American Politics

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

Why do we put people like that in office?

Indifference mostly. State elections have notoriously low voter turn out. 

 

Because the sheeple don't care enough to keep them out.

[Duke87 1,070]

 

 

The woman is not being charged with any murder charges. The child was alive for a little bit, yet shes getting away with that one.

 

Casey Anthony all over again....Abortion is a crime and should be classified as such, There is a serious disconnect thinking absolute freedom over body constitutes the right to commit what should be a felony.

 

 

 

Don't we have a thread for this particular topic somewhere?   I can't find it.

 

 

But it's been inactive since 2010 and thus auto-locked.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Even the physical aspect of birth from conception to deliver is nine months.  After that you have something like an 18 to 20 year responsibility to see the new life into adulthood.

 

If I read you wrong, I apologize, but please try to be more meaningful in your posts.

[Meg 368]

 

 

 

The woman is not being charged with any murder charges. The child was alive for a little bit, yet shes getting away with that one.

 

Casey Anthony all over again....Abortion is a crime and should be classified as such, There is a serious disconnect thinking absolute freedom over body constitutes the right to commit what should be a felony.

 

 

 

Don't we have a thread for this particular topic somewhere?   I can't find it.

 

 

But it's been inactive since 2010 and thus auto-locked.

 

 

I have separated out the posts on this topic and moved them over here: 

 

Discuss the issues, not each other!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Good idea, Meg.  Now back to the caucus race a.k.a. the 2016 election.

 

I really have only one general comment.  It is too soon to be having political hoohaw for something that is over a year away.  Who is running things while all these guys are concentrating on getting (re-)elected?

[Meg 368]

What I would like to see for the 2016 Presidential election is two candidates who have a legitimate chance at winning a national election.  

 

I can dream, can't I?

[Duke87 1,070]

Now back to the caucus race a.k.a. the 2016 election.

 

I really have only one general comment.  It is too soon to be having political hoohaw for something that is over a year away.  Who is running things while all these guys are concentrating on getting (re-)elected?

 

The primary system is partly responsible for this. Not all states host their primaries on the same day. The states that have their primaries first are generally considered the most important because the least viable candidates are always weeded out early on and people in later states never get a meaningful chance to vote for them. So, for a while there was a race to the beginning where states kept moving their primaries earlier and earlier.

 

And in modern times, since elections have become such a huge money game, now we have candidates starting to step forward almost a year before primary season begins so they can spend the rest of this year courting wealthy donors. By and large the person who wins the primaries and gets the nomination will be determined by who can raise the most money during this part of the process. There used to be laws keeping somewhat of a lid on this by limiting the amount that any one entity could make in campaign donations, but the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional in 2010 saying that limiting how much money someone can donate to politics limits free speech and therefore violates the first amendment. The decision has received a lot of criticism but it stands and in the ensuing years spending on political campaigns has grown A LOT. Determining the president of the United States is now a multi-billion dollar undertaking every election cycle. We thus now even more than before see politics dictated by those who have the most money.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Go ahead, say you don't have a plutocracy, I dare you.  Follow the money, eh?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Is "plutokhakistocracy" a thing?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Good question.  Does that word's etymology for that include the Greek κακα?  Or the Latin cac.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The following news belongs better here in American Politics thread than where I put it elsewhere because I did not previously understand fully what it was or what implications it can have.

 

The government of Indiana passed a bill that is similar to bills that have passed throughout the USA since the 1990's

Source 1      Source 2      Source 3     Source 4

 

There has to be a reasonable middle ground where bakeries, churches, and florists cannot be sued for not providing services for unions against their beliefs (such as remarriage or same-sex marriage for Christians) as they have been in some rather famous cases yet with open discrimination for no good reason not being wide spread. Most companies have had the right to refuse service and the lawsuits against following their 1st amendment rights combined with that right to refuse service are preposterous (but are usually won by the plaintiffs) and after a little digging around, I found out that this bill does exactly that.

 

The good thing for those that want service is that there should still be plenty of businesses that still serve everyone so hopefully things do not get worse for any customers who could be affected. I don't live in Indiana so this does not affect me personally but I thought this was relevant.

 

I previously misinterpreted the bill before reading it and deciphering the legalese. The reason I misinterpreted it was because I read a bunch of progressive propaganda, lies, and opinions passed off as news or facts and because certain local politicians made statements that seemed to apply. Upon actually researching the topic, I have learned that there should be no controversy at all but the mayors of San Francisco and Seattle just want to score some political points with the small demographic they pander to (I voted against the politician who won the election for Seattle Mayor and only 2 or 3 districts voted in his favor) while shifting funds.

 

I end this post with some questions: What is the right to refuse service? How common is this right? Are there any places where no one has this right? Who determines when a business's rights have been violated?

 

--Ocram

 

EDIT: And the governor of Connecticut is an ignorant hypocrite. Source

[Meg 368]

I end this post with some questions: What is the right to refuse service? How common is this right? Are there any places where no one has this right? Who determines when a business's rights have been violated?

 

 

The right to refuse service has been defined in a variety (or lack of) ways.

 

Personally, I think it is unacceptable for the right to refuse service to extend to demographic reasons, with the exception of age.     Drinking establishments, for instance, can reasonably and legally refuse to serve children.

 

If businesses are allowed to refuse service based on "religious reasons", it won't be long before some yahoo decides his religion only allows him to serve white people and segregation will again be the legal norm in some areas of the country.   Alleged religious beliefs are not an excuse to discriminate.

 

Traditionally, the right to refuse service involves keeping the peace and safety of the establishment.   Some pool halls, for instance, refuse to allow anyone wearing gang colors to enter.   Establishments do have the right to eject people who are causing problems.

 

There are places that refuse service if a patron is not dressed appropriately.   "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is how many places put it.   It is up to the patrons whether they chose to comply with the policy or go elsewhere.

 

Question is, do businesses have the right to define their policies in such a way that some people can never comply with it?   Perhaps there is such a policy that does not involve discrimination.   So far, I can't think of one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Doesn't the Constitution specify that there shall be no religious aspect to being an American?

 

It is all very confusing because the symbols of the Judeo/Christian deity abound in the United States in many official ways not excepting the currency notes.  The eye in the pyramid by the way is a Masonic symbol for the holy trinity.

[hym 358]

If businesses are allowed to refuse service based on "religious reasons", it won't be long before some yahoo decides his religion only allows him to serve white people and segregation will again be the legal norm in some areas of the country. Alleged religious beliefs are not an excuse to discriminate.

It doesn't quite work that way. You don't just get to make religious exemptions willy nilly. The Supreme Court has decided that a court has the authority to challenge your religious beliefs if the judge thinks you're trying to fabricate religious beliefs to suit your particular case. If you can't show proof that you are part of an organized religion that has traditionally held these beliefs, the court can reject your claim.

EDIT:

Doesn't the Constitution specify that there shall be no religious aspect to being an American?

I think you're thinking of the prohibition of religious tests for office.

[Meg 368]

 

If businesses are allowed to refuse service based on "religious reasons", it won't be long before some yahoo decides his religion only allows him to serve white people and segregation will again be the legal norm in some areas of the country. Alleged religious beliefs are not an excuse to discriminate.

It doesn't quite work that way. You don't just get to make religious exemptions willy nilly. The Supreme Court has decided that a court has the authority to challenge your religious beliefs if the judge thinks you're trying to fabricate religious beliefs to suit your particular case. If you can't show proof that you are part of an organized religion that has traditionally held these beliefs, the court can reject your claim.

 

 

The courts decide what's a real religion and what isn't?    That's appalling.

[hym 358]

The courts decide what's a real religion and what isn't?    That's appalling.

 

Consider a different scenario.  The IRS has had people attempt to weasel out of paying their taxes by declaring that paying taxes is against their personal religious beliefs.  You can see where that would become a problem, and courts have rejected such claims in the past.  The rationale of the courts comes from the Supreme Court: the government cannot tell you what to believe, but it can regulate your right to exercise those beliefs if they conflict with legitimate government interests.

 

Similar logic applies here.  You can claim that serving so-and-so group of people is against your religious beliefs, but the government can refuse to grant your exemption if it can prove that it conflicts with legitimate government interests (like ensuring civil rights).  Various governments have been doing this for gay rights activists for several years now.

 

EDIT:  I removed the final sentence of my post.  On reading it a second time, I realized it could be interpreted a different manner from how I intended.  Apologies on that.

[Duke87 1,070]

 

 

It doesn't quite work that way. You don't just get to make religious exemptions willy nilly. The Supreme Court has decided that a court has the authority to challenge your religious beliefs if the judge thinks you're trying to fabricate religious beliefs to suit your particular case. If you can't show proof that you are part of an organized religion that has traditionally held these beliefs, the court can reject your claim.

 

The courts decide what's a real religion and what isn't?    That's appalling.

 

I'd say it's more like, the courts decide whether the religious belief in question predates the law preventing practice of it. If a law banning something was passed in 2012 and some church has been preaching to the contrary for decades, they can claim religious exemption. If a law banning something was passed in 2012 and some church preaching to the contrary was founded in 2013, their religious exemption will be rejected. The principle basically being a new law cannot force an existing religion to alter its practices, but you can't create a new religion to circumvent an existing law.

 

As for the Indiana statute in question, yes, other states do already have similar-ish laws, although the Indiana one contains this gem:

 

 Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:

(1) An individual.

(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.

(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or

      another entity that:

   (A) may sue and be sued; and

   (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by:

      (i) an individual; or

      (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit

           or nonprofit purposes.

 

Ah, codified corporate personhood! So this law therefore explicitly allows businesses to discriminate against employees and/or customers if the owner's religion would be "substantially burdened" by not doing so.

 

As an example, the equivalent Connecticut statute contains no such provision. It therefore does not, explicitly, apply to businesses, only to individuals.

 

Granted, the level of hubub over Indiana's law is high because it's brand new. Tough to suddenly summon up outrage over laws that have been on the books for years, decades even. (Social) media frenzies love to target one specific thing without considering whether others may also exist. And of course everything will get spun out of control in a hurry.

 

Nonetheless, I'm not a fan of statutes like this in general. Even if "everyone boycott Indiana!" is an overzealous and disproportionate response (of the sort the internet loves to generate), the point stands that refusing to serve someone on account of them being gay is reprehensible behavior whether or not it is legal, and to say that it's protecting religious freedom to protect their right to do so is to have some awfully skewed priorities. The right to not be discriminated against trumps anyone's right to discriminate. Especially when it is a business, not an individual, doing the discrimination. People have religious beliefs. Companies do not. If someone as an individual wants to refuse to associate with anyone of a particular race/sexual orientation/whatever, that is their prerogative, and no law can force them to hang out with people they don't want to hang out with. But if they run a business, their business is not entitled to discriminate on any of these bases - it can treat everyone fairly and equally or shut its doors.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It doesn't quite work that way. You don't just get to make religious exemptions willy nilly. The Supreme Court has decided that a court has the authority to challenge your religious beliefs if the judge thinks you're trying to fabricate religious beliefs to suit your particular case. If you can't show proof that you are part of an organized religion that has traditionally held these beliefs, the court can reject your claim.

 

They already granted businesses the right to deny their employees reproductive healthcare based on 'religious believes'. 

 

Also, I'm sure its not that hard to construct a claim that your religion has always considered colored people as subhumans that you refuse to serve. One small dive into some American history books will grant you more than enough examples of racism based on Christian believes. 

 

 

Personally I liked the amendment the Satanic church wanted to introduce to the bill, saying that if businesses are going to discriminate based on religious believes, they should very clearly advertise it, so everyone knows exactly where the bigots are. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

I still don't understand why these people will go to such great lengths to sue these businesses for not serving them.  If it were me, I would say "eff off then" (or something to that effect) and take my money somewhere else (and in the US at least there is always somewhere else) and not want to have anything to do with them.  Also, where does it end?  For instance, if I were gay, would I have the right to, say, sue the Westboro Baptist Church to force them to perform my wedding ceremony, only because I liked the setting of a church that otherwise reviles me?  Admittedly an extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

 

In a technical sense, by suing and making a scene over the whole thing, the affecteds are then imposing their beliefs on the refuser; attempting to use legal clout to enforce their selective right to refuse.  But no, we can't be responsible and deal with this like adults at an individual level.  We have to bring government (which in this particular example has NO business being involved in marriage whatsoever) and the legal profession in to do what they do best - inflate and obfuscate.

 

It's just another example of a society replete with entitled thin-skinned people who are easily butthurt.  Everything is always someone else's fault.  Excellent products of the system.  They'll whine and cry over every little insult yet passively accept the complete structural decline of the system around them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It's just another example of a society replete with entitled thin-skinned people who are easily butthurt.  Everything is always someone else's fault.  Excellent products of the system.  They'll whine and cry over every little insult yet passively accept the complete structural decline of the system around them.

Thats easy to say when society caters to your every need because you fall within the 'norm'. When bigotry always happens to others and you are never refused service because of who you feel attracted to or whatever. 

 

But what if you are part of the LGBT community, and you face various forms of discrimination, bigotry and micro aggression on a daily basis? Would you still just shrug if businesses refuse to serve you because you are who you are? And really, how is it their fault when they are refused to be helped by other people who think they are fit to pass judgement on them?  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A lot of this useless and frivolous litigation arises from the idea of "rights" vs. "privilege".  Americans tend to want what they want when they want it and will accept no denial even though a solution to the problem is the bakery next door.  This kind of case should be quashed before a Master at Law rather than going before a Judge.  It would save a great deal of expense and leave the Judges to do what they've been elected to do, namely adjudicate real torts and offences.

 

BTW, I don't think the U.S. courts have Masters at Law who vet cases before they can hit the courtroom.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Thats easy to say when society caters to your every need because you fall within the 'norm'. When bigotry always happens to others and you are never refused service because of who you feel attracted to or whatever. 

 

But what if you are part of the LGBT community, and you face various forms of discrimination, bigotry and micro aggression on a daily basis? Would you still just shrug if businesses refuse to serve you because you are who you are? And really, how is it their fault when they are refused to be helped by other people who think they are fit to pass judgement on them?  

 

 

You may well be right that I would be biased.  And due to that I don't feel as though I'm qualified to state any opinion but that of my own.  Let the LGBT community state their part and I may hope they are looking at the case objectively.  Most of the time I don't feel that they do; at least based on most of the people I know that "swing that way".  Disgustingly, they all seem to be single-issue voters.  It's too bad because they're good, nice people.

 

Wherever the answer lies, it does not involve coddling any more than it involves legislation of [one's own] morality.  Neither have ever worked nor have given any reason to believe they ever could.  The accused bigot no more deserves to be forced or otherwise coerced into providing the service than the discriminated (bigotee?) deserves to be discriminated against.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The accused bigot no more deserves to be forced or otherwise coerced into providing the service than the discriminated (bigotee?) deserves to be discriminated against.

 

First its LGBT people, next its Muslims, then its colored people. Is that really a country you would like to live in? A place where people can be denied service from businesses simply because they are a little different? A place where your money is only worth something if you are from the right background? 

 

I agree, there shouldn't have to be a law that says people can't deny other people service based on things like sexual preference, religion or skin color. It shouldn't be necessary. But clearly thats to much to ask, clearly such laws are necessary. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This was inevitable.

 

Perhaps we should turn from squabbles of religious rights and talk about what the state of California can do to help itself in this situation.  Water restrictions are at best a stop-gap, but diminishing water supply isn't solved by this kind of thing.

 

Over-dependence on the Colorado river and the Hoover Dam have help lead them to this.  Lake Mead is getting pretty dry, so what if they can no longer generate the power that lights up Las Vegas?  To say nothing about supplying water?

 

This problem seems to cover several states besides California, and there hasn't been much rainfall in either Nevada nor Arizona (both essentially desert states).  If there is no rainfall in the Grand Canyon watershed to speak of, then what?

 

Desalination plants?  I don't think they exist now.  How will they be powered?  How will the money be found to even start planning them let alone construction and the power plants (probably nuclear??)?

 

And yes, folks, this is a huge social problem.  Will the enviro-nuts be squeaking their wheels while the state dies of thirst?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Sounds like the booming almond growing industry is going to be dead in the....dry land.

 

We can't even afford to maintain our highway and utility infrastructure...good luck.  Rather I should say we "choose" not to maintain...  I'm waiting for how long it'll take before some yahoo senator from out there (John "I've been dead since 2000" McCain comes to mind) to try and get the Great Lakes Compact nullified.

 

It's kind of funny, I can remember back almost 10 years ago I got into an argument with somebody on the Skyscrapercity forums about water usage in Phoenix.  Their claim was the growing city was actually using less water per capita over time as the city was expanding into higher water usage agricultural lands.  Guess they've run out of agriculture.  I've also said many times that Las Vegas will be the next American ghost town.  As it is, in my experience it's a dusty little town that never learned to grow up into a city and, well, if it weren't for the tourism aspect it wouldn't be.

 

In the area's defense I do have to say that the starkness of the landscape is downright beautiful, but it's not much of a place to live.  That said, coming back home and re-experiencing humidity was like a religious moment.  Beautiful as it is, there's something [not] in the air...it's like stale death...can't really describe it in English.

[Duke87 1,070]

Welcome to the desert, California. Embrace it, it shall define you as long as the jet stream maintains its current form. How long that will last remains to be seen, but it has already persisted for more than two years, so one must prepare for this situation continuing indefinitely.

 

No more green lawns is one key aspect of this. Notice how no one in Arizona or any other state known for being desert has a green lawn. Another key aspect of this is that yes, the land will not be arable as it used to be. No more almond growiing, stick to ranching like other desert states do.

 

As for desalination, it does already exist in California on a small scale. This was discussed in the old California drought thread. Expanding it is only impractical when there are other options. When it's that or move large droves of people elsewhere because there isn't enough water to sustain them, the state will find a way to do what it takes to keep them around.

[Snugies 91]

Water pipelines a thing of the future?

[blunder 1,080]

It's just another example of a society replete with entitled thin-skinned people who are easily butthurt.  Everything is always someone else's fault.  Excellent products of the system.  They'll whine and cry over every little insult yet passively accept the complete structural decline of the system around them.

 

Maybe the truest paragraph i've seen all day.

 

 

And yes, folks, this is a huge social problem.  Will the enviro-nuts be squeaking their wheels while the state dies of thirst?

 

Never, ever, ever underestimate the sheer stupidity of the enviro-nuts and the outrageous demands they make.

 

 

Water pipelines a thing of the future?

 

Not likely.  A few decades ago attempts were made by the californians to get pipleine projects off the ground so they could get water from the columbia through oregon.  That got kicked down with both feet, and there's not a snowballs chance in hell such a project will ever get approval through oregon and washington in the future.  Where else would the water be piped in from?

 

As was previously mentioned, the Cali's need to adapt.  The sheer waste in that state is appaling.  Several years into a drought with not a scrap of snow in the mountains?  What the hey, let's keep our 1140 golf courses green!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Is there an actual requirement for a golf course to be green?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The water management in California is appalling. Between the wealthy wanting green lawns and golf courses and the "environmentalists" blocking construction of desalination plants and the power plants to run them, the entire southwest will likely dry up and become completely uninhabitable. That is one reason why I will never live in California or Nevada. The other reasons are economic and cultural.

--Ocram

 

EDIT: http://cnn.it/1CA3dJB

 

It is illegal to vandalize or destroy property. It is illegal and unethical to threaten or harass people. It is immoral to harass, persecute, or oppress Christians. And it is unconstitutional to meddle with private religious beliefs. Therefore, the people threatening the innocent, family-oriented pizzeria are obviously in the wrong.