President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The idiots always conveniently forget about the party flip when referencing certain historical positions.
I just think they genuinely didn't pay attention in school. I went to school in Canada and even I know this stuff.
Huh? Being an important voting block doesn’t mean your ideas are popular. The far left is an important voting block too. I don’t see how that responds to my point about people in government.Precedent only matters until it doesn’t. The Roberts court has agreed with past courts that a decision can be overturned even if it’s well-established precedent if th
it does. You might have title II in mind which uses the excuse of proximity to federal infrastructure as the rationale to regulate discrimination. That's the anti-discrimination in hotels and so on part. I disagree on the merit and i think the commerce clause has been raped beyond recognition from Wilburn on, but i accept that's the theoretical distinction so you have at least SOMETHING to cling on constitutionally. So let's keep the "my business lives thanks to the intestate" part of the civil right act aside for a moment.
But title VII of the civil right act (1964) forbids discrimination nationwide on the basis of race gender or religion or country of origin in hiring. And there is no "commerce clause" excuse there. It applies everywhere. It's fully unconstitutional.
The rationale to justify title VII under the commerce clause is "it affects the economy". Everything does. The economy empasses everything including non monetary transactions, which down the line always have economic effects.
If something having down the line potential economic effects justifies federal regulation, the commerce clause means "the federal government can regulate everything in society without limit", which is such a disgraceful joke i don't know how anyone could claim that without laughing
Participating in an online forum doesn't excuse anyone from acting like a decent human being.
Are you new here?
Huh, they forgot to mention that Iran bombed a US military base with Trump's permission.
it does. You might have title II in mind which uses the excuse of proximity to federal infrastructure as the rationale to regulate discrimination. That's the anti-discrimination in hotels and so on part. I disagree on the merit and i think the commerce clause has been raped beyond recognition from Wilburn on, but i accept that's the theoretical distinction so you have at least
Yes I didn’t mean all entities, I mean individuals. So I can hate people all I want to and not have any black friends etc. It’s only when I try to discriminate in the context of commerce like kicking black people out of my store that I run afoul of federal law.
In American politics, free association is only a right in the context of individuals, we don’t extend free association to commerce.
Yes, again when republicans were more liberal and democrats were more conservative. You really do need to learn history before you talk about it.
I of course know the history of that era. That doesn't negate my macro-narrative that parties generally will do what promotes their interests.
If either Party had any decency whatsover they wouldn't take a dime from Zionist lobbying groups like AIPAC. But both parties take millions and millions* of dollars from them to do their bidding.
*Why am I starting to sound like Carl Sagan?
“It’s wrong when they do it, but right when we do it.”
Yes I didn’t mean all entities, I mean individuals. So I can hate people all I want to and not have any black friends etc. It’s only when I try to discriminate in the context of commerce like kicking black people out of my store that I run afoul of federal law.
Point is, that's simply not true. That's an invention of the same SCOTUS that gave us disastrous unconstitutional decisions like "the death penalty is not constitutional" (lol wtf?) and "a right to abortion exists in the federal constitution" (lol wtf?).
But keep in mind this is more of an issue of the federal gvmnt lacking any power to regulate that, than of a right. You might be right that the federal constitution doesn't recognize a freedom of association right in commerce. which would allow STATES to pass anti-discrimination laws.
But the federal gvmnt simply lacks the power to do it and claiming the commerce clause allows for it is just purely absurd on it's face for the argument i made before
It's only true because the ideologies of the two parties basically reversed. A basic primer:
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideolo...
Sort of in some ways.
I mean, the Republicans tended to not be New Dealer's. That was mostly a Democrat thingy.
No, it's about conservatives being consistently evil. Then and now.
doesn't negate my macro-narrative that parties generally will do what promotes their interests.
Of course it doesn't negate what you believe, just the evidence that supports it.
You inadvertently provided the evidence that supports this position rather than your position. No one to blame here but yourself.
Don't know if that's true but if it is, today's republicans are nothing like yesterday's.
you know who is like yesterday's Republicans?
Spoiler
Since you seem intent on recursion:
Lol they didnt morph into other peoples bodies. They just knew slave owning was no longer a selling point to get and keep power after the Great Recession. They are still just the kids and grandkids of those **** stains
The only switch they actually made now was they became the party with an inability to amass a group of supporters.
Lol they didnt morph into other peoples bodies. They just knew slave owning was no longer a selling point to get and keep power after the Great Recession. They are still just the kids and grandkids of those **** stains
The only switch they actually made now was they became the party with an inability to amass a group of supporters.
Total nonsense. Nobody claimed they morphed into other peoples' bodies. The party switch was gradual and quite real. I have no idea what you are trying to say, it comes off as gibberish and incorrect at best.
Total nonsense. Nobody claimed they morphed into other peoples' bodies. The party switch was gradual and quite real. I have no idea what you are trying to say, it comes off as gibberish and incorrect at best.
They evolved, they didnt switch jerseys. And it wasnt all out of the kindness of their hearts. They had to or they lose power.
They evolved, they didnt switch jerseys. And it wasnt all out of the kindness of their hearts. They had to or they lose power.
Good grief. I don't know what you are trying to do here. If you want to know what happened, read this:
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideolo...
I'm not here to argue about what happened or how it happened. I'm only saying it happened so his point is exactly wrong. If you want to argue that it didn't happen, go right ahead. You'd be wrong and wasting your time, but go right ahead. If not, then what you are saying has no bearing at all on what I'm saying. None.
Good grief. I don't know what you are trying to do here. If you want to know what happened, read this:https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideolo...I'm not here to argue about what happened or how it happened. I'm only saying it happened so his point is exactly wrong. If you want to argue that it didn't happen, go right ahead. You'd be wrong and
Im not making some argument that dems are bad and look at what they did during the civil war!
My point is that the argument that they "switched sides" or they "were" the party of such, oversimplifies 150+ years. There was a lot adapting going on with the populus in a changing world since then - happened during the industrial revolution, civil rights and the depression.
