geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: berserkfan on Sat, 05 March 2016, 21:01:36
-
I certainly think NOT!
He won on the strength of the evangelicals in 2 religious states.
But for all the hate that Trump gets, Trump is not a religious fanatic, not in hock to religious groups, and does not have a religious agenda to push. He thinks for himself. Now he may not be good for Americans, but even that is unpredictable. It's not like Cruz, who will definitely be terrible for anyone not a Christian extremist.
Do you guys know Cruz's voting record/ Senate record?
OMG
He is a single issue champion of religion.
Please, no to religious fanaticism. NONONO!
-
As bad as it sounds, I'd rather have Trump too. Cruz is religious whacko who wants to turn this country into a Christian version of Iran if he gets the chance
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
God works in mysterious ways...
-
He's also owned by the telecom companies
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
We are supposed to have state and religion separated, but the republican party is primarily Christian and feel like America was built on Christian principals and should stay that way.
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
We are supposed to have state and religion separated, but the republican party is primarily Christian and feel like America was built on Christian principals and should stay that way.
but then how do they get other religions votes theN?
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
We are supposed to have state and religion separated, but the republican party is primarily Christian and feel like America was built on Christian principals and should stay that way.
I live in a very conservative area of Michigan so I was raised with all of the "Christian nation" stuff. I've often heard Evangelical Christians state that separation of church and state actually means that the state can't interfere with the church but that the church can interfere with the state, because we're a Christian nation don't ya know?
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
We are supposed to have state and religion separated, but the republican party is primarily Christian and feel like America was built on Christian principals and should stay that way.
but then how do they get other religions votes theN?
The democratic party is more open to other religions and tend to get their vote.
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
We are supposed to have state and religion separated, but the republican party is primarily Christian and feel like America was built on Christian principals and should stay that way.
but then how do they get other religions votes theN?
The democratic party is more open to other religions and tend to get their vote.
murica is so weird man.
-
Religions + politics = no. Both are terrible on their own already, no need to combine it.
>In France Secularism is very important, so Politics saying praise god or **** like that is very confusing.
Can someone explain me how does that work?
We are supposed to have state and religion separated, but the republican party is primarily Christian and feel like America was built on Christian principals and should stay that way.
but then how do they get other religions votes theN?
The democratic party is more open to other religions and tend to get their vote.
murica is so weird man.
Very weird indeed.
But its capitalistic government is what has made it a superpower.
and what is even more funny, the military is very much socialist in nature. Free medicare, subsidized housing, free education, etc. But Americans think it is horrible? I have been loving it so far.
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
Seriously. I would take just about anyone but Hillary.
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
Seriously. I would take just about anyone but Hillary.
Even Chris Christie or Rob Ford?
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
Seriously. I would take just about anyone but Hillary.
Even Chris Christie or Rob Ford?
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
Seriously. I would take just about anyone but Hillary.
I'd rather her than any Republican not named Kasich
-
Just know that a vote for Cruz is a vote for the Zodiac Killer. Is that what you all want?
-
Just know that a vote for Cruz is a vote for the Zodiac Killer. Is that what you all want?
Dude, Kevin was so underrated on the office
-
The only republican that i can begin to tolerate is John Kasich, but it seems he stands no chance.
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
Seriously. I would take just about anyone but Hillary.
Preach.
-
I support Ted Cruz 100%. His message has been tuned to reach out to evangelical voters, because he thinks that is who the Republican Party needs to reach, in order to win the November election against Bernie or Hillary.* But he should have focused on getting more broad support for his conservative stance on the issues, in order to win the nomination against Trump. Ted Cruz is the only true conservative voice in the race. Some people perceive him as part of the Washington establishment, because he is a sitting US Senator. But that couldn't be farther from the truth. His record in the Senate is not to 'go along' with the Party line, but rather to stand in opposition any time a bill comes through that is contrary to the US Constitution. Trump says he is a 'nasty' guy, and that nobody in the Senate likes him, and that is because he will not make deals just to get things done. He is not afraid to stand up to bullies in the Republican Party who want him to vote with them on compromise issues.
But it seems that what the voters want is a Populist, not a Conservative. They want someone who tells them what they want to hear, whether the issue is immigration, health care, or whatever. They don't seem to care what someone has done in the past, as long as they spout populist rhetoric, and have some charisma.
* In the 2012 general election, there were said to be 4-5 million voters, primarily evangelical Republicans, who did not vote, because the Republican Party nominee was Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Conventional wisdom is that if those voters had turned out to vote for Romney, the Republicans would have defeated Obama in 2012. Those voters are primarily the ones whom Ted Cruz is seeking to convince they should vote for him.
-
As horrible as Trump is in so many ways, he is the least horrible of the Republicans because he is not an ideologue and does not want to bring religion into politics.
-
inb4 photeqk: "it won't make a difference who gets elected"
-
You guys down there look like you guys are just voting for the one that can actually tie it's own shoe lace. I doubt any of them can tho
-
inb4 photeqk: "it won't make a difference who gets elected"
I've been saying that since I learned about the voting process in 2nd grade.
-
I support Ted Cruz 100%. His message has been tuned to reach out to evangelical voters, because he thinks that is who the Republican Party needs to reach, in order to win the November election against Bernie or Hillary.* But he should have focused on getting more broad support for his conservative stance on the issues, in order to win the nomination against Trump. Ted Cruz is the only true conservative voice in the race. Some people perceive him as part of the Washington establishment, because he is a sitting US Senator. But that couldn't be farther from the truth. His record in the Senate is not to 'go along' with the Party line, but rather to stand in opposition any time a bill comes through that is contrary to the US Constitution. Trump says he is a 'nasty' guy, and that nobody in the Senate likes him, and that is because he will not make deals just to get things done. He is not afraid to stand up to bullies in the Republican Party who want him to vote with them on compromise issues.
But it seems that what the voters want is a Populist, not a Conservative. They want someone who tells them what they want to hear, whether the issue is immigration, health care, or whatever. They don't seem to care what someone has done in the past, as long as they spout populist rhetoric, and have some charisma.
* In the 2012 general election, there were said to be 4-5 million voters, primarily evangelical Republicans, who did not vote, because the Republican Party nominee was Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Conventional wisdom is that if those voters had turned out to vote for Romney, the Republicans would have defeated Obama in 2012. Those voters are primarily the ones whom Ted Cruz is seeking to convince they should vote for him.
Wait a moment JD, I haven't heard from you in a long time, but you support Ted Cruz? He's ultra religious and has been bringing religion into affairs of state. It's terribly worrying to anyone not of his religious persuasion.
-
I predict Hillary in a landslide.
-
I predict Hillary in a landslide.
We can only hope that the apron strings extend down-ballot and that Democrats will sweep it all with bulletproof majorities.
-
I support Ted Cruz 100%. His message has been tuned to reach out to evangelical voters, because he thinks that is who the Republican Party needs to reach, in order to win the November election against Bernie or Hillary.* But he should have focused on getting more broad support for his conservative stance on the issues, in order to win the nomination against Trump. Ted Cruz is the only true conservative voice in the race. Some people perceive him as part of the Washington establishment, because he is a sitting US Senator. But that couldn't be farther from the truth. His record in the Senate is not to 'go along' with the Party line, but rather to stand in opposition any time a bill comes through that is contrary to the US Constitution. Trump says he is a 'nasty' guy, and that nobody in the Senate likes him, and that is because he will not make deals just to get things done. He is not afraid to stand up to bullies in the Republican Party who want him to vote with them on compromise issues.
But it seems that what the voters want is a Populist, not a Conservative. They want someone who tells them what they want to hear, whether the issue is immigration, health care, or whatever. They don't seem to care what someone has done in the past, as long as they spout populist rhetoric, and have some charisma.
* In the 2012 general election, there were said to be 4-5 million voters, primarily evangelical Republicans, who did not vote, because the Republican Party nominee was Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Conventional wisdom is that if those voters had turned out to vote for Romney, the Republicans would have defeated Obama in 2012. Those voters are primarily the ones whom Ted Cruz is seeking to convince they should vote for him.
Wait a moment JD, I haven't heard from you in a long time, but you support Ted Cruz? He's ultra religious and has been bringing religion into affairs of state. It's terribly worrying to anyone not of his religious persuasion.
Ted Cruz was not my first choice, but as the field winnows down, I would support him before Trump.
My copy of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...". This is direct quote from the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. This seems to offer several important elements to protect the public from concerns the Founding Fathers had about the role of religion in the public square.
–Notice first, the Federal Government's passive role concerning religion both in creating a national religion and, equally important, prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Because of this I don't think we have to worry about a sharia law kind of situation but at the same time, allowing the input of various perspectives.
–Second, the free speech clause immediately follows its stance on religion. This allows for the free flow of ideas to be considered, faith based as well as secular.
–Finally, note the absence of the phrase "separation of Church and State", a comment made by Jefferson in a letter 15 years after the ratification of the US Constitution.
If you disagree with a candidate's opinions, don't vote for him or her. After all, we should all have a say in a democracy about the future direction of our country. To deny a office holder's ability to use their personal convictions to help shape their position on issues is discriminating against their religion or world view and is in violation of Article VI.
And what are these radical religious views Ted Cruz supports?
The most prominent is probably his advocacy for the unborn. I'm pro-life, but I can understand honest disagreements about when personhood begins. Some have suggested it isn't until roughly 2 years old. No, I'm not making that up. One would think, however, that after 57 million abortions since 1973, someone would have come up with a better way of controlling unwanted pregnancy than that. I, and most people in America, find late term abortions particularly egregious.
Another, is his support for the rights of people who are forced to provide services which they find morally offensive. A case in point is the baker required to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. You may not agree with the bakers views but it is logically inconsistent to insist on the couples right to marry but not the right for a businessman to have an opposing opinion on the morality of it. Especially in the case of a baker, whose craft involves a certain amount of artistry. Imagine being forced to build a custom keyboard for someone who wants Alps when you're a Topre man. How could you really give it your best?
I don't see either of these as either radical or even unreasonable.
We live in a society where individuals are allowed to have different perspectives and voice them. For now at least.
-
I certainly think NOT!
He won on the strength of the evangelicals in 2 religious states.
But for all the hate that Trump gets, Trump is not a religious fanatic, not in hock to religious groups, and does not have a religious agenda to push. He thinks for himself. Now he may not be good for Americans, but even that is unpredictable. It's not like Cruz, who will definitely be terrible for anyone not a Christian extremist.
Do you guys know Cruz's voting record/ Senate record?
OMG
He is a single issue champion of religion.
Please, no to religious fanaticism. NONONO!
Irrelevant. Cruz won't win b/c he alienates independents, trump supporters, and of course, Democrats.
Trump is the worst-case scenario, by far. Xenophobic nationalist who doesn't understand the basics of government structure or international relations, and promises to start a trade war.
-
Any extreme will be hard for a Country made of a mixture of cultures and ethnicities; extreme fanatics will do more harm than good, the worst part is countrymen and women voting for people with such sectary's discourses.
-
The most prominent is probably his advocacy for the unborn. I'm pro-life, but I can understand honest disagreements about when personhood begins. Some have suggested it isn't until roughly 2 years old. No, I'm not making that up. One would think, however, that after 57 million abortions since 1973, someone would have come up with a better way of controlling unwanted pregnancy than that. I, and most people in America, find late term abortions particularly egregious.
All fine and good as a stance if you support universal healthcare for the poor, welfare programs for the poor, free contraceptives, actual sex education instead of abstinence only, and other social programs to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and help ensure that those who keep them are not thrust into poverty. It makes zero sense to care so much for a fetus and then force the child into a life of poverty.
The late term abortion is also a bit of a red herring since almost no doctor will do one unless it's a medical necessity that would otherwise cause death or potential death or massive trauma to mother and child.
You also ignore the fact that no one is forcing someone to have an abortion. It's something that the person doing will have to reconcile with their own conscience.
What kills me is the logical contortions so many anti-abortion people make faced with the death penalty question. Arguably, anti-abortion people are seeking to save an innocent life, yet when faced with the death penalty and the fact that at least 10% of people who have been executed are innocent (I say at least since the numbers of exonerations have grown as forensic techniques have improved). Even with the facts that innocent people are murdered for crimes they did not commit, that the death penalty has no positive impact on crime rates, and that the death penalty is more costly that a life sentence, I very rarely meet an anti-abortion advocate who is also anti-death penalty.
Personally, I have a hard time with abortion, but I also think that it is not my place to remove that option from someone, especially considering the lifelong repercussions.
Another, is his support for the rights of people who are forced to provide services which they find morally offensive. A case in point is the baker required to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. You may not agree with the bakers views but it is logically inconsistent to insist on the couples right to marry but not the right for a businessman to have an opposing opinion on the morality of it. Especially in the case of a baker, whose craft involves a certain amount of artistry. Imagine being forced to build a custom keyboard for someone who wants Alps when you're a Topre man. How could you really give it your best?
I'd have no problem building an Alps or even *shudder* an MX board for someone.
While I don't disagree that people should have the right to refuse service, I find it morally reprehensible to allow them to refuse service based upon sexuality. That is just as bad as the "colored" restrooms and fountains of old. By refusing service to people based upon their sexuality, you are stating that they are a second class citizen. Refusing service should be because the person is an ******* or otherwise negative.
Imagine if I had a religion that stated that all people with physical deformities or disabilities have those disabilities because they have been touched by the devil or did some great evil in their life. Should I be able to refuse service to them at my business based upon their disability because I believe that they are evil?
I don't see either of these as either radical or even unreasonable.
We live in a society where individuals are allowed to have different perspectives and voice them. For now at least.
People should have different perspectives and those perspectives should be encouraged. The problem is when a religion attempts to legislate morality.
-
Another, is his support for the rights of people who are forced to provide services which they find morally offensive. A case in point is the baker required to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. You may not agree with the bakers views but it is logically inconsistent to insist on the couples right to marry but not the right for a businessman to have an opposing opinion on the morality of it. Especially in the case of a baker, whose craft involves a certain amount of artistry. Imagine being forced to build a custom keyboard for someone who wants Alps when you're a Topre man. How could you really give it your best?
Just FYI, the president has no control over this. The cases that you're talking about happened in Colorado/New Mexico and happened under Colorado/New Mexico state law (and in no other state, as far as I can tell), not federal law. No federal anti-discrimination law (e.g. the FHA, Title VII, etc.) even protects same-sex couples. Let alone the fact that the president has little to no control over federal anti-discrimination law apart from veto power.
It's just important to mention this b/c in the presidential debates this stuff gets mixed up. See e.g. Trump claiming he's going to change the libel laws, which are purely matters of state law.
-
nubbinator, you make many good points. I appreciate your response and the tone it was delivered in. I'll try to address where we share similar positions and where we differ.
Your first point boils down to who should be responsible for a person's life, the State or the individual, and I guess my position is both. I was raised in a time and place where it was assumed that the State was responsible for things such as provide public schooling and a safe environment for children and that it was the parents job to provide shelter, food and clothing as well as providing direction as the child makes his or her way toward independence. Because of that, I'm somewhat annoyed by what I see today, whereby a person, not necessarily even a couple, decide to have children without first taking reasonable steps toward self sufficiency. The State will be there to provide free free breakfast and lunch, a housing subsidy, misc, scholarships, what used to be called food stamps, as well as other forms of assistance such as free daycare and preschool. So why plan ahead? I think these programs were initially set up as a safety net for the welfare of the children but have become a way of life. Today it is assumed that this is the role of government. I don't know if this is good or bad but I do think that the rights and responsibilities of parenting has been diminished and I think that is a tragedy. There is a part of me that wishes I didn't believe that the unborn have rights and aren't really people yet. After all, it does make the abortion issue palatable and even respectable. You stated that no one forced the woman to have an abortion. I think the point is that the unborn child was forced to be aborted. Life is messy, and we have to deal with reality, so things like assistance for underprivileged children is necessary. We do have to respect life at all phases. Unfortunately, I do think that it sends the wrong message to those who do play by the rules and wait until they are prepared for parenthood before beginning a family and that message is perpetuating, what I think is an excessive dependence on the State.
I don't have a problem with capital punishment where guilt is unquestionable and I do see a difference between innocent life and a life who has forfeited their liberty by committing certain crimes. I don't have a strong opinion on it though, as long as society is protected from such people.
As for denying service, I think there is an obvious distinction between denying essential services and products, especially where another provider isn't available and requiring an artist to accept a commission that others would be happy to secure.
If you mean by legislating morality, to insist that certain religious dogma is accepted by the entire nation as law, I would certainly agree with you. What I hear from some though, is an attempt to silence any opinion that has a faith based origin and I believe that is not only wrong but also unconstitutional. The truth is, laws are based on morals; we think a practice is wrong, a majority agrees and we make a law.
-
Another, is his support for the rights of people who are forced to provide services which they find morally offensive. A case in point is the baker required to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. You may not agree with the bakers views but it is logically inconsistent to insist on the couples right to marry but not the right for a businessman to have an opposing opinion on the morality of it. Especially in the case of a baker, whose craft involves a certain amount of artistry. Imagine being forced to build a custom keyboard for someone who wants Alps when you're a Topre man. How could you really give it your best?
Just FYI, the president has no control over this. The cases that you're talking about happened in Colorado/New Mexico and happened under Colorado/New Mexico state law (and in no other state, as far as I can tell), not federal law. No federal anti-discrimination law (e.g. the FHA, Title VII, etc.) even protects same-sex couples. Let alone the fact that the president has little to no control over federal anti-discrimination law apart from veto power.
It's just important to mention this b/c in the presidential debates this stuff gets mixed up. See e.g. Trump claiming he's going to change the libel laws, which are purely matters of state law.
Thanks for pointing this out. The President does have, or at least should have limited power. I think where they stand on positions are important for us to know when it comes to things such as Supreme Court nominees. I know it's not suppose to be ideological and political but we all know that it is.
As for state laws, many recent SCOTUS rulings have favored Federal laws over State's rights, but your point is well made.
-
favored Federal laws over State's rights
Federal Law always trumps "State's rights" per Article VI, Section 2
good thing, too
-
favored Federal laws over State's rights
Federal Law always trumps "State's rights" per Article VI, Section 2
good thing, too
Thanks for the correction to my poorly worded comment. If there were any question about the supremacy clause, I think the answer was driven home 150 years ago.
Would it have been more accurate to say that the Supreme Court has allowed recently challenged federal laws to stand that give more control to the Federal Government?
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
This x Infinity
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
This x Infinity
I mean she's almost definitely going to...
At least in polls Kasich looks like the only one that would win over her and we all now what sort of chance Kasich has...
-
This x Infinity
Good thing that none of you people need affordable health care, because it evaporates if Republicans regain control.
-
This x Infinity
Good thing that none of you people need affordable health care, because it evaporates if Republicans regain control.
Mine went up this year. Thanks Obama.
-
Mine went up this year. Thanks Obama.
*Right*
Insurance companies never raised their rates before Obama was elected.
-
This x Infinity
Good thing that none of you people need affordable health care, because it evaporates if Republicans regain control.
I'm no fan of the Republican candidates, but given the Clinton history, I honestly doubt she'd be any better on that front.
-
This x Infinity
Good thing that none of you people need affordable health care, because it evaporates if Republicans regain control.
what exactly is affordable about the current health system? When the "affordable care act" went into affect my mothers health insurance doubled ....
"Luckily" for me, my genetic disorder has put me on Disability
-
When the "affordable care act" went into affect my mothers health insurance doubled ....
Do you care to bet me $10 that her previous policy was did not meet the minimum standards and was thus no longer acceptable because it was not really any good?
And that the new one really covers something meaningful?
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
This x Infinity
I mean she's almost definitely going to...
At least in polls Kasich looks like the only one that would win over her and we all now what sort of chance Kasich has...
Kasich is the only person that looks somewhat reasonable and I can actually agree with some of his points. He seems to consider things reasonably before speaking. The other candidates look like children bickering compared to him. On a side not run drinking game if you want to die, take a shot every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned in a republican debate.
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
This x Infinity
I mean she's almost definitely going to...
At least in polls Kasich looks like the only one that would win over her and we all now what sort of chance Kasich has...
Kasich is the only person that looks somewhat reasonable and I can actually agree with some of his points. He seems to consider things reasonably before speaking. The other candidates look like children bickering compared to him. On a side not run drinking game if you want to die, take a shot every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned in a republican debate.
Honestly he has a pretty moderate, reasonable stance on most issues. Obviously I sint agree on everything (like outlawed abortions accept just in cases of rape and incest and a constantly balanced budget) but I'd take him over any other candidate at this point.
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
This x Infinity
I mean she's almost definitely going to...
At least in polls Kasich looks like the only one that would win over her and we all now what sort of chance Kasich has...
Kasich is the only person that looks somewhat reasonable and I can actually agree with some of his points. He seems to consider things reasonably before speaking. The other candidates look like children bickering compared to him. On a side not run drinking game if you want to die, take a shot every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned in a republican debate.
You could do that just watching the ads that Marco Rubio is running.
Otherwise, I am for once really proud of Michigan and our choice of Sanders yesterday, especially given the fact that he was down by over 20 points to Clinton in the last poll. It also looks to be the biggest upset in US primaries polling since they started running them, as he made up almost 25 points to take it away from Hillary!
-
he made up almost 25 points to take it away from Hillary!
I fear that Hillary might throw a Trump-sized tantrum if she somehow loses, or looks like she is going to lose, the nomination - again - instead of simply accepting the fact that she has always been a profoundly unattractive candidate. And that she will look for her own running mate and shun Bernie. Although I would be quite happy to see him as Secretary of the Treasury, and she would owe him that at the minimum.
-
Although I would be quite happy to see him as Secretary of the Treasury, and she would owe him that at the minimum.
Why again does she owe him that? I'd like to see her select a cabinet of people experienced, or at least half-knowledgeable, in the respective areas.
-
select a cabinet of people experienced
Well, Elizabeth Warren would probably be better, if she were willing to accept it.
-
I honestly think Hillary will win it all anyways.
I hope not. Last thing we need Slick Willy Part 2.
This x Infinity
I mean she's almost definitely going to...
At least in polls Kasich looks like the only one that would win over her and we all now what sort of chance Kasich has...
Kasich is the only person that looks somewhat reasonable and I can actually agree with some of his points. He seems to consider things reasonably before speaking. The other candidates look like children bickering compared to him. On a side not run drinking game if you want to die, take a shot every time Ronald Reagan is mentioned in a republican debate.
You could do that just watching the ads that Marco Rubio is running.
Otherwise, I am for once really proud of Michigan and our choice of Sanders yesterday, especially given the fact that he was down by over 20 points to Clinton in the last poll. It also looks to be the biggest upset in US primaries polling since they started running them, as he made up almost 25 points to take it away from Hillary!
I am a huge Bernie fan to be honest. He seems like refreshing change from the "establishment' and he has a record to back it.
-
Wait a moment JD, I haven't heard from you in a long time, but you support Ted Cruz? He's ultra religious and has been bringing religion into affairs of state. It's terribly worrying to anyone not of his religious persuasion.
Actually, he isn't ultra religious. His message has been tailored to reach a certain demographic (evangelical Christians), to try and reach voters who didn't vote in the last election. Cruz is a staunch defender of the US Constitution, which is why I support him over any other candidate.
FYI, I'm not a Republican. I don't identify with any current political party. I am a libertarian conservative, which means I usually vote for the Republican candidate in elections over the Democrat nominee, because the Republican Party more closely identifies with my ideals than does the Democrat Party. However, I will not vote for Donald Trump in any case. If he is the Republican nominee, I will either write in my choice, or not vote at all. Trump supporters hate this, because they are sure that people NOT voting for Trump will ensure the Democrat will be elected. But I cannot in good conscience vote for Donald J. Trump. I would rather Hillary/Bernie get elected, and have a chance for a real conservative/libertarian candidate in 2020, than put Trump into office, and eliminate any chance that anyone other than him or a liberal/progressive get elected until 2024.
-
Wait a moment JD, I haven't heard from you in a long time, but you support Ted Cruz? He's ultra religious and has been bringing religion into affairs of state. It's terribly worrying to anyone not of his religious persuasion.
Actually, he isn't ultra religious. His message has been tailored to reach a certain demographic (evangelical Christians), to try and reach voters who didn't vote in the last election. Cruz is a staunch defender of the US Constitution, which is why I support him over any other candidate.
FYI, I'm not a Republican. I don't identify with any current political party. I am a libertarian conservative, which means I usually vote for the Republican candidate in elections over the Democrat nominee, because the Republican Party more closely identifies with my ideals than does the Democrat Party. However, I will not vote for Donald Trump in any case. If he is the Republican nominee, I will either write in my choice, or not vote at all. Trump supporters hate this, because they are sure that people NOT voting for Trump will ensure the Democrat will be elected. But I cannot in good conscience vote for Donald J. Trump. I would rather Hillary/Bernie get elected, and have a chance for a real conservative/libertarian candidate in 2020, than put Trump into office, and eliminate any chance that anyone other than him or a liberal/progressive get elected until 2024.
I can't help but believe that Ted Cruz would turn this country into a Christian version of Iran if he is given the chance. With as much as I dislike Trump the only thing that doesn't unsettle me about him is that he has historically been very secular, however, Cruz has always pushed a very specific brand of Evangelical Conservatism that frankly scares the **** out of me. I was born and raised in it and still live in an area saturated in it, so imagining the people that I interact with on a daily basis becoming the majority in this country and being able to make their wedge issues into law is more scary to me than Trump's idiocy.
-
Imagine if I had a religion that stated that all people with physical deformities or disabilities have those disabilities because they have been touched by the devil or did some great evil in their life. Should I be able to refuse service to them at my business based upon their disability because I believe that they are evil?
Unless you have a literal monopoly and those people have no other options where to take their business, yes. It's stupid and ****ty and honestly I can't believe we still live in an age where a decent amount of the population would refuse service to people like gays, but it's their right as a business owner to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including ones you may not agree with.
-
Cruz is a staunch defender of the US Constitution, which is why I support him over any other candidate.
FYI, I'm not a Republican. I don't identify with any current political party. I am a libertarian conservative, which means I usually vote for the Republican candidate in elections over the Democrat nominee, because the Republican Party more closely identifies with my ideals than does the Democrat Party.
JD, I don't even know how to respond, but at least I like the fact that you have your own mind.
I was wondering about my own politics not so long ago.
My views on immigration/ migration are what the usual Euro-PC-folks would call far right.
My views on income redistribution, social safety nets, social levelling, women and gay rights are what conservatives would call far left.
The result is that I fit in nowhere and have political disputes with nearly everyone.
And the more the mainstream media hates on Trump, the more attractive he comes across to me.
-
it's their right as a business owner to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including ones you may not agree with.
That is absolutely disgusting. It makes me want to vomit to think that any American citizen could actually feel that way.
It is absolutely your right to refuse to invite anyone into your home, for any reason, but when you open your doors to do business with the public you have a duty to society to obey the laws of the land.
-
it's their right as a business owner to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including ones you may not agree with.
That is absolutely disgusting. It makes me want to vomit to think that any American citizen could actually feel that way.
Tell us how you really feel.
Oh and thanks for taking out the context of my wholeheartedly disagreeing with the views of people who would do that.
-
it's their right as a business owner to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including ones you may not agree with.
That is absolutely disgusting. It makes me want to vomit to think that any American citizen could actually feel that way.
It is absolutely your right to refuse to invite anyone into your home, for any reason, but when you open your doors to do business with the public you have a duty to society to obey the laws of the land.
Fohat, I am surprised that you can take hwood's words out of context given that there was only one short paragraph.
As hwood stressed, he did not agree with many people's opinions. But that he also believes in the freedom of business owners to decide who to sell to.
business owners discriminate all the time, every day. They make decisions on what is more likely to be a good customer, or who has money to pay, or who looks better in their shop and who would make their store look disreputable.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If David Duke walked into a kosher confectionary and said: "hey kikes, I want to buy a cake in the shape of a pig. Don't forget to put a swastika on it and a message that says Hitler Rules. I'll pay you twice your stated price, and all that money comes from my fellow Klansmen who just robbed a yid."
Now do you want to force the Jewish shopowner to make a cake for David Duke?
I won't even accept legislation that forces the Jewish shopowner to put up with David Duke in his shop for one nanosecond. He should be able to order David Duke or Dieudonne M'bala (France's version of David Duke) to get out right away, regardless of whether anything offensive was said or ordered.
The Hong Kong government just barred and deported Dieudonne M'bala at the airport without him having said anything against Jews on HK soil. I think that's a good move. Business people should be able to make the same decisions on their own. I should be able to bar David Duke from bringing his stinking ways into my hotel, ruining the ambience of my restaurant, soiling the rental cars I have for hire, etc.
-
Oh and thanks for taking out the context of my wholeheartedly disagreeing with the views of people who would do that.
I don't really care about anyone's "views" since they will surely cover the entire spectrum and cannot be reconciled.
But personal views cannot be allowed to dictate public behavior. If you are doing business in and with the public, then you are bound to follow society's mandates. It is my belief that "real" Americans are people who stand up for "liberty and justice for all" and that people who don't shouldn't pretend that waving a flag makes them good citizens.
My quarrel with hwood34 was his defense of the "right" of a hateful businessperson to inappropriate and unacceptable behavior towards the public. Defending the behavior is as bad, or worse, than defending the attitude. Even I will agree that the businessperson has the right to any personal feeling, as long as it remains internal.
Berserkfan's example was irrelevant because it was really about hate speech, already out of bounds, not business. The lesbian couple denied the wedding cake were not denied because of any untoward behavior or insult, real or perceived, to the baker.
How many of you can remember "colored" bathrooms, drinking fountains, and schools? I can.
Don't imagine that a "Straights Only" sign is any different from a "Whites Only" sign.
-
Put the shoe on the other foot. If David Duke walked into a kosher confectionary and said: "hey kikes, I want to buy a cake in the shape of a pig. Don't forget to put a swastika on it and a message that says Hitler Rules. I'll pay you twice your stated price, and all that money comes from my fellow Klansmen who just robbed a yid."
Now do you want to force the Jewish shopowner to make a cake for David Duke?
I won't even accept legislation that forces the Jewish shopowner to put up with David Duke in his shop for one nanosecond. He should be able to order David Duke or Dieudonne M'bala (France's version of David Duke) to get out right away, regardless of whether anything offensive was said or ordered.
The Hong Kong government just barred and deported Dieudonne M'bala at the airport without him having said anything against Jews on HK soil. I think that's a good move. Business people should be able to make the same decisions on their own. I should be able to bar David Duke from bringing his stinking ways into my hotel, ruining the ambience of my restaurant, soiling the rental cars I have for hire, etc.
This is histrionic nonsense.
The comparison you're making seems to imply a pair of flamboyant drag queens sashaying into a bakery dripping with crosses and manned by nuns, demanding a cake covered in rainbows and 'Sodomy rules'. This is ridiculous.
Here's the actual scenario for most gay marriages:
David and Duke are getting married. They walk into a nice bakery they've heard makes great wedding cakes. They want to order a lovely traditional cake with flower accents I their wedding color of light blue. The only deviation from any other wedding cake is they need two groom figures on the top rather than a bride and a groom. That's it. Just a cake.
Now the baker might still be anti-gay and refuse them, but they aren't doing anything even remotely like your appeal to outrage.
-
I know some will have a hard time understanding how another can disapprove of a person's choices and still care about them. Some will assume that a businessman has to be "hateful"', if they are offended by what they are asked to do. While I'm sure that is sometimes the case, I think more often than not it is not.
I've owned a construction business for most of my working life and have probably turned down 90% of the work I've been offered. I've worked for blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, and gays, as well as people of various religions and class. I have never turned down a job because of any of those classifications. I've had the privilege to be selective about the jobs I would pick. Usually, the deciding factors are how interesting the project is and whether I think my personality and my clients will work well together. My jobs can last up to a year and I aim to make the process, as well as the end product, something my customers will rave about for years. I've learned over the years that I work better with some personality types than others and that some types of projects are better suited for my skills. Because of this, I get a knee jerk reaction when I hear about businesses having their freedoms stripped from them because of still another regulation that they have to comply with.
I don't understand why the government is even involved in such minor squabbles. It would be different if the couple was denied buying a cake off the shelf, but requiring the baker to make something that they don't normally do is like forcing a motorcycle repair shop to fix your toaster. You might be able to make a case if there wasn't another local bakery, but that wasn't the case. If the baker refused to serve the couple simply because the are gay, now that is something legitimate, but to force the baker to make something he's uncomfortable doing is a violation of his liberties.
As for me, I'm just going to lay low for a couple more years until I retire so that I'm not forced to build somebody a geodesic dome
-
businesses having their freedoms stripped from them because of still another regulation that they have to comply with.
Having to show basic fundamental respect for your fellow man is defined as complying with a regulation that strips your freedom from you?
It seems inherent in: " .... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, .... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty .... "
I, too, am in construction, and I, too, turn down 90% of potential work if it is not a proper fit all around, but that is nothing even remotely like refusing service in an eating establishment.
-
I don't know how forcing a business to do something that offends them is a good fit.
-
I don't know how forcing a business to do something that offends them is a good fit.
A business cannot be "offended" because it does not have a consciousness, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co. notwithstanding.
The notion of corporate personhood is a vile perversion and needs to be eradicated.
-
fohat– Being a sole proprietorship, I, personally, have the distinction of not only carrying the full risk of my business but am also denied the rights that an employee is guaranteed. I thought it was me who invested in tools, training, licensing, getting up early and working late. I thought I was the one who sacrificed weekends to protect my businesses reputation. My name is even on by business. My crew was trained by me and were paid even if I wasn't. If I wasn't around the business wouldn't even exist but I'm supposed to ignore my gut intuition and believe a Wikipedia article you produce.
A business is not a person but its owner is. I don't know what kind of an operation you ran but I cared about every aspect of my business because it represented me, my ethics, my skill, my role in the community, and my commitment to my clients and employees. Maybe if people would see that businesses have identities, in the figurative sense, and that they have a responsibility to be an asset to the community rather than just a money making machine, some of the ills that Bernie Sanders is always railing about would disappear.
Also, in case you missed it, I agreed that denying similar services to some and refusing others is wrong. You might want to reread what I said. Some people just seem to look for the bad in others and filter out the good.
-
A business cannot be "offended" because it does not have a consciousness
What about a sole proprietorship? According to the IRS, I am a business.
-
A business is not a person but its owner is.
I did read your post and I sympathize entirely. But it is difficult to paint each piece with a different brush, so rules usually end up heavy-handed.
The underlying problem is that you cannot have it both ways. A small business with a conscientious owner will be 180 degrees different from the Koch brothers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
What I can't understand is why small business owners are so determined to side with the big bad guys. Universal health care would be an monumental boon to small business owners (real reform, that is, a single-payer system like almost every other developed nation on the planet enjoys, not the cobbled-together rondolay of giveaways, "incentives" and punishments that masquerade as a "system" in the US (both before and after the Affordable Healthcare Act, which was really important but also a gargantuan giveaway to Big Pharma and the insurance industry)).
Bernie Sanders would level the playing field and make life far better for everyone who is not making over a million dollars a year. And even the impact on them would be all but insignificant, in the grand scheme of things.
-
Fohat– thanks for your response. There are several things at the core of my resistance to big government, and I'm willing to sacrifice many personal conveniences to protect the individual from the abuse of a too-far reaching central body.
Before stating my concerns, I'd rather identify where I believe we share common ground.
I think, foremost, we are both concerned about people and how we can best relieve them of unnecessary troubles when we have the power to do so. I suspect that you, like I, not only theorize about this but tangibly act on this by doing various things like donating money and goods, volunteering at school and community events, helping at shelters, etc.
I think we both have a strong sense of justice and fairness, and actively get involves to help balance the scales when possible.
I think we are both passionate about ideas and we have to be mindful not to attack the individual when we really mean to only challenge their views.
I believe that people can share many core values, and yet their backgrounds can lead them to radically different solutions. One area that you and I differ on is the role of the central government in providing assistance to the underprivileged. It's not that I'm against providing help to those who need it; I can even see some advantages in having it managed on the federal level. Some of my concerns have to do with the inefficiencies of multi-layered bureaucracy and the increased opportunity for fraud (both by the recipient and the agency). My greatest concern, however, is that this process breeds, on one side a feeling of resentment , and on the other side a sense of entitlement. When the haves voluntarily give to the have nots, it fosters a contagious sense of charity and generosity in the giver and gratitude in the recipient. These traits are reduced when possessions are confiscated and redistributed by a central authority and the farther the authority is away the more the desired traits are diminished.
Closely related to public assistance is the governments role in assuring healthcare for all. I don't think a single payer universal healthcare plan is ideal but given the absolute mess we've made of the current system by obstructionists on both sides, I think it is probably the logical and inevitable solution. My concerns include further increases to the national debt, an ever-increasing dependence on the government, reduced availability of services for those who can afford more, and a shrinking sense of personal responsibility but I see no reasonable alternative.
Like you, I don't trust big business. I do agree with Adam Smith believing that self-interest drives a prosperous economy but won't go as far as Ayn Rand by calling selfishness a virtue. We have to have reasonable safeguards against powerful interests whether they be business, labor, or government. All entities want to say "mine" and the government is no exception. This is an area many of my progressive friends seem to ignore. Much like a lovestruck suitor believing his bride-to-be is perfect, I fear the honeymoon won't last long if the liberals get their wish and give even more power to the central government. We're all a bunch of dreamers at heart, believing that the changes we think we're instituting will be the ones we actually get. Even if we assume the governments motives are pure, the larger a central power is, the more its concerns have to be generalized and the less it can adapt to individual concerns forcing clumsy one size fits all solution to problems.
There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The other is to get it.
George Bernard Shaw
-
The human race has grown huge (I would say that the population of the planet is an order of magnitude too large already, and continuing to grow exponentially) and the problems arising from increased consumption and dwindling resources across the board have brought the world to a crisis point. The systemic problems we as a race are facing are already light-years beyond the scope of private charities and volunteerism working at community services to even slightly mitigate, much less actually manage.
Unfortunately, the problem-solving process has been commandeered and short-circuited. First, a problem must be identified and agreed upon. You can't even consider a solution without a properly-defined problem. No better example exists than climate change. There are still, to this day, deniers out there, completely duped by the fake science of the fossil-fuel industry (or completely bought off).
It seems to me that there are only 3 agencies with the scope and power to even attempt remedies on this scale: Church, State, and "Big Business" (here defined as multi-million dollar annual corporations and people - everything else is insignificant for this task). "Church" has opted out (although some of the extreme Muslim terror organizations have actually made significant social efforts toward the welfare of their people) all along, although Pope Francis (a professionally-trained chemist before changing careers) is seriously rattling chains. (and every person on the planet needs to read Laudato Si (it's only 80 pages) because it is logical and beautiful and hits every nail directly on the head (except for the "God" part, but that is another conversation) in clear and easy-to-understand language)
So we are left with a choice of whether to *trust* Government or "Big Business" to solve the world's problems. Governments, implicitly charged with promoting the general welfare (explicitly, in the US, under our Constitution) are at the least a "responsible party" while "Big Business" has always and forever been about profit for its owners, first and foremost. So while "Government" can and should struggle to accomplish its tasks, social responsibility has never even been in the game plan for "Big Business"
However much or little *trust* I have in the Government, I can *TRUST* with absolute certainty that "Big Business" will not have the public good at heart.
In the end, if 20 cents of my dollar paid for services (say health care, for example) actually makes it back to me, I would 1000 times rather the other 80 cents go to "government waste" than to "corporate profit"
Clearly you feel differently.
-
Went to chicago for trump just to see what will happen, turns out fights everywhere. Wow is all i can say.