|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 18 2018 18:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2018 17:08 iamthedave wrote:On August 18 2018 15:11 Falling wrote:On August 18 2018 09:42 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, but the Bible is silent when it comes to birthday cakes and parties. And cakes in general. His is not partaking in a religious ceremony, it’s just a cake. That is to miss the point just the same as if someone were to ask for a cake to celebrate a divorce, adultery, or polygamy, and then just say we'll it doesn't say anything about cakes and candles. That misses the point what is being signified--the anniversary part--and that this is a very deliberate move considering there are bakeries right across the street. As to the thinking behind, danglar brought up some verses, and I think the same camp might start with Genesis as first principles (God made them male and female) and then argue that the Bible remains consistent with this idea throughout, including Christ who uses the same Genesis passage in the same way when questioned on divorce. I do wonder where religious folks draw the line on this matter, though. When is the point where religious beliefs cant be used as an excuse? Never. That's the whole point. To them religion is a shield they can use to remain racists/bigots/misogynist/whatever when society itself has tried to move on.
Ayup.
Old religious texts are packed full of random, vague shit. You can make it mean whatever you want. You can sort-of kinda accept that excuse for the religious opposition to gay marriage because decades ago it was decided that sanctity of marriage was a way to spin this and that it would be a "thing". There is no such deeply ingrained cultural spin about Trans rights in religious context yet (I don't think the bathroom bill stuff ever involved "religious liberty" too heavily, but I'm open to correction), but I guess we're seeing the beginnings of it.
Having the words of religious text or common notions explicitly tied to religion be a "valid" legal reason to discriminate is just a terrible idea that empowers bigots and allows the majority religion of a country undue power.
|
I wonder if the baker would deny a birthday cake to someone mixing wool and linen? I certainly hope so, because the hermeneutical justification for that seems just as strong as the justification for refusing on the grounds of transgenderism.
|
Some pretty significant details regarding the obstruction case against trump here. McGahn has fully cooperated to the extent of telling the special counsel that he threatened to resign after being ordered to shut down the special counsel.
I think the best case scenario here is that Dems take the House, at some point Mueller refers the obstruction case for impeachment, and the House impeaches him. He wont actually be convicted in the Senate, because Nunes and his cabal have convinced the base that the investigation is corrupt. But he'll always go down in history as a president who got impeached.
|
On August 19 2018 11:45 Doodsmack wrote:
I think the best case scenario here is that Dems take the House, at some point Mueller refers the obstruction case for impeachment, and the House impeaches him. He wont actually be convicted in the Senate, because Nunes and his cabal have convinced the base that the investigation is corrupt. But he'll always go down in history as a president who got impeached.
Let's say Republicans keep the house and make a Trump bootlicker like Jim Jordan speaker who blocks any potential fallout from Mueller's investigation. Trump runs and wins again in 2020 and dems retake the house. This stuff can all be expected to be brought up in the house again right? So Trump is in for a ride as soon as Dems retake the house, even if it's not in 2018. Though if he doesn't run in 2020, then what? Would it be up to the next presidents DoJ whether to indict?
I'm operating under the assumption here that the billows of smoke means that there is a fire.
|
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough.
|
On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough.
I lost my faith in US voters already when they reelected Bush jr. His streamlined speculative campaign and strong base can easily carry him again. His worst enemy would be a recession.
|
On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough.
You forget: Trump still enjoys wide Republican support, and it has in fact grown since he was elected, and evidence has shown scandals cause it to INCREASE.
The narrative that everything negative is a Democrat conspiracy has, unfortunately, found fertile ground to grow into a giant tree of idiocy. I think the only thing polling that would turn Republicans against him is firing Robert Mueller, as I think the average Republican is confident that nothing will be found, but would find him being fired to be evidence that something is wrong.
|
On August 19 2018 16:54 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough. You forget: Trump still enjoys wide Republican support, and it has in fact grown since he was elected, and evidence has shown scandals cause it to INCREASE. The narrative that everything negative is a Democrat conspiracy has, unfortunately, found fertile ground to grow into a giant tree of idiocy. I think the only thing polling that would turn Republicans against him is firing Robert Mueller, as I think the average Republican is confident that nothing will be found, but would find him being fired to be evidence that something is wrong.
Is education part of the reason why Republicans see nothing wrong with Trump? Are Democrats usually more educated? Is it like some places in the UK where your household votes for party X, then children do so too? Sure, we can't turn this into an education problem because there are more reasons probably but I'm just trying to figure out if it's part of it.
Edit: This article says that Democrats are more educated now:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/
|
On August 19 2018 17:24 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 16:54 iamthedave wrote:On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough. You forget: Trump still enjoys wide Republican support, and it has in fact grown since he was elected, and evidence has shown scandals cause it to INCREASE. The narrative that everything negative is a Democrat conspiracy has, unfortunately, found fertile ground to grow into a giant tree of idiocy. I think the only thing polling that would turn Republicans against him is firing Robert Mueller, as I think the average Republican is confident that nothing will be found, but would find him being fired to be evidence that something is wrong. Is education part of the reason why Republicans see nothing wrong with Trump? Are Democrats usually more educated? Is it like some places in the UK where your household votes for party X, then children do so too? Sure, we can't turn this into an education problem because there are more reasons probably but I'm just trying to figure out if it's part of it. Edit: This article says that Democrats are more educated now: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/
Race, income and previous voting history are still a better way of identifying a Trump voter. More white, male college graduates voted for him than didn't (as well as white women as a whole), and those who voted Republican in the past tended not to switch to Hillary.
|
On August 19 2018 17:24 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 16:54 iamthedave wrote:On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough. You forget: Trump still enjoys wide Republican support, and it has in fact grown since he was elected, and evidence has shown scandals cause it to INCREASE. The narrative that everything negative is a Democrat conspiracy has, unfortunately, found fertile ground to grow into a giant tree of idiocy. I think the only thing polling that would turn Republicans against him is firing Robert Mueller, as I think the average Republican is confident that nothing will be found, but would find him being fired to be evidence that something is wrong. Is education part of the reason why Republicans see nothing wrong with Trump? Are Democrats usually more educated? Is it like some places in the UK where your household votes for party X, then children do so too? Sure, we can't turn this into an education problem because there are more reasons probably but I'm just trying to figure out if it's part of it. Edit: This article says that Democrats are more educated now: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/ 538 has some articles up about the 2016 election and the widening gap in voting demographics by education. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of Republicans do see something wrong with Trump. It's really hard for anyone to miss his moral, behavioral, and intellectual failings. Continued support for him though is based off of so many factors it's crazy to try to pinpoint. Culture, identity, religion, partisan and transactional politics, tribalism, media, and so much else.
I would say the biggest thing is simply not liking what the other side stands for or is proposing. There is no option but to double down and defend because the alternative is still worse.
The Dems have no real face or goals of the party right now, so most of what conservatives do at the moment is throw crap around about the opposition wanting open borders and godless communism and to turn America into Venezuela. Trump is surely better than that, right?
|
On August 18 2018 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2018 07:39 Danglars wrote:The Christian baker whose refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court is suing Colorado after the state ruled that he had discriminated against another customer, this time a transgender woman.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, attorneys for the baker, Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, claim that Colorado is on a "crusade to crush" him because of his religious beliefs.
“After Phillips defended himself all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, he thought Colorado’s hostility toward his faith was over,” the lawsuit states. "He was wrong."
“Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor. This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips,” the suit continues.
The Supreme Court sided with Phillips in June in a 7-2 decision, saying legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility toward the baker’s religious views. However, the opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of that case only. The court did not rule on whether business owners can invoke religious objections to refuse service to LGBTQ people.
In a decision issued on June 28 — less than a month after the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ favor in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — the commission found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated against Autumn Scardina by refusing to make a cake celebrating, in her words, “the 7th year anniversary of my transition from male to female.” NBC NewsThe persecution against the Colorado baker resumes. You may remember the supreme court case resulting from Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop appealing the Colorado Human Rights Commission's judgement that he illegally discriminated against sexual orientation. The Supreme Court determined 7-2 that the commission had not applied Colorado laws neutrally to the baker, violating his first amendment rights of religious expression in open hostility to his particular religious beliefs. Journalists at the time highlighted how narrow the ruling was on the grounds of religious animus. This case arises from a transgender lawyer who asked Phillips to bake her a cake celebrating her transition on the same day that the Supreme Court decided to hear Phillip's case. He refused to custom design and bake it, and claims his refusal lies within the general rights of bakers to also refuse to bake cakes with anti-gay or anti-trangender messages that they disagree with. He will again be represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. This time he's also suing the commission for $100,000 for targeting him and punishing him for his religious beliefs. The optics of the government once again punishing a religious baker for his religious beliefs, and his recourse to the courts, may figure into the coming national dialogue in advance of the midterm elections. [PDF] His lawsuit. + Show Spoiler +In accordance to the bans and subjective moderation actions occurring the last time this case was mentioned in the thread, I will not be actively arguing the merits of this case in the thread. This is only intended to inform and prompt discussion from others I know there are specific anti-gay Biblical verses, but are there any specific anti-transgender Biblical verses? I'm curious as to what element of one's Christian faith is being used to argue "baking a cake that is used in a celebration of one's gender identity is against my religion". Or is the argument just "I don't need to bake for everyone, and I didn't want to bake for this person, which is my choice"?
Christianity doesn’t just consist of the handful of things which can be directly derived from the bible, most Christians throughout history have never read the bible and just made their religion up as they went along, and that never stopped them from being universally accepted as real Christians. There are plenty of pastors or sects that would be willing to underwrite this guy and I don’t see why that would not be a legitimate religious objection.
Rather, the problem is that religious objections in themselves should not give absolute license to evade civic responsibilities.
|
On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough.
The country continuing to do well in terms of the economy and people having tax breaks and so on would bolster his incumbent advantage. Plus he still engages with his base, through the media, social media, and at rallies sometimes. And his opposition is disorganized and having an identity crisis.
|
United States24752 Posts
On August 19 2018 16:54 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough. You forget: Trump still enjoys wide Republican support, and it has in fact grown since he was elected, and evidence has shown scandals cause it to INCREASE.
However, I think part of the reason for this apparent change is that less people are willing to identify as republican due to the shitshow. As more moderate folks exit the pool of republicans supporting the president in polls, the percentage of support among the remaining republicans goes up.
|
Yeah, to be honest it would take the Dems not winning the house PLUS the emergence of a charismatic leader of the Democratic Party to even have a chance against Trump right now.
|
On August 19 2018 22:21 Ryzel wrote:
Yeah, to be honest it would take the Dems not winning the house PLUS the emergence of a charismatic leader of the Democratic Party to even have a chance against Trump right now.
Or Democrats actually turning up to vote. That would also help.
|
United States43448 Posts
On August 19 2018 22:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough. The country continuing to do well in terms of the economy and people having tax breaks and so on would bolster his incumbent advantage. Plus he still engages with his base, through the media, social media, and at rallies sometimes. And his opposition is disorganized and having an identity crisis.
But the Trump voters aren’t getting that economic boon. Obama delivered unprecedented economic growth and expansion but it was focused on the coasts and didn’t involve an expansion of blue collar jobs. That’s why there was a feeling that the country hadn’t recovered from the Great Recession, despite the SP500 tripling. If you weren’t invested you missed it.
The Obama growth is continuing but the winners haven’t changed. There may be a degree of partisan apologism where the same shit tastes better with Trump at the top but materially these people are no better off.
The Trump base may feel better about the economy but they’re getting less than what Obama gave them, and they hated Obama.
|
On August 20 2018 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2018 22:14 oBlade wrote:On August 19 2018 13:21 Gahlo wrote:
I don't see how Trump wins in 2020. 4 years of this shitshow will be enough. The country continuing to do well in terms of the economy and people having tax breaks and so on would bolster his incumbent advantage. Plus he still engages with his base, through the media, social media, and at rallies sometimes. And his opposition is disorganized and having an identity crisis. The Obama growth is continuing but the winners haven’t changed. There may be a degree of partisan apologism where the same shit tastes better with Trump at the top but materially these people are no better off.
Which people? I'm sure the top 1% are better with Trump even if I dislike him. He's cut taxes. You can't get much better than that if you're the top 1%. Having said that, I don't know if the stock market offset that since it went down quite a few times.
|
Giuliani's Greatest Hits. This is actually really funny. It's so ironic considering who is client is. He says that the president cant just answer Muellers questions truthfully, instead he's likely to be perjuring himself. Well the only way that's a coherent argument is if he can't obstruct justice because hes the president.
|
On August 20 2018 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:Giuliani's Greatest Hits. This is actually really funny. It's so ironic considering who is client is. He says that the president cant just answer Muellers questions truthfully, instead he's likely to be perjuring himself. Well the only way that's a coherent argument is if he can't obstruct justice because hes the president. https://twitter.com/axios/status/1031196471595548672
From the author's of Fake News, Alternative Facts comes a new hit piece, Truth Isn't Truth.
This is stupid, they tried to alter the definition of facts, abused what can be considered news and now Rudy is saying something so incomprehensibly stupid that I'm surprised he was ever a lawyer.
|
tbf "truth isn't truth" is how I personally imagine most lawyers thinking though. Perhaps not outright saying it but def thinking that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
