Trump Exploits Starbucks’ Xmas Cup "Controversy"

.
Hoping to regain the lead among the GOP’s 2016 Clowns, The Donald promises "If I become president, we're all going to be saying Merry Christmas again, that I can tell you. That I can tell you." It's another promise he can’t keep, but his simple-minded supporters believe.

His promise stems from Starbucks’ red cups with their logo in green, and the right wing Christians’ paranoia calling it a “War on Christmas”. Trump has obviously forgotten that pesky First Amendment protection for the freedom of speech. He knows his right wing followers have.

It is just another in the long list of examples of the conservatives’ and neoconservatives’ plunge into madness.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/politics/donald-trump-starbucks-boycott-christmas/


.

 

I don't see where Trump referred to making a law against not-saying Merry Christmas, so it appears your blather about the 1st Amendment may just be another in a long list of progressives referring to the Constitution, without actually understanding it.

 

I am so looking forward (not) to this year's shrill cries and crocodile tears about the alleged "war on Christmas." I think of it as an extension of the general "persecution of Christians" we hear about year-round, particularly when some Christian bigot gets slapped down somewhere.

 

Given the right wing's inability to respect anyone's views that are different than their own, this year should be filled with conservative Christians weeping and wailing about being persecuted. This will continue until Christianity becomes the national religion, their is no separation of (Christian) church and state, all other faiths are outlawed, and refusal to accept Jesus Christ as a person's Lord and Savior is punishable by death.

.

 

LET THEM EAT....FRUIT CAKE!!!

AboveAlpha

 

People of reason understand The Donald all too well. He appeals to the right because he promises to selectively apply the Constitution as the right wing's self-proclaimed experts in constitutional law wish. Those experts always forget those protections are equal for all Americans.

.

 

I guess Trump will have Christmas Police who will go around with batons and beat those who say "Happy Holidays."

It's absolutist dogma like this that is turning many people away from religion.

 

76% of the nation identifies as a Christian so I would say it is the national religion.

 

By law?

 

Not yet and since Obama says the goverment can force mandates on then we might as well do it with religion.

 

That pesky First Amendment is gonna stop the right wing in its tracks. At least until they can get repealing the First Amendment ratified.

.

 

Democrats threw that out right off the bat with the sedition acts.

They gave us precedent.

FDR also had no trouble with breaking the constitution with his internment camps nor did Obama when he assassinated an American citizen with no trial.

You can't start clinging to the constitution now.

 

But the right wing does cling to it. Remember, they are all experts in constitutional law. Just ask any one of them.

.

 

Yes we are experts on it.

Feel free to ask me anything and I will tell you what it means.

 

I'm going to go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he probably wasn't suggesting he would prohibit people or organizations from saying anything other than "Merry Christmas" as a holiday greeting.

I think when people see a candidate they don't like they have a tendency to assume the worst about that person, even when that assumption is not probable. We sometimes needs to stop and catch ourselves in that moment, and bring our thought process back to more rational terms.

Could Trump's comment be interpreted as him planning to infringe on peoples' right to freedom of speech? sure.. but is that what he actually meant? probably not

 

We are a Christian majority society (and the number is actually 71%), but that doesn't mean our government is Christian. No one ever claimed we have a separation of church and society, they claim we have a separation of church and state

 

The founders set up our state to be a representation of society though so adopting Christianity into law would follow their vision. It is important to remember intent when they wrote it and added that separation clause.

Also remember that half the founders did not even want the amendments added to the constitution, they were forced to I order to get enough states to ratify.

 

actually, each amendment required a 2/3rd majority vote

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins" - Thomas Paine

 

I was referring to the bill of rights.

 

yes.. the bill of rights required a 2/3rd majority vote when it was ratified http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bill-of-rights-is-finally-ratified

but much more than this the entire purpose of the bill of rights was to list prohibitions on the powers of the US government.... the very first one of these listed prohibitions being a state established religion

 

Yes but the federalists were against the bill of rights because they said any powers not listed in the constitution was already given to the people and the states. They feared that by listing protections would limit that protection only to those items included in the bill of rights.

Several states demanded more protections so the federalists were forced to include them.

 

Actually, it was the anti-federalists who were at first reluctant to sign the bill of rights, and in the end both parties came to an agreement, thus the bill of rights was ratified. It wasn't half and half as you claim (also, the 9th amendment covers what you just said about limited rights being listed)

 

Never fear. Dunkin Donuts is putting coffee in cups that say "joy" and are surrounded by wreaths and holly. Let the coffee battle begin. And Merry Christmas in advance...

 

Saying half and half is just easier for those who do not know about this.

Apparently you do and we do seem in agreement.

Yes and the reason the 9th had to be included was because of the first 8 amendments. Take the famous roe v. Wade case which was argued on the premise of the 9th. The woman's right to choose would have already been covered under the Constitution according to the federalists. While I like much of the bill of rights, some of it has been very problematic.

 

President Obama says, "Merry Christmas," when he lights up the National Christmas tree.

Trump can't force Jewish people to say, "Merry Christmas." That would be intolerant and rude!