2016 Election Thread

[PseudoSABR]

 

It will be interesting to follow how this plays out in November. The GOP has 24 Senate seats up for grabs; the Democrats, only 10.

But the Democrats will probably trip over their own feet and inexplicably lose a seat because that's what they do.

Yeah. The best use of this vote will be campaign fodder.  The Dems got the Republicans on record, and that is something.  

 

Heck, I'm motivated to campaign against the-supposed-Maverick McCain now, who's in a close race in AZ. But it will be an uphill race out here for the Dems. 

[Badsmerf]

There were 4 bills voted on. All failed due to pork if I'm not mistaken. Pity they couldn't just put together a clean bill with bipartisan support. Maybe tomorrow?

[Squirrel]

 

It will be interesting to follow how this plays out in November. The GOP has 24 Senate seats up for grabs; the Democrats, only 10.

But the Democrats will probably trip over their own feet and inexplicably lose a seat because that's what they do.

Kirk in Illinois is trying desperately trying to keep his seat. I don't think he will. Tammy Duckworth is just too strong an opponent and Kirk is a weak incumbent. 

[Steve J]

 

The hand of god just forgot about everyone that wasn't a wealthy white land-owner huh?

 

C'mon.  That can't be a serious argument.

 

This sort of reductionism is unserious.  You really think my argument comes down to this?

[Steve J]

 

They do actually.  Should we come to you instead to interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Words on paper mean nothing with the authority to interpret those words.  

 

So I take it you accept that Heller and McDonald settles the issue then?

[Steve J]

 

No that's not more accurate from a legal perspective. That's a totally ideological way to look at that favors your preferred outcome.  

 

 

 

Because you said so.

 

 

 

It's called the Lochner-era, pre-1930s. 

It's fine to disagree with me about what your opinion is, but you are not entitled to your own facts and your own history.  You need to start backing up your responses with sources if you want to be taken seriously.

 

Please tell me now, what does Lochner have to do with the topic of gun control and the original attitudes and law towards gun control?  

 

The "you are welcome to your own facts, but not your own opinion" mantra is desperate arrogance on your part, especially when you yourself yet have to cite anything relevant.  

 

[Steve J]

 

Yes it did give them advantage.  Just if we started counting illegal immigrants towards representation would give the Southwest an advantage.  

 

 

 

 

Guess what, 

 

they (illegals) are and always have been counted in the Census, which is then used to apportion Representatives to the States.

 

http://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/faq.html#Q16

"-------------------------------------------

Are undocumented residents (aliens) in the 50 states included in the apportionment population counts?  
Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the 50 states are to be included in the census and thus in the apportionment counts.

------------------------------------------"

 

 

Saying the 3/5s rule gave the Slave States an advantage ignores that the apportioned representatives were in no way responsible to the Slave demographic.  they had no right to vote.

 

if Slaves were counted as a whole person, the South with their ideals would have greater weight in national policy, not less. 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

This sort of reductionism is unserious.  You really think my argument comes down to this?

 

Please, share how the "hand of god" is at all relevant or, really, anything but a fallacy.  It's basically this.  Including it is basically an effort to derail the conversation.

 

But, by all means, explain your argument.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not to mention the notion of God influencing the Constitution defies the principal of the first amendment and founding, in part, of this country on escape from religious persecution.   

 

A good portion, if not a majority, of the founding fathers were Deists anyway. 

Yep, many were Deists.

 

And, while progressive, the founding fathers argued vigorously over slavery, which was on its way out in the western world. Ultimately, they conceded to the southern states and allowed it to remain law in the country.

 

In some circles, one might use another word for "conceded"... "Compromised".

 

It's not like slavery was the gold standard in 1787. Western countries were moving away from it pretty solidly. It was already out of England and abolitionist movements were actively petitioning its removal from the rest of the Empire. Many Christian churches were vigorously stumping against it, saying it was un-Christian (which it obviously is). France had mostly eliminated it a century prior to the founding of the USA and wiped it out of the empire entirely just five years after the ratification of the Constitution.

 

So the "hand of god" thing doesn't fly with me. Again, it's ignorant of what was actually happening around the world and the trends that were already in play, trends the founding fathers ignored (at least in part) to appease southern states and get the damned Constitution ratified.

 

And because of that compromise, America was one of the last western nations to abolish slavery and it required the bloodiest war in our history to get rid of it.

 

So, no, god's hand was not involved in that thing because if it was, such colossal injustice and bloodshed would not have occurred because it didn't have to occur. The two most influential countries, England and France, were well on the way to abolishing it when the USA was formed. It didn't have to be that way, yet it was.

[Craig Arko]

Meanwhile, back on the ranch...

 

"Rubio also holds the astonishing position of saying he’ll vote for someone he has previously declared unfit to hold the American nuclear codes. You envision him under a mushroom cloud, assuring his kids that it could be even worse — at least he didn’t vote for Clinton."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/magazine/will-trump-swallow-the-gop-whole.html?_r=0

[ashbury]

It will be interesting to follow how this plays out in November. The GOP has 24 Senate seats up for grabs; the Democrats, only 10.

 

But the Democrats will probably trip over their own feet and inexplicably lose a seat because that's what they do.

As soon as I saw the filibuster the other day, I was all like "are you sure you want to do this? The Republicans will do a quick count and allow as many jeopardized senators to vote Yea as is safe".

 

I was surprised there were only two, but I am sure that Ayotte and Kirk will now position themselves as the moderate ones willing to work across the aisle, in contrast to their nefarious opponents who will vote the straight Democratic line that Wants To Take Away Your Guns. They may even shed some crocodile tears that the bills they "voted" for failed to pass, and would deny with a hand on a Bible that had the vote been closer they would have voted the other way.

 

Tactical mistake by the D's.

[Steve J]

 

Please, share how the "hand of god" is at all relevant or, really, anything but a fallacy.  It's basically this.  Including it is basically an effort to derail the conversation.

 

But, by all means, explain your argument.

 

I don't present it as an argument, but as a belief.

 

And I am not the one derailing...

[Squirrel]

 

As soon as I saw the filibuster the other day, I was all like "are you sure you want to do this? The Republicans will do a quick count and allow as many jeopardized senators to vote Yea as is safe".

 

I was surprised there were only two, but I am sure that Ayotte and Kirk will now position themselves as the moderate ones willing to work across the aisle, in contrast to their nefarious opponents who will vote the straight Democratic line that Wants To Take Away Your Guns. They may even shed some crocodile tears that the bills they "voted" for failed to pass, and would deny with a hand on a Bible that had the vote been closer they would have voted the other way.

 

Tactical mistake by the D's.

Not really a tactical mistake. I'm sure the Dems knew they didn't have the votes all along and wouldn't get them. And if they did get them, okay, good. But it didn't matter. What mattered is they brought attention to the vote, so that more could see where the blockade was. At a time when more people than ever want something to be done about gun violence in this country. And yet again, it failed, but the Republicans taking the very public brunt of the failure.

[Mike Sixel]

Putting aside "God wrote it, so we can't question it" as an argument.......

 

For years, it was illegal in the US to divorce, because God wrote in the bible that it was wrong/bad/evil. Then, humans changed their interpretation of that part of the document.......is it possible that we could change our interpretation of the 2nd amendment in a similar way? If not, why is changing the constitution ever good? Should we not have decided that equal education is good? Should we not have changed the words, and allowed women to vote? 

 

I don't really understand your stand......unless you literally believe that once one person says "this is what it means" we can never disagree with that meaning, nor can we change it.....

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't present it as an argument, but as a belief.

 

And I am not the one derailing...

 

If it's not an argument, why did you present it?  

 

Also, this "I'm the victim of being misinterpreted" would be a lot easier to swallow if even once you clarified your position when asked.  We're at 6-7 times by my count that someone is baffled by your argument, asks for clarification, and you shift the argument somewhere else rather than elaborate.

 

In the spirit of your "hand of god" argument, I declare Purple Monkey Dishwasher.  Which, as we all know, means gun control must happen.  

[Craig Arko]

Is this an election thread or a comparative theology thread? It's getting hard to tell.

[Craig Arko]

 

I don't present it as an argument, but as a belief.

 

And I am not the one derailing...

So, I've looked back over the past few pages here and what I've observed is that many people are declared to be 'wrong,' but I have not seen much in the way of solid alternative proposals for actions to be performed.

 

Are there any? Because aren't we looking for actions as a result of ideas, or are we just collectively blowing smoke, because Internet.

[ashbury]

I am suddenly unaccountably thirsty.

 

http://cdn.beeradvocate.com/im/beers/116670.jpg

[Mike Sixel]

This latest SCOTUS decision is interesting.....

 

On it's face, it looks like a bad, bad decision for freedom. But, I don't know, if there is a warrant out for my arrest, maybe they should be allowed to search me/my car....OTOH, wow, that is one scathing dissent, and I think I side with the dissent.

[Musk21]

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Please tell me now, what does Lochner have to do with the topic of gun control and the original attitudes and law towards gun control?  

 

The "you are welcome to your own facts, but not your own opinion" mantra is desperate arrogance on your part, especially when you yourself yet have to cite anything relevant.  

I've cited to sources each and every time I make a point that isn't commonly accepted.  Desperate arrogance is continuing to leave your arguments unsupported.

 

Post-Lochner, when the Court actually upheld regulation for the first time, gun laws were upheld.  Prior to then, it was not the second-amendment that struck down regulation (probably including guns) but it was the right to contract.   The right to bear arms (for purposes of self-defense) was only found to be a fundamental right in 2007, in Heller.  That's a fact.   

 

Steve J, on 21 Jun 2016 - 03:26 AM, said:

So I take it you accept that Heller and McDonald settles the issue then?

And the notion that any Constitutional interpretation is settled is foolish; the interpretation of the Constitution will continue to evolve with the times and the composition of the Court.  That's the reality.  The Constitution has no fixed meaning, no single intent.  It is not the Bible, the supposed Word of God, which also was written by and interpreted by men; but the Constitution, nor it's framers, have ever denied it's need to be interpreted, that it emerged from many-minds, as a result of compromise and concession.   

 

For my part,  I think Heller is right-wing activism; the Court had 200 years prior to the decision to assert that there was a fundamental right to bear arms, but they did not do so.  It was not about finally figuring out the really true intent of the framers; no new clues emerged, no new evidence, just the political climate that made such a decision possible. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

This latest SCOTUS decision is interesting.....

 

On it's face, it looks like a bad, bad decision for freedom. But, I don't know, if there is a warrant out for my arrest, maybe they should be allowed to search me/my car....OTOH, wow, that is one scathing dissent, and I think I side with the dissent.

It's not the best decision, but it's not totally damaging either.  It works like this if a cop stops somebody with less than reasonable suspicion, but not as part of flagrant behavior (an illegal stop), if the person has an outstanding warrant, the evidence resulting from a search AFTER the cops learn about the warrant, won't be precluded because the stop was illegal.  Very specific set of facts and circumstances that aren't likely to have tons of applicability, but nonetheless, another way cops can behave negligently without any real repercussion. 

[Craig Arko]

Who's terrorizing who, exactly?

 

http://www.startribune.com/fear-stalks-minnesota-muslims-as-anti-islam-feeling-builds/383809081/

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Who's terrorizing who, exactly?

 

http://www.startribune.com/fear-stalks-minnesota-muslims-as-anti-islam-feeling-builds/383809081/

 

Those actions are awful.

 

And so is your false equivalency. 

[stringer bell]

Moderator note:   Disagreement and debate is fine. Bickering and personal attacks are not.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 Bickering [...] are not.

Well, there goes the whole forum. 

[mikecgrimes]

 

Not really a tactical mistake. I'm sure the Dems knew they didn't have the votes all along and wouldn't get them. And if they did get them, okay, good. But it didn't matter. What mattered is they brought attention to the vote, so that more could see where the blockade was. At a time when more people than ever want something to be done about gun violence in this country. And yet again, it failed, but the Republicans taking the very public brunt of the failure.

 

Polls on the issue favor Democrats, but passion favors Republicans.  The do something versus hey they won't do anything argument probably plays better then actually passing these laws and dealing with the fallout when they don't work.  I think this issue is a slight net positive for Democrats playing it the way they are but you never want to drive Republican turnout when there are things (Trump) keeping Republicans away.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Who's terrorizing who, exactly?

 

http://www.startribune.com/fear-stalks-minnesota-muslims-as-anti-islam-feeling-builds/383809081/

This is not directed at you Craig, I know you are a good man and fight for the good of mankind and I very much appreciate it.

 

I want to address Islam.

 

There are a good plenty of muslim citizens in the world, who want to live a good life, play the game as I would say and co-mingle with the others that do not share their beliefs and be a part of a society that can be great. On most levels, I think that these great people are secular with there beliefs when it comes to law, government, etc.

 

Let it be clear that I see the great flaw in religion, Abramaic religions for certain. I am as much a fan of Christianity, Judaism, as I am with Islam. I am not a fan of any of them.

 

I really hope we see our Muslim Neighbors in this country and in the other western nations as equals, especially when they embrace a secular view points. I do not think this has ever been a problem until the last 30-40 years. Unfortunately is some places in the western world, we do not see these folks as equals - but that is some people, not all and obviously the "some" needs to change.

 

All religious extremism is a cancer, and it lingers, i am so fed up with it.

 

Islam is in trouble right now, it's identity has been thrown into the abyss, we have so many young people throwing there selves into an extremist identity, it makes me quite sad.

 

What I would like to see is this: Where different people from all walks of life, religions and such take a common sense, secular approach to the issues we are dealing with these days. If we don't do this the situation will get worse. Islam needs to be challenged and a good amount of reform is needed and It has to start with the people who are modern muslim secular visionaries.

 

I know that Sharia Law has no place in our society or the world. It is unacceptable and is an insult to the human race in modern times. I have no interest in seeing women's rights spit on, and people of alternative lifestyles persecuted, executed or shunned from their communities.

 

This does not reflect upon the secular population that subscribes to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or Bhuddist, etc., etc.. You are my brothers and sisters. As a united front, we can fight this and fix this. I believe that!

[TheLeviathan]

 

This does not reflect upon the secular population that subscribes to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or Bhuddist, etc., etc.. You are my brothers and sisters. As a united front, we can fight this and fix this. I believe that!

 

Well said Bark, it took a long time to get some of the other Abramaic religions to accept secular governments.  And the cost of that time was brutal.  I'd like to see Islam progress faster than that and move themselves towards a more progressive outlook on the world.  Many believers already have.  Far, far too many have not.  

 

The unfortunate reality is that religion is being used to prop up a lot of brutal behavior.  In our country we have one sect of people trying to ban a religion from the country - a racist, ridiculous notion.  Or boot them from the country as an earlier poster suggested.  We have another sect of people honestly comparing 50 dead people in a club to harassment (however reprehensible, is still only harassment, not murder).  Or comparing abortion clinic bombings by Christians to terrorist attacks by Muslims.

 

I'd love it if we could have some nuance in the conversation.  Islam is part of the problem, it's being widely perverted towards violence.  That doesn't mean Islam itself is any more dangerous than the other religions.  It isn't.  Many believers of Islam, especially those in the west, are good people.  People who are part of our culture every bit as much as we are.  At the same time, let's not equivocate what is happening in the world in the name of Islam has any equal.  It's a religion that is sick with corruption, abuse, violence, misogyny, and exploitation.  Rape victims are killed for the audacity to have been raped.  Gays are thrown off buildings.  Non-believers of Islam are tortured, flayed, burned alive, and brutally killed in nearly every fashion imaginable.  Children are indoctrinated further.  Women have no upward future.  This is the world of Islam for millions of people.  It's not racist to say - Islam and its adherents are the central force behind all this brutality.

 

We have to rally together to reject that in no uncertain terms.  Your link said it best earlier - when we hide behind words, try to minimize the realities, and cede the ground of confrontation - we give that ground to nut bags like Trump.  We need to take it, own the issue and stop thinking we can soft-shoe around the reality.  I'm tired of hearing the people who fight for these same rights in this country rush to yell "racism!" every time we try and confront this real force for human misery in the world.

 

Islam, as I've found through many of its believers, can be such a wonderful religion.  It'd be nice if more of its adherents around the world followed it the same way those I've met here have done.  We need to fix that, so count me in Bark.

[Badsmerf]

Like you said, I anticipate things to get worse before they get better.