US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3595

Responding to criticisms over his state's controversial new law that voids cities' anti-discrimination rules protecting members of the LGBT community, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has issued an executive order that "seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination."

The law, HB2, spawned a lawsuit by the ACLU and brought cancellations of high-profile events that were planned to take place in North Carolina – everything from a Bruce Springsteen concert to an expansion by PayPal.

The governor said he is acting "to protect the privacy and equality of all North Carolinians," by both clarifying the law and adding new protections.

"I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina," McCrory said in a video address Tuesday, citing feedback about the bill.

The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is calling McCrory's order "a poor effort to save face," with Acting Executive Director Sarah Preston saying that the governor's actions "fall far short of correcting the damage done" by the bill. She added that legal protections are still lacking, and that "transgender people are still explicitly targeted by being forced to use the wrong restroom."

After the legislation was passed, Attorney General Roy Cooper refused to defend it from any challenges, saying, "House Bill 2 is unconstitutional. Therefore our office will not represent the defendants in this lawsuit nor future lawsuits."

The governor's move comes one day after competing rallies were held over the legislation at the state capitol, with hundreds of demonstrators voicing their support for McCrory and the law and dozens of counter-protesters calling the law a disgrace, according to member station WUNC.

On April 13 2016 04:47 Soap wrote:
In Latin America, totalitarianism was entirely conservative. It's more about spheres of influence during the Cold War than ideological merits.

On April 13 2016 04:33 Naracs_Duc wrote:


That's not even how the American political positions break down.

On the far far left is perceived as something akin to benevolent totalitarianism--a system where the government provides most if not all the support and resources to its people. On the far far right is something akin to neo-feudalism, an extreme form of anarchism where smaller communities become self run states that does not require federal controls.

In the middle of that are the moderates.

Democrats are to the left of that, republicans are to the right of that--but barely.

Its more accurate to think of it as Moderate, DINO, Moderate Democrat, Fiscal Conservative/Socially Liberal Democrat, Democrat, Left Leaning Democrat, and so on and so forth with communist being far into it, and many other beyond communist past that.

To the right its very similar between neocons, conservatives, GOPs, Tea Party, RINOs, Socially Liberal Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, Reaganites, Christian Right Republicans, Fascists, etc...

America has a very WIDE and very DEEP definition of what counts as liberal and what counts as conservative bred as much by how one perceives the other as much as it is bred by what bills each side passes. When "2nd Amendment Nutjobs" talk about the government taking their guns--its literally because they see the left as being not being very far off from becoming totalitarian regimes. They look at us and think we are the crazy ones.

So its definitely a lot more nuanced than you are pretending it to be with a lot more layers than you are really wanting to accept. And EVEN THEN it still is not relevant to the discussion of taking the experiences of people who come from countries who tested socialist changes more honestly instead of more selectively. To discuss and understand why it goes bad in some places, and why it goes well in others. To not pretend you already know how it will conclude in the US just because you think "It can't happen here in the US." Every country who has been punished by their experiments with social programs thought that "we are different" that the mistakes of others could not possibly happen to them.

It is foolish to only look at the evidence that suites you and not to the evidence available. And trying to shift the discussion to what counts as liberal or conservative is asinine.

On April 13 2016 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:


If you find it foolish I would advise against doing it yourself, considering I'm the one with the international definition of moderate and you're the one who wants to ignore it based on the premise that America has it right against everyone in the world just because.

I didn't name all of those denominations not because I refuse to accept them but because many of them do not constitute a layer in themselves. Notice how I didn't separate democrats either, when I could have. The fact that you can name different groups of republicans and not all of them are as extreme as each other doesn't magically make it so that you reach extreme on the right at the same time as you reach extreme on the left, when you need one layer that barely exists in Bernie and two layers that don't exist at all to reach extreme on the left, and you already are at extreme on the right without even leaving the republican layer (unless you don't think the Tea Party is far right?). It is just plain fascinating to me that you're okay arguing against something so clear.

On April 13 2016 06:00 Naracs_Duc wrote:


I never said that the US has it right. I said that the US is different from Spain and that the US is different from China. That what counts as conservative in spain might be seen as liberal in china and might be seen as moderate in America. For the most part, it doesn't matter what other countries count as liberal or conservative since they're not the ones voting for things in America. So please stop bringing it up.

Here is the core of the conversation and what started it. There are countries who have been successful with more socialist leaning policies and countries who have failed because of socialist leaning policies. As such, if a candidate in America suggests a socialist leaning policy it is important to look at both the failed attempts at socialist policies and the successful implementation of socialist leaning policies--because we can't assume that just because it worked in Sweden means it will work in the US.

Why can't we? Because the US is not Sweden.

Now you coming here and telling me that the EU is more left wing than the US tells us NOTHING about that core argument and is just a smoke screen to allow you to stall without joining the conversation.

On April 13 2016 05:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:


It really depends on who you ask. In america, both Liberals and Conservatives sees the other as wanting a totalitarian state.

Liberals accuse republicans of wanting a police state because of their love of the military
Conservatives accuse democrats of making a big brother state because of their love of big government

Both assume the other side wants a totalitarian regime.

On April 13 2016 06:11 zlefin wrote:
I don't think Ryan would take the nomination if offered it, because he's in a good position where he is. Easier to run for president from there in the future if he wants.
The republicans are gonna crash and burn on the presidency part of this election no matter what, so he's got no reason to be the one burning. The nomination doens't mean much unless you win, and that's not gonna happen. Whereas when he was offered the speakership, that's something that can be given directly.

On April 13 2016 06:33 Jaaaaasper wrote:

Both sides accuse the other of wanting one to fire up their political base. Rhetoric isn't the same thing as actual belief.

On April 13 2016 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:


You've said that your position is one of antifundamentalism, or antiextremism. Bernie is only extreme or fundamentalist when you start from the messed up center that the US has, so by definition, when you oppose him and quote antifundamentalism, you're accepting the american model. You can't have it both ways. Either you consider that the US has it right, and that Bernie is an extremist, in which case you are incorrect as I was demonstrating here, or you consider that Bernie is not an extremist but it's still more dangerous to have him in a system than it is to have republicans, in which case you aren't really against fundamentalism, you're against anything left. Which, I stress again, is a valid position in my book. You just need to know that you have it.

" As such, if a candidate in America suggests a socialist leaning policy it is important to look at both the failed attempts at socialist policies and the successful implementation of socialist leaning policies"

This has already been addressed a whole lot. All socialist attempts are not equal. The reason why Bernie gets compared to Northern Europe more than he gets compared to China is because his policy content looks more like Northern Europe than it looks like China. It's really not very sophisticated.

On April 13 2016 03:11 LegalLord wrote:

Because businesses aren't known to care for social issues unless there's some benefit to them for doing so.

On April 13 2016 03:38 cLutZ wrote:


I object to bringing the case in the first place, as it appears to have been brought punitively (in other words, the intent all along appears to have been to find a baker who would refuse on religious grounds) instead of because this couple went to several bakeries and kept getting refused service, threw their hands up in the air and went to the state for some relief.

I object to the general principle of public accommodation laws without the showing of a need as they are a substantial burden on liberty (religious or otherwise, I don't think a Democrat should have to make a Republican's poster).

I do not object to the panel and court's decision to apply the law in this case as the defendant's defense that he was discriminating on the content of the message of the cake, not the couple's inherent characteristics is weak. See footnote 8 for more.

However, I do object to the courts rejection of the as-applied strict scrutiny challenge based on the 1st and 14th Amendments. This is a failure because they treated it as only a religious liberty case, while it is also a freedom of speech (compelled speech) and freedom of association (compelled association) case.