Ted Cruz’s Dinner Was Ruined by Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters

[phands]

Schadenfreude time again...couldn't happen to a more deserving slimy, pious, mealy-mouthed, unctuous, oleaginous slimeball....

Texas senator Ted Cruz was chased from a Washington, D.C., restaurant Monday night by a group of protesters shouting about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
“We believe survivors,” the protesters yelled at Cruz, as seen in a video tweeted by Smash Racism DC. They continued yelling as Cruz and his wife made their way to the exit. “Beto is way hotter than you, dude,” said one protester, referencing Beto O’Rourke, the congressman surprising Cruz with a strong challenge in the Senate race in Texas.

Another video shows a woman who identifies herself as a constituent of Cruz’s asking how he plans to vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “God bless you, ma’am,” he says back to her.

......

Cruz, it seems, is hiding out in ritzy Capitol Hill restaurants where the tasting menu starts at $115. O’Rourke, meanwhile, is playing air drums in the Whataburger drive through.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-was-ruined-by-anti-kavanaugh-protesters.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And Cruz is still likely going to win, because... some people just can't vote for a Democrat, under any circumstances. We saw that proven in 2016.

 

[repoman]

Cotton Gin

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Poll question:

Do conservative politicians deserve safe spaces so that they do not have to answer questions when out in public?

 

[Elixir]

Poll question:

Do conservative politicians deserve safe spaces so that they do not have to answer questions when out in public?

No more than liberal politicians do. Safe places in public seems oxymoronic; if you get hassled in public because of your official behavior, don't go out in public or change your official behavior. Not that complicated, really...

 

[Sarpedon]

The restaurant owners should set their own policy. If I ran a restaurant, I wouldn't allow people to harass my paying customers.

 

[J842P]

Poll question:

Do conservative politicians deserve safe spaces so that they do not have to answer questions when out in public?

No more than liberal politicians do. Safe places in public seems oxymoronic; if you get hassled in public because of your official behavior, don't go out in public or change your official behavior. Not that complicated, really...

Yes, but is illegal, and it shouldn't matter if the person being harassed is a democrat or a republican.

That being said, I'm on the fence about how I feel about this specific instance.

 

[phands]

The restaurant owners should set their own policy. If I ran a restaurant, I wouldn't allow people to harass my paying customers.

If I ran one, I'd avoid the issue by making sure they weren't in my restaurant to pay.

If scumbag xtian bakers can refuse service to gay people, I can refuse service to disgusting gop fascists.

 

[J842P]

The restaurant owners should set their own policy. If I ran a restaurant, I wouldn't allow people to harass my paying customers.

If I ran one, Id avoid the issue by making sure they weren't in my restaurant to pay.

If scumbag xtian bakers can refuse service to gay people, I can refuse service to disgusting gop fascists.

You are within your rights to refuse service based on political affiliation, I'm pretty sure. Although there might be different laws in different places, and I wouldn't be surprised if DC is one where there *would* be laws about discrimination based on political affiliation.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Poll question:

Do conservative politicians deserve safe spaces so that they do not have to answer questions when out in public?

No more than liberal politicians do. Safe places in public seems oxymoronic; if you get hassled in public because of your official behavior, don't go out in public or change your official behavior. Not that complicated, really...

Yes, but is illegal, and it shouldn't matter if the person being harassed is a democrat or a republican.

That being said, I'm on the fence about how I feel about this specific instance.

Illegal? [Citation needed.]

 

[J842P]

Yes, but is illegal, and it shouldn't matter if the person being harassed is a democrat or a republican.

That being said, I'm on the fence about how I feel about this specific instance.

Illegal? [Citation needed.]

Well, at a certain point, "hassling" can become "harassment", although, I believe the latter requires a pattern of behavior. You'd have to consult a lawyer for the specifics about that. But I do know harassment is a crime. Here is some reading:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

To be clear, I am not claiming what happened to Cruz falls under the legal definition of harassment in the jurisdiction they were in. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know the nuances regarding that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, but is illegal, and it shouldn't matter if the person being harassed is a democrat or a republican.

That being said, I'm on the fence about how I feel about this specific instance.

Illegal? [Citation needed.]

Well, at a certain point, "hassling" can become "harassment", although, I believe the latter requires a pattern of behavior. You'd have to consult a lawyer for the specifics about that. But I do know harassment is a crime. Here is some reading:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

To be clear, I am not claiming what happened to Cruz falls under the legal definition of harassment in the jurisdiction they were in. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know the nuances regarding that.

Okay. The reason I brought up the phrase "safe space" is because it's a phrase conservatives use against a perceived regressive left. Meanwhile, yes, harassment has always been a legal thing, same with disturbing the peace, etc. In any case, I find the wording of these articles funny to the point of bias for The Man. So-and-so was "chased." So-and-so was "forced" to leave. If this actually were back in the day conservolibertarians love, Cruz would be captured, tarred and feathered, not asked difficult questions at a restaurant, embarassing him into going to a different expensive restaurant with his million bucks. Force? Really? No force here. The govt on the other hand is committed to force against citizens. And Cruz is one of the managers.

 

[Trausti]

Kudos.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, this is a really dumbassed way to protest someone’s policies.

 

[Underseer]

Poll question:

Do conservative politicians deserve safe spaces so that they do not have to answer questions when out in public?

That depends. Are the politicians in question part of a representative government in a free country?

If so, then they have an obligation to listen to the opinions of the people, particularly when they go out of their way to prevent their constituents (who are their bosses) from expressing opinions to them, which is basically what modern Republican politicians do such that confronting them in a restaurant is likely to be the only chance a constituent gets to express their views to the politician who supposedly works for them.

If however the conservative politicians live in an authoritarian system, then citizens have no business confronting their betters at any time. Citizens should know their place and stay home and not express any negative opinions of powerful people if they know what's good for them.

Now is the time when Americans need to ask if we still want a representative government.

 

[Underseer]

Ya, this is a really dumbassed way to protest someone’s policies.

Really?

Because if you call a Republican's office, they don't even bother to write down what you say.

If you send them an email, no one reads it.

If you start a petition, no one reads it.

If you send a snailmail letter, no one reads it.

They don't do what you want, they do what donors want.

If confronting them when they eat out is the only way to get an elected politician to hear what a constituent has to say, why would you get angry at the constituents for what is going on? Shouldn't you find fault in the elected representatives who are going out of their way to not even listen to constituents?

It used to be we could confront our elected officials at town hall meetings, but we can't even do that anymore. They don't want to listen to us unless we give them thousands of dollars at a special dinner.

I'm sorry if using one of the few avenues to redress our supposedly representative government offends your delicate sensibilities.

 

[Trausti]

Ya, this is a really dumbassed way to protest someone’s policies.

Really?

Because if you call a Republican's office, they don't even bother to write down what you say.

If you send them an email, no one reads it.

If you start a petition, no one reads it.

If you send a snailmail letter, no one reads it.

They don't do what you want, they do what donors want.

If confronting them when they eat out is the only way to get an elected politician to hear what a constituent has to say, why would you get angry at the constituents for what is going on? Shouldn't you find fault in the elected representatives who are going out of their way to not even listen to constituents?

It used to be we could confront our elected officials at town hall meetings, but we can't even do that anymore. They don't want to listen to us unless we give them thousands of dollars at a special dinner.

I'm sorry if using one of the few avenues to redress our supposedly representative government offends your delicate sensibilities.

Why would you think this only occurs with Republican politicians? How long have you lived in America?

 

[Underseer]

Once again, representative democracy is being undermined by authoritarians, and everyone's more worried about whether or not we're being polite enough about how we complain about it.

 

[Underseer]

Ya, this is a really dumbassed way to protest someone’s policies.

Really?

Because if you call a Republican's office, they don't even bother to write down what you say.

If you send them an email, no one reads it.

If you start a petition, no one reads it.

If you send a snailmail letter, no one reads it.

They don't do what you want, they do what donors want.

If confronting them when they eat out is the only way to get an elected politician to hear what a constituent has to say, why would you get angry at the constituents for what is going on? Shouldn't you find fault in the elected representatives who are going out of their way to not even listen to constituents?

It used to be we could confront our elected officials at town hall meetings, but we can't even do that anymore. They don't want to listen to us unless we give them thousands of dollars at a special dinner.

I'm sorry if using one of the few avenues to redress our supposedly representative government offends your delicate sensibilities.

Why would you think this only occurs with Republican politicians? How long have you lived in America?

Yes.

First, you are using the usual whataboutism tu quoque fallacy as part of a desperate attempt to change the subject because you know you're wrong and I'm right.

Second of all, Democrats are not just as bad. I can get actual responses from politicians without giving thousands of dollars at a fundraising dinner, so even if we ignore the logical fallacy you're using to try and change the subject, your flaccid argument still fails.

But thanks for admitting that you're wrong in such dramatic fashion. You have to be truly desperate to try and change the subject like you did.

 

[fast]

If scumbag xtian bakers can refuse service to gay people, I can refuse service to disgusting gop fascists.

Discrimination is discrimination, we can all agree, but some forms of discrimination are more palatably permissive than others. For instance, I might support discrimination when it's product discrimination but not be inclined to support discrimination when it's person discrimination.

For instance, while I might refuse to sell Coke, I wouldn't refuse to sell Pepsi to someone who only wants Coke.

A baker that refuses to sell homosexually-oriented products isn't refusing to sell heterosexually-oriented products to homosexuals. To refuse that would cross the line between product discrimination and person discrimination.

If you refuse to sell rainbow colored lollipops because you despise homosexuality, that's discrimination through product selection, but the moment you refuse to sell normal-colored lollipops to homosexuals, that's discrimination that's much more impermissible.

That said, you can absolutely refuse to sell black Santa Claus figurines because you dislike blacks. That's discrimination (again), but (and please do, correct me if I'm mistaken), it's not a legal violation, yet the moment you refuse to sell what you do carry to someone based on the very same reason you don't sell that product (hence, once you refuse to sell to people you dislike), you most certainly are in violation of the law.

It doesn't matter how much you might despise disgusting GOP fascists, you are free to discriminate, but the degree of permissible discrimation hangs in the balance. How would you do that? If you select products they want and refuse to sell them, that might work, but the moment you refuse to sell them what you otherwise do sell, that's person discrimation.