|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Oh hey how's about all that funding that your Presidential candidate totally promised was going to be for state electoral races but actually just sat in the upper party's bank vaults forever? now who's being hysterical
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:now who's being hysterical http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670 http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000 Going back to the military bases thing I'm confused, are you actually in support of the United States behaving as an empire? The military bases thing, can you elaborate your point, do you actually want us to have permanent military bases all over the world? Why? EDIT: I think Johnson has been very clear about his attitude towards military strategy in most regards and coy otherwise and his position seems perfectly reasonable to me. Again, are you attacking the guy who is actively opposed to the military interventionism that the other candidate is definitely going to continue if she is elected? Do you understand that this is a ludicrous position to stand on? 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Go on, buy me the red text. Why would I waste money on a nobody like you? quote:Johnson has already pledged to close down a huge chunk of our military bases, he hasn't specified which ones, I suspect he honestly wants to close them all but would never get elected by militant moderates with that kind of attitude, and it would be a dangerous thing to commit to anyway. You're not making the point you think you're making, and it's strange that you guys keep repeating this as though you're doing anything but spinning on this issue. You'd condemn him if he committed to an action too, you'd say it was unrealistic and strategically dangerous and too ideologically driven and there'd be no win state. We're not attacking Johnson for not being ideologically pure enough, we're attacking you for outright lying about his position. You say that he's against using military force in the Middle East, when clearly he isn't against that at all. And VitalSigns proved it, while your only response was "Well nuh-uh, if you use your Super Secret Libertarian Decoder Ring and look at every prime numbered letter in his speeches you'll clearly see that what Johnson actually believes is that
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:All the rest is like "Blah blah we hate Gary Johnson" but you've nothing but faint praise for Clinton. I suppose since I don't live in a swing state this year it's all a moot point, but in between all your ceaseless vitriol, anger and furious rhetoric, smug condescension and condemnation you've only made a single case for your candidate, only a single point in her favor, and at best you've simply said "well the other candidate is just as bad about X" which is weak stuff overall. I'm perfectly happy voting for Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine I could possibly change your view of her, but you did say that you were in favor of government-run healthcare and I can sure as poo poo promise you that Hillary will get us way closer to that goal than Gary Johnson. I imagine that you'll claim other issues are more important to you, though. Also, you of course realize that there's not a snowball chance in hell of Gary actually becoming President, right? Like, make your dumb protest vote if you want to, but the way you speak about him seems to imply that you could conceive of a way that he actually wins the Presidency, which is just  as hell.Also, Johnson is pro-TPP and Hillary is anti-TPP, does that change your mind even a little? I have to imagine you're probably anti-TPP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670 so how exactly does the bill of rights guarantee people freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity when applying for jobs
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm perfectly happy voting for Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine I could possibly change your view of her, but you did say that you were in favor of government-run healthcare and I can sure as poo poo promise you that Hillary will get us way closer to that goal than Gary Johnson. I imagine that you'll claim other issues are more important to you, though. But if everyone who said they wanted to vote for another person voted to FeelMyJohnson, we'd have a hell of a party! And probably a few restraining orders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Also, Johnson is pro-TPP and Hillary is anti-TPP, does that change your mind even a little? I have to imagine you're probably anti-TPP. This seems to be a fairly new change for Clinton. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/hillary-clinton-vows-to-kill-trans-pacific-partner/ Is she just saying what people want to hear, though? I voted for Obama and got fed a load of poo poo for my troubles, and he was a lot more charismatic that Hillary Clinton. Obama promised universal health care at one point too. What's to hold her to this once she's elected? Is it really the best course of action to take? Based on the track record so far, I'm not really inclined to put my trust in. Literally The Worst posted:so how exactly does the bill of rights guarantee people freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity when applying for jobs Hey I know you're rushing to respond to every post but for gently caress's sake, we've already covered this. You are also thinking you're making a grand point that you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Ah yes not having uhc is totally obamas fault Nothing to do with congress
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Ah yes not having uhc is totally obamas fault The thing that is known as Obamacare is totally not Obama's fault? ha ha okay i'm done
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The thing that is known as Obamacare is totally not Obama's fault? you are aware that he's had eight years of congress fighting him tooth and nail on everything right like that's a thing the president doesnt fuckin operate in a vacuum
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
i'm sure you're totally surprised at the fact that "obamacare" was originally a fuckin smear name given to it by the right wing, as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Also Obamacare is not the name of the law. It's a moniker applied to the law by its political opponents to scare the poo poo out of idiots that became popular because Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a loving mouthful. Edit: goddammit dickeye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:This seems to be a fairly new change for Clinton. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/hillary-clinton-vows-to-kill-trans-pacific-partner/ What do you think the president actually does? I have a feeling you understand the presidency about as well as you do the constitution. Edit: 8-Bit Scholar posted:The thing that is known as Obamacare is totally not Obama's fault? Haha, oh my god, you actually think that's the law's name, don't you? You understand the way our government works on the level of a literal child. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:If you want to make gender identity a human right or whatever, you'll have to put the legwork in to get it added I'd say. I can't imagine what that'd look like, but good luck to you. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point has been, you listed a bunch of poo poo like housing that isn't even in the constitution right now, so again, you're just spouting nonsense. That was his point you useless nitwit. All your talk of how great states rights are because the constitution but the federal government handles a lot of important poo poo that isn't there. But you wouldn't know which parts of government do what because you are a valueless know-nothing. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Dickeye threatening 2-bit is my favorite thing in this thread rn
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Christ, I leave you people alone for one loving evening and this is what I come back to You are all grounded
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Christ, I leave you people alone for one loving evening and this is what I come back to gently caress YOU, YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Goon Dadton
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:State and local governments, based on existing precedent and general opinion, and again you seem to think that every federal mandate is instantly invalidated by a Johnson presidency, it's more hysterics and more hyperbole. I actually haven't said anything about a Johnson Presidency, so idk maybe you should pay attention more before speculating about my hyperactive uterus? I don't even have one! You're relying on the idea that the Bill of Rights guarantees that same-sex sexuality and transgender identity will be protected and thus "the benevolence of the distant and faceless Federal state" is unnecessary. So, let's just take a sec here and clarify something: you do understand what the Bill of Rights is, don't you? It's a set of amendments to The U.S. Constitution. You know, the document that defines the powers and duties of the federal government. Other amendments to the Constitution make its protection of rights binding on the states. It is hard to see how amendments to the document defining the federal government are supposed to protect the rights of LGBTQ people at the state level absent some enforcement mechanism from the federal government. This is a pretty huge apparent contradiction here. Even more confusing is your insistence that if I "want amendments and protections, [I] have to get out and raise the call for them." But according to you, the amendments and protections are already implicit in the Bill of Rights. Should "existing precedent and general opinion" be intensely hostile to LGBTQ rights, why should I be campaigning for new legal protections rather than appealing to the (apparently already existing) ones? What do you think bringing a case against a law to the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds is besides "not stand[ing] idly by"? Or does political activism ("getting involved") only count when it is in favor of policy at the state level for some reason? (Presumably because, unlike state governments, for some reason the federal government is "not my own," but again, it is hard to see how you can rely on articles of a document defining the powers and duties of the federal government while denying the appropriateness of the federal government as a protector of rights.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:States run the public school systems. And they're primarily funded by property taxes. Public schools loving own in districts with high property value, go figure. Incidentally, private schools also tend to own, because they cost more money to run, go figure. While I'm at it, I'd just like to throw out there that voucher programs which claim to save money will necessarily just be discounting private schools for people who can already afford them and taking further funding away from the public schools that the rich ditch. Basically, any protective bubble granted to integrated black people by sharing public services with white people just gets smaller when you privatize. Twerkteam Pizza posted:http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/ I had a bit of a roller coaster when I found that out, and then subsequently found out she was entertaining people who think wi-fi is burnin' are KIDS BRAINS! I love her VP pick, though, and I'm not going to blame her for trying to pitch as big a tent as she can  , but my commie protest vote is still going to California's own Peace and Freedom Party!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:
They actually don't, they usually don't perform significantly better than public schools once you account for the fact that they are free to kick out really bad students the way your average public school only can if the terrible student is also repeatedly violent. Most private schools are only perceived to be better, because of parental racism and the like. Same things apply to charter schools, no matter who runs them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:And they're primarily funded by property taxes. Public schools loving own in districts with high property value, go figure. I've been looking at them this morning!! Prolly gonna vote for em 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They actually don't, they usually don't perform significantly better than public schools once you account for the fact that they are free to kick out really bad students the way your average public school only can if the terrible student is also repeatedly violent. Charter Schools have a HORRIBLE track record actually
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Haha, oh my god, you actually think that's the law's name, don't you? You understand the way our government works on the level of a literal child. The Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", a slang moniker embraced by the Obama administration that now refers to the system, which creates a health insurance marketplace. This marketplace sucks rear end in a top hat and everybody hates it except for the insurance companies. GunnerJ posted:Even more confusing is your insistence that if I "want amendments and protections, [I] have to get out and raise the call for them." But according to you, the amendments and protections are already implicit in the Bill of Rights. Should "existing precedent and general opinion" be intensely hostile to LGBTQ rights, why should I be campaigning for new legal protections rather than appealing to the (apparently already existing) ones? I think it's been a bunch of pointless debate over a pretty simple distinction. Marriage certainly should be covered under freedom of expression, either religious or secular. It's not something that should have really been up for debate, and marriage laws are in and of themselves rife with a load of nonsense lingering old school legislation that the fact that we've been adding more tangles to the knot, not less, demonstrates precisely how ineffectual our government is. See the ninth amendment and the tenth. The ninth sounds to me like it'd explicitly forbid "religious freedom" laws from being discriminatory so maybe more people should actually read those pocket Constitutions that were getting sold by the truckload not too long ago
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", a slang moniker embraced by the Obama administration that now refers to the system, which creates a health insurance marketplace. This marketplace sucks rear end in a top hat and everybody hates it except for the insurance companies. a slang moniker created as a way to slam the president you mean
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I think it's been a bunch of pointless debate over a pretty simple distinction. Marriage certainly should be covered under freedom of expression, either religious or secular. It's not something that should have really been up for debate, and marriage laws are in and of themselves rife with a load of nonsense lingering old school legislation that the fact that we've been adding more tangles to the knot, not less, demonstrates precisely how ineffectual our government is. This is a whole lot of nothing that does not address my point! Which is about what happens when state laws violate your Constitutional rights. Those rights rights which you apparently believe provide the theoretical basis for protection for all sorts of things despite being really confused about translating that potential into reality when laws violate them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:a slang moniker created as a way to slam the president you mean When Obama was running in 2008, everybody wanted to slam him.  GunnerJ posted:This is a whole lot of nothing that does not address my point! Which is about what happens when state laws violate your Constitutional rights. Those rights rights which you apparently believe provide the theoretical basis for protection for all sorts of things despite being really confused about translating that potential into reality when laws violate them. If state laws violate your Constitutional rights then those laws are invalid. The U.S. Court system, with the Supreme Court at its height, weighs in on and discards laws who are found to be in violation of that Constitution. I assume you knew this already? EDIT: Also federal laws already violate our constitutional rights loving Obama signed a few into law he own self
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:If state laws violate your Constitutional rights then those laws are invalid. The U.S. Court system, with the Supreme Court at its height, weighs in on and discards laws who are found to be in violation of that Constitution. I assume you knew this already? You don't have to assume, buddy! You can read my posts where I ask you this very same thing in the process of trying to disentangle your weird insistence on the irrelevance of the "the benevolence of the distant and faceless Federal state" for protecting Constitutional rights because the states can handle it. Apparently the resolution is to rely on appeals to an apparatus of the "distant and faceless Federal state," how unexpected! quote:EDIT: Also federal laws already violate our constitutional rights loving Obama signed a few into law he own self Whoa, chill out, let's not get hysterical, here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", a slang moniker embraced by the Obama administration that now refers to the system, which creates a health insurance marketplace. This marketplace sucks rear end in a top hat and everybody hates it except for the insurance companies. I'm confused, do you think big business is good or bad? Both?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare", a slang moniker embraced by the Obama administration that now refers to the system, which creates a health insurance marketplace. This marketplace sucks rear end in a top hat and everybody hates it except for the insurance companies. Oh, so you can Google. Good, that helps things. Also, polls have almost unanimously showed that people overwhelmingly support the ACA when they are explained the individual parts of what it does. What they don't support is the name "Obamacare" because, like you, they don't actually know what it is or does and only know what they've heard second-hand about it. quote:I think it's been a bunch of pointless debate over a pretty simple distinction. Marriage certainly should be covered under freedom of expression, either religious or secular. It's not something that should have really been up for debate, and marriage laws are in and of themselves rife with a load of nonsense lingering old school legislation that the fact that we've been adding more tangles to the knot, not less, demonstrates precisely how ineffectual our government is. You know that in states like Alabama legislatures are still trying to overturn gay marriage even now, right? This isn't something that is done and settled, it's still being fought over right now. And you support empowering bigots to take away people's rights, but you don't actually care because it won't affect you. Just like you don't care about Johnson's support of the Prison-Industrial complex, you don't care about felons being put in overcrowded private prisons and being used as slave labour, just so long as weed is legalized so that you don't become one of them. I don't understand why you pretend to have some sort of moral high-ground when you're very blatantly voting out of pure selfishness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I'm confused, do you think big business is good or bad? I think big business is very bad when in collusion with big government. Reduce government, reduce the damage corruption can cause. Ideally I'd like to see big business curtailed, with smaller business and smaller government being empowered to revitalize rural and small town America and reduce the bloat of our urban centers, but that's pretty long-term. As it stands, encouraging large corporations to bring jobs back to American soil is still a positive step for the economy. And no, I'm not advocating a return to the era of the Triangle Hat fire and loving child workers. Again, I'm of the apparently astonishing position that perhaps there's a middle ground to be found. GunnerJ posted:You don't have to assume, buddy! You can read my posts where I ask you this very same thing in the process of trying to disentangle your weird insistence on the irrelevance of the "the benevolence of the distant and faceless Federal state" for protecting Constitutional rights because the states can handle it. Apparently the resolution is to rely on appeals to an apparatus of the "distant and faceless Federal state," how unexpected! You do not seem to understand what the Constitution is. The term "law of the land" I feel is fairly self explanatory. I've never advocated abolishing the federal government entirely so again, hysterics. Also: http://www.salon.com/2010/05/21/bagram_6/ 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:You do not seem to understand what the Constitution is. turn your monitor on, rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I think big business is very bad when in collusion with big government. Reduce government, reduce the damage corruption can cause. Ideally I'd like to see big business curtailed, with smaller business and smaller government being empowered to revitalize rural and small town America and reduce the bloat of our urban centers, but that's pretty long-term. As it stands, encouraging large corporations to bring jobs back to American soil is still a positive step for the economy. And how, pray tell, do you think we can encourage companies to return jobs to America? By taking away the minimum wage and workers' rights? You say you don't support that, but there's no way a company is going to choose to deal with an American union when they can pay a third-worlder fractions of a penny an hour. Also, it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, not the Tricorn Hat factory. I guess I have to take back what I said about you knowing how to use Google, because you clearly don't. quote:You do not seem to understand what the Constitution is. You didn't know what the Bill of Rights actually was, and assumed it included all the amendments. But please, tell us more about your expertise in constitutional law. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:You do not seem to understand what the Constitution is. The term "law of the land" I feel is fairly self explanatory. The question isn't one of explanation. It's of enforcement. Please don't presume to know more than I do until you can demonstrate that you're capable of following my argument, tia. quote:I've never advocated abolishing the federal government entirely so again, hysterics. I never said you did, so, who's hysterical here? You did say, however: "It's depressing to see how many of you think the only salvation you have left is the benevolence of the distant and faceless Federal state, as though you've no agency at all in your own governments." It is this apparent belief in the irrelevance of the federal government as a protector of rights that I am asking about. Glad to know that when the chips are down you will rely on a part of the "distant and faceless Federal state" to enforce the "law of the land," though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I think big business is very bad when in collusion with big government. Reduce government, reduce the damage corruption can cause. Ideally I'd like to see big business curtailed, with smaller business and smaller government being empowered to revitalize rural and small town America and reduce the bloat of our urban centers, but that's pretty long-term. As it stands, encouraging large corporations to bring jobs back to American soil is still a positive step for the economy. i would love to know how, exactly, you think this will happen
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:... There aren't actually all that many people who have the time, cash and other resources to challenge a law all the way to the Supreme Court. So while that test case sputters and chugs through the system--if it even gets that far--that unjust law stays where it is and keeps on hurting people. Why should every wronged group of people in each individual state have to go through that bullshit to secure their legal protections (wait, sorry, try to secure, because you can fail for any of a bunch of reasons having gently caress-all to do with justice) instead of letting one law apply everywhere because there's no good reason for it not to? Why should anyone be barred from the full protection of the law just because nobody in the state they live in has successfully completed the Supreme Court Aggro-Crag?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Sloppy Milkshake posted:i would love to know how, exactly, you think this will happen Settle in for a long wait, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The question isn't one of explanation. It's of enforcement. Please don't presume to know more than I do until you can demonstrate that you're capable of following my argument, tia. Again, there's still going to be an FBI (likely not an NSA though) so you're worrying about nothing. There is going to be federal enforcement of constitutional matters, if the opinion of the Supreme court is somehow inefficient. There's still going to be a military, so we're not looking at states just going off on their own here. Who What Now posted:Also, it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, not the Tricorn Hat factory. I guess I have to take back what I said about you knowing how to use Google, because you clearly don't. Pedantry becomes you. SatansOnion posted:There aren't actually all that many people who have the time, cash and other resources to challenge a law all the way to the Supreme Court. So while that test case sputters and chugs through the system--if it even gets that far--that unjust law stays where it is and keeps on hurting people. Why should every wronged group of people in each individual state have to go through that bullshit to secure their legal protections (wait, sorry, try to secure, because you can fail for any of a bunch of reasons having gently caress-all to do with justice) instead of letting one law apply everywhere because there's no good reason for it not to? Why should anyone be barred from the full protection of the law just because nobody in the state they live in has successfully completed the Supreme Court Aggro-Crag? Nobody is barring anybody from anything, and if a law is to be proposed that would do such a thing, I'd trust that the diligent citizens of Debate and Discussion will be ready to answer the clarion call to action to assure their fellow man is not oppressed by the overreach of the government. Again, literally upset about nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I think big business is very bad when in collusion with big government. Reduce government, reduce the damage corruption can cause. Ideally I'd like to see big business curtailed, with smaller business and smaller government being empowered to revitalize rural and small town America and reduce the bloat of our urban centers, but that's pretty long-term. As it stands, encouraging large corporations to bring jobs back to American soil is still a positive step for the economy. You are an idiot that doesn't understand how capitalism works, that's cool I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:If state laws violate your Constitutional rights then those laws are invalid. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 19:04
|
|
