Vote them out. Prosecute them for crimes
I'm sure there are plenty of restaurant owners conviced Obama lied about his birth certificate. Should they be allowed to not serve him?
What's the way forward for Democrats?
- Thread starter puppies
- Start date
- Status
Vote them out. Prosecute them for crimes
I'm sure there are plenty of restaurant owners conviced Obama lied about his birth certificate. Should they be allowed to not serve him?
Under Obama they didn't have the choice. "I can refuse service based on deeply held beliefs" is a uniquely Republican stance. If they don't like it, they should have let Obama seat a SCOTUS Justice, because it's the law of the land now.
Please do not draw equivalence between crazy, racist people and people objecting to crazy racists.
It isn't yet. The SC's ruling was very narrow on that case and leaves plenty of room for lower courts to continue ruling against such behavior. Which hopefully they continue to do.
I am not but if you think it is OK for people to discriminate based on their own judgement of what is evil then you are opening the door for bad behavior of all kinds.
You should take the high road because its hard, not because its easy
So... if we 'invite' her to dine elsewhere because we won't be serving her... that'd be fine? Got it.
Most of the box can accept 'do not actually punch Neonazis in the face as a pre-emptive strike. But now you want us to accept 'shut up, roll over and dig our own graves' because standing up, resisting, is rude and hurts their snowflake feelings? No fucking way.
"You're a lair and a terrible human being for the conscious decisions and choices you've made, and I will not serve you in my private establishment because of that, so please leave.' is a peaceful protest.
So is 'No reunification for them means no quiet meal for you'.
Hey bud, we all get what you're saying, we just disagree with you.
That's ok.
At some point, though, you have to ask yourself what you hope to accomplish by keeping repeating the same thing over and over again to a clearly-not-receptive audience, and whether you think that goal is likely.
That's ok.
At some point, though, you have to ask yourself what you hope to accomplish by keeping repeating the same thing over and over again to a clearly-not-receptive audience, and whether you think that goal is likely.
Do businesses across the country not have signs saying they reserve the right to refuse service?
Reporters have to try to be cordial to SHS since they need access and have to report her lies if nothing else.
Restaurants don't need to do the same.
As far as others in the administration, why would you be cordial to people like Pruitt, Nielsjen, etc?
Reporters have to try to be cordial to SHS since they need access and have to report her lies if nothing else.
Restaurants don't need to do the same.
As far as others in the administration, why would you be cordial to people like Pruitt, Nielsjen, etc?
That's the policy of the Trump administration, isn't it? Ignore the Constitution and our Laws to enact harsher and harsher penalties on being born non-white. And you hold up shouting down his horrible neonazi troops as being just as impolite as concentration camps, so we should all stop fighting back? Know which way you voted, don't we?
They do...and it's mostly in response/backlash from the public accomodations laws that came about with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and in certain states prior to that).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
Posting such a sign does not mean you are legally entitled to do so.
In the state I choose to live in, sexual orientation is a protected class by law
I stand by what I said. Peaceful protesting is a euphemism for ineffective pissing in the wind. Voting doesn't work as a stolen Supreme Court seat proves; hardly a whimper in the face of fiat rule. And the consequences of that are coming down like bricks from the sky almost daily.
People need to fight, hard and unrelenting or enjoy their comfy slide into the empire graveyard. It won't be comfy for long though. Everyone loves to see the bully laid low.
Unfortunately my street-fighting man days are over. I gave hell when I could, but do other things now to undermine and resist at every opportunity. But, as I said... It's a younger person's job. I'm physically broken and am tapping out for another country. One that isn't a blatant sham of all it claims to be.
Ditto.
I've been saying it for a while, but it's even more true in the Trump era: (If blessed with the privilege of mobility) One must choose in which version of America one wishes to live, and then move there.
California goes a bit further than most states.
In addition to the protected classes under federal law, California law prohibits your employer from subjecting you to discrimination based on your:
Sexual orientation
Gender identity and gender expression
Race
Color
Ancestry
National origin
Religion
Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
Medical conditions
AIDS/HIV
Disability: physical or mental
Age (40 and older)
Genetic information
Marital Status
Military or Veteran status
Political affiliations or activities
Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking
Sexual orientation
Gender identity and gender expression
Race
Color
Ancestry
National origin
Religion
Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
Medical conditions
AIDS/HIV
Disability: physical or mental
Age (40 and older)
Genetic information
Marital Status
Military or Veteran status
Political affiliations or activities
Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking
That's employer - does CA prevent refusal of service to MAGA hats? Could fall under "religion" or "Disability: mental" or "age" or even (a stretch, no doubt) "Political affiliations or activities".
If it's not just employer, Red Hen is illegal in CA.
If it's not just employer, Red Hen is illegal in CA.
By Unruh, California's restrictions against discrimination are pretty detailed. But that wouldn't make Red Hat illegal - all they'd have to do is prove that they serve other Republicans, and that her ban was because of her own, personal behavior, not because of what party she belonged to.
Restaurants don't need to do the same, with the giant caveat that lots of people working in restaurants don't own those restaurants and being purposefully rude to customers is almost certainly legitimate grounds for firing. That's where the whole thing goes off the rails. The kind of policies you'd need in place to give staff clear guidance who can be mistreated and how quickly veer off into insanity, but if the line between acceptable and unacceptable rudeness is implicit someone's going to cross it by mistake.
#Civility has been a one way street for decades. The GOP leadership explicitly endorsed incivility at least as far back as Gingrich and the modern conservative movement, started by segregationists who left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act, directed, protected, and funded murderous terrorists like the KKK and have had an explicitly racist political platform to this day.
If the sycophants in the corporate media were covering these events in another country where senior officials had now become so unpopular within the major cities and particularly in the capital, they would not be talking about civility but about how revolution seemed imminent. How can a government hold on when its senior officials are publicly kicked out of restaurants? When they are heckled day and night at their homes and offices. When even in the exurbs of the capital, they are openly shunned? They would say that this is a government that is hiding from its own people in a bunker behind security details.
If the sycophants in the corporate media were covering these events in another country where senior officials had now become so unpopular within the major cities and particularly in the capital, they would not be talking about civility but about how revolution seemed imminent. How can a government hold on when its senior officials are publicly kicked out of restaurants? When they are heckled day and night at their homes and offices. When even in the exurbs of the capital, they are openly shunned? They would say that this is a government that is hiding from its own people in a bunker behind security details.
Isn't this already covered by Protected Class? You can discriminate against anyone you want, aside from the specifically listed categories. Last time I checked, being a raging asshole wasn't a protected class.
Biden was publicly banned from a bakery and Paul Ryan campaigned with the owner. Biden has been the nicest guy in Washington DC for decades except when Mr Rogers was visiting so calls for #civility are laughable from the media and GOP. Eat in the cafeteria for the next 3 years, you fascist baby-kidnapping boot lickers.
There are plenty of places that would welcome GOP politicians with open arms. Go to most towns in rural Virginia and they'll pretty much get free meals.
This is the "Way forward for democrats" thread. Using whataboutism to justify bad behavior will not sway swing voters.
I did not vote for Trump and certainly don't see myself voting for Republicans any time soon. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. Your post reads close to calling me a nazi for daring to have values or something. A lot of what's been posted in here could be construed as supporting anarchy or totalitarianism if followed far enough but I'm not calling anyone names
I'll follow the advice previously and cease further spitting into the wind
Biden was not refused service. The owner of the bakery did not want his business used as a stop in the campaign. It's not the same thing.
Just to be fair.
I'm calling you out for endorsing a tacit slide into Naziism because you keep saying that we must be not just tolerant of the intolerant, but actively warm and embracing to them. Like hugging them for pushing us into the ovens. It's fucking stupid, and it makes you a bad human being for demanding that victims thank their attackers. In case you missed it, this IS the way forward thread, and the discussion is on the merits of rallying the base with shouting down the NeuReich's high command in public, or courting the moderates by pretending that 'tolerance' is not going to be another case of the toad in the pot.
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I have said nothing of the sort
Maybe not directly, but you seem to carry an awful lot of water for a lot of awful people.
Discussing the best way to criticize someone is not the same as supporting those who are being criticized.
There are about 5 months until the mid term elections. Democrats need to make people understand how they will be better than the status quo. Staying locked in a pissing contest with Trump is giving him exactly what he wants; it gives him control of the news headlines and keeps the debate in the mud. Why would you fight him on his own turf?
The lesson of 2016 should have been not to take votes for granted and not to let Trump control the news cycle. As broken as the GOP primaries are Trump got a huge boost from the media thinking it was hilarious to cover him constantly and I'm sure there were a lot of shortsighted celebrations when the GOP nominated someone they believed couldn't win. Now, good or bad, all we hear about on most national news is Trump
EDIT: By similar reasoning we could argue Nancy Pelosi is also a Trump supporter since she has a similar opinion. That would be a fun debate
There's nothing to debate. Pelosi rolled over and played dead for Trump within weeks of his election. She's more useless to the DNC than a bicycle to a fish. If she got struck by lightning tomorrow, the party would only be stronger. She is a supporter of the status quo for the rich, and so's Trump.
And how, exactly, do you propose that be accomplished? The news cycle is a for-profit machine that will latch onto whatever gives it the most impact. Right now, that's Trump. In order to supplant him, you have be even more outlandish. Reasonable discourse is boring. Policy wonks put people to sleep. Note, I'm not advocating trying to out-crazy Trump or anything, but I don't see how anyone can wrest the news cycle away from him.
Yeah this criticism of Dems always seemed lazy to me. Also the “why aren’t Dems talking about whatever constantly.” The answer is they likely are and nobody gives a shit.
A 28 year old socialist and woman of color just defeated the man slated to be the next Democratic speaker of the house. If you think using your time for candidates you believe in is a waste, just look at this result.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/n ... &smtyp=cur
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/n ... &smtyp=cur
It's a sad result, fewer than 16k votes for the winning candidate in a deep blue district. Pathetic on the part of everyone involved: lousy campaigns, and lazy voters. The will of the people in this one (and many other NY races) was to sit at home on their asses.
Apparently there's some structural strangeness supporting low turnout in NY, with the federal primaries (now) separated from the state office primaries (in September), but pretty much any way you slice it, such low turnout in blue districts is bad news for D's.Well I guess that's one way to look at it.
Apparently there's some structural strangeness supporting low turnout in NY, with the federal primaries (now) separated from the state office primaries (in September), but pretty much any way you slice it, such low turnout in blue districts is bad news for D's.Well I guess that's one way to look at it.
No, you just explained what happened there. Turnout is up generally, so bad science is bad.
The State Party machine intentionally bifurcated state and federal primaries, with the idea that few voters would know or make time to show up to both. This was supposed to give the advantage to machine candidates.
Vox piece about Trump trash talking Crowley's loss because Crowley had been critical of Trump.
NY 19th is heavily Hispanic so Alexandria had been even more dismissive of Trump and proposed the elimination of ICE. She also got a lot of traction when she noted that Crowley got donations from those who had also given to Trump.
The other thing of note was that Crowley was a fundraising "powerhouse" which may be why he was seen as a potential successor to Pelosi.
That means he was probably getting donations not just for himself but the overall DCCC and other organizations which disbursed funds to candidates across the nation.
So they lose his connections and if she wins, she won't play the fundraising game.
They'll probably have to find another rep. near NY (i.e. someone who would hit up bankers for donations).
It's a crappy game but if it isn't done, they'd yield a huge advantage to Republicans.
NY 19th is heavily Hispanic so Alexandria had been even more dismissive of Trump and proposed the elimination of ICE. She also got a lot of traction when she noted that Crowley got donations from those who had also given to Trump.
The other thing of note was that Crowley was a fundraising "powerhouse" which may be why he was seen as a potential successor to Pelosi.
That means he was probably getting donations not just for himself but the overall DCCC and other organizations which disbursed funds to candidates across the nation.
So they lose his connections and if she wins, she won't play the fundraising game.
They'll probably have to find another rep. near NY (i.e. someone who would hit up bankers for donations).
It's a crappy game but if it isn't done, they'd yield a huge advantage to Republicans.
- Status