Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Unless the protestors have a specific grievance that does not revolve around "do not like!", then either.

[Loud Whispers]

So are corporations allowed to compile blacklists of individuals who espouse certain views ensuring that they are unemployable for all participating in that blacklist system

Last I checked that's legal so long as those views don't fall under one of the protected class umbrellas, yup. For better or worse, it's rule of law. Would mostly be stuff that's expertise specific that would be able to slip through on that front, though, so far as views folks would normally get blacklisted over. Except for parts of the LGBT community, anyway, among other things. Some of the states haven't made discriminating on that front entirely count legally.

And yeah, sorta' ang. It's called a discrimination lawsuit, providing the blacklist was actually filtering people based on protected views. If it wasn't things get a lot murkier.

Ah that sucks
At least it's a start with protected classes and all

[Frumple]

You moved the post yet again by not explaining what specific items are being sought, which I asked for, and why you felt they can be obtained through protest, which I also asked for, while demanding those things from myself.

You... didn't ask for either of those. I just triple checked, to make sure the second check didn't miss something. You said nothing about specific items, nor why they could be obtained through protest. Or if you thought you did, you communicated it very, very poorly.

Also you completely misidentified what redress is being sought... despite being told otherwise more than once. Clinton would be nice, but that's not what most of the protesting seems to be about nor what would be necessary to address what they're protesting about.

[wierd]

You moved the post yet again by not explaining what specific items are being sought, which I asked for, and why you felt they can be obtained through protest, which I also asked for, while demanding those things from myself.

You... didn't ask for either of those. I just triple checked, to make sure the second check didn't miss something. You said nothing about specific items, nor why they could be obtained through protest. Or if you thought you did, you communicated it very, very poorly.

Also you completely misidentified what redress is being sought... despite being told otherwise more than once. Clinton would be nice, but that's not what most of the protesting seems to be about nor what would be necessary to address what they're protesting about.

Yes I did. Right here.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159257.msg7265592#msg7265592

Also, note I addressed the "don't like his views" angle, and did so here:

The fact that trump is the president does not remove his rights as a citizen. He has every right to believe anything he wants.  What he does not have, is free license to opress others with his views.

The protestors do not like his views. They are using an angry mob to opress. This is not a valid use of the power to protest.

[Neonivek]

Unless the protestors have a specific grievance that does not revolve around "do not like!", then either.

They certainly do.

[Angle]

Unless the protestors have a specific grievance that does not revolve around "do not like!", then either.

...But doesn't every grievance ever basically come down to do not like? I mean, that's kind of the point of having a grievance. You can argue over legitimacy, I guess, but most everyone thinks their grievance is legitimate, so... You might be better off spending your time elsewhere.

[wierd]

Then what are they, for the love of gawd?

What specific item is being sought?

If it is "changing trump", I covered that.

If it is " not our president", I covered that.

If it is "no bad policies", I agreed with that.

If it is " your cabinet appointments are aweful!", I agreed with that.

What specific thing am I missing?

[Frumple]

Yes I did. Right here.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=159257.msg7265592#msg7265592

... so communicated them very, very poorly. Gotcha'.

Core cause does not entail specific items, nor does "why do you think they are legitimate" mean "why you felt they can be obtained through protests". This is probably why both you and cript were calling each other on goal post moving. You actually were, but apparently unintentionally. Cript was trying to respond to what you said, instead of what you thought you said. It happens, yeah.

... and what you seem to be missing is that you're apparently dismissing "no bad policies" as... not "no bad policies". Or seem to be saying that people cannot protest the intent to enact policies, only attempt to influence them to change after they've already been implemented or are actually working through the legal process, rather than, y'know. Before. Which is what cript was saying the intent was, among others. That and the cabinet appointments/VP are two of the bigger actual grievances that's being aired.

[wierd]

Trump has been in office a little over a week.

He is not president yet, and, the president does not make law. Congress does.

Why are you protesting trump?

His VP pick is not negotiable. That was on the election platter.

Bannon? Totally a valid grievance.

Pence? No more than trump is.


I can see a petition for wanting a specific law to forbid congress from enacting onerous legislation, or petitioning the Senate to ratify such legislation, to preempt trump and a GOP legislature, however, that is not what is fastooned on the protest plaquards.

To whit:

[Shadowlord]

Let's dispel with this fiction that Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's undertaking a systematic effort to change this country...

[wierd]

Of course he is. The change is not "white power" or "down with gays."

It is "rise of the corporations."

The other two are convenient smokescreens.

[smjjames]

@the discussion on the protests: There's plenty of other reasons why they're protesting besides the election result, the way he ran his campaign on racism and bigotry dogwhistles for one.

[wierd]

Again, trump and pals, along with those that elected him/them, are entitled to those dubious opinions.

They are not entitled to turn those opinions into policy.

Policy is written by the Congress, ratified by the senate, then finally approved or vetoed by the president.  The president does not have the power to create law, only to exercise law already created, and then, within the bounds of interpretation set forth by the judiciary.

The place to protest policy is congress.

You approach the president when you want a veto.

You approach the judicial when you want laws reinterpreted.

[smjjames]

Maybe ask some of the protestors themselves the reasoning? *shrug*

[wierd]

Now, back to "dangerous Donald"..

The law, says the president may appoint the heads of executive agencies, tasked with various mandates. It does little to restrict his/her choices, by design. (Legislators are very fearful of restricting power for some reason.)

As a consequence of the american electorate being stupid, they have chosen the god emperor of bad investment and corporate malfeasance to that office, and now he is selecting heads of those organizations.

His selections are shamelessly pro corporate corruption, and people are more worried about who they can legally fuck.