President Donald Trump

[senorsheep]

Boy, I get really frosted when people misrepresent the Colorado cake baker case.

The gays who targeted Jack Phillips in hopes of setting a legal precedent were not run out of his store or harassed in any way. He was and still is happy to sell them or anybody anything in his bakery, including off-the-shelf wedding cakes. What he declined to do was custom-design them a cake in violation of his religious beliefs. His case was about the freedom of artistic expression - no one should be able to use the force of government compel an artist to create art against their will, in violation of their conscience. It's still astonishing to me that two Supreme Court justices sided against that.

[B-Fly]

Boy, I get really frosted when people misrepresent the Colorado cake baker case.

The gays who targeted Jack Phillips in hopes of setting a legal precedent were not run out of his store or harassed in any way. He was and still is happy to sell them or anybody anything in his bakery, including off-the-shelf wedding cakes. What he declined to do was custom-design them a cake in violation of his religious beliefs. His case was about the freedom of artistic expression - no one should be able to use the force of government compel an artist to create art against their will, in violation of their conscience. It's still astonishing to me that two Supreme Court justices sided against that.

Actually, even the majority didn't rule along the lines you're arguing, though, Sheep. They merely found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission denied Phillips a fair shake in their hearing in that they demonstrated open contempt for his assertion of religious objection to gay marriage. The result may have been different if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had determined he was compelled to make a custom cake for those customers, but had been polite in acknowledging his religious beliefs while doing so.

[cardboardbox]

I choose to look at the tax cut as $1900 in my pocket

crumbs

[gcstomp]

senors, your response just now is revisionist. what you did wasnt some pushback, and nothing was directed towards you in first place, as far as i can recall i havent even ever had any kind of issue with you prior to you losing it. you made an unhinged filthy language personal attack the likes seen only in prisons or hs detentions where occupants will soon be in prison. if you look at my long list of posts in the million years i have been on boards, about 1/2 are roto related, other half sportsbar where i try to contribute perspective, sometimes in depth with plenty of substance, but in any case never personal attack the likes i would hesitate to show family or boss.
irl the truly deviant outburst you displayed never occurs, partly because people have some sense of stability, they dont want to be banned, fired, or revealed to be so crass, or leveled by someone the size of a silverback gorilla like myself. in any case, its clear you feel you were in right, not overboard, and have shaped your personal narrative of incident to now include what i said as a personal attack, to someone i dont think i ever had issue. terrific, we can proceed however you like, would love if you just put me on ignore, or otherwise dont respond to my postings, which wouldnt be towards you in first place. or you can continue on what you feel is your solid and escalate, or otherwise make snarky comments towards me for years to come, whatever fits your moral compass. plenty more to discuss in universe rather than the odd relationship you are trying to cultivate with me.

[senorsheep]

Actually, even the majority didn't rule along the lines you're arguing, though, Sheep. They merely found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission denied Phillips a fair shake in their hearing in that they demonstrated open contempt for his assertion of religious objection to gay marriage. The result may have been different if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had determined he was compelled to make a custom cake for those customers, but had been polite in acknowledging his religious beliefs while doing so.

Maybe I'm reading between the lines of the ruling too much, but the hostility in question was not a matter of the commission's politeness, it was their utter refusal to consider the artistic expression aspect of the case while focusing entirely the refusal of service aspect of it. But, you're right, I should probably wait until all of that is more properly considered in a broader context, rather than grumbling about the "nay" votes on this narrow ruling.

[gcstomp]

the Michelle Obama speech was beautiful. Barack had some amazing inspirational speeches. the fractures present in our country feel way beyond the reach of cheerleading type speech, even the soaring rhetoric leading to "yes we can" feels like an age long ago and quaint. not at all a hope, but i suspect we are in for way darker days before we feel the kumbaya united patriotism we all felt after 9/11. Trump is seriously popular among republicans, last few gallup show it right around 90%. this for a provably prolific compulsive liar, who has made great pains to weaken public perception of the foundations of our country, fbi, justice dept, 4th estate, and the melting pot experiment that is the very basis of the welcoming poem at base of Statue of Liberty.

what has to happen to get the country back on track? i dunno, but things seem broken to me in a way different that any time in my lifetime.

[Bernie Brewer]

No. My point was that the same people that were all supportive of the bakery in CO and VA for their stances against individuals getting bent out of shape about this is odd because the latter is a direct by-product of the ofrmer.

I don't want to see people denied entry or service for anything unless they are a threat to the people inside of the place due to their actions.

First, I’m not looking for a fight, but merely trying to explain what I hear from conservative family members and friends.

This agreement you use works for the other side, as well. We can all tend to conflate things to fit our narrative. While I don’t agree, I understand some of this thinking. I have heard people on the right asking “Where were the people on the left clamoring about separating families at the border now, when Obama’s administration was locking up kids in 2014. Because, they will tell you the latter is an indirect result of the former. Only difference is “families” weren’t torn apart, and there were no pictures of crying little children on magazine covers or social media. Yes, they understand that small children didn’t travel by themselves to the US, and that the older kids who did, they traveled alone (purportedly). The next extension of that is to ask if the left cared so much about children, why would they support pro-choice? Talk about ripping children from thier Mothers!!! (For the record, I’m pro choice). Why would the Dems not fix the inter-city gang violence that is rampant in places like Chicago, after largely holding sway over urban governments for decades? There are many stories of innocent kids in Chicago that are dragged into the gangs against thier will as thier only way to survival. If they fight joining, they are caught, intentionally or not, in the cross fire (sadly, far too often it’s an innocent baby or toddler killed)? I’m not arguing either. I’m just saying that’s the position of many skeptics on the right and that’s why they perceive liberals and Dems as hypocrites, shysters, carpetbaggers, etc., too!

[senorsheep]

senors, your response just now is revisionist. what you did wasnt some pushback, and nothing was directed towards you in first place, as far as i can recall i havent even ever had any kind of issue with you prior to you losing it. you made an unhinged filthy language personal attack the likes seen only in prisons or hs detentions where occupants will soon be in prison. if you look at my long list of posts in the million years i have been on boards, about 1/2 are roto related, other half sportsbar where i try to contribute perspective, sometimes in depth with plenty of substance, but in any case never personal attack the likes i would hesitate to show family or boss.
irl the truly deviant outburst you displayed never occurs, partly because people have some sense of stability, they dont want to be banned, fired, or revealed to be so crass, or leveled by someone the size of a silverback gorilla like myself. in any case, its clear you feel you were in right, not overboard, and have shaped your personal narrative of incident to now include what i said as a personal attack, to someone i dont think i ever had issue. terrific, we can proceed however you like, would love if you just put me on ignore, or otherwise dont respond to my postings, which wouldnt be towards you in first place. or you can continue on what you feel is your solid and escalate, or otherwise make snarky comments towards me for years to come, whatever fits your moral compass. plenty more to discuss in universe rather than the odd relationship you are trying to cultivate with me.

Has anyone ever told you you have a problem being direct? LOL

I apologize for the bad language. That was beyond the pale. And counterproductive, obviously - it gave you an out to focus on my potty mouth, rather than examine whether your passive-aggressively calling people on this forum dishonest might be creepy behavior, and worthy of reflection and correction.

I don't put people on Ignore, because IMO, that is - brace yourself - a pussy thing to do. I rarely respond to anybody's political posts anymore. I think, in my lifetime of posting here, I have ever only responded to two of your political posts, and both times were when you felt the need to go beyond "this is my opinion" and into the realm of "people who disagree with my opinions are dishonest/ racist/ too dumb to believe in science/ etc." In short, if you simply want to state your political opinions, be my guest, you'll likely never hear a peep from me. However, if you want insult people who disagree with your opinions with ugly accusations, then once in a blue moon, I might feel annoyed enough to say something. So, there you go, something to consider next time you feel compelled to cross that line.

[Bernie Brewer]

My community is mostly a liberal echo chamber, but I've made a point to find some online spaces where I can engage in discussion with Republicans, conservatives, Trump supporters, people who don't like Trump but hated him less than Hillary Clinton, people who deeply mistrust the media, etc. And in my very left-liberal community, I have seen many of my friends and neighbors shed all Trump/GOP "apologists" from their Facebook feeds and gang up on community Facebook pages against the small minority of dissenting conservatives. I have not purged my friends list and I am warm and friendly toward the few conservatives in my community and would be pissed off if anyone tried to kick them out of a restaurant or harass them at a school event for their bumper stickers or yard signs.

I get where many liberals are coming from - they honestly view the Trump Administration's policies and rhetoric as grounded in or at least providing succor and comfort to a strain of white nationalism/nativism. I happen to agree with them on that. Then the question becomes whether those who do not agree with them on that, and who would make apologies for the President or the Administration or the GOPers who fall in line with Trump, are themselves "guilty" of tacit acceptance of white nationalism/nativism, and if so, how they (liberals) can still engage with those folks (conservatives) positively when they view the white nationalism/nativism strain of Trumpism as so deeply morally repugnant.

I struggle because I do arrive at my own political and ideological views through both "rational" and "moral" analysis. I am not a moral relativist and think there very often is a correct (or at least more correct) moral position on many controversial issues. I generally make a conscious effort to avoid what many conservatives deride as "virtue signaling" while still explaining the moral, as well as the rational, basis for my position on a given issue. But I too can get super frustrated with "whataboutism" where every time a Democrat/liberal/progressive person gets upset about something from the Trump Administration, someone feels the need to counter that by digging for something that happened on Obama's watch or Clinton's watch (or at least something that a right-leaning website dug up and spun for the occasion), and accusing the upset liberal of selective partisan outrage instead of addressing the current issue on its merits. Maybe there is more coverage of and awareness of bad stuff done by or allowed by the Trump administration. But is the best response to that to largely gloss over the bad stuff to instead focus on blaming the media for reporting it now when they didn't report it to the same extent three years ago or twenty years ago? Or is the best response to address it on its merits today and then fight to hold the media (and liberals) to a higher standard next time they're the ones steering the ship?

This is an outstanding post. My community is a little more mixed. I’m a banker (typically conservative, by nature) living in a deep blue state (Illinois), but I’m from a solid purple state (Wisconsin). I’m an Evangelical Christian (the denomination is moderate by in large, but my local Church, of which I am a member, is pretty Liberal). I’m trying to do the same by being open to hear all viewpoints on major and minor issues, but my vantage point begins more on the moderate/conservative side. Regardless, I’m still looking for the moral outcome.

The only comment I have is that the use of “whataboutism” isn’t exclusive to one side. I will admit that it has become a “dog whistle” of sorts used by the left to tell people in the middle and particularly on the right that they are stupid or racist and it is usually intended to end a conversation. In a grand use of whataboutism, as I recall Dems practicing this tactic was very popular during the Obama Era when liberals reminded everyone that no matter what criticism you had of Obama’s administration, Bush was much worse!

[Bernie Brewer]

the Michelle Obama speech was beautiful. Barack had some amazing inspirational speeches. the fractures present in our country feel way beyond the reach of cheerleading type speech, even the soaring rhetoric leading to "yes we can" feels like an age long ago and quaint. not at all a hope, but i suspect we are in for way darker days before we feel the kumbaya united patriotism we all felt after 9/11. Trump is seriously popular among republicans, last few gallup show it right around 90%. this for a provably prolific compulsive liar, who has made great pains to weaken public perception of the foundations of our country, fbi, justice dept, 4th estate, and the melting pot experiment that is the very basis of the welcoming poem at base of Statue of Liberty.

what has to happen to get the country back on track? i dunno, but things seem broken to me in a way different that any time in my lifetime.

How are you feeling about the Mad Max Maxine Waters speech from today? She’s a wonderful example of liberalism and staying high.

[The Feral Slasher]

Trump is seriously popular among republicans, last few gallup show it right around 90%. this for a provably prolific compulsive liar, who has made great pains to weaken public perception of the foundations of our country, fbi, justice dept, 4th estate, and the melting pot experiment that is the very basis of the welcoming poem at base of Statue of Liberty.

.

you have very different ideas about the foundation of our country than I do.

[nots]

How are you feeling about the Mad Max Maxine Waters speech from today? She’s a wonderful example of liberalism and staying high.

What, you have a problem with a member of Congress urging folks to harass (her words) Cabinet members of the other party? To follow them to the gas station, the restaurant etc and make their life miserable? Man you are soft.

[Moonlight J]

A read on the recent matter that compares it something 70 years ago (no, not what you think) -- https://www.craigcalcaterra.com/blog...inst-indecency

[gcstomp]

Bernie, the Maxine Waters speech today, just trainwreck. About as wrong as can be in approach. Dangerous, counterproductive.

[senorsheep]

What, you have a problem with a member of Congress urging folks to harass (her words) Cabinet members of the other party? To follow them to the gas station, the restaurant etc and make their life miserable? Man you are soft.

It's all fun and games until some good ol' MAGA boys follow her into her friendly neighborhood wig shop...