U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

[Kalbear]

Yeah, when we're discussing whether or not the fairly private life of Melania Trump signifies Something Bad or how much of an elite Trump was in New York and not expressing outrage that the US allowed almost 5000 US citizens to die due to a lack of essential services and planning, we've failed that checks and balances test entirely. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

While this might very likely be true. I somewhat question the famous model bit. I am by no means an expert in the world of models, but I think famous is stretching it a bit. I don't mean to talk her down or anything, but when you say famous models other names come to mind, MacPherson, Crawford, Lima, Bündchen, Campbell or Banks (fill list with models whose name I forgot/never heard but should be mentioned), so can you name Melania's maiden name? Again, if there are posters with a model/fashion fetish here, they can correct me and say, wrong she was/is a famous model in her own right. Yes, Melania was a model, but not really a-list if I am not mistaken.

You are correct -- she wasn't in the least a famous model.  She was successful, starting as a very young kid in eastern Europe -- successful meaning she, or at least her agent made money though not the Really Big Bux that famous names do make. Indeed it was at a party her agent threw that she met the dumbster.  The biggest deal of her career was the swimsuit issue of Sports illustrated.  Otherwise her face and body was mostly confined to things like Afflac commercials (real classy, am I right?).  She was never a choice for shows or magazines by the Name Fashion Designers or anything like that.  She was never a guest at the Metropolitan Costume Institute galas either -- which is one place one will certainly find the Big Name models (along with everyone else from the old NY elite families with roots in pre-Revolutionary New York, to actors, musicians, artists. Michelle Obama, who opened, cut the ribbon for the opening in 2014 of the Anna Wintour Costume Institute Center.  Michelle Obama, of course, was a thoroughly classy, hardworking First Lady, who helped write her own speeches, which Malania is forever somehow plagerizing.

https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2014/anna-wintour-costume-center-ribbon-cutting

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, when we're discussing whether or not the fairly private life of Melania Trump signifies Something Bad or how much of an elite Trump was in New York and not expressing outrage that the US allowed almost 5000 US citizens to die due to a lack of essential services and planning, we've failed that checks and balances test entirely. 

The dumbster has won!  This is exactly how he likes it.

[Martell Spy]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-is-a-kennedy-compromise.html?via=homepage_taps_top

Gay Americans Have Little to Fear From the Supreme Court’s Compromise in Masterpiece Cakeshop

Quote

These asides suggest that Kennedy—unlike Thomas and Gorsuch—would not promulgate a broad free-speech rule that allows businesses to discriminate against gay couples with impunity. He has, in effect, given states a road map, explaining how they can enforce LGBTQ civil rights laws without triggering free-exercise concerns. (Pro tip, civil rights commissioners: do not publicly opine on a homophobe’s homophobia.)

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, when we're discussing whether or not the fairly private life of Melania Trump signifies Something Bad or how much of an elite Trump was in New York and not expressing outrage that the US allowed almost 5000 US citizens to die due to a lack of essential services and planning, we've failed that checks and balances test entirely. 

Actually the 5,000 number (I think 4,600 technically) is a middle of the road estimate. NPR had a few podcasts on the subject today and the researchers estimate that the number could range from under a thousand to over 9,000 (get your DBZ jokes in). Regardless of the actual number, it’s clear that both the local (is it technically called state?) and federal government have not adequately addressed the issue and both may be actively trying to suppress reporting on the severity of the crisis.  

[Iskaral Pust]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-is-a-kennedy-compromise.html?via=homepage_taps_top

Gay Americans Have Little to Fear From the Supreme Court’s Compromise in Masterpiece Cakeshop

 

I came here to see the discussion on this topic and was pretty confused that it had gone unremarked until your post.  Why was this thread discussing Melania Trump while the Supreme Court, with only two dissenting votes, was conducting the most cowardly and irrelevant side-step imaginable?

Civil Rights vs. Free Speech, what's the big decision: if someone says mean things about religion then that's the crucial decider.  Apparently we all have a constitutional obligation to pander to the religious sensibilities of any fuckwit in America.  I know all the commentary says that LGBTQ didn't necessarily lose too badly in this decision but it sure seems like atheists and rationalists did.

 

[SweetPea]

2 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I know all the commentary says that LGBTQ didn't necessarily lose too badly in this decision but it sure seems like atheists and rationalists did.

 

Yeah, because atheists and rationalists can't value freedom, right? I'm an atheist and I very much agree with the court's decision.

[TrueMetis]

If you read that decision and thinks is supports freedom I don't know what to tell you.

[Iskaral Pust]

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yeah, because atheists and rationalists can't value freedom, right? I'm an atheist and I very much agree with the court's decision.

The court didn't make any judgment on freedom.  They invalidated the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because the Commission was supposedly hostile (in spoken comments) to the religious sensibilities of the defendant.  That's not freedom, that's enshrining religious sensibilities as a constitutional taboo.

[SweetPea]

It's the freedom to choose who you do business with. 

[GrimTuesday]

Major clashes between alt-right folks and antifa in Portland yesterday. Pretty crazy thinking that we're seeing the same shit from the early 20th century playing out today with the reemergence of far right pseudo-facists.

[TrueMetis]

31 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

It's the freedom to choose who you do business with. 

So what about the freedom not to be discriminated against?

What about the freedom to not have the religious impose their values upon you?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

What about the freedom to not have the religious impose their values upon you?

That's always been the case. Just look at abortion and same sex marriage. 

[SweetPea]

11 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So what about the freedom not to be discriminated against?

What about the freedom to not have the religious impose their values upon you?

You don't have the freedom to forcibly enter into a business contract with someone else. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

You don't have the freedom to forcibly enter into a business contract with someone else. 

How many posts are you away from arguing that a business owner can discriminate against any group that would like to do business with them, be it because of race, religion or nationality?

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

You don't have the freedom to forcibly enter into a business contract with someone else. 

Actually, I think you do. The entire Civil Rights movement was about African-Americans having the same access to services as other citizens, wasn't it? And on the legal side of things, it was relatively successful, right?
So if I'm correct, you can't refuse a contract with someone on account of their skin color (or their disability, or the fact they're pregnant... etc).

And having read a few lines about this case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission) I think it's important to underline the fact that it does not declare discrimination of homosexuals on religious grounds constitutional. In fact, as lawyers would say, the decision "did not reach constitutional questions." The decision was essentially technical: because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission used inappropriate language to describe religious beliefs, the SCOTUS decided that the shop's owner's 1st Amendment rights were not being respected. It did not rule on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which remains in place, meaning...

You really DO have the freedom to "forcibly enter into a business contract with someone else."

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

The court didn't make any judgment on freedom.  They invalidated the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because the Commission was supposedly hostile (in spoken comments) to the religious sensibilities of the defendant.  That's not freedom, that's enshrining religious sensibilities as a constitutional taboo.

It's just saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has to acknowledge the religious argument. It didn't say it had to agree with it. The SCOTUS made absolutely no determination whether it is allowed by law for the baker to refuse baking a wedding cake for the gay couple. Not sure there was any enshrining there.

In other news, Michael Cohen doesn't practice a lot of law.

 

[Yukle]

13 hours ago, mormont said:

I was fully of the opinion that it was nobody else's business until the tweet from her account that was plainly written by Donald. That raised some flags. 

I was in two minds as well until it seemed he either forced her to write something using particular words, or a member of her staff... or he has access to her Twitter account. The latter seems less likely or such tweets would be more frequent.

13 hours ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

People should probably stop projecting onto Mrs. Trump. Mrs. Trump is an adult woman who allegedly is intelligent or something and she chooses to be Mrs. Trump because being Mrs. Trump is her ideal lifestyle.

She's not sympathetic. She's not a victim. She's not secretly against her husband. 

Mrs. Trump sold herself to Donald. The most consideration she warrants is a passive hope the bargain was worth it.

I don't think she's any of those things: intelligent or sympathetic or a victim.

I'm just concerned that she hasn't been seen. I don't actually think Trump has beaten her into submission or something, just that it's concerning that her absence could suggest something more nefarious.

Even if it's as simple as their marriage is strained by the fact she may not like living in Washington DC. Given his previous marriages and affairs, having a lengthy sulk and not speaking to his spouse for long periods sounds like the sort of thing he'd do.

In the meantime, what sort of rash and stupid decisions is he making because he is potentially annoyed with his wife?

Whatever the case, it can't be good for the USA, can it?

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, when we're discussing whether or not the fairly private life of Melania Trump signifies Something Bad or how much of an elite Trump was in New York and not expressing outrage that the US allowed almost 5000 US citizens to die due to a lack of essential services and planning, we've failed that checks and balances test entirely. 

I don't see what one has to do with the other. US checks and balances have failed, period, regardless of what anyone is talking about. They were ridiculous to begin with anyway. The idea that the President would be checked by Congress when both are in the same political party is just a farce.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

The court didn't make any judgment on freedom.  They invalidated the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because the Commission was supposedly hostile (in spoken comments) to the religious sensibilities of the defendant.  That's not freedom, that's enshrining religious sensibilities as a constitutional taboo.

All the analyses I've seen suggest it's essentially just a compromise and a punt.