General US Politics

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

I agree with her completely. It's effectively a form of non-violent protest that they can't ignore. Those fuckers don't deserve any respect or luxury whatsoever.

Yeah that was my thinking too. You will already see people on twitter constantly posting fact-check links and anything to show that Trump is lying or being a fucking hypocrite to the world but it's just not that visible. Meanwhile this form of protest has more visibility given the media coverage and this is resulting in trump camp revealing more and more of their hypocrisy. Honestly the biggest problem I see with Maxine's suggestion is the Republicans themselves because those fuckers will take any opportunity they see to attack people but when things don't go their with no violence involved, they'll still want to respond to that with violence.

I'm against the criticism on her from Pelosi and Schumer on this one and think the democrats should stand with Waters on this matter. It isn't violence like Trump supporters are always threatening and it is an exercise of free speech that isn't discriminating against a group of people for their beliefs or who they fundamentally are but instead for something they are in complete control of: their support and complicity to man consistently showing a desire to divide the people and destroy the constitution so it no longer constrains him.

 

1 hour ago, Edgelord said:

There's just a bunch of noise talking about the differences about how it's either okay or not okay to refuse service to a gay person, and if it is okay or not okay to ask someone to leave because of political affiliation.

Legally, yes, the former is a protected class while the latter is not, but I can't say ethically that I don't have a problem with the latter as well. There was a similar thing with Joe Biden back in 2012, although he was there specifically for a political reason instead of eating.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-biden-refused-service-in-2012/

The fact remained though that the store owners were directly praised by the GOP for this. I don't think it was right when it was done here and I don't think it was right when it was ruled that the bakery would refuse service to a gay couple.

(Essentially, as much as I do dislike the Republicans, this will very easily be flipped on Democrats)

 @Bold: How come? As you've already noted these cases were not a matter of discrimination towards "protected groups" so I'm curious as to what you may find unethical about this.

So for cases like this where someone is denied service for political reasons, I think it depends on the circumstances which makes this tricky. I believe that in "Crumb and Get it" was in their right to refuse service to Joe Biden and Red Hen was in their right to refuse service to Sarah Sanders.  I think the Red Hen v Sarah Sanders had a better case for why they refused service and the reaction was more appropriate on the Crumb v Biden case but they're both within their right.

But that's pretty much because it's just restaurant service which I don't see as a big deal. Now if the matter involved something more serious like Health Care/Abortions on the other hand, I don't believe service should be refused due to political affiliation at all.

Ideally, political affiliation should not be a factor for refusing service regardless of the situation but eh, just the way it is...

Edited June 28, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Lord Raven]

I would say that it is better that government officials shouldn't be a protected class, but political viewpoints are. However, if someone makes or causes trouble (independent of their politics) then they should be taken off the property.

I mainly say this because that would allows citizens to protest against government officials but not against civilians.

[Johann]

3 hours ago, Edgelord said:

There's just a bunch of noise talking about the differences about how it's either okay or not okay to refuse service to a gay person, and if it is okay or not okay to ask someone to leave because of political affiliation.

Sounds like there are some people making some false equivalency arguments. I can't imagine there's much hope reaching someone who's too unaware to tell the difference between denying a person based on political affiliation vs denying a person based on their actions seriously harming an untold number of innocent people.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Johann

[eclipse]

Look, I get it, Republicans aren't popular.  But this IS SD, so please be slightly more respectful to them as a group.  "Fuckers" isn't it.

[Tryhard]

9 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

@Bold: How come? As you've already noted these cases were not a matter of discrimination towards "protected groups" so I'm curious as to what you may find unethical about this.

So for cases like this where someone is denied service for political reasons, I think it depends on the circumstances which makes this tricky. I believe that in "Crumb and Get it" was in their right to refuse service to Joe Biden and Red Hen was in their right to refuse service to Sarah Sanders.  I think the Red Hen v Sarah Sanders had a better case for why they refused service and the reaction was more appropriate on the Crumb v Biden case but they're both within their right.

But that's pretty much because it's just restaurant service which I don't see as a big deal. Now if the matter involved something more serious like Health Care/Abortions on the other hand, I don't believe service should be refused due to political affiliation at all.

Ideally, political affiliation should not be a factor for refusing service regardless of the situation but eh, just the way it is...

I realise the distinction in the eyes of the law, but I believe political affiliation should be a protected class as well. Like I said before, just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's good. I said ethically I have a problem with it because refusing service to someone because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability status, etc. is fundamentally the same to me as refusing service to someone because you don't like their political ideology.

If someone's causing a scene, then absolutely - but then that wouldn't be just because you disagreed with their political affiliation.

The main thing with this is that it very easily can be used by Conservatives to start doing this to Liberals because it is now fair game in a high-profile story. It causes a lot of hassle that could just be avoided.

All I ask that if you do believe that it is justified, that you at least realise the possibility of the above and hold the same view if that does happen.

7 hours ago, Johann said:

Sounds like there are some people making some false equivalency arguments. I can't imagine there's much hope reaching someone who's too unaware to tell the difference between denying a person based on political affiliation vs denying a person based on their actions seriously harming an untold number of innocent people.

Not to equate horrible policy to inconvenience, but denying service to a person based on political affiliation, if it became a free-for-all, would affect an untold number of innocent people too. I get it, Sarah Sanders lies all the time, she basically pushes propaganda for Trump and that's pretty vile, but I'm not really seeing the difference in principles. There are better ways to protest.

Hence why I'm generally in favour of anti-discrimination laws to begin with - I don't see a lot of appeal of having a bunch of stores with signs outside citing "No Jews," "No Muslims", "No Blacks," "No Liberals", "No Conservatives", etc.

7 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I would say that it is better that government officials shouldn't be a protected class, but political viewpoints are. However, if someone makes or causes trouble (independent of their politics) then they should be taken off the property.

I mainly say this because that would allows citizens to protest against government officials but not against civilians.

Not necessarily opposed to this if it's made obvious that this is one of the aspects that you take on when you decide to serve the public.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Edgelord

[Dr. Tarrasque]

3 hours ago, Edgelord said:

I realise the distinction in the eyes of the law, but I believe political affiliation should be a protected class as well. Like I said before, just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's good. I said ethically I have a problem with it because refusing service to someone because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability status, etc. is fundamentally the same to me as refusing service to someone because you don't like their political ideology.

If someone's causing a scene, then absolutely - but then that wouldn't be just because you disagreed with their political affiliation.

The main thing with this is that it very easily can be used by Conservatives to start doing this to Liberals because it is now fair game in a high-profile story. It causes a lot of hassle that could just be avoided.

All I ask that if you do believe that it is justified, that you at least realise the possibility of the above and hold the same view if that does happen.

 

You bring up a good point but as already mentioned, I do not think it holds much weight if it's in the context of something trivial like eating out at a restaurant I don't believe it is of much consequence. Inconvenience to a public figure at best. In the case of Health Care/Abortion, definitely a different story.

"All I ask that if you do believe that it is justified, that you at least realise the possibility of the above and hold the same view if that does happen."

Sure. I mean after all it practically has already happened when Obama was in power and you saw all those hateful mobs calling for his lynching but it's still very different worlds here: Republicans to protest with violence against others because of something as trivial as the color of their skin or place birth while non-republicans desire to use denial of service to public officials of that party as a non-violent way to protest a man brazenly wanting to do away with what the country was established on and the fact that these officials are complicit with that.

But for a moment let's dig deeper into the Red Hen case. This may not be a customer that you know personally but because this is a public figure, you've had enough exposure to see that she's been lying to you and your staff most of the time she speaks.

Similar to a normal customer that you previously booted out, you deny service to this customer because she's innately a potentially disruptive presence given her public work. Never mind political affiliation here, let's pretend for a moment that Sarah Sanders is a different person, an independent and just happens to work for the orange turd but at the same time, is defending a discriminatory ban of a certain group.

Is the restaurant still at fault? Is it still a political issue? Does Sarah Sander being a Republican suddenly changes things than if she were an independent?

EDIT: Oh look, the orange turd defending Russia again when the country's intel reports already concludes the opposite.

And apparently, we can expect more BS to come up around July 11th.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

1. Conflict of interest. 

2. The rhetoric and message that Trump rallied the support for this ban from was explicitly to ban Muslims from coming into the country. 

3. It sets a bad precedent.

4. It is just bad for the country 

All true. But none of that is grounds for the Court to invalidate an executive order. 

Although I do thing #1 should be cause for independent legal action against the president:

"No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."  Article 1; Section 9--Constitution of the United States

The rest is up to voters to remedy, not the Courts. 

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

Look, I get it, Republicans aren't popular.  But this IS SD, so please be slightly more respectful to them as a group.  "Fuckers" isn't it.

To Republicans as a group? agreed.

To the White House staff and cabinet secretaries that have chosen to attach their good names and public reputations to Trump--to be mouthpieces and enablers for all his bad behavior? There aren't enough bad words in the English language to describe their spinelessness, shamelessness, and moral bankruptcy.
 

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

As a side note: What are everyone's thoughts on Maxine Waters suggestion for resisting GOP or just Trump supporters in general? Like, is the Red Hen's treatment of Sarah Sanders acceptable and something that the people should be allowed to do?

 If a Trump staffer or cabinet secretary walked into my law office and requested legal services. I would tell him to vigorously go fuck himself, and find an attorney who doesn't have ethical objections to representing  damn dirty fascists. 

The ability of private citizens to speak in such a manner and take such a stance against persons in positions of power doing truly abhorrent things--proudly, and without fear of reprisal--is our last great bulwark against true totalitarianism.

It should be revered accordingly.   

Edited June 28, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

With all the shit that's been going on it escaped me: The hypocritical Republicans are calling for civility... when in April you had two African Americans who were ARRESTED for just sitting at a Starbucks. When a white cop shot an unarmed teen 90 minutes after being sworn in, the woman in the viral video calling the man a rapist "because the president of the united states".

To hell with their calls for civility, definitely with Maxine Waters on this one.

[Shoblongoo]

My one note of caution would be to direct incivility at the bad actors who actually deserve it--the scumbags at the top--and not be categorically alienating towards their voters.

Because we do need to win some of those voters over to reverse course in 2020. And we get there by persuading them that they've been lied to by the scumbags; not by lumping them in with them. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

7 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Not necessarily opposed to this if it's made obvious that this is one of the aspects that you take on when you decide to serve the public.

It basically is at this point. There's a Seth Rogen interview out there where he details how he basically told Paul Ryan to fuck off when Paul Ryan asked for a picture.

[Johann]

9 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Not to equate horrible policy to inconvenience, but denying service to a person based on political affiliation, if it became a free-for-all, would affect an untold number of innocent people too. I get it, Sarah Sanders lies all the time, she basically pushes propaganda for Trump and that's pretty vile, but I'm not really seeing the difference in principles. There are better ways to protest.

Hence why I'm generally in favour of anti-discrimination laws to begin with - I don't see a lot of appeal of having a bunch of stores with signs outside citing "No Jews," "No Muslims", "No Blacks," "No Liberals", "No Conservatives", etc.

This isn't discrimination. This is directly targeting the politicians who are making these decisions. Anyone who says this is based on political affiliation isn't paying attention, and I don't think anyone is advocating for discriminating that way. Saying "there are better ways to protest" is silly because all forms of protest are effectively disruptive and breaking with etiquette. This method is great because it only affects those specific people and sends a very specific message about why.

[Captain Karnage]

let's be real, denying service or kicking any one out of a restaurant for any reason, other than committing a violent act or not paying, is going to rest in backlash.

If you really want to make an impact on the next election you need to convince the working class to vote on your side. Just a word of advice, if you tell them that this person is bad for supporting policies x, y, and z, and they support x and z your indirectly telling them their a bad person. 

[Karimlan]

55 minutes ago, Johann said:

This isn't discrimination. This is directly targeting the politicians who are making these decisions. Anyone who says this is based on political affiliation isn't paying attention, and I don't think anyone is advocating for discriminating that way. Saying "there are better ways to protest" is silly because all forms of protest are effectively disruptive and breaking with etiquette. This method is great because it only affects those specific people and sends a very specific message about why.

This excerpt from an article on the New Yorker encapsulates perfectly the sentiment behind showing Sanders the door.

Whole article: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/sarah-huckabee-sanders-and-who-deserves-a-place-at-the-table

 

[Johann]

7 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

let's be real, denying service or kicking any one out of a restaurant for any reason, other than committing a violent act or not paying, is going to rest in backlash.

If you really want to make an impact on the next election you need to convince the working class to vote on your side. Just a word of advice, if you tell them that this person is bad for supporting policies x, y, and z, and they support x and z your indirectly telling them their a bad person. 

Anything politically charged is going to have some backlash. It's a strong statement to make when you're willing to accept that backlash by standing up for your convictions, regardless of which side you're on.

If X, Y, and Z are outright cruel and/or destructive, then their critics shouldn't have to concede anything. I don't have much sympathy for people who are too stubborn to consider that their political ideas are bad and they just get angry when someone explains why. In terms of voting, it's arguably more important to inspire the people who are apathetic than to try to convince a stubborn person to switch sides.

[Phoenix Wright]

51 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

let's be real, denying service or kicking any one out of a restaurant for any reason, other than committing a violent act or not paying, is going to rest in backlash.

If you really want to make an impact on the next election you need to convince the working class to vote on your side. Just a word of advice, if you tell them that this person is bad for supporting policies x, y, and z, and they support x and z your indirectly telling them their a bad person. 

and how do you propose the democrats go about that, o wise one?

[Shoblongoo]

*Cough* nominate Joe Biden *Cough*

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

This isn't discrimination. This is directly targeting the politicians who are making these decisions. Anyone who says this is based on political affiliation isn't paying attention, and I don't think anyone is advocating for discriminating that way. Saying "there are better ways to protest" is silly because all forms of protest are effectively disruptive and breaking with etiquette. This method is great because it only affects those specific people and sends a very specific message about why.

You better be okay with someone kicking out Democratic politicians for "supporting illegal immigrants" then, as braindead as that view is.

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

With all the shit that's been going on it escaped me: The hypocritical Republicans are calling for civility... when in April you had two African Americans who were ARRESTED for just sitting at a Starbucks. When a white cop shot an unarmed teen 90 minutes after being sworn in, the woman in the viral video calling the man a rapist "because the president of the united states".

To hell with their calls for civility, definitely with Maxine Waters on this one.

I don't think you need to be civil, and I don't really see a reason to because of a lot of Republicans behaviour - I do question about asking them to leave establishments is really the right idea, though.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Edgelord

[Johann]

38 minutes ago, Edgelord said:

You better be okay with someone kicking out Democratic politicians for "supporting illegal immigrants" then, as braindead as that view is.

Even if it happened to myself, I wouldn't be bothered by that. If that's their take, then I don't want to give them my business. More importantly, though, I think being a politician, cop, or any other position of moral leadership and responsibility requires that you set aside your ego and remember that people's lives depend on you standing up for them. Shifting the focus to "they were being disrespectful!" just obscures the point of the protest itself, whether intentional or not.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

42 minutes ago, Johann said:

Even if it happened to myself, I wouldn't be bothered by that. If that's their take, then I don't want to give them my business. More importantly, though, I think being a politician, cop, or any other position of moral leadership and responsibility requires that you set aside your ego and remember that people's lives depend on you standing up for them. Shifting the focus to "they were being disrespectful!" just obscures the point of the protest itself, whether intentional or not.

or in the case of the president, things they say. Today just got an example in with Maryland shooting that happened today killing several reporters or "enemy of the people".

People immediately thought that the shooter was white before that was actually revealed to the public. How/Why did people make the assumption that the shooter was white? The shooter was caught alive.

Because a laugh every now and then is nice

Edited June 28, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Etrurian emperor]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

or in the case of the president, things they say. Today just got an example in with Maryland shooting that happened today killing several reporters or "enemy of the people".

People immediately thought that the shooter was white before that was actually revealed to the public. How/Why did people make the assumption that the shooter was white? The shooter was caught alive.

Because a laugh every now and then is nice

If you already have an indoctrinated following and repeatedly tell them that the press is corrupt, evil, an enemy of the people or treasonous then its really only a matter of time before someone in that following starts to act on it. Its a bit to soon to say for sure this is what inspired the current shooting but even if it didn't then its still  a question of ''when'' rather than ''if'' .

[Lord Raven]

10 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

If you really want to make an impact on the next election you need to convince the working class to vote on your side. Just a word of advice, if you tell them that this person is bad for supporting policies x, y, and z, and they support x and z your indirectly telling them their a bad person. 

I somewhat agree with this, but if I'm saying that x, y, and z are bad things to support, it should not be on me if someone is offended by it. Because I've run into this issue many times; people conflating their sense of self and self-worth with politics, and me saying that an idea or policy is bad being equivocated to me saying that someone is bad for supporting it.

Anyway, that shooting happened like ~15 miles from me? Ugh. Apparently Milo Yiannopoulos said something incendiary about reporters being the enemy of the people. This whole "enemy of the people" thing is wholly unproductive no matter what it actually is.

 

In other news, Ben Jealous won the Democratic nomination for the Maryland Governor race, and while he's not the best policy guy... he appears to be an extremely genuinely kind person which is refreshing. @Edgelord you may end up being a fan of him to a certain extent.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Lord Raven

[The Geek]

8 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

If you already have an indoctrinated following and repeatedly tell them that the press is corrupt, evil, an enemy of the people or treasonous then its really only a matter of time before someone in that following starts to act on it. Its a bit to soon to say for sure this is what inspired the current shooting but even if it didn't then its still  a question of ''when'' rather than ''if'' .

Actually, from what I've read this particular shooter had a personal axe to grind with the paper, rather than a general ideological hatred of the press.  They wrote an article about something he did and when he tried to sue them for defamation his case got thrown out of court twice.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-gazette-shooting-20180628-story.html

[Tediz64]

We should re-name this thread "Views of Democratic people on current US Politics" 

If you don't like the word Views you can swap it for "Opinions" and if you don't like the word Democratic then use "Liberal". This thread isn't at all trying to be inclusive of Republicans or Conservatives. This is pretty much a hate fest against them, especially with (who I won't name) people calling the group "fuckers".

I was wondering why I didn't see any of their opinions or say on any matters but every time one comes in they are brutalized. It scares them away. Like when Karnage talked, it was met with their information coming from shit sources being told to go do their homework. Like as if they aren't educated enough to belong talking here.

I don't particularly disagree with some things being said but when post after post is literally everyone agreeing and adding further stuff the list of "shit is fucked up because of these people" (referencing the border situation) and "look what they did next" (referencing the earlier discussion of the ruling on the Muslim ban) or "look at what they are about to do" (referencing the supreme Court vacancy) it's like you aren't allowing room to grow or improve. If nobody challenges you or gives you a different angle/perspective to look at things from you'll end up becoming apathetic toward people who see things differently. I'm certainly learning while reading here. I wonder things like "why do they feel that way" and "why do they see it like that?" Really puts an emphasis on the whole concept of "world's apart but we're neighbors" phrase.  I'm serious when I say it makes me wonder how we can see things so differently. 

 

Like if I met one of you in person I'd love to sit down and ask a shit ton of why's regarding how you feel about certain topics. Also "what if" questions. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Tediz64

[Moblin Major General]

I live in a Red State. Most people who argue the Republican agenda aren't intelligent people. They don't know just how damaging it is to support the GOP when all they want is their money in the pocket of the 1%. We trash the Republicans because of their blatant, doublethinking hypocrisy, and the people who support them do so out of social ignorance and manufactured hatred and xenophobia. Accuse us of being an echo chamber all you want, because that's all they do, too. Don't say we won't give them a chance to explain when we have, only for them to double down and shrug when they can't answer our questions with straight sources and answers.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

We should re-name this thread "Views of Democratic people on current US Politics" 

That's stupid. Look back through the thread and you'll see plenty of discussion about the mistakes in the Obama era and probably how weak Democrats are. Look closely at the last 5 pages of posts and you should also see acknowledgement and call to attention about mistakes that Democrats and Obama have made or are currently making.

2 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

If you don't like the word Views you can swap it for "Opinions" and if you don't like the word Democratic then use "Liberal". This thread isn't at all trying to be inclusive of Republicans or Conservatives. This is pretty much a hate fest against them, especially with (who I won't name) people calling the group "fuckers".

Hi. And yes, there's plenty of reason to hate them as of late. One of their own has shown enough integrity and courage to speak out against the party and what they've become. Disdain for the current Republican party's "conservative values" does not instantly make you Democrat or Liberal as you can see that one of their own wants his party obliterated . The fact is that I don't care what political label you put on me and I call the current Republican party fuckers because that's just what they are: Fuckers who are fucking up the country and its people by choosing party over country on the matter of Trump. Don't know if you saw it but I already posted a link here where a Republican was ranting about how that "motherfucker" Trump is going to take the party with him. They know that their party is failing, they know that Trump's failure will take the Republican party down with him and that they now have to appeal to Trump supporters for any hope of staying in power. I call

* Our corrupt politicians that are sitting behind closed doors making deals with corporations to de-regulate things that are there to protect the people, the planet, the country and the environment or further cement the income inequality seen where the minimum wage of one job is no longer enough sustain. It isn't even speculation at this point that if someone wants to influence lawmakers, they gotta pay up, it was even only live TV

* Trump supporters who admit that he's fucking up the country but prefer him in power just cause he gets under liberals' skin. The Trump supporters who are responding to resistance of their dear leader (or wish to respond) with violence. Trump supporters who are out there wanting to bring the country back to the days where we lynch people because of the color of their skin and kidnapping kids to lynch them. Any person who believes that whites have to subjugate all other races in the country in order to live a comfortable life, must be subjected to failure.

* Fox news and right-wing propaganda pushers such as Sinclair Broadcast Group who've been making a habit of pushing the same pro-trump messages. Most of the people doing this damage are rich folks who want those less fortunate to turn on each other. That's why they're constantly pushing the narrative that immigration is our biggest problem but I'll tell you what should be a bigger concern: Police reform. Our cops are apparently good enough to capture an armed white man who has committed a mass shooting but they have trouble with an unarmed black citizen that they have to shoot and kill? Aren't cops supposed to protect and serve the people of the country?

Elders, farmers and republican voters who depend on the social safety nets that their own politicians want to dismantle? I feel for them because they're being tricked and lied to but often times you'll find they're so brainwashed by Fox News that if it's a non-republican trying to help them, they'll lash out because they don't believe in Trump. I've seen this when volunteering and when you have to hide the fact that you hate Trump in order to lend a helping hand to those being harmed by his decisions, you know something's wrong.

Anyone's free to dispute what I say and there have been some disagreements here in there like Tryhard says he doesn't find it ethically correct to refuse service because of political affiliation while I don't have a problem with it when it comes to trivial matters like Restaurants as opposed to more serious things like Health Care/Abortions. Raven then came in and suggested that it probably should only apply to officials and not normal citizens and you know what? I don't disagree with that at all and that's more reasonable than my thinking that didn't exclude civilians from it.

49 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

I was wondering why I didn't see any of their opinions or say on any matters but every time one comes in they are brutalized. It scares them away. Like when Karnage talked, it was met with their information coming from shit sources being told to go do their homework. Like as if they aren't educated enough to belong talking here.

The source he used was Kirstjen Nielsen, a Trump official and I think he was trying to defend Fox News or at least asking why it's not a reliable source. Both were explained: Kirstjen Nielsen has repeatedly lied to the American people like every other Trump staff member and Fox News with testimony from someone who recently left them as his employer backing up all those claims. Trump is right, there ARE Fake News out there but his definition of Fake News are those putting him in a negative light while the actual definition of Fake News is in the stinking name: News that are fabricated and there's already data from studies backing up that Trump supporters are heavy consumers of fake news. We're not telling him he's not educated enough to belong here, far from it. We're simply telling him that the sources he brought up weren't good and why. He also brought up that mainstream news have made me mistakes. Nobody's disagreed with that and typically if you work as a journalist and make such a mistake, it is your responsibility to own up to the mistake, otherwise you lose credibility. Journalists are humans too and to error is human after all. Fox News doesn't own up to their mistakes, their feature is that they'll present a different perspective and you decide but they do so by obscuring the facts or using "alternative-facts".

 

1 hour ago, Tediz64 said:

I don't particularly disagree with some things being said but when post after post is literally everyone agreeing and adding further stuff the list of "shit is fucked up because of these people" (referencing the border situation) and "look what they did next" (referencing the earlier discussion of the ruling on the Muslim ban) or "look at what they are about to do" (referencing the supreme Court vacancy) it's like you aren't allowing room to grow or improve. If nobody challenges you or gives you a different angle/perspective to look at things from you'll end up becoming apathetic toward people who see things differently. I'm certainly learning while reading here. I wonder things like "why do they feel that way" and "why do they see it like that?" Really puts an emphasis on the whole concept of "world's apart but we're neighbors" phrase.  I'm serious when I say it makes me wonder how we can see things so differently. 

Sharing further evidence of the US Government corruption. The vacancy of the Supreme Court is a serious matter because a Trump appointee who would do what wants would be there for the rest of his/her life time. Mitch McConnel is pushing to have this seat filled by Trump when he denied Obama from doing it 9 months before the 2016 elect. Do you see what's wrong here?

@Bold: Trump has been in power for 1 year, 159 days. It has been documented that he's lied to the American people at least 3,000 times, he has shown complete incompetence in terms of foreign affairs and his so-called accomplishments are primarily removals of things Obama put into play. He's screwing up things for his own supporters and those that are seeing this believe in their hearts that "if Mr. President were aware of it, he'd do something about it". They've been tricked, Trump IS in a position to do something about it, he can easily undo the trade war he's trying to put in that's hurting his own supporters but do you know what he does instead? He blames democrats for his mistakes and flies off to rally his supporters to vote for Republicans. When it comes to him, he's making business deals where he's getting $500 Million from other governments to grow his company on that country. He has echo'd Nixon's anti-media rallying cries and we all know from history that this is likely because he's committed a serious crime that he doesn't want out in the open. He and those who want to protect him in the GOP are looking to end the investigation on him which has found more evidence than the Benghazi investigation that found nothing and lasted longer. Just yesterday, Trey Gowdy asked for evidence of any wrongdoing by members of the Trump campaign. MANAFORT IS IN FUCKING JAIL for trying to tamper with witnesses who have information on the indictments found in the Mueller probe. Papadopoulos will be sentenced on September 7 and you've the other indictments and guilty pleas with people cooperating and the Republicans want to end this investigation. Since the very moment that Cohen got raided, Republicans weren't asking if Cohen's got evidence on Trump, they were asking if Cohen will actually flip on Trump. Obama's birth certificate is public, Trump's Tax returns are not. They hold control of the branches of the government and the was a shutdown with Trump threatening to have another if he doesn't get his stupid wall.

Republicans have had their chance to "grow and improve" the country. Republicans have had their chance to show whether they competence and integrity to run the country and we're seeing first-hand the mess that they're making, how they're empowering Nazis and how they're trying repeat the mistakes recorded in history. The only thing Republicans want to "grow and improve" is their wallets and this is why they are fuckers because the way to do that is to fuck everything else, work with corporations for mutual benefit for THEM and leave the others, such as Trump supporters who voted for him, to die. 

Anyone who voted Trump in 2016 in this forum should take a close look at what's going on with proper sources and make their own decision when they vote. Not decisions brought about by fear and lies.