What do trump people think of his affair(s)?

[Wilson_90]

They seem to be calling you a troll because you're, well, trolling.

Opinions are welcome in this forum.

Fuzzy was once an entitled young wuzzy who thought his opinion was the most important on earth; could never be wrong; and felt oppressed. Then Fuzzy got an education, a job, and exposure to life.

Except I’m not “trolling”. I’m being labelled a “troll” because you people don’t like what I’m saying.
So you got an education and you’re still on the far left of politics? Lol.

 

[b.c.]

That's apples and oranges. My remark was about community organization against discrimination, not environmental regulations. The latter has nothing to do with freedom of association.

Right and law may often overlap, but they are not the same thing.

From what I recall, bigots were using "freedom of association" arguments to keep black people out of white neighborhoods and such. Or, like I wrote above, the same old s---------- in a fancy new wrap.

Though not surprising coming from an admirer of alt right ideologues who, according to you, "Just want non-whites gone."

 

[Klingsor]

But they do want to sell cakes. It’s just that the left is trying to get the government to control the process.

It’s their right to refuse service. Go elsewhere.

The very essence of discrimination: "Just go somewhere else."

 

[Wilson_90]

The very essence of discrimination: "Just go somewhere else."

Female only gyms anyone? Trump supporters trying to get Starbucks? No?

 

[Fuzzy_]

Except I’m not “trolling”. I’m being labelled a “troll” because you people don’t like what I’m saying.
So you got an education and you’re still on the far left of politics? Lol.

^ That's trolling..

 

[Wilson_90]

^ That's trolling..

No it’s not. That’s truth. And it’s funny.

 

[Klingsor]

Anti-discrimination laws are relatively recent, with respect to the scope of the history of the nation, the liberal tradition, the philosophy of innate rights, and so forth.

With respect to State force, yes, businesses are compelled to serve protected classes even when it is against their will. However, true rights are a matter of what is proper to humans and what is naturally due them in a society with any basic sense of justice. Humans have a right to determine the use of their legitimately owned property. A private business is essentially the property of its owner. The owner therefore has a right to discriminate, whether the State recognizes this or not.

You really want to go back to the way things were? Really?

But then, perhaps you wouldn't be directly affected. So I guess it's all good.

 

[Wilson_90]

You really want to go back to the way things were? Really?

But then, perhaps you wouldn't be directly affected. So I guess it's all good.

No. I’d prefer not to be prosecuted for incorrectly applying a gender pronoun or rightfully critiquing a barbaric doctrine.

“Human rights” laws have gone too far.

 

[Klingsor]

That's apples and oranges. My remark was about community organization against discrimination, not environmental regulations. The latter has nothing to do with freedom of association.

Historically, market forces have not been sufficient to prevent discrimination. And even if community organization may succeed in specific instances, why should people have to fight those same battles, over and over again, just to be treated fairly?

That may be the kind of society you'd prefer. Many would disagree.

 

[Klingsor]

No. I’d prefer not to be prosecuted for incorrectly applying a gender pronoun or rightfully critiquing a barbaric doctrine.

“Human rights” laws have gone too far.

I'm sorry you were prosecuted for incorrectly applying a gender pronoun or rightfully critiquing a barbaric doctrine. Hopefully, you have a good lawyer; I'd say you have a strong case.

 

[Wilson_90]

I'm sorry you were prosecuted for incorrectly applying a gender pronoun or rightfully critiquing a barbaric doctrine. Hopefully, you have a good lawyer; I'd say you have a strong case.

You’re seriously supporting charges for those things? Lmao

 

[Klingsor]

You’re seriously supporting charges for those things? Lmao

If you took the time to read my entire post, you'd see I'm saying the opposite.

By the way, I don't actually believe you're being prosecuted for such things, but what do I know?

 

[Wilson_90]

If you took the time to read my entire post, you'd see I'm saying the opposite.

By the way, I don't actually believe you're being prosecuted for such things, but what do I know?

I never said I was. I said I *dont want to be*. But thankfully I don’t live in Canada..

 

[Klingsor]

I never said I was. I said I *dont want to be*. But thankfully I don’t live in Canada..

Ah. Well, if you want to talk about what you can or can't be prosecuted for in Canada (something I'm not that up on), that may be another thread.

Then again, the way this one's gotten derailed, you may as well go for it here.

 

[halcyondays]

Republicans are trying very hard to control people's private lives: their religion; who can marry whom; what kind of sex people can have; who can smoke what; even who gets a cake.

Republicans also support small government. Go figure.

As far as voters go it's more accurate to say some Republicans are trying very hard to control people's private lives. I know several libertarians who always vote Republican who are highly offended by these intrusions into privacy.

As for elected Republicans they are owned by big money and give lip service to conservative social engineering to preserve that portion of their voter base. When their children want abortions or gay marriage or are atheists--and when their corporate donors need trillions in bailouts--these elected social conservatives become socialist liberals without batting an eye.

 

[halcyondays]

Republicans are trying very hard to control people's private lives: their religion; who can marry whom; what kind of sex people can have; who can smoke what; even who gets a cake.

Republicans also support small government. Go figure.

Your original post asks "Trump people" to comment on his affairs. Whoops. Mea culpa.

 

[deleted15807]

That's apples and oranges. My remark was about community organization against discrimination, not environmental regulations. The latter has nothing to do with freedom of association.

Not if it's the law.

You said: I would far prefer seeing bakeries go bankrupt due to punishment by market forces than the State force them to act against their conscience.

 

[shannon12]

We couldn't give a flying f*** because no one listens to the left's moral preaching anymore.

And Trump is doing such an unbelievable job - not least of which is annoying the crap out of the left on a daily basis - that we don't care. Just as you guys supported Bill when he let Monica suck him off in the oval office. Of course, you admonish him now, as it suits your agenda.

What do you think about Monica wishing to join the MeToo campaign?

 

[StormfrontFL]

We couldn't give a flying f*** because no one listens to the left's moral preaching anymore.

And Trump is doing such an unbelievable job - not least of which is annoying the crap out of the left on a daily basis - that we don't care. Just as you guys supported Bill when he let Monica suck him off in the oval office. Of course, you admonish him now, as it suits your agenda.

What do you think about Monica wishing to join the MeToo campaign?

Who let this trog out of his basement?

 

[keenobserver]

Then why is Starbucks and other retailers getting away with refusing service to trump supporters?

They shouldn't be. It's that simple. I have not seen a policy from Starbucks or any retailer, in writing stating they will not serve Trump supporters. I'm sure you can document that for us - specifically that is a written company wide policy. Put up, or shut up.