the Canadian border everyday then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

Personally, I am against the wall but I can certainly realize that it is a complex situation with no easy fixes.

[bad_teammate 13125]

10 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

If there were 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people crossing the Canadian border everyday then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

Yes, racists would still be racist.

[hobbes2702 12771]

39 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Okay, I'll play along.  List every racist thing I've ever done.  You can't because you don't know me from the man in the moon.  You've never met me.  You know nothing of my background.  You couldn't point me out of a police line up.  You know absolutely nothing about me other than I am a K-State fan.   And yet you think you can play Robbie Coltrane and develop some kind of deep psychological profile of me based solely on internet posts on what is primarily a college football fan board.

 

  What truth am I not understanding?  People are breaking the law by trying to enter the country illegally and the President is enforcing the law.  An action that as head of the executive branch he has every right, arguably even duty to do.  Don't like the law?  Write your congressman.  Congress drafts legislation, not presidents.  It doesn't matter what the skin color is of the people trying to enter the country illegally.  What matters is their actions, namely trying to enter the country illegally.  I would feel this way if Mexico was on the southern border of the United States.   I would feel this way if France was on the southern border of the United States.  I would feel this way if Japan was on the southern border of the United States or any other country was on the southern border of the United States.  It's not who the people are that matters to me.  It is what they are doing. 

 

If you don't want your kids taken away from you in this country don't break this country's laws.  If you are trying to enter this country illegally and you don't want any kids you have with you taken away from then don't enter this country illegally.  What's the phrase that gets posted on this site at least once a week?  Don't start no shit there won't be no shit.  If you don't want to be arrested for shoplifting, don't steal shit.  If you don't want to be ticketed for speeding, drive the speed limit.  If you don't want to be arrested for murder, don't kill anyone.  If you don't want to be arrested for illegally entering a country, don't enter the country illegally.  If I decided to sneak into France through a non port of entry and was apprehended by French law enforcement I would expect my ass to be either put in jail or kicked back across the Atlantic where I came from.  This is policy for the vast majority of the countries in the world.  Donald Trump is not going through attics looking for Latin American Anne Franks.  No Hispanic-Americans here legally are being herded into box cars.  Your "truth" does not exist.

You’re aware they already forming a task force to look into naturalized citizens? Of course you’re not.

 

29 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Look, the person who can't read the words "I would feel this way if it was any other country on earth was on the southern border of the United States"  or the words "It's not who the people are it is what they are doing that matters to me."  is calling me a dumbass and proving my point about how fewer people there would be calling other people racists if they first had to know what the definition of racism is in order to call someone a racist.

It’s not the people it’s just what they are doing that matters. I agree for sure. Which is why the Obama policy of deporting criminals made sense. What are these people doing exactly that we should be separating them from their kids?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

Just wanted to pop in and check on The Beef's fee fees. Is she going to make it?

[sheeeit 129]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, racists would still be racist.

Which race would they be against?

[SameSame 1691]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not confusing one damn thing.  The default setting for idiot leftist is to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc.  The concept that someone disagrees with them just because someone disagrees with them or has a different point of view or interpretation of a matter never goes into their head.  If everyone who called someone racist had to actually know the definition of racism there would be a shit load less people calling other people racist.

You know puddin', the way you react to things is what all the righties generally call snowflakes.  Get well soon.

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not confusing one damn thing.  The default setting for idiot leftist is to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc.  The concept that someone disagrees with them just because someone disagrees with them or has a different point of view or interpretation of a matter never goes into their head.  If everyone who called someone racist had to actually know the definition of racism there would be a shit load less people calling other people racist.

Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

You really think that many people don't know the definition of racist?  LOL

[Dr. Teeth 5813]

 

[atomheartbevo 89362]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I believe this is exactly the mindset that has gotten the Dems in trouble, over and over.  They are more concerned about incenting Republicans to vote than they are incenting their own.

The good news for the Dems is that Donnie is trying his hardest to make the midterms about immigration. And his people just admitted they are still going to end up splitting up families pretty soon because they don’t have enough room.  

[jimmyjazz 45512]

37 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

If there were 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people crossing the Canadian border everyday then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

You fucking pig.  You're referring to the number of people who cross from Mexico into the United States LEGALLY on a daily basis, via 16 bridges.  Need another dog whistle, bitch?  You've blown that one clean up.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Decorum, guys.

[dOUblewide 101]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's a felony to fail to disclose foreign contacts on an SF-86 form.

I'm glad that our President Magnus Greatus Americanus is fulfilling his DUTY to enforce the law against such felonious folks.  Wait....what's that?  Kushner is still an integral part of his admin?  Oh.   Ok then.

Hell, I just picked the FUNNIEST way you shot your dick clean off in your post.  There are others, but laughing at the bloody stump any longer seems cruel.

Meh....that's kind of sloppy way to view the situation with Kushner's security investigation. 

 

Quote

The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements. Your prospects of placement or security clearance are better if you answer all questions truthfully and completely. You will have adequate opportunity to explain any information you provide on this form and to make your comments part of the record

 

Quote

Do you have, or have you had, close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last seven (7) years with whom you, or your spouse, or cohabitant are bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or obligation?

The definition in the form confuses a lot of folks.  The interviewer sometimes will try to explain this so corrections can be made. 

This is not unusual in any way. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Jive Turkey 12562]

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Add Schumer to the list.  The entire old guard needs to be voted out of office. 

 

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with Chuck. 

“I’d rather be divisive than indecisive. Drop the niceties.”

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You fucking pig.  You're referring to the number of people who cross from Mexico into the United States LEGALLY on a daily basis, via 16 bridges.  Need another dog whistle, bitch?  You've blown that one clean up.

Its hilarious that he uses that as his justification. Just shows that he’s a troll though. The trumpkins have no earthly idea how many people cross legally every day, including actual white Americans. They don’t give a shit whether its legal or not. Only a troll would actually know that number. 

[Mdhorn 5908]

NM....already posted.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Mdhorn

[used2b 244]

While I think it's hilarious she was thrown out of a place in Kentucky where she thought she was safe, I also agree we can't make a habit of this lest the Trumpians feel persecuted and motivated to vote.

Edited June 26, 2018 by used2b

[retread 2951]

Kushner has amended his SF-86 something like 4 times. He's a crook and maybe a traitor. In this administration he has one of the highest security clearances. MAGA.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

9 minutes ago, used2b said:

While I think it's hilarious she was thrown out of a place in Kentucky where she thought she was safe, I also agree we can't make a habit of this lest the Trumpians feel persecuted and motivated to vote.

They already feel persecuted and are motivated to vote.  That is their reason for being — angry, impotent victimhood.   What they don't get from Maxine Waters, Trump will just make up, like he's been doing for years.    I wouldn't worry about triggering them at this point.    It's the other side that they've riled up, and this is just a sign of the rapidly building backlash to Trumpism. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

You fucking pig.  You're referring to the number of people who cross from Mexico into the United States LEGALLY on a daily basis, via 16 bridges.  Need another dog whistle, bitch?  You've blown that one clean up.

 

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Its hilarious that he uses that as his justification. Just shows that he’s a troll though. The trumpkins have no earthly idea how many people cross legally every day, including actual white Americans. They don’t give a shit whether its legal or not. Only a troll would actually know that number. 

Jesus.  You guys are high strung.  I made a mistake when typing.  Meant to say month not day.  I based it on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.9893499e8685

My point still stands.  If 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people were crossing the Canadian border every MONTH then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

 

[David Dennison 18603]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

Jesus.  You guys are high strung.  I made a mistake when typing.  Meant to say month not day.  I based it on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.9893499e8685

My point still stands.  If 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people were crossing the Canadian border every MONTH then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.  

 

Hahahahaha.

No.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

Jesus.  You guys are high strung.  I made a mistake when typing.  Meant to say month not day.

LOL.  So you're not only a racist xenophobic bitch you're also a liar?  Please, try harder.  It's pretty well know that the 50K-75K number is the daily estimate of people legally crossing from Mexico to the United States.

Hoisted on your own retard.

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOL.  So you're not only a racist xenophobic bitch you're also a liar?  Please, try harder.  It's pretty well know that the 50K-75K number is the daily estimate of people legally crossing from Mexico to the United States.

Hoisted on your own retard.

You are truly a weird little man.  You are also so full of shit it is amazing.  I have little hope that anyone will call you out for calling me a liar and then using total bullshit lies to justify it.  This just seems par for the course for this place and people like you.

The daily estimate of people crossing legally everyday is about 1,000,000.  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/19/opinion-million-people-cross-border-legally-every-day-and-that-good-thing.html

Seems a little higher than 50,000.  But I will link several articles from left news agencies that all agree that the monthly number arrested/apprehended is 50,000.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-southwest-border-triple-in-march-from-year-ago.html

http://time.com/5303831/trump-illegal-immigration-border-arrests-may/

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617750865/may-marks-another-increase-in-border-arrests-despite-trump-crackdown

I wonder if anyone will call you out.

 

[RomaVicta 29756]

3 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not confusing one damn thing.  The default setting for idiot leftist is to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be racist, xenophobic, white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc.  The concept that someone disagrees with them just because someone disagrees with them or has a different point of view or interpretation of a matter never goes into their head.  If everyone who called someone racist had to actually know the definition of racism there would be a shit load less people calling other people racist.

Default setting for idiot leftists? Gee, where did you hear that? Was it on AM or FM?

It is ironic that demonstrating your outrage at being accused of prejudice, you express yourself with a prejudice notion of the imaginary leftist who behaves in just the right way to push your anger button. Maybe take a step back and see who is actually pushing that button because the mob of dirty leftists trying to destroy our country that you've been taught to believe in doesn't really exist.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

23 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

You are truly a weird little man.  You are also so full of shit it is amazing.  I have little hope that anyone will call you out for calling me a liar and then using total bullshit lies to justify it.  This just seems par for the course for this place and people like you.

The daily estimate of people crossing legally everyday is about 1,000,000. 

I'm sorry, are you now trying to change the discussion away from foot traffic?  Well hell, let's include airplanes you disingenuous little toad.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

The definition in the form confuses a lot of folks.  The interviewer sometimes will try to explain this so corrections can be made. 
This is not unusual in any way. 

Oh! You mean the Russia that our intel agencies claim interfered in the election and whose officials we met with seeking dirt on Hillary? The one that hacked and released DNC emails? The one that hacked and retained RNC emails? The one that's been in the headlines for months? THAT Russia?

I thought I didn't have to include them.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/jared-kushner-background-check-form/index.html

[jimmyjazz 45512]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, are you now trying to change the discussion away from foot traffic?  Well hell, let's include airplanes you disingenuous little toad.

Just in case sheeeit forgot about his wordsmithing, let's keep it front and center that while he typed 50K-75K illegal browns per day he later claimed he meant 50K-75K illegal browns per month, yet suddenly we're on 1M legal browns per day by all modes of transportation.  The entire discussion was about foot traffic, and he got caught up using numbers for daily legal pedestrian crossings yet is trying to weasel his way out of it.

[achooloco 1065]

13 hours ago, retread said:

Kushner has amended his SF-86 something like 4 times. He's a crook and maybe a traitor. In this administration he has one of the highest security clearances. MAGA.

Off topic but wasn’t it revoked? Or was it just downgraded?

[kevwun 15595]

It was briefly suspended, but then he was eventually given a clearance despite the FBI not recommending him for one.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

17 hours ago, Aphelion said:

Do you think restaurants and other service businesses should refuse service only to people directly working for/collaborating with Trump or does this extend to anyone who supports Trump or the republicans in any capacity (e.g. those who vote R)?  

I would stop short of businesses refusing service to people just voting R, although I don't know how a business would even know something like that. If it's the sort of thing a random business would be aware of, it's probably enough (e.g. prominent donor or somesuch). Certainly I think a business would be more than justified in telling someone they can't wear a MAGA hat on the premises, much like any other article of clothing that might reasonably be expected to make a meaningful number of patrons/employees feel offended, annoyed, or even threatened.

But with mere voters, I think pressure is much more appropriate in the personal arena than the commercial one. Don't date/fuck Trump voters or supporters (already widely adopted in most metro areas, extremely common to see dating profiles saying Trump voters need not apply). Tell family members to, at a bare minimum, keep that shit to themselves or you're not interested in speaking to them. That stuff matters.

[RomaVicta 29756]

5 minutes ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

I would stop short of businesses refusing service to people just voting R, although I don't know how a business would even know something like that.

Trump executive order: Persons must at all times display an emblem of how they vote. MAGA hats for Trumpists, pink stars for non-Trumpists. 

Snappy looking beige MAGA caps can be purchased through the White House online store. They go great with brown shirts!!!!

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

I would stop short of businesses refusing service to people just voting R, although I don't know how a business would even know something like that. If it's the sort of thing a random business would be aware of, it's probably enough (e.g. prominent donor or somesuch). Certainly I think a business would be more than justified in telling someone they can't wear a MAGA hat on the premises, much like any other article of clothing that might reasonably be expected to make a meaningful number of patrons/employees feel offended, annoyed, or even threatened.

But with mere voters, I think pressure is much more appropriate in the personal arena than the commercial one. Don't date/fuck Trump voters or supporters (already widely adopted in most metro areas, extremely common to see dating profiles saying Trump voters need not apply). Tell family members to, at a bare minimum, keep that shit to themselves or you're not interested in speaking to them. That stuff matters.

Thanks for the response. 

The knowledge of the voting record of each patron is not relevant to the ethical question of refusal of service over political affiliation.  There are a number of ways the discussion could be framed if we wanted clear demarcation (is it ethical for an owner to announce that Trump supporters/Republicans are not welcome, would one endorse an owner refusing service to a patron in the event they did find out that they are a Trump supporter, and so on).  But in any case you've addressed that question by stating that you would stop short of endorsing businesses refusing service to people just voting R.

Regarding the maga hats, what if a patron was wearing a Republican party shirt that did not reference Trump?  Someone many find that offensive these days; would that be sufficient for refusing service or do you think an owner would be out of line for tossing someone over that?

Regarding informing family members to keep political shit to themselves, I think there is a time for that and certain lines that need to be drawn if they bring it up relentlessly, but I think politely but firmly engaging is the better option.  It's not likely that you will change their mind, but it is good for them to see that there are good people who simply don't see things the way they do.  I don't think we should be encouraging shunning and isolation; this only entrenches people and makes it easier for each side to vilify the other.  

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Guest

[zork 629]

10 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Thanks for the response. 

The knowledge of the voting record of each patron is not relevant to the ethical question of refusal of service over political affiliation.  There are a number of ways the discussion could be framed if we wanted clear demarcation (is it ethical for an owner to announce that Trump supporters/Republicans are not welcome, would one endorse an owner refusing service to a patron in the event they did find out that they are a Trump supporter, and so on).  But in any case you've addressed that question by stating that you would stop short of endorsing businesses refusing service to people just voting R.

Regarding the maga hats, what if a patron was wearing a Republican party shirt that did not reference Trump?  Someone many find that offensive these days; would that be sufficient for refusing service or do you think an owner would be out of line for tossing someone over that?

Regarding informing family members to keep political shit to themselves, I think there is a time for that and certain lines that need to be drawn if they bring it up relentlessly, but I think politely but firmly engaging is the better option.  It's not likely that you will change their mind, but it is good for them to see that there are good people who simply don't see things the way they do.  I don't think we should be encouraging shunning and isolation; this only entrenches people and makes it easier for each side to vilify the other.  

 

VA ok, DC not allowed.

Quote

...

While political affiliation is a protected trait in the District, the same cannot be said for Lexington, Va., where Sanders visited the Red Hen. According to the ACLU, only the District, Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology.

...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/06/25/was-sarah-huckabee-sanders-denied-public-accommodation-when-a-restaurant-kicked-her-out/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.50490d334b39

Edited June 26, 2018 by zork
added ...

[Celery Man 20874]

Just to be clear though - refusing Sanders service =/= refusing service based on political affiliation. It is refusing Sanders service on the basis of who she is specifically, herself, publicly.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

You gotta love the Trumpkins seizing on this perceived injustice while lining up to wipe Trump's ass daily with the Constitution.

Perspective, boys.

As an aside, note that Paul Ryan spoke out against Maxine Waters' statements, but conveniently ignored Trump's veiled threat in return, which actually advocated physical harm, something Waters never did.  Huh.  Maybe Paul is working on that statement now.

[atomheartbevo 89362]

5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Regarding the maga hats, what if a patron was wearing a Republican party shirt that did not reference Trump?  Someone many find that offensive these days; would that be sufficient for refusing service or do you think an owner would be out of line for tossing someone over that?

Regarding informing family members to keep political shit to themselves, I think there is a time for that and certain lines that need to be drawn if they bring it up relentlessly, but I think politely but firmly engaging is the better option.  It's not likely that you will change their mind, but it is good for them to see that there are good people that simply don't see things the way they do.  I don't think we should be encouraging shunning and isolation; this only entrenches people and makes it easier for each side to vilify the other.  

 "Republican Party is the Trump Party”, June, 2018 - Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel

I’m about to be around Trump-supporting relatives at a family reunion next month in Trump country.  We are dreading it a bit, but at the same time, my wife views it as a chance to say “I’m a Christian, that’s not something I can support.”  I’m just going to try and spend as much time fishing as possible.