Chasing people out of restaurants

Now there is a difference between cases like this thread is about and the Red Hen incident. While most conservatives were being chased out over supporting Kavanaugh and the Obamacare repeal, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave for working for Trump when families were being separated from the border. It’s still morally wrong to discriminate based on political views, but since the manager simply asked Sanders to leave in a polite manner rather than chase her out, that’s different.
 
Or maybe, the ?fascists? aren?t really fascists at all, and those being ?hurt? by the government are the ones making outlandish demands. How is it ?fascist? to support free speech, the free market system, and tax cuts while opposing terrorism, violence, and discrimination based on political beliefs? I believe that everyone, Democrat or Republican, should enjoy their lives peacefully, no matter what they do in Congress. The only evil I see is the liberal mobs that?s bullying, intimidating, harassing, or threatening Republicans and Republican voters.

As for what I think about disrespectful customers, I agree they shouldn?t have service. If they can?t respect other customers or employees, they shouldn?t get service at the restaurant.

People who yell facists everywhere don't even know what it means and those same people want to get rid off freedom of speech etc

They are the facists lol
 
I think Alolan_Apples has been quite civil...certain pother people, I'm not so sure.

I try to be a leader on this site, but it's clear that people don't follow my example. There are plenty of people on both sides of this issue that have been civil and certain others that definitely haven't been.
 
If you find it more troubling when a random person disrespects a politician than when a politician disrespects a random person, well, you should really mull that over.

It should be obvious at this point, but politicians are not heroes. They are civil servants and the second that one becomes unfit for office, he or she should be removed from the position. Center your personal politics on a politician's position, not the politician him or herself. Always be critical of anyone willing to sacrifice everything to hold onto power.
 
People who yell facists everywhere don't even know what it means and those same people want to get rid off freedom of speech etc

They are the facists lol

Right. Plus, all I?m seeing from Trump besides his bad Twitter behavior and his endorsements is that he?s trying to limit the size of the federal government. Is it really fascism to make a government smaller? What about Nazism? Or worse, what about tyranny?
 
Last edited:
Right. Plus, all I’m seeing from Trump besides his bad Twitter behavior and his endorsements is that he’s trying to limit the size of the federal government. Is it really fascism to make a government smaller? What about Nazism? Or worse, what about tyranny?

He isn't doing anything bad yet people love to hate on him for no reason. (if you ask for their reason, they can't give one or they give a basic reply without any meaning behind it)
IMO I wouldn't kick any one from a restaurant for any reason other than them being an annoyance to everybody(drunk or fights etc)
 
He isn't doing anything bad yet people love to hate on him for no reason. (if you ask for their reason, they can't give one or they give a basic reply without any meaning behind it)
IMO I wouldn't kick any one from a restaurant for any reason other than them being an annoyance to everybody(drunk or fights etc)

Actually, there are reasons why they hate him. He had a history of sexual harassment, racism, and being an attention whore. He wasn’t any better as president after making offensive comments about others, calling developing nations a bad name, and bragging about how good he’s doing. If this is true about you, you wouldn’t be a pleasant person to be around. But the other reasons why they hate him is more about the Republican Party than about him. It’s normal for someone to hate a politician because they disagree with you, especially if they made the political actions. But right now, it’s more of a Scar-Mufasa relationship than a bully vs bully conflict.
 
Actually, there are reasons why they hate him. He had a history of sexual harassment, racism, and being an attention whore. He wasn’t any better as president after making offensive comments about others, calling developing nations a bad name, and bragging about how good he’s doing. If this is true about you, you wouldn’t be a pleasant person to be around. But the other reasons why they hate him is more about the Republican Party than about him. It’s normal for someone to hate a politician because they disagree with you, especially if they made the political actions. But right now, it’s more of a Scar-Mufasa relationship than a bully vs bully conflict.
I can understand that they dislike him because of political beliefs but when they mention racism or sexual harassment and you ask for an example they can't give one.
 
I can understand that they dislike him because of political beliefs but when they mention racism or sexual harassment and you ask for an example they can't give one.

They also call those that supported Trump ?racist?. But to be fair, these were also the same people that called the supporters of Obama?s opponent ?racist? and (in a more ridiculous note) the same people that called supporters of Herman Cain and Ben Carson ?racist?. They also have the mentality that if someone is a racist once, they are a racist for life. But that term has been abused so much that it won?t work anymore. In fact, people even went past the point to where even other labels or accusations will stop working. But this leads to two more problems. Those who were truly victims of racism or sexual harassment/assault won?t be believed anymore, while those that abused the term ?racist? has gone savage if the Republicans take office or pass something. Hence why they have been chasing people out of restaurants.
 
It's absolutely not true that Trump is disliked only for his attitude and behavioral problems (although those are a problem as well, as the president of the United States should be respected and mature and from his tweets you can tell he isn't, but that's not even my main point.

He (and his cabinet) are trying to put in place policies that harm a lot of people. He's trying to limit access to abortions and defunding planned parenthood (what happened to the freedoms that you claim Trump is so supportive of?) which is upsetting because Planned Parenthood helps people not just in cases of abortion but counseling, contraceptives, health care (since a lot of people can't afford to go to expensive doctors) etc.

Also, he's promoting discrimination and policies that will actively harm transgender people. Look at this article. If policies like this go through (which it looks like it'll be championed for very soon), trans people will have difficulty finding jobs and be allowed to be discriminated against and generally be unable to live their lives peacefully like they want to. All they want is to transition and live happily, a lot of people who are trans are binary (i.e. mtf or ftm) and they live "stealth" which means they pass (look 100% like, you wouldn't be able to guess otherwise, etc) as the opposite sex and get hormone replacement therapy, etc. You wouldn't be able to recognize them in a crowd or individually and they're happy living their lives but they'd be in danger if these policies passed, because of these genetics testing that would reveal them and put them in danger of losing their jobs, losing their place in certain communities, etc. If acts allowing discrimination against them passed, possible employers could easily just say "oh you're trans? HAHA not hired bye" and they'd have NOTHING they'd be able to do. There's already discrimination that goes on under the table, imagine if it was completely legal. They'd have no jobs they'd be able to get in some areas and with LGBTQ people already getting kicked out of their homes and homeless, how would they improve their situation if they're unable to get a job? Die on the street? Fall to prostitution, which isn't legal either?

Also, Trump (as the president) has the power to elect more supreme court judges now that a few of them are looking to be near their time, and if he puts in several supreme court judges that are Republican leaning a lot of previous rulings that promoted freedom like Roe v. Wade are in danger, which puts more women in danger. If a woman really, really isn't in a place to have a child, do you think they'd allow it to go to term just because they have no other legal and safe choice, or would they rather just use unsafe methods they read about on the internet in desperation that people used to do in the past before it was legal? These unsafe methods put these women in danger.

Besides putting in place policies that will literally put all of my trans friends in danger, I also hate a lot of his policies that I read on his 100day list and his choices for cabinet. Public education is so, so, so flippin' important for social mobility so that there's a better chance for poor people to move up in the world (even if chances are already stacked against them due to lack of money) and instead him and his secretary of education (who literally has COUNTLESS incentives to fund private education BECAUSE SHE IS INVESTED IN PRIVATE EDUCATION AND HAS GONE TO PRIVATE ALL HER LIFE AND HAS NEVER STEPPED FOOT INSIDE A PUBLIC SCHOOL NOR SENT HER KIDS TO ONE). Like, school choice is noble and all, but there won't be SPACE for all of the kids in the states and if you're funneling all of your money into school choice vouchers and giving more money to charter schools etc, you're taking away money that SHOULD be going into public schools, which are the schools that the majority of kids have to go to and are already not funded enough, with not enough money for after-school programs, underpaid teachers who have to buy their own supplies for the kids because they care, lack of quality textbooks and materials, etc. How is a low-income kid gonna feel like the USA cares for him and wants him to succeed if his school and textbooks are falling apart as well as his community?

Also, another gripe I have with his 100 day policy, he said something preposterous about MORE COPS in low-income communities instead of funding after-school programs that will allow kids time to work on their homework, allow them time to work hard creatively with art if they so wish, and things that in general would keep them OFF THE STREETS and possibly getting into crime (because peer pressure and idolization of older kids is something that does indeed happen) and then getting in trouble with the law. After-school programs would be so, so beneficial but no, we gotta pay money for more cops. I accept that this is my most shaky point, but nonetheless, I absolutely loathe everything about the Trump administration and have more gripes but don't care to share at 10 AM in the morning on a text forum about animal crossing of all things.

I think freedom is very important, which is why I do not support the majority-republican administration right now.

On the original topic, I personally don't care for it, people should be able to eat in peace, but if a business owner politely says we don't want your business here I support it, I like that they have morals. Freedom in choice in where you take your business is important, but anti-discrimination policies are important, since it's like the gay cake thing, people should not be allowed to not serve cake just because a couple is gay, because what if it's the only bakery in town? If discrimination based on sexual preference was legal, sure they could take their business somewhere else if they could, but sometimes in small towns there aren't a lot of choices so they're just stuck and that would be terrible.
 
It's absolutely not true that Trump is disliked only for his attitude and behavioral problems (although those are a problem as well, as the president of the United States should be respected and mature and from his tweets you can tell he isn't, but that's not even my main point.

He (and his cabinet) are trying to put in place policies that harm a lot of people. He's trying to limit access to abortions and defunding planned parenthood (what happened to the freedoms that you claim Trump is so supportive of?) which is upsetting because Planned Parenthood helps people not just in cases of abortion but counseling, contraceptives, health care (since a lot of people can't afford to go to expensive doctors) etc.

Also, he's promoting discrimination and policies that will actively harm transgender people. Look at this article. If policies like this go through (which it looks like it'll be championed for very soon), trans people will have difficulty finding jobs and be allowed to be discriminated against and generally be unable to live their lives peacefully like they want to. All they want is to transition and live happily, a lot of people who are trans are binary (i.e. mtf or ftm) and they live "stealth" which means they pass (look 100% like, you wouldn't be able to guess otherwise, etc) as the opposite sex and get hormone replacement therapy, etc. You wouldn't be able to recognize them in a crowd or individually and they're happy living their lives but they'd be in danger if these policies passed, because of these genetics testing that would reveal them and put them in danger of losing their jobs, losing their place in certain communities, etc. If acts allowing discrimination against them passed, possible employers could easily just say "oh you're trans? HAHA not hired bye" and they'd have NOTHING they'd be able to do. There's already discrimination that goes on under the table, imagine if it was completely legal. They'd have no jobs they'd be able to get in some areas and with LGBTQ people already getting kicked out of their homes and homeless, how would they improve their situation if they're unable to get a job? Die on the street? Fall to prostitution, which isn't legal either?

Also, Trump (as the president) has the power to elect more supreme court judges now that a few of them are looking to be near their time, and if he puts in several supreme court judges that are Republican leaning a lot of previous rulings that promoted freedom like Roe v. Wade are in danger, which puts more women in danger. If a woman really, really isn't in a place to have a child, do you think they'd allow it to go to term just because they have no other legal and safe choice, or would they rather just use unsafe methods they read about on the internet in desperation that people used to do in the past before it was legal? These unsafe methods put these women in danger.

Besides putting in place policies that will literally put all of my trans friends in danger, I also hate a lot of his policies that I read on his 100day list and his choices for cabinet. Public education is so, so, so flippin' important for social mobility so that there's a better chance for poor people to move up in the world (even if chances are already stacked against them due to lack of money) and instead him and his secretary of education (who literally has COUNTLESS incentives to fund private education BECAUSE SHE IS INVESTED IN PRIVATE EDUCATION AND HAS GONE TO PRIVATE ALL HER LIFE AND HAS NEVER STEPPED FOOT INSIDE A PUBLIC SCHOOL NOR SENT HER KIDS TO ONE). Like, school choice is noble and all, but there won't be SPACE for all of the kids in the states and if you're funneling all of your money into school choice vouchers and giving more money to charter schools etc, you're taking away money that SHOULD be going into public schools, which are the schools that the majority of kids have to go to and are already not funded enough, with not enough money for after-school programs, underpaid teachers who have to buy their own supplies for the kids because they care, lack of quality textbooks and materials, etc. How is a low-income kid gonna feel like the USA cares for him and wants him to succeed if his school and textbooks are falling apart as well as his community?

Also, another gripe I have with his 100 day policy, he said something preposterous about MORE COPS in low-income communities instead of funding after-school programs that will allow kids time to work on their homework, allow them time to work hard creatively with art if they so wish, and things that in general would keep them OFF THE STREETS and possibly getting into crime (because peer pressure and idolization of older kids is something that does indeed happen) and then getting in trouble with the law. After-school programs would be so, so beneficial but no, we gotta pay money for more cops. I accept that this is my most shaky point, but nonetheless, I absolutely loathe everything about the Trump administration and have more gripes but don't care to share at 10 AM in the morning on a text forum about animal crossing of all things.

I think freedom is very important, which is why I do not support the majority-republican administration right now.

On the original topic, I personally don't care for it, people should be able to eat in peace, but if a business owner politely says we don't want your business here I support it, I like that they have morals. Freedom in choice in where you take your business is important, but anti-discrimination policies are important, since it's like the gay cake thing, people should not be allowed to not serve cake just because a couple is gay, because what if it's the only bakery in town? If discrimination based on sexual preference was legal, sure they could take their business somewhere else if they could, but sometimes in small towns there aren't a lot of choices so they're just stuck and that would be terrible.

Wanna know what’s a better idea? Have the Republicans control both the House and the Senate while the Democrats take the Executive Branch. Or have the Democrats control both the House and the Senate while the Republicans take the Executive Branch. If one party controls all three of them, it’s unlimited power. This may be okay at the state level, but at the federal level? No way! If a party controls one chamber in Congress while the other takes the other, we’ll have a divided Congress which will not do anything right (just look at Congress 112 and Congress 113). But if one party dominates the Legislative Branch completely while the other dominates the Executive Branch, the president can’t do much while most dangerous bills passed by Congress will not be laws, as only bipartisan bills win. Now for the Supreme Court, having one party dominate it is a problem. In this day and age, it would be better with a balanced court (four liberals, four conservatives, at least two moderates from each party, and a neutral chief justice), but no. I agree that the Republicans have messed up the Supreme Court, by not even giving Garland a chance and by removing the filibuster rule to make justices be confirmed through simple majority. The process will not continue if the Democrats take back the Senate, but due to their poor behavior during the Kavanaugh incident, that is very unlikely in the nearest future.

And yes, I admit we did throw the thread off-topic, but from this point on, we should focus on whether or not you agree with incivility in restaurants and not how the government is changing or what Trump is doing wrong.
 
I agree that the Republicans have messed up the Supreme Court, by not even giving Garland a chance and by removing the filibuster rule to make justices be confirmed through simple majority. The process will not continue if the Democrats take back the Senate, but due to their poor behavior during the Kavanaugh incident, that is very unlikely in the nearest future.

We live in an era of "fake news," so I will begin by saying that I was educated at one of the top universities in America studying Politics with a concentration in International Political Economies. My professional career includes years of working in DC as a contractor with the State Department, working for one of the largest law firms in the world, and now working for a non-profit with a focus on actively solving issues of homelessness in the United States. I say this not to brag and not to give away any of my prized anonymity on the web, but to put in perspective that I am a person who is educated in the political theater and has active working experience on all sides.

The totality of your suggestion for split-party government shows a lack of understanding of the Federalist system of the United States government as well as a dearth of knowledge of the history of the United States government. But I am choosing not to ignore that for your last point, quoted above, which appears quite egregious to me.

Whether or not Diane Feinstein handled Ms. Blasey-Ford's letter correctly [hint: she didn't], the reality is that the Kavanaugh testimonies presented a candidate who did not display the composure and compunction required of the highest court in the land. His very testimony began with partisan attacks and conspiracy theories and provable falsehoods. The FBI's rushed investigation did not include interviewing Blasey-Ford or Kavanaugh himself, for the simple reason that Kavanaugh would have perjured himself on record if interviewed by the FBI. And, if anyone showed poor behavior during the proceedings, it was Lindsey Graham who had a meltdown on record with more vitriol than any other member of the Senate.

Remember, Blasey-Ford was a woman with nothing to gain from the proceedings. Women, LGBTQ+, people of color, union members including teachers and professional workers, all have everything to lose by this nomination.

I respect your right to vote the way you believe; however, I would like to conclude that we are still seeing one of the two major parties in the United States engage in egregious levels of voter suppression to skew a very close election. To suggest anything short of racist bias requires a level of cognitive dissonance that I do not believe exists.
 
This just reminded me of what some of the politicians over here are doing; they're holding a pot-luck dinner to sway voters. Meanwhile in America they're just kicking people out?? Lol ok.

Nah, that's their opinion and they're entitled to have one. If their behaviour was unacceptable, then the restaurant owner should have the right to dismiss them. That goes for either side of the argument. Better not to get involved in a political discussion and just tell them to leave.
 
This just reminded me of what some of the politicians over here are doing; they're holding a pot-luck dinner to sway voters. Meanwhile in America they're just kicking people out?? Lol ok.

Yep, it happens here.

I learned something new. When people harassed Nancy Pelosi, the Republicans (including Marco Rubio) was ridiculed and told their base to not do this. Yet, some of the Democrats (i.e. Hillary Clinton) encouraged doing this when Republicans are being targeted. Of course, judging by their ideologies, I can see this as ?either give me it for free or I?ll hurt you?, when they shouldn?t be free or government-controlled in the first place.

If radicals from both sides have gone savage, one side would be for the oppression of everyone but their own kind while the other side would be for more totalitarian control from the government. Both are very bad reasons to get violent for.
 
Not a personal attack at all, but I notice how you have no problem debating politics in general on this thread with people who have similar views or with people of opposing views and weak arguments, but suddenly when people of the opposing view have actual arguments it's all about "let's stay on topic." Just my two cents though, it's your thread so you're free to do whatever you want of course :)
 
Not a personal attack at all, but I notice how you have no problem debating politics in general on this thread with people who have similar views or with people of opposing views and weak arguments, but suddenly when people of the opposing view have actual arguments it's all about "let's stay on topic." Just my two cents though, it's your thread so you're free to do whatever you want of course :)

Your point is valid, but I suggested we go on topic because I remember back when I was on LBPC, if a thread like this has too many off-topic posts, it will be closed. I don’t mind debating you, it’s just I felt that we went too far with the off-topic direction. Having off-topic posts is fine, as long as we can continue discussing what the original topic is about.
 
I respect that but I saw one of the mods post in this thread himself while you guys were debating politics in general (fascism etc) saying nothing about staying on topic, only a warning to stay civil to other people on the forum (which we are absolutely doing and have nothing to worry about on that front).

But then again, as another member has told me, debating people anonymously on forums isn't gonna change their minds and it's pretty true, so I'm probably not gonna post another ten paragraphs about stuff no one else cares about, lol
 
Last edited:
I respect that but I saw one of the mods post in this thread himself while you guys were debating politics in general (fascism etc) saying nothing about staying on topic, only a warning to stay civil to other people on the forum (which we are absolutely doing and have nothing to worry about on that front).

If being off-topic doesn’t matter, here’s what I have to say:

I admit that I am a Republican, but you make valid points that I have to agree with, not argue against. Whether or not I agree with Trump, some of the stuff he did is not good for society.

First of all, his current handling of the transgender definition - appalling. Not just promoting discrimination, but it’s like denying a fact and shoving your morals/beliefs on others. It’s like if the government decides that penguins do fly as part of the law when penguins can’t really fly. Or deciding that the word “the” is not a real English word when it’s the most commonly used word in the English language. You can’t deny a fact and make it a law.

I do support Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (and Scalia, who died two years ago), but to be fair, both parties have ruined the Judicial Branch. Gorsuch would’ve been comfirmed by 60 votes if the Democrats didn’t filibuster him, but since they started the nuclear option in November 2013 and filibustered Gorsuch, the Republicans made this stunt to where justices can be confirmed by simple majority. Not only we’ll be dealing with him for the next generation, but the rule change also made it possible for any radical to be confirmed, even if it means replacing justices from the other party. This move is a double-edged sword that will backfire against the Republicans in the future, but they still have the advantage, and if they have it by the time Ginsburg or Breyer dies/retires, that would lead to an even more conservative court. So yeah, the Republicans have corrupted the Judicial Branch for that reason. As a bonus, they blocked Garland from having a chance.

Trump also had some other low points, like when he called developing nations an offensive term, failing to condemn the alt-right in Charlottesville, insulting football players, and bullying other individuals. Even for me, this is bad for presidency.
 
Last edited:
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave for working for Trump when families were being separated from the border. It’s still morally wrong to discriminate based on political views

yo, being complicit in genocide isn't "a difference in political views"

People who yell facists everywhere don't even know what it means and those same people want to get rid off freedom of speech etc

They are the facists lol

yeah, not like we don't have historically documented evidence of facism's workings or how it rises to power. nope

also, spoiler: america has always been more fascistic in its leanings. nazi germany took heavy inspiration from the jim crow laws in applying its own discriminatory practices, and america has repeatedly on numerous occasions infiltrated and sabotaged elections where leftist politicians would've otherwise likely won. as well as intentionally destabilizing regions with leftist leaders, while allowing fascist dictators to be installed in their place. so a hardcore fascist wannabe dictator being able to attain the presidency really isn't even much of a shock, as disgusting as it is
 
alolan, so if you understand that all those things he does and says are bad and damaging to people, how can you still support him? i don't think what's going on in america has much to do "republican values". i don't think you have bad intentions, but if you or anyone doesn't like the direction they are taking, but still votes for the gop, they are actively enabling all these horrid things that are going on, that so many people are suffering from. if you want these things to stop, or send a signal that you want them to stop this route, you gotta take a stand and vote against them, since the current gop doesn't align with your values, so it's irresponsible to support them in their current state. it's ok to switch sides. you can always resupport them when they get themselves together and have the best interest of EVERYONE in mind not just their base (although I don't think they care about the wellbeing their base much since cutting healthcare protections, blocking gun reforms, destroying the environment carelessly, tax scamming, upsetting allies, attacking women, lgbt, poc, people with disabilities negatively affects their base too.) being a republican doesn't mean you have to blindly support them, when they go against your values. that's why many longtime republicans have left the party over the last few years.

to the other people calling opposition "extreme leftists", please consider that these people are part of the country too, with the same rights as you, even if you disagree with them. also consider that them being upset is more than justified considering their mental and physical well-being and livelihood is under constant attack by this administration. people are literally fighting for their lives. they are also fighting for your lives, even if you don't yet realize how the gop policies will affect you in the long run, since they affect everyone. so you can see why people find it upsetting, seeing gop supporters enjoy the suffering of "the left" and democrats. try to understand why people are upset and hear their concerns, instead of hating them for "ruining your salad" literally, just cause you don't wanna be bothered with anything. their points are valid too, even if you don't wanna hear them. empathy is key. just because it doesn't affect you personally now, doesn't mean it won't in the future, or that it won't affect people you love.

also consider with the restaurant situation, that yes it's ok to ask politicians to leave, if their presence upsets other patrons and employees, if the policies they enforce is putting the lives of these employees at risk. you can't really ask a female waiter to serve a rapist, or ask an lgbt person to serve people that put anti-lgbt laws in place and make discrimination and erasure legal. as an employer you have to protect your employees, your patrons and yourself from traumatic experiences, which this counts as too. it's not necessarily what these politicians did in the restaurant, it's what they do in office that gets them this reaction, and as public servants they have to expect that and remember, that their actions affect people in very real ways, that they need to be aware of and take into account. if they weren't constantly attacking the rights of half of america, noone would feel the need to step up and call them out and send that signal that it's enough. and if you think about how severely threatening the action of gop politicians have been asking them to leave a restaurant is pretty tame. also recall that all these restaurant owners have received countless death threats and hate mail by gop supporters following asking someone to leave. also the bombs directed at prominent democratic figures and news media today is a direct result of trimp constantly attacking and threatening them and asking his base for violence against them.
this should be a warning sign even to the most sinister gop supporter. do you really stand for that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top