Mainstream Publishing Industry Says it Will KEEP OUT Trump Supporters

[Finn]

So because there is a single incident with one group of reactionary whackos, all 70 million Trump supporters are violent, lawless, nightgown-wearing racists... what about the DOZENS of similar demonstrations in cities all over the country by people on the opposite side of the spectrum? Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?

No. None of the "leftist" protests came anywhere close to what the captiol riot folks did, or even many of the far right wing folks had done. The protest picture Digits posted is the accumulation of all the rhetoric Trump had been doing for years. It's not a singular incident. Don't blame the media. I've checked on some right wing folks I know, and some of their posts are scary.

Finn, if it matters so much to you, just keep screaming to yourself that a quarter of the American people are racists. It will still be a lie, but it's clearly a lie you depend on. Ostriches don't really bury their heads in the sand... but people do.

Honestly, most Americans...and most folks in general are likely racists on some level. A lot of them are blissfully unaware of the biases they may have...

 

[valkyrie013]

@Oddish
Thanks for sticking up and saying something, I gave up long ago on the board for politic threads because it is just an echo chamber that doens't even want to think of other opinions. But I do read them occasionally, and decided to put my 2 cents in this time.

In response to the original poster, or the thread title, Yep, publishers, businesses etc. can refuse service to anybody they don't want to do business with ( with exceptions), which is a good thing, If don't want to do any business with nazis, antifa, kkk, AOC, etc. then its my choice because its my time.
But they'll miss out on money they could have made, especially if Trump puts out a book, None of the big publishers would publish it, but somebody will, and they will make bank because itll sell millions, ( Shed load more that Hillaries book.. HA HA HA not even half a million sales..)
As for the rest, left,right, up, down, etc. Govenment sucks, whichever side runs it.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

For someone who has no use for Trump, you seem to be going far out of your way to feel offended on behalf of the people who really, REALLY do like him.

You SURE you’re not one of those super-libs, obsessed with defending people who neither want nor need your help?

 

[Oddish]

If you're talking to me, I'm libertarian with conservative leanings. I passionately and virulently hate racism. I reject the notion that men are superior to women (and remind the Christian conservatives that by the standards of His time, Jesus was a feminist on the level of Susan B. Anthony). And I support the absolute right of consenting adults to make their own sexual choices in the bedroom.

BUT, I root my beliefs in logic, not idealism. I support rule of law regarding immigration. We might need immigrants (to counter our own cultural notion that an ideal family is two children and no more), but we need to change our laws to meet that need, rather then ignoring our laws with some stupid "catch and release" policy. I think that allowing genetic males in women's sports is unfair (and sports have to be fair, or they're pointless). If you're a gay couple and some baker refuses to bake you a cake, you simply find a baker who will; you don't get to ruin the baker's livelihood with a six-figure lawsuit. Cancel culture is a one-way trip to cultural oblivion, and should be rejected wholeheartedly. And while I support a few reasonable limits (civilians probably don't need 100-round magazines, 50-caliber anti-materiel rifles, or pistol ammo designed to defeat body armor), I firmly support the right to bear arms.

 

[cultcross]

While political topics are not prohibited in this part of the forum, please make sure that you all stay within the forum rules regarding trolling and flaming. Some posts so far have skirted the line or squeaked over it; no more please.

On the discussion,

I passionately and virulently hate racism

This is difficult to square with your argument that Trumpism is not racist; I'm curious to know how you are defining the racism that you hate.

 

[Oddish]

This is difficult to square with your argument that Trumpism is not racist; I'm curious to know how you are defining the racism that you hate.

Easy. I don't consider opposition to illegal immigration to be racism. I oppose it because IT'S A CRIME, not because the people who practice it happen to have brown skin.

Further, the worst criminals are not the immigrants themselves. Rather, they are the corrupt and inept leaders of Latin American countries who made their citizens' lives hell, AND the fat cat American businessmen who exploited this by hiring illegals to fatten their own profit margin. They've created a horrific mess, with a lot of innocent victims caught in the middle.

If you're going to regard me as a racist for denouncing illegal immigration, and the system that created it, I can't stop you. But you'll never get me to agree with you.

 

[Finn]

You didn’t answer Cultcross’ question

 

[cultcross]

Easy. I don't consider opposition to illegal immigration to be racism. I oppose it because IT'S A CRIME, not because the people who practice it happen to have brown skin.

Further, the worst criminals are not the immigrants themselves. Rather, they are the corrupt and inept leaders of Latin American countries who made their citizens' lives hell, AND the fat cat American businessmen who exploited this by hiring illegals to fatten their own profit margin. They've created a horrific mess, with a lot of innocent victims caught in the middle.

If you're going to regard me as a racist for denouncing illegal immigration, and the system that created it, I can't stop you. But you'll never get me to agree with you.

But why do you think that attitude to illegal immigration is the reason, and the only reason, why Trumpism is considered racist? I'm not sure I see the connection.

 

[valkyrie013]

It's not the only thing, but he is vilified for being anti immigrant, which is a falsehood.

Let's take DACA he tried to overturn it, but not for the reason of being anti imigrant, but because it was done with an executive order, which was illegal and un constitutional because immigration power is in the Congress, not executive.
Now he told Congress to fix it in to law, and he would sign it, WITH a path to citizenship. But Congress punted because they didn't want to give Trump a victory.
Then the courts went total bs with he couldn't cancel the executive order with another executive order..
He wanted to make the LEGAL .. But nope.

One example. Of many .. 2014 Obama kids in cages.. Just saying.

 

[XCV330]

you people

ok the litmus test results are in. thanks.

 

[cultcross]

which was illegal

Then the courts went total bs with he couldn't cancel the executive order with another executive order..

The argument that something was illegal doesn't hold a lot of weight if the highest court in the land thinks not only that it was legal, but that your attempt to stop it was, in fact, illegal.

Actually, if Trump's concern was one of legality, he should be very pleased that the court assuaged his worries. Or perhaps, like Henry VIII, his "legal concerns" had other motivations behind them.

 

[valkyrie013]

The courts are not omnipotent and do get it wrong for a variety of reasons.
Under that ruling N Dakota AG could sue for shutting down the keystone pipeline. And under that ruling Biden would have to give a reason to do it?
When the only reason a president needs is .. The sky is blue so I killed it.
The court overreached there power in to the executive.
Trump and even Biden should tell the court to pound sand . executive branch butt out.

 

[Doom Shepherd]

If you're talking to me, I'm libertarian with conservative leanings..

I should point out that "I oppose it because it is a crime" is a wholeheartedly anti-libertarian stance to take. Especially for a party with a lot of pot users, legal or not. (Actually a number of Libertarian thinkers have argues that the only true Libertarian stance is for open borders.)

Governments can make ANYTHING a crime. Do you automatically oppose anything the government considers illegal? It has bad implications for you if you do.

So, Libertarian when it comes to yourself, authoritarian for everybody else.

 

[cultcross]

When the only reason a president needs is .. The sky is blue so I killed it.
The court overreached there power in to the executive.
Trump and even Biden should tell the court to pound sand . executive branch butt out.

This seems inconsistent with your view that DACA was illegal because it was by executive order.

 

[valkyrie013]

No. Immigration is a power delegated to Congress by the constitution , executive can't create law, which Daca was. It's 2 separate things.
I'm talking about the ability to kill and order with another order. But even if Daca was "legal" for the executive to create with an order, another order can kill it.
Just like Biden is killing Trump's orders with his own, without "reasons" or the court ruling on each killed order.

The court overstepped there authority by saying he couldn't kill an executive order with another order by asking for a "reason" that they then have to approve.

Now if some state comes along and says Daca was an illegal executive order that overstepped the executives power, that's another thing entirely that the court could rule on.

 

[Oddish]

Libertarian does not mean anarchistic. The Federal government's job is to do the things that only it can do, and make/enforce laws regarding the country as a whole. It has no business deciding whether 19 year olds can drink alcohol, for instance.

However, certain things (the interstate system, the electoral system, control of borders) must be handled at that level. You want open borders? Pass a law to that effect. You want closed borders? Build a wall. What we have now is a joke.

And again, my libertarianism is tempered with common sense. For instance, I don't support drug legalization because our economy can't afford to care for the number of horse addicts and meth heads that would be created (I'm fine with weed, though).

 

[cardinal biggles]

It's not the only thing, but he is vilified for being anti immigrant, which is a falsehood.

Let's take DACA he tried to overturn it, but not for the reason of being anti imigrant, but because it was done with an executive order, which was illegal and un constitutional because immigration power is in the Congress, not executive.
Now he told Congress to fix it in to law, and he would sign it, WITH a path to citizenship. But Congress punted because they didn't want to give Trump a victory.

The Republicans had all the levers of power for two years from 1/20/17 to 1/3/19: Trump in the White House, Republican control of both the Senate and the House, and a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS. Two whole years, and his own party couldn't get jack shit passed (except a bloated tax cut for the rich), but yeah, blame it on Democrats not wanting to give Trump a victory. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[XCV330]

Libertarian does not mean anarchistic. The Federal government's job is to do the things that only it can do, and make/enforce laws regarding the country as a whole. It has no business deciding whether 19 year olds can drink alcohol, for instance.

However, certain things (the interstate system, the electoral system, control of borders) must be handled at that level. You want open borders? Pass a law to that effect. You want closed borders? Build a wall. What we have now is a joke.

And again, my libertarianism is tempered with common sense. For instance, I don't support drug legalization because our economy can't afford to care for the number of horse addicts and meth heads that would be created (I'm fine with weed, though).

I was a card carrying Libertarian Party member long ago. I since gained some sanity. Shrugs. People grow. Or not.
But I say that to state that I know for a fact at that time the party policy was open borders, open trade. You can make Libertarian mean whatever you want to in your brain. I can say being Conservative means bouncing around naked on a pogo stick while reciting French surrealist poetry. Neither is true.

It is true that conservatives and tea-party types started hijacking the LP starting with Bob Barr in 08. You can claim you're a libertarian to hide behind the nasty stuff, but it doesn't make you one.

 

[valkyrie013]

@cardinal biggles
Yeah he had a crappy Republican congress that didn't do crap with Daca because they didn't want to. And the congress didn't really want to work with Trump even when they had control, and Paul Ryan and Mr Turtle are Douche Nozzles.

DACA was a Democratic idea that Trump supported, but republicans didn't on whole. So didn't do anything with it with an president open to the idea. Also I do Support daca, but like Trump I just want it "Legal" as in passed by congress. Not an executive order and hope Biden and his Democratic Congress does something about it. And also the "Conservative" Scotus is the one that told Trump he needed a "reason".
Again, both sides are scum.

 

[Oddish]

Very few people's beliefs line up exactly with the party/ideology they affiliate with. A person might be pro-choice but still identify conservative. A person might identify liberal, but think the ladies room is for ladies only. And yes, a person can be libertarian without excruciating adherence to the exact party line, if there even is one.