This has now just turned into some twisted game, and I would say me and @BelleSorciere and @smeagolheart should just go to bed at this point, or literally do ANYTHING else but continue to feed whatever the hell is going on here.
These flip flops indicate political changes rather then personal
As I said before, who cares? They've acted on their declared stances, so the difference between them really being for LGBT rights and not really being for LGBT rights is no difference at all. I don't care what's going on deep in their hearts, I care what they do.
And finally, Trump's actions are relevant now because Trump is in office now and taking these actions now. The Republican party's politics are relevant now because they are in power now. The Democrats are far from perfect, but they are almost assuredly the lesser evil.
False, because the Democrat party has destroyed countries, just as the Republican party before them.
Both parties are just as evil as each other, if your going to go back even in modern times for the sins of both parties, their virtually identical, and once your at the level of destroying countries, comparing one as lesser or greater is meaningless.
And finally, Trump's actions are relevant now because Trump is in office now and taking these actions now. The Republican party's politics are relevant now because they are in power now. The Democrats are far from perfect, but they are almost assuredly the lesser evil.
False, because the Democrat party has destroyed countries, just as the Republican party before them.
You're shifting the goalposts. We were talking about LGBT rights.
Both parties are just as evil as each other, if your going to go back even in modern times for the sins of both parties, their virtually identical, and once your at the level of destroying countries, comparing one as lesser or greater is meaningless.
The only reason to do so is partisanship.
Neoliberal military adventurism is one of the things I am highly critical of. The problem is that both parties do it, which means we're stuck with determining which party is going to cause the least amount of damage. In the real world, that's the Democratic party. If you have a viable alternative, then by all means, tell us.
But that wasn't the topic you pushed, which was that because Bill Clinton signed DOMA, the Democratic party hates LGBT people as much as the Republican party.
This has now just turned into some twisted game, and I would say me and @BelleSorciere and @smeagolheart should just go to bed at this point, or literally do ANYTHING else but continue to feed whatever the hell is going on here.
Yeah, I'm going to bed shortly.
I wanted to post "Leave it, it's not worth it" about 2 hours ago when I looked in. I'm craving another post about Polish politics about now.
Neoliberal military adventurism is one of the things I am highly critical of. The problem is that both parties do it, which means we're stuck with determining which party is going to cause the least amount of damage. In the real world, that's the Democratic party. If you have a viable alternative, then by all means, tell us.
Despite the fact i didn't vote for either, Hillary's overt warhawkish attitude, even with Russia, puts her as someone i would never want to be President because America can't afford another unjustified war.
At least Trump lambasted Bush for his war in front of all Republicans when it was taboo, which i give him credit for.
The fact Trump said we should work with Russia, and the media turning that as some statement of collusion and running it for almost a year, is very telling how partisan the media.
In my eyes the media's stupidity pushed us closer to military confrontation with Russia.
Neoliberal military adventurism is one of the things I am highly critical of. The problem is that both parties do it, which means we're stuck with determining which party is going to cause the least amount of damage. In the real world, that's the Democratic party. If you have a viable alternative, then by all means, tell us.
Despite the fact i didn't vote for either, Hillary's overt warhawkish attitude, even with Russia, puts her as someone i would never want to be President because America can't afford another unjustified war.
At least Trump lambasted Bush for his war in front of all Republicans when it was taboo, which i give him credit for.
The fact Trump said we should work with Russia, and the media turning that as some statement of collusion and running it for almost a year, is very telling how partisan the media.
because alot of it is here, the double standards in regards to Hillary and Obama is startling when they actually have been responsible for destroying other nations.
I consider both parties to be no better then each other, i consider both Obama and Bush to be war criminals of a high nature which is sad because i liked Obama.
I consider Hillary to partially involved and responsible for those misdeeds.
I considered Trump and Bernie to be necessary and preferential Presidents at least insofar as they are not from the inner circle political class, and so i exempt both from the sins of both parties in history since they were not involved in it much.
I consider both parties to have extreme elements and none or better then each other, you say the religious right calls for the execution of gays, very well, ANTIFA systematically violently attacks people in organized mobs, and they are the militant left.
Every single sin that has been mentioned of one party is perfectly mirrored in the other.
I believed Trump to be useless in terms of civil issue improvement but potentially decent in the economy, i considered Bernie the opposite, potentially useful for civil issue's but useless for the economy.
Despite that, if Hillary or Trump became President i would wish them well on the outset and hope for the best, because i don't see a point in wishing for a President to fail when they just start the job, that's not a productive attitude.
But many partisan people would rather a president fail early which is horrible for America just because of partisanship, stupid.
Given the subject of the numerous posts on gay marriage in the last couple of hours I guess my earlier post was lost in the wash. Just to summarize: - Clinton's opposition to gay marriage was to support the distinctiveness of the historical institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman. - that does not mean that she ever supported the idea that LGBT should have fewer civil rights. - in recent years she's come around to the idea that even if civil rights are equal, there can still be unwelcome discrimination and that treating people equally in relation to marriage would be preferable. So yes, I think her views have evolved, but to nothing like the extent that's been constantly suggested. If you think I'm wrong and that she did actually suggest in the past that LGBT should have fewer rights than other citizens (a stance by the way which the Trump government is currently pursuing as active policy, not just verbal statements) then please point me to the relevant source.
As for the idea that states should determine LGBT policy, to me that's not compatible with current understandings of human rights. Logically those who believe that should also support states' rights to determine other 'social policy' issues - like slavery or FGM for instance.
As for the idea that states should determine LGBT policy, to me that's not compatible with current understandings of human rights. Logically those who believe that should also support states' rights to determine other 'social policy' issues - like slavery or FGM for instance.
It is, in fact the ultra libertarian stance of gay marriage would simply to say not to have Government registries and let people do whatever they like, but that could cause its own problems.
The whole discussion of gay marriage is amateurish, lacking in rigor, totally emotional, and flawed.
- Why should we rely on Government registries? Gay marriage can be guaranteed for all time without end if we get rid of it, but you run into the problem of polygamy, so do we prefer some Government control then? because a Government Registry for marriage is merely a tool to control who can and cannot marry, in some sense its an ironic paradox.
-What exactly does it mean to be married? hardly can it be considered just a ritual or right, its more then that, because there are Government laws and control mechanisms around it.
-Are there, for instance, laws on marriage giving benefits, would Gay couples have these same benefits like tax exemptions? are they applied fairly and equally? do laws assume children by lineage? how do these laws work with adoption.
Marriage as a right, if going by how its popularly thought of, has nothing to do with Governments, anyone can hold a ritual and say were married, and you end up supporting polygamy which hasn't work out well for women.
But if you are asking for Marriage in relation to the Government, Fundamentally your wanting the use of the Government service control mechanism of controlling who you can and cannot marry and legislated privileges., and yet no one thinks about or talks about these things.
Most people just practice this thing called marriage without thinking about what it actually means.
Marriage does confer specific civil rights - which is a major reason why gay couples historically have sought it. I don't know the law in the US, but in the UK the civil rights provided by marriage are identical irrespective of the partners being married (and essentially identical to the civil partnerships which were offered earlier to gay couples). My assumption has been that marriage also applies equally to everyone in the US, but I'm happy to be corrected on that if necessary.
I agree that the ultra libertarian stance would be to say everyone should do what they like, but there aren't many ultra libertarians around. I think things like childcare arrangements and inheritance provisions are needed to help society function smoothly and marriage is a convenient tool for that purpose.
There's an ongoing debate though about the extent to which government should seek to promote marriage (particularly through the use of taxes and benefits) and whether similar arrangements should be used to promote stable (but not married) partnerships. I don't have strong views on that, but if institutions are in place (with attendant rights and responsibilities) I do think they should be available across society rather than be restricted to particular groups.
I think it would be amazing if the discussion actually explored marriage instead of it being faux-outrage-moralism.
I guess i simply grown to be distasteful of the way discussions are nowadays.
Imagine for instance, people discuss it like this.
"Marriage in our country has tax breaks for couples under the understanding their arrangement is pooling their resources together to live together"
"We homosexuals live in the exact same way, evident with the data, it makes sense that we should share the same tax breaks, which would be easier if we fell under the umbrella 'marriage' coinage"
Pretty simple, grounded, powerful and persuasive, instead its "oh i support it, do you? you don't? how evil can you be".
Anyway in regards to State Rights etc, that Governments have to decide whether it can or cannot be is unavoidable insofar as the 'service' of marriage is what people keep fighting for even if they don't realize it, which is the Government Registry and the legislated privileges.
Not sure what you mean by civil rights, it wouldn't really be correct for marriage, a status, to confer civil rights, which should be assumed.
People say they support marriage rights, but thats kind of inaccurate, i'd say they support monogamous marriage rights, but if we went to its logical conclusion people would start to be against it once you see polygamy everywhere.
Anyway i'll give you props for being ultra civil in this thread, far more then me or others.
Civil rights was clumsy wording because it tends to confuse the argument about marriage with wider issues. What I meant was the whole package of rights and responsibilities that go with marriage. In the UK there are tax differences, although those are now pretty small (and some people argue that they should be increased to promote marriage). There are also benefits differences, although anti-avoidance type provisions mean they have also been significantly eroded over time - a similar process is on-going with pension benefits though at an earlier stage. There are still major differences in inheritance law and the support required to be given to a partner in case of a relationship breakdown (though much less difference on childcare support). There are also differences related to immigration and citizenship status, though again anti-avoidance provisions have significantly eroded those.
The distinction between marriage and co-habitation is far less in the UK today than, say, 20 years ago (though it's still very significant). As I said previously I don't have strong feelings about that, but I do think it is helpful to society to define to some degree what constitutes a relationship as it seems inevitable to me there will continue to be differences in legal treatment depending on whether people are in a relationship or not. For the time being I think marriage offers a useful proxy for that purpose, quite separate from its religious and ceremonial aspects.
As for polygamy, it's interesting to me that more of those anti-avoidance provisions I referred to above mean that polygamous marriages (carried out in countries where that is legal) are recognized in the UK for the purpose of welfare benefits (though not other purposes).
Civil rights was clumsy wording because it tends to confuse the argument about marriage with wider issues. What I meant was the whole package of rights and responsibilities that go with marriage. In the UK there are tax differences, although those are now pretty small (and some people argue that they should be increased to promote marriage). There are also benefits differences, although anti-avoidance type provisions mean they have also been significantly eroded over time - a similar process is on-going with pension benefits though at an earlier stage. There are still major differences in inheritance law and the support required to be given to a partner in case of a relationship breakdown (though much less difference on childcare support). There are also differences related to immigration and citizenship status, though again anti-avoidance provisions have significantly eroded those.
Ahh were probably meaning the same thing when i say legislated privileges.
The distinction between marriage and co-habitation is far less in the UK today than, say, 20 years ago (though it's still very significant). As I said previously I don't have strong feelings about that, but I do think it is helpful to society to define to some degree what constitutes a relationship as it seems inevitable to me there will continue to be differences in legal treatment depending on whether people are in a relationship or not. For the time being I think marriage offers a useful proxy for that purpose, quite separate from its religious and ceremonial aspects.
it is hard to identify what conditions pertain to marriage,traditionally it was assumed to be raising kids rather then cohabitation but you can't do that for people who don't have kids.
As for polygamy, it's interesting to me that more of those anti-avoidance provisions I referred to above mean that polygamous marriages (carried out in countries where that is legal) are recognized in the UK for the purpose of welfare benefits (though not other purposes).
I'm not particularly fond of carry over polygamy actually, one of the costs we have to absorb though.
it is hard to identify what conditions pertain to marriage,traditionally it was assumed to be raising kids rather then cohabitation but you can't do that for people who don't have kids.
There certainly are people that say the state should only have different rules for children and not marriage per se. Personally I wouldn't go that far as I think that partners do need protection in some cases. Consider a marriage that's lasted 40 years in which only 1 partner has ever worked and controls the family finances - is it really reasonable to say that they should be able to abandon their spouse without any compensation? Pre-nuptials and other private contractual arrangements are no real protection against that type of situation as too much can change over such long periods to be adequately covered by an initial agreement.
As for the conditions that pertain I think those need to reflect reality. As I referred to before there are already plenty of anti-avoidance provisions that can effectively discount a sham marriage and increasingly provisions are being put in place to recognize where a lasting partnership is akin to marriage. I would like to see something more though and that's that couples are asked whether they want to be recognized as in a lasting relationship for legal purposes. For application to benefits, pension, tax, inheritance etc that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way forward and that would also give a nod to those people who say that the public commitment associated with marriage is much of the reason why marriages tend to be significantly longer lasting than co-habitation.
There certainly are people that say the state should only have different rules for children and not marriage per se. Personally I wouldn't go that far as I think that partners do need protection in some cases. Consider a marriage that's lasted 40 years in which only 1 partner has ever worked and controls the family finances - is it really reasonable to say that they should be able to abandon their spouse without any compensation? Pre-nuptials and other private contractual arrangements are no real protection against that type of situation as too much can change over such long periods to be adequately covered by an initial agreement.
As for the conditions that pertain I think those need to reflect reality. As I referred to before there are already plenty of anti-avoidance provisions that can effectively discount a sham marriage and increasingly provisions are being put in place to recognize where a lasting partnership is akin to marriage. I would like to see something more though and that's that couples are asked whether they want to be recognized as in a lasting relationship for legal purposes. For application to benefits, pension, tax, inheritance etc that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way forward and that would also give a nod to those people who say that the public commitment associated with marriage is much of the reason why marriages tend to be significantly longer lasting than co-habitation.
Its too hard to legislate conditions apart from actually having children, too many edge-cases,married status is mostly what we have to rely on that they are cohabitation, basically good faith which im fine with since we've been going at it like this for awhile.
OMG. I made it to the end. 10 minutes before work.
Political parties do not destroy other nations. The U.S. does. When it comes to actions of international conflicts, the president usually relies on his generals to give him advice on how to advance. These Generals are holdovers fron previous administrations and usually state they do not hold a political leaning; nor do they vote. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for your boss.
It is the advice of these men, that forces international conflict. A good case study, since your talking more about history in this thread than politics, is read up on the Bay of Pigs.
The president always own the actions however. He is commander in chief. The generals may face internal backlash, have their voices silent for a time but a new administration is only 4/8th years away.
Trump knows this when it comes to current cruises the countries the U.S. is engaged in. He increased troop count but want to know what executable goals his generals have in the conflicts so he can personally determine if they are doing their job properly. Kudos there.
But he is also kicking hornet nests all over the globe which is more dangerous for the entire world and for any conflict to happen in the near future, he and he alone should be held accountable for it.
This has now just turned into some twisted game, and I would say me and @BelleSorciere and @smeagolheart should just go to bed at this point, or literally do ANYTHING else but continue to feed whatever the hell is going on here.
Yeah, I'm going to bed shortly.
I wanted to post "Leave it, it's not worth it" about 2 hours ago when I looked in. I'm craving another post about Polish politics about now.
Polish president yesterday decided to sign bill about Supreme Court and National Judiciary Council, so collapse of independent judiciary system *officialy* happened. I guess that after EU decided to trigger article 7 it makes no sense for our government to back away now. I think that they feel relatively confident about situation, because - speaking broadly - you need unanimity among member countries, and Hungary claim that they are not going to support sanctions against Poland. The there is devil in details, however - because this is what art. 7 point 2 says: "The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.". So you only need unanimity to announce "existence of breach", not to use measures like sanctions - for that you "only" need qualified majority. So Victor Orban may pull Game of Thrones kind of stunt here - vote *against* sanctions, but *for* announcing said breach. There are speculations here in Poland that there may be some kind of agreement between Comission and Orban already in place - it's easy to forget that Hungary is also critisied within European Parliament for violating EU values. It's possible that Comission may grant him some kind of "immunity" if he'll make it possible to punish Poland. After all, Timmermans already said that situation in Hungary is much better than in Poland.
In other news: our Minister of Justice continues to remove presidents of polish district courts. That was made possible with new bill about courts; to add insult to injury, those removals are done via fax. Basically stuff from Erdogan's Turkey. There is also matter with arrest of general secretary of polish biggest opposition party, PO (Platforma Obywatelska, that is Civic Platform). There is already motion in Parliament to repeal his immunity as member of Parliament and I have little doubt that it will happen. I'm not sure where I stand about it, to be frank. On one hand it looks like direct attack on political opposition, but there again, PO *was* really corrupt, when it was in power. There is british Prime Minister Theresa May in Warsaw and she made comment about polish constitutional crisis. She said that "matter of constitutionality of particular legal solutions should be considered within country and not be topic of interest on international stage". I feel disappointed with that comment. It ignores the issue that our internal "legal solutions" are violating values we agreed to uphold - and that way of thinking basically gives free roam for every crazy dictator out there. Would she say the same if, for an instance, Erdogan decided homosexuality should be punished with death? Of course I am aware that this Big Politics and there is little place of ethics, but still. Meanwhile propaganda in polish national tv is so blatant it made it to reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/7l7wa3/this_is_how_polish_television_looks_like/?st=jbgn5jz4&sh=d69b9983.
Jeff Sessions is trying to get the FBI to investigate Uranium one. Today, its nearly 2018, Jeff Sessions at the request of Donald Trump is trying to politicize the Justice Department and investigate something that it is obvious is not a scandal. Maybe it will play on Fox News but everyone not in that bubble won't give a toss because nothing will come of it.
A partisan waste of tax payer dollars and an attempt to deflect attention from financial and other crimes being uncovered by Mueller during the Russia investigation.
Jeff Sessions is trying to get the FBI to investigate Uranium one. Today, its nearly 2018, Jeff Sessions at the request of Donald Trump is trying to politicize the Justice Department and investigate something that it is obvious is not a scandal. Maybe it will play on Fox News but everyone not in that bubble won't give a toss because nothing will come of it.
A partisan waste of tax payer dollars and an attempt to deflect attention from financial and other crimes being uncovered by Mueller during the Russia investigation.
I've debunked this story at length 3 or 4 times already in this thread. I'm not even going to bother ever doing it again. Anyone can go back and copy and paste my previous posts if they are inclined.
Jeff Sessions is trying to get the FBI to investigate Uranium one. Today, its nearly 2018, Jeff Sessions at the request of Donald Trump is trying to politicize the Justice Department and investigate something that it is obvious is not a scandal. Maybe it will play on Fox News but everyone not in that bubble won't give a toss because nothing will come of it.
A partisan waste of tax payer dollars and an attempt to deflect attention from financial and other crimes being uncovered by Mueller during the Russia investigation.
I've debunked this story at length 3 or 4 times already in this thread. I'm not even going to bother ever doing it again. Anyone can go back and copy and paste my previous posts if they are inclined.
Someone should do that for donald trump. But he's not interested in "is this a real thing to investigate or not" he just wants to do anything that might have the appearance of dragging Hillary through the mud. She is not the president despite getting over three million more votes.
You know all the outrage the right has for Peter Szork (sp?) the FBI agent who tweeted that Trump was a dumb dumb. Justice department people showed the press these tweets "hey come here check this out!" in order to manufacture outrage at the Mueller investigation. This guy was let go six months ago. And also several members of Trump's own cabinet have called him a dumb dumb (notably Rex Tillerson).
So what the FBI, justice department are not allowed to have personal opinions? I would think they could have them as long as they don't interfere with their duties. But if you want to scrub all the Hillary haters and Obama bashers out of the FBI 2/3 of the workforce are probably Conservative.
Jeff Sessions is trying to get the FBI to investigate Uranium one. Today, its nearly 2018, Jeff Sessions at the request of Donald Trump is trying to politicize the Justice Department and investigate something that it is obvious is not a scandal. Maybe it will play on Fox News but everyone not in that bubble won't give a toss because nothing will come of it.
A partisan waste of tax payer dollars and an attempt to deflect attention from financial and other crimes being uncovered by Mueller during the Russia investigation.
I've debunked this story at length 3 or 4 times already in this thread. I'm not even going to bother ever doing it again. Anyone can go back and copy and paste my previous posts if they are inclined.
Someone should do that for donald trump. But he's not interested in "is this a real thing to investigate or not" he just wants to do anything that might have the appearance of dragging Hillary through the mud. She is not the president despite getting over three million more votes.
You know all the outrage the right has for Peter Szork (sp?) the FBI agent who tweeted that Trump was a dumb dumb. Justice department people showed the press these tweets "hey come here check this out!" in order to manufacture outrage at the Mueller investigation. This guy was let go six months ago. And also several members of Trump's own cabinet have called him a dumb dumb (notably Rex Tillerson).
So what the FBI, justice department are not allowed to have personal opinions? I would think they could have them as long as they don't interfere with their duties. But if you want to scrub all the Hillary haters and Obama bashers out of the FBI 2/3 of the workforce are probably Conservative.
It was revealed mere days later that the same set of text messages disparaged people ranging from Eric Holder to Chelsea Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Magically, none of those excerpts were leaked.
Trump and Nikki Haley are ramping up the rhetoric ahead of the UN vote on Jerusalem - threatening to withdraw funding in future from any countries that vote against the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
This is a non-binding vote, in which (at least in the absence of US pressure) it is highly likely that every country in the world would vote against the US (already every member of the UN Security Council voted against the US in effectively the same vote). What is the point of making this some sort of last-ditch stand? Even if countries do bow to US pressure the US gains nothing from that except the enmity of those countries for years to come.
This sort of thing is why I dislike Trump so much. I disagree with many of his policies, though not all, but I disagree with lots of people's views without holding that against them in the least. What annoys me is the way in which he conducts himself. Things like: - lying on virtually meaningless issues (like the size of crowds at his inauguration) on the basis that there is some deeper alternative truth and that actual facts don't matter. - regularly bullying individuals, including using the power of the presidency to give him the upper hand in some of his long-running Twitter feuds. - using such emotive language over diplomatic matters, apparently in the belief that insulting people and then switching round to praising them is the best way to get what you want. I recognize that's one possible business strategy, though personally I think that never works well in the long term and very rarely even in the short term. However, I cannot for the life of me see how it can be expected to work at all when dealing with countries.
I could go on (and on), but I'm sure you get the point.
Edit: and the vote is in - 128 in favor, 9 against (including US and Israel) and 35 abstentions. That is significantly better than would have been the case if the US hadn't spent political capital on this issue, but it still seems clear to me that the US is now worse off politically than it would have been if it hadn't made any attempt at all to influence the vote.
Jeff Sessions is trying to get the FBI to investigate Uranium one. Today, its nearly 2018, Jeff Sessions at the request of Donald Trump is trying to politicize the Justice Department and investigate something that it is obvious is not a scandal. Maybe it will play on Fox News but everyone not in that bubble won't give a toss because nothing will come of it.
Uranium One is a scandal, as has been the entire apparatus of the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors, in fact the whole Clinton Foundation is really an open fact of explicit corruption.
A partisan waste of tax payer dollars and an attempt to deflect attention from financial and other crimes being uncovered by Mueller during the Russia investigation.
The Russia investigation is just as much politicization of the justice departments as any Uranium One investigation, but with much less basis.
You know all the outrage the right has for Peter Szork (sp?) the FBI agent who tweeted that Trump was a dumb dumb. Justice department people showed the press these tweets "hey come here check this out!" in order to manufacture outrage at the Mueller investigation. This guy was let go six months ago. And also several members of Trump's own cabinet have called him a dumb dumb (notably Rex Tillerson).
So what the FBI, justice department are not allowed to have personal opinions? I would think they could have them as long as they don't interfere with their duties. But if you want to scrub all the Hillary haters and Obama bashers out of the FBI 2/3 of the workforce are probably Conservative.
It was correct to remove him from the investigation once these things came to light, as it is it was stupid of him to do these things anyway.
The Russian investigation as become a complete liability for the media and for the Democrat party.
Trump and Nikki Haley are ramping up the rhetoric ahead of the UN vote on Jerusalem - threatening to withdraw funding in future from any countries that vote against the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
The whole debacle of Jerusalem is stupid and only serves to highlight the inability to move on, every single person and country trying to block such a move is tacitly admitting there can be no peace in the middle-east.
Were essentially stuck in time so long as stuff like this is somehow an issue.
Trump and Nikki Haley are ramping up the rhetoric ahead of the UN vote on Jerusalem - threatening to withdraw funding in future from any countries that vote against the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
This is a non-binding vote, in which (at least in the absence of US pressure) it is highly likely that every country in the world would vote against the US (already every member of the UN Security Council voted against the US in effectively the same vote). What is the point of making this some sort of last-ditch stand? Even if countries do bow to US pressure the US gains nothing from that except the enmity of those countries for years to come.
This sort of thing is why I dislike Trump so much. I disagree with many of his policies, though not all, but I disagree with lots of people's views without holding that against them in the least. What annoys me is the way in which he conducts himself. Things like: - lying on virtually meaningless issues (like the size of crowds at his inauguration) on the basis that there is some deeper alternative truth and that actual facts don't matter. - regularly bullying individuals, including using the power of the presidency to give him the upper hand in some of his long-running Twitter feuds. - using such emotive language over diplomatic matters, apparently in the belief that insulting people and then switching round to praising them is the best way to get what you want. I recognize that's one possible business strategy, though personally I think that never works well in the long term and very rarely even in the short term. However, I cannot for the life of me see how it can be expected to work at all when dealing with countries.
I could go on (and on), but I'm sure you get the point.
The whole point is the obliterate the very notion of "truth". It's why the crowd size was the first thing he did. There are incontrovertible pictures of Obama's speech and Trump's speech. One can no more argue Trump's was larger than you can argue that grass is hot pink and not green. He did it anyway, to say "I create my own reality". It's called gaslighting, and it's a frequent tactic of abusers in relationships.
I could go on (and on), but I'm sure you get the point.
A lot of people feel this way. Putting aside politics he's a spiteful troll of a person. There's plenty to dislike about the politics too.
Trying to threaten and browbeat other nations into voting the way he wants them to. Even when they don't feel that way. What do you call that?
If you think Trump is on your side you haven't been paying attention. Trump is only on Trump's side. He might be on your side today if it suits him but he will ditch you when he gets what he wants or if you are in his way. He's done that over and over again. Then he stands up there and demands loyalty from you. You won't get it back, it's a one way street.
The whole point is the obliterate the very notion of "truth". It's why the crowd size was the first thing he did. There are incontrovertible pictures of Obama's speech and Trump's speech. One can no more argue Trump's was larger than you can argue that grass is hot pink and not green. He did it anyway, to say "I create my own reality". It's called gaslighting, and it's a frequent tactic of abusers in relationships.
The crowd size issue shows the pettiness and hypocrisy in everyone involved, people who make a big deal out of it while simultaneously demanding why make a big deal out of it.
Comments
Here's a better explanation: People don't like being lied to or about, and tend to react strongly to it. As I said before, who cares? They've acted on their declared stances, so the difference between them really being for LGBT rights and not really being for LGBT rights is no difference at all. I don't care what's going on deep in their hearts, I care what they do.
Both parties are just as evil as each other, if your going to go back even in modern times for the sins of both parties, their virtually identical, and once your at the level of destroying countries, comparing one as lesser or greater is meaningless.
The only reason to do so is partisanship.
But that wasn't the topic you pushed, which was that because Bill Clinton signed DOMA, the Democratic party hates LGBT people as much as the Republican party.
At least Trump lambasted Bush for his war in front of all Republicans when it was taboo, which i give him credit for.
The fact Trump said we should work with Russia, and the media turning that as some statement of collusion and running it for almost a year, is very telling how partisan the media.
In my eyes the media's stupidity pushed us closer to military confrontation with Russia.
I mean I'll just leave that there.
Also, why do you use partisan to mean anti-Trump?
Hillary's war hawkish behavior is actually exemplified by actions, which crippled foreign countries. because alot of it is here, the double standards in regards to Hillary and Obama is startling when they actually have been responsible for destroying other nations.
I consider both parties to be no better then each other, i consider both Obama and Bush to be war criminals of a high nature which is sad because i liked Obama.
I consider Hillary to partially involved and responsible for those misdeeds.
I considered Trump and Bernie to be necessary and preferential Presidents at least insofar as they are not from the inner circle political class, and so i exempt both from the sins of both parties in history since they were not involved in it much.
I consider both parties to have extreme elements and none or better then each other, you say the religious right calls for the execution of gays, very well, ANTIFA systematically violently attacks people in organized mobs, and they are the militant left.
Every single sin that has been mentioned of one party is perfectly mirrored in the other.
I believed Trump to be useless in terms of civil issue improvement but potentially decent in the economy, i considered Bernie the opposite, potentially useful for civil issue's but useless for the economy.
Despite that, if Hillary or Trump became President i would wish them well on the outset and hope for the best, because i don't see a point in wishing for a President to fail when they just start the job, that's not a productive attitude.
But many partisan people would rather a president fail early which is horrible for America just because of partisanship, stupid.
- Clinton's opposition to gay marriage was to support the distinctiveness of the historical institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
- that does not mean that she ever supported the idea that LGBT should have fewer civil rights.
- in recent years she's come around to the idea that even if civil rights are equal, there can still be unwelcome discrimination and that treating people equally in relation to marriage would be preferable.
So yes, I think her views have evolved, but to nothing like the extent that's been constantly suggested. If you think I'm wrong and that she did actually suggest in the past that LGBT should have fewer rights than other citizens (a stance by the way which the Trump government is currently pursuing as active policy, not just verbal statements) then please point me to the relevant source.
As for the idea that states should determine LGBT policy, to me that's not compatible with current understandings of human rights. Logically those who believe that should also support states' rights to determine other 'social policy' issues - like slavery or FGM for instance.
The whole discussion of gay marriage is amateurish, lacking in rigor, totally emotional, and flawed.
- Why should we rely on Government registries? Gay marriage can be guaranteed for all time without end if we get rid of it, but you run into the problem of polygamy, so do we prefer some Government control then? because a Government Registry for marriage is merely a tool to control who can and cannot marry, in some sense its an ironic paradox.
-What exactly does it mean to be married? hardly can it be considered just a ritual or right, its more then that, because there are Government laws and control mechanisms around it.
-Are there, for instance, laws on marriage giving benefits, would Gay couples have these same benefits like tax exemptions? are they applied fairly and equally? do laws assume children by lineage? how do these laws work with adoption.
Marriage as a right, if going by how its popularly thought of, has nothing to do with Governments, anyone can hold a ritual and say were married, and you end up supporting polygamy which hasn't work out well for women.
But if you are asking for Marriage in relation to the Government, Fundamentally your wanting the use of the Government service control mechanism of controlling who you can and cannot marry and legislated privileges., and yet no one thinks about or talks about these things.
Most people just practice this thing called marriage without thinking about what it actually means.
I agree that the ultra libertarian stance would be to say everyone should do what they like, but there aren't many ultra libertarians around. I think things like childcare arrangements and inheritance provisions are needed to help society function smoothly and marriage is a convenient tool for that purpose.
There's an ongoing debate though about the extent to which government should seek to promote marriage (particularly through the use of taxes and benefits) and whether similar arrangements should be used to promote stable (but not married) partnerships. I don't have strong views on that, but if institutions are in place (with attendant rights and responsibilities) I do think they should be available across society rather than be restricted to particular groups.
I guess i simply grown to be distasteful of the way discussions are nowadays.
Imagine for instance, people discuss it like this.
"Marriage in our country has tax breaks for couples under the understanding their arrangement is pooling their resources together to live together"
"We homosexuals live in the exact same way, evident with the data, it makes sense that we should share the same tax breaks, which would be easier if we fell under the umbrella 'marriage' coinage"
Pretty simple, grounded, powerful and persuasive, instead its "oh i support it, do you? you don't? how evil can you be".
Anyway in regards to State Rights etc, that Governments have to decide whether it can or cannot be is unavoidable insofar as the 'service' of marriage is what people keep fighting for even if they don't realize it, which is the Government Registry and the legislated privileges.
Not sure what you mean by civil rights, it wouldn't really be correct for marriage, a status, to confer civil rights, which should be assumed.
People say they support marriage rights, but thats kind of inaccurate, i'd say they support monogamous marriage rights, but if we went to its logical conclusion people would start to be against it once you see polygamy everywhere.
Anyway i'll give you props for being ultra civil in this thread, far more then me or others.
The distinction between marriage and co-habitation is far less in the UK today than, say, 20 years ago (though it's still very significant). As I said previously I don't have strong feelings about that, but I do think it is helpful to society to define to some degree what constitutes a relationship as it seems inevitable to me there will continue to be differences in legal treatment depending on whether people are in a relationship or not. For the time being I think marriage offers a useful proxy for that purpose, quite separate from its religious and ceremonial aspects.
As for polygamy, it's interesting to me that more of those anti-avoidance provisions I referred to above mean that polygamous marriages (carried out in countries where that is legal) are recognized in the UK for the purpose of welfare benefits (though not other purposes).
As for the conditions that pertain I think those need to reflect reality. As I referred to before there are already plenty of anti-avoidance provisions that can effectively discount a sham marriage and increasingly provisions are being put in place to recognize where a lasting partnership is akin to marriage. I would like to see something more though and that's that couples are asked whether they want to be recognized as in a lasting relationship for legal purposes. For application to benefits, pension, tax, inheritance etc that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable way forward and that would also give a nod to those people who say that the public commitment associated with marriage is much of the reason why marriages tend to be significantly longer lasting than co-habitation.
Political parties do not destroy other nations. The U.S. does. When it comes to actions of international conflicts, the president usually relies on his generals to give him advice on how to advance. These Generals are holdovers fron previous administrations and usually state they do not hold a political leaning; nor do they vote. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for your boss.
It is the advice of these men, that forces international conflict. A good case study, since your talking more about history in this thread than politics, is read up on the Bay of Pigs.
The president always own the actions however. He is commander in chief. The generals may face internal backlash, have their voices silent for a time but a new administration is only 4/8th years away.
Trump knows this when it comes to current cruises the countries the U.S. is engaged in. He increased troop count but want to know what executable goals his generals have in the conflicts so he can personally determine if they are doing their job properly. Kudos there.
But he is also kicking hornet nests all over the globe which is more dangerous for the entire world and for any conflict to happen in the near future, he and he alone should be held accountable for it.
The there is devil in details, however - because this is what art. 7 point 2 says: "The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.".
So you only need unanimity to announce "existence of breach", not to use measures like sanctions - for that you "only" need qualified majority.
So Victor Orban may pull Game of Thrones kind of stunt here - vote *against* sanctions, but *for* announcing said breach. There are speculations here in Poland that there may be some kind of agreement between Comission and Orban already in place - it's easy to forget that Hungary is also critisied within European Parliament for violating EU values. It's possible that Comission may grant him some kind of "immunity" if he'll make it possible to punish Poland.
After all, Timmermans already said that situation in Hungary is much better than in Poland.
In other news: our Minister of Justice continues to remove presidents of polish district courts. That was made possible with new bill about courts; to add insult to injury, those removals are done via fax. Basically stuff from Erdogan's Turkey.
There is also matter with arrest of general secretary of polish biggest opposition party, PO (Platforma Obywatelska, that is Civic Platform). There is already motion in Parliament to repeal his immunity as member of Parliament and I have little doubt that it will happen. I'm not sure where I stand about it, to be frank. On one hand it looks like direct attack on political opposition, but there again, PO *was* really corrupt, when it was in power.
There is british Prime Minister Theresa May in Warsaw and she made comment about polish constitutional crisis. She said that "matter of constitutionality of particular legal solutions should be considered within country and not be topic of interest on international stage". I feel disappointed with that comment. It ignores the issue that our internal "legal solutions" are violating values we agreed to uphold - and that way of thinking basically gives free roam for every crazy dictator out there. Would she say the same if, for an instance, Erdogan decided homosexuality should be punished with death?
Of course I am aware that this Big Politics and there is little place of ethics, but still.
Meanwhile propaganda in polish national tv is so blatant it made it to reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/7l7wa3/this_is_how_polish_television_looks_like/?st=jbgn5jz4&sh=d69b9983.
You're welcome, you lovely people.
A partisan waste of tax payer dollars and an attempt to deflect attention from financial and other crimes being uncovered by Mueller during the Russia investigation.
You know all the outrage the right has for Peter Szork (sp?) the FBI agent who tweeted that Trump was a dumb dumb. Justice department people showed the press these tweets "hey come here check this out!" in order to manufacture outrage at the Mueller investigation. This guy was let go six months ago. And also several members of Trump's own cabinet have called him a dumb dumb (notably Rex Tillerson).
So what the FBI, justice department are not allowed to have personal opinions? I would think they could have them as long as they don't interfere with their duties. But if you want to scrub all the Hillary haters and Obama bashers out of the FBI 2/3 of the workforce are probably Conservative.
This is a non-binding vote, in which (at least in the absence of US pressure) it is highly likely that every country in the world would vote against the US (already every member of the UN Security Council voted against the US in effectively the same vote). What is the point of making this some sort of last-ditch stand? Even if countries do bow to US pressure the US gains nothing from that except the enmity of those countries for years to come.
This sort of thing is why I dislike Trump so much. I disagree with many of his policies, though not all, but I disagree with lots of people's views without holding that against them in the least. What annoys me is the way in which he conducts himself. Things like:
- lying on virtually meaningless issues (like the size of crowds at his inauguration) on the basis that there is some deeper alternative truth and that actual facts don't matter.
- regularly bullying individuals, including using the power of the presidency to give him the upper hand in some of his long-running Twitter feuds.
- using such emotive language over diplomatic matters, apparently in the belief that insulting people and then switching round to praising them is the best way to get what you want. I recognize that's one possible business strategy, though personally I think that never works well in the long term and very rarely even in the short term. However, I cannot for the life of me see how it can be expected to work at all when dealing with countries.
I could go on (and on), but I'm sure you get the point.
Edit: and the vote is in - 128 in favor, 9 against (including US and Israel) and 35 abstentions. That is significantly better than would have been the case if the US hadn't spent political capital on this issue, but it still seems clear to me that the US is now worse off politically than it would have been if it hadn't made any attempt at all to influence the vote.
The Russian investigation as become a complete liability for the media and for the Democrat party. The whole debacle of Jerusalem is stupid and only serves to highlight the inability to move on, every single person and country trying to block such a move is tacitly admitting there can be no peace in the middle-east.
Were essentially stuck in time so long as stuff like this is somehow an issue.
Trying to threaten and browbeat other nations into voting the way he wants them to. Even when they don't feel that way. What do you call that?
If you think Trump is on your side you haven't been paying attention. Trump is only on Trump's side. He might be on your side today if it suits him but he will ditch you when he gets what he wants or if you are in his way. He's done that over and over again. Then he stands up there and demands loyalty from you. You won't get it back, it's a one way street.
Faux-outrage for partisanship.
he U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in more than two years in the third quarter, powered by robust business spending, and is poised for what could be a modest lift next year from sweeping tax cuts passed by Congress this week.
-https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-economy-grows-at-fastest-pace-in-more-than-two-years-idUSKBN1EF1PI?il=0
As i said, the initial reaction to the tax bill would be positive in the markets.