Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You're doing nothing but insuring another win for Trump in 2020.

Politics aside, Trump should not run in 2020. I don't care if he's popular or unpopular at the time. He will be 75 years old on election day and that is too old to be President in my opinion. Never mind the fact that the Boomers do not need more than their fair share of Presidential terms. Each generation is 20 years, that's 5 terms. Proper representation for each generation would therefore suggest that Clintons 2, W's 2, and Trumps 1 are their 5. Give Gen X their turn.

Just curious, did you have a problem with Bernie Sanders running? If he won, he'd have been 79 by the time his first term was up.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Aazadan

Kinda hard for those caught in the act to argue they weren't doing what they were caught doing, eh?

What if the police officer fabricated catching you in the act because they had a ticket quota to meet? It's your right to contest any charge brought against you, and to make the state prove their case. Not just that you did it, but that what you did was actually against the law.

originally posted by: face23785
Just curious, did you have a problem with Bernie Sanders running? If he won, he'd have been 79 by the time his first term was up.

Yes actually. For what it's worth I also believe Hillary Clinton (who is only 1 year younger than Trump) to also be too old. Biden was my preferred candidate until he decided not to run, and even then I wasn't willing to support him due to age (and I won't support him in 2020 either, even though I like his politics).

Something I said a lot in the early days of the general campaign was that the one silver lining I saw to this cast of characters was that all of them were so old that one term would be likely. Not just for my generational argument, but I was born in 82. Of the 5 full Presidents we've had in my lifetime, 4 had two terms and I think that's just not enough. Leaders need to change more often than that and one thing that a bunch of old folks means, is that we're probably going to get just one term.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
Just curious, did you have a problem with Bernie Sanders running? If he won, he'd have been 79 by the time his first term was up.

Yes actually. For what it's worth I also believe Hillary Clinton (who is only 1 year younger than Trump) to also be too old. Biden was my preferred candidate until he decided not to run, and even then I wasn't willing to support him due to age (and I won't support him in 2020 either, even though I like his politics).

Something I said a lot in the early days of the general campaign was that the one silver lining I saw to this cast of characters was that all of them were so old that one term would be likely. Not just for my generational argument, but I was born in 82. Of the 5 full Presidents we've had in my lifetime, 4 had two terms and I think that's just not enough. Leaders need to change more often than that and one thing that a bunch of old folks means, is that we're probably going to get just one term.

I used to think this way until I became 72.

Today I feel much wiser, less idealistic, and see a bigger picture.

And I'm in better health now then when I was younger. Age requires you to be more aware of your health.

originally posted by: Annee
I used to think this way until I became 72.

Today I feel much wiser, less idealistic, and see a bigger picture.

And I'm in better health now then when I was younger. Age requires you to be more aware of your health.

From what I've gathered from everyone I've talked to of all ages, most never feel old. Talk to a 90 year old and they'll say they feel like it's the 100 year olds that are old. And it's near universal that people, no matter their age look back on themselves 5, 10, or 15 years earlier and notice that they've become a lot wiser.

That said, older people do slow down a bit mentally. Sure, they've got more experience to fall back on but absorbing new information becomes more difficult. I think that the best Presidents are around 50. That's an age where a person has plenty of real world experience, but is still very open to new information.

I certainly don't mind older people in government, I believe that an ideal situation is that we have an age demographic in politics that roughly mirrors the age demographic of society. But I do think that ideally the President should be a bit younger and serve just one term.

originally posted by: xuenchen
[chatter/rumors]

Trump might "travel ban" Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras !!

Smuggling and Trafficking are threats !!

[/🎃]

I really think people don't use their brains anymore. How is stopping legal immigration going to stop illegals from crossing the border? There is no rational reason to stop the people you do want just because you want to stop illegals.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
Just curious, did you have a problem with Bernie Sanders running? If he won, he'd have been 79 by the time his first term was up.

Yes actually. For what it's worth I also believe Hillary Clinton (who is only 1 year younger than Trump) to also be too old. Biden was my preferred candidate until he decided not to run, and even then I wasn't willing to support him due to age (and I won't support him in 2020 either, even though I like his politics).

Something I said a lot in the early days of the general campaign was that the one silver lining I saw to this cast of characters was that all of them were so old that one term would be likely. Not just for my generational argument, but I was born in 82. Of the 5 full Presidents we've had in my lifetime, 4 had two terms and I think that's just not enough. Leaders need to change more often than that and one thing that a bunch of old folks means, is that we're probably going to get just one term.

What age would you say is too old to run for President then, and on what are you basing that? Is it just an arbitrary number or would you base it on some kind of medical data? The fact that we've had so many old presidents seems to indicate that old people are perfectly capable of doing the job, probably even more so now with how good medical care is these days.

In my opinion the entire discussion is moot because the presidency is bigger than one man. If you're big on leadership changing often, guess what happens if the president dies in office?

originally posted by: face23785
What age would you say is too old to run for President then, and on what are you basing that? Is it just an arbitrary number or would you base it on some kind of medical data? The fact that we've had so many old presidents seems to indicate that old people are perfectly capable of doing the job, probably even more so now with how good medical care is these days.

I'm not sure. Not everyone ages equally. But if we're going to say you need to be 35 to run for President despite the fact that not everyone matures equally, I don't see why we can't put a maximum age on it too. I think that the starting point I would go from, is the idea that we shouldn't encourage working past retirement age, and therefore the President should be young enough that they don't go past their retirement age (maybe round up a year) during their term.

If you're big on leadership changing often, guess what happens if the president dies in office?

President for life has a guaranteed leadership change. That doesn't mean it's a good system.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
What age would you say is too old to run for President then, and on what are you basing that? Is it just an arbitrary number or would you base it on some kind of medical data? The fact that we've had so many old presidents seems to indicate that old people are perfectly capable of doing the job, probably even more so now with how good medical care is these days.

I'm not sure. Not everyone ages equally. But if we're going to say you need to be 35 to run for President despite the fact that not everyone matures equally, I don't see why we can't put a maximum age on it too. I think that the starting point I would go from, is the idea that we shouldn't encourage working past retirement age, and therefore the President should be young enough that they don't go past their retirement age (maybe round up a year) during their term.

Fair enough. Your idea isn't totally without merit. I'm just not a fan of basing anything on age, in general, because as you said it's a poor determinant of maturity, wisdom, or anything really. Obviously we have to have some minimum age though.

President for life has a guaranteed leadership change. That doesn't mean it's a good system.

Sure, but note I did qualify it with change "often". If 8 years isn't often enough for you, a president getting elected at an old age and dying in office guarantees it'll be sooner than that. I think the current system is fine. If enough people think the guy/gal running is too old, they won't get elected. There are processes in place to replace the president if they become seriously ill or die. And that can happen to younger presidents as well. FDR was only 63 when he died from illness. JFK was only 46 when he was assassinated. It just seems like it's not worth worrying about to me since it's so random whether their age will be an issue; and if it becomes one, we have a system in place to handle that. That's just my opinion of course, and I respect yours. Good discussion.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: XAnarchistX

He didn't deny ordinary service, he denied a custom decoration.

The problem here is that they didn't tell them what design they wanted.

The problem here is that according to google maps, there are a number of bakeries within a few blocks other than this one, that never hid its values like refusing to make Halloween or divorce party cakes.

What if you own the restaurant and your ex wife and her boyfriend come in? What if some known members of the local KKK came in?

What if what if what if.... You own the establishment you can refuse service yes or no? I say yes. Can they sue you? sure.

If you refuse service to a black couple thats bad. You could probably do it and expect a lawsuit.

Now what if your wife is cheating on you with a black man and they show up at your restaurant, can you refuse them?

Sure you can...

originally posted by: tinner07
What if you own the restaurant and your ex wife and her boyfriend come in? What if some known members of the local KKK came in?

What if what if what if.... You own the establishment you can refuse service yes or no? I say yes. Can they sue you? sure.

If you refuse service to a black couple thats bad. You could probably do it and expect a lawsuit.

Now what if your wife is cheating on you with a black man and they show up at your restaurant, can you refuse them?

Sure you can...

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.To avoid being arbitrary,you must be consistent it must be applied to all such as a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum. So obviously her refusal of service violates both these rules. She could sue the crap out of this restaurant and win.

As for the baker you guys keep arguing about, It was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery contradictory to the bible. Even showed in court his refusal to make Halloween cakes. By the way turns out it was well known to the public as well. Meaning i don't think the gay couple just happened to walk in to the store.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tinner07
What if you own the restaurant and your ex wife and her boyfriend come in? What if some known members of the local KKK came in?

What if what if what if.... You own the establishment you can refuse service yes or no? I say yes. Can they sue you? sure.

If you refuse service to a black couple thats bad. You could probably do it and expect a lawsuit.

Now what if your wife is cheating on you with a black man and they show up at your restaurant, can you refuse them?

Sure you can...

As for the baker you guys keep arguing about, It was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery contradictory to the bible. Even showed in court his refusal to make Halloween cakes. By the way turns out it was well known to the public as well. Meaning i don't think the gay couple just happened to walk in to the store.

That's interesting. I always thought the whole thing sounded manufactured.

originally posted by: endercreeper01
It is really not that bad if you think about it.

In the same way that it would be justified to kick out a gay or black from a restaurant, kicking Sarah Sanders out should not be though of differently.

It is against the law to refuse service because of race, skin color, etc.

In some states/cities/counties - - it is against the law to refuse service to LGBTQ+

It is not against the law to ask someone to leave for political reasons. At least not yet.

a reply to: Annee

Indeed. It actually seems that the right to refuse service to a member of government is enshrined in the Constitution.

Awesome.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Annee

Indeed. It actually seems that the right to refuse service to a member of government is enshrined in the Constitution.

Awesome.

I was being passive - - so as not to incite.

a reply to: Annee

Nope, it's not. It is, however, cutting ones nose off to spite one's face. Turning away a family of seven...? That's a chunk of change.

But, nope, not illegal. I doubt it ever will be.

a reply to: Annee

Inciting is a bad thing to do, so you're being very wise. Not to mention sarcastic.

a reply to: seagull

Apparently it's not all about the money.