Our basic response to all further Leftwing demands:
Whatever hill they are attacking – that is the hill to die on. Give them nothing. Make them fight for every inch of ground. And once they have advanced, immediately counter attack. Its time we started treating them like they treat us.
OTOH, once we do defeat the Left, I’ve got some ideas about replacements for the Confederate statues:
Douglas MacArthur
Joseph McCarthy
Augusto Pinochet
Vaclav Havel
Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn
August graf von Galen
St John Paul II
St Maxilian Kolbe
Emiliano Zapata
Thomas Sowell
Ronald Reagan
Harriet Tubman
George Thomas
I’ve always admired Zapata: he really did fight a corrupt Ruling Class to actually give land to the people. Naturally, the Mexican Ruling Class murdered him.
The CHAZ in Seattle is partially ridiculous and partially for real: its ridiculous to think clowns who can’t even change a tire can run a Soviet. Its for real in that some of them will learn how to run a Soviet…and they will try again. For this one, I figure Trump should wait until the garbage is hip deep and people are being killed over the scraps before he moves the Guard in. Let them fester for a bit.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are claiming it would be illegal for Trump to put down the rebellion. U.S. Grant could not be reached for comment. The reality: they know this sh**-show, along with “Defund the Police” is poison and they want both to go away as quickly and quietly as possible…before Trump hangs it around their necks like a millstone (spoiler: Trump will hang it round their necks like a millstone).
Democrat House Candidate approves of burning things to the ground. What really caught my eye: she’s a former Air Force colonel. Do not, for a second, think that America’s military officers are on your side: 16 of the 24 years pre-Trump were Democrat Administrations and 8 years were a GOP Admin uninterested in fighting the culture war. Admission and promotion within the officer corps was based on loyalty to the Democrats. Rely on it: if they are ever ordered by a Democrat President to open fire on the people, they will give the orders. I think that most of the troops will refuse to obey, but it won’t be for lack of the officer’s trying. Trump could do us all a favor by cashiering everyone above the rank of colonel.
Trump is doomed – but in the Georgia primary, he got 140,000 more votes than Biden. Surprising for Newsweek, it is a fairly straightforward report, which notes that Trump has driven GOP primary turnout very high time and again this year. We’ll see how this translates in November.
Blogs For Victory 
For this one, I figure Trump should wait until the garbage is hip deep and people are being killed over the scraps before he moves the Guard in. Let them fester for a bit.
I’d go a step further and tell them to rot in Hell.
I’m not sure exactly where the erasing of history stops, but with all the clamor by the Left to destroy statues of Confederate generals including Robert E. Lee, I’m just waiting for some ignoramus to demand that the Lee homestead and surrounding grounds also be destroyed.
There was a time, not too long ago, when pointing out that something reeked of Stalinism people would recoil from it. Now too many say “Yeah, that’s right—the dude knew what he was doing”.
The erasing of history and rewriting of history marked the Left’s steps toward absolute tyranny. And the same thing is being repeated here, with the Complicit Agenda Media acting as cheerleaders and working overtime to convince people that this is not a pursuit of power but just steps toward “justice”.
I am gagging on the sight of one company after another meekly falling into line and taking marching orders from Black Lives Matters and their other fascist brothers in arms.
What remains to be seen is whether or not the violence and looting spills over to Conservative states. If it primarily stays in large metro areas governed by Democrats then I couldn’t care less if they burn themselves to the ground and roll in the coals. Quite frankly I can’t think of a better way to get rid of them than to have them commit collective suicide. The savings in ammo alone would be enormous.
I have to admit, I have enjoyed watching the disintegration of the CHAZ (or whatever they are calling it now) as the rioters are learning what it is like to live in anarchy. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.
But I would like to see the Right do something except make more popcorn and watch this charade unfold. The RNC has money—spend some of it. For instance, on billboards around the most-affected cities, saying YOU VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS TO RUN YOUR CITY. HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU? Not a lot of money, probably just a few hundred thousand dollars.
We need to focus on the legacy Dems who vote Dem because they always have, because for generations their families have, and because this is so ingrained they don’t really question it. Forget the radicals and the ideologues. We will never win them over. A few will drift away over time as the movement gets more and more violent and radical, but for now we need to focus on the guy next door.
I think now is the time to engage in some little nudges to these people, subtly reminding them that even if they are sitting in their suburban homes watching the violence on TV they are responsible for it and it is up to them to change it.
I’d like to see a campaign with the same basic message being repeated, over and over again, till the election. We can’t use bumper stickers, not in a climate where people are attacked and beaten for wearing Trump hats. But billboards are harder to vandalize. I’d slightly change the content ever month through October, but keep the same basic message: A simple graphic of the state budget with the line plunging down into deep negatives, overlaid with the message YOU VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS TO RUN YOUR STATE AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GOT.
I would also fund mass mailings of slightly oversized glossy postcards with these messages to California and Illinois and New York Democrats. Not all of them—I’m sure our technology and political analysts can separate out the areas of the most deeply entrenched radicalism and those can be ignored. To the suburbs I would have a riot photo and include the quote from a rioter about how they will be in the suburbs next, overlaid with text like WHEN YOU VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS TO RUN YOUR CITY (STATE) YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T EXPECT THIS. YOU SHOULD HAVE.
But we won’t do anything but flood cell phones with begging texts and email folders with pleas for more money. I have yet to see where any of it goes.
In swing states I would have those billboards with backgrounds of shots of dysfunction in several cities, identified by name—-homeless camps on the streets of San Francisco, riots, anything clearly indicating dysfunction—-with the text YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE REPUBLICANS TO REALIZE THEY ARE BETTER AT GOVERNMENT THAN DEMOCRATS.
There are tens of millions of ignored disaffected Democrats out there, and I don’t think we are going to reach them with Trump rallies or Congressional hearings. They don’t pay attention to stuff like that. They watch their local and network news, and maybe CNN or MSNBC every now and then, but are depressed and discouraged. They don’t like where things are going but don’t know what to do about it. I suggest that for those people we don’t worry about getting them to be enthused about Republicans. I would settle for them just shrugging and saying “What the hell, give ’em a shot, they can’t do any worse than these guys have”.
I’m a conservative. I’m pretty passionate, I’m pretty informed, I’m highly motivated—and I am shutting down. I am discouraged. I feel helpless. I see some individuals in Congress fighting the good fight, I see Trump holding on, but overall on the Right I still see the confused directionless milling around of unfocused clueless people without a coherent plan of action–while the Left is steamrolling the entire society because it IS focused, it DOES have a coherent plan, and it DOES stay on message.
The message I have for Democrats—again, not the ideologues or the radicals but the drifting-along-the-way-they-always-have Legacy Democrats—is YOUR VOTES DID THIS—NOW FIX IT
while the Left is steamrolling the entire society
I think more like bulldozing, but that only comes after they’ve burned it to the ground.
”—and I am shutting down. I am discouraged. I feel helpless.”
It’s understandable, but don’t. It is exactly what evil wishes, what it strives for. A loss of hope, a loss of faith. These feelings of loss present themselves in many different ways. Some people give up, some give in, others sit and wait, and still others get angry and push to fight back. That is one reason I believe Cluster talks about guns. I highly doubt he’s about to go off on a rampage shooting people he perceives as an enemy, but rather his talk is one of anger not willing to buckle to the rants of the left. While there may come a time for that kind of action, we must be sure where to direct that anger. Even ignorant people who join in these “protest” thinking their actions are for a just cause, they are not the enemy. Should we pick up the gun, we MUST be sure to direct that force against the real threats. Otherwise all we end up doing is recreating another edition of the Hatfield’s & McCoy’s with no real winners except evil.
God has not forsaken us. HE is with us thru all of this. There are times however where he allows society to fall in order that they may eventually return to him, realizing His word is truth. It can certainly be hard at times watching society falter, especially when it is so clear to us what’s happening. So, what can we do? Pray, be good, be strong, lead by example, administer kindness, speak the truth. God said; “If the world hates you, know that it hated me first”. We should be so lucky to be able to follow in his footsteps.
We do not know His plan, nor the timeframe for which it will unfold. But rest assured, there is no need to lose hope. He is with us and no detail escapes Him. Know that Trump is in the right spot (who would have predicted this a few years back), that while things like these “protest” create upheaval and unrest, they are all part of His plan to turn people back to Him. It is in times like this our faith is most important. It is a significant part of what allows us inner peace, while the world around us crumbles.
I am not “shutting down” in the sense of giving up. But as a lone person I need a movement to join or support to have a voice.
I am still an evangelical Conservative. I still make my arguments, I still stand up to the Left’s blathering by countering it with truth. As y’all know I have a lot of ideas of what I would like to see happen and they are not spineless wishy-washy ideas. I still have faith that God, whose hand was so visible in the formation of this country, is going to continue to stand by it.
I’m not completely sure the good people of this country are vastly outnumbered, but it sure feels like it. What I do believe is that the good people are the segment of Americans who love this nation and believe in its founding principles, but that we are up against the International Left, which is threatening to overwhelm us with its vast power. We are seeing a brute-force attack on our nation not just by domestic insurgents but by international mercenaries, attacks on our very way of life, as blatant and violent as a beachhead with armed troops coming ashore. And we are the farmers and townspeople, each willing to fight as much as we can with pitchforks and rifles, but I see no army on its way to back us up.
I sense a couple of things that I think the Left also senses—that is, that EVERYTHING hinges on this next election, because if we lose it we lose the war but if we win it Trump will have four years to rain down everything he has at his disposal, backed by at least half the nation, to gut this subversive movement. I sense that a newly-elected President Trump will do a sweep of the military, as Commander in Chief getting rid of at least the most visible subversives. I sense that, if a Trump victory is also a Congressional victory, some major new laws will be passed regarding efforts to overthrow the government, and of course we will have at least one and possibly three new justices on the Supreme Court.
I still think making the oath of office binding would rein in Congress and the courts—if the offices were dependent on honoring the oath, with the penalty of losing the office and its benefits and its pensions if the oath is violated, we wouldn’t be seeing members of Congress openly advocating for overturning the Constitution and we wouldn’t see governors and mayors and police chiefs supporting breaking the law. I remember that the SCOTUS ruled at one time that requiring a loyalty oath was unconstitutional, but don’t know if that covered oaths of office for public officials.
As for the fretting about the possibility of this kind of law being abused—-so what? Every single law we have is abused, and we manage to sort through most of it. It is the EXISTENCE of the law and the POSSIBILITY of its enforcement and penalties that provide most of the control. We live, day in and day out, with laws being co-opted by corrupt or lazy district attorneys, corrupt judges and so on, yet we understand we still need the laws.
But our biggest enemy is the press. Without the propaganda arm of the Left, they would have far less impact than they do now. I don’t know what to do about that. Oh, I have an idea—that a bunch of billionaires could form a consortium and buy one of the network stations, because our only hope is to have a voice other than on cable stations. And/or a major print identity. I don’t know what the NYT is worth, market value, but a takeover of that paper would be glorious and a Hiroshima event for the Left. I wonder if the financial folks on the Right have even considered making a run at NYT stock. Even the LA Times or even USA Today would be a step in the right direction. All we have now is online news, and way too many people either don’t read online news or are brainwashed into thinking it is rightwing propaganda and automatically dismiss it.. Look at the demonization of Fox.
Like it or not, it is the presence of a print medium as well as network television that carry the weight when it comes to reaching people.
But seriously—I see a few in Congress and the DOJ going after people who broke the law three or four years ago—-necessary, important, but running parallel to other equally serious problems. And all I see from the Right is flooding cell phones and emails with demands for donations. Some of them are downright obnoxious, along the lines of “Obviously you don’t care about what happens to our country or you would be sending money…” That just pisses me off. I would happily donate to a specific program or plan, but no more dumping money into the black hole of the NRC and never seeing it used.
Their ad campaigns, such as they are, are tired old recycled themes and pretty pathetic. Attack ads are great, to a point, but we have to shift gears and realize that our future, at this moment in time, is dependent on sending the message that the GOP is a safe haven for people freaking out over the death spiral of the Dem party but not knowing where to go because they have been so brainwashed about the Republicans. Where is the messaging that the Constitution is not racist in any way, but is in fact the most libertarian form of government ever, one based on the concept that all of us are created equal and keeping authority closer to the people?
Where is the message clarifying the true role of the federal government, which is only to provide a national identity so we can engage in international diplomacy and have a military for national security and to provide an umbrella of protections for its citizens so they can govern themselves the way they see fit? What a wonderful contrast to the tyranny of the Left, the top-down imposition of the same policies on everyone! Where is the upbeat, positive, optimistic message of Constitutional governance?
Why would anyone turned off by the stridency and hostility of the Left decide to cross the aisle to a strident and hostile Right?
Oh, go after the Left’s subversiveness, its violation of law, its nonstop lying to the public to try to gain political power. That is essential and must continue, unabated, with great energy. But for Pete’s sake temper it with explanations of why this is necessary—not for vengeance, not for retribution, not to get even for wrongs done to Trump, but to salvage the very principles upon which this nation was built. Our goal is optimistic and hopeful, but our messaging is sour and mean.
One reason I am so discouraged is the nonstop dedication of the Right to supporting the messaging of the Left, playing into their hands at every opportunity. Would it be so hard to have two or three people in the party tasked with reading what is published and immediately, instantly and strongly correcting every single misstatement made? Calling out the bias inherent in them, pointing out their intent of shaping public perception? Where is an official presence of the Right pressuring publications to clean up their acts? What is most egregious is the mindless parroting of Leftwing propaganda by purportedly conservative writers. If I can find several examples a week, sometimes in a day, of a simple-minded regurgitation of something planted by the Left, surely people tasked with that job could do the same.
What it all comes down to is the total lack of LEADERSHIP. Trump is the president. He is leading the country. But we need leadership on other levels, primarily in messaging and it organizing, and we just don’t have it.
From an article about a California defense attorney who works for the state, who published open incitements to kill police officers:
Attorneys in California, such as McBride, are required to take an oath before using their licenses.
“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability. As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy, and integrity,” the oath states, according to the Judicial Branch of California.
McBride posted some comments in which he appeared to be offering to compensate people for killing officers (by giving them legal representation).
“It won’t stop until black people start murdering cops, which they should do often and with great relish. These —sucking, low IQ, can’t get into law school jarheads need an asphalt nap, during which they’re bleeding out on the street where they’re shot down,” one states, as reported by KTTV.
“I would have no problem with them. I would absolutely 100% defend to the death of any African American who picked off a cop or two. It’s time, it’s well past time.”
In another post he said:
“It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve defended terrorists,’ sign me up pro bono for somebody’s granddad putting a couple of hollow points between the eyes of these PTSD-addled rednecks, I’d take one or two pro bono. Easy. No problem,”the post stated, as reported by KTTV.
Now tell my why (1) this should not be considered solicitation of murder and/or murder for hire and (2) this is not a case where the attorney could immediately be removed from his job and lose all benefits based on violation of his oath of office, pending investigation and possible prosecution for crimes.
The risk of an unidentified and possibly malicious link is not acceptable here
//moderator
I would think those of you in “the resistance” would hold Confederate Generals in exceptionally high regard — birds of a feather and all that.
I am all for defunding. I think it is about time.
I’d start, of course, with defunding Planned Parenthood. The government has no business subsidizing the butchering of children. And it is also a highly profitable business. Other businesses don’t get federal funding—why should this one?
Then I would defund universities. Make them get by on their revenues. They could—if they would only teach legitimate classes on legitimate subjects. Force them to look at their own books and their own policies, and make their own decisions about what to cut. Right now education is far down the list of goals and agendas of most colleges and universities, and the government has no business funding social engineering indoctrination, much less open subversion of the very government writing the checks.
If people are squeamish about pulling funds from “higher education” then let the feds subsidize classes in what used to be called “civics”, back in the day when we were taught things like this. Let the feds subsidize only classes on the founding of the nation, the Constitution, the true purpose of the Supreme Court and judicial system, and so on—–monitored to eliminate Leftist contamination of the courses. The schools could continue sucking money out of gullible and lazy students for courses like Transgendered Albino Eskimo Studies.
At the same time, defund student loan programs. They would have to be funded by the schools themselves or, possibly, by banks—but with no government backing or guarantees. If schools were having to loan tuition money they would be a lot more careful about only lending to students taking courses likely to make it possible for them to get good jobs and repay the loans. Ditto for banks.
And, of course, defund PBS. Let them run on a budget like everyone else.
As for defunding police, well, that’s the stupidest damned thing I have ever heard of. We should increase our police departments, increase the protections officers have from civil actions, and let our officers know we support them and have their backs.
… and I am shutting down. I am discouraged. I feel helpless.
I think a lot of people are … but like JDGE1 says, we simply can not. We have to confront these aggressive University weaponized protestors and this George Soros funded Leftist insurrection. If we don’t, we will not recognize this country this time next year.
Questions I have this morning – if America is systemically racist, why don’t the Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans suffer the same fate? If black lives matter, why do 74% of black fathers abandon their children? Why is systemic racism only prevalent in large cities governed exclusively by Democrats?
And then of course re: Seattle – why does the new Progressive nation of CHAZ have secured borders? And why isn’t the new progressive country of CHAZ being celebrated in the media?
If we are going to defund anything – defund Congress. Reduce salaries and impose term limits. Time to make public service a part time gig again and put an end to career politicians. They and their incestuous partners in the media are the problem.
There are many instances like this that give me hope. These are the things we should continue to encourage and be thankful for. These are the kind of things that will aid us in turning us back to a nation of God.
Black GA Dem Will Introduce Bill Classifying Attacks on Trump Supporters as Hate Crimes
https://www.westernjournal.com/black-ga-dem-will-introduce-bill-classifying-attacks-trump-supporters-hate-crimes/
And this…
Black Man Walks Up to Table of Police Officers at Cracker Barrel, Refuses To Take ‘No’ for an Answer
https://www.westernjournal.com/black-man-walks-table-police-officers-cracker-barrel-refuses-take-no-answer/
I remember a scene from an old Disney movie called Pollyanna about a young orphan girl who was sent to live with her aunt. In this scene she was sent by her aunt to give a message to the town preacher who was in the fields working on Sunday’s sermon. Startled by her appearance, she and the preacher ended up in a conversation when the young girl showed him a writing on her pendant that said something like; “If you look for the bad in man, you will surely find it.” We are surrounded by evil. But evil does not ultimately win and there is no evil that comes anywhere close to the greatness of God.
I believe these kinds of acts by everyday people is largely who we are as a nation, though the media would like to portray us as otherwise. Stand against evil. Look for the good in people. As we are seeing this play out, even people who’ve previously pandered to the left are questioning what side they’re on and who best represents them. Do we want to slap them in the face or offer them a hand to enlightenment? Who among us has never done wrong? It can be startling to realize you once sided with those who work against your best interest, who tear at your very soul. It can be hurtful to face that reality, even personally traumatizing. We need to give them an option, an opportunity to be on the side of truth. We need to be the light in the darkness.
Well said, jdge.
I can see this from a unique perspective, as I was a Liberal, a product of the 60s, a Haight-Ashbury hippie smart-ass obediently parroting the cant fed to me by the leaders of the Left. I was what I now call an Unexamined Liberal—-it was my peer group, and it was a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground. Pronouncing allegiance to noble-sounding concepts felt like it made me noble. I was utterly clueless about the very existence of the political system I was supporting and enabling—it was more like picking a team and then wearing the jersey and rooting for it, without the slightest hint of underlying thought or understanding.
That is why I think I have more insight into a lot of, if not most, Liberals today.
What turned me around was Bill Clinton. The first time I saw him on TV, in his early days of campaigning before he was even nominated, I saw him as a sleazy lounge lizard, the same kind of creep who tried to run his hand up my leg when I was working as a waitress. I watched women fall all over him, and saw the political women of the Left line up to support him. I agreed with a lot of their positions on the rights of women, so when Clinton got caught breaking all the rules they had been so loudly and proudly touting as essential for civilization I sat back to watch them pull away from him. But they didn’t. When they lined up, it was to dump their so-called “principles” in the trash can as they joined him and Hillary in blaming the victims—-and doing it in amazingly vicious ways. I still remember my personal disgust at Carville’s comment about Paula Jones—“what can you expect when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park”—and the comment from the Left that she was “too ugly to rape”.
That hypocrisy, that viciousness, that lack of basic decency, turned me away from the Left (though at that time I didn’t even know it was “the Left”—it was just my old team) but then I was adrift. I didn’t have a team any more. I started to listen to a talk radio show in Denver, hosted by Mike Rosen, and at first I hated him because I thought he was just mean, but then I noticed that when a conservative called in he could, and would, answer questions and support his position. But when a Liberal called in, he would dodge every question with another question or some shift to another subject, and none—NONE—could support an assertion with facts. They were all just assertions. So I found myself drifting toward the team that seemed to be founded in something other than snarling and hate and seemed to have a foundation in principles.
But i still couldn’t be a Republican It was so ingrained in me that Republicans represented so many negatives, I just couldn’t make that step. So I was moving in the direction of Constitutional conservatism, but didn’t have a destination. It took a while to get over that, and I’m still not A REPUBLICAN as much as a conservative who has to vote for Republicans because they represent the closest way to achieving Constitutional governance.
All this is to explain why I think we are missing the boat, big time, by not seeing that once Democrats turn away from their party, which they belong to mostly just because it is their team and not because of any analysis of or commitment to the political structure it represents, they are probably going to feel much like I did, caught between two unlikable identities.
So I see this as a huge opportunity for the Right, if we can just get over our old (and often counterproductive) attitudes and analyze this potential pool of future conservatives.
I think the first step is to stop yammering about ISSUES. People are Dems because of issues. They are Dems because they believe in issues like gay marriage or that favorite, “fairness”. And to them this is a binary issue: If I am on one team that says we should never let children starve, then by definition the opposing team has to be in favor of starving children—that’s why they are the Other Side. The biggest mistake we make is our failure to convey, constantly and thoroughly, that we want the same things, and that our differences are not in what we want but in the best way to accomplish them.
Think about it—this is the path of least resistance. It tells disaffected Dems that they can keep their sense of moral superiority, keep their self image of being good people wanting good things, and still move to the Right because all they are doing is looking at different paths to those goals. Stop talking about ISSUES and start talking about processes. Once that first speed bump is crossed, it is easier to discuss the process of keeping more authority closer to home and the voter than to turn it all over to distant politicians with little or no understanding of local problems and people. But I argue that the first thing the GOP has to do is shift away from asking people to accept Republican ISSUES and send the message, over and over again, that our core values and issues are much the same and the real difference between the two teams is the process.
And we have to be welcoming. Let those in charge of investigating and prosecuting do their investigating and prosecuting. We have to do it, but let’s shift the more personal approaches to the public, like Hannity and Ingraham, to presenting a less angry, less contentious, face to the audiences. I think they are great shows, and i watch them, and I appreciate what they bring to the discourse. But I also know they are harsh and probably make the average drifty Dem feel defensive. I might tone down the rhetoric, and spread the bombshells about Dem corruption a little more thinly, mixing in some more cheerful and friendly commentary about the goals of the Republican Party, how its efforts to uncover corruption in the higher reaches of government are really a determination to protect all of us, as once public officials can be taken down by a corrupt government any citizen can, as well. We can talk about the dangers of abuses of power without constantly being so strident about it. Give the drifty Dems shows they can watch that are not just incessant drumbeats of DemBadDemBadDemBadDemBadDemBadDemBad.
We fail to identify the dangers of DemBad and we fail to focus on a future in which we can have faith in our government again.
And we fail to project a desirable landing place for Dems who want to jump ship
It looks like Neil Gorsuch is getting schooled on what it means to be in the hot seat, in the Big Game of the judiciary. He screwed up, he screwed up big time, and his fellow conservatives are taking him to the woodshed for it—and rightfully so.
Not that his opinion mattered, not with Mitt Roberts in there taking care of the Liberals, but he had a chance to show his ability and he screwed it up. I think he’s used to being the smartest guy in the room, and yesterday he had the truly smart guys going into detail about his bad judgment and poor analysis. That’s gotta sting.
I don’t think it’s OK to fire someone solely for his or her sexual orientation, but I DO think it is OK to fire someone for behavior even if that is related to or expressing that orientation. If I hire a waiter in my restaurant I shouldn’t care if he happens to be gay—-but if he flaunts outrageous outfits and makeup and makes offensive comments, then yes, I should be able to fire him.
The problem with this kind of overreaching judicial action is that once a gay or trans person is hired, any firing is going to be attributed to his orientation rather than behavior. And I think that means it will be harder for a gay or trans person to be hired in the first place. As an employer, I would see a gay or trans person applying for a job not as an individual but as a potential problem with the ability too tie my hands and prevent me from making future decisions for the benefit of my business, as well as someone in a contentious and belligerent group known for making trouble for people they feel have wronged them, and I simply would not make the hire in the first place.
The Washington Post has an interesting article about the SCOTUS decision.
This part in particular struck me as an excellent reason the decision should have gone the other way:
I suspect history will show that the unintended consequences of this decision will outweigh the inequalities it was intended to correct.
The problem with this kind of overreaching judicial action is that once a gay or trans person is hired, any firing is going to be attributed to his orientation rather than behavior. And I think that means it will be harder for a gay or trans person to be hired in the first place. As an employer, I would see a gay or trans person applying for a job not as an individual but as a potential problem with the ability too tie my hands and prevent me from making future decisions for the benefit of my business, as well as someone in a contentious and belligerent group known for making trouble for people they feel have wronged them, and I simply would not make the hire in the first place.
This is a bad argument. Substitute “gay or trans” with “woman,” “black,” “immigrant,” or whatever your category… Which of course is what employers have historically done.
That is an excellent point, and quite accurate. When a hiring decision can’t be made on the quality of the applicant but has to weigh in the history of problems caused by activists representing that person’s demographic, it hurts everyone in that demographic even though the individual might not be the kind of person to engage in the litigation and protests and boycotts and other nonsense the activists pursue.
That is my point. The activists actually create far more problems than they solve, by branding those in the demographic as potential troublemakers. I might like Joe, might think he is very qualified, couldn’t care less that he is gay, but if I hire him I need to know that I can fire him if he does poor work, doesn’t show up, etc. If gay activists have been blaming the firing of any gay person on sexual discrimination, filing federal lawsuits, organizing boycotts and so on of the businesses in question, then poor Joe is out of luck, because I will be afraid to hire him.
Ditto for any category known for its activist activity punishing employers based on allegations of Wrongthink.
The publicity whore activists and those who support them might feel pretty proud of themselves but in fact they are hurting those they claim to be trying to help. If gay, or trans, or whatever, individuals want to fight discrimination, then all they have to do is do the work and not make their sexual orientation or identification the main focus of who they are. You gain acceptance by earning it, not demanding it.
Still a bad argument. You’re just rationalizing away discrimination. In a nutshell, you claim that if you disapprove of some people of a particular group, then you should be able to discriminate against all members of the group, and that the Supreme Court “screwed up big time” and is guilty of overreach for upholding Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it comes to discrimination against gay and transgender people
In a nutshell, you are simply misstating what I said.
It has nothing at all to do with “disapproving” of anyone, for any reason. It is merely about risk management. And it is an observation that the activists who posture as being all about helping their designated demographic are really hurting them by creating the impression that hiring them will result in litigation,or worse, if they are fired for any reason
It’s not really that hard to understand what I said. If you can dispute it, do so. Just don’t come in here with some stupid straw man argument.
Still a bad argument. You’re just rationalizing away discrimination.
Not really an argument at all, just an observation of what’s likely to happen based on human nature. Minorities that were intended to be protect by the Civil rights Act of 1964 were large groups with few activists. The groups (gays and transgenders) that were just added by judicial fiat are small with a large number of activists.
The proper way to achieve non discrimination against gays and transgenders would be legislation, just as the 1960’s civil rights laws originated in Congress.
You are essentially saying that it is human nature to discriminate against particular groups of people. I don’t disagree, which is why the U.S. had to enact laws to protect the rights of all Americans, whether or not your “human nature” feels differently. As I suggested to the other poster, just replace “gay” or “transgender” with “black” or any other category that previously chose a method of protest with which you disapprove. Or by extension, any behavior of which you disapprove.
As far as legislation being the proper way to achieve non discrimination against gays and transgenders would be legislation, the Supreme Court concluded that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was in fact that legislation.
It’s really funny to watch you flail around. If you could address what was said, you would. But you can’t, so you invent some cockamamie nonsense. You claim, about my statement, You are essentially saying that it is human nature to discriminate against particular groups of people. Well, that is not what I said at all, in any way. It’s not even close. I can’t even figure out how you got all the way over there starting with what I said.
What I said was that when a person is part of a group—-and it could be a group of ten people—-known for filing false charges of racism when fired from a job, that person is less likely to be hired in the first place. Period. If you disagree, say so. But stop this BS of inventing crap and then claiming it is really just another way of saying what I said. I am pretty clear in my statements. They don’t need to be restated using different words, particularly when those words change the meaning of what I said.
You are essentially saying that it is human nature to discriminate against particular groups of people.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying it’s human nature to avid conflict.
just replace “gay” or “transgender” with “black” or any other category that previously chose a method of protest with which you disapprove.
That’s just the point: I never disapproved of the civil rights movement or woman ‘s rights. These were large groups with a genuine grievance, and their grievance was addressed with legislation which has withstood the review of the Supreme Court. My best friend in the Navy was black, and when my wife and I moved back home in the early 70’s we bought our first house in an integrated neighborhood, and our neighbors on both sides were black. I walked the walk a long time ago, and I’ve never changed.
the Supreme Court concluded that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was in fact that legislation.
The Supreme Court is wrong — not the first time, not the last. In this case the Supreme Court skipped a step. The problem is, what is the recourse when, in this case, 6 men and women in black robes are wrong?
You have made it clear more than once that you would discriminate against an entire group because of the actions of a few other members of that group. That is why the U.S. need a Civil Rights Act.
We HAVE a Civil Rights Act. Didn’t you cite it in an earlier post?
Or are you saying we need a new act that will force people to participate in yet another social engineering scheme in yet another effort to use the power of the State to enforce Groupthink? And just how would that work? Have some brownshirts accompany a job candidate to record the perceived reaction of the interviewer? Have the State determine who is and who is not qualified for a position and then force an employer to hire that person? Continue the Outrage and Grievance mentality and simply assign malignant motives to every act you don’t like?
Would there be any disqualifying characteristics accepted by the State? What about body odor? Could I refuse to hire a gay man because he stinks and I am looking for someone to work with the public?
Would I have to hire someone with body odor and a hostile personality and no experience as a waiter, just because he is gay, or on his way from Jeff to Jennifer? What if he turns out to be a raging white supremacist who flaunts Nazi tattoos but is also gay? Why not just leave the employer out of it, if the State is going to impose its own criteria and just have the State send people to fill job openings?
We’ve been down this road before, when activists essentially blackmailed lending institutions by filing discrimination suits against them when they refused to loan money to people blatantly unqualified to borrow money by claiming the refusal was not due to lack of employment or credit history but just because of race. The State got involved, legislation took place, and banks that were forced to lend money to unqualified borrowers set up the subprime market with adjustable rate mortgages to get unqualified people into houses, to comply with the demands of the activists and the State. We saw how that worked out.
Let’s not dance around the issue. I’ll be blunt and risk being deleted. I once dated a very tall man, and one day we were shopping in a famous department store when an ostentatiously gay man walked up to him and said “I’ll bet you have a really big cock, and I’d sure like a taste of that”. and went into a little more detail before the suggestion that having his jaw wired shut might have a negative effect on his fantasies. I want to know that if I hire a gay man and he says something like that to a customer I can fire him, without being boycotted, sued and having my place burned down by activists saying I only fired him because he is gay. Ten years or so ago, I wouldn’t have had to worry about that. Today I would.
We can expect people to comply with basic standards of behavior and risk losing their jobs if they don’t do the work or act inappropriately for the job—-personal responsibility—-or we can turn to the mob and then the power of the State to try to enforce social engineering schemes. I can see which side you are on.
We HAVE a Civil Rights Act. Didn’t you cite it in an earlier post?
It was a typo when I wrote “That is why the U.S. need a Civil Rights Act.” It should have read, “That is why the U.S. needed a Civil Rights Act.”
Bunkerboy, you’re not that 28-year-old living in his parents’ basement trolling the Internet in his Cheeto-stained pajamas that we keep hearing about, are you?