NationStates

Corrian wrote:Does Guliani keep just digging Trump a bigger grave?

No, his recollection of how big the grave was meant to be just keeps changing.

Vassenor wrote:

Corrian wrote:Does Guliani keep just digging Trump a bigger grave?

No, his recollection of how big the grave was meant to be just keeps changing.

The grave has to hold those huge hands and what not.

Proctopeo wrote:

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
I don't know, I'd say his Republicanism as the defining aspect.

His defining aspect is that he's the first President in thirty years with only an 85% chance of being a reptile person.
:tinfoil:

thirty eight years

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:

Mushet wrote:Pfft, make me dictator, I'm not scared of you nerds

I'll be a chill one too, I just want the title so I can feel important

I find my 5-years experiences in NS as a defining qualification for me to be a dictator.

Pfft I got 10 years.

Meanwhile, in Germany: Subverting democratically elected governments to own the libs

In an interview by Breitbart (fucking Breitbart what?!), US ambassador Richard "I'm gay, don't criticize me!" Grennell apparently sees his role as contributing to the political empowerment of European conservatives, especially those seen as helpful to Trump's agenda. This runs counter to the State Department's own assertion that the Trump administration is neutral with regards to European politics.

(Will Trump think of deposing the likes of Merkel or Macron to get his way? Stay tuned!)

Mushet wrote:

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
I find my 5-years experiences in NS as a defining qualification for me to be a dictator.

Pfft I got 10 years.

n00b.

Dahon wrote:Meanwhile, in Germany: Subverting democratically elected governments to own the libs

In an interview by Breitbart (fucking Breitbart what?!), US ambassador Richard "I'm gay, don't criticize me!" Grennell apparently sees his role as contributing to the political empowerment of European conservatives, especially those seen as helpful to Trump's agenda. This runs counter to the State Department's own assertion that the Trump administration is neutral with regards to European politics.

(Will Trump think of deposing the likes of Merkel or Macron to get his way? Stay tuned!)

I don't really think it is a good idea for Europe to have conservatives. No offense, but that could be use as a breeding point for terrorism, seeing that ISIS focused more not on Middle East after their loss there. Beside, the world needs a counter-conservative power. If USA and Europe being conservative, that is not good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... ing-wrong/

Headdesk

Thermodolia wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/04/trump-asserts-absolute-right-to-pardon-himself-but-suggests-he-has-not-done-anything-wrong/

Headdesk

That game can play out..

..what's interested me is how President Trump has discovered the whole pardon thing as a result, next on his agenda is Rod Blagojevich and Martha Stewart, seems pardoning is his new hobby.

Dahon wrote:Meanwhile, in Germany: Subverting democratically elected governments to own the libs

In an interview by Breitbart (fucking Breitbart what?!), US ambassador Richard "I'm gay, don't criticize me!" Grennell apparently sees his role as contributing to the political empowerment of European conservatives, especially those seen as helpful to Trump's agenda. This runs counter to the State Department's own assertion that the Trump administration is neutral with regards to European politics.

(Will Trump think of deposing the likes of Merkel or Macron to get his way? Stay tuned!)

Trump's gotta have his lackeys and yes men.

Thermodolia wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/04/trump-asserts-absolute-right-to-pardon-himself-but-suggests-he-has-not-done-anything-wrong/

Headdesk

90% certain the Supreme Court can explain why the president can't pardon themselves.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... ding-cake/

They just unleashed a dangerous slippery slope...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

The Flutterlands wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-denied-same-sex-couple-a-wedding-cake/

They just unleashed a dangerous slippery slope...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

No they didn't.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Flutterlands wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-denied-same-sex-couple-a-wedding-cake/

They just unleashed a dangerous slippery slope...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

No they didn't.

How didn't they? Explain? Religion has been used as a reason for discrimination towards all...

The Flutterlands wrote:How didn't they? Explain? Religion has been used as a reason for discrimination towards all...

Did you actually read either article or the ruling in question?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Flutterlands wrote:How didn't they? Explain? Religion has been used as a reason for discrimination towards all...

Did you actually read either article or the ruling in question?

Religious folk are exempted from civil rights laws. That is what I got out of it

The Flutterlands wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Did you actually read either article or the ruling in question?

Religious folk are exempted from civil rights laws. That is what I got out of it

I'll take that as a no. To quote CNN: "The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination."

It's pretty much incapable of being a slippery slope because it quite specifically only deals with this case. You should actually start reading articles instead of just being outraged by headlines, this isn't the first time you've done that.

Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

Oh dear.

The Flutterlands wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-denied-same-sex-couple-a-wedding-cake/

They just unleashed a dangerous slippery slope...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

No it didn’t. SCOTUS only ruled on the case at hand and that’s it. They didn’t say that the law is unconstitutional but that the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission applied it was. The CCRC didn’t act as a neutral arbiter and was unfairly hostile towards the baker

Vassenor wrote:Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

Oh dear.

Are you digging up old articles and playing them off as new information? Because that article is almost a year old

If someone refuses to bake a cake for your wedding, go to another bakery and get them to do it, no need in suing over someone refusing to bake you a cake on the grounds of their religious objection. It's nothing more than a total waste of time and money, and frankly I couldn't be bothered about this wedding cake fiasco, and the courts have better things to do than worry about this.

Freezic Vast wrote:If someone refuses to bake a cake for your wedding, go to another bakery and get them to do it, no need in suing over someone refusing to bake you a cake on the grounds of their religious objection. It's nothing more than a total waste of time and money, and frankly I couldn't be bothered about this wedding cake fiasco, and the courts have better things to do than worry about this.

You do realise that "my religion says so" has been used to justify racial discrimination and the like?

Vassenor wrote:

Freezic Vast wrote:If someone refuses to bake a cake for your wedding, go to another bakery and get them to do it, no need in suing over someone refusing to bake you a cake on the grounds of their religious objection. It's nothing more than a total waste of time and money, and frankly I couldn't be bothered about this wedding cake fiasco, and the courts have better things to do than worry about this.

You do realise that "my religion says so" has been used to justify racial discrimination and the like?

Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake, despite the fact he said no? Better question, why not go to another bakery that will bake a cake?

Freezic Vast wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You do realise that "my religion says so" has been used to justify racial discrimination and the like?

Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake, despite the fact he said no? Better question, why not go to another bakery that will bake a cake?

If you're running a public accommodation, you don't get to discriminate.

Thermodolia wrote:

The Flutterlands wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-denied-same-sex-couple-a-wedding-cake/

They just unleashed a dangerous slippery slope...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

No it didn’t. SCOTUS only ruled on the case at hand and that’s it. They didn’t say that the law is unconstitutional but that the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission applied it was. The CCRC didn’t act as a neutral arbiter and was unfairly hostile towards the baker

Regardless, this sets precedent and if Kennedy goes and Trump replaces with him with another right wing nut, it could get worse.