***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[frenchbreadbuilds]

@ Faux objectivity.

2018 is the year of irony.

Faux objectivity is lesson 1 in trolling 101

 

[stuntman mike]

my co-worker that got deported to western samoa (a country he hasn't lived in since he was 4 and has no family or support there) wrote us a letter that one of the ladies read aloud in our staff meeting this morning. the letter described how much he misses us and how we should be kind to each other because we don't know how precious our relationships are until they're taken away. the words were very heartfelt and lots of people were tearing up. dude was a super nice guy, a tax payer, role model for the community, and now he's in a country where he has nobody. we collected a few grand to give him and along with his meager savings (he never once asked for anything), i hope he can stretch it and figure things out. such a shame. immigration dude flat out said this only happened because donald trump is in office.

 

[IATT]

 

[nomnom]

It’s hard for me to not believe that the Krassenteins are crypotocurrency liberal bots made in some Florida lab.

“PLEASE RT”

 

[the natural mystic]

 

[sundoobie]

Who are these people on the left who want open borders?

Donald Trump said it last Wednesday at his pep rally in Minnesota, so as usual his cheerleaders and trolls are parroting the lies Trump said as though it's true. These idiots can't even take the time to research facts.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...nt-open-borderswe-are-not-going-let-it-happen

"The Democrats want open borders," Trump told the crowd.

"Let everybody come in. Let everybody pour in -- we don't care, let them come in from the Middle East, let them come in from all over the place. We don't care.

"We are not going to let it happen! By the way, today I signed an executive order. We are going to keep families together, but the border is going to be just as tough as it's been. (Cheering)

"Democrats don't care about the impact of uncontrolled migration on your communities, your schools, your hospitals, your jobs, or your safety. Democrats put illegal immigrants before they put American citizens. What the hell is going on?

"Illegal immigration costs our country hundreds of billions of dollars. So imagine if we could spend that money to help bring opportunity to our inner cities and our rural communities and our roads and our highways and our schools."

 

[IATT]

 

[blastercombo]

Maybe the one thing Trump done right. Tax those fraud church organizations selling hope to the poor and advertisement to the rich

 

[gry60]

Yes, thank you for summarizing, generally ...

The only actionable suggestion so far in this thread has been to allow illegal immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. (illegally btw) to stay, provided they are "productive" ...

This equates to memorializing criminals ... I just cant rock with that because the "productive" requirement is too broad will practically just grant amnesty to everyone without vetting ... that's not only infeasible, it's stupid ...

This is how I know you're disingenuous. How is it impossible if it has been done before? How is it stupid if it gives you the kind of people you pretend to want here (economically productive folks)? How is it stupid if it going avoid creating more economic burden on the government and its agencies?
You.
Don't.
Make.
Sense.

 

[InTheHallway]

So how many of these so called illegals do you think are criminals % wise relative to their population. What if I told you it’s less than the criminal % of americans compared to the American population?

What? 100% of the people who broke federal law(s), including those overstaying their visas should be removed and get in line behind those trying to make it legally ...

 

[biggie62]

Ahh gotcha. Okay just be ready to pay $15 for that sandwich that you are use to paying $5 for. And $30 for that gyro platter at the diner that was $10 while your wage remains stagnant.

 

[EddieDoyers]

 

[elpablo21]

You can't make this **** up

 

[chao7]

I feel like ignoring trolls lets us be on the same wavelength. I can spend as much time replying to them as they spend formulating a coherent argument - none at all.

 

[the qbz]

Mike pence need to realize that he is only hurting his stepson friendship

 

[dreamer23]

i 'member...

 

[elpablo21]

Civility now, Civility now

 

[hand2handking]

Supreme Court Says Religious Bias Only Matters If The Targets Are Christian

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI VIA GETTY IMAGES
The Supreme Court sides with President Donald Trump on when religious discrimination is bad.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ban-supreme-court_us_5b325580e4b0b5e692f1a576

The Supreme Court has issued disturbingly contradictory rulings this term in two significant cases dealing with the right of minority groups to be protected from discrimination. Taken together, they turn the purpose of the First Amendment’s establishment clause on its head.

A few weeks ago in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court found that statements by the commission’s members invalidated the commission’s finding in favor of a same-sex couple who were denied a wedding cake by a Christian baker. The remarks at issue were extremely attenuated and general, and the Supreme Court majority acknowledged that they were subject to multiple interpretations.

Nonetheless, and because of those remarks alone, the court tossed aside the Colorado commission’s ruling that the baker, Jack Phillips, discriminated against David Mullin and Charlie Craig in refusing to bake them a wedding cake. In Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words, constitutional protection for the freedom of religion prohibits even “subtle departures from neutrality.”

Yet, on Monday, in its ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, the court found that the president’s long record of undisputed anti-Muslim animus was insufficient to invalidate a policy banning millions of Muslims from traveling to the United States.

Unlike in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, there is no ambiguity about President Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim history. His statements are not subject to multiple interpretations and their hostility toward religion is so well-documented that it was not even being disputed by the government. As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent, the “evidence of anti-religious bias” should be “a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside,” particularly because — as a bipartisan group of dozens of national security experts concluded — the national security justification for the ban is so thin.

Although the court’s decision focused on the powers of the president under the immigration laws, this case at its core was always about whether politicians can demonize and vilify a religious group and still be allowed to implement policies that specifically target that group. The record of religious animus before the Supreme Court was undeniable. Yet, contrary to its statements in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the conservative majority put all that history to the side and allowed Trump’s Muslim ban to remain fully in effect.

In her own dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor scathingly called out this contradiction. The court in Masterpiece Cakeshop had “found less pervasive official expressions of hostility and the failure to disavow them to be constitutionally significant,” she wrote, yet now the majority allowed “a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a ‘total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the United States’” to go forward.

At the end of the day, the only meaningful difference between Masterpiece Cakeshop and Trump v. Hawaii is that Jack Phillips is Christian and the millions of people targeted by the ban are Muslim. The slightest hint of hostility toward religion is intolerable to the Supreme Court when directed at mainstream Christian beliefs. But years of well-documented, unambiguous animus toward Islam does not hold enough weight to invalidate a policy that has no viable alternative justification. Rather than shielding religious minorities who are at risk of persecution against discrimination, the religion clauses in the Constitution are being used by the court to provide exclusive protection for the religious beliefs of one particular religious group — even when those beliefs harm minorities who need protection, as in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The establishment clause was, in both its origins and early interpretations, fundamentally about protecting religious minorities and allowing religious pluralism to flourish. It was a commitment to the principle that America would be an open and tolerant place for all.

With its recent rulings in these twin cases, the Supreme Court has turned that principle upside down.

 

[kdawg]

I don’t have an issue with this AT ALL! Why should they get tax free meals and gym memberships?

It’s totally different if your employer requires you to travel and gives you a meal allowance - but giving you food is basic tax avoidance.

Religious organisations being tax exempt is one thing - but that doesn’t mean you can skip out on payroll taxes too.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Isn't "civility" the right's version of "political correctness"? The thing they always rail on about?

 

[hand2handking]

 

[gry60]

https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-must-stop-pretending-supreme-court-apolitical/

Indeed it is. So far this year the Court has delivered blow after to blow to workers: from Janus v. AFSCME, which will crush the ability of workers to organize, to Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which will make it far more difficult for workers to use the legal system to remedy abuses. On Monday, the Court upheld racist gerrymanders and gutted antitrust enforcement. Tuesday, the Court upheld Trump’s Muslim ban and blocked a California law that “crisis pregnancy centers” had to provide information about abortions. As Democratic contenders for 2020 are staking out positions like a federal job guarantee and Medicare for All, the threat of a Supreme Court that could reverse progressive legislative accomplishments looms large.

David Faris, a professor of politics at Roosevelt University who wrote a book arguing that progressives need to fight back against Republican procedural extremism, said that, while the constitutional basis for Medicare for All is sound, another right-wing justice on the Court could “open up the possibility of overturning crucial decisions from the late ’30s, decisions which finally upheld New Deal reforms. If the constitutional basis of the Social Security Act is overturned, for instance, then Medicare for All becomes impossible too. We’re not that far away from this scenario,” he said. “Federalist Society zealots have openly wanted to bring back the Lochner era for decades.”

Any member of the Democratic establishment needs to realize that if they don't stand with Maxine Waters, they don't stand for anything at all.

Schumer is a *****, and Democrats don't need ******* at the helm.

 

[Belgium]

I feel like Maxine's initial statement was a bit too strongly worded but it was also blown out of proportion at the same time. Republicans are acting like she said those second amendment people should go do something about Trump administration officials. I don't recall her exact clarification but she pushed back against the idea of her advocating for non-peaceful confrontations. The tricky part is not taking confrontation into the harassment/abuse territory.

 

[blastercombo]

“Conservatives win with travel ban”


A win is racial stereotyping and religious prejudice......

 

[InTheHallway]

I feel like Maxine's initial statement was a bit too strongly worded but it was also blown out of proportion at the same time. Republicans are acting like she said those second amendment people should go do something about Trump administration officials. I don't recall her exact clarification but she pushed back against the idea of her advocating for non-peaceful confrontations. The tricky part is not taking confrontation into the harassment/abuse territory.

Lol ... come on son ... watch the video and stop lying to yourself ...