She should be disbarred for corruption.
To be fair, we don't know what transpired at that lecture. It may be exactly as she says, or it might not. It does seem a little implausible that a relatively benign question politely asked at the appropriate time would stir up so much emotion in so many people, I can't help but think there must have been more to it. But with the information provided in this story, all I really know for sure is she made a room full of people upset and was forcibly ejected.
Uh, if Trump can fire the guy, he can fire the guy. I mean, he can't come into your burger joint and fire your fry cook, he doesn't work for him. It's not like he can fire anyone he wants, but he can fire Sondland apparently, so whatever, it's his choice.
Well, there is definitely a systemic racism problem in America, and he's right that it impacts many businesses and institutions. I mean, it's provably true, race is an officially sanctioned consideration when hiring decisions are made within business, government and education. When students apply for placement at a university, there are different admission standards for different ethnicities. I mean, it's blatant racial discrimination, truly, officially, systemic racial discrimination.
Call me old fashioned, but I think if you have the best marks you should be at the top of the list for admission to the best schools, period. Your race and gender should not be considerations, that's unfair, you didn't choose that. I think one of the solutions to the problem of systemic racism at universities would be to make them blind to the identity of prospective students when choosing who to admit. It should be based solely on merit. That's true justice.
And when it comes to hiring, if you want to hire second best because you like their skin tone, that's your loss and your competitor's gain. I don't think the government should have the right to tell you who to hire.
I would so love to see crazy Joe debate Trump.
Article 3 of the US Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
From Encyclopedia Britannica: The Cold War
"By 1948 the Soviets had installed left-wing governments in the countries of eastern Europe that had been liberated by the Red Army. The Americans and the British feared the permanent Soviet domination of eastern Europe and the threat of Soviet-influenced communist parties coming to power in the democracies of western Europe. The Soviets, on the other hand, were determined to maintain control of eastern Europe in order to safeguard against any possible renewed threat from Germany, and they were intent on spreading communism worldwide, largely for ideological reasons. https://www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War
Whether socialist parties in the US are a violation of the Constitution depends on whether you believe America is still at war with communism. Clearly the cold war was a struggle over that exact issue: far left parties taking control of the West, and to think it ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union might be naive considering communism is in control of the heart of global manufacturing and the most populous nation on earth. Clearly communism is a very powerful force in the world right now, to think it doesn't want to spread to America is unrealistic. Considering the horrors perpetrated around the world by communist governments against their own citizens, allowing communism to gain control of America would be extremely dangerous, to put it mildly.
So, I think he's basically right, he has the gist of the situation right, whether he's technically, legally right is less certain. But it would require an act of Congress, and it's controlled by the forces of global communism, or maybe just the Dems, either way, they don't seem interested in opposing socialism, so for the time being at least, it won't happen.
"He's a human being"
What kind of standard is that? The worst people in history have all been human beings.
It's not that he's gay, although I don't approve of that behavior, it's that he's a hypocrite: he calls himself a Christian, yet openly defies the precepts of the faith. When the Ten Commandments condemns taking the name of the Lord in vain, I think that's the sort of thing God is referring to. He defiles the name of God by claiming to be following God while while he defiles himself with another man. The Law is clear, he's not just a sodomite, he's a heretic and a hypocrite. Not great qualities in a leader if you ask me.
Now, by all means I think he should be free to live as he wishes, providing he's not harming others, doing the right thing isn't virtuous if you're forced to do it, but that inconsistency of his is really deep hypocrisy. Huge red flag.
If it was a good deal, the deal of the century, it would, by definition, have to be acceptable to all parties, wouldn't it? I mean, I can draw up a deal for you to sell me your house for $1, that's a great deal, for me, but I don't think you'd want to sign, so it's not actually a deal. The fact is, like it or not, there are 3 faiths who hold that city sacred, any deal will have to be acceptable to all sides or it's not a deal.
Here's a little reality check about climate change.
1 The climate has always been changing, I've seen a lot of climate graphs and not one of them has been a flat line, if it's not getting colder it's getting warmer. Historically warm periods have been the good times, the real danger comes from ice ages.
2 We know that deforestation makes the climate hotter and dryer. Studies show that when forest is cleared and converted to agricultural land, about 200 to 400% more heat enters the atmosphere and only about 1/6th as much moisture. It is estimated that over half the mature forest on earth is gone.
3 Carbon dioxide makes up about 4/100ths of 1% of the atmosphere, 0.04% or 400ppm. It is a trace element. To ignore the fact that half the forest is gone, releasing up to 400% more heat into the atmosphere in those areas, and instead to focus on a trace element of the atmosphere seems dishonest, but it's much more profitable to tax CO2 than it is to end deforestation, so I think it's fair to say it's a convenient lie.
They didn't have precision guided bombs in the 1940s, so if they were to bomb a prison camp it's highly predictable that they'd kill the prisoners.