2020 US Election (Part One)

[rah]

Since I'm on the verge of retirement, I chickened out and moved a good percentage to more conservative investments, just in case. But left the chunk I won't need for 15 years in play.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wish we lived in a country that did not require an economic crisis in addition to massive political scandals and crimes to drive out an incumbent but then again I'm an entitled millenial.

 

[rah]

That's like wishing for country with people that actually have a brain and use it. This is Merica.

 

[Tristan_C]

The case in question was fought on the grounds of free exercise of religion, rather than on grounds of free speech, which implicitly locates religious belief in the category of a "protected class". At least some conservatives are therefore prepared to support the creation of legally protected classes, where such protections benefit them or those they identify with.

Textualism is more conservative-aligned, though, and "Congress shall make no law respecting... or prohibiting... or abridging..." is not conducive to creating protected classes. But certainly everyone is prone to opportunism.

Because I know how to read. If you can find a non-discrimination law that references ideology as illegal grounds for discrimination, cite it. Otherwise, shut up.

It just seems like they can't help feeling how they feel and get discriminated against because of it, so I was wondering where your river of victimhood tears for the poor Nazis is.

I realize that the real-world execution of anti-discrimination laws is done by leftists for leftists (c.f. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), so there is no way that discrimination against ideological adversaries would be forbidden; I suspect ideology has reflexively developed into the primary motive for the laws. The ends justified means that ultimately became the ends. The abusive and inconsistent behavior of the Commission in this regard came up in the Colorado baker case, and it swayed the court into a stronger majority against them.

But we're running out of time.

Quick! Someone wreck the economy to show how much better our economic strategy is!

 

[rah]

I'm one of those benefiting from this but hopefully smart enough to realize that it's not all Trump, and will continue to be embarrassed by his presence in the white house.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It just seems like they can't help feeling how they feel and get discriminated against because of it, so I was wondering where your river of victimhood tears for the poor Nazis is.

Ideology, be it Nazism or your imagined "leftism" does not fall under anti-discrimination law. Idiot isn't a gender. Crybaby punk isn't a religious faith. Stupid isn't an ethnicity. So I am free to discriminate against stupid idiot crybaby punks as much as I want. And I generally do.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Everyone has the right to stupid opinions and beliefs, and i have the right to mock them.

 

[rah]

As long as you don't mention their race or gender while doing it..............

 

[Tristan_C]

Idiot isn't a gender.

tumblr

 

[Berzerker]

but wouldn't 'the left' have an argument for protection given the historical violence perpetrated against them?

 

[Takhisis]

Idiot isn't a gender.

tumblr

You're trying to portray yourself as witty and succeeding by about 50%.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

but wouldn't 'the left' have an argument for protection given the historical violence perpetrated against them?

Who cares? First off, there is no identifying feature of "the left," other than your ilk chattering about them constantly, which isn't terribly specific. But for the most part what matters is that nowhere in law is there any reference to discrimination based on political views. I can say "I do not hire Republicans." I can say "my business does not serve conservatives." I can say "I do not rent to Trumpists." None of those things violate anti-discrimination laws. As long as whatever practices I put in place are consistent and cannot be used as cover to discriminate against groups that actually are referenced in law there's no crime there.

 

[El_Machinae]

That will be separate from constitutional protections. For example, I would not accept a government employee denying services to someone based on their expressed police. Exceptional exceptions are excepted

 

[Berzerker]

Who cares? First off, there is no identifying feature of "the left," other than your ilk chattering about them constantly, which isn't terribly specific. But for the most part what matters is that nowhere in law is there any reference to discrimination based on political views. I can say "I do not hire Republicans." I can say "my business does not serve conservatives." I can say "I do not rent to Trumpists." None of those things violate anti-discrimination laws. As long as whatever practices I put in place are consistent and cannot be used as cover to discriminate against groups that actually are referenced in law there's no crime there.

I care, what was done to the left in this country was immoral. If persecuted groups need legal protection why not the victims of ideological violence. I didn't say the law protects them now, just that it should if our logic for protection is based on the past (and present).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That will be separate from constitutional protections. For example, I would not accept a government employee denying services to someone based on their expressed police. Exceptional exceptions are excepted

Government services are provided consistent with equal protection under the law. As a citizen my right to serve who I please is protected, with the notable exceptions as listed.

I care, what was done to the left in this country was immoral. If persecuted groups need legal protection why not the victims of ideological violence. I didn't say the law protects them now, just that it should if our logic for protection is based on the past (and present).

Again, the issue here is that there is no such thing as "the left."

 

[Berzerker]

Would you prefer 'people on the left'? The red scare targeted 'communists' and anyone nearby. Thats who I'd consider worthy of legal protections based on past ideological persecution. Maybe that aint really needed now as much since left and right moved toward the center but back when civil rights were being promoted the commies were deserving of protection too.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Since I'm on the verge of retirement, I chickened out and moved a good percentage to more conservative investments, just in case. But left the chunk I won't need for 15 years in play.

45% in stocks at retirement is OK. If you have $1M in your portfolio and 45% are in stocks and the market drops 40% (as it did in 2008), then you lose $180,000 of value or 18%. That is likely to be made up over time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Would you prefer 'people on the left'? The red scare targeted 'communists' and anyone nearby. Thats who I'd consider worthy of legal protections based on past ideological persecution. Maybe that aint really needed now as much since left and right moved toward the center but back when civil rights were being promoted the commies were deserving of protection too.

No it didn't. The red scare targeted people that wild eyed loons claimed were communists, or 'communist sympathizers,' or 'unpatriotic' or whatever. There is ne effective way to prevent a wild eyed loon from discriminating against someone they have arbitrarily called a "leftist."

 

[Berzerker]

thats why I put communists in quotes and included anyone nearby

 

[rah]

45% in stocks at retirement is OK. If you have $1M in your portfolio and 45% are in stocks and the market drops 40% (as it did in 2008), then you lose $180,000 of value or 18%. That is likely to be made up over time.

That's about my thinking but went a bit more conservative. Don't want to lose the 180k we've made since Trump took over. (not that I'm giving him credit for all of it)