US Politics Mega-thread - Page 34

On March 25 2018 03:06 micronesia wrote:
I wasn't comfortable with trusting a tweet so I found the Huffington Post transcript of the speech:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/delaney-tarr-march-for-our-lives_us_5ab678d8e4b0decad04a5df7

At least the quote isn't being taken out of context in there but I agree, this is signaling that any new gun-related restrictions are stepping stones towards significantly more widespread bans. It's all or nothing. And by raising the stakes the speaker is also increasing the likelihood that 'nothing' will prevail for the foreseeable future.

On March 25 2018 03:12 zlefin wrote:

not surprising to have such an attitude given the speaker.

it's a pity that all sides can't just focus on actual sensible and rigorous solutions; but such is the world we live in, and part of the price of democracy.

This is more than just one day, one event, then moving on. This is not a mere publicity stunt, a single day in the span of history. This is a movement.

This is a movement reliant on the persistence and passion of its people. We cannot move on. If we move on, the NRA and those against us will win. They want us to forget. They want our voices to be silenced. And they want to retreat into the shadows where they can remain unnoticed. They want to be back on top, unquestioned in their corruption, but we cannot and we will not let that happen.

On March 25 2018 03:29 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/rwnicholson_/status/977490536197185536

This is a good step for the Trump administration. The Palestinian Authority rewards suicide bombers. They name streets after them. Their families get monthly cash stipends. A witness to the House Foreign Affairs Committee said the Palestinian Authority is investing $137.8 million in this enterprise, or roughly 10% of its annual budget. Their leader Abbas said "We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah." This stands as an impediment to peace in the Middle East and I support this move by Congress and the Trump Administration.

On March 25 2018 03:14 Danglars wrote:

Pointing out the existence of Christians that supported slavery does not justify your point. A great many Christians also were hardcore abolitionists arguing from the same Bible against the institution. The same applies to miscegenation. You're using historical abuse of religion to try and shoehorn the very clear religious objections to participating in a gay marriage ceremony, and it's bad faith from beginning to end. Since religion was abused in the past, today's examples must be considered abuse too? Give me a break.

The defendants are not heirs to historical racists, they're conscientious people attempting to follow their God with the least burden to society, which is why their gay customers kept coming back. In other cases, the business was first selected because of her good treatment of them, though she knew they were gay. It was expressly the ceremony that was opposed, and her unique artistry and participation in it that she thought would offend her God.

But twice now you've glazed over these unfortunate facts to focus on a discrimination angle that is totally unsupported. That is why I think you're not engaging with an understanding of both sides, but attempting to smear. For example: The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a Christian fundamentalist was not discriminated against when he asked for a custom cake with a Bible and scriptural passages condemning homosexuality and promoting Christ's redemption. He took it to the commission, but in that case the baker was found to be within his rights to refuse service.

Similarly, you could refuse a cake denigrating Islam. Basically, you can refuse to denounce same sex marriage, but you cannot refuse to promote same sex marriage. So, this is according to a very dark history of singling out Christian objectors for unique punishment, and not even applying the laws in a neutral manner. Personal liberty for some and not others. You're just creating a new kind of slavery in a post-slavery era. Let's leave that in history, Kyadytim.

On March 25 2018 03:30 Leporello wrote:


I think you're all missing the point, some deliberately. From that speech:



Most speakers in DC have been well-aware, and stated directly, that the current political-will to do anything real is non-existent. It is not their narrative to enact immediate change, although maybe that's the narrative Danglars and micronesia want for them.

They're not talking about this Congress. Gay-rights, since we're on that subject as well, took decades in the making from its cultural beginning. But, yes, 2018 will not see real gun-reform. Stupid kids.

If we could see background-check loopholes closed sometime soon, that would be a signal of at least some meaningful change. but I'm guessing we won't see anything of the sort -- and that's not "all sides" fault. Really, with that? The kowtowing crap that Congress will do will keep this movement going. Bump-stock bans aren't enough to placate this problem -- anymore than it will actually stop the problem of gun-violence. Celebrate Congress's complacency, but don't pretend that's the end of it or that's what this student was talking about. Dishonest.

On March 25 2018 03:36 Kyadytim wrote:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. I could care less about the specifics of the current case. I don't particularly care which way the Court goes on this. What I care about are the arguments being made in support of the baker, which are frequently the exact same arguments used to justify racist laws and actions. If the supreme court issues a decision in favor of the baker resting on those arguments, it sets a terrible precedent which will be happily integrated into opposition to gay marriage. What I want out of this case is for the court to issue a decision that sets no precedent and can't be used to make other judgements

To be absolutely clear, what I am arguing against is the people trying to turn this case into an extremely broad decision in favor of the right to free practice of religion superseding other rights. It doesn't matter how many people are arguing for abolition or for gay marriage or whatever from a foundation of Christianity. That doesn't excuse arguments from Christianity in support of discrimination or the people using them.

You, talking about the specifics of the interactions between the baker and the client and their history of interactions are not making those overly broad arguments. You are, however, defending the overly broad religious justifications for bigotry by twisting my resistance to those into an argument against your narrowly defined position on the people involved in this specific case. And then you accuse me of advocating for some sort of enslavement of Christians by drawing an equivalence between forcing a baker to accept money and bake a cake and slavery, which is absurd.

On March 25 2018 02:32 Danglars wrote:

It's interesting that you think this way. But you're really treating your own thoughts like your private religion. Iamthedave thinks it's secular enough and it's an obsolete institution, so he's going to restrict your civil rights to comport with his particular interpretation. That's very similar to forcing your religion on others ... you ought to believe what I believe, not whatever your beliefs are, leave me to practice according to my conscience.

See this is the slippery slope. You're also making Muslims unable to follow the tenets of their religion and stay in business. Basically, making art is for one religion that the state approves, and you can't create it based on non-state-approved religious beliefs. Because then your religious conscience might not be as liberal as the state conscience. The state doesn't consider it a religious ceremony, therefore you can't have any religious objections. I'm glad there's still nonprofits defending these civil rights from

No. The people that run a business have to leave all their religious liberties under the first amendment at the door. You can advocate for increased restrictions compared to not operating a business, but all this compelled speech just for seeking to earn a living also in accordance to your religion? Ugh. You operate your business containing custom expressive speech, and I'll operate mine. Sell your regular premade products in a listing to all takers, and save the custom art for messages that jive with your beliefs. This is getting pretty insane.

On March 25 2018 04:16 Kyadytim wrote:
Well, as you seem to have missed my edit, Danglars, what position would you take on a baker aligned with that Faith and Heritage group citing their religious beliefs to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?

On March 25 2018 04:25 iamthedave wrote:


This thread is getting to be a pain to chop up so I'm cutting it down again.

How am I restricting anyone's civil rights? You can have any sort of marriage you want. But that doesn't make it an actual religious ceremony. It doesn't mean it ever has been. It's just an unjustified assumption that people have run with and never examined. In almost every culture everywhere in the world, churches need to go to the government and say 'may we perform marriages in our establishment?' And the government has the right to say 'no you may not'. And if the government does that, no 'marriage' performed in that establishment is legitimate.

HOW is that a religious ceremony? That is a secular ceremony that people choose to apply religious overtones to. That's not my opinion, that is the objective facts of what actually happens. If it were a genuinely religious ceremony, the government would not be necessary.

I'm guessed you're a Christian from some of your comments, apologies if I'm wrong. But I'll assume you're a church goer. Your church does not need anyone's permission to perform Sunday mass, and it sure as hell doesn't need the government to say 'your sunday mass is legitimate'. Because Mass is a religious ceremony and it's validation comes from all the trappings of its performance within the context in which it is performed.

A wedding requires none of that. I could literally take my housemate to the registry office and be married tomorrow evening if I wanted, and that marriage would be as legitimate as a £10,000 marriage that takes place in the cathedral down the road. The trappings are entirely irrelevant, the meat and bones of a marriage is the secular, legal structure that supports and legitimises it, and it has always been so. That is why King Henry the 8th was able to say 'Actually... no,' when the church tried to force him to keep his wife. No amount of excommunications or wars were able to change the fact he had a divorce and then had another marriage and the child of one of his later marriages ended up King.

It's also - not coincidentally - why the rich and powerful throughout history conveniently find their way into and out of marriages that are supposed to be unbreakable until death. Ain't no wealth getting someone around Mass, though.

I don't care how you practice your faith. But you can't redefine reality with it. Marriage is still secular. Now I appreciate Christians believe that there is a spiritual component to marriage, and that is where much of the issue arises re: teh gayz. But that's your trappings. It's not real. And that is not my opinion, that's the state's opinion. The state doesn't care if you think you've married someone. It cares that you married someone in a place that it considers legitimate, and if the state doesn't think your marriage is legitimate you'll very quickly run into problems when you try to assert otherwise.

As to your last point, compelled speech is a thing. It just is. Complaints about compelled speech are a far bigger slippery slope than 'let the public know that you're putting certain elements of your religious beliefs ahead of your business'. I mean, why SHOULD I be forced to let the public know all of my sliced ham includes uranium in it? They're trampling my first amendment rights and making me say things I don't wanna!

Yes, it's a silly, extreme example, but compelled speech is a standard part of business. If you want to make your religion part of your business, you're damn skippy you should be expected to say up front that you're doing so.

Religions do not deserve the special pleading and status they unduly get, not in your culture or mine (not that we're half as bad as your lot are on that front). 'Good' Christians are far too often content to hide behind the sort of Christians who don't give a fig about civil liberties for anyone but themselves, who believe gay people deserve no rights, who think Muslims should be thrown out of their 'Christian' nation, who would gladly outlaw any beliefs but their own and enforce those beliefs on anyone who disagreed and crush any speech that went against them. You know those people exist and so do I, and unfortunately for you, an awful lot of them get voted for by your good honest religious Christians. It is an utter embarrassment that Roy Moore came so close to being elected, even without the allegations that brought him down.

Your lot are not content to keep their religion private. Far too many of you want to enforce it on everyone else, and damn the consequences. That is your slippery slope, and it's a far more dangerous, far more deadly one than being forced to tell people you aren't going to serve them if they're gay.

On March 25 2018 04:38 Kyadytim wrote:
I didn't miss that post, I ignored it.

I really want your answer to this question, though, because it really clarifies the issue. If a baker is allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding for religious reasons, the same protection would apply to a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple's wedding.

Therefore, do you support allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation race if the person doing the discrimination claims to be doing it because of their religious beliefs?

On March 25 2018 04:46 Danglars wrote:

Maybe then you do understand why I'm ignoring your edit until you either delete the rest of your post I responded to, or show an interest in responding to the post. I can't respond to 12 sentences and later discover the entire thing hinged on a future-added last 13th sentence with a question after I spend time responding to what was written. My time posting in this forum is not an unlimited quantity subject to any edits and tangents and side-questions people feel like typing. I don't think I'll need to post this disclaimer again.

On March 25 2018 05:01 A3th3r wrote:
Thankfully, Trump signed off on the spending bill so there is some sense in the white house. Now there is just the issue of the free trade agreements & trying to make a change to those trade deficits. That's a difficult thing to do. If he is able to change that, great. He may or may not be able to do that in terms of how much the president is able to do. Generally that is a duty that is taken care of by the state department & isn't necessarily the president's job

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-signs-spending-bill-after-threatening-to-veto-it-1521810580

On March 25 2018 04:25 iamthedave wrote:


This thread is getting to be a pain to chop up so I'm cutting it down again.

How am I restricting anyone's civil rights? You can have any sort of marriage you want. But that doesn't make it an actual religious ceremony. It doesn't mean it ever has been. It's just an unjustified assumption that people have run with and never examined. In almost every culture everywhere in the world, churches need to go to the government and say 'may we perform marriages in our establishment?' And the government has the right to say 'no you may not'. And if the government does that, no 'marriage' performed in that establishment is legitimate.

HOW is that a religious ceremony? That is a secular ceremony that people choose to apply religious overtones to. That's not my opinion, that is the objective facts of what actually happens. If it were a genuinely religious ceremony, the government would not be necessary.

I'm guessed you're a Christian from some of your comments, apologies if I'm wrong. But I'll assume you're a church goer. Your church does not need anyone's permission to perform Sunday mass, and it sure as hell doesn't need the government to say 'your sunday mass is legitimate'. Because Mass is a religious ceremony and it's validation comes from all the trappings of its performance within the context in which it is performed.

A wedding requires none of that. I could literally take my housemate to the registry office and be married tomorrow evening if I wanted, and that marriage would be as legitimate as a £10,000 marriage that takes place in the cathedral down the road. The trappings are entirely irrelevant, the meat and bones of a marriage is the secular, legal structure that supports and legitimises it, and it has always been so. That is why King Henry the 8th was able to say 'Actually... no,' when the church tried to force him to keep his wife. No amount of excommunications or wars were able to change the fact he had a divorce and then had another marriage and the child of one of his later marriages ended up King.

It's also - not coincidentally - why the rich and powerful throughout history conveniently find their way into and out of marriages that are supposed to be unbreakable until death. Ain't no wealth getting someone around Mass, though.

I don't care how you practice your faith. But you can't redefine reality with it. Marriage is still secular. Now I appreciate Christians believe that there is a spiritual component to marriage, and that is where much of the issue arises re: teh gayz. But that's your trappings. It's not real. And that is not my opinion, that's the state's opinion. The state doesn't care if you think you've married someone. It cares that you married someone in a place that it considers legitimate, and if the state doesn't think your marriage is legitimate you'll very quickly run into problems when you try to assert otherwise.

As to your last point, compelled speech is a thing. It just is. Complaints about compelled speech are a far bigger slippery slope than 'let the public know that you're putting certain elements of your religious beliefs ahead of your business'. I mean, why SHOULD I be forced to let the public know all of my sliced ham includes uranium in it? They're trampling my first amendment rights and making me say things I don't wanna!

Yes, it's a silly, extreme example, but compelled speech is a standard part of business. If you want to make your religion part of your business, you're damn skippy you should be expected to say up front that you're doing so.

Religions do not deserve the special pleading and status they unduly get, not in your culture or mine (not that we're half as bad as your lot are on that front). 'Good' Christians are far too often content to hide behind the sort of Christians who don't give a fig about civil liberties for anyone but themselves, who believe gay people deserve no rights, who think Muslims should be thrown out of their 'Christian' nation, who would gladly outlaw any beliefs but their own and enforce those beliefs on anyone who disagreed and crush any speech that went against them. You know those people exist and so do I, and unfortunately for you, an awful lot of them get voted for by your good honest religious Christians. It is an utter embarrassment that Roy Moore came so close to being elected, even without the allegations that brought him down.

Your lot are not content to keep their religion private. Far too many of you want to enforce it on everyone else, and damn the consequences. That is your slippery slope, and it's a far more dangerous, far more deadly one than being forced to tell people you aren't going to serve them if they're gay.

On March 25 2018 05:21 zlefin wrote:

the president is responsible for overseeing and directing the state dept; so a failure at State (if any) is partly the fault of the president.

and generally speaking, the president can do a lot on those topics. (i.e. he has the authority to do quite a lot in terms of trade and trade deals)

On March 25 2018 05:26 A3th3r wrote:


Interesting! OK so that is a thing where he has some control. I just wish that he were a little more political in how he did things. Is it really mature for the PRESIDENT to dawdle around on Twitter & explain foreign & business policy matters to the public via social media?