At the event, Trump made a remark about the size of the response needed for the crisis in Puerto Rico that Yulín Cruz said she found insensitive.

 

"I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you've thrown our budget a little out of whack," Trump said jokingly, adding: "That's fine. We've saved a lot of lives."

How did so many Americans get duped by this guy? What a horrible thing to say. I watched the clip, and it is very uncomfortable... nobody laughed... or smiled.

 

 

How did so many Americans get duped by this guy? What a horrible thing to say. I watched the clip, and it is very uncomfortable... nobody laughed... or smiled.

Well, segments of our population apparently believe the latest shooting is the fault of a) antafa CNN c) Sanctuary Cities d) lack of respect for the National Anthem e) George Soros f) Hillary Clinton and g) Obama. Of course, one nut case who says she not upset that so many died because they were probably Trump supporters evens the slate.

 

Well, segments of our population apparently believe the latest shooting is the fault of a) antafa CNN c) Sanctuary Cities d) lack of respect for the National Anthem e) George Soros f) Hillary Clinton and g) Obama. Of course, one nut case who says she not upset that so many died because they were probably Trump supporters evens the slate.

 

you left out "not being a christian nation anymore". Just saw that one on FB.

The conspiracy theorists are going crazy right now. So many people are caught up that it was carried out by a wealthy, white, senior citizen. Minds are being blown.

 

BTW, if anybody has been missing Trevor Noah destroying Trump and Faux News, you should look it up. His segment destroying Faux News about this issue is amazing.

Corker with some really telling quotes today. The cracks are showing in the GOP. With Corker and McCain most likely not inn the Senate in 2019 things could get interesting. I wish more senators would flat out denounce trumps stupidity. Tillerson actually called him a moron lol.

So the Las Vegas shooter scouted out several other locations, including Fenway Park.

 

As someone who has been to 2/3 of the ballparks, I can tell you that people attending games at Petco Park and Camden Yards would be sitting ducks, as they both have high rise hotels across the street that let you see nearly the entire field.

 

And in case you’re wondering, you can see a limited view of Target Field at the Lowes Hotel a couple of blocks away.

 

This scares the crap of me, that people might try to copycat or even outdo this guy.

.@PressSec on birth control mandate: "[POTUS] believes that the freedom to practice one's faith is a fundamental right in this country."

 

It is a fundamental right if it is the right kind of faith and then it also has the freedom to impose its views on others...which might not have been what they were going for in 1789.

It's not a constitutional right to own a business.  No one is abrogating their faith; if they really wanted to hold to the dictates of their faith they can sell their business and go work for a living (like the people they want to impose their faith upon). 

 

Moreover, if your business is incorporated or an LLC, that business legally has personhood, and no corporation has faith.  These people shouldn't get the benefits of limited liability and the corporate veil (which keeps their personal assets protected from any debts) but than want their personal beliefs enacted through that same business.  In the end, money must be more important than their faith, and that's really what they are seeking to protect. 

Edited October 7, 20179 yr by PseudoSABR

It's not a constitutional right to own a business.  No one is abrogating their faith; if they really wanted to hold to the dictates of their faith they can sell their business and go work for a living (like the people they want to impose their faith upon). 

 

Moreover, if your business is incorporated or an LLC, that business legally has personhood, and no corporation has faith.  These people shouldn't get the benefits of limited liability and the corporate veil (which keeps their personal assets protected from any debts) but than want their personal beliefs enacted through that same business.  In the end, money must be more important than their faith, and that's really what they are seeking to protect.

 

It's also not a constitutional right for your employer provided health care coverage to cover birth control.

It's also not a constitutional right for your employer provided health care coverage to cover birth control.

What is considered constitutional changes over time. I truly believe originalists are acting against what the men (emphasis on MEN) believed when writing the document. Anyone whom believes it should not be updated to correlate with current society will not find much common ground with me.

 

That said, this isn't about an individual's religion. Conservatives love to bring up the slippery slope argument (which I believe is generally invalid strawmans), so using that argument, where does freedom of religion end if we apply it here?

 

The problem I have with holier than thou conservatives is the hyperbole about this subject. A congressman just resigned because he asked his mistress to have an abortion while publicly advocating for laws against it. These women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Advocating for abstinence is proven to be the absolute worst method to prevent pregnancy.

 

I'll be damned if I sit back and allow people to make women's health less of a priority than everything else.

 

It's also not a constitutional right for your employer provided health care coverage to cover birth control.

 

I would like to think in some future, more idealistic time -- they will do it simply because it is the right thing to do.

 

On a lighter, not at all scary note, he tweeted not very veiled threats of military action against NK again today - in a rather glib tone "Sorry, but only one thing will work!"

Edited October 7, 20179 yr by D. Hocking

What is considered constitutional changes over time. I truly believe originalists are acting against what the men (emphasis on MEN) believed when writing the document. Anyone whom believes it should not be updated to correlate with current society will not find much common ground with me.

That said, this isn't about an individual's religion. Conservatives love to bring up the slippery slope argument (which I believe is generally invalid strawmans), so using that argument, where does freedom of religion end if we apply it here?

The problem I have with holier than thou conservatives is the hyperbole about this subject. A congressman just resigned because he asked his mistress to have an abortion while publicly advocating for laws against it. These women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Advocating for abstinence is proven to be the absolute worst method to prevent pregnancy.

I'll be damned if I sit back and allow people to make women's health less of a priority than everything else.

 

Then change the constitution.

 

I'm only rebutting Pseudo's idea that there is no constitutional right to own a business--which is certainly true--with the equally true idea that there's no constitutional right to employer paid birth control, either.

I would like to think in some future, more idealistic time -- they will do it simply because it is the right thing to do.

 

On a lighter, not at all scary note, he tweeted not very veiled threats of military action against NK again today - in a rather glib tone "Sorry, but only one thing will work!"

More likely they'll do it because without it they'll have a hard time getting enough qualified people to work for them, which is the better answer anyway.

 

It's also not a constitutional right for your employer provided health care coverage to cover birth control.

I think you're just being coy here, because I doubt you disagree that the move is egregious, but businesses are subject to constitutional scrutiny under equal protection through the 14th; that the denial is necessarily gender based would seem constitutionally problematic to me.  If you want to discriminate, basically don't hold yourself out to the public.

 

I just think it's a ridiculous means of providing any employer benefit--that the employer could deny specific benefits because of belief.  It's not like they are refusing to pay for viagra, or ailments due to drinking/smoking etc, and in fact, it's a slippery slope to such a system.  

 

As an employer can I deny services to my Catholic/Mormon employee's seventh kid because I'm an atheist--and I think overpopulation is a significant problem?  Freedom of Religion! 

 

In short, the right wing should be careful for the precedence they set, because they could soon be the subject of the kind of discrimination they've made lawful.

Edited October 7, 20179 yr by PseudoSABR

I think you're just being coy here, because I doubt you disagree that the move is egregious, but businesses are subject to constitutional scrutiny under equal protection through the 14th; that the denial is necessarily gender based would seem constitutionally problematic to me. If you want to discriminate, basically don't hold yourself out to the public.

 

I just think it's a ridiculous means of providing any employer benefit--that the employer could deny specific benefits because of belief. It's not like they are refusing to pay for viagra, or ailments due to drinking/smoking etc, and in fact, it's a slippery slope to such a system.

 

As an employer can I deny services to my Catholic/Mormon employee's seventh kid because I'm an atheist--and I think overpopulation is a significant problem? Freedom of Religion!

 

In short, the right wing should be careful for the precedence they set, because they could soon be the subject of the kind of discrimination they've made lawful.

As a private employer, shouldn't you be able to offer any private health insurance plan you think entices people to work for you? Including no plan health insurance at all?

As a private employer, shouldn't you be able to offer any private health insurance plan you think entices people to work for you? Including no plan health insurance at all?

Sure, because this is America. People are property.

Sure, because this is America. People are property.

so you got nothin in the way of an actual argument?

Now a Twitter fight with Corker. Trump is going to rip the GOP apart. I don't feel bad about it, I just hope when the dust settles the good guys win (if it isn't clear who the good guys are, it is the not crazy conservatives).

And a totally not staged walkout by the Vice President when he was shocked, shocked! to find players kneeling during the anthem. Our country gets dumber by the day.

so you got nothin in the way of an actual argument?

My argument is this issue stems from the master-slave way people treat one another.

Edited October 8, 20179 yr by Craig Arko

It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.

 

— Senator Bob Corker (@SenBobCorker) October 8, 2017

 

My argument is this issue stems from the master-slave way people treat one another.

I don't disagree with that one iota. Women's health issues have always been about power and control. Don't allow birth control, don't allow abortions, yet pay for Viagara for men ... right. And if women take the care of their own bodies into their own hands, punish them for it for daring to be so disobedient. You can deny it and say that I'm distracting the issue, but that is the issue and denying health care for women is the vehicle. It's not just about removing choice from us, it's about removing the right to make decisions for ourselves and imposing a man's will on us. We are capable of making decisions for our own bodies.

 

As a private employer, shouldn't you be able to offer any private health insurance plan you think entices people to work for you? Including no plan health insurance at all?

Well, I think current law mandates health care from employers with a certain number of employees.  And more than that, the current law mandates some minimal kind of healthcare options in any plan (i.e. pre-exiting condition coverage, emergency coverage etc.).  Birth control was among these mandated coverages, until this freedom of religion non-sense.   

 

(I'm no expert on healthcare law, but I think that's fairly accurate.)   

 

If you have a business that employs workers that don't have specialized skill, there really isn't a market for their services, so it creates a race to the bottom, where employers will pay as little as possible, because there's enough unemployed people to fill the spot (beyond losses do to training and hiring, which hardly make of the difference in savings because of low pay, no benefits.

Edited October 8, 20179 yr by PseudoSABR

An obvious fix is to disconnect health care from employers. But alas.

 

An obvious fix is to disconnect health care from employers. But alas.

I don't know why the business community doesn't support this.  I just think the costs they save in not having to provide benefits would outweigh any proposed tax.  (But I don't really know that for a fact.)

 

I don't know why the business community doesn't support this.  I just think the costs they save in not having to provide benefits would outweigh any proposed tax.  (But I don't really know that for a fact.)

 

Massive advantage and benefit for large corporations (entrenched interests) over smaller firms and employees.

Well, I think current law mandates health care from employers with a certain number of employees.  And more than that, the current law mandates some minimal kind of healthcare options in any plan (i.e. pre-exiting condition coverage, emergency coverage etc.).  Birth control was among these mandated coverages, until this freedom of religion non-sense.   

 

(I'm no expert on healthcare law, but I think that's fairly accurate.)   

 

If you have a business that employs workers that don't have specialized skill, there really isn't a market for their services, so it creates a race to the bottom, where employers will pay as little as possible, because there's enough unemployed people to fill the spot (beyond losses do to training and hiring, which hardly make of the difference in savings because of low pay, no benefits.

Birth control is by presidential mandate, which is why Trump can "un mandate" it.

Plus, birth control is primarily a women’s issue, so who cares anyway.

 

Treat ‘em like those other second-class citizens who kneel at sporting events.

Edited October 8, 20179 yr by Craig Arko

 

Birth control is by presidential mandate, which is why Trump can "un mandate" it.

Well ridiculous that it was left out.  I'm not sure why you're taking this position...or if you actually think businesses should be able to provide a la carte health care on the basis of their discriminatory religious beliefs.  

 

If we really want to address an underlying problem to many of our social issues--over population, esp. among the poor--birth control in all forms should be free in vending machines in every neighborhood corner store.

 

Massive advantage and benefit for large corporations (entrenched interests) over smaller firms and employees.

I'd like to know the history of whatever benefit they receive...if it's subsidized by the government, it's the worse form of public financed health care I can imagine.