The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[dbzfan7]

I don't like getting into politics but.....the president doesn't even know basic history.....I just don't...even......

[KHCast]

I honestly can’t help but annoyingly laugh at this point. I mean never thought I’d seriously say it feels like we’re back in pre-civil rights era, but here we are. At the same time though can I really be surprised a place like Tennessee would have shit like this going? Doesn’t help it’s pride month, so obviously more homophobia will happen, but still. And why are articles citing that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakers right do discriminate when people have told me that’s not at all what they ruled, and it was more about his treatment vs views and political beliefs? 

[Patticus]

That sign's like five years old, man, don't believe the idiots who posted it up trying to stir shit.

Pence's slobbering servility on full display. Trump's... what the hell is he even doing anyway?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

13 hours ago, KHCast said:

I honestly can’t help but annoyingly laugh at this point. I mean never thought I’d seriously say it feels like we’re back in pre-civil rights era, but here we are. At the same time though can I really be surprised a place like Tennessee would have shit like this going?

I wouldn’t really say that given that pre-civil rights era was far more extreme and wrong-doers couldn’t be hurt as easily back then as they could now.

Yeah, there’s still a mess of things and some are getting away with blatantly wrong acts. But today’s era, most pre-civil rights level of bigotry will eventually swing right back and bite you in the ass. Hard.

[KHCast]

6 hours ago, Patticus said:

That sign's like five years old, man, don't believe the idiots who posted it up trying to stir shit.

Pence's slobbering servility on full display. Trump's... what the hell is he even doing anyway?

For real? What is with people doing shit like this? And why is twitter giving this attention?

also what is wrong with this administration?:/

[Meta77]

Um has anyone here actually worked in gov or politics at all. A lot and I mean a lot of people in meetings will put their drinks in the floor next to them. No sure the context here but usually it's to avoid swipes or spillage on table bound mikes.

[KHCast]

So what’re your thoughts on the arguments in support of the baker? Currently a popular one I’m seeing is that he didn’t refuse the couple, but refused to make a special order that was contrary to his religion. And this supposedly applies to anyone not just the gay couple.(and apparently I am hearing the SCOTUS did side with him on this issue. Again, I thought this was simply on his treatment, but apparently it’s not?).

So a public business, offering public services, is picking and choosing who he’ll allow to use certain public services based on religious ground? That...still sounds like discrimination. So why is he in a public business?

im also hearing he’s also refused divorced themes cakes(not seeing any sources for this.)as if this supports his ground of refusal, but again, this “special custom service” is still a public service you’re advertising to the public. Doesn’t matter if you’ve turned others away from the device based on religious grounds, you’re secluding groups from certain benefits you offer based on factors that don’t honestly matter or reflect on your own beliefs. You making a gay wedding cake or divorce cake or hell a fornication cake doesn’t infringe on your beliefs at all and is simply you upholding to your word to serve the public. You’re not being forced to accept these views or support them by decorating a fucking cake, your religious freedoms and rights aren’t being stepped on at all. Otherwise, we may as well allow people to not offer special services like this to blacks either as some may believe blacks are evil according to their religion so they don’t wanna make a BLM cake or black pride cake. Oh wait, then that’d be labeled discrimination properly  

[Tornado]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

and apparently I am hearing the SCOTUS did side with him on this issue. Again , I thought this was simply on his treatment, but apparently it’s not ) .

You heard wrong. Regardless of what the conservative judges added after the fact, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion; and the two dissenting judges also quoted it. It has also been reiterated multiple times since that had the Civil Rights Commission not unloaded on the guy during his appeal that they would not have ruled for him.

 

 

They did not rule in favor of religion-justified discrimination. Literally every article I've seen from an actual news outlet has gone out of its way to point that out, just like Kennedy did himself when he wrote the fucking thing. There's no need to keep acting like they did to try and force a discussion about how discrimination is bad, mmmkay?

[KHCast]

I have no idea then why social media is having an outrage on this ruling and why conservatives are using it to argue why he’s in the right regarding refusing to make the cake.

also I wasn’t, hence why I even brought up why I thought the ruling was said to be on what you originally stated, so you can stop with that sarcastic assumption. Stop making this out like I’m stirring shit to create some false agenda. 

[Tornado]

Because people on social media are fucking stupid. Neo-Cons are self-serving hypocrites. These things are not news.

 

 

Why are you trusting what they say over the people who actually wrote the court opinions or the actual news agencies that reported them?

[KHCast]

3 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Because people on social media are fucking stupid. Neo-Cons are self-serving hypocrites. These things are not news.

 

 

Why are you trusting what they say over the people who wrote the court opinions or the actual news agencies that reported them?

I wasn’t fucking trusting them. I’m fine with being corrected and wrong in this instance, however I’m hearing personally multiple different stories on how this ruling is being perceived, even news articles using bait titles to make it out to be what it isn’t. I’m not spewing shit to push an agenda as literally that bit has barely anything to even do with 90 fucking percent of my post. If I seriously was wanting to make out like I’m pushing an agenda with that, that would be the highlight of the post, not some small bit towards the end. 

[Tornado]

Get your news from someplace other than tumblr then.

[KHCast]

5 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Get your news from someplace other than tumblr then.

It’s cute you still act like I’m even on tumblr but I’ll let you continue this narrative that I’m a sjw blue haired person that’s maliciously spreading false agendas for my own purpose and am not open to being wrong.

Now, if you wanna actually give a worthwhile response to the actual point and not make something out of nothing, and use it to “prove” I’m forcing a false narrative, that’d be swell

[Tornado]

I don't think there's any malicious intent at all with how consistently uninformed you are about things that you are ranting about. You just look for things to make you mad, and as soon as that hurdle has been cleared you jump in with both feet.  That just so happens to include things like Trump putting a water bottle on the floor.

 

Though the fact that you freak the fuck out literally every God damned time, including three times on the past two pages of this thread, that you're corrected on anything certainly suggests that you're not open to being wrong.

[KHCast]

13 minutes ago, Tornado said:

I don't think there's any malicious intent at all with how consistently uninformed you are about things that you are ranting about. Though the fact that you freak the fuck out literally every God damned time, including three times on the past two pages of this thread, that you're corrected on anything certainly suggests that you're not open to being wrong.

I’m fine with being wrong and being called out, as I at first gave a decent response to your answer here,(didn’t freak out lol) but notice how you usually add in some witty sarcasm and false assumption about me every time you do it. What was that thing about being a dick I was saying before? Pretty sure that applies here. Maybe try not doing that and simply correcting people, I’m sure you’ll see a difference in response idk. And if it really helps, there, I added a question mark to that bit to give it a more “open to correction” angle.

also im not even the fucking one that posted about the water bottle, that was @Patticus so it’s clear you’re attributing whatever to me at this point to put you above me. Classy.

Also acting like I need to actually look for things to get me mad when discrimination and complacency and lack of outrage at the important things are pretty common, but okay

[Sean]

Oh my god KHCast, knock it off. We're done putting up with your meltdowns the moment Tornado or someone corrects you or calls you out on your reactionary fits of anger, so here: take this strike and chill the fuck out. And while I'm not suspending you I strongly urge you step away from this topic for a while before you can learn to use it for an actual platform of discussion and not double down the moment you're told you are wrong and lay off the dripping resentment toward him.

Also we're not continuing this.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Sean

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

So what’re your thoughts on the arguments in support of the baker? Currently a popular one I’m seeing is that he didn’t refuse the couple, but refused to make a special order that was contrary to his religion. And this supposedly applies to anyone not just the gay couple.

So a public business, offering public services, is picking and choosing who he’ll allow to use certain public services based on religious ground? That...still sounds like discrimination. So why is he in a public business?

im also hearing he’s also refused divorced themes cakes(not seeing any sources for this.)as if this supports his ground of refusal, but again, this “special custom service” is still a public service you’re advertising to the public. Doesn’t matter if you’ve turned others away from the device based on religious grounds, you’re secluding groups from certain benefits you offer based on factors that don’t honestly matter or reflect on your own beliefs. You making a gay wedding cake or divorce cake or hell a fornication cake doesn’t infringe on your beliefs at all and is simply you upholding to your word to serve the public. You’re not being forced to accept these views or support them by decorating a fucking cake, your religious freedoms and rights aren’t being stepped on at all. Otherwise, we may as well allow people to not offer special services like this to blacks either as some may believe blacks are evil according to their religion so they don’t wanna make a BLM cake or black pride cake. Oh wait, then that’d be labeled discrimination properly

I’m requoting this to bring the discussion BACK here. The actual discussion point. The “questionable” bit is removed as to keep in on this discussion regarding the baker, as that IS a hot topic currently being discussed in the political spectrum atm. I’d love to hear people’s thoughts opposing or for the baker tbh. 

[Celestia]

I just want to add there's a big difference between pointing out that some info is factually wrong and actually disagreeing with your own stance on the matter. If you actually didn't mean to say "THIS THING PEOPLE ARE SAYING ONLINE MUST BE TRUE, DISCUSS."--and hell, I'm sort of willing to believe that--then there really shouldn't be a problem with someone clarifying a point.

This shit is important, so getting the facts right is even more important.

58 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I’m requoting this to bring the discussion BACK here. The actual discussion point. The “questionable” bit is removed as to keep in on this discussion regarding the baker, as that IS a hot topic currently being discussed in the political spectrum atm. I’d love to hear people’s thoughts opposing or for the baker tbh. 

Even though the ruling didn't really mean anyone was actually siding with the guy, I've seen some politicians take the opportunity to argue in favour of, for example, re-banning gay marriage, etc. To be frank they would be campaigning for that sort of thing anyway, but sure, it kinda sucks that they feel emboldened.

Now 1) what else is there to say and 2) who's going to argue with you (or me)? It'd absolutely be worth engaging with the opposition if there was any, but...I can count the number of openly homophobic members that would bother to come into threads to argue about it on one hand.

That's not to say there's no value in casually discussing smaller events, but this one seems pretty clear cut to me. If more actually does come of it then that's something, but so far (from what I've seen) not much has happened. I get that you want to argue with people, that's not a bad thing I guess, but over this of all things?

[KHCast]

I guess the bigger argument/question being had over this is I can see is 1. Where does religious right play a role and

2. Should it have any kind of role if any in a business/political career?

 

Given the importance of religious freedom in America, I guess I can understand why it can be a confusing mess to some, to the point this argument is constantly revived. However people also need to realize that church and state are meant to be separate, and we have civil rights laws in act which protect people from any kind of discrimination in businesses. (Though I’ve been told a few times that sexuality isn’t a protected group under that which I’m not sure if that is true?)

[RedFox99]

Well, a lot people don't want to violate their conscience, even if they may have to in their jobs.

[KHCast]

Your conscience isn’t being violated though as you’re not participating in said “sinful” acts. There are Mormons that work at bars or serve alcohol in their restaurants and they’re not violating anything. Is it moreso the mindset of “I’m enabling them to continue their sinful ways?” if you allow it and do what they request?

[RedFox99]

7 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Your conscience isn’t being violated though as you’re not participating in said “sinful” acts. There are Mormons that work at bars or serve alcohol in their restaurants and they’re not violating anything. Is it moreso the mindset of “I’m enabling them to continue their sinful ways?” if you allow it and do what they request?

Well, it can be different for everyone. Just because someone's comfortable working in a bar doesn't mean that someone is comfortable doing the same. 

[KHCast]

True, but that person isn’t working at a public restaurant serving alcohol and then refusing to serve certain people because they don’t believe in their lifestyle. That’s the point. If you’re not comfortable serving everyone equally, and offering the same benefits and services, don’t open a public business. To bring up Mormons again, it’d be like denying to make a “congrats on your millionth beer!” Cake because you don’t believe personally in drinking alcohol because your religion is against it. Now if you’re a business working under your church, go crazy with your discrimination I guess, but if you’re not private, can’t have your cake and eat.(heh)

[RedFox99]

15 minutes ago, KHCast said:

go crazy with your discrimination I guess, but if you’re not private, can’t have your cake and eat.(heh)

I guess that's a fair argument. 

[KHCast]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/special-place-hell-trump-trudeau-navarro-635100

umm...wat? This guy seems a tad over aggressive at Trudeau.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/15/594140026/fema-drops-climate-change-from-its-strategic-plan?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

climate change/global warming is being dropped by FEMA

 

Also can’t find a source but can anyone confirm or deny if Trump is threatening to pull out of all trade deals with our closest allies and claiming we need to be closer with Russia?