Originally posted by CL:
I see the cultured despisers are out in force.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I actually don't think it's purely down to involvement by the Religious Right - though that does play a part in rendering some positions verboten within the GOP.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
~ Barry Goldwater, November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
quote:Can we collectively stop pretending that all Americans are middle class white Christians?
Originally posted by Komensky:
When you do meet sane people in the US, they usually take you aside and whisper something to you to let you know that they're 'not one of *them*'.
quote:That was my point.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Can we collectively stop pretending that all Americans are middle class white Christians?
Originally posted by Komensky:
When you do meet sane people in the US, they usually take you aside and whisper something to you to let you know that they're 'not one of *them*'.
In Virginia you will struggle to find any of the large number of African-Americans or Latinos in the state publicly spouting the GOP party line. Nor will you find many of them of any race in Washington DC suburbs.
quote:Why are they whispering then? Why are you meeting so few "sane" Americans? The demographics suggest that most Americans do not actually support right wing politics, yet you claim the ones who don't act like they are members of a secret society.
Originally posted by Komensky:
That was my point.
quote:They will keep control of the house and it is questionable if the Democrats will keep control of the senate.
Originally posted by *Leon*:
They'll lose control of the house.
quote:
By the way, just to avoid pond wars, I want to thank our American cousins for improving their beer so much. I'm really looking forward to it!
quote:I didn't say which election I was predicting.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:They will keep control of the house and it is questionable if the Democrats will keep control of the senate.
Originally posted by *Leon*:
They'll lose control of the house.
quote:Anything is possible. The Democrats lost the house. Is that forcing them to take a new direction?
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Their long-term trend is downwards and I don't think they'll be open to a new direction until forced to. They need to lose the house to be forced to take a new direction.
quote:No, because they have a credible chance of taking the white house at the next presidential election, and if they didn't, they haven't had long enough to realise that yet. I'm suggesting that when a party sets off in a direction that's heading away from the opinions of the electorate, they need to lose all power before they can stop and turn round. While they think there's a credible chance of being able to cause chaos in the house, they stand no chance of making the changes that would give them a credible presidential candidate.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Anything is possible. The Democrats lost the house. Is that forcing them to take a new direction?
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Their long-term trend is downwards and I don't think they'll be open to a new direction until forced to. They need to lose the house to be forced to take a new direction.
quote:The way I understand it, the fact that Democrats aren't in control of the House has a lot to do with the way district lines are drawn.
Mere Nick: The Democrats lost the house. Is that forcing them to take a new direction?
quote:I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Why are they whispering then? Why are you meeting so few "sane" Americans? The demographics suggest that most Americans do not actually support right wing politics, yet you claim the ones who don't act like they are members of a secret society.
Originally posted by Komensky:
That was my point.
quote:Indeed, it's gerrymandering pure and simple. In 2012 the Democrats elected/re-elected to the House received more votes than the Republicans did.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The way I understand it, the fact that Democrats aren't in control of the House has a lot to do with the way district lines are drawn.
Mere Nick: The Democrats lost the house. Is that forcing them to take a new direction?
quote:
House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.
quote:Sure, but you admit that it's a country club set.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
quote:Indeed, I wanted it quite clear that it was a country club set. I am puzzled that Republican leaders feel that focussing on the perceptions of a numerically-shrinking cohort is a strategy for political success for the future. Their handling of the immigration issue is a perfect example; when a demographically important and theoretically natural ally Latino-origin population is being treated as a dangerous and alien enemy, it cannot be logical to expect many votes from them.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Sure, but you admit that it's a country club set.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
I'm a black American with a graduate degree from the Northeast. Such views are as alien to me as they are to a Canadian or a Brit. The only Republicans I know are purely economically conservative and feel the GOP has been hijacked by Southern religious fundamentalists.
I'm only repeating this because that's why I believe the GOP is in long-term trouble. It's defending a version of America that no longer exists. America is becoming less white, more educated, and more urbanized. All of these things are correlated with support for the Democratic party.
To claim that "Americans" broadly agree with the fringe views in the Republican Party is to buy into their claim that they represent Americans better than the Democrats do. The numbers don't match this assertion, however.
quote:Nothing wrong with being cultured. Nothing wrong with despising what's despicable.
Originally posted by CL:
I see the cultured despisers are out in force.
quote:Yep, and I pretty much despise our despicable government. I don't seem to be alone.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Nothing wrong with despising what's despicable.
quote:That seems to be applicable to both major parties. The campaign slogan of "We Suck Less" can't be too far off.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is so suicidal about the GOP at this moment what seems to be its uncontrollable impulse to repel voters.
quote:In a perfect world, or even just a perfect democracy, that would be the end of it. They've repulsed so many key demographics that they'd simply be unelectable and would mercifully drift into oblivion, a mere footnote in history.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is so suicidal about the GOP at this moment what seems to be its uncontrollable impulse to repel voters. I am a resident of Virginia, famed as the home of the state-mandated trans-vaginal probe. There is not a woman I know in this state who will vote for the GOP. And of course they are fantabulous at repulsing persons of color and ethnicity. Who is left, but ageing angry white men?
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It wasn't always this way. Democrats and Republicans used to be able to disagree while still respecting each other and working out a compromise.
quote:These are related issues. For about a century following the U.S. Civil War there were a large number of conservative Southerners who were Democrats because Lincoln freed the slaves. There was also a large contingent of moderate Northerners who were Republicans for largely the same reason. A lot of the bipartisan compromises that people are so nostalgic about were bipartisan because legislators were divided along regional rather than partisan lines (Northerners vs. Southerners rather than Democrats vs. Republicans).
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Indeed, I wanted it quite clear that it was a country club set. I am puzzled that Republican leaders feel that focussing on the perceptions of a numerically-shrinking cohort is a strategy for political success for the future. Their handling of the immigration issue is a perfect example; when a demographically important and theoretically natural ally Latino-origin population is being treated as a dangerous and alien enemy, it cannot be logical to expect many votes from them.
quote:Seems to me that has been the de facto if not de jure motto of both parties for decades. And I have seen Democratic bumper stickers etc. that say "We may not be perfect but the other guys are nuts." Which I find hard to argue with.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That seems to be applicable to both major parties. The campaign slogan of "We Suck Less" can't be too far off.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What is so suicidal about the GOP at this moment what seems to be its uncontrollable impulse to repel voters.
quote:The difficulty here for the Latina in question is that (many, not all) Republicans are on message with the hierarchy on abortion and the contraception mandate, but are at odds with them on migration, family support, and the death penalty. It might be that individual candidates could respond more subtly than the party as a whole. And, of course, we are not even touching Pope Frank's observations on capitalism and the banking system.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Agreed generally, but if the Latina immigrant is Catholic, she might want to consider the GOP for religious reasons.
quote:Linked to this is the fact that the "Christian right" arose not, as many liberals suppose, from a Roe v. Wade backlash, but over segregation at Bob Jones University.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
These are related issues. For about a century following the U.S. Civil War there were a large number of conservative Southerners who were Democrats because Lincoln freed the slaves. There was also a large contingent of moderate Northerners who were Republicans for largely the same reason. A lot of the bipartisan compromises that people are so nostalgic about were bipartisan because legislators were divided along regional rather than partisan lines (Northerners vs. Southerners rather than Democrats vs. Republicans).
This changed in the mid-1960s when the Democratic party went all in on civil rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a classic illustration of "bipartisan compromise" (the bill was supported by a majority of both parties) masking a sectional divide (all Northern legislators voted in favor, almost all Southern legislators were opposed). In the wake of this the Republican party set out to court disaffected white Southern racists who felt they'd been betrayed by the Democratic party in what became known as the Southern Strategy.
Of course the problem with making yourself the party of white racism is that it's only a successful strategy if the country remains overwhelmingly white (and whites remain fairly racist). In other words, deliberately appealing to Latino voters would jeopardize the Republican party's standing with its current voters in a gamble to appeal to new voters who might not respond favorably.
quote:It's been cumulative frustration and sadness and anger for some time now, and I wanted to do something more constructive than vent on a Hell thread.
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I don't know if this is what triggered the OP
quote:I would disagree here--I know the Democrats are a tad more conservative than they should be compared with the rest of the civilized world, but I think Obama is the best president we've had in my lifetime (I'm 46).
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That seems to be applicable to both major parties. The campaign slogan of "We Suck Less" can't be too far off.
quote:I'd say it's pro-birth. Apart from what one believes about abortion (and trying to dodge Dead Horse territory), one of the most frustrating things I find about the current GOP is that their concern about such matters seems to stop the moment the child exits the womb, since they've been actively trying to tear down the social safety net that might help feed and care for babies, children, mothers (single and otherwise), and so on--and, currently and totally bafflingly, they seem to be moving against birth control (as in the Hobby Lobby caee), which I thought was a completely done deal decades ago.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see why the GOP would appeal to religious conservatives of all stripes ... it's more 'pro-life' and so on.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Again, yes-- but only because of the smoke & mirrors. The GOP money machine has very effectively managed to market themselves as the "pro-life" (as well as the "family values") party, while doing exactly 0 on either issue. Abortions have gone down under every Democratic administration and gone up under Republican-- for a reason. But again, with ample funds to ample out an illusion of caring about unborn children (even if you care diddly-squat about poor children to say nothing of refugee children fleeing So. America) that is sufficient.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Agreed generally, but if the Latina immigrant is Catholic, she might want to consider the GOP for religious reasons.
quote:Amen, amen, and a further amen.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Sure, but you admit that it's a country club set.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
I'm a black American with a graduate degree from the Northeast. Such views are as alien to me as they are to a Canadian or a Brit. The only Republicans I know are purely economically conservative and feel the GOP has been hijacked by Southern religious fundamentalists.
I'm only repeating this because that's why I believe the GOP is in long-term trouble. It's defending a version of America that no longer exists. America is becoming less white, more educated, and more urbanized. All of these things are correlated with support for the Democratic party.
To claim that "Americans" broadly agree with the fringe views in the Republican Party is to buy into their claim that they represent Americans better than the Democrats do. The numbers don't match this assertion, however.
quote:Exhibit A.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
A good first step might be for the GOP leadership to regularly call out all the "batshit crazy" members of the GOP clown car (I'm sure we all know who they are).
quote:(Michelle Bachmann has said that Obama's keeping the migrant refugee children in the US so we can perform medical experiments on them.)
The origins of this theory are long and complex and more than a little batshit crazy; see the link if you want the long version. The short version is that the conservative movement is absolutely batshit crazy, and a sizable portion of all the people they elect are similarly batshit crazy, and they all get their news from batshit crazy news sources staffed by batshit crazy people until everything is just a blur of crazy-ass conspiracy theories that they've convinced themselves of primarily because a bunch of equally batshit crazy people claim they believe them as well.
...
Her mind must be a horrible place, a place of bats and alligators and carnival rides staffed by sad-faced clowns wielding axes in one hand and machetes in the other. I don't know how you get yourself down a path that leaves you believing things like that are somebody's secret plan
quote:Seriously? I'm neither conservative nor liberal; but the only President I can think of that's been worse than Obama (IMO, of course) has been Bush Jr.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I would disagree here--I know the Democrats are a tad more conservative than they should be compared with the rest of the civilized world, but I think Obama is the best president we've had in my lifetime (I'm 46).
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That seems to be applicable to both major parties. The campaign slogan of "We Suck Less" can't be too far off.
quote:Recent studies have shown that almost everyone has experienced savings under ACA, with the exception of those poor souls in red states that refused to implement the Medicare expansion. Some people this has been rather modest savings (a slowing of the decades-long increase in massive health care costs); for others the savings are masked because their employer is the one footing the bill. And, of course, for a sizable minority the impact has literally been life-saving.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I'm fairly confident that the ACA would be doing severe damage to the DNC in the mid-terms if it were being implemented to the hilt: which is why there have been delays on implementation by executive order.
quote:Yes. And of course, most of those parties already exist within our system. We've just come to believe that you're "throwing away your vote" if you vote outside the two major parties-- with good reason-- look what happened when Nader ran for the Green party. No one wants to see that happen again. But if enough people get fed up with the two major parties to switch the balance of power you could have a real democracy-- one where they'll HAVE to work together and built consensus and compromise in order to get the plurality needed to get elected.
Originally posted by HCH:
I think the U.S. might be much better served by having more than two parties. How about having a Green party (environmental concerns), a Labor party, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? I doubt any of them would have a majority, so American politics would have to return to debate and compromise.
quote:I think that depends on the full impact of the ACA on employment numbers and our already staggering national debt (a third of which was incurred under the Obama administration).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The woman belongs locked up in a mental hospital, not in Congress.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
These days, what's the difference? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Yes, seriously. Re Obama's difficulty with Congress, as this article points out, the record is unambiguous. I mean, yikes.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Seriously?
quote:Actually the deficit is dropping. The debt won't start dropping until the deficit is negative (i.e. a surplus).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
National debt is dropping rapidly (which is why it is no longer a talking point in the nuttier realms of cable TV). It only grew so large, because of the necessity to do something about the recession.
quote:ACA has a positive effect on both employment and on debt (or rather, deficit, as per mousethief's post). By lowering the rate of inflation of health care costs, it's improving the economy. By making it far, far easier for employers to add staff (by making health care costs more predictable) it raises employment.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:I think that depends on the full impact of the ACA on employment numbers and our already staggering national debt (a third of which was incurred under the Obama administration).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP.
quote:Thanks for that. This sounds very familiar. I have some relatives in Virginia and they live in a so-called 'gated community' which is almost entirely white—apart from the black and foreign staff at the clubhouse. It is surreal. I've certainly heard "what do you think of our American freedom?" before. I have to say—and this is extremely anecdotal—it's mostly in the South where the craziness flourishes.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Why are they whispering then? Why are you meeting so few "sane" Americans? The demographics suggest that most Americans do not actually support right wing politics, yet you claim the ones who don't act like they are members of a secret society.
Originally posted by Komensky:
That was my point.
quote:Not just bin Laden. I think Obama's had a few other people bumped off without the tiresome and outdated formality of due process as well, hasn't he?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do consider Obama a great president. He nailed Osama bin Laden. This is important because my daughter had vowed to do it, and she has gotten as far as Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. I far prefer the Navy Seals to undertake the work. Obama will always have my gratitude.
quote:It's fairly subjective. Usually it's along the lines of "did he accomplish his policy goals?" and "were those goals worth achieving?" You often see lists compiled by historians (or by people polling groups of historians) ranking U.S. presidents. The top three are almost always George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. The order may change from list to list, but there's a general consensus that those are the top three. These presidents are notable because they faced crises during their terms that threatened to destroy the U.S. (or alter it so radically that it would functionally be a completely different country from the one that exists now). The obvious corollary is that if you happen to be president during a time when the Republic isn't threatened with extinction (i.e. most of its history), historians are going to consider you a second-tier president at best.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What criteria make a president "great"? And how can those indices be measured?
quote:I'll add an amen here. And also mention how sad and pathetic is seems to watch white men of priviledge clinging to the power they seem to take as their entitlement (a word they love to use prejoratively against the poor) as this power slips from their hands like sand. No wonder they come up with bogus emergencies like voter fraud to pass laws that make it harder for people (mostly minorities and the elderly) to vote.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Amen, amen, and a further amen.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Sure, but you admit that it's a country club set.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
[q]I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
I'm a black American with a graduate degree from the Northeast. Such views are as alien to me as they are to a Canadian or a Brit. The only Republicans I know are purely economically conservative and feel the GOP has been hijacked by Southern religious fundamentalists.
I'm only repeating this because that's why I believe the GOP is in long-term trouble. It's defending a version of America that no longer exists. America is becoming less white, more educated, and more urbanized. All of these things are correlated with support for the Democratic party.
To claim that "Americans" broadly agree with the fringe views in the Republican Party is to buy into their claim that they represent Americans better than the Democrats do. The numbers don't match this assertion, however.
quote:I'd add GWB and Ronald Reagan to that list, most definitely.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Near the bottom you get folks like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding, presidents who did substantial harm to the country through ineptitude or corruption.
quote:Only because he put the cost of Bush's war back on the books. Statistically, the GOP borrow more and increase the debt more often when they're in power.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:I think that depends on the full impact of the ACA on employment numbers and our already staggering national debt (a third of which was incurred under the Obama administration).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. quote:'If it is allowed'? Surely you don't have to state beforehand who you're going to vote for. Isn't the ballot secret? It is virtually everywhere else. I don't believe that uniquely where Sir Kevin you happen to live is an exception to this basic principle.
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Before the next US Presidential election, I shall change my affiliation from one of the two major political parties to 'DECLINES TO STATE' if it is allowed where I am temporarily living as it was when I was a Field Deputy Registrar of Voters for Los Angeles County as it was when I was a teenager or 'Independent' if it's not.
quote:In most states the primaries are conducted and paid for by the state, not the parties.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't a primary part of a party's internal system, one of the ways available to it to choose what candidate to put up, and nothing to do with the state, electors' rights or the government at all? Or have I completely misunderstood how US politics work?
quote:Primaries became popular in the mid-twentieth century as a reaction against the party elite (a.k.a. "the smoke-filled room") choosing candidates. In essence they're a means by which party membership elects its candidates and, as MT points out, they're subject to the same regulation and scrutiny as any other election. Some states have closed primaries (only registered party members can vote) while other states have open primaries (any registered voter can vote in either party's primary, but not both).
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't a primary part of a party's internal system, one of the ways available to it to choose what candidate to put up, and nothing to do with the state, electors' rights or the government at all?
quote:Actually the Virginia Republican Party prefers conventions, at least for statewide office. I think they still use primaries for federal offices, though. Conveniently elections for state offices in Virginia are held in odd-numbered years so they never coincide with federal elections.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The parties do get to decide however -- whether to have a primary, or whether to have a convention, for example. In Virginia the extremists prefer a primary.
quote:In our state, there is a single ballot, and you vote for your person, then the two candidates who get the most votes in the primary are on the ballot in the regular election, even if they're both from the same party. This is actually a compromise; we used to have a different system (which neither Josephine nor I can remember now!) but the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties jointly sued the state and got it changed to what it is now.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Some states have closed primaries (only registered party members can vote) while other states have open primaries (any registered voter can vote in either party's primary, but not both).
quote:The nephew of a good friend of mine joined the Young Conservatives (the Canadian sort) for the same reason and found himself sandwiched between a posse of steely blonde and serious evangelicals with purity and purpose of soul, and several semi-closeted gays. He annoyed his complaining nephew by quoting the Rolling Stones to the effect that you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, you are right, Croesus. I get confused, because my son is a Young Republican and keeps on telling me about party tactics and strategy. Laughably, he joined hoping to meet girls. There are no young female Republicans in this state, the party having made itself repugnant to anyone with an ovary. There are only older white men.
quote:That's a curious way of thinking. I think most of us over here would regard it as our public duty to vote. So we'd rather they voted differently from the way we do, than that they failed to vote at all.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems I've done well with my kids, too. I'm fairly certain the middle one has never even voted.
quote:She seems to think it a waste of time. I don't know if my other two daughters vote, either. Following the oldest daughter, the other two have also moved to Nashville and I'd be a bit surprised if any of them have even bothered registering to vote in Tennessee.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That's a curious way of thinking. I think most of us over here would regard it as our public duty to vote. So we'd rather they voted differently from the way we do, than that they failed to vote at all.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems I've done well with my kids, too. I'm fairly certain the middle one has never even voted.
quote:I'd find it quite disturbing if my children were to speak that way and actually mean it or act on it. I hardly need to say that people have fought for the right to vote. if one lives in a country where one has the ability to vote, and doesn't exercise it, one forfeits all right to complain or be rude about ones government, at national, regional or local level.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems to think it a waste of time. I don't know if my other two daughters vote, either. Following the oldest daughter, the other two have also moved to Nashville and I'd be a bit surprised if any of them have even bothered registering to vote in Tennessee.
quote:Um... isn't that basically not a good thing? That's three votes that could make the world a better place, or at least less of a worse one.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems to think it a waste of time. I don't know if my other two daughters vote, either. Following the oldest daughter, the other two have also moved to Nashville and I'd be a bit surprised if any of them have even bothered registering to vote in Tennessee.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Is that a reference to Avram Davidson's book "The Phoenix and the Mirror"?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mysteriously, my son went to a local Young Republicans meeting and spotted a girl of his age. He said to me, bemused, "I guess I should ask her out." I said, "Yeah, you better." You find a phoenix, you hang on -- that is a rare bird.
quote:He writes for the Village Voice.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I note that the site on which Andrew WK published his comment is one of those "The Democrats not only can't do anything right, but they also want to destroy our society" loonbag collections.
If they actually wanted the core idea of AWK's commentary, they'd have to close the site down and try a different approach. There certainly is no attempt to see the other side as citizens of the same country.
quote:If you have a business that can't make a sale, do you blame the customer?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I'd find it quite disturbing if my children were to speak that way and actually mean it or act on it. I hardly need to say that people have fought for the right to vote. if one lives in a country where one has the ability to vote, and doesn't exercise it, one forfeits all right to complain or be rude about ones government, at national, regional or local level.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems to think it a waste of time. I don't know if my other two daughters vote, either. Following the oldest daughter, the other two have also moved to Nashville and I'd be a bit surprised if any of them have even bothered registering to vote in Tennessee.
Even if one disagrees with party X and lives in a place where if party X put up a pig as a candidate, it would be elected, one still has a duty to turn out and vote against the pig. That is the one thing that gives one the right to complain.
quote:The country is not a business. Any particular business does not need my business for democracy to go on. We do need to vote for democracy to go on. This is a stupid comparison. Sorry.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If you have a business that can't make a sale, do you blame the customer?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I'd find it quite disturbing if my children were to speak that way and actually mean it or act on it. I hardly need to say that people have fought for the right to vote. if one lives in a country where one has the ability to vote, and doesn't exercise it, one forfeits all right to complain or be rude about ones government, at national, regional or local level.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems to think it a waste of time. I don't know if my other two daughters vote, either. Following the oldest daughter, the other two have also moved to Nashville and I'd be a bit surprised if any of them have even bothered registering to vote in Tennessee.
Even if one disagrees with party X and lives in a place where if party X put up a pig as a candidate, it would be elected, one still has a duty to turn out and vote against the pig. That is the one thing that gives one the right to complain.
quote:No, it isn't. It isn't my child's fault if a candidate can't present enough of a reason for her to go vote for that candidate.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The country is not a business. Any particular business does not need my business for democracy to go on. We do need to vote for democracy to go on. This is a stupid comparison. Sorry.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If you have a business that can't make a sale, do you blame the customer?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I'd find it quite disturbing if my children were to speak that way and actually mean it or act on it. I hardly need to say that people have fought for the right to vote. if one lives in a country where one has the ability to vote, and doesn't exercise it, one forfeits all right to complain or be rude about ones government, at national, regional or local level.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems to think it a waste of time. I don't know if my other two daughters vote, either. Following the oldest daughter, the other two have also moved to Nashville and I'd be a bit surprised if any of them have even bothered registering to vote in Tennessee.
Even if one disagrees with party X and lives in a place where if party X put up a pig as a candidate, it would be elected, one still has a duty to turn out and vote against the pig. That is the one thing that gives one the right to complain.
quote:You're not being rude, Enoch. Perhaps the time may come where the kids of mine that don't vote will change their minds. Voting is still a voluntary act and there's no reason to blame any of my kids that don't vote for not volunteering for any of the choices. And, no, they don't give up any rights to complain if they choose to do that.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry to be rude Mere Nick, but I agree with Mousethief. Your daughters are citizens. One of the privileges and obligations of citizens is that one is a citizen of one's country, not an occasional pick it or leave it, consumer of it as a product.
It is entirely legitimate to say that what's wrong with the candidates is that they are no good, but one is only entitled to say that if one participates in one's obligations as a citizen. If one simply says 'I can't be bothered', or 'I'd only be bothered if they had won my support', one loses the right to complain.
If one feels that strongly on the inadequacies of what's on offer, the minimum one can do to be allowed to think that, is to turn up and vote, and do whatever is the US equivalent of deliberately spoiling one's ballot paper.
quote:It's easier to pin the responsibility on someone older than it is on someone still in their early 20s. "None of the above" might just have an appeal for my kids that other choices do not yet have. It'd be good if more states had that choice.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm also of the school that says one has a responsibility to vote. That's tough to do when the choices are one horrible choice or the lesser of two evils.
Still, I think the job is to show up an spoil a ballot. None of the above winds sends a clearer message than "voters are apathetic and don't vote".
quote:Not California.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Washington State, Louisiana, and I believe California, have what is called a "Top Two" system, where the top two candidates for any race in the primary will stand in the general election.
quote:I'm uncomfortable with the way this has become personal (probably not your original intent) but I too believe that if one doesn't vote, they have absolutely no right to complain. I hope your girls-- and all young women (and men)-- will come to see the issues as important enough to warrant their attention, to see their voice as valuable. I hope they will complain, especially when they find the choices crappy--but complain in a way that is something more than just spitting into the wind. That would entail voting, among other things.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:You're not being rude, Enoch. Perhaps the time may come where the kids of mine that don't vote will change their minds. Voting is still a voluntary act and there's no reason to blame any of my kids that don't vote for not volunteering for any of the choices. And, no, they don't give up any rights to complain if they choose to do that.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry to be rude Mere Nick, but I agree with Mousethief. Your daughters are citizens. One of the privileges and obligations of citizens is that one is a citizen of one's country, not an occasional pick it or leave it, consumer of it as a product.
It is entirely legitimate to say that what's wrong with the candidates is that they are no good, but one is only entitled to say that if one participates in one's obligations as a citizen. If one simply says 'I can't be bothered', or 'I'd only be bothered if they had won my support', one loses the right to complain.
If one feels that strongly on the inadequacies of what's on offer, the minimum one can do to be allowed to think that, is to turn up and vote, and do whatever is the US equivalent of deliberately spoiling one's ballot paper.
quote:Yes they do. If you don't ask the pretty girl to dance, don't complain when you get the ugly girl.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And, no, they don't give up any rights to complain if they choose to [not vote].
quote:And if they all suck, show up, write "you all suck and none of you get my vote" on the ballot, and leave. By doing so, you are claiming that you don't care which of the sucky options gets elected (so make sure you don't care) but you register your willingness to vote (and maybe someone less sucky will be encouraged by the number of spoiled ballots to stand next time round.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If there's not a candidate that's obviously good compared to one that's obviously bad, then you have to sift through their dossiers and pick the least bad one. It's a lot more work and much less pleasant. Refusing to do so is understandable but lazy and irresponsible.
quote:Can one leave a vote blank, or are you obliged to make a selection in order to produce a valid ballot?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Brazil is one of the few countries where voting is compulsory. In the past, people wrote a lot of funny stuff on their ballots. Unfortunately, this isn't possible anymore since the introduction of voting machines.
quote:Yes, you can leave a vote blank, but you have to explicitly do so. You're not allowed to leave the booth without voting.
Leorning Cniht: Can one leave a vote blank, or are you obliged to make a selection in order to produce a valid ballot?
quote:If a guy knows who all the girls are at a particular dance and doesn't like any of them then he might not bother going.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Yes they do. If you don't ask the pretty girl to dance, don't complain when you get the ugly girl.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And, no, they don't give up any rights to complain if they choose to [not vote].
quote:I can understand the sentiment, but the problem is: a girl will be chosen to dance with him. Someone will govern you.
Mere Nick: If a guy knows who all the girls are at a particular dance and doesn't like any of them then he might not bother going.
quote:They probably will start voting as they get older. Folks in their early 20s are less likely to vote, it appears.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm uncomfortable with the way this has become personal (probably not your original intent) but I too believe that if one doesn't vote, they have absolutely no right to complain. I hope your girls-- and all young women (and men)-- will come to see the issues as important enough to warrant their attention, to see their voice as valuable. I hope they will complain, especially when they find the choices crappy--but complain in a way that is something more than just spitting into the wind. That would entail voting, among other things.
quote:I still don't understand it, especially for young people. Not voting means letting other people make important decisions for you. And yes, it *does* make a difference which of the lousy choices wins.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They probably will start voting as they get older. Folks in their early 20s are less likely to vote, it appears.
quote:HE'S ALREADY THERE. AT THE DANCE.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If a guy knows who all the girls are at a particular dance and doesn't like any of them then he might not bother going.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Yes they do. If you don't ask the pretty girl to dance, don't complain when you get the ugly girl.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And, no, they don't give up any rights to complain if they choose to [not vote].
quote:But, as has been pointed out, "not going" is not an option. Unless you are planning a move to some deserted island, you have to live in society. Which means you will have to live with the government that is elected, whether you participated in the election or not. If you voted for the "least objectionable' and the
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If a guy knows who all the girls are at a particular dance and doesn't like any of them then he might not bother going.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Yes they do. If you don't ask the pretty girl to dance, don't complain when you get the ugly girl.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And, no, they don't give up any rights to complain if they choose to [not vote].
quote:Here is probably about as good an explanation as any as to why younger voters don't vote as much as older voters.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:I still don't understand it, especially for young people. Not voting means letting other people make important decisions for you. And yes, it *does* make a difference which of the lousy choices wins.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They probably will start voting as they get older. Folks in their early 20s are less likely to vote, it appears.
quote:Yes, that probably explains why the young are less likely to start voting.
Originally posted by orfeo:
None of the mechanisms of representative democracy require your participation. The wheels will grind on.
quote:When I hear "batshit insane", I immediately think of Nancy Pelosi. "Outright and self-servingly evil", Harry Reid. Him and the NC Democrat Party. The GOP strikes me as currently and usually being too muddled and inept.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm baffled at the idea that the candidates of the two main parties, of at all times now, are not distinguishable enough to vote for. As you can guess from my OP, I think the direction of the current GOP is totally batshit insane if not outright and overtly self-servingly evil,
quote:I've always appreciated Clinton signing the TRA of 1997 into law and, although I voted Libertarian in 1992 and '96, I would have probably voted for Jerry Brown because of his 13% flat tax idea.
And I really would like the classic-style Republicans to somehow throw out the bad guys who have taken over their party.
quote:Um. Yes, I suppose we'll have to disagree pretty thoroughly about that.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
When I hear "batshit insane", I immediately think of Nancy Pelosi. "Outright and self-servingly evil", Harry Reid. Him and the NC Democrat Party.
quote:It doesn't tell you what that platform might be. And it's highly likely that the combined opinion of the people who voted 'none of the above' is an incoherent mess of opposing views.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Voting none of the above or leaving the vote blank on that section does make sense. It's a multi-election strategy. If a significant number of people do it in one election, it's sending that a message that if someone runs with a different platform there may be a vote to be had.
quote:Thank you for trying to avoid reading for comprehension. My comment was about the site, not the writer.
He writes for the Village Voice.
quote:Indeed, but it is an indication to political players that there is a growing and identifiable section of the population which is dissatisfied enough to get up off their chairs and say so. They are thus differentiated from those who couldn't be bothered or who might not know that there is an election happening. Knowing my backroom friends, 5% of spoiled or rejected ballots would send shock waves around-- that's a margin which, applied to another candidate or party, swings elections.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It doesn't tell you what that platform might be. And it's highly likely that the combined opinion of the people who voted 'none of the above' is an incoherent mess of opposing views.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Voting none of the above or leaving the vote blank on that section does make sense. It's a multi-election strategy. If a significant number of people do it in one election, it's sending that a message that if someone runs with a different platform there may be a vote to be had.
quote:The problem is, that leads to a splintering of the vote that yields counter-intuitive results. In a left-leaning community, for example, there might be various lefty candidates with differing qualifications/ agendas which would appeal more or less to different people, but all would be preferable, say, to a Republican candidate. But with multiple lefty candidates and only one or two GOP candidates, even in a lefty community the right wing candidate would likely be elected. For a right-wing example more compelling to you, look at the way that Ross Perot's candidacy split the conservative vote in the 1990s, leading to the election of Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I would prefer that ballots have nothing more than the offices listed with no names or party affiliations listed. Let every vote be a write in vote. That, or some alternative that serves the same purpose.
quote:Hair length and clothing styles.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am struggling to see, nowadays, what the difference is between libertarian and anarchist.
quote:Nope, still makes no sense. If government is untrustworthy, running away and hiding isn't going to change that. It's just granting consent for more untrustworthiness.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... There has been a growing distrust of government over the last few decades. I can't blame someone for their hesitancy in taking part.
quote:Actually, I don't mean in terms of winning votes but becoming less horrible and more human.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Of course it can be saved. Didn't the Democratic party look all but dead in the 1980's?
quote:Sums it up well.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Nope, still makes no sense. If government is untrustworthy, running away and hiding isn't going to change that. It's just granting consent for more untrustworthiness.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... There has been a growing distrust of government over the last few decades. I can't blame someone for their hesitancy in taking part.
Now, complaining about the government is a civil right, and doesn't depend on whether you (generic) vote or not. But if you go out with friends for pizza, and say, "Oh, I'm fine with whatever you order", and when the pizza arrives, complain about the anchovies, and then tell anyone who will listen that your friends can't be trusted to even order a pizza, and then eat four slices, and then complain about how expensive the pizza is, your friends may just think you are a selfish, passive-aggressive douche.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Oh, that's easy: anarchists want no government at all; libertarians want a government that is just big enough to defend the haves against the have-nots, but not big enough to manage the converse.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am struggling to see, nowadays, what the difference is between libertarian and anarchist.
quote:There's actually been a few bills in Congress that have moved forward with a coalition of lefty Democrats and libertarian tea party Republicans. There aren't many such bills though.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am struggling to see, nowadays, what the difference is between libertarian and anarchist.
quote:Taking a stab at this, would such things be about drug laws, decriminalization of consensual sex between adults, etc.?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's actually been a few bills in Congress that have moved forward with a coalition of lefty Democrats and libertarian tea party Republicans. There aren't many such bills though.
quote:Where do you get this from? The article linked to in relation to a case of 'none of the above' winning said nothing remotely like this. It clearly stated that the PERSON with the most votes won.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The other part of "None of the above" is that the "None" winning means the guys who were on the ballot cannot run again in this election round, and a second election has to be held, in which more viable candidates are offered.
quote:The problem is, I'm in the car, my friends decide we'll all go for pizza, I'm allergic to wheat and dairy. But pizza is where they take the car. So of course I don't vote on what kind, it's all indigestion. And whatever they get, anchovies or not, is unappetizing to me.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
But if you go out with friends for pizza, and say, "Oh, I'm fine with whatever you order", and when the pizza arrives, complain about the anchovies, and then tell anyone who will listen that your friends can't be trusted to even order a pizza, and then eat four slices, and then complain about how expensive the pizza is, your friends may just think you are a selfish, passive-aggressive douche.
quote:Again, if you speak up and say, "hey I'm allergic, can we go somewhere else?" and your friends ignore you, you at least have the right to b***h about what selfish jerks they are. But if you say nothing you have no right to complain when they buy something inedible to you.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:The problem is, I'm in the car, my friends decide we'll all go for pizza, I'm allergic to wheat and dairy. But pizza is where they take the car. So of course I don't vote on what kind, it's all indigestion. And whatever they get, anchovies or not, is unappetizing to me.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
But if you go out with friends for pizza, and say, "Oh, I'm fine with whatever you order", and when the pizza arrives, complain about the anchovies, and then tell anyone who will listen that your friends can't be trusted to even order a pizza, and then eat four slices, and then complain about how expensive the pizza is, your friends may just think you are a selfish, passive-aggressive douche.
You still think I'm supposed to vote? But I can't just get out of the car, I'm stuck, there's no place to go, no way to get there on foot.
quote:Well, you didn't have to leave the Empire...
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... Nowhere to go. I guess an EU or Commonwealth citizen has lots of choices where to live, folks in USA have none...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Sorry, O. I didn't read the article. The idea that "none of the Above" might win, and the consequences of that, have always been present in any discussion I've seen about it. Otherwise, there's no point.
Where do you get this from? The article linked to in relation to a case of 'none of the above' winning said nothing remotely like this. It clearly stated that the PERSON with the most votes won.
quote:Yes. Green party, we're looking at you.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Part of the problem with both third parties and "none of the above" in the US is that--as we saw in the 2000 election--if you don't think either of the two biggest candidates are completely good enough, you could wind up with the worse one by splitting the vote between people you sort of mostly agree with and therefore end up with the one you'd cut off your right arm to avoid getting.
quote:Not sure about that. Almost 2/3rds of Canadians vote for left-of-centre parties (Liberals, NDP and Greens) but end up with a right-wing majority government.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Hey, other countries make multiple-party systems work. Is it absolutely true that the US cannot learn from anyone else?
quote:Dead horse, if my vote really matters.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Would political differences of that sort be best on its own Purgatory thread?
quote:I think the direction of both of the main parties is bad. But, you asked about the GOP.
Part of me wants to ask why you regard Pelosi, Reid, etc. that way but I think it would derail the point of this thread (which is pretty much predicated on the notion that, indeed, the direction of the US GOP right now is catastrophically bad).
quote:Single-shot voting wouldn't really be as applicable to this type of arrangement. If there are no names on the ballot then it is possible for you to wake up on the first Wednesday in November and found out you've been elected dog catcher. I would expect it to cause people to become more informed than what we have now where, what, 80% or so vote the same straight ticket every year without knowing half or two thirds of the names on the ballot.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:The problem is, that leads to a splintering of the vote that yields counter-intuitive results. In a left-leaning community, for example, there might be various lefty candidates with differing qualifications/ agendas which would appeal more or less to different people, but all would be preferable, say, to a Republican candidate. But with multiple lefty candidates and only one or two GOP candidates, even in a lefty community the right wing candidate would likely be elected. For a right-wing example more compelling to you, look at the way that Ross Perot's candidacy split the conservative vote in the 1990s, leading to the election of Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I would prefer that ballots have nothing more than the offices listed with no names or party affiliations listed. Let every vote be a write in vote. That, or some alternative that serves the same purpose.
quote:Those, government spying on us, etc. Asset forfeiture abuse should be another one if it isn't already.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Taking a stab at this, would such things be about drug laws, decriminalization of consensual sex between adults, etc.?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's actually been a few bills in Congress that have moved forward with a coalition of lefty Democrats and libertarian tea party Republicans. There aren't many such bills though.
quote:Yes, the Village Voice is a well known right wing publication. Mmm hmm.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Thank you for trying to avoid reading for comprehension. My comment was about the site, not the writer.
quote:You sound like you're the kid who wrote the letter.
P.S. I also note that AWK implies that the old man has no obligation to move at all - he is allowed to be as stupid, as intransigent, as wrongly-opinionated as he likes and he doesn't have to do anything about it. The young man MUST move to agreement.
This is pretty well what the loonbag side of the GOP wants -anything they want is RIGHT and anyone else is WRONG. Hence the purpose of the OP?
quote:Absolutely. Yes, really, I do.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Is the health of political parties really the kind of thing you think about between the time your head hits the pillow and you fall asleep?
quote:Is that the only time you think? I don't understand this question.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Is the health of political parties really the kind of thing you think about between the time your head hits the pillow and you fall asleep?
quote:Any system throws up oddities. Compared to the Harper Tories, the old Progressive Conservative Party was socialist. The voting public is (finally) beginning to see the problem. But we had a good run for over 50 years before harper. And I note that one of the most productive periods in our government history occurred during a minority situation when Pearson was PM.
Not sure about that. Almost 2/3rds of Canadians vote for left-of-centre parties (Liberals, NDP and Greens) but end up with a right-wing majority government.
quote:Most of Europe, for example, regards multi-party coalition government, delivered by more or less proportional systems, as the norm or at least perfectly acceptable. And we're not just talking 'Club Med' here- prosperous and stable northern Europe.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Not sure about that. Almost 2/3rds of Canadians vote for left-of-centre parties (Liberals, NDP and Greens) but end up with a right-wing majority government.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Hey, other countries make multiple-party systems work. Is it absolutely true that the US cannot learn from anyone else?
quote:Of course not, but it is when you are thinking about the things that are still keeping you awake.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Is that the only time you think? I don't understand this question.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Is the health of political parties really the kind of thing you think about between the time your head hits the pillow and you fall asleep?
quote:How about thinking about how enjoyable it would be for you to buy me a beer? Both of our lives would be better for it.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Absolutely. Yes, really, I do.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Is the health of political parties really the kind of thing you think about between the time your head hits the pillow and you fall asleep?
quote:Beer is a good thing. I need to drink more of it.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
How about thinking about how enjoyable it would be for you to buy me a beer? Both of our lives would be better for it.
quote:Unless you're sitting at the kitchen table wide awake, not even bothering to go to bed because you know you're not sleepy.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Of course not, but it is when you are thinking about the things that are still keeping you awake.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Is that the only time you think? I don't understand this question.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Is the health of political parties really the kind of thing you think about between the time your head hits the pillow and you fall asleep?
quote:Then you have some growing up to do.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mere Nick: Maybe I am like the kid who wrote the letter. So be it.
quote:He does have an absolute right to an opinion.
But I still think that the Golden Rule/Second Great Commandment involves dome form of reciprocity. Just being an old fart doesn't give you exclusive right to always being absolutely right.
quote:His job is to love his father. His job is to grow up. Part of growing up is learning that one is not a baby anymore and doesn't always get his way. Part of growing up is learning that there will be folks who will not have the same opinions.
It is the job of younger people to point this out.
quote:Tell me about it, pal.
Again, I might hint that you are deliberately missing my point by throwing useless lines.
quote:Part of growing up - if not the major part of growing up - is realising that your father (for sons, their father especially) is not a cross between Superman and God, and his sincerely-held opinions are, on occasions, batshit crazy and are not, under any circumstances, to be entertained.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
His job is to love his father. His job is to grow up. Part of growing up is learning that one is not a baby anymore and doesn't always get his way. Part of growing up is learning that there will be folks who will not have the same opinions.
quote:No, there's no reason for the son to have a closed mind. My father was way to the left of me and I didn't mind hearing what he had to say. He died in 1990 and there is very little I wouldn't give to hear his voice again, even just to hear a batshit opinion. The kid who wrote the letter is travelling the dark road of regret.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Part of growing up - if not the major part of growing up - is realising that your father (for sons, their father especially) is not a cross between Superman and God, and his sincerely-held opinions are, on occasions, batshit crazy and are not, under any circumstances, to be entertained.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]His job is to love his father. His job is to grow up. Part of growing up is learning that one is not a baby anymore and doesn't always get his way. Part of growing up is learning that there will be folks who will not have the same opinions.
quote:If he lives near his father he should make it a point to pick him up on election day, go to the polls and cancel out each others vote and then go grab a beer or coffee. It would be a good way to spend time together.
How to deal with that graciously is also part of growing up, and teenagers are particularly bad at that.
quote:No one is saying he has to give up his opinions, no matter how batshit crazy his dad thinks they are. Neither should his dad. Someone's opinion is just that, an opinion.
His job is to love his father despite his batshit crazy opinions, not to love him by agreeing with him.
quote:Winning votes will always be the bottom line for both parties. That's why their actual track records are so similar in the past dozen years or so.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Actually, I don't mean in terms of winning votes but becoming less horrible and more human.
quote:That would require one to accept that the Liberal Party of Canada is a left-leaning party, and for that I will require evidence.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Not sure about that. Almost 2/3rds of Canadians vote for left-of-centre parties (Liberals, NDP and Greens) but end up with a right-wing majority government.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Hey, other countries make multiple-party systems work. Is it absolutely true that the US cannot learn from anyone else?
quote:I... um... what? How so?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
That's why their actual track records are so similar in the past dozen years or so.
quote:Both parties voted to overturn the ACA 50 times. Both parties voted against the equal pay act. Both parties voted to shut down the government twice. Both parties voted against regulating Wall Street.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I... um... what? How so?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
That's why their actual track records are so similar in the past dozen years or so.
quote:Or, once born, the child. This drives me completely insane. And makes me angry and sad all at once.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree on "Dead Horses » A somewhat different position on abortion":
always remembering that pro-life* indicates "offer expires at birth" since the pro-lifers have such a high proportion of people who don't actually care about the woman in question in the first place.
I've never understood this ... dichotomy between wanting to make sure that fetus is carried to term but wanting to cut things like food stamps, WIC, school lunches, and all of the things that would help the children once they're no longer in the womb.![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
)
quote:And the Hobby Lobby debacle only makes clear what has been underlying this all along.... that it was never really about abortion. If you really cared about preventing abortion, you would want more, not less, access to contraception. If you really cared about ending abortion, Republicans would have supported the Daschle amendment, even if it had a Democrat's name on it. If they really cared about abortion, Republicans would want to give women the tools and resources to carry a pregnancy to term-- things like health care, and paid maternity leave, and child care benefits. If you really wanted to end abortion, you would have put forward some sort of meaningful legislation to try to do just that.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(And of course all the shaming of unwed mothers, this weird new blocking of contraception access (f*** Hobby Lobby), making adoption by various people illegal, etc. It really comes across as something other than caring about what happens to the child.
quote:Reining in the NSA is one.Drug Laws, Industrial Hemp Cell Phones and more are recent attempts.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Taking a stab at this, would such things be about drug laws, decriminalization of consensual sex between adults, etc.?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's actually been a few bills in Congress that have moved forward with a coalition of lefty Democrats and libertarian tea party Republicans. There aren't many such bills though.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's been quite a lot on the riots in Ferguson on our televisions. Is this really about race
quote:Yes. Although my (white) SIL went to Ferguson this weekend with a team of peacemakers was arrested... er, "detained" last night and roughly handled by police. He was released w/o charges this morning. So hanging out with unarmed African Americans can lead to similar targeting, although generally of a less fatal nature.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's been quite a lot on the riots in Ferguson on our televisions. Is this really about race
And if anything, the response to black people who are unarmed is much more aggressive than to white people who were armed.
quote:Indeed. It's why if you're white you can walk into your local grocery store with an assault weapon and be regarded as someone just making a political point, but if you're unarmed and black you get shot multiple times by cops.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's been quite a lot on the riots in Ferguson on our televisions. Is this really about race
And if anything, the response to black people who are unarmed is much more aggressive than to white people who were armed.
quote:This is the fruit of the Southern Strategy where the Republicans took the South after the Democrats supported Civil Rights. If you think of the Republicans as a regional party (and ignore Blacks and Hispanic Immigrants) then their "being Christian" looks a lot more pragmatic.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
[URL=http://religiondispatches.org/christianitys-greatest-counterfeit/
Is the necessity of "being Christian" a plus or minus for the GOP, in a country that is rapidly becoming less "theist" and more diversified? Is simple nostalgia for "Christian" hegemony a good vote-pulling tactic?
quote:Good, let him spew his batcrap craziness now and hopefully Ms. Grimes can kick his ass in the election.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh, look, Mitch McConnell threatens to shut down the government to blackmail -- sorry, to force to the bargaining* table Obama, if the GOP wins control of the senate.
_____
*for values of "bargain" equalling "capitulation"
quote:I think that's a very good question. I don't live in the culture and so can't answer any of the following, which seem to arise directly from Tim Wise + Ferguson.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Roughly the same idea occurred to Tim Wise: "What if the Tea Party were Black?"
quote:It has quite a lot to do with race, but it has even more to do with the fact that the police in the US are increasingly becoming a semi-militarized force that answers to no one but itself - at the very least it does not answer to the taxpayers that fund it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
There's been quite a lot on the riots in Ferguson on our televisions. Is this really about race, or is race such a sore issue that everybody whose got any sort of an ache about the subject immediately grasps any opportunity to pile in on it?
quote:According to all sides, that's more than the officer knew at the time. A more accurate parallel case would be "Are there cases when an armed policeman has shot a white youth whom he suspected of [jaywalking] and thought might be armed?" The ostensible reason Officer Wilson initiated the interaction with Mr. Brown was because he was walking in the street.
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Are there cases when an armed policeman has shot a white youth whom he suspected of shoplifting and thought might be armed? If so, has that been followed by several days of rioting?
quote:And, on a related note, what if the American media covered Ferguson like unrest anywhere else in the world?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Roughly the same idea occurred to Tim Wise: "What if the Tea Party were Black?"
quote:
The crisis began a week ago in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis.
America has been roiled by political instability and protests in recent years, which analysts warn can create fertile ground for extremists.
Missouri, far-removed from the glistening capital city of Washington, is ostensibly ruled by a charismatic but troubled official named Jay Nixon, who has appeared unable to successfully intervene and has resisted efforts at mediation from central government officials. Complicating matters, President Obama is himself a member of the minority sect protesting in Ferguson, which is ruled overwhelmingly by members of America's majority "white people" sect.
quote:No, not every shooting causes a protest or riot. There was a shooting yesterday. The police responded to a call that someone was attempting suicide and wound up shooting him. There was a protest but it's the same one that happens every Wednesday.
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Are there cases when an armed policeman has shot a white youth whom he suspected of shoplifting and thought might be armed? If so, has that been followed by several days of rioting?
3. Does that happen if the policeman is black and the suspect is white?
4. If both policeman and suspect are white, is it accepted as OK but unfortunate if the police to shoot and possibly kill people occasionally who turn out not to be? 'Well mistakes happen; sad, but one life every now and again is the price one has to pay for the right to carry arms'. Or does the community turn out demonstratively to mourn and do talking heads agonise about it on the television?
quote:
The treason came in 1968 as the Vietnam War reached a critical turning point. President Lyndon Johnson was desperate for a truce between North and South Vietnam.
quote:Fear not.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
There's got to be hope, right? Can the more moderate traditional GOP people take their party back? Are we really going to be stuck with only one sane political party?
quote:Okay, I should amend that to "Can the US Republican Party be saved without all of the crazy evil Southern Strategy crap going back to the Democrats?"
Originally posted by romanlion:
If the Democrats (the party of slavery, segregation, and the Klan) can garner a single vote in US political races, then I feel confident that the Republican Party can be saved.
quote:That is appalling. I mean, the man was already known to be appalling, but...
Originally posted by no prophet:
I remember how bad the USA Republicans looked under Nixon during the Watergate era of the 1970s. Were any others besides Nixon traitors? Nixon certainly was: Confirms Nixon's Vietnam Treason
quote:
The treason came in 1968 as the Vietnam War reached a critical turning point. President Lyndon Johnson was desperate for a truce between North and South Vietnam.
quote:I agree, it's appalling, but it's linguistic inflation to call it treason. For it to have been treason, Nixon would need to have been in secret contact with North Vietnam.
Originally posted by orfeo:
... That is appalling. I mean, the man was already known to be appalling, but...
quote:It's actually spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, which states (Art. III, § 3):
Originally posted by no prophet:
You may be correct about general ideas of what treason is, though it sounds like under USA laws, it probably is.
quote:This was mostly a reaction by the drafters of the Constitution against the rather more expansive definition used under contemporary British law, which could be stretched to cover just about any political action the government didn't like.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
quote:To say nothing of mass murder.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]
So while Nixon's actions were a betrayal (and a felony under the Logan Act), they were not technically "treason".
quote:, a question which is not usually asked. Deep irreconcilable polarisation is desired by most of the people who get the surveys commissioned.
“I am personally against abortion for myself and my family, but I don’t believe government should prevent a woman from making that decision for herself,”
quote:It's a little naive to think that a president can't change the direction of his party, and is responsible only for his own administration(s).
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so Nixon was just a criminal (again!) who deliberately undermined the attempts of the United States government to end a war. I feel so much better about him now.
Anyway, that has little do with the state of the Republican party. Nixon's responsible for Nixon, not for the Republican party of 2014.
quote:It's a little naive to think that no-one else has changed the direction of the party in the 40 years since, was actually my point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It's a little naive to think that a president can't change the direction of his party, and is responsible only for his own administration(s).
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so Nixon was just a criminal (again!) who deliberately undermined the attempts of the United States government to end a war. I feel so much better about him now.
Anyway, that has little do with the state of the Republican party. Nixon's responsible for Nixon, not for the Republican party of 2014.
quote:I'm pretty sure Reagan counts as more of the same rather than a change in direction. Nixon demonstrated a president can be a criminal without being sent to jail. Reagan refined the Nixon techniques so a president could be a criminal and finish out his term (and get his hand-picked successor to pardon any advisors who got sent to the slammer). By the time we reach Bush Junior we have the notion that a president and his advisors can set up a secret network of torture camps and suffer exactly zero consequences. Where, exactly, is the change in direction?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's a little naive to think that no-one else has changed the direction of the party in the 40 years since, was actually my point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It's a little naive to think that a president can't change the direction of his party, and is responsible only for his own administration(s).
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so Nixon was just a criminal (again!) who deliberately undermined the attempts of the United States government to end a war. I feel so much better about him now.
Anyway, that has little do with the state of the Republican party. Nixon's responsible for Nixon, not for the Republican party of 2014.
EDIT: Bloke called Reagan comes to my mind as one option.
quote:You might have said that, then. What you said was, "Nixon's responsible for Nixon, not for the Republican party of 2014."
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a little naive to think that no-one else has changed the direction of the party in the 40 years since, was actually my point.
quote:One would think so, but that requires a different sort of thinking than what appears to be at play. It seems when the GOP says "no government programs" they mean "no programs that benefit other people." In addition to the military, Medicare, and Social Security, there's also the many egregious forms for corporate welfare that are not part of this "small government" crusade. It's been well documented that red states receive far more in federal than they pay out in federal taxes-- they are, in fact, subsidized by those "big government" blue states.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There was an interesting article I read recently which points out that in addition to the Southern strategy there's a demographic trap. Currently the Republican party nationally depends on elderly voters, a group that is highly dependent on government programs for retirement. That does not mix well with a demand for limited government and no tax increases as well as large military spending.
quote:Nobody has said or implied so.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As loathsome as Nixon was, it's not all him.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Fabulous.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just re-posting the link to this great rant which illustrates the point about red states.
Definitely NSFW
quote:Coming from the northern multi-party neighbour, I am not convinced that any party has a perpetual right of existence. We've had two conservative parties collapse (Conservative, replaced by Progressive Conservative, replaced by a PC and Reform union now called the Conservative Party of Canada) and are currently watching the disappearance of a quarter-century-old Québec nationalist party as its hardline faction gains control.
Originally posted by deano:
What a nice little socialist love in this thread has turned out to be. How surprising that the Ship should do that eh?
I think a more interesting question than the OP's would be...
Does anyone on here WANT the Republican Party to reform and gain electoral traction again?
I suspect I know the answer already.
quote:Presumably they haven't got the money to buy the drugs with.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The findings are, unsurprisingly, that welfare recipients use drugs less than the people who pay in to the system. Tennessee got 0.12% (1 in 800) or 1/66 the rate of illegal users, for instance.
quote:From Cdn perspective, I agree.
Originally posted by Albertus:
well, not that it's any of my business, being British, but I think it'd be splendid for the US to have a sane sensible centre-right party, perhaps along the lines of what I understand to be Eisenhower Republicanism.
quote:Wow... that's a pretty successful attempt at putting words in my mouth there.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Hey, deano, be careful. A few Christian values might rub off on you! They're like girl cooties, they're dangerous.
And, for those who think right-wing and therefore loathe welfare recipients, try "Tennessess tests welfare recipients for drugs"
The findings are, unsurprisingly, that welfare recipients use drugs less than the people who pay in to the system. Tennessee got 0.12% (1 in 800) or 1/66 the rate of illegal users, for instance.
But we, or, at least, deano's friends, say we shouldn't help the poor because they are drugged up so badly.
Maybe the mouthpieces could process the odd fact or two, or is it a conservative value to knowingly lie?
As you can tell, I PO'd about the willing abuse of that Commandment about "bearing false witness",, since all those church people don't actually believe in living out those stone-tablet things. (see rant in my previous post)
quote:Hell yes. I don't want the US to have a one-party system even if it's a party I agree with. I want the ability of basically sane people to actually have respectful dialogue with each other and work out compromises.
Originally posted by deano:
Does anyone on here WANT the Republican Party to reform and gain electoral traction again?
quote:At this point, after a lot of drift, it seems to be the current Democratic Party.
Originally posted by Albertus:
well, not that it's any of my business, being British, but I think it'd be splendid for the US to have a sane sensible centre-right party, perhaps along the lines of what I understand to be Eisenhower Republicanism.
quote:Agreed. If there could be a sort of anti-Tea-Party classic-style New Republican Party or something, made up of the Eisenhower crowd, that would be awesome.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
To answer your question, a renewed Republican party would be very useful for the US; whether it should be this particular Republican party is very much up for debate.
quote:As a liberal Gay man in a two party country, I would love to have a choice when I vote. When I was young in New York and New England, liberal Republicans were sometimes a good choice. Living in a one party dominated state makes for bad politicians.
Originally posted by deano:
I think a more interesting question than the OP's would be...
Does anyone on here WANT the Republican Party to reform and gain electoral traction again?
I suspect I know the answer already.
quote:Yes, because that kind of blatant contempt makes it more likely that you'll win friends and influence people.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Fabulous.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just re-posting the link to this great rant which illustrates the point about red states.
Definitely NSFW
quote:There is no chance of winning friends and influencing people from that "The South Shall Rise Again" mindset. None. Zilch. So I don't give a flip if insulting them makes them mad. Good.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Yes, because that kind of blatant contempt makes it more likely that you'll win friends and influence people.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Fabulous.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just re-posting the link to this great rant which illustrates the point about red states.
Definitely NSFW
quote:Things just don't change all that much. Look around, and you'll see the current administration carries on most of what the previous one did - name your area - defense, foreign policy, monetary policy, deficit spending, entitlements, etc. Once in power, there is a lot of focus on holding power and getting elected again. Politically I am independent and don't buy in to the Republican vs. Democrat discourse. Neither are barbarians at the gate.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:I... um... what? How so?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
That's why their actual track records are so similar in the past dozen years or so.
quote:Wouldn't universal health care be nice?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:There is no chance of winning friends and influencing people from that "The South Shall Rise Again" mindset. None. Zilch. So I don't give a flip if insulting them makes them mad. Good.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Yes, because that kind of blatant contempt makes it more likely that you'll win friends and influence people.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Fabulous.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just re-posting the link to this great rant which illustrates the point about red states.
Definitely NSFW
quote:You think the deep south will vote for universal health care? Seriously? Really?
Originally posted by saysay:
Wouldn't universal health care be nice?
(not if it means giving up our right to insult the lower classes)
quote:They had a chance to vote for it. They said no. Not "no, thanks" but "hell no". They'd rather die-- literally-- than have universal health care.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You think the deep south will vote for universal health care? Seriously? Really?
Originally posted by saysay:
Wouldn't universal health care be nice?
(not if it means giving up our right to insult the lower classes)
quote:Sigh. I live in Bible Belt USA. Some of my friends at election time thought Bush not just "a true Christian leader" but "probably a prophet of God." They still think him a great man, great Christian; and practically bow at Reagan's name.
Originally posted by no prophet:
The string of Republican leaders with charisma but strikingly warped character defects is startling. Does anyone think that George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle, Ronald Reagan were/are adjusted human beings? Cruelty, lack of judgement, and outright falsehoods seem in excess.
quote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's really just that simple.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What's the history that made some Southerners so anti-Democrat, if the Democrat is a saint and "the Republican candidate is the Devil himself" they will vote Republican just because they will never vote for a Democrat?
quote:Prior to the Nixon "Southern Strategy" the Southern Segregationists were emphatically Democrat. The phrase Yellow Dog Democrat originated in the saying that the person would vote for a yellow dog if it was running as a Democrat. This was because the Republican Party was held responsible for "The Recent Unpleasantness" a.k.a. the Civil War.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What's the history that made some Southerners so anti-Democrat, if the Democrat is a saint and "the Republican candidate is the Devil himself" they will vote Republican just because they will never vote for a Democrat?
quote:Asking as a foreigner, what bearing has being Gay got on how one votes? Is that stereotyping or self-stereotyping?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... As a liberal Gay man in a two party country, I would love to have a choice when I vote. ...
quote:The Republican party has made a point of becoming "the anti-gay party". It was a major part of their 2004 presidential campaign. While it's theoretically possible to support a party dedicated to destroying your family and consigning you to second-class citizenship, most gay people in the U.S. don't need a capital gains tax cut that badly.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Asking as a foreigner, what bearing has being Gay got on how one votes? Is that stereotyping or self-stereotyping?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... As a liberal Gay man in a two party country, I would love to have a choice when I vote. ...
quote:At the risk of running afoul of DH rules, the answers given to this question so far are too easy by half. The Southern Strategy polarized the parties, but doesn't explain this phenomenon in toto. One thing that has to be brought in is abortion, homosexuality, and other polarizing social issues (okay that's more than one). I know people who have told me they could never vote for a Democrat because the Democratic Party "supports" abortion. They would vote for Satan himself if he ran on an anti-abortion platform against a hardline conservative who nevertheless allowed for the possibility of abortion in cases where the baby was dead and the mother had septicemia.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What's the history that made some Southerners so anti-Democrat, if the Democrat is a saint and "the Republican candidate is the Devil himself" they will vote Republican just because they will never vote for a Democrat?
quote:I'm not equating the lower classes with the racist whites of the South. You are.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And excuse me, saysay, but you are equating "lower classes" with the racist whites of the South. That's outrageous. Are there no working class blacks, Latinos, etc? No working class people in blue states? Come on. Don't be ridiculous.
quote:You're missing the point of the rant (understandable given the tone of the rant). The point was not, we give you $$ and then you disagree. The point was, we-- through federal programs-- give you $$ that you are happy to accept, but then you complain about bloated, wasteful government spending and how high taxes are. When, in fact, red state taxes are subsidized by (i.e. lower because of) blue state taxes.
Originally posted by saysay:
The writer of the rant said fuck the south. I mean, y'all give us your money and then we have the gall not to agree with you about everything. We're basically leeches on federal finances, welfare queens, etc.
quote:Seems to be pretty mutual, wouldn't you say? Not like we blue staters haven't heard plenty of southern "f**k you" rants. Starting, as the article suggests, with the Civil War.
Originally posted by saysay:
Not that every southerner hadn't figured out what the left thought of us before that rant. But it's not likely to help you fulfill any of your political goals.
quote:Happy is a strong word, especially given the conditions that come attached to it.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing the point of the rant (understandable given the tone of the rant). The point was not, we give you $$ and then you disagree. The point was, we-- through federal programs-- give you $$ that you are happy to accept, but then you complain about bloated, wasteful government spending and how high taxes are.
quote:So, wait, you're supposed to forgive your abusive parent/spouse every time they hit you because they buy you something expensive and thank them for it?
When, in fact, red state taxes are subsidized by (i.e. lower because of) blue state taxes.
You're welcome.
quote:I have black family members. They all voluntarily live in the south because they encounter less of that attitude in the south. As the saying goes, in the south they hate the people but love the person; in the north they love the people but hate the person.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We're now just about 150 years past the Civil War. Is there any sign that the attitudes in the South to demeaning blacks and demanding their return to slavery are going to reduce, ever?
quote:It's the War of Northern Aggression.
What is it about the South that demands to stay locked in 1859?
quote:Only in the sense that it's a stereotype that voters will vote in their own self interest. It's acknowledging that the Republican party has sold itself to the people who consistently don't want gay people to have rights. Stop the Gays is the big get out the vote tactic for their aging core constituency.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Asking as a foreigner, what bearing has being Gay got on how one votes? Is that stereotyping or self-stereotyping?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... As a liberal Gay man in a two party country, I would love to have a choice when I vote. ...
quote:It's always seemed a particularly egregious mis-naming to call something started by Southern aggression that.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:It's the War of Northern Aggression.
What is it about the South that demands to stay locked in 1859?
We can't forget what they did to us.
quote:Probably sometime after things calm down after that little fuss on the Plains of Abraham. There's nothing like losing a war to keep things from changing.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We're now just about 150 years past the Civil War. Is there any sign that the attitudes in the South to demeaning blacks and demanding their return to slavery are going to reduce, ever? What is it about the South that demands to stay locked in 1859?
And this in the Land of the Free, welcoming everyone from the "poor, the huddled masses"*
*offer not applicable to people in this hemisphere.
quote:When were you last in the South for any significant period of time? You've met how many people from the South that demanded a return to slavery? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is never and zero.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We're now just about 150 years past the Civil War. Is there any sign that the attitudes in the South to demeaning blacks and demanding their return to slavery are going to reduce, ever? What is it about the South that demands to stay locked in 1859?
And this in the Land of the Free, welcoming everyone from the "poor, the huddled masses"*
*offer not applicable to people in this hemisphere.
quote:Now you've got me agreeing with you. I hate that-- makes me question my entire worldview.
Originally posted by saysay:
No one's demanding blacks return to slavery, although between the corporations and the prison industrial complex, they've come close to achieving it.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:When were you last in the South for any significant period of time? You've met how many people from the South that demanded a return to slavery? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is never and zero.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We're now just about 150 years past the Civil War. Is there any sign that the attitudes in the South to demeaning blacks and demanding their return to slavery are going to reduce, ever? What is it about the South that demands to stay locked in 1859?
And this in the Land of the Free, welcoming everyone from the "poor, the huddled masses"*
*offer not applicable to people in this hemisphere.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Well, we know that there are some Southerners with an overly nostalgic, rosy-colored view of Segregation (and an apparently even larger number of political conservatives from across the U.S. who take offense at any criticism of that position). To bring it back to the modern GOP, it should be noted that being a Neo-Confederate and an advocate of treason is apparently not a bar to getting a Republican nomination, at least in a county-level race.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When were you last in the South for any significant period of time? You've met how many people from the South that demanded a return to slavery? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is never and zero.
quote:Yep...I was right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well, we know that there are some Southerners with an overly nostalgic, rosy-colored view of Segregation (and an apparently even larger number of political conservatives from across the U.S. who take offense at any criticism of that position). To bring it back to the modern GOP, it should be noted that being a Neo-Confederate and an advocate of treason is apparently not a bar to getting a Republican nomination, at least in a county-level race.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When were you last in the South for any significant period of time? You've met how many people from the South that demanded a return to slavery? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is never and zero.
quote:So Papa Duck and Michael Peroutka aren't human beings? Or aren't Southerners? Is this a variation of the
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yep...I was right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well, we know that there are some Southerners with an overly nostalgic, rosy-colored view of Segregation (and an apparently even larger number of political conservatives from across the U.S. who take offense at any criticism of that position). To bring it back to the modern GOP, it should be noted that being a Neo-Confederate and an advocate of treason is apparently not a bar to getting a Republican nomination, at least in a county-level race.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When were you last in the South for any significant period of time? You've met how many people from the South that demanded a return to slavery? I'd be willing to bet money the answer is never and zero.
zero
quote:Actually he asked Horseman Bree that question. I was simply pointing out that Treason in Defense of Slavery still has its advocates, like Peroutka, in the modern Republican party.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
No. BA asked if Croesos had personally met anyone with those opinions.
quote:Robert C. Byrd. A Democrat. The inertia of Federal funding is an awesome thing.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
West Virginia gets a ton of federal money. Here is a trivia question for you. Name the Republican senator from West Virginia.
quote:It could be argued that the whole purpose of Segregation was to re-establish the social order of pre-Civil-War slavery under a new guise, up to and including forced labor.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Papa Duck wanted a return to slavery? I missed that. Mainly because he didn't say it. Implying life in the segregated South wasn't all bad is not the same as wanting to reestablish slavery.
quote:I'm hoping you simply mis-typed that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Integration came with a cost for African-Americans in the South. The costs outweighed the benefits but the costs were still there.
quote:One third of Scotsmen are in armed revolt against the U.K. government, including large segments of the military having forsaken their posts and joined the rebels? I must have missed that particular news item.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What Croesus calls treason international law calls the right to self determination. Speaking of Scotsmen, recent polls suggest that 1/3 of Scots are traitors as defined by Croesus.
quote:Sure it could. However, saying that Papa Duck supports a reestablishment of the antebellum social order based on what he actually said is a non sequitur. It is even in the running to be the Mother of All Non Sequiturs (MOAN).
originally posted by Croesos:
It could be argued that the whole purpose of Segregation was to re-establish the social order of pre-Civil-War slavery under a new guise, up to and including forced labor.
quote:Of course I did which was obvious from the rest of the sentence you chose not to put in bold.
originally posted by Croesus:
I'm hoping you simply mis-typed that.
quote:Are we talking about 2014 or 1860? If we are talking about 1860, the Southern states voted to secede from the Union, formed their own nation, and then fought what they then saw to be an invading army. If we are talking about 2014, Peroutka has not called for an armed rebellion against the United States. Now, you can say that because he supports Southern secession the must want to refight the Civil War and reinstituted slavery.
originally posted by Croesos:
One third of Scotsmen are in armed revolt against the U.K. government, including large segments of the military having forsaken their posts and joined the rebels? I must have missed that particular news item.
quote:OK...I'm not sure if you are talking about one rally in specific or compilation of Tea Party rallies. One, a few people tend to bring guns to Tea Party rallies. It's never even close to being a majority. The ones who don't fire those guns. Two, the place within sight of the White House is a common location for political rallies, requires a permit, and is monitored by police. Three, the Tea Party has every right to campaign for a smaller federal government. The Tea Party went about trying to make government smaller by getting politicians elected who campaigned on making the federal government smaller. Four, some members of the Tea Party want the Congress to impeach Obama which Congress has the power to do under the US Constitution. They have numerous reasons for wanting Obama to be impeached his race not being one of them. Should Obama be impeached he would be replaced by Vice President Joe Biden who is nowhere close to being loved by the Tea Party. By the way, the last president to be impeached was a White Southerner.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I note that Tea Party members, largely from Southern states were able to carry weapons within sight of the White House while demanding an end to various parts of the Federal Government, and. specifically, the removal of a black man from the Office of POTUS, a man elected by a clear majority of voters in the Union.
quote:We know what happens when African Americans hold rallies where the Tea Party holds rallies. Large numbers of African Americans have occupied the mall a few times over the last 50 years. Riot police did not move in and disperse the rallies. Even the one organized by Louis Farrakhan was allowed to happen.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Now imagine a large group of black people marching armed in Washington, demanding the removal of a white President. How many thousands of police, Army, National Guard and Air Force would be turned out to put those "uppity" people in their place? Ferguson knows.
quote:Most of the lynchings took place when the South voted solidly for Democrats. During the Reagan administration, the most powerful member of US Senate was a former member of the KKK. His name was Robert Byrd and his position was Senate Majority Leader. Senate Majority Leader is an elected position. He died as the senator from West Virginia. Oh but I digress. Progressives in the United States had no problems with racists in the South or any place else when they were reliable votes for Wilson, FDR, and Truman. Oh and I know plenty of racists who voted for Barack Obama.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Yes, I know racism is not confined to Southern states. It just happens to be something that is ingrained in the culture of the people who vote GOP, I suppose, and has no relation to the KKK (now resurgent), the lynchings and the continued effort to disenfranchise blacks. Oh, no, of course not.
quote:I assume you are talking about Voter ID Laws? OK...let me provide a list of activities you need an ID to do.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
That disenfranchisement has a purpose: to return those blacks to subservience and "knowing their place, which sounds almighty close to a demand for slavery.
quote:Again, I ask you when was the last time you spent a significant amount of time in the South? How many Southerners do you actually know? How much of what you know about the South comes from sources that cater to those with a particular view? When I say cater, I mean seek to confirm the prejudices their readership already has.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And I am "bigoted" because I loathe people who claim to be in the Leaders of the Free World, but who demand unfreedom for everyone who is not exactly like "us"; who worship a Constitution, but don't actually read it; and who claim to be Christian, but who demand to send the wrong kind of children back to places where they will be shot more or less on sight. If people like the GOP would stop bragging about how much better the US is while demanding to make it worse, the rest of us might have a less jaundiced view.
quote:No. That's not what the word means. Should Obama be impeached, he would then be tried by the Senate. Only if the Senate found him guilty would he be deposed from office and replaced by Joe Biden.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Should Obama be impeached he would be replaced by Vice President Joe Biden who is nowhere close to being loved by the Tea Party.
quote:But he's obviously not got any problem with it, as proven by his approval of the Confederate rebellion.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Are we talking about 2014 or 1860? If we are talking about 1860, the Southern states voted to secede from the Union, formed their own nation, and then fought what they then saw to be an invading army. If we are talking about 2014, Peroutka has not called for an armed rebellion against the United States.
quote:Or I could say that because he's member of a white supremacist Neo-Confederate organization he'd look very kindly on such things. That's more or less the raison d'être of the League of the South as it's currently constituted.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, you can say that because he supports Southern secession the must want to refight the Civil War and reinstituted slavery.
quote:None of which is a fundamental right necessary for the functioning of a representative system of government. Tampering with fundamental rights should not be taken as lightly as regulating the commercial activities you implicitly say are no different than the voting franchise.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I assume you are talking about Voter ID Laws? OK...let me provide a list of activities you need an ID to do.
Buy cigarettes
Buy alcohol
Buy a gun
Buy pornography
Get a driver's license
Cash a check
Get into a club that serves alcohol
Get into a club where scantily clad people are dancing
quote:Of course, I should have added and impeached and convicted.
originally posted by mousethief:
No. That's not what the word means. Should Obama be impeached, he would then be tried by the Senate. Only if the Senate found him guilty would he be deposed from office and replaced by Joe Biden.
An impeachment is a ruling by the House of Representatives that requires the Senate to try the President for high crimes and misdemeanors. The impeachment in and of itself does not remove him from office.
quote:Again with another candidate for the MOAN.
originally posted by Croesos:
But he's obviously not got any problem with it, as proven by his approval of the Confederate rebellion.
quote:The League of the South has not called for slavery to be reestablished.
originally posted by Croesos:
Or I could say that because he's member of a white supremacist Neo-Confederate organization he'd look very kindly on such things. That's more or less the raison d'être of the League of the South as it's currently constituted.
quote:Yes US citizens 18 years of age and older (but still living) have the right to vote in local, state, and federal elections in the city, county, and state in which they reside. So, a 17 year old Canadian has no right to vote in a US election. A 21 year old resident of Illinois doesn't have the right to vote in an Indiana election. A resident of Milwaukee doesn't have the right to vote in a Green Bay mayoral election. Requiring identification that proves you are entitled to vote in a particular election seems like common sense to me. Besides, the Democrats don't care if the votes cast for Democratic candidates are cast by legal voters or not.
originally posted by Croesos:
None of which is a fundamental right necessary for the functioning of a representative system of government. Tampering with fundamental rights should not be taken as lightly as regulating the commercial activities you implicitly say are no different than the voting franchise.
quote:Sorry, was there an explanation in there as to why fiddling with the voting franchise is no more problematic than changing the rules for buying a pack of smokes, as you claim? I missed it if there was.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yes US citizens 18 years of age and older (but still living) have the right to vote in local, state, and federal elections in the city, county, and state in which they reside.
originally posted by Croesos:
None of which is a fundamental right necessary for the functioning of a representative system of government. Tampering with fundamental rights should not be taken as lightly as regulating the commercial activities you implicitly say are no different than the voting franchise.
quote:But apparently it's not common sense for those casting absentee ballots, which would seem like the most obvious and easiest venue for voter-impersonation fraud. The fact that voter ID laws do not cover such ballots is the 'tell' that shows such laws are really about making voting as onerous as possible for certain people.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Requiring identification that proves you are entitled to vote in a particular election seems like common sense to me.
quote:Yes, it does. However, I'm sure you're aware that there's a significant amount of history (Jim Crow laws et al.) with imposing "reasonable", "common sense" requirements on voters that just happened to disenfranchise a significant number of US citizens with darker-than-average skin tones.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Requiring identification that proves you are entitled to vote in a particular election seems like common sense to me.
quote:Voting is important but only those entitled to vote should be allowed to vote precisely because voting is important.
originally posted by Croesos:
Sorry, was there an explanation in there as to why fiddling with the voting franchise is no more problematic than changing the rules for buying a pack of smokes, as you claim? I missed it if there was.
It should also be noted that for most of the things you cited, what is required is not proof of identity but proof of age. In a lot of cases a vendor will waive the requirement if the purchaser is obviously much older than the minimum required age, something which would not seem to have a ready equivalent in voter eligibility verification.
quote:Well, if one can vote absentee without an ID, then anybody can vote without an ID. Problem solved. Onerous to as many people equals about 1.2% of the population in Mississippi, Indiana, and Maryland. Wait...why Maryland? You can't find a state bluer than Maryland. Oh well...can't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
originally posted by Croesos:
But apparently it's not common sense for those casting absentee ballots, which would seem like the most obvious and easiest venue for voter-impersonation fraud. The fact that voter ID laws do not cover such ballots is the 'tell' that shows such laws are really about making voting as onerous as possible for certain people.
quote:Or other kinds of electoral malpractice, such as a head of household, local thug boss or whatever "supervising" the casting of people's votes. All of this is much more likely than random Canadians showing up at a polling place.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But apparently it's not common sense for those casting absentee ballots, which would seem like the most obvious and easiest venue for voter-impersonation fraud.
quote:You could also add:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So here are your challenges:
1. Can you make it easy for everyone to get an id? Having to spend all day riding buses to get to the county's administrative center 100 miles away isn't easy - in many areas, you will need some kind of ID truck that visits all the small towns. It shouldn't be significantly harder to obtain ID entitling you to vote than to actually cast your vote.
2. The ID has to be free.
3. You have to not be required to update your ID each time you move home. Registering to vote with your name, current address, and voter ID should be sufficient.
4. People who have difficulty obtaining and keeping an ID document also have difficulty keeping hold of birth certificates and the like. You have to cope with this.
quote:So . . . important in the same way buying cigarettes is important? I'm still trying to figure out why you think those two things are equivalent.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Voting is important but only those entitled to vote should be allowed to vote precisely because voting is important.
originally posted by Croesos:
Sorry, was there an explanation in there as to why fiddling with the voting franchise is no more problematic than changing the rules for buying a pack of smokes, as you claim? I missed it if there was.
It should also be noted that for most of the things you cited, what is required is not proof of identity but proof of age. In a lot of cases a vendor will waive the requirement if the purchaser is obviously much older than the minimum required age, something which would not seem to have a ready equivalent in voter eligibility verification.
quote:I have been a Poll Clerk and Deputy Returning Officer for four elections here in Canada. The average Canadian would never dream of trying to vote in the US, the ballot is just to intimidating! Here people vote for one thing on a ballot, except perhaps for Municipal elections where they will vote for three things (Mayor, councillor and School Board Trustee). But even then they hand you three ballots.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Or other kinds of electoral malpractice, such as a head of household, local thug boss or whatever "supervising" the casting of people's votes. All of this is much more likely than random Canadians showing up at a polling place.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But apparently it's not common sense for those casting absentee ballots, which would seem like the most obvious and easiest venue for voter-impersonation fraud.
quote:Don't forget buying cold medicine or something that has a parental advisory explicit lyrics sticker (thanks, Tipper!).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I assume you are talking about Voter ID Laws? OK...let me provide a list of activities you need an ID to do.
Buy cigarettes
Buy alcohol
Buy a gun
Buy pornography
Get a driver's license
Cash a check
Get into a club that serves alcohol
Get into a club where scantily clad people are dancing
quote:I can scarcely imagine what it's like to be in a country where that's not relevant. I hope it will be like that here someday.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Asking as a foreigner, what bearing has being Gay got on how one votes? Is that stereotyping or self-stereotyping?
quote:I'm in a small town now. But I do remember standing in line 3+ hours to vote in a presidential election. I was much younger and in school, I had the time to burn. I couldn't have done it if I were working two minimum wage or below jobs to support the family.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[qb] long voting lines in certain U.S. jurisdictions in 2012, this would seem critically important.
quote:Um... there were horrible things like Sherman's March, but it damn well wasn't "the war of northern aggression."
Originally posted by saysay:
It's the War of Northern Aggression.
We can't forget what they did to us.
quote:This is gross. This is horrible. This is evil. And, thank God, this side lost. I'm thrilled they lost. When people talk about the south rising again, or there are stupid-ass bumper stickers that say "Forget, Hell!" with a comically elderly Confederate soldier on them, or when there are Confederate flags waving in front of houses here in my own southern state of Florida, I find it creepy and disturbing.
Originally stated by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America, on March 21, 1861:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
quote:Well, I read both those articles. They didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from growing up with black family members and having Black Panthers over for Christmas dinner etc.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Try reading He was a violent thug.... or "the Perfect Victim"
and then try to explain to me why having LESS Federal Government would be a good idea.
quote:You're going to have to help me out here. I don't own a television, I'm not a member of the GOP, and I've never heard a mainstream politician or GOPer sponsor morally bankrupt ideas because of race. What ideas are you talking about here?
And what makes a party like the GOP so holy that sponsoring morally bankrupt ideas simply because of race is seen as a good thing? C'mon, saysay, BA, poor old New Yorker, whoever, give us your best shot. Justify stuff which is seen as morally indefensible in any other developed country.
quote:Tell me when you stopped beating your wife.
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And what makes a party like the GOP so holy that sponsoring morally bankrupt ideas simply because of race is seen as a good thing? C'mon, saysay, BA, poor old New Yorker, whoever, give us your best shot. Justify stuff which is seen as morally indefensible in any other developed country.
quote:I have to say I'm not convinced of massive federal intrusiveness here, since the examples you cited were actions by state governments (or, in the case of the U of O, one of the state's semi-autonomous proxies).
Originally posted by saysay:
I have no idea why you would think those pieces would lead someone to believe that MORE Federal Government would be a good idea.
I live in a country where students are charged with harrassment for making a bad joke.
And where, apparently, the state can fine you for failing to host a gay marriage.
quote:Opponents of anti-discrimination legislation who nonetheless claim to oppose discrimination need to address the question of why, if the actions of private citizens and the free market alone are sufficient to combat discrimination, how did Segregation manage to withstand those forces for eight decades? We know there were "boots on the ground" opposing the system pretty much from its inception, and yet it endured until federal action was taken.
Originally posted by saysay:
Now, I haven't changed my position on gay marriage; I've been in favor of it since I was a small child.
But the government does not tend to change hearts and minds. Yes, the federal government signed desegregation into law. But it was people like Sharon Langley and her family who made it happen. It takes boots on the ground, not bureaucrats with pens.
quote:I wasn't trying to prove federal intrusiveness. I was explaining why it makes no sense to me to want more federal involvement.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I have to say I'm not convinced of massive federal intrusiveness here, since the examples you cited were actions by state governments (or, in the case of the U of O, one of the state's semi-autonomous proxies).
quote:So you were one of the people with your boots on the ground opposing the system from the beginning?
Opponents of anti-discrimination legislation who nonetheless claim to oppose discrimination need to address the question of why, if the actions of private citizens and the free market alone are sufficient to combat discrimination, how did Segregation manage to withstand those forces for eight decades? We know there were "boots on the ground" opposing the system pretty much from its inception, and yet it endured until federal action was taken.
quote:A direct result? Like a quid pro quo? Something along the lines of 'file enough internal harassment complaints and we'll drop the Title IX investigation'? Do you have a link for that? It wasn't mentioned in the article you cited.
Originally posted by saysay:
(And the U of O case is the direct result of the policies enacted because of the federal government investigating colleges for Title IX violations).
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:So you were one of the people with your boots on the ground opposing the system from the beginning?
Opponents of anti-discrimination legislation who nonetheless claim to oppose discrimination need to address the question of why, if the actions of private citizens and the free market alone are sufficient to combat discrimination, how did Segregation manage to withstand those forces for eight decades? We know there were "boots on the ground" opposing the system pretty much from its inception, and yet it endured until federal action was taken.
Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that since there's no one left alive who was around in the 1880s it doesn't really count as history? That nothing happened that isn't in living memory? I'm not getting why you insist on there being some kind of living witness to events that happened over a century ago.quote:I'm assuming you mean liberal democracy, the kind most common in the West. The basic premise is not just rule by citizen majority but that there are certain liberties (hence the name) are outside the authority of the state to restrict. You seem to hold the right to discriminate is such a liberty, but not the right to be free of such discrimination in public dealings.
Originally posted by saysay:
Do you know how democracy works?
quote:Yes. A government is chosen by popular ballot, which then makes laws.
Originally posted by saysay:
Do you know how democracy works?
quote:The elective offices aren't that bad even if there are a number of them. It's not like the Cambridge City Council Ballots and you had to prioritize the candidates.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The myriad of elective offices in the US would cause the average Canadian to give up in confusion and despair.
Listen, it's been enough to get the average Canadian trained to make an "X" in the circle on the ballot (most can manage this), let's not confuse everyone by getting all complicated!
quote:I'm not talking about being saved in the sense of winning more elections--I mean in terms of becoming a party of sane people of good will again, rather than the path it's been on for a while now.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
To go back to the thread topic, the Republican party more than anything else has to show how it would be a party that could build prosperity. The economy will likely be the reason the Democrats either lose control of the Senate or the next Presidential election.
quote:The state can fine you for saying that you're running a wedding-hosting business and then refusing one particular couple on account of them being gay, yes.
Originally posted by saysay:
And where, apparently, the state can fine you for failing to host a gay marriage.
quote:Optimist.
mousethief: A government is chosen by popular ballot
quote:The fact that it's on "The Blaze" should have been the first give-away that the actual ruling was somewhat more nuanced.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The state can fine you for saying that you're running a wedding-hosting business and then refusing one particular couple on account of them being gay, yes.
Originally posted by saysay:
And where, apparently, the state can fine you for failing to host a gay marriage.
They can't march into private homes and order you to host a gay wedding.
The explicit ruling was that it was a public accommodation business, not a private property.
quote:More dreamer.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Optimist.
mousethief: A government is chosen by popular ballot
quote:Checked and it's true. What a loathsome twit.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
and doesn't allow his employees to use energy efficient light bulbs.
quote:The things you miss not having cable.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The fact that it's on "The Blaze" should have been the first give-away that the actual ruling was somewhat more nuanced.
They're the official right-winged propaganda machine of Glenn Beck: a supposed 'libertarian' who doesn't believe in the rights of gays to marry or citizens to smoke pot and doesn't allow his employees to use energy efficient light bulbs.
He's the most tyrannical, small-government preaching, freedom-loving, pundit who ever tried to auction off an effigy of Obama in a jar of his own piss.
quote:Speaking as a Californian, when 12% of the entire US population already lives here, that's really not as significant a statement as you seem to think it is.
Originally posted by saysay:
Can people in New York and California appreciate how much people in the rest of the country don't want to live there? Beezwax is right that the current public face of the anti-gun crowd is a huge gift to the NRA.
quote:As if all Californians think alike.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Speaking as a Californian, when 12% of the entire US population already lives here, that's really not as significant a statement as you seem to think it is.
Originally posted by saysay:
Can people in New York and California appreciate how much people in the rest of the country don't want to live there? Beezwax is right that the current public face of the anti-gun crowd is a huge gift to the NRA.
quote:Not really speaking for all Californians. I said I was speaking as a Californian-- i.e. one. But my point wasn't really an opinion-- the fact that 12% of Americans live in California is a fact. Which, of course, is one reason that California is so diverse.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:As if all Californians think alike.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Speaking as a Californian, when 12% of the entire US population already lives here, that's really not as significant a statement as you seem to think it is.
Originally posted by saysay:
Can people in New York and California appreciate how much people in the rest of the country don't want to live there? Beezwax is right that the current public face of the anti-gun crowd is a huge gift to the NRA.
quote:And I wasn't talking about all Californians thinking alike. I'm talking about the laws - which may very well work for Californians and the diversity they have there but can't simply be exported to other areas of the country. Because they don't work for us and our diversity and resources, etc.
Originally posted by Prester John:
As if all Californians think alike.
quote:Well, that isn't exactly what you said. What you actually said was:
Originally posted by saysay:
And I wasn't talking about all Californians thinking alike. I'm talking about the laws - which may very well work for Californians and the diversity they have there but can't simply be exported to other areas of the country. Because they don't work for us and our diversity and resources, etc.
quote:Which is a bit different.
Originally posted by saysay:
Can people in New York and California appreciate how much people in the rest of the country don't want to live there?
quote:While cfl lights seem to work fine, I don't doubt that a good portion of them will end up in the regular trash instead of taken in for proper disposal. The condo we bought already had cfl bulbs in it but we will be switching out to led bulbs as the cfl bulbs croak.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Checked and it's true. What a loathsome twit.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
and doesn't allow his employees to use energy efficient light bulbs.
quote:As long as the state can't fine you for a shitty, overpriced job, cool. Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The state can fine you for saying that you're running a wedding-hosting business and then refusing one particular couple on account of them being gay, yes.
quote:This is the argument for Jim Crow.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:As long as the state can't fine you for a shitty, overpriced job, cool. Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The state can fine you for saying that you're running a wedding-hosting business and then refusing one particular couple on account of them being gay, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Well, that isn't exactly what you said. What you actually said was:
Originally posted by saysay:
And I wasn't talking about all Californians thinking alike. I'm talking about the laws - which may very well work for Californians and the diversity they have there but can't simply be exported to other areas of the country. Because they don't work for us and our diversity and resources, etc.
quote:Which is a bit different.
Originally posted by saysay:
Can people in New York and California appreciate how much people in the rest of the country don't want to live there?
So, on to what you really wanted to say-- was that Californian laws "won't work" in the rest of the country, because of the rest of the country's "diversity and resources, etc.". (cuz, California is so un-diverse and has so few resources, right?)
Which sounds a lot like another version of the same old refrain we've heard about health care and education and just about any other area where someone else has a model that seems at least on surface to be more effective or more efficient or less deadly than what we (Americans) have going. But we're so gosh darn "special" what with all our diversity and resources and all that what works every other place in the world-- whether in Europe or Canada, or now even within the States itself, won't work "here". Cuz we're so special.
quote:cuz everyone outside of NY and CA is all the same and thinks & feels exactly the same, which just so happens to be precisely what you think & feel.
Originally posted by saysay:
Why bother. Go ahead and split California into 6 states. DC, Puerto Rico, and the rest of the places that have been making do with US gov't rule without being recognized (and "taxation without representation") will accommodate you.
Please, though, STOP telling us what we want and what we think and feel and what we are saying.
quote:What part of STOP putting words in my mouth and STOP telling me what I think and feel and am actually saying (and yes, I do think I speak for people besides just myself because I have been specifically asked to speak for them by them) do you not understand?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:cuz everyone outside of NY and CA is all the same and thinks & feels exactly the same, which just so happens to be precisely what you think & feel.
Originally posted by saysay:
Why bother. Go ahead and split California into 6 states. DC, Puerto Rico, and the rest of the places that have been making do with US gov't rule without being recognized (and "taxation without representation") will accommodate you.
Please, though, STOP telling us what we want and what we think and feel and what we are saying.
quote:Why not simply acknowledge that neither one of us represents anyone other than ourselves and stop trying to make it out to be any more than that.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:What part of STOP putting words in my mouth and STOP telling me what I think and feel and am actually saying (and yes, I do think I speak for people besides just myself because I have been specifically asked to speak for them by them) do you not understand?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:cuz everyone outside of NY and CA is all the same and thinks & feels exactly the same, which just so happens to be precisely what you think & feel.
Originally posted by saysay:
Why bother. Go ahead and split California into 6 states. DC, Puerto Rico, and the rest of the places that have been making do with US gov't rule without being recognized (and "taxation without representation") will accommodate you.
Please, though, STOP telling us what we want and what we think and feel and what we are saying.
I have things to do today. Among them is now debating the merits of a Hell call.
quote:Because I have been asked by the women and men working in the WV criminal justice system and the women imprisoned in Baylor Women's Correctional facility in DE to speak on their behalf because most people in this country regard them as worthless trash not worth listening to?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Why not simply acknowledge that neither one of us represents anyone other than ourselves and stop trying to make it out to be any more than that.
quote:Bullshit. It's an argument that says you get better work out of people who actually want the job.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is the argument for Jim Crow.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:As long as the state can't fine you for a shitty, overpriced job, cool. Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The state can fine you for saying that you're running a wedding-hosting business and then refusing one particular couple on account of them being gay, yes.
quote:I'm sure that's true-- and in a true free market, that's a choice for the consumer to make, just as we get a choice whether to dine at Denny's with an indifferent, inattentive wait staff or pay 10x the price to dine at an upscale establishment with fawning staff attending to your every need. But as we saw with Jim Crow, for some oppressed minorities, there is a lack of choice because of artificial barriers to normal market-driven commerce.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Bullshit. It's an argument that says you get better work out of people who actually want the job.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is the argument for Jim Crow.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:As long as the state can't fine you for a shitty, overpriced job, cool. Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business?
Originally posted by orfeo:
The state can fine you for saying that you're running a wedding-hosting business and then refusing one particular couple on account of them being gay, yes.
quote:How is a consumer to know which business(es) actually want their business? Will there be some sort of signage indicating which types / kinds of customers are acceptable?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business? ... It's an argument that says you get better work out of people who actually want the job.
quote:Including the artificial barriers (if artificial it is) of racism, sexism, ethnic chauvinism, etc. Laissez-faire capitalism privileges the privileged at everybody else's expense. If you're a member of the privileged class, you might wonder what the big deal is. It's because you're blind to your own privilege. (I'm hoping it's that, and not that you don't give a fuck about the disadvantaged who are the victims of your privilege.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
in a true free market, that's a choice for the consumer to make, just as we get a choice whether to dine at Denny's with an indifferent, inattentive wait staff or pay 10x the price to dine at an upscale establishment with fawning staff attending to your every need. But as we saw with Jim Crow, for some oppressed minorities, there is a lack of choice because of artificial barriers to normal market-driven commerce.
quote:Yes. Guns.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Do enough voters in the US actually care about any issues beyond the Magic Trio of Abortion, SSM and refugee children?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Consider the possibility that stories you happen to see in the news aren't necessarily a reliable indicator of what voters actually care about.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Does this reflect any real issues or is the entire election based on subjective opinion about personality and gerrymender?
Do enough voters in the US actually care about any issues beyond the Magic Trio of Abortion, SSM and refugee children?
Come to that, why is the GOP position (such as it is) on those three so desirable? Doesn't make any sense to us outsiders.
quote:(For those who don't care for Rasmussen, here are some other poll results.)
72% Economy
62% Job creation
67% Health care
63% Gov. spending
58% Education
61% Social Security
58% Gov. ethics and corruption
51% Taxes
46% Small business
52% Gun control
48% Energy
44% National Security
42% Immigration
37% Environment
26% War in Afghanistan
quote:I'm not a big fan of Rasmussen indeed (did they predict that Romney would win?) I understand that respondents couldn't choose freely: it was Rasmussen who put together a list of 15 items, and apparently DH topics aren't among them.
Dave W.: According to the polling agency Rasmussen, these are the top issues that likely US voters care about, with the percentage who rank them "very important"
quote:Also consider revealed preferences. People may well all say that those things are important when asked by a pollster, but when it comes to stepping in to a ballot box, ...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to the polling agency Rasmussen, these are the top issues that likely US voters care about, with the percentage who rank them "very important":
quote:I don't see how you can apply the concept of "revealed preferences" to discern the answer - just knowing the outcome of an election can't tell you why people voted one way or another.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Also consider revealed preferences. People may well all say that those things are important when asked by a pollster, but when it comes to stepping in to a ballot box, ...
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to the polling agency Rasmussen, these are the top issues that likely US voters care about, with the percentage who rank them "very important":
quote:Well, the consumer can ask. The less what you're buying is like a commodity, the better it is to talk to folks you are thinking about hiring for a gig.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:How is a consumer to know which business(es) actually want their business? Will there be some sort of signage indicating which types / kinds of customers are acceptable?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business? ... It's an argument that says you get better work out of people who actually want the job.
quote:Really? You expect customers to walk into a store and ask, "Will you serve me? I'm [insert despised minority here]." Is that really a the society you want to live in? Life, liberty and the pursuit of a grocery store you're allowed to shop in? Since we're talking about the GOP, that's the Rand Paul position, btw: that the Civil Rights Act and other non-discrimination measures should only apply to governments, not private individuals. That may be a principled libertarian stand, but it doesn't exactly help make the Republican Party appealing to anyone who isn't white, male and old.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Well, the consumer can ask. ...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:How is a consumer to know which business(es) actually want their business? Will there be some sort of signage indicating which types / kinds of customers are acceptable?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business? ... It's an argument that says you get better work out of people who actually want the job.
quote:Read what I wrote. "Well, the consumer can ask. The less what you're buying is like a commodity, the better it is to talk to folks you are thinking about hiring for a gig."
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Really? You expect customers to walk into a store and ask, "Will you serve me? I'm [insert despised minority here]." Is that really a the society you want to live in? Life, liberty and the pursuit of a grocery store you're allowed to shop in? Since we're talking about the GOP, that's the Rand Paul position, btw: that the Civil Rights Act and other non-discrimination measures should only apply to governments, not private individuals. That may be a principled libertarian stand, but it doesn't exactly help make the Republican Party appealing to anyone who isn't white, male and old.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Well, the consumer can ask. ...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:How is a consumer to know which business(es) actually want their business? Will there be some sort of signage indicating which types / kinds of customers are acceptable?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... Why would someone want to do business with someone who doesn't want the job if there are competitors who want the business? ... It's an argument that says you get better work out of people who actually want the job.
quote:And straight. Or at least straight-appearing, till the scandals come out...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
but it doesn't exactly help make the Republican Party appealing to anyone who isn't white, male and old.
)
quote:One of the things that drives me nuts about the current GOP is that, while I don't agree with their ideology even when it's more moderate and something one can actually work out a compromise with, the weird extremes it's going to are completely counterproductive. I swear, it's almost like the way a serial villain trips themselves up by going just that one bit too far and blowing their whole plot to pieces.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How is that a good policy? Even from a market perspective?
quote:You're right. Shopping can be a real drag.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Soror Magna's basic point still stands: if you're making consumers ask and do the work to find the business that's happy to serve them, you're putting all the cost - time, effort, series of rejections - on the consumer. You're putting the onus on the person being discriminated against to find someone who is happy to serve them.
How is that a good policy? Even from a market perspective?
quote:I think that is sort of what we expect consumers to do. Ask questions like is what I'm looking to buy the best value? Is it made in circumstances I consider ethical? Is it the best quality? Does the company that produces the product in question do anything with the revenues I consider objectionable? Products are made and marketed with the expectation that is normal behavior.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Soror Magna's basic point still stands: if you're making consumers ask and do the work to find the business that's happy to serve them, you're putting all the cost - time, effort, series of rejections - on the consumer. You're putting the onus on the person being discriminated against to find someone who is happy to serve them.
How is that a good policy? Even from a market perspective?
quote:Sure. But that is dependent upon having that golden icon of American conservatism: a free market, where that sort of consumer choices can provide the needed economic pressure on retailers & service providers to provide good service/products at a reasonable price.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:I think that is sort of what we expect consumers to do. Ask questions like is what I'm looking to buy the best value? Is it made in circumstances I consider ethical? Is it the best quality? Does the company that produces the product in question do anything with the revenues I consider objectionable? Products are made and marketed with the expectation that is normal behavior.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Soror Magna's basic point still stands: if you're making consumers ask and do the work to find the business that's happy to serve them, you're putting all the cost - time, effort, series of rejections - on the consumer. You're putting the onus on the person being discriminated against to find someone who is happy to serve them.
How is that a good policy? Even from a market perspective?
quote:So you think that a desirable shopping experience is to a) walk into a store and then b) be told "we don't serve people like you".
Read what I wrote. "Well, the consumer can ask. The less what you're buying is like a commodity, the better it is to talk to folks you are thinking about hiring for a gig."
I don't mind talking to anyone, but it is difficult when they twist the hell out what is being said.
quote:Actually, businesses used to try to bury some of that kind of information unless forced by law to reveal it. And then, eventually, someone figured out that they could turn ethical behaviour into a marketing tool. The idea that people want to find out about ethical circumstances and the use of revenues is pretty recent. The preferred strategy from business was traditionally "I'M CHEAP/GOOD VALUE! BUY ME! DON'T ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS!"
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:I think that is sort of what we expect consumers to do. Ask questions like is what I'm looking to buy the best value? Is it made in circumstances I consider ethical? Is it the best quality? Does the company that produces the product in question do anything with the revenues I consider objectionable? Products are made and marketed with the expectation that is normal behavior.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Soror Magna's basic point still stands: if you're making consumers ask and do the work to find the business that's happy to serve them, you're putting all the cost - time, effort, series of rejections - on the consumer. You're putting the onus on the person being discriminated against to find someone who is happy to serve them.
How is that a good policy? Even from a market perspective?
quote:Come on Horseman. You can't be so dense as to think that's what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mere Nick:quote:So you think that a desirable shopping experience is to a) walk into a store and then b) be told "we don't serve people like you".
Read what I wrote. "Well, the consumer can ask. The less what you're buying is like a commodity, the better it is to talk to folks you are thinking about hiring for a gig."
I don't mind talking to anyone, but it is difficult when they twist the hell out what is being said.
You have obviously lived a life of great privilege. Are you rich in an obvious manner, or just white in an all-white community?
Do you actually give so much as a fuck about anyone who is Not Like You?
What is so difficult about the idea that discrimination is clearly against the American Dream, let alone being specifically prohibited by Jesus?
Maybe shutting down much of your market is good policy in segregated areas (no blacks, no uppity women, no LGBTs...) but why the hell live in that kind of gated area? What kind of prison do you enjoy?
quote:I can say with all sincerity that I haven't a clue about gated communities and am actually struggling to understand what you're saying, so I think it's a fairly safe bet I'm not going to be 'comfortable with the answer' any time soon.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Orfeo: Businesses in gated communities do exactly that by choosing to operate in the prison environment. The question is why do gated communities exist, and are they profitable for the operation of businesses?
Once you are comfortable with the answer, go ahead.
But the rest of us will think poorly of you.
Something like the 1%: if you can afford to not give a fuck, then it doesn't matter to you.
quote:We all do it all of the time. Even those who might say they don't, they still do.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:I think that is sort of what we expect consumers to do. Ask questions like is what I'm looking to buy the best value? Is it made in circumstances I consider ethical? Is it the best quality? Does the company that produces the product in question do anything with the revenues I consider objectionable? Products are made and marketed with the expectation that is normal behavior.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Soror Magna's basic point still stands: if you're making consumers ask and do the work to find the business that's happy to serve them, you're putting all the cost - time, effort, series of rejections - on the consumer. You're putting the onus on the person being discriminated against to find someone who is happy to serve them.
How is that a good policy? Even from a market perspective?
quote:I got the impression that that was aimed at a different posted and that "orfeo" was a typo--otherwise I am not sure what was going on there either...
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I can say with all sincerity that I haven't a clue about gated communities and am actually struggling to understand what you're saying, so I think it's a fairly safe bet I'm not going to be 'comfortable with the answer' any time soon.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Orfeo: Businesses in gated communities do exactly that by choosing to operate in the prison environment. The question is why do gated communities exist, and are they profitable for the operation of businesses?
Once you are comfortable with the answer, go ahead.
But the rest of us will think poorly of you.
Something like the 1%: if you can afford to not give a fuck, then it doesn't matter to you.
quote:Our experience of the world is very different.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is pertinent. I don't think we expect consumers to ask the further question "does this business want to sell to me" because the normal working assumption is that the very purpose of a business is to make sales. Disliking a business in some way might well be a reason for a customer to go elsewhere, but it's a different proposition for a business to decide that it dislikes a customer, for reasons that aren't to do with the customer's capacity to pay for the goods or services, and reject the business opportunity.
It's simply not normal business behaviour. Someone who is engaging in an activity might decide not to run it as a commercial business, and that's fine, but once someone does decide to go down the commercial business route - advertising their goods and services out in the marketplace - it's not normal behaviour to say "we don't want to sell to you".
quote:Why, yes, as a matter of fact in the US state-run prisons are profitable for the operation of businesses.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Orfeo: Businesses in gated communities do exactly that by choosing to operate in the prison environment. The question is why do gated communities exist, and are they profitable for the operation of businesses?
quote:This pretty much nails the argument. Tried the market way, didn't work. Only a fool would try it again and expect a different result.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There are a lot of people who used to be able to tell that the business did not want their custom. The store would have a "Whites Only" sign posted. So sad that the government messed up the chance for that to vanish by itself due to market forces.
quote:But you can hardly say that the inmates have much input into how the governments give profits to the operators. Indeed, the inmates are the victims of a non-libertarian approach to the free market.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact in the US state-run prisons are profitable for the operation of businesses.
quote:But that's precisely the point. Being able to have a number of businesses competing for your business puts you in a privileged place. It may be so normal to you that you don't even notice that isn't true for everyone. Being in that privileged position gives you all sorts of choices-- e.g. whether to use the (possibly more costly) service/product with really friendly staff trying to make the experience enjoyable to you-- or pay (possibly) less $$ and put up with disinterested or surly staff who have to be prodded to serve you. Different sorts of experiences you get to choose from depending on your particular needs at that moment.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Off the top of my head I can't think of any type of financial transaction beyond govt and utilities where I don't have a whole host of businesses competing to get my business. If someone doesn't really want it and won' be happy to serve, screw 'em. I'll do business with those who do.
quote:I don't doubt that anyone would be better off NOT working for an accounting firm that engages in illegal discrimination for the glory of Jesus Christ. You seem to think that you derived some benefit from being discriminated against because of your religion and not getting the job. If that works for you, shiny.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I interviewed at a firm about 23 years ago. They led it off by saying their accounting firm is dedicated to the glory of Jesus Christ. Then they asked me where I went to church. Since they didn't like my congregation they told me that there was no way we could do business together. I appreciate their being up front with me about it instead of letting me find out the hard way that their firm sucks. ...
quote:Those are all questions about the product, not the consumer. The matter under discussion is whether the shopkeeper (or equivalent) can ask a customer those questions. Products are made and marketed with the expectation that anyone who wants one and has the cash can get one. The normal behaviour is you walk in and buy what you want. Who thinks it's "normal" to walk in, have the shopkeeper interrogate you about your sex life or religion or whatever and then refuse to sell to you?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think that is sort of what we expect consumers to do. Ask questions like is what I'm looking to buy the best value? Is it made in circumstances I consider ethical? Is it the best quality? Does the company that produces the product in question do anything with the revenues I consider objectionable? Products are made and marketed with the expectation that is normal behavior.
quote:Well, of course, if someone has accounting data that demonstrates lesbian weddings are inherently more expensive and loss-makers, that's highly relevant.
Originally posted by saysay:
Businesses are always deciding who they do and do not want to do business with. And whether or not dealing with a particular vendor or client is going to allow them to turn a profit or even break even.
quote:Soror Magna, providers of certain types of services and facilities do in fact have to ask questions to establish the suitability and or legality of the use of the service or facility they are providing. I would assume those providing facilities and services around a marriage ceremony do in fact have to ask some questions that could be construed as being personal in nature. I doubt if the people in question asked "are you a Lesbian", but they probably recognized the gender of both the potential participants in the ceremony were female. It sounds to me based on what I read that their decision not to hold the ceremony was not a result of simple discrimination against the sexual preference of the individuals. They did not have an issue with the reception being in their facilities. They had a conscientious objection to the ceremony itself based on their religious beliefs. One has to assume the incentive of providers of this service is not to limit the potential use of their service. By declining to offer the service, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. In other words the market itself could act to either stop them from providing the service or get them to change their mind about their moral objections. My guess is there are plenty of other potential providers of this service in New York State.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Those are all questions about the product, not the consumer. The matter under discussion is whether the shopkeeper (or equivalent) can ask a customer those questions. Products are made and marketed with the expectation that anyone who wants one and has the cash can get one. The normal behaviour is you walk in and buy what you want. Who thinks it's "normal" to walk in, have the shopkeeper interrogate you about your sex life or religion or whatever and then refuse to sell to you?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think that is sort of what we expect consumers to do. Ask questions like is what I'm looking to buy the best value? Is it made in circumstances I consider ethical? Is it the best quality? Does the company that produces the product in question do anything with the revenues I consider objectionable? Products are made and marketed with the expectation that is normal behavior.
quote:You are probably right re: the options that would be available to a SS couple in NY state. But we have similar cases working their way through the courts here in US in other parts of the country-- especially the Bible belt-- where this is very much not the case. In many parts of the country, allowing this sort of discrimination means that SS couple have very little or no consumer choices, just as African Americans in the South under Jim Crow often found themselves having to sleep in their cars when traveling as there were no hotels willing to rent a room to a Negro.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Soror Magna, providers of certain types of services and facilities do in fact have to ask questions to establish the suitability and or legality of the use of the service or facility they are providing. I would assume those providing facilities and services around a marriage ceremony do in fact have to ask some questions that could be construed as being personal in nature. I doubt if the people in question asked "are you a Lesbian", but they probably recognized the gender of both the potential participants in the ceremony were female. It sounds to me based on what I read that their decision not to hold the ceremony was not a result of simple discrimination against the sexual preference of the individuals. They did not have an issue with the reception being in their facilities. They had a conscientious objection to the ceremony itself based on their religious beliefs. One has to assume the incentive of providers of this service is not to limit the potential use of their service. By declining to offer the service, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. In other words the market itself could act to either stop them from providing the service or get them to change their mind about their moral objections. My guess is there are plenty of other potential providers of this service in New York State.
So what’s the cost? There are probably several. The state is now in the middle of a contentious societal debate. It has to navigate and regulate added complexity in public accommodation and freedom of association. There are probably additional legal fights set up around the first amendment. Some business owners will likely voluntarily or forcibly exit this market based on conscientious objection regarding religious principles. When people feel their conscience is at stake, a secondary or unofficial market may open for services that would otherwise be part of the public. Any time the state is manipulating interactions, whether you think that is good or bad, you have to expect unintended consequences. One undeniable consequence is by punishing and fining these people for acting on their conscience, especially when the service is easily attainable elsewhere, is you’re engaging in martyr making and providing a rallying cry for your opposition.
quote:Unlike, say, in 1964.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The state is now in the middle of a contentious societal debate.
quote:Unlike, say, in 1964.
It has to navigate and regulate added complexity in public accommodation and freedom of association.
quote:Unlike, say, in 1964.
There are probably additional legal fights set up around the first amendment. Some business owners will likely voluntarily or forcibly exit this market based on conscientious objection regarding religious principles.
quote:No. That is simply untrue. The discriminatory Jim Crow laws that were addressed in 1964 affected both public services (e.g. education, city buses, swimming pools) AND private businesses (restaurants, hotels, etc.). The sit-in at the Woolworth's counter was not about public services-- it was about a privately owned business. And, just like in 1964, there were white business owners who claimed "religious scruples" about "race mingling" to justify their actions. And just like in 1964, saying "let the market work it out" in a large geographic area suffering from systemic prejudice was not an effective solution-- federal action was needed. The parallels to 1964 are so strikingly similar it's a wonder we even have to have this conversation.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Indeed, unlike 1964 when what was in question was broad access to a public service. In this instance, or the case of the Mennonite couple that closed down their bakery, you're probably talking about a small minority that out of their own conscience are not interested in providing a service on a selective basis. What is happening is the desire to use the state as a cudgel in a broader cultural war. Be ready for unintended consequences and a lot of unnecessary tax funded legal expenditures to "protect" access to something that is readily available.
quote:Precisely as in 1964. I would word it differently, though: a desire to use the state to ensure that a long-discriminated-against minority is treated equally to the privileged majority.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
What is happening is the desire to use the state as a cudgel in a broader cultural war.
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Soror Magna, providers of certain types of services and facilities do in fact have to ask questions to establish the suitability and or legality of the use of the service or facility they are providing. I would assume those providing facilities and services around a marriage ceremony do in fact have to ask some questions that could be construed as being personal in nature. ...
quote:What you are experiencing is Conservatism based on maintenance of personal liberty, as self defined, as against Conservatism based on studying things thoroughly to see if the new is worth doing.
Originally posted by deano:
I can't see what the downside would be in telling a business that they are not allowed to discriminate against people based on their skin colour, faith, gender, sexual orientation etc.
Am I missing something here? Who is going to be damaged by it and why do they matter?
quote:I’m not certain this was the intent of the people in question either. It sounds to me like during the course of the conversation it was realized that the service being requested was not something the owners of the farm felt comfortable offering based on their religious convictions. I would not be surprised if business owners of all types on occasion find through normal interactions that they don’t feel comfortable or willing to offer a service for whatever reason. We probably never or rarely hear about it. We know in this instance because the female owner of the farm had a phone conversation recorded without her consent or knowledge and was subsequently sued.
Those kinds of questions and requirements are personal and religious, but the intent is not to judge the morality of the event and its participants against our own personal standards.
quote:Well of course. Anyone who utilizes the government to inhibit or restrict the association and expression rights of others should probably expect that treatment in kind. That’s why I think hate speech laws are a bad idea.
And seriously, those who justify these attacks of "conscience" should remember that they are thus giving others permission to discriminate right back against Christians themselves.
quote:Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Re: cliffdweller
Re-reading my reply, I can see where you felt I was stating the issue at stake in the 1960’s was about access to public services only; i.e. not privately owned businesses. What I meant was “broad access to services which came to be grouped under the umbrella of public accommodation”; i.e. both public and private business and services. That was what was in question at the time, so I agree with you on that point. Sorry I was not clear there.
quote:If you scroll up to my comments just prior to that one, you'll see I made the same observation. However, as I pointed out, there are many similar lawsuits currently working there way through the US court system. And, while places like NYC, L.A. and San Francisco will no doubt have a multiplicity of vendors more than happy to take the place of their more choosy competitors, that is not the case in the all the jurisdictions represented by those lawsuits. Arizona is one of those jurisdictions, and not particularly known for their open minded stances these days. Similarly, as I suggested specifically in my post, a SS couple in the Bible belt in particular may have very few if any other vendors to choose from.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don’t agree that the current situation in New York State in terms of those seeking facilities or services for same sex weddings are facing a scarcity of offerings. By any estimate, I think this is something that is now broadly accessible. I would be fairly certain it is in particular in the Albany area where this incident took place.
quote:You don't understand privilege, do you?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I also noticed by happenstance a story today about “She Taxi” which will be starting in New York. It will be a taxi service that will only hire women drivers, and if a male passenger calls them to ask for a ride and they do not have a female with them, they will be told to contact a different service.
quote:Those claiming "the invisible hand of the free market will end all discrimination" (or words to similar effect) have to contend with a huge historical contradiction. The era which saw the implementation of Jim Crow and segregation (1877 to ~1910) was also the era during which U.S. business interests had the least government regulation (at a federal or state level). Companies had their own private armies and ran company towns like despots. If you expect anyone to take your claims of market-based non-discrimination seriously, you have to explain how this happened and why the same thing couldn't happen today.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
One has to assume the incentive of providers of this service is not to limit the potential use of their service. By declining to offer the service, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. In other words the market itself could act to either stop them from providing the service or get them to change their mind about their moral objections. My guess is there are plenty of other potential providers of this service in New York State.
quote:And how many would you guess are in the greater Stillwater-Mechanicville area (combined population ~13,000 according to the 2010 U.S. Census)?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My guess is there are plenty of other potential providers of this service in New York State.
quote:Which begs the question of what qualifies as "the state is manipulating interactions". Take the example of a lunch counter refusing to serve a group of people because they don't like "their kind". What happens if the prospective customers refuse to vacate their seats until served? Can the owner of the restaurant get the local police to evict the sit-ins from his premises? No matter what answer is given (the police can evict trespassers, the police can't evict trespassers who aren't otherwise breaking the law, the police can fine the restaurant owner for discriminatory business practices) it still seems like "the state is manipulating interactions" (though for some reason only the last of the three is ever complained about in those terms).
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Any time the state is manipulating interactions, whether you think that is good or bad, you have to expect unintended consequences. One undeniable consequence is by punishing and fining these people for acting on their conscience, especially when the service is easily attainable elsewhere, is you’re engaging in martyr making and providing a rallying cry for your opposition.
quote:In other words, they judged the event and the participants by their personal religious convictions, not their business model.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
re: Soror Magna
quote:I’m not certain this was the intent of the people in question either. It sounds to me like during the course of the conversation it was realized that the service being requested was not something the owners of the farm felt comfortable offering based on their religious convictions.
Those kinds of questions and requirements are personal and religious, but the intent is not to judge the morality of the event and its participants against our own personal standards.
quote:In other words, you want to think it happens all the time, and you know can't prove it. And you're ignoring the fact that we're not talking about denying services for "whatever reason", we're talking about deliberate, illegal discrimination against individuals.
I would not be surprised if business owners of all types on occasion find through normal interactions that they don’t feel comfortable or willing to offer a service for whatever reason. We probably never or rarely hear about it. ...
quote:I suspect more often the reverse is what happens. I would be very surprised, for example, if these (self) righteous photographers/ florists/ cake bakers turned away hetero couples who were engaging in premarital sex-- even if the (self) righteous tailor has to alter the wedding dress pattern to allow for the bride's expanding tummy...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:In other words, they judged the event and the participants by their personal religious convictions, not their business model.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
re: Soror Magna
quote:I’m not certain this was the intent of the people in question either. It sounds to me like during the course of the conversation it was realized that the service being requested was not something the owners of the farm felt comfortable offering based on their religious convictions.
Those kinds of questions and requirements are personal and religious, but the intent is not to judge the morality of the event and its participants against our own personal standards.
quote:In other words, you want to think it happens all the time, and you know can't prove it. And you're ignoring the fact that we're not talking about denying services for "whatever reason", we're talking about deliberate, illegal discrimination against individuals.
I would not be surprised if business owners of all types on occasion find through normal interactions that they don’t feel comfortable or willing to offer a service for whatever reason. We probably never or rarely hear about it. ...
quote:Now to examine the unexamined privilege, try "The Other Lie" by Lisa Sharon Harper courtesy of Rachel Held Evans' blog
God, the unexamined privilege in this thread is thick.
quote:The usual suspects will immediately say that the black professor is not allowed to make comments like that, which will prove her point.
Recounting our nation’s recurrent history of white militarized backlash after periods of ethnic progress, Dr. Carol Anderson, Associate Professor of African American History at Emory University, surmised in a recent Washington Post commentary that Ferguson was not about black rage against cops, but rather about white rage against progress. I put it in theological terms: Ferguson was about the death of white dominion and the ruling set of our nation fighting to hold onto a lie.
Within 29 years, whites will be an ethnic minority in the U.S. That demographic shift poses a grave threat to white racialized political, social, and economic dominance. Always the steely-mouthed sounding board of her party, Ann Coulter characterized the demographic shift as feeling like rape.
quote:That's very well done. Thanks for sharing that.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mousethief:quote:Now to examine the unexamined privilege, try "The Other Lie" by Lisa Sharon Harper courtesy of Rachel Held Evans' blog
God, the unexamined privilege in this thread is thick.
quote:I suppose it depends on what replaces it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I tried asking this upthread. Going back to the original question
"Can the US Republican Party be saved?"
how much does it matter if the answer is No?
quote:As if there are any viable candidates.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I suppose it depends on what replaces it.
quote:Gated communities in the US are aggregations of houses and businesses that only allow owners of property within, and their guests, to enter. There are guard houses with security staff to keep anyone else out (and to keep the inhabitants safely inside with their fears).
can say with all sincerity that I haven't a clue about gated communities and am actually struggling to understand what you're saying
quote:People who believe in classical liberalism will be more likely to vote Republican, if not libertarian, than not.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mere Nick: if you think the GOP as presently operating classifies as "liberal", you aren't even on the same planet as the rest of us.
quote:People who want to secure the freedom of the individual from state control will not vote for the party that wants to make government small enough to fit in the bedroom - and is quite so keen on things like the PATRIOT act. The Dems should be less anathema to classic liberals than the Repubs. (Not that either are much of a match).
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:People who believe in classical liberalism will be more likely to vote Republican, if not libertarian, than not.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mere Nick: if you think the GOP as presently operating classifies as "liberal", you aren't even on the same planet as the rest of us.
quote:It would be good if the Dems were less anathema to classical liberals, or if classical liberalism was less anathema to the Dems.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:People who want to secure the freedom of the individual from state control will not vote for the party that wants to make government small enough to fit in the bedroom - and is quite so keen on things like the PATRIOT act. The Dems should be less anathema to classic liberals than the Repubs. (Not that either are much of a match).
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:People who believe in classical liberalism will be more likely to vote Republican, if not libertarian, than not.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mere Nick: if you think the GOP as presently operating classifies as "liberal", you aren't even on the same planet as the rest of us.
A Classical Liberal party would be an interesting idea.
quote:By the government "in your wallets" I assume you mean simply paying taxes. There's nothing about the Democratic platform that involves micromanaging your budget or telling you what you can/can not buy-- other than tainted meat or incandescent light bulbs. I'm not sure what it is about low taxes per se that seems like "classic liberalism". My understanding of classical liberalism is that it is more communal-- that, unlike conservatives, there is a greater recognition that we are a community, and we succeed or fail together. Fair taxation is part and parcel of that-- everybody working together to make a better community (whether that's good roads, schools, or just institutions) for all of us.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It would be good if the Dems were less anathema to classical liberals, or if classical liberalism was less anathema to the Dems.
It seems to me that a classical liberal would want the government out of his bedroom and out of his wallet. The Dems are more widely perceived as wanting in the wallet and now people fear the IRS. People file tax returns every year but we don't have to file a report detailing bedroom activity. So, classically liberal folks tend to shy away from the Dems.
quote:Increasingly Dems seem to want the government in the bedroom too.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems to me that a classical liberal would want the government out of his bedroom and out of his wallet. The Dems are more widely perceived as wanting in the wallet and now people fear the IRS. People file tax returns every year but we don't have to file a report detailing bedroom activity. So, classically liberal folks tend to shy away from the Dems.
quote:Yes how horrid of them to want to reduce rape.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Increasingly Dems seem to want the government in the bedroom too.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems to me that a classical liberal would want the government out of his bedroom and out of his wallet. The Dems are more widely perceived as wanting in the wallet and now people fear the IRS. People file tax returns every year but we don't have to file a report detailing bedroom activity. So, classically liberal folks tend to shy away from the Dems.
quote:Financial transactions or sex between consenting adults are a bit different than what these folks appear to be addressing.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Increasingly Dems seem to want the government in the bedroom too.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems to me that a classical liberal would want the government out of his bedroom and out of his wallet. The Dems are more widely perceived as wanting in the wallet and now people fear the IRS. People file tax returns every year but we don't have to file a report detailing bedroom activity. So, classically liberal folks tend to shy away from the Dems.
quote:Appear to be addressing. Ain't that the truth. The reality is that many many universities across this country have had similar (or more strict policies requiring explicit verbal consent) in place for years. They haven't worked (and it's not a matter of students not knowing about the policies - most of the time there are mandatory education sessions including skits etc.). How much sense does it make to write into state law something we know doesn't work?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Financial transactions or sex between consenting adults are a bit different than what these folks appear to be addressing.
quote:Sense? We're talkin' politics, pal.
Originally posted by saysay:
How much sense does it make to write into state law something we know doesn't work?
quote:Why? What makes the Classical Liberal different from the Revolutionary Communist and any other ideology that has been tried at length (through most of the 19th and early 20th Century) and been shown to be a bad idea.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It would be good if the Dems were less anathema to classical liberals, or if classical liberalism was less anathema to the Dems.
quote:This is mostly due to Republicans not paying for their spending and instead borrowing money.
The Dems are more widely perceived as wanting in the wallet
quote:Now? The IRS were the people who brought Al Capone down.
and now people fear the IRS.
quote:Amazing what the Republicans outspending the Democrats but doing it on credit does for their reputation.
People file tax returns every year but we don't have to file a report detailing bedroom activity. So, classically liberal folks tend to shy away from the Dems.
quote:I think that is a factor for some, but I think it's also ideological. A quick Google check yielded 721,000 results for "bill clinton is the antichrist."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He is the wrong color. In certain minds that trumps every other good quality he has or ever could have.
(Obama yields 1,190,000, though we've had a lot more Internet since Clinton was in office.)
quote:The tweet is not from Fox News - it's from comedian Rob Delaney. (The @[username] format is to mention or reply to other users.) This is not an example of over-the-top Obama-hatred; it's an example of mocking over-the-top Obama-hatred.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just noticing this mildly amusing photo and commentary
There is an alternative reading of the photo provided by a tweet from Fox News.
What is it about some of these "patriotic" Americans that makes then blatantly, obviously, provably-within-the-item, lie about their Commander-in-Chief? Have they absolutely no respect for any President who is (pick one or more) black, Christian, Democrat, voted in by a clear majority?
quote:Not only that, but I note that he wasn't planning compulsory vasectomies for male welfare recipients...
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... dude. You said, “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
quote:Which is odd because the opposite is the case. Fox News has a lot to answer for.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Dems are more widely perceived as wanting in the wallet
quote:Case of "it sounds so much like them". I can remember , some years ago, that comics in Russia would read the exact script, provided by Pravda, to stand-up audiences, absolutely straight-faced and with no inflection, which would bring the house down with laughter.
The tweet is not from Fox News - it's from comedian Rob Delaney. (The @[username] format is to mention or reply to other users.) This is not an example of over-the-top Obama-hatred; it's an example of mocking over-the-top Obama-hatred.
quote:People only believe twaddle from politicians when they want to believe it.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You might hope so. But in fact the 'bubble' ensures that huge swathes of the country simply believe statements like that as if it were handed down on Mt. Sinai. There are those who simply will not believe.
quote:Vasectomies aren't reversible, which would defeat his "if you want to reproduce, get a job [and then we'll reverse the procedure to allow you to do so]" stance.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Not only that, but I note that he wasn't planning compulsory vasectomies for male welfare recipients...
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... dude. You said, “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
quote:Actually they are. And it is a far less invasive procedure than a tubal ligation.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Vasectomies aren't reversible, which would defeat his "if you want to reproduce, get a job [and then we'll reverse the procedure to allow you to do so]" stance
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Not only that, but I note that he wasn't planning compulsory vasectomies for male welfare recipients...
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... dude. You said, “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
quote:Nope. If the logic of the position demands excluding permanent sterilization, then it should also exclude tubal ligations.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Vasectomies aren't reversible, which would defeat his "if you want to reproduce, get a job [and then we'll reverse the procedure to allow you to do so]" stance.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Not only that, but I note that he wasn't planning compulsory vasectomies for male welfare recipients...
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... dude. You said, “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
Not that that justifies what he's saying, but there is a form of logic there.
quote:And, again, it's based on a false assumption. Vasectomies, are in fact reversable.. While there are limitations/risks/costs to the procedure, it still far less invasive/risky than a tubal ligation reversal
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Nope. If the logic of the position demands excluding permanent sterilization, then it should also exclude tubal ligations.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Vasectomies aren't reversible, which would defeat his "if you want to reproduce, get a job [and then we'll reverse the procedure to allow you to do so]" stance.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Not only that, but I note that he wasn't planning compulsory vasectomies for male welfare recipients...
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Um... dude. You said, “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
Not that that justifies what he's saying, but there is a form of logic there.
quote:That's as maybe.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, again, it's based on a false assumption. Vasectomies, are in fact reversable..
quote:But again, the same logic would seem to apply to both procedures. If one is included and the other excluded, there would seem some kind of unstated reasoning/hidden agenda.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, again, it's based on a false assumption. Vasectomies, are in fact reversable.. While there are limitations/risks/costs to the procedure, it still far less invasive/risky than a tubal ligation reversal
quote:Yes, exactly. I was (perhaps not clearly) agreeing with your point by pointing out that if one were to include one and not the other, the weight would reasonably go the other way-- towards requiring the less invasive/ more easily reversed procedure.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But again, the same logic would seem to apply to both procedures. If one is included and the other excluded, there would seem some kind of unstated reasoning/hidden agenda.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, again, it's based on a false assumption. Vasectomies, are in fact reversable.. While there are limitations/risks/costs to the procedure, it still far less invasive/risky than a tubal ligation reversal
