Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[PCHawk]

I want to establish another baseline. If there are 10,000 protestors, and one guy gets violent, should the whole crowd get in trouble, or just the one who was violent?

 

[PCHawk]

The Supreme Court has ruled that how an individual spends their money is 'free speech'.
Given that, surely how an individual chooses to dress (as long as they don't act in an illegal way) is 'free speech'.
Since Iowa Republican legislators -- most of whom self-identify as MAGA -- voted last week to strip transgender Iowa citizens (who pay state taxes by the way) of civil rights protections against housing, employment, and health care discrimination...I think the obvious answer to that question is 'NO'.

Taking away someone's extra rights isn't discrimination. It's actually the opposite. Giving someone extra rights in the first place is the discrimination. That said, I understand why our county needed to do that at one point. But I also know that at some point you have to take that extra right away. Is now that time? I don't know that answer.

 

[HawkIowa44]

Don’t men have extra rights, like no one telling them what to do with their bodies?

 

[Grady]

Question: If Elon Musk is involved in getting some tech contracts canceled, and then the government replaces those contracts with contracts with Elon's companies, is that corruption?

Question 2: If Elon sacks employees in agencies that were investigating his companies in the name of consumer protection, is that corruption?

Maybe that POS Cybertruck (Douchepanzer) won't be the most recalled auto anymore.

Talk amongst yourselves.

1: I don't know if it's 'corruption', but it's definitely an inappropriate Conflict of Interest.
2: If the consumer protection cases were investigating potential criminal conduct, then common sense would say interfering with or stifling those investigations creates at least a Conflict of Interest -- and in a perfect world, Obstruction of Justice. But I'm guessing that would be very hard to prove in the legal world.

 

[PCHawk]

Don’t men have extra rights, like no one telling them what to do with their bodies?

Men who have been drafted to war would beg to differ. Men also have no reproductive rights at all. If a man gets a girl pregnant and decides she wants an abortion. A man has no rights. If the woman decides she wants to keep and and the guy doesn't want it, he has no rights to not help pay for it. So I guess unless you can think of other rights woman don't have that Men do have, Men might actually have less rights.

 

[Grady]

Taking away someone's extra rights isn't discrimination. It's actually the opposite. Giving someone extra rights in the first place is the discrimination. That said, I understand why our county needed to do that at one point. But I also know that at some point you have to take that extra right away. Is now that time? I don't know that answer.

I don't agree with your use of the term "extra rights". Civil rights don't give 'extra rights' -- they simply exist to guarantee minorities that have a history of being discriminated against THE SAME rights that those of us in the majority enjoy.
Do you think transgender Iowans encounter discrimination now, soley because they are transgender? And if acknowledge that they do, do you think they deserve civil rights protection?

 

[PCHawk]

1: I don't know if it's 'corruption', but it's definitely an inappropriate Conflict of Interest.
2: If the consumer protection cases were investigating potential criminal conduct, then common sense would say interfering with or stifling those investigations creates at least a Conflict of Interest -- and in a perfect world, Obstruction of Justice. But I'm guessing that would be very hard to prove in the legal world.

So legally, space x can't hire illegals because of the technology would be a security risk. The Biden administration sued space x for not hiring illegals because it was discrimination. Political warfare had already started, and getting rid of the people who did it will look eerily similar to more political warfare. It's a pretty bad door the Biden administration opened.

 

[PCHawk]

I don't agree with your use of the term "extra rights". Civil rights don't give 'extra rights' -- they simply exist to guarantee minorities that have a history of being discriminated against THE SAME rights that those of us in the majority enjoy.
Do you think transgender Iowans encounter discrimination now, soley because they are transgender? And if acknowledge that they do, do you think they deserve civil rights protection?

Extra rights might not be the exact right word. But it's close. Your sentence about them existing to insure their rights because they used to not have them is something I agree with and touched on in my last post. I guarantee someone somewhere was discriminate against because they are transgender. That sentence can be said for any other group of people that ever existed tho. I think they deserve the exact same civil rights protection as everyone else. Does eliminating what Renolds eliminated take away their rights? Or just make it so it's not specifically specified anymore?

 

[HawkIowa44]

Men who have been drafted to war would beg to differ. Men also have no reproductive rights at all. If a man gets a girl pregnant and decides she wants an abortion. A man has no rights. If the woman decides she wants to keep and and the guy doesn't want it, he has no rights to not help pay for it. So I guess unless you can think of other rights woman don't have that Men do have, Men might actually have less rights.

Yeah, men have had it so rough for all these years, while women haven’t always had the same rights. Once the Save Act gets passed, then what happens to all the married women’s voting rights? More voter suppression.

 

[Fryowa]

For any individual who punishes free speech, the answer is no. You saying "does MAGA: doesn't make any sense because MAGA is a lot of individual people. If Trump is trying to punish someone for peacefully protesting, then he clearly doesn't support free speech. That's why I said that in my original post that you are somehow to stupid to comprehend, even after I said it again. So to clarify for the mentally handicapped, if you're asking about Trump, the one word answer is no. If you're asking about MAGA, then you're profiling which is wrong to do in 2025.

All that said, I don't even know if there is an alternate reason he said what he did or for that matter, what he actually even said.

Ok so after reading the article, he said they will lose funding for allowing illegal protests. I would have to know the context on what made said protest illegal. If they are calling protests that they don't agree with "illegal" simply because they don't agree with them, that would be on par for arresting people for simply walking into the capitol. For idiots who can't comprehend words, that would be very bad and very wrong in my eyes. If there is a different reason for a protest being illegal, then the punishment should be the exact same as you would give for an illegal protest that you agree with.

The MAGA movement can have a generalized opinion as a group just like any other group made up of individuals.

The MAGA followers as individuals tend as a general rule to follow and accept the philosophies of Donald Trump, otherwise why would they be part of the movement?

Free speech including the right to assemble is constitutionally protected and Trump has said he will shut that down and imprison people for it.

So I’m going to take your answer as a no since you seem to be frightened to admit that the MAGA movement—as a movement—supports a position of free speech and freedom to assemble to be up to the interpretation of one individual.

See how easy that was to do instead of making yourself look like a dolt? Trying to avoid yes or no questions with conflation like politicians invariably do in hearings is cowardice. If you’re fine with free speech being up to the interpretation of Donald Trump rather than an inalienable right, own it. I could at least respect that. Don’t try to do a song and dance like a kindergartner. Or I guess go ahead and do that…it’s your right as an American under the first amendment. Or is it?

Hmm…

 

[Fryowa]

The Supreme Court has ruled that how an individual spends their money is 'free speech'.
Given that, surely how an individual chooses to dress (as long as they don't act in an illegal way) is 'free speech'.
Since Iowa Republican legislators -- most of whom self-identify as MAGA -- voted last week to strip transgender Iowa citizens (who pay state taxes by the way) of civil rights protections against housing, employment, and health care discrimination...I think the obvious answer to that question is 'NO'.

Rhetorical questions don’t register with the guy that the rhetorical question was aimed at.