Restaurant in Hawaii Bans Trump Voters, Faces Immediate Backlash - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sheer Visor;51598057]The ~alt right~ is the result of year and years of normal men and women being told that they're racist, bigoted, transphobic, etc. over small, meaningless things like using listening to rap music as a white girl, or simply existing as a white christian male. Is this what DIRECTLY cause trump to win? No. Is this an example of the toxic, holier-than-thou, so PC it's basically fascist attitudes that made people look towards Trump and other alternative right ideologies? Yes.[/QUOTE] They certainly didn't help, but at the end of the day, the far too numerous people who fully immersed themselves in one of the shallowest, most readily contradicted cults of personality in history have nobody to blame but themselves.

[QUOTE=bunguer;51599029]I see this way too often but just because someone voted a certain person or party doesn't mean they support every little action of that person or party. I didn't see anyone defending FADA here and Trump himself said that "it's a settled law" regarding LGBT rights. Either way, you can perfectly oppose to this and oppose to the FADA and similar acts. For instance, do you support PIPA or the TPP? As it happens with FADA, people should unite to fight against those acts, not turn this into another candidate bullshit war. Can't you see the hypocrisy on that? The way to move forward is to move fight against those acts and policies while supporting other good policies - there's no value to society in blindly following something.[/QUOTE] The difference is Biden never went out and stated "hey I want to make liberals a protected class and only liberals, suck it conservatives." Pence did, but for straight people only. They voted for Pence. Obama never ran his campaign mentioning PIPA, SOPA, or the TPP. Trump explicitly called net neutrality "a top-down takeover of the internet," and "Obamacare for the web." Trump explicitly named an enormously homophobic and anti-civil-rights politician as his Vice President, with his voting record and his opinion on the issue publicly stated time and time again. Neither Obama or Biden did that. Sure, you can disagree with Obama - but when he was running, I didn't disagree with such critical issues like [I]revoking human rights.[/I] After he was in office, and supported further drone strikes, and supported the TPP, and so on, yeah, I was critical - because [I]he broke his pledge to the people that voted him into office.[/I] Trump explicitly said "I'm getting rid of this shit." It was part of his campaign. People accepted that, as part of his platform. If they don't actually support his views on that, they should be vocal and critical of it - yet the only things I've ever seen /r/AskTrumpSupporters be [I]remotely[/I] critical of Trump on was his Rick Perry cabinet choice. Rex Tillerson? Oh, he's not part of the "political establishment" despite being an oil magnate, so it's okay, even though Trump promised the exact fucking opposite. It's all moving goalposts, rationalizing, and trying to explain that "no, actually, this is good!" It's delusional. When Obama fucked up, I criticized him. I criticized many of Hillary's positions. I even criticized some of Bernie's positions on certain issues, particularly foreign policy. I almost [I]never[/I] see that from the Trump camp, and it's a disturbing trend. Most don't even seem to care much about FADA, despite being an explicit break in Trump's promise "not to touch LGBT rights."

Banning anyone based on their class from your business is dumb. That said, if FADA passes I'm wondering what would happen if LGBT-friendly businesses began to post signs telling homophobes that they're not allowed to be served there in kind.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51597001]On one hand, I like it because its a nice taste of your own medicine due to the fact that some of the GOP are pushing the FADA bill. But on the other hand, this country is already divided enough.[/QUOTE] Speaking of division, I once asked my self why people look the other way when their sides leaders corrupt things. The Democrats looked other way with bail out and people look the other way concerning Trump's shadiness. The reason why people dimiss their sides and leaders bad behavior is the same reason why bigotry exists, war exists, genocide exists, North Korean style oppression, hierarchies privilege, incompetence in government and venuzuala collapse exists. All this is done via ideologies that share the exact same psychological structure that alway s lead to the same result So destroying the divide and unfying people by destroying ideals that share this structure would be good for all.

[QUOTE=mchapra;51596946]No, Hillary and the DNC's arrogance and inability to relate to the public is why Trump won. Please stop pushing this narrative.[/QUOTE] No, Trump's ability to relate to the public better than Hilary is why Trump won. Please stop pushing this narrative.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51599293]No, Trump's ability to relate to the public better than Hilary is why Trump won. Please stop pushing this narrative.[/QUOTE] Actually no, the Alt Right's ability to conjure into the real world meme magic and make people relate to white nationalism through Pepe is why Trump won. Please stop pushing this fable.

[QUOTE=Conscript;51598607][url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/?client=ms-android-verizon[/url] [url]https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-the-democrats-have-turned-left-1469226872?client=ms-android-verizon[/url] [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/[/url] [url]http://bust.com/feminism/18554-donald-trump-and-the-radicalization-of-white-males.html[/url] It's both, but historically the right doesn't radicalize and go full reactionary unless it feels like capitalism/democracy/the elite isn't serving national interests and the left is taking advantage of the unrest Green party vote rose from 400k to 1.2 million since 2012. There has been a rise of SJWs both on campus and in the streets, and mixed in with there being no party of middle class Americans and (especially red state) blue collar workers it has provoked the rise of protectionist, anti-immigrant, anti-hollywood/NYC/california, cultural warrior nationalism and white identity politics. People approve more of socialism than of congress, and young people pick either socialism or libertarianism. I don't think there's really been a louder minority, I think the very real effects of a collapsing middle class revealing America's racialized class issue, how native working people are getting the shaft, our deep inequality despite rising productivity, and how plutocratic and unresponsive our democracy can be is creating anti-establishment feelings which is a cover for a rise in extremism. America is a very stratified society and always had been, the middle class was key to it being sustainable. We're seeing the political effects of very uncomfortable structural changes and market corrections of globalization that are inevitable, and people feel backed into a corner and like they won't live the lives of their parents or grandparents, who existed in a pre-globalized era of post war prosperity, strong industry, and a stronger sense of community and social norms.[/QUOTE] I asked you to submit evidence that the left was being radicalized, as you suggested. These don't constitute evidence of anything, one way or another. The first link shows that voters on both sides are becoming more polarized - The internet is in large part to blame for this - hardly a slight on the left. The second link is a Wall Street Journal article with a sensationalist headline hidden behind a paywall. The Wall Street Journal is hard right in terms of economic policy, and a very conservative-leaning paper. The third link is an opinion piece on Sanders supporters, which explains that most of them have a less extreme view on socialism than most Americans, while not necessarily being socialist themselves. How this indicates a more radical left is a mystery to us all. The fourth is brainless drivel from some SJW columnist. These are proof of what, exactly? The rise in the popularity of the Green Party means nothing more than that voters are sick of the big two, since the Libertarian party saw a much larger surge in support: 4.4million votes in 2016, from 1.2 million in 2012. If anything, this indicates a much greater surge in radicalism among the economic right than the left, wouldn't you say? SJWs, just like Neo-Nazis, are extremely loud and overrepresented in media because they're idiots. Idiots generate views and make viewers angry, which is very, very good for business. Academic instutitions have allowed them to grow because academics are afraid of being labeled as bigoted, but those are starting to come around to label the far left for what it is. Socialism as people seem to speak of it is far from Marxist socialism, it's Democratic Socialism - more a system of economic governance similar to Canada's or the UK, or across Europe. In other words, they're in favour of bringing the United States in line with the rest of the civilized world in terms of the government services that residents and citizens enjoy. Simply put, you've got to come up with a better argument. Finding links at random with certain buzzwords in them and posting them won't make your point seem any more valid.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51598870]This is stupid because [url=http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416]one of the first things the Republics will attempt to do will be to reintroduce the First Amendment Defense Act[/url], to allow discrimination against LGBT persons on the basis of personal ideological belief. Our own Vice President, that [I]OUR OWN REPUBLICAN ELECTORATE CHOSE TO REPRESENT THEM[/I], [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b]wishes to outlaw gay marriage based on his own personal ideology.[/url] This isn't just one tiny thing out of the way for the platform, discrimination against LGBT people is a central core issue for Republicans because [I]the Republicans of this country elected people who they knew would fight so hard to win for them the right to discriminate against LGBT persons.[/I] These are the people they chose to represent them, these are the people fighting so hard to create a second class of citizens, and you're going to argue that they don't actually want the thing that they voted for, and we're imagining the hypocrisy that doesn't exist even though it demonstrably does? Republicans wanted this. They asked for this because they voted for this and are allowing this to happen. If they did not want this, they would have not voted for this. The second it happens to them, though, they turned into whiny fucking bitches screaming and shouting about how unfair it is.[/QUOTE] That's cool and all but if you would care to re-read the post that triggered your rant I never said Republicans don't want legal discrimination. You're barking up the wrong tree. What I actually said is that the Republicans who want legal discrimination do not simultaneously say that criticizing discrimination should be illegal. So if their belief is 'discrimination should be legal, and also you should be free to criticize anyone you want', then calling the restaurant owners idiots is consistent and not hypocritical in the slightest. Archangel's accusation is without merit.

[QUOTE=bunguer;51599029]I see this way too often but just because someone voted a certain person or party doesn't mean they support every little action of that person or party. I didn't see anyone defending FADA here and Trump himself said that "it's a settled law" regarding LGBT rights. Either way, you can perfectly oppose to this and oppose to the FADA and similar acts. For instance, do you support PIPA or the TPP? As it happens with FADA, people should unite to fight against those acts, not turn this into another candidate bullshit war. Can't you see the hypocrisy on that? The way to move forward is to move fight against those acts and policies while supporting other good policies - there's no value to society in blindly following something.[/QUOTE] The problem with this argument is that people elect representatives in Congress. These representatives then represent the interests of their electorate. Like I said, this LGBT rights thing isn't some side footnote that they're somewhat concerned about but not really. This LGBT rights thing is among the [I]very first things[/I] that the Republican government seeks to change, this is one of the central issues of their platform. The fact that this is so critical for Republican politicians and the haste that they're making to get this bill passed, so that their constituency can begin discriminating against LGBT people, says to me that this is one of the most important issues among the Republican voters. You try to argue that not every Republican cares about this, which may be true, but the fact that they're literally scrambling to allow people to discriminate against LGBT people tells me that the majority of the Republican voterbase, that cast their votes to allow this seemingly extremely critical piece of legislation that is so important that it absolutely positively needs to be among the first bills passed under a Republican government, very badly desperately wanted this to happen. [editline]29th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;51599438]That's cool and all but if you would care to re-read the post that triggered your rant I never said Republicans don't want legal discrimination. You're barking up the wrong tree. What I actually said is that the Republicans who want legal discrimination do not simultaneously say that criticizing discrimination should be illegal. So if their belief is 'discrimination should be legal, and also you should be free to criticize anyone you want', then calling the restaurant owners idiots is consistent and not hypocritical in the slightest. Archangel's accusation is without merit.[/QUOTE] These are people who believe they have a constitutional right to deny service against people they disagree with or hate ideologically. The restaurant owners made a joke saying that they would deny service to people that they disagree with or hate ideologically, and Republicans cried out against it saying that they were being unfair for discriminating against them on an ideological basis. This is hypocrisy. The Republicans have no right to criticize the exact thing they want passed into legislation, because this is what they voted for; ideological discrimination. If they think that ideological discrimination deserves critique, then they shouldn't have voted for ideological discrimination.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51599450]The Republicans have no right to criticize the exact thing they want passed into legislation, because this is what they voted for; ideological discrimination.[/QUOTE] By this logic, I'm a hypocrite if I believe in free speech but criticize your argument for being illogical. Believing that something should be legal does not mean approving of all instances of that thing. There is nothing hypocritical about believing that people should be allowed to say what they want, but then criticizing them for saying dumb things. There is nothing hypocritical about believing that people should be allowed to discriminate, but then criticizing them for discriminating for dumb reasons. I can't believe I'm having to play devil's advocate on behalf of discriminatory Republicans but this is some seriously low-effort mud-slinging.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51599500]There is nothing hypocritical about believing that people should be allowed to discriminate, but then criticizing them for discriminating for dumb reasons.[/QUOTE] Yes it is, because discrimination is inherently stupid. "You're stupid for doing the stupid thing I'm doing." Get off it. [editline]29th December 2016[/editline] Discriminating against Republicans holds just as much merit as discrimination against LGBT folk. Actually, discriminating against Republicans probably has more merit than discriminating against LGBT folk because political opinions are a choice and sexual identity is not.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51596965]Maybe enough to tip the scale, but not likely imo... then again who knows. Combined with hillary being a scumfuck corrupt piece of shit though... it adds up.[/QUOTE] So you're telling me "the" reason that Trump won wasn't *the* reason Trump won? What a shocker.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51599293]No, Trump's ability to relate to the public better than Hilary is why Trump won. Please stop pushing this narrative.[/QUOTE] Yes, that is what I said but rearranged. Your point is?

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51597166]Is this actually legal, though? Can see this causing a slew of problems here.[/QUOTE] It's legal just about everywhere, since political affiliation generally isn't a protected characteristic. The main issue is that it's not exactly smart to call people nazis if you aren't very precise with that allegation.

[QUOTE=The golden;51605941]Seems fair to me. Trump is a neo-nazi and he was pretty damn open and clear about what he wanted to do post-election and people still voted for him and supported his nazi/supremacist ideologies. If I lived in the US - I am part of one of the minority groups getting my rights stripped away. I would tell his voters to fuck off too.[/QUOTE] How is he a Neo-Nazi?

[QUOTE=Bertie;51605951]How is he a Neo-Nazi?[/QUOTE] Aren't you aware? Throwing neo-nazi labels around like candy is the hottest new liberal fad.

The guy who is defending Israel, has a orthodox Jewish son-in-law, and has Jewish cabinet members is a neo nazi. Seems a legit assessment.

Trump made it clear he'd go for the muslims first anyway.

Holy shit stop calling people neo nazis this is getting ridiculous