Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
California made that requirement because they found that more than 200 faith based centers used lies and deceit in their advertising and counseling practices. Their intent was to confuse or intimidate women. So lying is okay if you are a Christian.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Yeah, it sure is sick to bring babies into this world. It's so much better to abort them.
Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your moral high-ground? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a dime-a-dozen killdeer but turn a blind-eye to abortion. I call BS...
Yes, it is better to abort them in some circumstances. Bringing babies by lies and tricks, does that start things off on the right foot?
Whats a dime a dozen killdeer anyway?
I actually agree in some circumstances, but for convenience, not so much...
The killdeer statement was in reference to delaying a Canadian Blues Festival due to a mommy killdeer nesting on the site. One mommy with four eggs. I could understand if it was some threatened bird species that was almost extinct, but killdeer are everywhere!
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
California made that requirement because they found that more than 200 faith based centers used lies and deceit in their advertising and counseling practices. Their intent was to confuse or intimidate women. So lying is okay if you are a Christian.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Yeah, it sure is sick to bring babies into this world. It's so much better to abort them.
Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your moral high-ground? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a dime-a-dozen killdeer but turn a blind-eye to abortion. I call BS...
Yes, it is better to abort them in some circumstances. Bringing babies by lies and tricks, does that start things off on the right foot?
Whats a dime a dozen killdeer anyway?
I actually agree in some circumstances, but for convenience, not so much...
The killdeer statement was in reference to delaying a Canadian Blues Festival due to a mommy killdeer nesting on the site. One mommy with four eggs. I could understand if it was some threatened bird species that was almost extinct, but killdeer are everywhere!
Yeah environmental can go a bit overboard but I think most the time things are the other way. At least in a lot of important areas like water supplies etc.
As for abortion, I'd even say convenience would be okay I mean if you are doing it for convenience repeatedly then you probably should not be a parent. If it's once then yeah maybe you and your partner aren't ready its not the right time. I think that's OK
I don't think most people would do it for convenience, nobody is like haha let's get pregnant and abort the baby for fun. I think it is a big deal to get an abortion and not something people take lightly.
Justice Sotomayor notes in her dissent to the SCOTUS ruling just a few weeks ago in its *Masterpiece Cakeshop* decision a few stray comments from members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission constituted clear evidence of bias against the cakeshop owner's sincerely-held religious beliefs, the majority here decides that then-candidate Trump's explicit calls for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" are legally irrelevant.
What the conservative majority is doing is to interpret each case in whichever way suits the conservative cause. The Supreme Court is interpreting the law arbitrarily and unequally. The legitimacy of the court is already compromised by the theft of the seat now occupied by Gorsuch.
If the GOP continues to get its way, there wont be a USA left.
It also seems to have come up in the California case about a religious crisis pregnancy center having to follow a State law that requires them to simply mention abortion as a medical option available elsewhere. Once again, Christian supremacy is coming into play here. Abortion providers in a plethora of States are required to tell their patients certain things, and those laws have been upheld since Casey. Now, however, when a State law does the exact opposite of that (flipping the tables if you will), the First Amendment rights of the center are being violated.
Mind you, I think requiring these anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers what they have to say is probably IS a bridge too far. But ONLY if abortion providers aren't mandated to do exactly that in other cases all across the country, which are then upheld by this very court. Once again, it proves two things: #1 if you present yourself as a Christian organization, there is essentially no leeway this court will not give you and #2 is that the conservatives on this court (and frankly Republicans in general) only care about "State's rights" when it is convenient. This charade that they are for federalism and treat all cases equally simply must end. This is, based on everything we have seen this session, a court that is defined by it's ingrained religious beliefs. We have 3 concrete examples of it in the just the last month, where the majority contradicts itself at every turn.
California made that requirement because they found that more than 200 faith based centers used lies and deceit in their advertising and counseling practices. Their intent was to confuse or intimidate women. So lying is okay if you are a Christian.
John Oliver did a segment on this a couple months ago. Anti-abortion centers pretend to be "Women's Health Centers" when they don't have doctors and their whole goal is to trick, confuse and intimidate women to have babies. Sick.
Yeah, it sure is sick to bring babies into this world. It's so much better to abort them.
Oh I'm sorry, did I step on your moral high-ground? I'm supposed to feel sorry for a dime-a-dozen killdeer but turn a blind-eye to abortion. I call BS...
Yes, it is better to abort them in some circumstances. Bringing babies by lies and tricks, does that start things off on the right foot?
Whats a dime a dozen killdeer anyway?
I actually agree in some circumstances, but for convenience, not so much...
The killdeer statement was in reference to delaying a Canadian Blues Festival due to a mommy killdeer nesting on the site. One mommy with four eggs. I could understand if it was some threatened bird species that was almost extinct, but killdeer are everywhere!
Yeah environmental can go a bit overboard but I think most the time things are the other way. At least in a lot of important areas like water supplies etc.
As for abortion, I'd even say convenience would be okay I mean if you are doing it for convenience repeatedly then you probably should not be a parent. If it's once then yeah maybe you and your partner aren't ready its not the right time. I think that's OK
I don't think most people would do it for convenience, nobody is like haha let's get pregnant and abort the baby for fun. I think it is a big deal to get an abortion and not something people take lightly.
I'm a bit apprehensive that if abortion is made too easy, people WILL start taking it lightly. That's my main objection to it. It's not the same as birth-control to me. I have no problem with the day-after pill however, unlike many conservatives.
I see that a number of Democratic States have issued a lawsuit against the policy of family separation.
I've now gone through it in a bit more detail and thought I could amplify on a few things: - I was perhaps a bit too scathing in my previous post about the chances of a successful challenge on State rights. I think that's still the case when considering the policy of States to uphold the integrity of the family, protect the rights of their residents and avoid exposure to additional costs from providing service to those traumatized by separations. However, there's also a technical issue raised around licensing that seems a bit more promising to me. Unaccompanied minors (including those deliberately separated from their parents) have to be put into licensed accommodation. However, that's in short supply and the federal government have asked the courts to permit the use of unlicensed accommodation - which could well be seen as infringing on State rights. - the document includes a huge amount of linked information, so if you're interested in the subject it provides a good starting point to search for information. I also noted that there are specific sections in the document providing evidence for the policy rationales I posted about not long ago (of deterring future families for applying for asylum and providing leverage against Congress to change the law). - I'd seen ad hoc reports before of parents being pressured to drop asylum claims in order to be reunited with their children, but the evidence in this report suggests that practice has been far more wide-spread than I had realized (suggesting this was a deliberate policy rather than just the result of a few over-zealous officials).
Edit: just for fun I'll also note an apparent glitch in measurements. I knew that there had been a trial of the zero-tolerance policy, but hadn't previously seen details on that. The trial was done in El Paso between July and November 2017. The extension of the zero-tolerance policy was partly justified because the trial had seemed so successful in deterring applicants - resulting in a 64% drop in illegal entries. However, it appears that someone got their maths wrong and there was actually a 64% increase in illegal entries. That doesn't mean that the policy failed to deter parents - there was a 110% increase elsewhere on the border. Arguably though, it is symptomatic of the Trump administration's belief that evidence is not important as a driver for policy.
The US is not a democracy and never has been. The 'majority' rules BS is not an issue unless your party is on the opposite end of it. Sorry but that's a fact. I would never hear one complaint from you or @smeagolheart if Clinton had won with 48% of the vote. You'd likely be raving about how enlightened our founding fathers were for having the wisdom to foresee this eventuality...
I think this is just another unsubstantiated claim that both sides are equivalent, which is easy to make, as it is not testable.
In this case I believe it to be false. Democrats are more consistent in their position regardless of whether the policy is make by a Republican or Democrat President. Look at the Syria intervention, Republic support almost quadrupled once Trump decided to bomb that airfield while Democrat support remained the same as it was during the Obama presidency.
In addition, I think it is rather uncharitable to also make the claim on a more personal level, implying that your fellow posters are biased and opportunistic instead of being honestly opposed to the electoral college.
This list (obviously incomplete, I didn't list countries whose global population percentage is less than 1) cites the approximate number of Muslims per country followed by the percent of the global Muslim population that nation represents (there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the entire world). The nations on that list above Iran (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Egypt) account for 54% of the world's Muslims and if we remove Iran from this list these nations account for 81% of global Muslim population.
The current travel ban targets the following countries:
These nations account for only about 8.3% of the global Muslim population.
If the current travel ban were truthfully a "Muslim ban", then it is doing an *extremely* poor job at fulfilling its stated purpose--it is targeting only 8.3% of the global Muslim population. Even if Trump, himself, says "yes, this is a Muslim travel ban" then all he is doing is indicating that he does not understand his own executive order...or he does not understand the demographics of the Muslim population in the world...or both. Incidentally, the United States has as many as 7,000,000 Muslims and accounts for only 0.2% of global Muslim population, which is why I did not subtract the population already here--compared to the rest of the world the domestic proportion is insignificant. I am not going to prove my numbers here--you may look them up as easily as I did and crunch the numbers for yourself.
Long story short: this should prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the travel ban is *not* a "Muslim ban". Also, since "Muslim" is not a race, the travel ban is--by definition--not racist.
The killdeer statement was in reference to delaying a Canadian Blues Festival due to a mommy killdeer nesting on the site. One mommy with four eggs. I could understand if it was some threatened bird species that was almost extinct, but killdeer are everywhere!
Woodlands Wildlife Sanctuary executive director Monika Melichar took each of the four killdeer eggs from their nest and placed them in a custom-built nest and walked away with her fingers crossed. After creeping nervously toward the human-built nest for a few minutes, one killdeer parent hopped on top of the eggs. Everything was going according to plan. Melichar made the three-hour drive to Ottawa from Minden, Ont., on Tuesday afternoon after Bluesfest organizers got the OK from Environment Canada to move the nest, which sat right where the main stage was to be erected. The plan, Melichar explained, was to move the eggs in their new nest about one metre every 20 minutes. After moving the nest, she’d wait until one of the killdeer returned to sit on the eggs. She would then return once 20 minutes were up to repeat the process. As of 9 p.m. Tuesday, the nest had undergone eight one-metre moves, and the killdeer parents had returned to the eggs each time. Melichar, along with a team of people from Bluesfest and the National Capital Commission, left the killdeer to settle for the night and planned to return at 5 a.m. Wednesday to continue the process. In the meantime, a security guard stood watch. Only in Canada would a government agency hire a security guard to watch a wild bird.
Trump wants allies to stop getting oil from Iran by November. Hmm what else is happening in November, anything important in the United States?
Could getting into a conflict with Iran be a type of "Reichstag fire" incident around the midterms to boost support for Trump during a conflict?
Trump would love to call out his political rivals and other American citizens as not being patriotic enough over a war he blunders in to. War gets votes right?
As I said it's starting to look more and more like 2003.
The numbers say it is not an effective Muslim ban.
The issue is that Trump and his administration are giving two contradictory messages:
1. It is not a ban based on religion or race. 2. The ban is Trump fulfilling his campaign promise on a Muslim travel ban.
I feel the Travel Ban is still Trump targeting Muslims to the degrees he feels he can get away with it. He might want pander to the Anti-Muslim part of his base or he himself does not like Muslims. So even if as a discriminatory measure the travel ban is not very effective, the intention is still to either discriminate against Muslims or pander to people who think that Muslims should be discriminated against.
As for targeting Muslims = not being racist, I would be very careful about using that argument structure. It's the go-to tactic of racists, after open discrimination being no longer legal, is to try to find criteria that are not overtly racist but when applied yield the same effect. One example is the crack vs cocaine punishment guidelines. Or voting literacy tests with a grandfather clause: on paper they are not about race at all, but in both effect and motivation they were racist.
As for targeting Muslims = not being racist, I would be very careful about using that argument structure. It's the go-to tactic of racists, after open discrimination being no longer legal, is to try to find criteria that are not overtly racist but when applied yield the same effect. One example is the crack vs cocaine punishment guidelines. Or voting literacy tests with a grandfather clause: on paper they are not about race at all, but in both effect and motivation they were racist.
Correct. On the hand, yes, "muslim" is not a race. On the other hand, the real problem is discrimination, whether racially or otherwise motivated.
The numbers say it is not an effective Muslim ban.
The issue is that Trump and his administration are giving two contradictory messages:
1. It is not a ban based on religion or race. 2. The ban is Trump fulfilling his campaign promise on a Muslim travel ban.
That is not my problem--I am not the person crafting the message coming from the Administration. If I were, then I wouldn't be on this forum (I would be too busy), I would be making more money than I do now, and the message coming from the White House would actually be coherent and consistent.
As for targeting Muslims = not being racist, I would be very careful about using that argument structure. It's the go-to tactic of racists, after open discrimination being no longer legal, is to try to find criteria that are not overtly racist but when applied yield the same effect. One example is the crack vs cocaine punishment guidelines. Or voting literacy tests with a grandfather clause: on paper they are not about race at all, but in both effect and motivation they were racist.
Person A says "that is racist"...Person B offers proof that the subject in question is not racist...Person A counters with "but it is still discrimination"--this is what we call "moving the goal posts".
The travel ban is most definitely discriminatory because it singles out individual countries but not all discrimination is inherently wrong. People who could move to Florida but choose not to because they don't want to move to Florida are discriminating against Florida but this is a generally accepted version of "discrimination". People who could move next door to a family in some demographic group but choose not to because they don't want to live next door to "those people" are engaging in a generally unacceptable form of discrimination. Almost all forms of discrimination, though, are based on irrational fear and/or ignorance, especially when discriminating against people.
I freely admit that I discriminate against people. However, I discriminate against people based on their actions--once someone has proven themselves to be a jerk, or troll, or a manipulator, or an emotional black hole, or some other negative personality trait I choose not to associate with that person. Considered from that point of view, that is why I state that not all forms of discrimination are "wrong".
re: the rabbis being arrested for protesting.... Religious leaders have a long history of being arrested for civil disobedience. Dr. King, himself, was arrested several times during his career. I give them credit for standing up for their beliefs.
The US is not a democracy and never has been. The 'majority' rules BS is not an issue unless your party is on the opposite end of it. Sorry but that's a fact. I would never hear one complaint from you or @smeagolheart if Clinton had won with 48% of the vote. You'd likely be raving about how enlightened our founding fathers were for having the wisdom to foresee this eventuality...
In addition, I think it is rather uncharitable to also make the claim on a more personal level, implying that your fellow posters are biased and opportunistic instead of being honestly opposed to the electoral college.
@jjstraka34, @smeagolheart & I have been sparring for a very long time. I figured they could handle a little jab.
I need to remember there are others also reading though, so I apologize if it appeared I was attacking them personally. That wasn't my intent.
Person A says "that is racist"...Person B offers proof that the subject in question is not racist...Person A counters with "but it is still discrimination"--this is what we call "moving the goal posts".
That is not what I said, though. What I said is that a policy might not be racist in isolation as written on paper, but it can still be both racially motivated and racist in effect. And I even gave a very specific example by pointing at voter literacy laws.
Nothing to do with it still being some other sort of discrimination. The only one who moved the goal posts is your straw man.
The US is not a democracy and never has been. The 'majority' rules BS is not an issue unless your party is on the opposite end of it. Sorry but that's a fact. I would never hear one complaint from you or @smeagolheart if Clinton had won with 48% of the vote. You'd likely be raving about how enlightened our founding fathers were for having the wisdom to foresee this eventuality...
In addition, I think it is rather uncharitable to also make the claim on a more personal level, implying that your fellow posters are biased and opportunistic instead of being honestly opposed to the electoral college.
@jjstraka34, @smeagolheart & I have been sparring for a very long time. I figured they could handle a little jab.
I need to remember there are others also reading though, so I apologize if it appeared I was attacking them personally. That wasn't my intent.
I figure they can handle it, too.
Most likely I only commented to it because the argument you originally applied was one I really hate, as it can be and so broadly applied against any sort of idealism at all. It kills reasonable discussion.
If you were a baby, you would be against abortion too. If your girlfriend of 3 months would be unexpectedly pregnant, you would be for abortion too. If you had worked hard to become rich, you would be against taxes too. If you were a real star wars fan, you would have hated Last Jedi too. ... If you would profit from the electoral college, you would be for it too.
The basic pattern is that it A claims if X were in position Y he would support Z, which X either not being able to ever personally be in position Y or in many cases (Star Wars example) just that A claims that X is not in position X.
For example, I have heard the tax one many times and I am reasonably well off and paying the maximum marginal tax rate. I still support relatively high, progressive taxes.
The killdeer statement was in reference to delaying a Canadian Blues Festival due to a mommy killdeer nesting on the site. One mommy with four eggs. I could understand if it was some threatened bird species that was almost extinct, but killdeer are everywhere!
Woodlands Wildlife Sanctuary executive director Monika Melichar took each of the four killdeer eggs from their nest and placed them in a custom-built nest and walked away with her fingers crossed. After creeping nervously toward the human-built nest for a few minutes, one killdeer parent hopped on top of the eggs. Everything was going according to plan. Melichar made the three-hour drive to Ottawa from Minden, Ont., on Tuesday afternoon after Bluesfest organizers got the OK from Environment Canada to move the nest, which sat right where the main stage was to be erected. The plan, Melichar explained, was to move the eggs in their new nest about one metre every 20 minutes. After moving the nest, she’d wait until one of the killdeer returned to sit on the eggs. She would then return once 20 minutes were up to repeat the process. As of 9 p.m. Tuesday, the nest had undergone eight one-metre moves, and the killdeer parents had returned to the eggs each time. Melichar, along with a team of people from Bluesfest and the National Capital Commission, left the killdeer to settle for the night and planned to return at 5 a.m. Wednesday to continue the process. In the meantime, a security guard stood watch. Only in Canada would a government agency hire a security guard to watch a wild bird.
As soon as the eggs hatch some coyote is going to swoop in and gobble up the chicks. For all this trouble these birds should become celebrities and live the high life!
Not all positions, of course, are based on self-interest--and not just because the person in question doesn't realize a policy isn't in their best interest. I support higher taxes for the wealthy and an estate tax even though I stand to lose a lot of money from those two policies, especially the latter.
Not all positions, of course, are based on self-interest--and not just because the person in question doesn't realize a policy isn't in their best interest. I support higher taxes for the wealthy and an estate tax even though I stand to lose a lot of money from those two policies, especially the latter.
Nobody's stopping you from giving all the money you want to the government. You can give more to the IRS if you want to. They won't mind a bit. You can even put the government in your will if you want. What you want is for everybody else to be forced to give too. Sorry, I don't agree. The people who spend other people's money always manage to skim a bit off for themselves and their cronies. I'd be more apt to agree to targeted money going for needed improvements with full visibility than just sending it off to Washington for them to do whatever they deem fit with it.
Without redistribution of wealth you end up with guillotines in the streets.
The Romans figured it out. Bread and circuses were the key to letting the upper class get away with all the wealth. Free bread for the poor and distractions in the spectacles kept the mobs from demanding the overthrow of the aristocracy.
Without redistribution of wealth you end up with guillotines in the streets.
The Romans figured it out. Bread and circuses were the key to letting the upper class get away with all the wealth. Free bread for the poor and distractions in the spectacles kept the mobs from demanding the overthrow of the aristocracy.
Interesting you should mention that with the World Cup going on.
Edit: and right on cue, my Fantasy Football update e-mail!
I don't care how much money someone has, so long as people don't have to worry about starving or not having a decent place to stay because they are disabled or suffer from a chronic disease and can't work, or going bankrupt or dieing to a treatable disease due to medical bills, or can't get an education.
Nobody's stopping you from giving all the money you want to the government. You can give more to the IRS if you want to. They won't mind a bit.
You are partially correct. You may overpay to the IRS whenever you want to but when they crunch your numbers they will refund the amount you overpaid, according to that year's tax table.
Every economic transaction is, technically, a redistribution of wealth (or at least money). What some people mean by "redistribution" is "the authorities are seizing the liquid assets and will give it away to those who have very little money". Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the government has taken all the money someone possesses above a certain amount (let's use $50,000 as an example), has put it into a collective pool, and starts giving it out to people who formerly did not have money. What are those people going to do with that money? Obviously, they will spend it. However, if they spend it then now the person who owns the business has more money than the customers do--is that unfair? Wasn't the goal to spread the money around to everyone equally? The very act of buying something unbalances the amount of money people have. What if you and I have the same amount of money, we both buy the same item, but I found mine on sale for a better price than you paid? I now have more money than you--is that unfair? What if you are a single parent but my spouse and I have no children? Is the money from the collective pool given to each adult person or to a "family unit"? If the money is doled out individually my spouse and I (we share resources as a married couple) now have twice as much money as the single parent--is that fair? If the money is doled out per family unit then the single parent now has twice as much money as I do, individually--is that fair?
The problem with "redistribute the wealth" is not the actual seizing and redistribution (that would actually be "theft by government" but let's ignore that for now); rather, the problem is this question: how should the money be redistributed? Most people default to some version of "fair" but "fair" is *subjective*--what is "fair" to you might not be "fair" to me, so who gets to decide what "fair" means? In the real world, "fair" in this instance is usually determined by the person who brings more guns to the discussion...but that really isn't fair, is it?
Anthony Kennedy is retiring. This is game, set, match. The hard-right will now control the court for at least 25 years. Roe, gay marriage, the very survival of unions at any level, healthcare.....all now on the chopping block. The moment Trump appoints his second pick, oligarchy will be full entrenched. No matter what Congressional or Presidential elections Democrats win in the future, every major disputed case before the US Supreme Court for as long as most of us are going to be alive will swing to the right. It's over. The left is now in the wilderness for decades, no matter the results of any future election. Abject disaster, and the exact reason McConnell stole the seat. We. Are. Screwed. Mark this date on your calendars if you want to go back in history in 20 years and see a clear demarcation and tipping point, because this is it, and I'm not wrong. The fat lady, as they say, has sung.
Not all positions, of course, are based on self-interest--and not just because the person in question doesn't realize a policy isn't in their best interest. I support higher taxes for the wealthy and an estate tax even though I stand to lose a lot of money from those two policies, especially the latter.
Nobody's stopping you from giving all the money you want to the government. You can give more to the IRS if you want to. They won't mind a bit. You can even put the government in your will if you want. What you want is for everybody else to be forced to give too. Sorry, I don't agree. The people who spend other people's money always manage to skim a bit off for themselves and their cronies. I'd be more apt to agree to targeted money going for needed improvements with full visibility than just sending it off to Washington for them to do whatever they deem fit with it.
I don't plan on paying extra if other people in my tax bracket aren't required to. Again, this is all about the legitimacy of the democratic process--if democratic elections determine that X% is the right tax amount, that's what I, and others in my bracket, will pay. I'm not going to pay more than I'm required to for the same reasons I'm not going to pay less than I'm required to--not because both are illegal, but because neither of them is the result of the democratic process. One guy votes for 10%, another guy votes for 30%, and the net result is 20%. Both guys pay the same amount because that's the result of majority rule--even if one of them thinks it should be higher and another thinks it should lower.
Put it this way. Think about what percent of your earnings you think should be taxed. It can be as low as 1% or as high as 90%. That's the percent you vote for.
Let's say there's an election and the actual tax gets cut to half of the number you voted for.
You believe it should be higher, right? After all, you voted for twice that number. But are you going to pay twice as much as everyone else who earns the same paycheck?
The same logic applies to everyone who believes that taxes should be higher than zero but lower than 100%. Are we then to conclude that everyone but communists and anarcho-capitalists is a hypocrite who wants to steal other people's money?
Because that would make everyone in this thread a hypocrite and a thief, including you. It doesn't matter how low or high you think taxes should be--the exact same logic applies.
Comments
The killdeer statement was in reference to delaying a Canadian Blues Festival due to a mommy killdeer nesting on the site. One mommy with four eggs. I could understand if it was some threatened bird species that was almost extinct, but killdeer are everywhere!
As for abortion, I'd even say convenience would be okay I mean if you are doing it for convenience repeatedly then you probably should not be a parent. If it's once then yeah maybe you and your partner aren't ready its not the right time. I think that's OK
I don't think most people would do it for convenience, nobody is like haha let's get pregnant and abort the baby for fun. I think it is a big deal to get an abortion and not something people take lightly.
- I was perhaps a bit too scathing in my previous post about the chances of a successful challenge on State rights. I think that's still the case when considering the policy of States to uphold the integrity of the family, protect the rights of their residents and avoid exposure to additional costs from providing service to those traumatized by separations. However, there's also a technical issue raised around licensing that seems a bit more promising to me. Unaccompanied minors (including those deliberately separated from their parents) have to be put into licensed accommodation. However, that's in short supply and the federal government have asked the courts to permit the use of unlicensed accommodation - which could well be seen as infringing on State rights.
- the document includes a huge amount of linked information, so if you're interested in the subject it provides a good starting point to search for information. I also noted that there are specific sections in the document providing evidence for the policy rationales I posted about not long ago (of deterring future families for applying for asylum and providing leverage against Congress to change the law).
- I'd seen ad hoc reports before of parents being pressured to drop asylum claims in order to be reunited with their children, but the evidence in this report suggests that practice has been far more wide-spread than I had realized (suggesting this was a deliberate policy rather than just the result of a few over-zealous officials).
Edit: just for fun I'll also note an apparent glitch in measurements. I knew that there had been a trial of the zero-tolerance policy, but hadn't previously seen details on that. The trial was done in El Paso between July and November 2017. The extension of the zero-tolerance policy was partly justified because the trial had seemed so successful in deterring applicants - resulting in a 64% drop in illegal entries. However, it appears that someone got their maths wrong and there was actually a 64% increase in illegal entries. That doesn't mean that the policy failed to deter parents - there was a 110% increase elsewhere on the border. Arguably though, it is symptomatic of the Trump administration's belief that evidence is not important as a driver for policy.
In this case I believe it to be false. Democrats are more consistent in their position regardless of whether the policy is make by a Republican or Democrat President. Look at the Syria intervention, Republic support almost quadrupled once Trump decided to bomb that airfield while Democrat support remained the same as it was during the Obama presidency.
In addition, I think it is rather uncharitable to also make the claim on a more personal level, implying that your fellow posters are biased and opportunistic instead of being honestly opposed to the electoral college.
Pakistan_______198,000,000_____11
India__________189,000,000_____10.9
Bangladesh_____148,607,000_____9.2
Nigeria________76,000,000_______5.3
Egypt_________87,300,000_______4.9
Iran__________80,500,000_______4.6
Turkey________79,000,000_______4.6
Algeria________40,232,000_______2.7
Morocco_______33,646,788_______2
Iraq___________38,800,190_______1.9
Sudan_________39,027,950_______1.9
Afghanistan____34,022,437_______1.8
Ethiopia_______28,680,000________1.8
Uzbekistan_____26,550,000________1.7
Saudi Arabia___31,878,000________1.6
Yemen_________27,784,498________1.5
China__________24,690,000________1.4
Malaysia________19,237,161_______1.1
Niger___________19,502,214_______1
Russia___________9,400,000________1
Syria____________18,930,000________1
This list (obviously incomplete, I didn't list countries whose global population percentage is less than 1) cites the approximate number of Muslims per country followed by the percent of the global Muslim population that nation represents (there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the entire world). The nations on that list above Iran (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Egypt) account for 54% of the world's Muslims and if we remove Iran from this list these nations account for 81% of global Muslim population.
The current travel ban targets the following countries:
Iran________80,500,000__4.6
Libya_______6,325,000___0.4
DPRK______3,000_______<0.1
Syria_______18,930,000___1
Venezuela___95,000______< 0.1
Yemen______27,784,498___1.5
Somalia_____9,231,000____0.6
These nations account for only about 8.3% of the global Muslim population.
If the current travel ban were truthfully a "Muslim ban", then it is doing an *extremely* poor job at fulfilling its stated purpose--it is targeting only 8.3% of the global Muslim population. Even if Trump, himself, says "yes, this is a Muslim travel ban" then all he is doing is indicating that he does not understand his own executive order...or he does not understand the demographics of the Muslim population in the world...or both. Incidentally, the United States has as many as 7,000,000 Muslims and accounts for only 0.2% of global Muslim population, which is why I did not subtract the population already here--compared to the rest of the world the domestic proportion is insignificant. I am not going to prove my numbers here--you may look them up as easily as I did and crunch the numbers for yourself.
Long story short: this should prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the travel ban is *not* a "Muslim ban". Also, since "Muslim" is not a race, the travel ban is--by definition--not racist.
But the good news is that the nest got moved.
Woodlands Wildlife Sanctuary executive director Monika Melichar took each of the four killdeer eggs from their nest and placed them in a custom-built nest and walked away with her fingers crossed.
After creeping nervously toward the human-built nest for a few minutes, one killdeer parent hopped on top of the eggs. Everything was going according to plan.
Melichar made the three-hour drive to Ottawa from Minden, Ont., on Tuesday afternoon after Bluesfest organizers got the OK from Environment Canada to move the nest, which sat right where the main stage was to be erected.
The plan, Melichar explained, was to move the eggs in their new nest about one metre every 20 minutes. After moving the nest, she’d wait until one of the killdeer returned to sit on the eggs. She would then return once 20 minutes were up to repeat the process.
As of 9 p.m. Tuesday, the nest had undergone eight one-metre moves, and the killdeer parents had returned to the eggs each time. Melichar, along with a team of people from Bluesfest and the National Capital Commission, left the killdeer to settle for the night and planned to return at 5 a.m. Wednesday to continue the process.
In the meantime, a security guard stood watch.
Only in Canada would a government agency hire a security guard to watch a wild bird.
The numbers say it is not an effective Muslim ban.
The issue is that Trump and his administration are giving two contradictory messages:
1. It is not a ban based on religion or race.
2. The ban is Trump fulfilling his campaign promise on a Muslim travel ban.
I feel the Travel Ban is still Trump targeting Muslims to the degrees he feels he can get away with it. He might want pander to the Anti-Muslim part of his base or he himself does not like Muslims. So even if as a discriminatory measure the travel ban is not very effective, the intention is still to either discriminate against Muslims or pander to people who think that Muslims should be discriminated against.
As for targeting Muslims = not being racist, I would be very careful about using that argument structure. It's the go-to tactic of racists, after open discrimination being no longer legal, is to try to find criteria that are not overtly racist but when applied yield the same effect. One example is the crack vs cocaine punishment guidelines. Or voting literacy tests with a grandfather clause: on paper they are not about race at all, but in both effect and motivation they were racist.
Which BTW leads us to an interesting point. Arabs and arabic speaking people are technically as semitic as jews. So is the Hamas antisemitic?
Doesn't stop people from calling them antisemitic though, does it?
If so then, you could call that ban "racist" too.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/rabbis-pastors-and-other-faith-leaders-arrested-protesting-trump-in-1.6218596
Brussels to Trump: We’re not backing down on trade
US president insists EU will drop its retaliatory tariffs. Brussels has no plans to do so.
In the escalating trade war with the U.S., Brussels has a clear message for Donald Trump: It’s not backing down......
The travel ban is most definitely discriminatory because it singles out individual countries but not all discrimination is inherently wrong. People who could move to Florida but choose not to because they don't want to move to Florida are discriminating against Florida but this is a generally accepted version of "discrimination". People who could move next door to a family in some demographic group but choose not to because they don't want to live next door to "those people" are engaging in a generally unacceptable form of discrimination. Almost all forms of discrimination, though, are based on irrational fear and/or ignorance, especially when discriminating against people.
I freely admit that I discriminate against people. However, I discriminate against people based on their actions--once someone has proven themselves to be a jerk, or troll, or a manipulator, or an emotional black hole, or some other negative personality trait I choose not to associate with that person. Considered from that point of view, that is why I state that not all forms of discrimination are "wrong".
re: the rabbis being arrested for protesting.... Religious leaders have a long history of being arrested for civil disobedience. Dr. King, himself, was arrested several times during his career. I give them credit for standing up for their beliefs.
I need to remember there are others also reading though, so I apologize if it appeared I was attacking them personally. That wasn't my intent.
Nothing to do with it still being some other sort of discrimination. The only one who moved the goal posts is your straw man.
I believe there is a problem of rampant racism within this administration.
Most likely I only commented to it because the argument you originally applied was one I really hate, as it can be and so broadly applied against any sort of idealism at all. It kills reasonable discussion.
If you were a baby, you would be against abortion too.
If your girlfriend of 3 months would be unexpectedly pregnant, you would be for abortion too.
If you had worked hard to become rich, you would be against taxes too.
If you were a real star wars fan, you would have hated Last Jedi too.
...
If you would profit from the electoral college, you would be for it too.
The basic pattern is that it A claims if X were in position Y he would support Z, which X either not being able to ever personally be in position Y or in many cases (Star Wars example) just that A claims that X is not in position X.
For example, I have heard the tax one many times and I am reasonably well off and paying the maximum marginal tax rate. I still support relatively high, progressive taxes.
Edit: and right on cue, my Fantasy Football update e-mail!
Every economic transaction is, technically, a redistribution of wealth (or at least money). What some people mean by "redistribution" is "the authorities are seizing the liquid assets and will give it away to those who have very little money". Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the government has taken all the money someone possesses above a certain amount (let's use $50,000 as an example), has put it into a collective pool, and starts giving it out to people who formerly did not have money. What are those people going to do with that money? Obviously, they will spend it. However, if they spend it then now the person who owns the business has more money than the customers do--is that unfair? Wasn't the goal to spread the money around to everyone equally? The very act of buying something unbalances the amount of money people have. What if you and I have the same amount of money, we both buy the same item, but I found mine on sale for a better price than you paid? I now have more money than you--is that unfair? What if you are a single parent but my spouse and I have no children? Is the money from the collective pool given to each adult person or to a "family unit"? If the money is doled out individually my spouse and I (we share resources as a married couple) now have twice as much money as the single parent--is that fair? If the money is doled out per family unit then the single parent now has twice as much money as I do, individually--is that fair?
The problem with "redistribute the wealth" is not the actual seizing and redistribution (that would actually be "theft by government" but let's ignore that for now); rather, the problem is this question: how should the money be redistributed? Most people default to some version of "fair" but "fair" is *subjective*--what is "fair" to you might not be "fair" to me, so who gets to decide what "fair" means? In the real world, "fair" in this instance is usually determined by the person who brings more guns to the discussion...but that really isn't fair, is it?
Put it this way. Think about what percent of your earnings you think should be taxed. It can be as low as 1% or as high as 90%. That's the percent you vote for.
Let's say there's an election and the actual tax gets cut to half of the number you voted for.
You believe it should be higher, right? After all, you voted for twice that number. But are you going to pay twice as much as everyone else who earns the same paycheck?
The same logic applies to everyone who believes that taxes should be higher than zero but lower than 100%. Are we then to conclude that everyone but communists and anarcho-capitalists is a hypocrite who wants to steal other people's money?
Because that would make everyone in this thread a hypocrite and a thief, including you. It doesn't matter how low or high you think taxes should be--the exact same logic applies.