General US Politics

[Sias]

44 minutes ago, Lushen said:

What?  You can already not put people to death for being LGBTQ.  Why would we need to pass a law for this?

Did you even read the article?
There was a vote at the UN's Human Rights Council because the use of death penalty to punish homosexuality is still a big problem in a lot of other countries. And the US pretty much were the only industrialized nation who voted against that motion.

Quote

It can cause friction which can lead to violence.  What doesn't cause friction is singular cultures.  This is backed by gang violence where each gang could be seen as its own culture.

It can cause friction. Just as there can be friction inside a singular culture. And comparing gangs to cultures is in all honesty a really really weird thing to do.

Quote

Talking about American politics where 'left' is a phrase to describe liberals.

The US has a liberal party as well, which is very much not left in a lot of its positions. Left=liberal is simply a wrong equation to make, so why don't you use left=progressive instead?

Quote

That's why I looked at crime rates, not numerics. 

Crime rates are based on numerics, duh. And I tried to explain those to you.

Quote

Obviously not cause he killed the primary.  And the reason people are against Trump is largely do to what hes says and tweets not his actual policies which is why Trump's approval rating won't, in my opinion, affect the 2018 elections at all.

Really? Considering his approval rating and his general popularity everywhere outside the US (and maybe Russia), I'd say that he very much still is a laughing stock to a lot of people.

Also, last I checked his policies like Trumpcare or banning transgender people from the military were wildly unpopular as well.

Quote

There was a big governorship race where a bunch of democrats were concluding that they were going to win because everyone was mad at Trump and his approval rating was so low.  Republicans won. Everything in the 2018 elections gives Republicans an advantage, and it's an advantage they don't really need given the momentum of the GOP.  I'm telling you, after the 2018 elections Republicans are going to pass all the legislation they want to.  Democrats would be better off working with Republicans and compromising than continuing to delay legislature until they have no power.  But some in their party are optimistic that they will gain control in the house in 2018 despite the odds.  The 2018 elections are kind of more important than the 2020 election.

Yeah, one race. One. A race where the democrats lost but nevertheless had huge gains in comparision to the last time. Really, you're awfully sure about your total Republican domination coming 2018.

Quote

I would consider Clinton a moderate for the most part in terms of policies, except she plays the sex,race, and gender card like a progressive.

Maybe, just maybe there actually could be a grain of truth inside these cards?

23 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The biggest reason my party disliked Obama was Obamacare/AFA.  I don't think anyone cares what he calls it, we just don't like it because it doesn't match our political views.  We do NOT like public healthcare programs.  I don't know anyone that thinks Obama is a bad human being, all the hate towards his presidency was politically motivated.  The hate on Trump is not all politically motivated, which is why I'm saying his approval rating isn't going to hurt the Republican party.  Plenty of Republicans are against what Trump says but they're fine with GOP policies.

I don't know whether you've just been living under a rock for the entirety of Obama's presidency, including the campaign beforehand and the aftermath now, but... Wow.

Also, last I checked a lot of GOP policies were very controversial even within the party, which I detailed above.

[Lushen]

20 minutes ago, Sias said:

<snip>

I was honestly confused about the article. Anyways, here's the other side of the story the left doesn't tell you https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/following-backlash-us-clarifies-un-vote-death-penalty-gays-n807151
General rule of thumb, if it sounds THAT biggoted, it's usually not true.

Literally everyone in the US recognizes that left=liberal when talking politics.  I realize from a global standpoint it is incorrect, but we will continue to use it for the same reason we continue to use a stupid measurement system. 

Clinton has become even more of a nut-case since she lost.  Her book literally blamed everyone INCLUDING the media who sided with her almost every time.

Also, democrats have lost every single special election where a republican was running.  They are 0-4.  The anecdote I was referencing was perfectly valid.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Res]

6 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I was honestly confused about the article. Anyways, here's the other side of the story the left doesn't tell you https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/following-backlash-us-clarifies-un-vote-death-penalty-gays-n807151
General rule of thumb, if it sounds THAT racist, it's usually not true.

Actually every left news source I read explained that in full and from @Sias's link itself:

André du Plessis, Head of UN Programme and Advocacy at the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) explained to PinkNews: “No votes on this resolution as a whole are generally best-interpreted as a position by a country on the death penalty as a whole.

“It is important to point out that a ‘no’ vote on the resolution is not addressing same-sex relations, but the wider application of death penalty generally.
“The United States, for example, has the death penalty and has a consistent record of voting no on resolutions that are against it.”

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Res said:

Actually every left news source I read explained that in full and from @Sias's link itself:

 

 

So what's his point?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

@Lushen you need to get over this right/left identity bullshit and address points on their own

the american left has very little representation in politics, the democrats have always wavered between slightly left of center to slightly right of center while being generally moderate. expanding welfare, wanting universal health coverage, while also regulating free markets (but most importantly having belief in the free market) and being pro-trade/pro-regulated immigration and etc is the democratic party and it is not a left-leaning party. it's centrist in every way, shape, or form.

bernie sanders was considered left-of-center and he had more or less the views I espoused up there

the way the democrats handle markets is right-wing and the way they handle social issues is left-wing. left-wing being that they regulate companies to ensure a lack of discrimination among all facilities for all people. the right-wing believes the market will correct this (fyi: it doesn't necessarily) or in the case of America, christianity determines what we should allow socially

besides are we really surprised someone who grew up wealthy doesn't understand the factors behind poverty..  this guy literally said all you have to do is graduate high school, don't get pregnant before 21, (as if that arbitrary age matters) to not be in poverty.

i can probably tell you how an unregulated free market with no safety net is bullshit, or I could link a study that shows that you need 20-30 years of absolutely nothing going wrong (that goes wrong) to escape poverty. or i could tell you about my life, the lives of people i know and the lives of people my dad has hired.

what news do you read anyway? it sounds like you watch fox news like a documentary

 

[Sias]

42 minutes ago, Lushen said:

So what's his point?

I qoute from your article: " The United States unequivocally condemns the application of the death penalty for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, and apostasy. We do not consider such conduct appropriate for criminalization."

Which means that in theory they should 100% support the resolution because it "called for the death penalty to be banned as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations, as well as criticising its use on minors, mentally ill people and pregnant women." In practice however they voted against it as they still support the death penalty in general - whiich sadly isn't what the resolution was about in the first place. See how that doesn't make sense?

56 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Literally everyone in the US recognizes that left=liberal when talking politics.  I realize from a global standpoint it is incorrect, but we will continue to use it for the same reason we continue to use a stupid measurement system.

It's nevertheless wrong and serves to confuse the positions of the Democrats with that of the Liberals (who are more like the Republicans in a lot of areas btw). Why continue using it just for the sake of it? It needlessly confuses political standings.

Quote

Clinton has become even more of a nut-case since she lost.  Her book literally blamed everyone INCLUDING the media who sided with her almost every time.

I was never talking about Clinton's mental health, but about politics. :/

Quote

Also, democrats have lost every single special election where a republican was running.  They are 0-4.  The anecdote I was referencing was perfectly valid.

Kansas 4: Republicans won, but lost 8% while Democrats gained 16%. Fairly close now (53% vs 46%)
Montana at-large: Republicans won, but lost 6% while Democrats gained 3%. Fairly close now (50% vs 44%)
California 34: Republicans didn't run.
Georgia 6: Republicans won, but lost 10% while Democrats gained 10%. Very close now (52% vs 48%)
South Carolina 5: Republicans won, but lost 8% while Democrates gained 9%. Very close now (51% vs 48%)

Do you notice a trend?

What may also be interesting is this article detailing the following:

Quote

Democrats have recently taken six state House or Senate seats from Republicans. And they're in districts Trump won by large margins. [...] After getting swept in U.S. House special elections after Trump's win, Democratic success at the local level is an uplifting sign for the party, especially as state legislatures will be in charge of congressional redistricting ahead of 2022 elections.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Sias

[Lord Raven]

51 minutes ago, Sias said:

Clinton has become even more of a nut-case since she lost.  Her book literally blamed everyone INCLUDING the media who sided with her almost every time.

oh i forgot about this

the media sided with her over trump but trust me they did not side with her at all. we kept hearing about her emails 24/7 from every single news agency, most saying "at least she's better than trump despite her negligence." they also gave him free air time because he kept saying stupid and awful shit.

she also blamed herself quite a bit (well, based on what i've heard; neither of us have read this, I've only watched interviews about it where she lays out her faults)

besides she's not a nutcase...  her lack of being a nutcase, and instead being boring and safe are part of what lost her an election to donald trump.  are you sure you just havent been ODing on fox news?

 

 

[Dark Holy Elf]

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

@Dark Holy ElfThey need to get net 8.  If things in 2018 go like they did in 2016, that is perfectly dooable.

They didn't gain a single senate seat in 2016, and lost two, including one in swing state NH which Trump almost won. I assume you didn't check the link in my last post; FYI, "generic Democrat" currently outpolls "generic Republican" by +8 (Sias also had an excellent breakdown of the shift towards the Democrats in recent special elections which support this polling). +8, is double what Obama beat Romney by. And even a sweep of the Romney-won states in 2018 (while holding all of their own) only gets them 5, so they need to find 3 more somewhere. Possible but unlikely; I suspect you may underestimate how hard it is to switch senate seat allegiance, since the incumbency bonus is strong.

Another look, courtesy of Wikipedia: (Link) Three professional predictors' current look. Of the three, the most generous to the GOP estimates that things will fall in the range of +2 gain for the Democrats to +4 gain for the Republicans (with the six-seat swing being the result of seats labeled "tossup"). The Republicans would need to sweep those, and sweep the seats labeled "Tilt D" and "Lean D". I will note this link also supports your assertion (which I agree with) that the Senate is highly unlikely to flip; while Arizona and Nevada are very possible Democrat gains, nothing else is.

The House flipping, though, is certainly possible; much more likely than a senate tilt to either 49 or 60. The president's party almost always has a net loss of House seats at midterms, and on average the effect is stronger when presidents are less popular.

[Shoblongoo]

Overview of the key points in the law, as promised.

...long post incoming....

On 10/4/2017 at 4:52 PM, ping said:

I, for once, am not allowed to call anyone an asshole or to suggest that the holocaust didn't happen. I do not know how exactly the legal situation in the US is in that case (@Shoblongoomight be able to enlighten me ;)

So first lets take a look at the applicable First Amendment Language of the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

...now there were actually two free speech clauses proposed at the Constitutional Convention; one stronger standard of protection and one weaker standard of protection. This final language that made it into the First Amendment--drafted by James Madison and and supported Virginia delegation--was the weaker standard of protection.

The higher standard of protection--drafted by Alexander Hamilton and supported by the New York delegation--if included in the Constitution of the United States would have instead read:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; AND no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

...and this is in fact the language that would be adopted into the free speech clause of the New York State Constitution in the redrafting convention of 1820; subsequently adopted and included in 39 other state constitutions. State Law (in most states) now actually protects speech at a higher level then the federal law.

In any event--the rejection of Hamiltonian language in the US Constitution and adoption of less-protective Madisonian language signified a consensus that while the right to freedom of speech was important and worthy of protection, it was not absolute. It did not apply to all subjects, and it was not an abridgement of the right to punish certain types of speech.

The first case to seriously test the limits of this protection was People v. Ruggles (1811). The case involved a drunken argument in a tavern between a christian and an atheist during which the atheist exclaimed: "Jesus was a bastard and his mother was a WHORE!!!" The atheist was arrested and criminally charged for his outburst. His defense at trial was that his conduct was protected by First Amendment freedom of speech. The case came before Chief Justice James Kent--a rather infamous arch-conservative of his day--who found that Freedom of Speech did not prohibit the criminal prosecution of f Ruggles and defended his reasoning as follows:

"The court considered those blasphemous words, uttered with such an intent, as a breach of public morals, and an offence against public decency. They were indictable on the same principle as the act of wantonly going naked, or committing impure and indecent acts in the public streets...the basis of the public morals." 

Here began the idea that  debasement of public morals--obscenity, as the term would come to be defined--is a broad public policy exception to the First Amendment, and a category of speech not within the scope of the amendments protection. The Courts would flesh this idea out over the years:
 
"It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”   Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

"The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community."  Miller v. California, 413 US 15 (1973)

"Today, we hold that child pornography is unprotected speech subject to content-based regulation."  New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
_______

...so that's where we're at today. America does have very broad freedom of speech protections. They're not without limit or conflicts-of-law in other areas of social policy. The main conflict between Freedom of Speech and competing interests of public policy since the 1800s has been with the Religious Right and Conservative Moralists, on issues of obscenity. 

The idea of "Hate Speech" as its own exemption category for unprotected speech, as practiced in Europe and advocated by some on the American Left, is a relatively new idea here. It is generally considered that such expression IS protected speech, and that the government cannot punish it.

The caselaw would seem to suggest, however, that this is only the case so long as prevailing community standards hold that hate-speech is not obscene and offensive to everyone.

If ever we get to the point where society looks at marching in a Nazi Rally and says this is not an essential part of the exposition of ideas. There is nothing of social value being expressed here. This serves only to incite violence and debase the morals of our country…

…then purusant to that prevailing starndard , it will not be protected First Amendment Speech to march in a Nazi rally.

Note that in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the court applied the community standards test in the context of America at-the-time being in the middle of fighting WWII.

And the Court at that time found it was not protected speech—it was a criminal act of incitement—to call a police officer a “God-Damned Facist.”  (we were at war with facists)

That would not hold today. These ideas are fluid.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

12 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

oh i forgot about this

the media sided with her over trump but trust me they did not side with her at all. we kept hearing about her emails 24/7 from every single news agency, most saying "at least she's better than trump despite her negligence." they also gave him free air time because he kept saying stupid and awful shit.

she also blamed herself quite a bit (well, based on what i've heard; neither of us have read this, I've only watched interviews about it where she lays out her faults)

besides she's not a nutcase...  her lack of being a nutcase, and instead being boring and safe are part of what lost her an election to donald trump.  are you sure you just havent been ODing on fox news?

Maybe we kept hearing about her emails 24/7 because she broke the law last time she was in charge of any gov't.  Not even CNN could avoid that.  Still, if you're going to blame an outlet that sided with you all the time (w/ the exception of Fox), you're a nutcase.  She literally blamed everyone and refuses to admit that she was just a terrible candidate.

And yes, Clinton was not very left.  Neither will a lot of other democratic presidents before Obama, which is why I actually didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton. I don't know how you could say Obama was more right, that's just wrong.  His biggest legacy is obamacare which is very liberal (equality).  And hell, even CNN knows Obamacare is failing.

I don't know why people think I watch fox news, I don't even have cable.  I guess it's impossible to have conservative beliefs without watching fox news which, btw, is less bias than CNN is nowadays.   Besides, Fox news may love Republicans but they still bash Trump 90% of the time.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Res]

The ACA is not failing. It's not perfect, but as we've recently seen, the Republicans currently can't come up with a better alternative and in the meantime, a lot of people are benefitting from it. 

Many states now facing the biggest problems with their insurance markets actively resisted the health law, refusing to expand Medicaid or to help build a new marketplace where consumers could shop for health plans.

Of all the conservative focal points, being against a universal healthcare system is the most baffling to me. The U.S. medical system is the most expensive in the world while providing pitiful coverage to its citizens. And population with better access to healthcare means more efficient work and overall raised happiness levels. A few months ago, when the ACA was in jeopardy, news stations were full of stories of Republicans who'd benefitted from the ACA. 

It's so easy to be on a high horse about healthcare when you're healthy and wealthy. 

And really, the ACA does the bare minimum - it's hardly very socialist in practice, and falls far short of other countries' public healthcare systems. 

And in other news...

John Kelly's phone has been compromised for months, lol.

The ACA's contraception mandate has been rolled back, because of course it has. Never mind that the pill is used for various reasons, including the management of endometriosis (which affects 1 in 10 women in the U.S.). 

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, Res said:

<snip>

Dems have acknowledges that they want to expand ACA because it is not working the way they want it to.  That is what I meant by failing.  Republicans believe they have better systems, but repealing obamacare is a lot harder than it sounds when people have already gotten on it.  The GOP still wants Obamacare gone, it's just a question of how they can do it. 

In other news, Trump referenced a Calm Before the Storm when referencing his military.  We could be pulling out of the Iranian nuclear deal tonight.

And Obamacare no longer covers birth control if companies consider it immoral. 

 

edit:  Actually it could be much more significant.  Today N Korea has plans to test a missile that can hit the united states.  I don't think its a coincidence that Trump is having dinner with all his military aids and referencing a calm before the storm with cryptic messages about what is coming.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

And Obamacare no longer covers birth control if companies consider it immoral.

Yeah the State of Massachusetts immediately filed suit over that in federal court. I'm going over the pleadings now.

Remember when Obama couldn't get immigration reform through Congress, so he issued executive orders to cease enforcing various provisions of the INS? And Republicans started crying "That's unconstitutional! He can't do that! Why doesn't this president respect the rule of law!?"

That's basically what Trump is doing right now with the ACA.

Massive hypocrisy.




 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

16 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Massive hypocrisy.

By that logic it goes both ways.  There's an argument to be made that being forced to provide birth control when you believe it is immoral is unconstitutional. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Res]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

And Obamacare no longer covers birth control if companies consider it immoral.

Right, which I find awful, because as I said, there are plenty of non-contraceptive uses for it.

And companies dictating morals (especially since I'd guarantee they're all hypocrites in some way or another)... it tends to go against the individualism and hands-off-government they love to talk about. 

[Lushen]

4 minutes ago, Res said:

And companies dictating morals (especially since I'd guarantee they're all hypocrites in some way or another)... it tends to go against the individualism and hands-off-government they love to talk about. 

Not really.  Individualism means that individuals can create their own businesses with their own rules and codes.  Individualism doesn't mean that everyone should be under the same standards no matter where they work, but that individuals should find new companies or start their own businesses if they don't agree with business practices in their own company.

This is essentially the same topic as the Chick Fil A controversy. Though I myself was conflicted on the Chick Fil A issue, but I'm not on this. 

[Res]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Though I myself was conflicted on the Chick Fil A issue, but I'm not on this. 

Why? How does any company feel the need to insert its nose into a health matter that absolutely does not affect the company in any way?

And it's hardly a financial issue, since the cost of covering a pill isn't going to affect the premiums in any way.

[Lushen]

26 minutes ago, Res said:

Why? How does any company feel the need to insert its nose into a health matter that absolutely does not affect the company in any way?

And it's hardly a financial issue, since the cost of covering a pill isn't going to affect the premiums in any way.

On the chic-fil-a issue, I think it's simply immoral for any company to hire/not hire based on sexuality.  While I think it's the right of individuals and religions to consider it a sin, even if I don't, not hiring someone because of what you perceive as a sin is wrong. 

On this issue, some literally associate birth control (or certain kinds of it) with the destruction of the creation of life.  I do not myself, but some people literally think it's as bad as murder.  Forcing these people to pay for other people to, in their view, commit murder is immoral and not the gov't's place. Additionally, there's the business/economy argument that birth control is not an emergency (with the exclusion of sexual abuse) need, it's more of a recreational need and if people want to take that risk it should be on their wallet.  

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lushen

[Sias]

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

Maybe we kept hearing about her emails 24/7 because she broke the law last time she was in charge of any gov't.  Not even CNN could avoid that.  Still, if you're going to blame an outlet that sided with you all the time (w/ the exception of Fox), you're a nutcase.  She literally blamed everyone and refuses to admit that she was just a terrible candidate.

Half the Trump administration has used their personal email accounts for government business, and strangely noone on the political right seems to care.

34 minutes ago, Lushen said:

On the chic-fil-a issue, I think it's simply immoral for any company to hire/not hire based on sexuality.  While I think it's the right of individuals and religions to consider it a sin, even if I don't, not hiring someone because of what you perceive as a sin is wrong. 

On this issue, some literally associate birth control (or certain kinds of it) with the destruction of the creation of life.  I do not myself, but some people literally think it's as bad as murder.  Forcing these people to pay for other people to, in their view, commit murder is immoral and not the gov't's place. Additionally, there's the business/economy argument that birth control is not an emergency (with the exclusion of sexual abuse) need, it's more of a recreational need and if people want to take that risk it should be on their wallet.  

Some people also believe that being homosexual is as bad as being a murderer. Most people don't listen to those, so why should we now?

Also, birth control gets used for health reasons by a good deal of people, so it is very much a necessity for them.

[Lushen]

39 minutes ago, Sias said:

Half the Trump administration has used their personal email accounts for government business, and strangely noone on the political right seems to care.

Some people also believe that being homosexual is as bad as being a murderer. Most people don't listen to those, so why should we now?

Also, birth control gets used for health reasons by a good deal of people, so it is very much a necessity for them.

What are you getting at with Trump's emails?  With Clinton, it was illegal to do what she did.  There is no Trump equivalent as far as emails go.

Comparing homosexuality to murder is waaay far fetched.  We aren't in the dark ages anymore.   Of course people hate homosexuals still, but those people are very rare and I would think they know they're in the wrong, they just don't care.  I know of some people in religions and other places that consider it a sin, but none of them hate homosexuals.  There's a big difference between cult and religion.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

I know of some people in religions and other places that consider it a sin, but none of them hate homosexuals.  

Boy oh boy are you naive. No; that's not quite right. At this point I'm actually  not sure if you're naive, dishonest, or willfully blind. I will give you an opportunity to amend this position before I completely rip it to shreds. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

Just now, Shoblongoo said:

Boy oh boy are you naive.

Very constructive. 

[Moblin Major General]

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Of course people hate homosexuals still, but those people are very rare and I would think they know they're in the wrong, they just don't care.  I know of some people in religions and other places that consider it a sin, but none of them hate homosexuals.

Muslims stone those people to death on a regular basis, and they don't see a problem with it. Tell me how that isn't hate, because if that isn't hate, nothing is.

[Shoblongoo]

 

[delete doublepost]

Edited October 7, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Shoblongoo]

10 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Muslims stone those people to death on a regular basis, and they don't see a problem with it. Tell me how that isn't hate, because if that isn't hate, nothing is.

Oh you don't  even have to get that exotic. American Christian Activists led by Pastor Scott Lively whipped up the "Kill the Gays" genocide campaign in Uganda, and wrote the legislation criminalizing the LGBT community + their advocates under Ugandan Law (which they brought to Uganda after they tried to get it passed in America and failed). I welcome the opportunity to clobber Lushen with these facts if he doesn't backtrack.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Shoblongoo