Jump to content
Tornado

The General 'Murican Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, SSF1991 said:

Children getting ripped apart from families and getting slaughtered in schools.

But she said a word. Clearly more "evil".

Sigh fucking Republicans.

But without guns we won't get anymore GTA games. Its part of the american culture and smaller government. If they don't have smaller governments its gonna be more like socialist europe where neo marxist globalist trade deal is the way of life, so they can shut your platform more easier. In USA however you have freedom of consequences as in Europe you don't, so if anything they can say it and get group of people but in Europe you probably are gonna go to a bar and say it just because its tempting because they dont try to reason with you and you just don't like it and wanna say anything. So you just do it out of spite to annoy them.

Either case you get my point. USA gets it out on a more healthy level, with big government they tend to become more authoritarian on speech on what is allowed on a selective form of ultimate level. USA is much more spread where everyone can have an opinion. And whoever wins on best interests is the winner and not the elite that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading something a decade or so ago that theorized that the President probably technically had the ability to pardon himself; but then postulated that no one (not even Nixon/Ford) had ever dared do anything approaching it because it would be essentially be admitting guilt to try a defense that probably wouldn't clear the Constitutional scrutiny of the inevitable months-long Supreme Court case (and even if it ultimately did, Congress would start impeachment proceedings purely for spite at that point), and that no administration had ever been so openly corrupt as to actually need to seriously consider it an option. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump didn't recognize either of these things.



Comes off like the term limit hole in the Constitution, where the rules were "understood" by most involved and not seriously tested right up until someone was elected president four times in a row.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180604

this is some grade A bullshit. Fuck this. A business open to public shouldn’t get to discriminate and refuse service to people based on your beliefs. This shouldn’t be hard. Unless you’re a church discrimination against a group isn’t actually imo lawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked that it even took this long for this ruling to be misconstrued as something it wasn't by someone too outraged to even read the thing that made them mad.

 

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

A business open to public shouldn’t get to discriminate and refuse service to people based on your beliefs.

That's not what this case decided. For fuck's sake, read the first two paragraphs of the article you linked.

Quote

This shouldn’t be hard.

It shouldn't, but since that's not what the case decided I guess it is for some people.

Quote

Unless you’re a church discrimination against a group isn’t actually imo lawful.

Which would hold more water if gay marriage wasn't still illegal in Colorado at the time, confusing court rulings on the issue hadn't already recently taken place and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission hadn't decided to make an example of the guy far and beyond any reasonable response to an issue that the same government still discriminated against by law.

 

30 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I’m also worried about the doors and loopholes this can potentially open now for lawmakers, the gop, and those prone to pushing for discrimination 

So, uh, how many doors and loopholes can a case that was essentially about the treatment of the guy when he made his first appeal will this case bring about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tornado said:

Comes off like the term limit hole in the Constitution, where the rules were "understood" by most involved and not seriously tested right up until someone was elected president four times in a row.

Why are term limits even necessary, anyway? The problems that they supposedly solve are, frankly, rarely a problem in practice in any representative democracy. If a president is popular enough to be re-elected more than once, well, surely they're considered to be doing a good enough job, and at some point the "it's time for change" factor kicks in and someone else gets in instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Candescence said:

Why are term limits even necessary, anyway? The problems that they supposedly solve are, frankly, rarely a problem in practice in any representative democracy.

Well, you say that, but then you have Trump's good buddy in Russia taking steps to make himself president for life and Trump himself saying he can just pardon himself for any crimes. It took until FDR that the specific circumstances popped up where someone could be charismatic enough and cognizant enough of the power of the position and the situation would present itself that the incumbent president could just steamroll election after election until he died.

 

 

That's the fear that came about after FDR which generally hadn't been thought about (as no person attempting a third term had ever been popular enough to have a feasible shot): That a naturally charismatic person could assume the power of the post (which generally does dramatically override that of the other two branches, especially when Congress happily signs it away like it did in 2001) and just... keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First two paragraphs:

The U.S. Supreme Court dodged a major ruling on the question of whether business owners can refuse services to gay individuals based on their religious objections.

In a case brought by a Colorado baker, the court ruled by a 7-2 vote that he did not get a fair hearing on his complaint because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated a hostility to religion in its treatment of his case.”

it really shouldn’t be needed to be looked at again when civil rights liberties in the case of discrimination based on “religious grounds” override this more times than none. I find it incredibly stupid this happened because of a reason like being made during a time when gay rights, specifically marriage, were not recognized, as by those words, they’d just need to counter the ruling based on today’s speech and laws after if he won, making this time wasted and pointless. It just seems incredibly bullshit of a defense

2 hours ago, Tornado said:

So, uh, how many doors and loopholes can a case that was essentially about the treatment of the guy when he made his first appeal will this case bring about?

Should the cake case be re looked at and found in his favor, quite a few, even if at the moment not many. Hence why I said potentially. (though I’m sure there’ll be people that want their cases re looked at if at the time they were made when gay marriage was not legal.”

 

either way it’s looked at, the court was still ruled in the discriminators favor, which is still, fairly, something to be annoyed at. But sure, I’m being an unreasonable gay man for being upset at a petty ass debate that shouldn’t have to be debated this long as it’s clearly discrimination if the homophobe wins. It undermines civil rights laws should he win, and opens up doors for further discrimination to be enacted under the guise of “religious protections”. It’s equally annoying to see the court rule in favor of re looking at this case as it gives more time and worry to something everyone in here can probably agree is bullshit in disguise. (For the record, I don’t see where I made up anything or made it into something it’s not. This IS a bs ruling imo, and i don’t see where I stated that I was upset at them ruling he was right and saying it’s okag to discriminate. I explained the simplicity of civil rights overriding religious rights hence “A business open to public shouldn’t get to discriminate and refuse service”. That wasn’t me explaining their ruling as if they ruled in favor of his belief...but no surprise you’d be the one to try and make me look like someone jumping to conclusions and try and counter in a snarky fashion order to look like the smart one. I don’t care if you’re a mod and I’m in dangerous territory by saying this stuff, but yeah, I’m not gonna be made out to look like in saying shit I’m not)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Well, you say that, but then you have Trump's good buddy in Russia taking steps to make himself president for life and Trump himself saying he can just pardon himself for any crimes. It took until FDR that the specific circumstances popped up where someone could be charismatic enough and cognizant enough of the power of the position and the situation would present itself that the incumbent president could just steamroll election after election until he died.

 

 

That's the fear that came about after FDR which generally hadn't been thought about (as no person attempting a third term had ever been popular enough to have a feasible shot): That a naturally charismatic person could assume the power of the post (which generally does dramatically override that of the other two branches, especially when Congress happily signs it away like it did in 2001) and just... keep it.

You make a good point with Putin, but... Russia is something of an outlier, as it doesn't have any kind of long-term democratic tradition (post-Soviet Russia is still quite young), and the post-Soviet Russian Federation didn't start off very well with incompetent presidents and rampant crony capitalism. There's still a lot of Russians who are effectively traumatised by the fall of the Soviet Union and how Russia 'lost' to the west (especially in how the union went out with a whimper rather than a bang), and Putin still offers a return to those "glory days" - they don't give a shit about Putin shitting over civil rights as long as they can give a big fuck you to the west.

It's similar to how the Chinese will tolerate the rule of the Chinese Communist Party since they don't have any kind of longstanding previous democratic tradition, and the CCP is currently delivering economic prosperity... Well, until the house of cards that is China's economy eventually collapses, but that's another topic entirely.

More mature democracies don't have issues with long-serving leaders. I mean, Robert Menzies was PM of Australia for a grand total of 19 years (six three-year terms in office) and democracy didn't crash and burn over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's healthy for politicians and the democratic process for leaders to have a limit on their terms. Even US Presidents I like, such as FDR, started to lose their fire towards the end of their career (his career is remembered more fondly due to his renewed fire with WW2 and Pearl Harbour, but his career was waning before then). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Candescence said:

You make a good point with Putin, but... Russia is something of an outlier, as it doesn't have any kind of long-term democratic tradition (post-Soviet Russia is still quite young), and the post-Soviet Russian Federation didn't start off very well with incompetent presidents and rampant crony capitalism. There's still a lot of Russians who are effectively traumatised by the fall of the Soviet Union and how Russia 'lost' to the west (especially in how the union went out with a whimper rather than a bang), and Putin still offers a return to those "glory days" - they don't give a shit about Putin shitting over civil rights as long as they can give a big fuck you to the west.

It's similar to how the Chinese will tolerate the rule of the Chinese Communist Party since they don't have any kind of longstanding previous democratic tradition, and the CCP is currently delivering economic prosperity... Well, until the house of cards that is China's economy eventually collapses, but that's another topic entirely.

More mature democracies don't have issues with long-serving leaders. I mean, Robert Menzies was PM of Australia for a grand total of 19 years (six three-year terms in office) and democracy didn't crash and burn over here.

I don’t really think that eliminates the risk of what Tornado was reinforcing in favor if term limits tho.

Let’s put it another way—if we didn’t have term limits, people like Trump would have an easier time staying in office much longer, or trying to find ways to get back into power...kinda like what Putin did if I recall correctly.

And given how the more mature democracy of the US was able to elect someone like Trump in the first place, it was good foresight to put a limit on that when FDR tried to stay in office past the tradition that George Washington established. And given the kind of damage the wrong president can do, it just make it seem more sensible in hindsight.

Granted, I don’t think anyone would really have that much of a problem with long standing leaders in office if they were good at it, but that carries risk that I’m sure Congress saw ahead of time that they would rather not take a gamble with. A shame we don’t have such limits for our Congress given how some can be corrupt and self-serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump honestly highlights a bigger problem than term limits - the flaws in the electoral college system and flaws in the FPTP voting system in general. A President should not be able to win power without winning the popular vote, but even replacing FPTP with preferential voting (which Australia uses) would also prevent "wasted votes" in general and allow more parties to be viable rather than the clusterfuck that is the monoliths that are the Democrats and the GOP. For instance, Australia has the strongest Greens party on the planet due to preferential voting enabling more party diversity and more moderate Green candidates rather than the party being nothing but extremists.

The need for term limits are, arguably, symptoms of larger constitutional and electoral issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prime Ministers don't have the amount of authority and power that a US president does in any country that I'm aware of, though. The President has to eventually answer to Congress and the courts, sure, but he isn't put in power by them.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

The U.S. Supreme Court dodged a major ruling on the question of whether business owners can refuse services to gay individuals based on their religious objections.

In a case brought by a Colorado baker, the court ruled by a 7-2 vote that he did not get a fair hearing on his complaint because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated a hostility to religion in its treatment of his case.

Yes, those are the ones...

Quote

it really shouldn’t be needed to be looked at again when civil rights liberties in the case of discrimination based on “religious grounds” override this more times than none.

Swing and a miss. I'm sorry you're not interested in hearing Supreme Court rulings; or understand their hierarchy in the federal court system. If this case had actually been a ruling on that issue, nothing would "override" it.

Quote

I find it incredibly stupid this happened because of a reason like being made during a time when gay rights, specifically marriage, were not recognized, as by those words, they’d just need to counter the ruling based on today’s speech and laws after if he won, making this time wasted and pointless.

No they wouldn't. That's not how the court system works. That's not even fucking how charging someone for a crime works works. This case is a direct continuation of something being argued from 2012. That you would like the guy to go away just because same sex marriage is legal now doesn't mean his claims from back then are null and void.

Quote

 It just seems incredibly bullshit of a defense

You should keep repeating that. It might take.

Quote

either way it’s looked at, the court was still ruled in the discriminators favor, which is still, fairly, something to be annoyed at.

Not when you don't know anything beyond the headline of the article and react on this forum as per usual. But hey, at least you didn't make a thread about it this time; and at least this actually happened.

Quote

But sure, I’m being an unreasonable gay man for being upset at a petty ass debate that shouldn’t have to be debated this long as it’s clearly discrimination if the homophobe wins.

It's not a "petty ass debate." It's what the fucking case was about. For once in this topic actually learn the background of what you're posting about instead of the headline you read and made your post in response to before continuing to make a fool of yourself.

 

 

The guy was asked to make a wedding cake. He said he couldn't/wouldn't (the distinction of the two depending on the amount of artistic expression required by his profession as interpreted by the courts) do so because it was against his beliefs when he found the couple asking were gay and that was against his religious beliefs and not recognized by Colorado law of the time. He still said that he would make and sell them anything else in his shop to their liking; and compared to the couple in the bakery in Oregon seemed like a perfectly amicable guy. They left, got a cake somewhere else and then contacted the Colorado Civil Rights Board when they learned he might have broken the law.

The Colorado Civil Rights Board fucking made an example out of him. They demanded the bakery make a cake for same sex couples in the future. They demanded every employee in the business complete a training program approved by the Colorado Civil Rights Board to show that they understood that what he did was wrong and what to do in the future. They demanded that he keep track of every person he turned away from his business with justification for doing so. They demanded he provide quarterly reports for two years to show he was in compliance with all of the above. When he went to his appeal trial, they compared his religious views in court (which the original judge had determined he had held for nearly four decades and were fundamental to his person, and not just a GOD HATES FAGS response to this couple daring to ask him for a service when GOD so obviously HATES FAGS as THE BIBLE SAYS; again as a point of comparison against the Oregon bakery) to the justifications used to carry out the Holocaust and perpetuate slavery. They fucking railroaded him from the start, and dismissed out of hand any attempt he made to defend his view including previous rulings they had been involved with; and they did it all as part of a government that was at the time too fucking spineless to legally recognize what the baker had a problem with in the first place.

His inability to get a fair trial in the appeals system was the case. The Supreme Court ruling on that solely was not my expectation for its outcome because they very easily could have made a ruling encompassing the whole concept of religious freedom of expression vs sexual discrimination:

On 3/10/2018 at 6:00 PM, Tornado said:

And we'll know that answer for sure when the Supreme Court case concerning the other bakery is decided on sometime in the summer. 

But here we are.

Quote

It undermines civil rights laws should he win, and opens up doors for further discrimination to be enacted under the guise of “religious protections”.

No it doesn't. Read the first two paragraphs of the article again. You helpfully quoted them above. "The U.S. Supreme Court dodged a major ruling on the question of whether business owners can refuse services to gay individuals based on their religious objections." Right there in the fucking first sentence of the article. They ruled against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for not giving the guy a fair attempted to argue his case for why his religious objection overruled anti-discrimination laws. They deliberately did not make a judgement on whether or not his rights overruled those of the people he serves in his community. Even in the conclusions the justices deliberately noted that the scope of the ruling was very narrow (essentially, that state appeals processes for discrimination cases need to be transparent, consistent and neutral) and deliberately noted that if the Colorado Civil Rights Board hadn't been a big bag of dickhead with the guy when he pursued the appeals system they put in place the court would have been inclined to agree with their claim against him.

Not every Supreme Court case ruling, even those on hot button issues, are humongous precedent-defining marks in history. I'm sorry that the government doesn't just treat poor inner-city gay transgender black women unfairly and that the Supreme Court was instead dealing with this guy's case; but occasionally right-wing middle class deeply-religious business-owning men are given the short end of the stick too.

Quote

It’s equally annoying to see the court rule in favor of re looking at this case as it gives more time and worry to something everyone in here can probably agree is bullshit in disguise.

Repeating something is "bullshit" over and over does not make it a tautology.

Quote

For the record, I don’t see where I made up anything or made it into something it’s not

So your tirade about how a business shouldn't get to discriminate wasn't really relevant, but were more idle musings. Gotcha.

 

Quote

That wasn’t me explaining their ruling as if they ruled in favor of his belief...

3 hours ago, KHCast said:

I’m also worried about the doors and loopholes this can potentially open now for lawmakers, the gop, and those prone to pushing for discrimination  

So you don't even read your own posts. Because talk about doors and loopholes and pro-homophobe GOP members certainly heavily suggests the concept that "they ruled in favor of his belief."

 

Quote

but no surprise you’d be the one to try and make me look like someone jumping to conclusions and try and counter in a snarky fashion order to look like the smart one.

I don't need to even try.

Untitled-1.png.9e471ffb8e3b389dce1e552730ec53dd.png

In fact, you're so predictable with how you respond to these sort of things that I never really have. You still don't actually know the background of this case that I've alluded to months ago in this thread and that you are now throwing a fit about the ruling of; so why would I need to try and paint anything on you myself?

 

 

 

One more thing:

Quote

I don’t care if you’re a mod and I’m in dangerous territory by saying this stuff, but yeah, I’m not gonna be made out to look like in saying shit I’m not)

You can stop acting like I go around banning everyone who disagrees with me politically any fucking time now. I didn't take any actual action against Volphied, and he was even more obnoxious than you are in these threads. It would certainly be more conducive for what you're trying to do in this forum if you just fucked off to tumblr instead, but I'm not going to be the one to force your hand on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tornado said:

So your tirade about how a business shouldn't get to discriminate wasn't really relevant, but were more idle musings. Gotcha.

More a explanation as to how it’s not difficult to have a non-biased view while still acknowledging how religious rights do not trump civil liberties, but okay.

But as for the rest of your post and attack at me, I’ll just ignore that as it’s pretty clear the direction that’ll go. It’s clear I also dislike you incredibly, more than anyone on here, and so this little assholish post of yours especially cements that and allows me to just not really give your posts much thought as now I know you do that to me. Was I perhaps wrong or caught up in emotion, maybe, but other mods and members aren’t at least massive asswads that need to be aggressive and sarcastic when correcting someone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To move on as this isn’t the time or place to be going into this, some interesting news:

http://usahealthtimes.com/2018/04/21/cancer-institute-finally-admits-marijuana-kills-cancer/

weed can kinda cure cancer. Well, it’s part of the solution as they put it. Most of the studies have been from experiments on mice, but they did notice there are potential benefits, like tumor reduction. Definitely will, should these studies also apply to humans, help those pushing weed legalization across all boards 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hid a post by @Plasme going off the subject of the thread to criticize this board's moderation style. If you have a problem with the way moderators handle things, do not post and go away from the subject of the thread to complain about it. Instead, PM an administrator (or the moderator if you'd prefer to address them first). It's just not the proper time and place, and risks derailing the thread on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It’s clear I also dislike you incredibly, more than anyone on here, and so this little assholish post of yours especially cements that and allows me to just not really give your posts much thought

I literally don't think I'd be able to note the difference between you deliberately not caring what I say and you being too caught up in how mad a news headline got you that you don't care what anyone tells you to the contrary.

Quote

Was I perhaps wrong or caught up in emotion, maybe

No, you were. I outlined it above in detail. You didn't understand the judicial process of Supreme Court cases. You didn't understand what this court case was about. You didn't understand what the scope of the ruling was or that it was deliberately kept inline with the case instead of establishing precedent for the overriding issue. You didn't know why the Supreme Court even bothered to hear the case. You saw a headline on a website, you constructed a narrative to go along with it that the ruling went out of its way to not acknowledge, then you presented it in this thread so fast that you didn't even read the opening sentences of the link you provided. It's not even a stretch to assume this is the process you take on these issues at this point; since the thread about Trump's administration personally selling personal information to private companies is still on this forum.

Quote

but other mods and members aren’t at least massive asswads that need to be aggressive and sarcastic when correcting someone 

Other members may not have as much of an issue with you repeatedly spreading what essentially amount to convenient lies on this forum because you think people will agree with the sentiment behind them enough that who cares if any of the facts behind it are accurate. Let me be clear: Trump hasn't done a single thing in two years that I haven't found to be a complete joke. It was a complete joke that he was elected. It was a complete joke that neither party could field any opposition to him. It was a complete joke that he only fucking ran because 2013 was a bad year for him (made fun of at a correspondence dinner, made fun of by political talk show hosts, told he couldn't buy a football team). And his ramping up his policy in the past 6 months to try and bury negative press of his election fraud investigation has made it inconceivably even worse. But I will not ever be so jaded by what happens in this country that I will take the first article I see on the internet on a topic concerning the federal government at complete face value and rush off to tell everyone about it.

 

Though, since in another thread just a couple days you misconstrued a point I've frequently expressed in the past about internet witch hunts as being proof that I need to stay out of political threads you frequent/create because I don't contribute enough to the outrage circle jerking you're presumably angling for (even though I was not responding to any sentiment expressed by anyone in that thread, nevermind responding to you directly), I'm perfectly comfortable with my online presence even if you're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your asshole attitude actually isn’t just limited to these topics, but in general whenever I see you post anywhere in reply to a member you disagree with. You seem hellbent on derailing this when you could, oh I don’t know, use that pm feature I see you mods rave on about. I already attempted moved on from the discussion, and get back on topic, at this point it’s clear you’re still replying on here vs in a pm because you can.

at this point yes, I’ll admit I misinterpreted things a few times. I’ve let emotions get to me. That I’ll apologize for and work to mitigate. But I’m not gonna apologize to you specifically or kiss your ass as your attitude is unneeded in these situations and egotistical. 

19 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Other members may not have as much of an issue with you repeatedly spreading what essentially amount to convenient lies on this forum because you think people will agree with the sentiment behind them enough that who cares if any of the facts behind it are accurate

I also love how you made that bit into something entirely it’s not. I specifically say I’ve been called out by other mods or members for being wrong. I just said they aren’t a dick about it. You made it into me saying “other mods and members are okay with what I post” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.