ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

All Eyes On North Carolina's Ninth District

[ Posted Tuesday, September 10th, 2019 – 15:44 UTC ]

There are two special House elections in North Carolina today. Both of them should be foregone conclusions that nobody but political wonks pay attention to, because both of them are such solid-red districts. But while that is true in one of the special House elections tonight, it definitely isn't true in the other. In North Carolina's third district, the Republican candidate is going to chalk up an easy win, and nobody's going to pay any attention. But in the ninth district, Democrats have a real shot at flipping a district that Donald Trump won by 12 points in 2016. Whether they manage to eke out a victory or not, though, the very closeness of the race is making other Republicans increasingly nervous.

This special election is more special than most, because it is a do-over of the 2018 election that was made necessary by rampant election fraud (not voter fraud, mind you, but widespread election fraud, complete with ballot-tampering and all kinds of dirty tricks). The Republican who ran in 2018 cheated, plain and simple, and still only managed to "win" the race by fewer than 1,000 votes. The election results were thrown out, which is why today's special election is happening. So drawing larger conclusions from this race is probably not all that valid (because the circumstances were so unusual). But it certainly isn't going to stop anyone from doing so.

This will be the second-most-expensive House race in American history. The flood of money into the district shows how important both sides see it. Yesterday, the district was visited by Vice President Mike Pence, and then President Trump held a rally later in the evening. This also shows how critical this particular election is seen. Normally, special elections are pretty sleepy affairs that do not draw the big national names, but this one did.

Democrats really have the edge here, in terms of post-election interpretation. If the Democrat pulls out a victory, then this election will be spun in two ways: as a continuation of the 2018 "blue wave," and as a harbinger for an even bigger blue wave next year. Republicans will also see the election through this lens, as it is expected that if the Democrat wins the election tonight, it will only accelerate the pace of current GOP House members announcing their retirements. If the Democrats are heavily favored to retain control of the House in 2020, then getting out ahead of the wave is smarter politically for Republicans than either getting beat or having to spend two more years in a powerless minority. Already over a dozen GOP House members have headed for the exits, and this number could go a lot higher if Republicans lose another North Carolina district tonight.

Democrats will have the edge politically not only if they win, but if they even get very close. A loss of one or two points in a district that voted for Trump by 12 means that the district shifted at least 10 points. That's going to cause a lot of concern among Republicans elected by margins smaller than ten percent, obviously. If the election shows a continuation of the exodus from the GOP by suburban women, then that's going to be important in a lot of GOP districts around the country. So even a close loss here would still benefit Democrats.

Republicans should be winning this race hands-down. It should be a slam-dunk. Choose your metaphor -- it should have been an easy Republican victory. Of course, the previous Republican getting caught stealing the election didn't help, but this is a district that has sent Republicans to Congress for a half-century, so it shouldn't really have mattered that much.

If the Republican wins tonight, of course, it'll mean there will be less fear among other House Republicans. That's why the whole election was pretty much of a freebie for the Democrats, since in any other year they would have lost. If they lose this time around, it's not that big a deal because it should have been the expected outcome. But against all odds, the election is very close and could go far into the night before we know who has won.

A Democratic victory here would also provide one political talking point to the Democrats, since Trump himself campaigned here, on the night before the election. If the GOP loses anyway, it will serve as a measure of Trump's diminishing influence in such races. If the talking point becomes "even Trump couldn't save the seat," it is sure to annoy him personally. Which is always fun for Democrats, obviously.

Special elections aren't actually all that good a predictor of what the next scheduled election cycle will bring. Each district is different, and the dynamic of each race is different, meaning that any drawing of national implications is often proved wrong, later on. Parties have won lots of special elections only to go on to a historic defeat, and parties have also won special elections before their own wave election. It can go either way, when you look at the history. So it's tough to resist the urge to overstate the predictive power, especially in a surprise upset.

But even having said that, if the Democrat wins tonight, it's still going to make a whole lot of Republican House members a lot more nervous about their own prospects. This special election is timed early enough that many sitting House members have not filed for re-election yet. If they decide not to do so as a direct result of a surprise upset tonight in North Carolina, then those are real-world consequences and not merely optimistic predictions of the future.

Tonight, we'll be getting election results from two special House elections in North Carolina. Nobody's going to pay the slightest attention to one of them. But the other could have a huge impact beyond the district's borders. If a Democrat wins a district that Trump won by 12, and if even Trump himself couldn't save it, then Democrats (and Democratic House candidates) will be celebrating all over the country, while Trump will be left to explain why it's everyone else's fault and not his.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “All Eyes On North Carolina's Ninth District”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Returns starting to come in... McCready (D) up by 19K votes, but less than 10% reporting...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    My sources in NC say McCready is outperforming his early returns of 2018 by about 5-ish points.

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hi there! :)

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Republicans will also see the election through this lens, as it is expected that if the Democrat wins the election tonight, it will only accelerate the pace of current GOP House members announcing their retirements.

    FUN FACT: In 2018, there were six incumbent Texas Republicans who retained their seats by less than 5 percentage points, and half of them have already announced retirement:

    * Rep. John Carter
    * Rep. Will Hurd (announced retirement)
    * Rep. Kenny Marchant (announced retirement)
    * Rep. Michael McCaul
    * Rep. Pete Olson (announced retirement)
    * Rep. Chip Roy

    Texodus!

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Race tightens with 28% in. McCready only up 2700 now...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bishop (R) up by 500 votes with 55% in...

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Hi there! I finally scrolled up and saw your comments...

    That's good news from Texas, and I have to say I enjoyed "Texodus". Nice one!

    :-)

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale (from friday's column)

    I mean, if your ONLY argument is what is legal or not, if there is no morality or ethics involved, just say so..

    it's not that i think there's no moral or ethical argument to make, it's just that trade is a first amendment issue, which i consider most important. between people of theoretically equal power (e.g. businessperson and consumer), choosing who to do business with is a freedom we're all entitled to. if someone chooses to be a jackass about it, they're entitled to make the economic choice and face the economic consequences. where employees are concerned it's a little different because of the unequal power dynamic. firing someone because they're a trump supporter might not be illegal, but (unless it's a job with an explicitly liberal mission) in my book firing that person would still be wrong.

    JL

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    65% in, (R) up by 700+. Going to be a close one, that's for sure...

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    Keep your eye on Mecklenburg (Blue) and Union (Red).

    Only about ~28% of Mecklenburg is in while ~88% of Union is already in. Yet Bishop is leading by less than a point. Meaning: It'll come down to the 'burbs of Charlotte.

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NC-9

    80% in, and the R is leading by 2500

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Union is all in now while Mecklenburg is only about half in.

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,
    what does that mean for the results?

  14. [14] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    13

    See [10]. It means they're still counting votes in the 'burbs where McCready leads, while near all the votes are counted in Union where Bishop leads.

    It'll come down to the 'burbs of Charlotte when it shouldn't even be close because it's a gerrymandered NC district. :)

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    looks like a 2 point win for the bad guys.

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    13

    I should also note that Bishop outperformed the Republican from 2018 in a couple of counties so it looks to me like the Republican will win it. :)

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    15

    Jinks!

    looks like a 2 point win for the bad guys.

    Hey, that's not too bad for a gerrymandered district. There's a Texodus going on now for better results than that, and I believe once they un-gerrymander NC as mandated by law, you'll see an entirely different bunch of results. :)

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Alas, like the most expensive House race ever (Ossoff, in GA), 'twas a bridge too far.

    Still, a 2-point loss is a shift of 10 points away from the GOP...

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    There are ~30 districts in America -- give or take a few -- that are less favorable for Republicans than NC-9, and it's possible that NC-9 will actually be one of those districts less favorable than itself when it is redrawn... which there are 8 days left to draw and approve them since their prior redrawn maps were also thrown out by Courts as gerrymandered -- still!

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    18

    Alas, like the most expensive House race ever (Ossoff, in GA), 'twas a bridge too far.

    That "Ossoff guy" from Georgia should consider a run for political office where gerrymandering cannot play a factor. ;)

    Still, a 2-point loss is a shift of 10 points away from the GOP...

    And North Carolina is the new Pennsylvania. ;)

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What does this result portend for the Democratic presidential race?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the GOP'ers pulls thru!!! :D

    And NOW watch Democrats backpedal and say, "Oh, it ain't no thang..."

    :D

    More Gloating Ahead.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    it's not that i think there's no moral or ethical argument to make, it's just that trade is a first amendment issue, which i consider most important.

    EXCEPT when that "trade" is a baker, apparently.. :D

    choosing who to do business with is a freedom we're all entitled to.

    EXCEPT when the baker doesn't want to do business with a couple he finds morally unacceptable..

    When the baker/gay couple saga permeated thru here everyone, by omission or commission stated:

    "If you open up a business to the public, you have to take ALL comers to your business.. You can't pick and choose who you serve and who you won't..."

    Or words to that effect.

    NOW, you are claiming the exact opposite..

    NOW, the claim is "it's just that trade is a first amendment issue, which i consider most important. between people of theoretically equal power (e.g. businessperson and consumer), choosing who to do business with is a freedom we're all entitled to."

    You can understand why I am a bit confused here and now...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    What does this result portend for the Democratic presidential race?

    If you mean the primary, I doubt it will have any impact..

    If you mean the Dem candidate in the Presidential Election, a LOT of wind has been taken out of the eventual nominee's sails.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's very illuminating to compare and contrast Obama's "help" for candidates and issues, vs President Trump's help for candidates and issues..

    Those issues and candidates that Obama helped ALWAYS lost...

    The issues and candidates that President Trump helps??

    They have a pretty good track record of wins.. :D

    I find that fascinating.. :D

    But, once again.. I have to point out how wrong President Trump was...

    I am NOT tired of winning.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats really have the edge here, in terms of post-election interpretation. If the Democrat pulls out a victory, then this election will be spun in two ways: as a continuation of the 2018 "blue wave," and as a harbinger for an even bigger blue wave next year.

    Conversely, if the Democrats LOSE, there will be no blue wave next year, right?? :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump-shaped 9th Circuit hands White House major win on asylum policy

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- long a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped into a more moderate court by the Trump administration -- handed the president a major win late Monday, lifting a nationwide injunction on his asylum policy.

    Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California on Monday had reinstated a nationwide halt on the Trump administration's plan to prevent most migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, if they first crossed through another country on the way.

    But in an administrative order first obtained by Politico, the 9th Circuit rolled Tigar's ruling right back, saying it should only apply to the confines of the 9th Circuit for now -- which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon, and Washington.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/9th-circuit-hands-trump-major-win-on-asylum-policy

    And President Trump WINS AGAIN in the courts..

    You people just have to KNOW Democrats are in trouble when President Trump starts winning in the **9th Circuit**!! :D

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    And President Trump's string of wins, starting with the Official NOAA Statement that backed his comments re: Alabama and Hurricane Dorian, continues.. :D

    Dems admit Trump helped GOP candidates sweep North Carolina special elections

    In a major victory for both President Trump and national Republicans, North Carolina GOP state Sen. Dan Bishop was projected to win a fiercely contested special U.S. House election for the 9th District that was widely seen as a bellwether for the president's chances in the 2020 election.

    And another Republican House candidate, Greg Murphy, decisively won a separate special election in North Carolina's more solidly GOP-leaning 3rd District earlier Tuesday evening -- frustrating Democrats who spent millions trying to make a splash in the state.

    Even Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairwoman Cheri Bustos acknowledged that the president contributed to Bishop's win, writing in a statement that "we fell an inch short tonight, but it took more than $6 million in outside Republican spending and a last-minute Trump rally" to seal Democratic candidate Dan McCready's fate in the 9th District.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dan-bishop-north-carolina-ninth-district-special-election-results-dan-bishop

    I kinda feel sorry for ya'all.. Ya'all must be in a lot of pain..

    I'll try and take it easy on ya'all today..

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,
    The reason "protected class" exists is that interactions which SHOULD have an equal power dynamic clearly don't. Racial segregation that existed in the south is the clearest example of this. Where that line ought to be drawn is not so clear, which is why the baker who wouldn't bake for a gay wedding is a questionable case. Different people's rights need to be considered.
    JL

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    New 9/11 account recalls harrowing moments before Flight 93 crash: 'I’ll ram the cockpit'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-9-11-book-flight-93

    WOW.... Pretty powerful stuff...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason "protected class" exists is that interactions which SHOULD have an equal power dynamic clearly don't.

    How is a gay couple less powerful than a baker??

    In this day and age, more often then not, the gay couple has TONS more power than the baker.. Yes, there was that one exception.. But that simply emphasized the rule..

    Irregardless...

    So, what you are saying is that barring any protected class, businesses have the right to serve or not to serve whomever they wish based on whatever criteria they deem fit...

    Therefore, the one's who claimed previously that"If you open up a business to the public, you have to take ALL comers to your business.. You can't pick and choose who you serve and who you won't..." or words to that effect, they were full of kaa kaa.

    I am not trying to be obtuse here. I am simply trying to break down your claims in words that I can understand..

    Remember.. Knuckle dragging ground pounder here.. :D

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Therefore, the one's who claimed previously that "If you open up a business to the public, you have to take ALL comers to your business.. You can't pick and choose who you serve and who you won't..." or words to that effect, they were full of kaa kaa.
    Yes, that is an exaggeration. No shirt no shoes no service.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    In this day and age, more often then not, the gay couple has TONS more power than the baker.. Yes, there was that one exception.. But that simply emphasized the rule..

    Put it this way..

    Some yahoo goes into a bakery and says, "Yo!! Asshole!!! Make me a frak'in wedding cake!!!" the baker can throw him out of the shop...

    A gay couple goes into the bakery and says ""Yo!! Asshole!!! Make us a frak'in wedding cake!!!", the baker HAS to comply under threat of law and boycotts and threats...

    So, you'll have to explain to me how, exactly, the gay couple has less power than the baker..

    It does not compute..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, that is an exaggeration. No shirt no shoes no service.

    Thank you.. That's all I needed to hear.. :D

    You can disregard #33 if you so choose.. I am happy with the conclusion..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would ask you why you didn't speak up at the time... :D

    But I imagine your response would be something along the lines of:

    "Fighting off all the species which you've insulted would be a full-time mission. That's not the one I signed up for."
    -Commander Riker, STAR TREK TNG, Deja Q

    :D

    So, c'est la vie... :D

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Looks like a two point win for the bad guys."

    "This will be the second-most-expensive House race in American history."

    Looks like a two point loss for the other bad guys.

    And articles perpetuating the big money two party charade instead of informing citizens how they can get the good guys to win elections is a HUUUUGE loss for reality and America.

    Get Real.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "What does this portend for the Democratic presidential race?"

    More of the same deception that the big money Democratic bad guy is not as bad as the big money Republican bad guy.

    Let's face reality. The big money Democrats being the good guys is the equivalent of Chucky being a Good Guy- it's just a marketing gimmick that is more irony than reality.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    One way to address Crowd Based Mass Shootings

    SPYPHONE Donald Trump proposes tracking people with mental health problems via SMARTPHONES
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9902862/donald-trump-proposes-tracking-people-with-mental-health-problems-via-smartphones/

    Has potential...

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you mean the Dem candidate in the Presidential Election, a LOT of wind has been taken out of the eventual nominee's sails.. :D

    How so, Michale?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    How so, Michale?

    Based on what CW said..

    Democrats really have the edge here, in terms of post-election interpretation. If the Democrat pulls out a victory, then this election will be spun in two ways: as a continuation of the 2018 "blue wave," and as a harbinger for an even bigger blue wave next year.

    Logic dictates that, if a win would be a big boon to Democrats' chances in 2020, then a loss would be detrimental to Democrats' chances in 2020..

    "Simply logic.."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    :D

  41. [41] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Here’s the problem with the baker’s case.... had he simply said, “Our schedule won’t allow for us to make your cake for when you are requesting it,” then they could have left and everyone would have been OK. It was his, “You disgust me and I wouldn’t spit on you if you were on fire,” attitude and comments making it clear that he could/would make it for them if they were not gay....that was the problem.

    At least in that case he was up front with them. There was the one bakery that agreed to do the cake and later changed their mind, but failed to let the couple know until they showed up to pick it up on the day of their ceremony. Or the photographer who had agreed to do a wedding, showed up but then decided they couldn’t be a part of it and just drove off without telling the couple. Nothing says “strong Christian morals” like intentionally ruining someone else’s special occasion needlessly!

    It has nothing to do with “religious liberty” — that’s just a made up concept to justify their hatred. You can worship your God anyway you choose, but you don’t get to single out certain customers and deny them the same services you’d give to all your other customers and claim it is what your faith requires. No one is demanding a Jewish bakery serve “pig in the blankets” if they’ve previously never served “pig in the blankets” to anyone. But asking you to make the same item that you make 100 times a year for other couples isn’t violating any religious tenets!

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here’s the problem with the baker’s case.... had he simply said, “Our schedule won’t allow for us to make your cake for when you are requesting it,”

    But that would be a lie.. Forcing someone to lie shouldn't be an option..

    Why not ask the gay couple to lie and say they are not gay???

    Why should the BAKER have to violate his principles??

    It has nothing to do with “religious liberty” — that’s just a made up concept to justify their hatred.

    Yea, that's been your ongoing claim.. Funny thing, though.. You NEVER provided a SINGLE FACT to support that claim??

    And let's not forget.. The SCOTUS ruled that the one specific case WAS about religious freedom..

    but you don’t get to single out certain customers and deny them the same services you’d give to all your other customers /I>

    And yet, THAT is ***EXACTLY*** what that caterer did to that Trump Supporting Democrat..

    But you support that caterer's right to pick and choose their customers.. Don't you...

    But asking you to make the same item that you make 100 times a year for other couples isn’t violating any religious tenets!

    And how about asking a caterer to make available the SAME SERVICES they give everyone else to a Trump supporting Democrat???

    As an aside to JL.. You see my point???

    It's NOT about any law issues.. Russ says "SERVE ALL COMERS REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL FEELINGS" but it's perfectly acceptable to refuse service to a Trump supporting Democrat..

    THAT was my point..

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, you'll have to explain to me how, exactly, the gay couple has less power than the baker..

    It does not compute..

    Say it’s a small town, and instead of a baker it is a doctor’s office that refuses to serve someone they consider a “sinner”. They are the only healthcare provider for hundreds of miles, but they will not see you as a patient which means you cannot get a prescription for the insulin that your diabetic spouse needs to live. See how the business has the power?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just ta catch ya up, Russ...

    Discrimination is the new norm for 'wrong' political views

    A gay Cincinnati man — a lifelong Democrat living with HIV/AIDS — recently tweeted that a local business refused his request to cater an event.

    The story harkens to private bakers in Colorado who, citing religious beliefs, refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple in 2012. (Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the bakers were within their rights.) News of the bakery incident sparked outrage and was plastered on the news off and on for years.

    But judging from the recent past, the reported refusal of a Cincinnati business to serve a gay man is unlikely to prompt across-the-board national outrage for one reason: The man is a supporter of President Trump. He says that was the reason given for why he was rejected as a customer.

    The gay Trump supporter is named Scott Ford and he discussed the incident with me over the phone. He says he planned an event for 20-30 people. When the owner of the business — where he says he’d been “a loyal customer for two years” — asked what the event was, Ford told her it was a “pro-Trump event to highlight the president’s accomplishments.”

    “She threw her hands up in the air and said, ‘No, as badly as I need the money, I’m not doing this,’” Ford told me. “It blew up into an argument in a matter of seconds. I said ‘This is a great president I’m supporting as a Democrat.’ I was disappointed and shocked.”
    https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/458861-discrimination-is-the-new-norm-for-wrong-political-views

    Your position is that the caterer should be FORCED to service the Trump supporting Democrat...

    Right??

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Say it’s a small town, and instead of a baker it is a doctor’s office that refuses to serve someone they consider a “sinner”. They are the only healthcare provider for hundreds of miles, but they will not see you as a patient which means you cannot get a prescription for the insulin that your diabetic spouse needs to live. See how the business has the power?

    There are, of course, exigent circumstances.. In the cases of NEEDED health care, I would say the power rests with the patient.

    But, you bring up a good point.. If the doctor or pharmacist is a dyed in the wool Liberal and the patient is a Trump supporter, can the doctor/pharmacist refuse service based on political beliefs..

    JL says yes.. What do you say??

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the case of the caterer, who is wrong??

    The caterer or the gay Democrat Trump supporter??

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess what I am asking is this..

    Is it morally or ethically defensible to not serve someone based on their politically leanings??

    OR

    Is your business your business and you have the right to refuse service to anyone within the law??

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I have no issue with the Trump supporter filing suit against the caterer. If you want to shove fried chicken up your ass using your left hand, KFC should not be able to deny you from purchasing their product if they are allowing the right handed people to purchase it!

    And saying your schedule won’t allow you to take a job is never going to be challenged in court! You think the Trump supporter has a problem with lying? I cannot force you to cater my pillow fight if you are already committed to mopping up after a cockfight. Saying, “I would do it if you were anyone else but you” is discrimination.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yer funny, Russ.. You go on and on about Trump's lying and yet your solution is to have the religious baker lie, which probably violates OTHER tenets of his faith....

    Do you not see the disconnect??? :D

    Saying, “I would do it if you were anyone else but you” is discrimination.

    So, you are saying that the caterer is wrong to discriminate against the gay Trump supporting Democrat..

    Correct???

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    There has to be a legit reason to deny someone service...they are intoxicated, or naked, or like mayo with their French fries. Which one do you think won’t hold up in court? The owner risks being sued whenever they deny someone’s business, so that should make most people willing to serve someone they simply dislike. It’s how society keeps the peace. Once you start allowing businesses to discriminate without fear of punishment — which was the problem in the old South where the courts would not hear the cases for the longest time — it leads to worse and worse forms of discriminatory actions. People didn’t just immediately start lynching others, it was a gradual thing that built up over time. Taking the discrimination a little further each time...a little nastier...a little more violent...next thing you know you are standing back watching another human being burning alive.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or I guess, since lying is acceptable, the baker could have lied and said he wouldn't serve the gay couple because they were Democrats..

    Then he would have been off the hook!! :D

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    There has to be a legit reason to deny someone service..

    Agreed.. But my question is... Is political beliefs a "legit" reason??

    Once you start allowing businesses to discriminate without fear of punishment it leads to worse and worse forms of discriminatory actions.

    So, you are saying that the caterer should be punished for refusing to serve the gay Trump supporter Democrat..

    What about the restaurants who refused to serve Sara Huckabee Sanders and other prominent Republicans.. Should they be punished..

    I am trying to learn exactly what you believe..

    I actually agree with you on some of what this discussion is about.. I also agree with JL that, barring any legal issues, it's my business and I can choose who I want to serve and who I DON'T want to serve..

    I simply feeling out your boundaries..

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I have a problem with people trying to speak in absolutes when it comes to words like “lying”. Is intentionally deceiving someone for the purpose of stealing from them really in the same league as telling your loving wife whose self-esteem is really hurting that you don’t think the awful haircut she just received is as bad as she thinks it is?

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a problem with people trying to speak in absolutes when it comes to words like “lying”. Is intentionally deceiving someone for the purpose of stealing from them really in the same league as telling your loving wife whose self-esteem is really hurting that you don’t think the awful haircut she just received is as bad as she thinks it is?

    I am surprised to see such nuance from you on this..

    I completely agree with you.. :D

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think the customer has the right to sue any business that denies them service. That’s how I look at all of these cases. If the bar owner wants to risk a lawsuit, that’s their choice. I also think that the damages have to be based in reality. The bakery that sat a month without informing the gay couple that they weren’t going to make them their cake and intentionally ruined their day, RIP THEM UP! The bakery who said up front that they were not interested in doing the couple’s cake...much less damage done as they did find another bakery who took their business.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    The bakery that sat a month without informing the gay couple that they weren’t going to make them their cake and intentionally ruined their day, RIP THEM UP! The bakery who said up front that they were not interested in doing the couple’s cake...much less damage done as they did find another bakery who took their business.

    Agreed...

  57. [57] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [50]

    Re "they are intoxicated or naked . . ."

    Intoxicated for sure, "naked" naturally depends on the sex and the dimensions, right?

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if the doctor or pharmacist is a dyed in the wool Liberal and the patient is a Trump supporter, can the doctor/pharmacist refuse service based on political beliefs..

    JL says yes.. What do you say??

    um, no. i didn't say anything about doctors or pharmacists. where life and health are concerned, a licensed professional has a lot more power than their client, so they have a professional responsibility that should override their personal views. same for education - i can't refuse to teach a student just because they have a political view with which i disagree.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a doctor who did not feel comfortable treating a particular patient might suggest a nearby alternative who would be more to the patient's liking, but it's still their responsibility to make sure the person is not harmed by their inaction. doctors have to take an oath that they will help people and not harm them.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    I concede your distinction..

  61. [61] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Just read that the tweet that the NWS in Birmingham Alabama had sent out contradicting Trump’s claim that AL was going to be hit harder than first thought was not intended as a contradiction to Trump’s tweet — it was sent out in response to the sudden influx of panicked callers the NWS was experiencing. They supposedly had no idea that Trump was causing the panic until AFTER they had contradicted him by posting the truth!!! Whoops!

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just read that the tweet that the NWS in Birmingham Alabama had sent out contradicting Trump’s claim that AL was going to be hit harder than first thought was not intended as a contradiction to Trump’s tweet — it was sent out in response to the sudden influx of panicked callers the NWS was experiencing. They supposedly had no idea that Trump was causing the panic until AFTER they had contradicted him by posting the truth!!! Whoops!

    And yet, according to the NOAA, an organization whose words ya'all take as GOSPEL said it was President Trump who was factually accurate and it was Birmingham NWS who was wrong..

    Whoops!! :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like CNN has botched another major Russia 'scoop'

    It looks like CNN has bungled another Russia scoop. Shocking, I know.

    The network claimed Monday that the U.S. government “extracted [a] top spy from inside Russia in 2017,” a decision that CNN alleges was driven “in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.”

    CNN's reporting stresses the extraction took place in 2017 shortly after the president “discussed highly classified intelligence with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The intelligence, concerning ISIS in Syria, had been provided by Israel.” The network alleges further that "the removal happened at a time of wide concern in the intelligence community about mishandling of intelligence by Trump and his administration.”

    The implication is clear: Because of incidents like his 2017 meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump compromised a high-level CIA asset, costing the American intelligence community an invaluable informant embedded deep within the Russian government. That is certainly the takeaway CNN’s readers got from Monday's report, which was authored by chief national security correspondent and former Obama administration official Jim Sciutto.

    However, follow-up reporting from the New York Times and the Washington Post suggests the cable network both omitted and botched key, thesis-altering details in its original scoop. Namely, the Times alleges the CIA's efforts to extract the informant date back to 2016, before Trump was even sworn in as president. The Times claims also that the American press, not the Trump administration, was responsible for compromising the informant's cover.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/looks-like-cnn-has-botched-another-major-russia-scoop

    More fake news from the KING of fake news..

    Who was it that spewed this piece of BS??

    Oh yea.. That's right...

    It was 'nuck!!! :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let us not forget..

    "On Sept 11th, 2001, some people did something.."
    -CongressCritter Illan Omar

    :eyeroll:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Just one question...

    Are all ya'all's eyes STILL on North Carolina?? :D

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    41

    You can worship your God anyway you choose, but you don’t get to single out certain customers and deny them the same services you’d give to all your other customers and claim it is what your faith requires.

    I think this is a concept the gullible Trumplicans might be able to grasp if it was them being refused service based on "religious liberty." For instance, in contrast to a couple verses regarding homosexuality being a sin, there are literally multitudes of verses in the Bible that deal with obeying the law/government or being a sinner. If all the so-called Christians on their moral high horses who claim they're simply following the "word" would actually do that, they would be denying service to every criminal. As I said, there are multitudes of verses that would justify Christians denying service across America to all the criminals. Wouldn't that be precious? They could also deny service to divorced persons on grounds of "religious liberty." Good times.

    No one is demanding a Jewish bakery serve “pig in the blankets” if they’ve previously never served “pig in the blankets” to anyone. But asking you to make the same item that you make 100 times a year for other couples isn’t violating any religious tenets!

    Amen.

    I think if a pastor/preacher/justice of the peace doesn't wish to marry a couple based on "religious grounds," I can totally understand that because it's a religious service. But all that other crap about baked goods? Utter bullshit. When the Christians start denying service to criminals, divorced persons, etc. based on Bible verses, then we can all take them seriously regarding their "religious liberty." Otherwise, it's not about religion, it's discrimination based on their biases. Full stop.

    IRONY: Many of those who've denied services to gay couples based on scripture actually do so in violation of the law of their government, and the Bible clearly states in multiple ways that this makes them sinners worthy of being denied services themselves based on scripture.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh WOW...

    Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of asylum limits
    https://apnews.com/a817cf3affb04f3d8ad3c4940366a5fe

    Once again.. The SCOTUS sides with President Trump...

    Once again, I have to point out how WRONG President Trump was..

    I am ***NOT*** getting tired of winning..

    Ya'all are gonna just have to admit that President Trump is wiping the floor with Democrats.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

    The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

    Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

    The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

    “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

    Nothing succeeds like success!!!

    And President Trump is ALL ABOUT success!! :D

    Don'tcha just LOVE IT!!????

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

    That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

    The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

    Judge Tigar must be getting tired of being Bitch Slapped by President Trump and the SCOTUS over and over and over again.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, before I retire for the night... I gotta ask ONE question..

    How do ya'all handle Democrats losing so bad??

    Day in and day out, President Trump simply wipes the floor with Democrats..

    I mean that's just GOT to be annoying, eh??

    Ah well.. Past my bedtime.. See ya'all in the AM :D

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The implication is clear: Because of incidents like his 2017 meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump compromised a high-level CIA asset, costing the American intelligence community an invaluable informant embedded deep within the Russian government. That is certainly the takeaway CNN’s readers got from Monday's report, which was authored by chief national security correspondent and former Obama administration official Jim Sciutto.

    Ohhhhh, sooooo close to being accurate, but carefully misses the real point! Trump did not compromise any agent...based on the reporting by CNN, WAPost and NYT. It was the threat that Trump — who displays a level of ineptness and poor judgement that is truly staggering for someone in his position — would compromise the agent without realizing what he was doing. That is the danger of someone who is so narcissistic and so desperate for appearing tougher, smarter, and more successful than he truly is also having such poor reasoning skills — his fragile ego becomes his most dangerous trait!

    From the Examiner article:

    The Washington Post flatly contradicts CNN’s story, stating that Trump’s 2017 disclosure of classified information to Lavrov and Kislyak “was not the reason for the decision to remove the CIA asset.” It never made sense anyway that a high-level, covert source in Russia would have been compromised by intelligence gathered by Israeli officials. The Times similarly contradicts CNN's characterization of events, reporting that, "former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency’s sources alone was the impetus for the extraction.

    Again, it doesn’t make sense that Trump had compromised the agent, because if he had — they would be dead!

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, it doesn’t make sense that Trump had compromised the agent, because if he had — they would be dead!

    Exactly..

    So the NY GRIME story putting the blame on President Trump is complete and utter bullshit..

    I am glad we agree..

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    It was CNN's error, which the ny times and wapo corrected. If you're going to name call the times, do it for something they get wrong.
    JL

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was CNN's error, which the ny times and wapo corrected.

    Yer right..

    It's sometimes difficult to keep all the bullshit straight as to which Left Wing rag bullshits on that..

    My mistake..

    If you're going to name call the times, do it for something they get wrong.

    Like saying that, on 9/11 "airplanes" took aim at the WTC Towers???

Comments for this article are closed.