2020 US Election (Part One)

[Berzerker]

aerated greens are upsetting

 

[Takhisis]

The Mueller Report is out... heavily redacted... comically so in some sections, particularly the ones involving Russian interference/collusion/hacking. The justification for most of the redactions is "Harm to Ongoing Matter".

And the Donald says it completely exonerates, vindicates, etc. etc. him and that he hasn't read it and doesn't care about it.

 

[onejayhawk]

And the Donald says it completely exonerates, vindicates, etc. etc. him and that he hasn't read it and doesn't care about it.

And?

As a practical matter, he's right.

J

 

[cardgame]

No he's not.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And?

As a practical matter, he's right.

J

What a weasel word. It allows you to play it both ways - as more and more of this sinks in, you can claim you were technically correct because the Republicans won't move to remove him even if they end up admitting he committed crimes. Therefore in a 'practical' sense, he's exonerated.

This is how deviancy is normalized and the whole system crashes. Sometimes you tell the big lie, sometimes you tell the little lie with weasel words. Either way, the affect is the same - to excuse whatever your horrific crimes your side does while simultaneously projecting that guilt onto everyone else.

The dossier is the new buttery males and it's all a bunch of bs meant to deflect, deny, obfuscate, project and do whatever it takes to maintain power no matter how illegal or immoral the deed or saying.

 

[Tristan_C]

Gori's Last Word*​

If the documents guiding your nation
Provide for their own alteration,
Individuals, see,
Will then find themselves free
To opt for co-operation.

Well I'm back for a bit during some dramatic changes of address. I thought those things were supposed to be raunchy. I will do my best, senpai~

International values (revised)

A sanctimonious baker named Jack
Didn't wanna hump dudes in the sack.
But they gave him a choice:
"Take a cake for two bois
or a six-figure suit up your back."

*on the subject of the supposed utter incompatibility of American and marxist values

alright, mine is on the subject of forcing globalist sludge on a baker in Colorado.

I get that the amendment process allows changes to take place. But I have already given what I think are pretty uncontroversial, reasonable reasons why marxism is incompatible with our constitutional republic and the ideas that created it.

It's worth noting that to socialize parts of the economy, FDR did not use the amendments process; he tried to pack the courts and, with mixed results on that front, just improvised.

 

[Ajidica]

alright, mine is on the subject of forcing globalist sludge on a baker in Colorado.

If the baker didn't want to follow Colorado non-discrimination laws, he shouldn't have structured his business as a for-profit LLC.

 

[onejayhawk]

What a weasel word. It allows you to play it both ways - as more and more of this sinks in, you can claim you were technically correct because the Republicans won't move to remove him even if they end up admitting he committed crimes. Therefore in a 'practical' sense, he's exonerated.

This is how deviancy is normalized and the whole system crashes. Sometimes you tell the big lie, sometimes you tell the little lie with weasel words. Either way, the affect is the same - to excuse whatever your horrific crimes your side does while simultaneously projecting that guilt onto everyone else.

The dossier is the new buttery males and it's all a bunch of bs meant to deflect, deny, obfuscate, project and do whatever it takes to maintain power no matter how illegal or immoral the deed or saying.

Try it this way, it's all over but the shouting. Here is another fait accompli. Trump has all the proof he will ever need and the rest is quibbling.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Not discriminating against someone is "globalist sludge"? What would our Lord and Saviour think about that?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not discriminating against someone is "globalist sludge"? What would our Lord and Saviour think about that?

Isn't Tristan a commie? They are anti Christian. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Arakhor]

Given his utter disdain for Marxism (and his idea that FDR was trying to implement it), I would say definitely not.

 

[caketastydelish]

Bernie would have lost because the other two thirds would not only have stayed home in large numbers, but large numbers would have turned out and gone back to their GOP roots.

I don't believe this to be true. What are you basing this off of?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't believe this to be true. What are you basing this off of?

Knowledge of how susceptible former GOP supporters turned into nominal democrat supporters by the Clinton reformation of the democratic party are to the accusation "socialist." Trust me, there is no true believer in the GOP who wouldn't be overjoyed to see an opponent they can describe as "self declared socialist."

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What they fail to understand is that a growing sector of the electorate really wants a self declared socialist. I can't wait for AOC to hit 35 and be be eligible to run for the presidency. By then, Fox will have given her so much free air time that a lot of people may find out about her platform and rally to it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

AOC being able to run sooner rather than later is one silver lining I can see in a Trump re-election. There is so much genuine excitement around her...

 

[Tristan_C]

If the baker didn't want to follow Colorado non-discrimination laws, he shouldn't have structured his business as a for-profit LLC.

The supreme court took the case, and to the ACLU's frustration, it upheld the 1st Amendment. While there is genuine merit to anti-discrimination laws, the peoples' right to free expression and religious exercise seems to extend to professional output of this kind, for the time being. You'll need to import some more leftist vote-cattle from the south, flip some more districts. Could take a while for changes to take effect since this is the court.

I can't wait for AOC to hit 35

IQ can't increase that much in a short period.

There is so much genuine excitement around her...

Useful.

 

[Ajidica]

The supreme court took the case, and to the ACLU's frustration, it upheld the 1st Amendment. While there is genuine merit to anti-discrimination laws, the peoples' right to free expression and religious exercise seems to extend to professional output of this kind, for the time being. You'll need to import some more leftist vote-cattle from the south, flip some more districts. Could take a while for changes to take effect since this is the court.

Fun fact, that isn't what the court ruled.

The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.[25] Kennedy's opinion stated that the Commission's review of Phillips' case exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law".[26] Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[27] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]
...
The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[35] Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "[t]he outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".[36][37] Kennedy's decision affirmed that there remains protection of same-sex couples and gay rights which states can still enforce through anti-discrimination laws, a point also agreed to by Ginsburg's dissent.[32] The general constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws to prevent discrimination against sexual orientation affirmed by the Masterpiece decision was reflected in lower courts that same week, in a case decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Brush & Nib Studio v. Phoenix,[38] which upheld the city of Phoenix's anti-discrimination ordinance that included sexual orientation. The Court of Appeals extensively quoted Masterpiece in affirming the Arizona Superior Court's prior decision.[39][40][41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maste...rado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion
The Supreme Court ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with undue animus toward the baker, and that animus was what got their decision overturned.* As Kennedy stated, the court did not rule on whether anti-discrimination laws would apply in this case.

*Although why expressing animus didn't matter in Trump v. Hawaii is a fact that will forever escape me.

 

[Tristan_C]

Fun fact

In policy, remaining undecided is a decision that the status quo remain in effect. They upheld the first amendment with this decision because of the grounds upon which a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and against Jack would necessarily be predicated.

 

[Traitorfish]

Knowledge of how susceptible former GOP supporters turned into nominal democrat supporters by the Clinton reformation of the democratic party are to the accusation "socialist." Trust me, there is no true believer in the GOP who wouldn't be overjoyed to see an opponent they can describe as "self declared socialist."

The Republicans are, to an outside observer, a party of dwindling relevance, competitive at a federal level mostly by abuse of the electoral process. Yet, the Democrats keep losing to them. Your explanation, if I understand correctly, is that the Democratic leadership are not incompetent, it's that the Republicans are actually, secretly, an extremely vital and effective political coalition, who win because of their popular and effective policies, it's just that a bunch of them have been voting Democrat for the last thirty years, so nobody realised, and the Democratic leadership actually deserve praise for managing to trick such a substantial segment of the clear majority-party into voting for their unpopular minority-party. Is that about the gist of it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Republicans are, to an outside observer, a party of dwindling relevance, competitive at a federal level mostly by abuse of the electoral process. Yet, the Democrats keep losing to them. Your explanation, if I understand correctly, is that the Democratic leadership are not incompetent, it's that the Republicans are actually, secretly, an extremely vital and effective political coalition, who win because of their popular and effective policies, it's just that a bunch of them have been voting Democrat for the last thirty years, so nobody realised, and the Democratic leadership actually deserve praise for managing to trick such a substantial segment of the clear majority-party into voting for their unpopular minority-party. Is that about the gist of it?

Sort of. There are a bunch of US voters who could be legitimately called independents*. Those voters reliably supported the GOP through the Nixon and Reagan era, and would have continued to do so if Clinton had not reformatted the image of the Democratic party to appeal to them. Their subsequent support of this reformatted Democratic party should not be mistaken for "we will follow the Democratic party back to its pre-Clinton shape out of some loyalty to party." If the Democrats insist on returning to the image that won them one state in 1972 then they should expect to be winning about one state.

No one ever questions the reality that US politics is a two party system featuring a right wing party and an extreme right wing party. What people generally don't grasp is that other than a negligible slice of the electorate the US population is all right wingers so those two parties are positioned in the only lanes that are going anywhere.




*This is obscured by the way many blatant Republican shills claim to be "independent."