Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Camikaze, Nov 9, 2016.
Who would have thought! War is peace. Truly the liberals are beyond help.
I'm not a liberal mate
From Roller's position at the extreme tip of the right wing literally everyone is a liberal. Don't try to argue that point.
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the political standing? and/or not make statements that make you look like one? I mean i couldn't care less but still
Maybe you should learn things about liberalism instead of using the term as a generic slur.
To start with I assume you're unfamiliar with the Australian Liberal Party.
Like said i really couln't care less about names, labeling(liberal favorite activity) the Near East as evil moslem countries we have to fight is straight from the playbook.
Er, which playbook is that?
Duh like funding al-qaeda and then fighting it.
Soooo...can you help with this re-evaluation by naming someone that is too far right for you?
I can name a whole bunch of people who are well left of Arwon.
Looks to me like the accusation that you just use "liberal" as a generic slur for anyone you disagree with is spot on.
Absolutely. While driving this is my most frequently used word. And you guys change names so often it never gets outdated.
Liberals are individualists with a faith in the individual rational mind as the primary source of human improvement and origin of change. They're also generally milquetoast centrists and moderates who get really confused when this doesn't work.
The Australian Liberal Party are defined primarily by their opposition to the Labor Party. They're best described as conservative economic rationalists because their actual liberals have been pushed out or marginalised by the xenophobes and bigots.
Liberalism in the generic doesn't deal well with structures, with historicity, with collective action, with resource constraints...
I'm a Greens member probably most accurately described as a social democrat. I'll also cop to left and to progressive.
Personally, I'm not worked up over it either way. The difference with me is that I can understand both positions and make an informed choice. I prefer the small chance that Trump will actually be able to do anything negative. It's much less risk than the alternative. A liberal SCOTUS could permanently negate the religion clause and the 2nd, and that's totally unacceptable.
Even though I don't care really, I can very easily give the pro-trump position. Being able to understand both, I know exactly what decided things. There are people rejoicing that they won't have HC and the democrats pissing on the cross and Bible just because it makes a tiny minority feel better(*). Not to mention that if you try to take their guns you'll end up full of holes. Those two issues were enough to swing it on their own.
(*) Wanna know what's the irony of it all? The LGBT folk could have everything they want and more if they'd just shut their traps once in a while. What's the best approach to getting told no at a business? Go to another one. There are other florists and bakers. Common sense people... What does a trans do when they need a bathroom -- ask permission or just use it? If they look like the picture on the door, just use it. It only became an issue because they opened their mouths in the first place. The right wing's response is not smart, but it is their right to assert their religious beliefs.
Man I underestimated the appeal of Hillary if that was policy actually on the table. Dangit.
Ah, so imagined threats are a solid basis for voting. Got it.
[vote 1 pisschrist]
On a theoretical level that's a false dichotomy. Legal theory is a whole academic discipline; according to some, the short answer to your question is 'no', according to others the short answer is 'yes', and according to others still, the answer is 'yes, as they should'. The last approach is probably most reflective of the predominant American theoretical approach in the last hundred or so years.
They should be making judgements based on their own personal feelings and opinions rather than what's written in the constitution and in other laws and existing precedent?
So why even have the constitution then?
Common law jurisdictions necessitate jurisprudence evolving separate from any legislative process. You COULD call for legislation every time a new situation crops up that the constitution didn't anticipate, but then in a few decades' time, your document would be completely different from what you started with.
It's far more efficient and reasonable to have judges use their own judgement in applying the principles of the constitution to modern-day situations that the Framers couldn't possibly have conceived of. In the vast majority of situations, judges do strictly apply precedent and the letter of the law to a given situation. But when you have little direction from laws and precedent to work with, what makes more sense - applying first principles using current sensibilities, or trying to discern the mindset of someone who lived 240 years ago and figure out what they would have done?
I know what Ted Cruz would say
EDIT: I know what he would say... and it would depend completely on whether it involved a situation that would negatively effect him personally... like say for example, whether Pres George Washington and Pres Thomas Jefferson etc would have allowed Canadian born guys to be POTUS (hint: They wouldn't).
Separate names with a comma.