Was the restaurateur trying to have Sanders arrested? Have her impeached? Get a grip, please.
…I think the problem is perhaps you don’t actually understand the implications of the argument you made.
I’m not.
Let her miss a few more meals, then she’ll be a danger.
Here’s another cite for you to ignore.
Literally nobody has said she did, and you really need to learn what an analogy is.
Even if it doesn’t meet the legal definition of sexual harassment, it’s a “gross abuse of power” according to the victim.
I know what an analogy is. Sanders’ behaviour is in no way similar to that of a murderer. Not like a dog either. But here’s the thing: you use the same rationale for training dogs as you do for toddlers or for anyone, for that matter. Sarah Sanders says something to piss you off on TV. So what? She’s the spokesperson for Trump. That’s her just job. Don’t shoot the messenger. Showing bigotry by booting her out of a restaurant only sends the wrong message—one of intolerance. Better off to write her a letter, or have a conversation with her while she’s doing her everyday things. No one changes the world by being an asshole.
For those who think it is a grave injustice for a restaurant owner to tell a patron to eat somewhere else, how do you feel about Trump blocking certain Twitter users for things like posting a video of the Pope looking dismissively at Trump?
No, you pretty clearly do not understand what an analogy is, if you think anyone in this thread was saying Sander’s behavior was in anyway similar to that of a murderer. They’re pointing out how deeply stupid your argument is by applying it, in whole, to a situation that highlights its absurdity. The idea that a human can’t understand consequences for an action that’s more than a couple hours removed is idiotic. The comparison to murderers wasn’t to demonstrate how heinous Sanders is, it was to demonstrate how vapid your post was, by applying your logic to a situation where it clearly fails.
And here, you apparently think that you can house break dogs by writing them strongly worded letters, and then finish it off by apparently forgetting who’s been running this country for the last two years.
You genuinely have no clue what you’re talking about, do you?
The arguments you stated as being mine are not mine.
I did not make them.
They have nothing to do with me.
They are your words. They are not my words.
That delays the issue for a maximum of 20 days. It doesn’t resolve the issue. Maybe the laws can be changed that quickly. Maybe the process can be speeded up enough.
Well, now that Sanders has Secret Service protection, if a restaurateur tries to pull Sanders aside, will an agent pull them aside first?
Is the secret service the administration’s personal enforcers now?
If the SS tries to intimidate a private individual in such a way, I would hope that they are disciplined promptly and severely.
As President, he should not be blocking anyone. But Trump, being who he is, breaks the laws of this land on a regular basis. As often as he lies, in fact.
Your style is one of ignorance. Clearly not persuasive.
I personally don’t think Trump should be tweeting, period. However, if he is, and is using his personal Twitter account (not the offical POTUS one), he should be able to moderate it as he likes, imo.
One would hope, but I do wonder what will happen if she’s sitting in a private restaurant and a bunch of protesters try to shout her out of there.
No, my style is aggressive. Nothing in my post is incorrect. Which is why you punted instead of addressing it.
Except that he can never be just citizen Donald. For as long as he remains in office, he is the President, and he is expected to behave like one. So far he has failed miserably.