EPTBut that's just me.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4136
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
But that's just me. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 28 2016 00:20 farvacola wrote: I speak not only from my perspective. I quoted Alito in part because him and two justices claim it's a core matter of jurisprudence. Now, I understand our partisan disagreements. But if you're about to say three lawyers who managed to do enough in law to find a nomination to the highest court are making specious arguments, I'll have to say you're outdoing yourself. If you say they failed to decipher an "incredibly easy to decipher legal rule," that they are such shitty human beings they concocted it out of personal opposition to anything pro-abortion, I'd say take another read. If Alito is a dishonest, double speaking hack when he leads (leading paragraph) with "We have an obligation to apply such rules in a neutral fashion in all cases" when he's just going to make an incoherent argument on no neutral grounds, then we might as well stick to partisanship. Along the lines of, you're such an radically liberal hack you must be for abortion at all times and all cases, even if that means intact-delivered babies left to die (Gosnell, * earlier related). Because that sounds productive as hell. I sincerely think you're different at some level, even in a thread so instantly dismissive of everything not in their worldview. I dedicate this section of the post to (2012) and on reading dissents for fun and profit. + Show Spoiler +The notion that pro-choice advocates are against the rule of law is as hilarious as your writing is prolix-laden. There is an incredibly easy to decipher legal rule inherent to the Supreme Court's invalidation, and just because it disagrees with your perspective doesn't mean that it lies outside the pale of legalistic coherence. And to make a joke, on getting the thread locked not even a week before my three month ban expiration On June 28 2016 00:29 Plansix wrote: Sorry, the only goal in any legislation regarding women's health does not have at its core the express purpose of denying access to abortion. And no amount of half truths and playing fast and loose with statistics and jurisprudence will change that. As Thomas said, "Today's decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents' will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential."Sorry, nakedly boiler plate laws drafted by anti-abortion advocates to protect “women’s health” do not justify restricting access to abortion. And its weird when you talk about self-government when the law requires that women be sent home to think about their decision and then receive the abortion the next day. Talk about a nanny state. My new plan is to write a bunch of boiler plate laws regulating the gun manufactures, protecting workers health. They will have no baring in reality and require things that they have to do random things that costs way to much money. Because I care about workers health, trust me. On June 28 2016 02:26 Nyxisto wrote: That's the talking point. If I was to turn the reverse hackneyed phrasing, just because your rights and things you care about aren't threatened at the moment doesn't give you free reign to ignore those of others and screw yourself over when it comes your time and you have no legislative or legal recourse.Maybe if "rule of law" and "states rights" wasn't just a lame excuse to screw women or any other random group over people would actually care about it. Conservatives have been wielding 'the law' as a club for decades and now they're upset because they're losing their grip . | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On June 28 2016 10:09 TheTenthDoc wrote: I don't think one should lend much credence to a single poll in a not-usually-polled state four months from the election (Colorado) that makes almost no rational sense given the dynamics in national polls at the time any more than someone should lend much credence to a single poll saying 80% of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton or whatever. But that's just me. Well it's polled a lot for the general but wasn't expected to really be in play with Trump. But it's far from an anomaly. It's like that in several battleground states. So I think it's fair to say even after what has been considered his worst 3 week stretch of the campaign he's still tied in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. As for the "will vote for Clinton" polls I don't think they have much of a clue. I haven't looked deeply into the methodologies but I suspect that they are over-representing "Democrats" in many of those polls. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 28 2016 11:15 BallinWitStalin wrote: I think Plansix brought up a good point, though; what if people created absurd laws to regulate gun manufacture such that it was basically impossible to make or import a gun for "worker safety", with those laws possessing no real objective measurable or quantifiable criteria? Although my legalese is non-existent (so there's no point reading it for me, that's like me asking you to read a thesis on quantitative genetics and interpreting it for me, you're just not equipped from a language/training perspective) the hypothetical outlined above is largely analogous. Where would you side? I'm sure there's a crafty way to create laws that skirt the meaning of the second amendment. You may even argue they already exist. Do you hold abortion to the same standard? The gun rights-abortion rights example is always apt (aside from the part of one being explicit and the other implicit, but I'm ignoring that for the moment). It is objectively true that this sort of legislation is slight of hand to attempt to ban abortion, there are actually equivalent laws that are in effect for guns, and cities never stop trying to enact them ala Ezell v. City of Chicago (Chicago essentially tried to ban run ranges with this trick and lost). Its also objectively true that abortion rights in America are in a better place than gun rights. Imagine banning abortions until someone was 18 (like guns), or 21 (some other guns). Imagine having to undergo a background check for one, several day waiting periods for anything other than a drug-induced abortion, having several states require all abortions be performed in a hospital, several states and cities requiring you to show why you need an abortion more than the average pregnant woman (and basically rejecting every application), and the federal government essentially banning you from having an abortion in a different state than your place of residence. If all those things happened then abortion would be about as restricted as guns are in America. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
President Obama and his counterparts from Canada and Mexico are preparing to unveil an ambitious new goal for generating carbon-free power when they meet this week in Ottawa. The three leaders are expected to set a target for North America to get 50 percent of its electricity from nonpolluting sources by 2025. That's up from about 37 percent last year. Aides acknowledge that's a "stretch goal," requiring commitments over and above what the three countries agreed to as part of the Paris climate agreement. "We do ambitious well here at the White House," said spokesman Eric Schultz. Environmental advocates praised the new target. "Shifting half of America's electricity to clean energy sources is not only achievable — it's essential," said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Avoiding the worst effects of climate change demands nothing less. But we must do it the right way, and that means ramping up our reliance on cost-effective renewable wind and solar power, energy efficiency and other 21st century technologies." Collectively, coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution in the U.S. A decade ago, nearly half the nation's electricity was produced by burning coal. Coal-fired plants have been losing market share, though, as a result of competition from cheaper natural gas and increasingly strict environmental regulations. Last year, about a third of the United States' electricity came from coal, another third came from natural gas, and the balance came from nuclear (20 percent), hydro (6 percent), wind (5 percent) and other renewables. Canada already gets a larger share of its electricity from carbon-free sources, while Mexico currently gets less. While meeting the goal will require cooperation from all three countries, the United States will carry the largest load. The U.S. uses far more electricity than its North American neighbors combined. Source | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On June 28 2016 11:32 cLutZ wrote:... Its also objectively true that abortion rights in America are in a better place than gun rights. Imagine banning abortions until someone was 18 (like guns), or 21 (some other guns). Imagine having to undergo a background check for one, several day waiting periods for anything other than a drug-induced abortion, having several states require all abortions be performed in a hospital, several states and cities requiring you to show why you need an abortion more than the average pregnant woman (and basically rejecting every application), and the federal government essentially banning you from having an abortion in a different state than your place of residence. If all those things happened then abortion would be about as restricted as guns are in America. One has to take into account the differing context, though. Some restrictions (for example the one about age) don't make much sense when applied to abortions, and some restrictions one could reasonably apply to abortions don't make much sense when applied to gun ownership. For another example, delaying a gun purchase by a week or a month or what have you probably isn't going to drastically affect many people's lives, whereas as a pregnancy progresses the morality of an abortion at that stage becomes more and more compromised. (And then there's the murky issue of which is a privilege and which is a right...) I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump’s campaign spokeswoman on Monday revised the presumptive Republican nominee’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S. for the second time in three days, saying Trump is dropping the word “Muslim” from the policy and focusing on immigrants from “terrorist nations.” “It doesn’t matter where you’re coming from, except for fact that the terrorist nations, which is something he is adding to this policy to make it more clear, that if you are coming from a hostile nation and you can not be vetted, absolutely you should not come into this country,” Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said on CNN. The change to Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims is the second since Saturday, when the campaign said Trump no longer supports a blanket ban on all Muslim immigrants, and wants to single out Muslims from “terror states.” Trump told reporters he “would be fine” with Muslims from Scotland, for example. Pierson’s comments show a further shift in the policy, removing all mention of Muslims. Pierson, however, insisted that removing “Muslim” wasn’t a revision. “There has been no change. Mr. Trump still wants to stop individuals from coming into the country who cannot be vetted,” Pierson said. Trump in December proposed a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslim immigration, in response to a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. He reiterated the proposal following this month’s gun massacre in Orlando, Florida, and advocated a complete immigration ban from countries with a history of terrorism against the United States. Source | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
That makes a lot more sense. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 28 2016 12:03 Aquanim wrote: One has to take into account the differing context, though. Some restrictions (for example the one about age) don't make much sense when applied to abortions, and some restrictions one could reasonably apply to abortions don't make much sense when applied to gun ownership. For another example, delaying a gun purchase by a week or a month or what have you probably isn't going to drastically affect many people's lives, whereas as a pregnancy progresses the morality of an abortion at that stage becomes more and more compromised. (And then there's the murky issue of which is a privilege and which is a right...) I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. More like apples and watermelons... That comparison was so forced my eyes wouldve rolled into the back of my head if it was possible. Up until then I was engaged though so he had a debatable point till he shot himself in the foot with that analogy. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
Terrorism is a massive problem in my country and we are suffering thousands of times over for a war that wasnt ours thanks to our support of it because our fucking Generals needed aid money to buy palaces in Europe and fund maddrassas that forced this indoctrination to create fighters no one can control anymore.+ Show Spoiler + (and the west knew they would do it, they didnt care, I dont blame them, self interest is self interest. Therefore I should now be punished by having my ability to move to the US should I get my H1 next April through my current employer. Everyone can be vetted. This is such a bullshit argument that people who have never gone through the immigration process from 'high risk countries' keep bringing up. The vetting process is hell as it is. Besides nearly all instances of hate crimes by those who identify as muslims (terrorism as we like to call it, coz ISIS) are homegrown. So heres an idea kick all the muslims out and vette them before you let them back in. It makes absolutely no sense. And is just a cheap trick to temper the rhetoric while pretending to not back off their original position. "Actually when I said ban all muslims, I meant just the high risk ones." Makes alot of sense.. give me a break lol. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 28 2016 12:46 Rebs wrote: Terrorism is a massive problem in my country and we are suffering thousands of times over for a war that wasnt ours thanks to our support of it because our fucking Generals needed aid money to buy palaces in Europe and fund maddrassas that forced this indoctrination to create fighters no one can control anymore.+ Show Spoiler + (and the west knew they would do it, they didnt care, I dont blame them, self interest is self interest. Therefore I should now be punished by having my ability to move to the US should I get my H1 next April through my current employer. Everyone can be vetted. This is such a bullshit argument that people who have never gone through the immigration process from 'high risk countries' keep bringing up. The vetting process is hell as it is. Besides nearly all instances of hate crimes by those who identify as muslims (terrorism as we like to call it, coz ISIS) are homegrown. So heres an idea kick all the muslims out and vette them before you let them back in. It makes absolutely no sense. And is just a cheap trick to temper the rhetoric while pretending not to not back off their original position. "Actually when I said ban all muslims, I meant just the high risk ones." Makes alot of sense.. give me a break lol. I don't understand your beef with my statement. Are you disagreeing with me here? It makes a lot more sense than a ban on all muslims. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 28 2016 12:40 Rebs wrote: More like apples and watermelons... That comparison was so forced my eyes wouldve rolled into the back of my head if it was possible. Up until then I was engaged though so he had a debatable point till he shot himself in the foot with that analogy. If you can't see the equivalency you are merely a partisan. Most of the restrictions placed on gun owners in America are major nuisances and impediments on exercising the right conveniently. I'd say the "all abortions must be performed in a hospital", the age restrictions, and the "licensing" ala the Washington DC "may issue" concealed carry restrictions are all very close. Sure, the time delays are less impactful, in most scenarios (but many gun rights advocates who are more extreme would not recognize this and say something about a girl who just got a restraining order taken out against an abusive boyfriend, and that she doesn't have 5 days to wait). But the logic from the POV of the person wishing to restrain the right is the same. First of all both Pro-Life and Gun Control advocates view the right itself as inherently illegitimate. Pro-life people say, "its not in the Constitution", gun control advocates say, "Well regulated militia" or "outdated and for muskets". If you don't recognize this point, you will never see the parallels. Take age restrictions. Pro-life people would say, "we don't allow this person to smoke/drink, but we think they have the judgment to take human life?" If you can't understand that this is their POV then you will think that the age restriction parallel is specious, but its not because to both pro-life and anti-gun control people the issue is about safety and preserving lives. The "may issue" licensing system is another major potential parallel. What is a bureaucrat, or set of bureaucrats had to approve every abortion before it was preformed? What if they rejected basically everyone besides alderman and other politically connected people (like they do in New York for carry licenses). Similarly, I included the "all abortions must be performed in a hospital" part because all gun sales (with only minor exceptions, which are likely less than .1% of all sales) have to be done at a FFL with an instant background check. This is basically a restriction on who can sell guns legally, and put a lot of would-be re-sellers that are basically gun pawn-shops out of business. The same is true for places like Planned Parenthood and the hospital/ambulatory care restrictions. It puts certain, lower level of care/scrutiny providers out of business. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Volkswagen AG’s settlement with nearly 500,000 U.S. diesel owners and government regulators over polluting vehicles is valued at more than $15 billion cash, a source briefed on the matter said on Monday. The settlement, to be announced on Tuesday in Washington, includes $10.03 billion to offer buybacks to owners of about 475,000 polluting vehicles and nearly $5 billion in funds to offset excess diesel emissions and boost zero emission vehicles, the source said. A separate settlement with nearly all U.S. state attorneys general over excess diesel emissions will be announced on Tuesday and is expected to be more than $500 million and will push the total to over $15 billion, a separate source briefed on the matter said. Spokeswomen for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Volkswagen declined to comment. Speaking on condition of anonymity, due to court-imposed gag rules, the original source said that owners of 2.0 liter diesel VW 2009-2015 cars will receive an average of $5,000 in compensation along with the estimated value of the vehicles as of September 2015, before the scandal erupted. Prior owners will get half of current owners, while people who leased cars will also get compensation, said the original source. Owners would also receive the same compensation if they choose to have the vehicles repaired, assuming U.S. regulators approve a fix at a later date. The settlement includes $2.7 billion in funds to offset excess diesel emissions and $2 billion for green energy and zero emission vehicle efforts, the source said. The diesel offset fund could rise if VW has not fixed or bought back 85 percent of the vehicles by mid-2019, the first source said. Source | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 28 2016 13:00 cLutZ wrote: Take age restrictions. Pro-life people would say, "we don't allow this person to smoke/drink, but we think they have the judgment to take human life?" If you can't understand that this is their POV then you will think that the age restriction parallel is specious, but its not because to both pro-life and anti-gun control people the issue is about safety and preserving lives. Which loops right back around to "pro-life" people caring more about an unborn fetus than a living human being, because there is no argument you can make about a child's judgment that doesn't apply more to actually caring for the baby for every day for several years (until the child grows up enough to have "adult" judgment"). | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On June 28 2016 13:00 cLutZ wrote: If you can't see the equivalency you are merely a partisan. ... Do you think leading with a statement like that is likely to persuade me that I am incorrect? I am not saying there are no parallels between the concepts of legislating access to abortion and legislating access to guns. What I am saying is that access to guns and to abortion has very different benefits and consequences, that differences in the conditions under which you can access one or the other are therefore entirely appropriate, and finally that the following argument: "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" is not a good one. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On June 28 2016 13:55 Aquanim wrote: Do you think leading with a statement like that is likely to persuade me that I am incorrect? I am not saying there are no parallels between the concepts of legislating access to abortion and legislating access to guns. What I am saying is that access to guns and to abortion has very different benefits and consequences, that differences in the conditions under which you can access one or the other are therefore entirely appropriate, and finally that the following argument: "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" is not a good one. I find its necessary to point out because of the bubble that most people can easily put themselves into regarding both these issues. It is rare to find a person who can erect the argument the other side would put up in its logical, sincere form. Doing so is always a good thought experiment, and I find strawmanning in both these debates is incredibly common, particularly in major news organizations. Because both arguments are about preserving innocent life (from the sincere, logical POV of the supporters of those measures) "You can access abortion but not guns under conditions X, Y and Z, therefore abortion rights are in a better place than gun rights" is inherently a good one. You can quibble about one thing or another (like I pointed out, maybe 5 days is more pressing in the abortion situation than in a gun situation), but the fundamental logic is the same. We don't trust "X" sort of person with the decision of taking life, we are comfortable about "Y" sort of government agent having control over the populace's ability to take a life. You can argue with the premise of the pro-life argument(that a fetus is a person worth protecting from harm), just like you can argue with the premise of the gun control argument(doesn't actually deter violence, right to have the potential of insurrection, etc), those arguments do not speak of the legitimacy of individual measures that clearly impose burdens on that right, once its established. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Less than half — 45 percent — of Republican voters say they are satisfied with Donald Trump as their party's presidential nominee, according to the latest results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday. Another 52 percent said they would have preferred someone else as the GOP standard bearer, while the levels of satisfaction are reversed among Democratic voters, 52 percent of which said they are satisfied with Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee in November. The results break down ideological and educational lines. Among conservative Republicans, 53 percent said they would have preferred a candidate other than Trump, while 45 percent of that group said they are fine with the Manhattan real-estate mogul as the nominee. Moderate Republicans split at 49 percent each, while 58 percent of Republicans who have a high-school education or less said they are satisfied. Sixty percent with a college degree said they would like someone else. On the issues, a majority of voters said Trump would be better than Clinton at "changing business as usual in Washington" (53 percent to 23 percent). Trump also led on economic issues (47 percent to 37 percent), "standing up for America" (45 percent to 37 percent), terrorism and homeland security (44 percent to 39 percent), guns (43 percent to 35 percent), "being effective at getting things done" (42 percent to 39 percent) and "being honest and straighforward" (41 percent to 25 percent). Source | ||
| ||
