You do know that Starbucks ISN'T owned by a Democrat right? It is a business with a board of directors that make the decisions related to the franchise and it's franchisees. You MAY be able to make the allegation that the board is comprised solely of Democrats but that is a pretty weak and somewhat of a difficult to prove/disprove statement. The latest ex-CEO though is an Independent so not sure how that plays with your narrative, not that you will drop such allegations as we KNOW it is ALWAYS the Democrat's fault, right? You never actually back your assumptions with any real facts so...

I should and may at my discretion, choose to just start ignoring your posts until you start backing your opinions with ANY facts at all. I don't see any point in my actually trying to back my comments with facts against someone that is too lazy to do the same.

You do know that Starbucks ISN'T owned by a Democrat right? It is a business with a board of directors that make the decisions related to the franchise and it's franchisees. You MAY be able to make the allegation that the board is comprised solely of Democrats but that is a pretty weak and somewhat of a difficult to prove/disprove statement. The latest ex-CEO though is an Independent so not sure how that plays with your narrative, not that you will drop such allegations as we KNOW it is ALWAYS the Democrat's fault, right? You never actually back your assumptions with any real facts so...

I should and may at my discretion, choose to just start ignoring your posts until you start backing your opinions with ANY facts at all. I don't see any point in my actually trying to back my comments with facts against someone that is too lazy to do the same.

Ah, I was unaware of the laws the Democrats have enacted restricting certain people(s) from certain specific business establishments, Please feel free to post links to these laws so that I may be better informed. As for the businesses themselves, they DO have the right to refuse goods/services at their discretion IF providing such goods/services could potentially create issues with clients/staff (examples unruly arguments and/or fights) or if such individual has caused issues in the past, unruly arguments and/or fights, theft and/or refusal to pay for goods/services.

As for businesses that refuse goods/services to persons based on their own religious beliefs, we have anti-discrimination laws in place to protect the rights of EVERYONE. If they know of the potential that they MAY have to provide goods/services to those they do not wish to provide goods/services to, perhaps they should pick another profession that may not require them to. To be honest, denying such goods/services to anyone based solely on religious objections, it doesn't make good business sense, it detracts from potential current and future business. Would you condone someone's right to refuse goods/services to you if let's say you were Christian and they didn't like Christians?

Perhaps one should try starting a business that discriminates against Christians so that you can see just how stupid that argument really is. it is just about as stupid as the smoking ban on smoking in bars (I believe that MAY have been a Democrat supported bill but I could be wrong) as the largest majority of bar patrons either smoke regularly or typically only smoke when they are drinking. Knowing the statistics of how many bar patrons smoke, if you don't smoke and don't wish to be in the presence of cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke, perhaps you shouldn't take a job in a bar or go to any bar that isn't specifically a non-smoking bar.

The whole point for our Constitution was to guide our laws AND to protect our citizens from the abuses of power inherent in any government. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our forefathers wanted us to have protections from abusive government, that was the whole point for our Revolution, to get us out from under the rule by the few over the masses. They wanted Americans to have a reasonable amount of control over the direction of our form of government, government WITH representation.

I also disagree with you on your assertion that the first amendment ISN'T to protect us from those codifying their religious beliefs into laws governing us as it was their intention to protect us from just such abuses. Allowing any lawmaker to add laws based solely on religion IS in fact allowing one individual to determine what faith we must follow as regardless of what religious principles they are codifying into our laws, that is the religion that they are forcing us to adhere to. I wouldn't think that basic principle would be so hard to understand but then I guess some are so set in their ways that they refuse to acknowledge anything contrary to their own beliefs. AS you seem so set in your ways that you can't see anything from any other perspective than what you choose to view it by, we shall have to agree to disagree.

It is just as fair to create laws based on the Islamic faith as it is to create laws based on Christian faith, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

That is my point. In the small town adjacent to my own, a gay lesbian couple came from out of the area, to request matching gowns for their wedding. This boutique was known from articles in the local paper to be Christians who were known for their beliefs. When the boutique refused the order and recommended other venues, the whole affair was blown out of proportion, and the boutique actually went out of business. It was thought that the local homosexual activist had a hand in the whole affair to bring publicity to the gay causes he was promoting. So much for all inclusive.

You do know that Starbucks ISN'T owned by a Democrat right? It is a business with a board of directors that make the decisions related to the franchise and it's franchisees. You MAY be able to make the allegation that the board is comprised solely of Democrats but that is a pretty weak and somewhat of a difficult to prove/disprove statement. The latest ex-CEO though is an Independent so not sure how that plays with your narrative, not that you will drop such allegations as we KNOW it is ALWAYS the Democrat's fault, right? You never actually back your assumptions with any real facts so...

I should and may at my discretion, choose to just start ignoring your posts until you start backing your opinions with ANY facts at all. I don't see any point in my actually trying to back my comments with facts against someone that is too lazy to do the same.

You need to become informed, look at the charts, the are freely available on the GOVERNMENT website I sourced, there is no MARKED increase between when Obama left office and now. By a marked increase, I of course refer to an a******l spike, above and beyond the steady climb that started after Obama stimulated the economy to pull us out of the recession caused by a lack of proper regulation of the financial district allowing them to over invest in risky loans that lead to the crash in 2008.

If you would look at the facts in front of you rather than ignore them, you would see there hasn't been any marked spikes in job creation to show anything other than continued increases STARTED by Obama. I will choose to believe what I see from reliable sources rather than what I hear from ignorant fools like yourself, an actual reliable source: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf, an unreliable source: https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/user-profile?usernum=3651, hmm, which should I listen to, tough decision, NOT!

Nothing that Trump has done has caused any MARKED spikes in a rather steady jobs increase that doesn't appear to be picking up any speed since Trump took office nor losing any either. Don't be such a Republican stooge that you ignore ACTUAL REAL facts, but believe completely in those "real facts" fed to you by Trump/Trump administration/right wing nut jobs.

Look for yourself and actually be INFORMED rather than INDOCTRINATED:

And how do your charts explain the fact that both b****s and Hispanics have the lowest unemployment in history under President Trump. Obama was the classic disappointment for the b****s, they had thought he would be able to help them out. Contrary to that thought, obama did absolutely nothing to fix their unemployment situation and was a big reason they were so disappointed in their lack of opportunities. You obviously fell for the government attempts to muddy the waters. In case you really have heartburn over the figures, look at the fact that many businesses are having trouble finding workers. That is a pretty good indicator of a lack of jobs; then try to figure who is lying to you. it certainly isn't the Right. Logic places the blame squarely on the left, once again trying to smear Republican success.

Charts are no more reliable than the people who make them, government employees or not. Which side has spent virtually every working hour trying to ridicule, shame or blame our President. It is NOT the right! And, if you will remember, it was the democrats influence in the banking industry that said to ease the requirements for obtaining a home buyers loan even though many people could not even minimally qualify to pay back loans. No surprise when the loans failed to be repaid and the nation paid the price of pie in the sky financing with a banking debacle. In spite of your best efforts, the cost of this financial disaster has to be laid at the feet of the democrats. And don't believe that Trump's successes are cut from from Republican cloth; the democrats have tried every ruse to detract from our President's successes. Some liberals never learn that they can't fool the populace with lies, particularly that obama started any recovery. All he did was create the biggest national debt in world history, try to foist off a glitch ridden health system that people had to pay more for, and try to destroy our military. Plus he had a glorious time squandering $1.3 Billion on vacations during his tenure. If that is your picture of a successful president, you have certainly set a new low in standards.

As unemployment drops, so does minority unemployment, that is only common sense, if there is less unemployment, it spans all the various unemployment statistics unless it is focused job creation, avoiding areas with certain/specific minority populations.

As for the validity of the information, it is the information we have and since they are from government sources, they are the same information that Trump himself would be using to make his claims of accomplishments and the best source of information at our disposal.

As unemployment drops, so does minority unemployment, that is only common sense, if there is less unemployment, it spans all the various unemployment statistics unless it is focused job creation, avoiding areas with certain/specific minority populations.

As for your assumption that Obama did nothing to help, unemployment was dropping, jobs were being created, just because you refuse to believe it, that doesn't mean it wasn't so.

As for the validity of the information, it is the information we have and since they are from government sources, they are the same information that Trump himself would be using to make his claims of accomplishments and the best source of information at our disposal.

As unemployment drops, so does minority unemployment, that is only common sense, if there is less unemployment, it spans all the various unemployment statistics unless it is focused job creation, avoiding areas with certain/specific minority populations.

As for your assumption that Obama did nothing to help, unemployment was dropping, jobs were being created, just because you refuse to believe it, that doesn't mean it wasn't so.

As for the validity of the information, it is the information we have and since they are from government sources, they are the same information that Trump himself would be using to make his claims of accomplishments and the best source of information at our disposal.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/02/03/trump-humiliated-as-leaked-private-schedule-shows-him-doing-nothing.html

Someone in the White House leaked Trump’s private schedule for the last three months, and it shows Trump spending the majority of his time watching TV, tweeting, and consuming media.
Axios reported:
– Since Nov. 7, the day after the midterm e******ns, Trump has spent around 297 hours in Executive Time, according to the 51 private schedules we’ve obtained.


– For those same schedules, Trump has had about 77 hours scheduled for meetings that include policy planning, legislative strategy and video recordings.
Some days, Executive Time totally predominates. For instance, he had 1 hour of scheduled meetings on Jan. 18 (with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin) and 7 hours of Executive Time.
– The day after the midterms, Trump’s schedule had 30 minutes for a chief of staff meeting and more than 7 hours for Executive Time.

Trump isn’t a president. He’s a couch potato.

This is the second leak of Trump’s private schedule that has been released to the media. A little more than a year ago, Trump’s private schedule leaked and it showed him not starting his day until 11 AM and only working until 6 PM. It might seem unimaginable, but Trump is doing even less now. The president now has entire days that are spent tweeting and watching television.


Trump isn’t governing, so who is running the country?

Donald Trump isn’t governing. He isn’t interested in running the country, which raises the question is anyone running the country? Trump’s administration runs around with no direction because there is zero leadership at the top. Trump would rather tweet, watch TV, and golf than do the job that the presidency requires. The Trump administration is in year three, and they have accomplished nothing.
The most precious and limited resource that a president has is time.

Trump isn’t maximizing his time in the White House, which is why his administration has been a total failure.
Donald Trump can have all the “executive time” that he wants after v**ers boot him from the White House and send him back to Trump Tower.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.