Forums / Discussion / General

Trust me, I'm well-versed in the art of wallposting.

Rivers wrote:

It shouldn’t even really be an option.

In an earlier draft of that wall, I made the point that I didn't agree with that idea myself-- however, I had different pressing concerns than those you highlighted. I don't know why I didn't mention it here, but it was probably because I wanted to make the point that he wanted to address the issue of domestic terrorism and the importation thereof, and inadvertently overprioritized that point.

At any rate, I don't agree with the idea myself-- I think the idea of having Muslims in a registry wholesale is self-evidently unethical, but the real issue past that lies in how much nothing it would solve. You can't track someone's religious beliefs-- that itself requires more active surveillance on top of that which the proposition requires to be enacted. Also, Muslims have the privilege of taqiyya, which-- contrary to what critics would tell you-- allows you to lie about your religious adherence to avoid persecution (why they think it would make sense to deny or outright fabricate tenets of your dogmatic faith to deceive people into the religion or to persuade them to ignore you while you do terrorist stuff is beyond me).

>concerning the pussy grabbing

For the record, I don't "defend" (if I can even use that term here) such actions because I think they're right. Personally, I'm a pretty hands off guy when it comes to so much as casually touching girls that I may even know well, talk less of those I don't. I wouldn't be alright with such actions, I wouldn't recommend those actions, I wouldn't teach my children to partake in those actions-- you get the deal.

I "defend" such actions not as not being absolutely crude, but as not being outright assault, because there are certain actions considered consensual between two people (whether they're in a defined relationship is irrelevant) where there isn't any explicit consent given. And as of the time that I wrote that, I heard nothing about repeat occurrences, talk less of with women that refused him. And so that I can't be called out for having no perspective: I had a friend-turned-girlfriend-for-less-than-a-week-at-which-point-the-stress-of-the-circumstances-through-which-the-relationship-formed-gave-me-actual-headaches who, even before that time, would place her hands in… dubious places of mine, all the time without my permission. My reactions ranged from neutral-and-amused to somewhat uncomfortable, but I wouldn't call it assault.

Writing this out, though, I understand that-- especially legally-- this is an absurdly precarious position to take (not to mention, I eventually grew a personal space), and it becomes less justifiable since he wasn't in a relationship with any of those women.

As far as the allegations, I've said this for a while: while sexual assault and rape allegations are notoriously difficult to prove, and I sympathize with those who can't find it within themselves to report their abuser/rapist (especially if they're family members or family friends), generally speaking, I'm not going to believe the accused is culpable without firm evidence. It's excessively damaging to their reputation to go that far without trial, and even if they're acquitted and they really didn't do it, their reputation is damaged for life. It's all currently a non-point.

Also, from the article:

"He was like an octopus," she said. "It was like he had six arms. He was all over the place."

…I'm not even expressing disbelief here-- I think I've just been on the internet for too long.

>concerning gay marriage

Clinton changed her position as recent as 2013, as well. But more on point, his most recent statement is to leave it to the states-- something that, currently, I'm biased towards.

I don't necessarily have a problem with gay marriage on a legal scale, but states were already deciding this by themselves before the SCOTUS decision (such that before then, 37 states declared their own bans unconstitutional). It was a state matter and always was, and I'm not finding any explicit constitutional statement on marriage to begin with in the Bill of Rights (and while it includes some of what amounts to shilling the FADA, which I'm unclear about, here's an RCP article that talks about the issues in Justice Kennedy's majority statement). The fact that it's even at enough risk of being overturned almost as easily as it came such that we're talking about this, as opposed to if it was made a constitutional amendment or ruled in by state through referendum or their own supreme court, points at the victory being potentially hollow and tenuous, especially since foisting this change on all 50 states and their constituents could never guarantee the social change that would make this worthwhile-- the social change that the decision, in whichever form it came (that wasn't the SCOTUS) should have been a reflection of.

It also doesn't guarantee certain marriage related privileges also managed on a state-by-state basis-- the federal government is only responsible for its own actions, in this regard.

Upholding the literal law (“Don’t let your citizens be killed”) isn’t pro- or anti- anything. He’s spinning upholding the law (basically his job description) as pro-LGBTQ.

Even if it didn't demonstrate pro- anything (I thought the fact that he cited the motivations for the shooting and terrorism of that sort as "hateful" meant something apart from the "don't let your citizens get merked" part of his job description), evidence for him currently being anti-LGBTQ for its own sake is scant, at best.

Don even refused to give political viewpoints at one point, when he was doing streams – although he did say he’d like Bernie v Trump for the memes.

I would have liked Bernie v. Trump, too-- it would have been a nice matchup, considering that they were both populists.

It's polarization of both sides, a continuing trend

And also something of a pandemic in the Western world, it seems, looking at the U.K, France, Germany, possibly Poland, and Sweden-- if current trends continue to energize nationalism. "Turnabout is fair play" and "when they go low, we go high just as low, if not lower" seem like they're going to be mantras for politicians to live by this term.

The Supreme court simply said that the right to marriage is also protected under the already established equal rights laws that say a person cannot be discriminated against based upon their Race, Gender, Or Sexual orientation.

My problem is this argument seems to imply that Marriage is an entirely religious affair when it is not. As long as there are Legal Benefits to being married then it is a government institution not a religious one. Shared Assets and Visitation rights are just a few of the things that were being denied to homosexual couples in areas. Yes many states were progressing slowly towards legalizing it, but marriage also affects you on the National Government level Not just the State Level.

Personally I think the Supreme Court was completely in the right with what they did. They interpreted the law and did their jobs.

Which argument?

None of my argument had any religious basis, and I don't think the RCP article made religion a major talking point that led to anything in particular, if it had any religiously-based point.

As long as there are Legal Benefits to being married then it is a government institution

But it's a state institution that the federal government acknowledges, because each state has their own take on marriage, as permitted by the Constitution specifically because the Constitution doesn't have any direct statement on marriage. The federal government has its own way that it handles the marriages that it acknowledges-- it's in control of how they deal with their own benefits, and it has to check itself accordingly. In fact, it's because of this that there are still states that don't offer or enforce the equality of marriage-based privileges to same-sex couples.

As Scalia noted, when the 14th Amendment was ratified and every state drew up its marriage laws, they were all deemed constitutional. Am I mistaken in supposing that's a precedent? Not that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman, but that states could determine such details by themselves?

And as Kennedy pointed out, "The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Well, the Constitution was deemed to protect the rights of states to make their own decision on how they wanted to handle marriage, as previously noted. If that was deemed bad, than-- like Prohibition, and like the abolition of slavery, an amendment could have been ratified to grant the right-- and more permanently, I might add.

However, I have to admit that I can't really say that someone like myself can come up with a definitive "right" answer in a Constitutional sense-- even the much-accomplished Justices couldn't agree, with a 1-vote margin deciding it all. Reading through the opinions, I think both Scalia and Kennedy, at the least, made good points based on values and precedents, and neither of their arguments (Scalia was of disssenting opinion, by the way) were critically based on religion, either.

Which is why it's not my only point.

As it stands, many have lamented that this progress can be "undone" by Trump appointing conservative justices to catch a case to undo the precedent set by Obergefell. Whether or not this is to put the decision back into the hands of the states, to be quite honest, given what I understand… I won't be able to feel much pity. Well, I would, but it wouldn't be because of the loss of something campaigned for for years-- it'd be because the celebration would have proved to be way too early.

As I've stated before, there were other ways to go about this. We could have passed a law, like we usually do. We could have made it an amendment. And either way, if it were passed, it would represent the will of the people, and much better than five out of nine judges. Repealing such a decision would be as difficult, if not moreso, than getting it passed, and most Americans are alright with gay marriage as is.

Right now, overturning the previous ruling, with the current and future vacancies, is possibly going to be as easy as, if not easier than ruling it in, in the first place.

I still argue the best solution to the whole gay marriage debate is full privatization of marriage. Government should completely and utterly get out of the business of marriage. It's duties should extend only to uphold contracts that two or more people put together. Marriage is already a contract, let's not kid our selves.

Yes, that means if two consenting adults want to get gay-married, they can – just establish a contract, and bam.

If that means three or four consenting adults in a polygamous marriage, that's fine with me too.

OBAMA THE MADMAN

President Obama on Tuesday largely commuted the remaining prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration, and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.

The decision by Mr. Obama rescued Ms. Manning, who twice tried to commit suicide last year, from an uncertain future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.

Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama’s commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning is set to be freed on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.

I am fucking estatic atm. Thanks, Obama.

Huzzah for whistle-blowers getting better treatment.

We just going to ignore that he's the one who put them there in the first place, and that 2 attempts at suicide didn't do shit to move him, but scoring some brownie points on his way out is?

I hope that Trump pardons Assange, because I have a sinking feeling Obama only did this to reach him.

As far as I am aware it was a court that put her in jail not Obama. Better late than never.

Basilius said:

Every move Trump makes is completely calculate he is the smartest man and any criticism is false.

That's just standard political demagogue stuff, though. Saw it all the time on the Huffpost Comment Section over the years ("Been watching too much Faux News, huh?") Just read the comment section when the FBI said the RNC wasn't hacked.

It doesn't really help that the media's really been overhyping the controversies--to a detrimental point. The pussy grabbing thing probably would have been a lot more devastating for him if it wasn't for the dozen other "implosions" he had over the preceding months. Everyone kind of went "oh, Trump said something bad again." and moved on.

I suspect the more moderate, sensible people are just ignoring the controversies at this point because of how unimportant they are, thus leaving only the fringes to foam at them. If that Russian smoking gun ever happens or Trump murders someone on fifth avenue, the sensible folks will probably step into the minefield to participate.

So no it didn’t matter if I voted or not or for whom.

Congratulations, you played yourself. Local elections not only have far more impact on your daily life (county taxes, road taxes, ordinances, etc.), but your vote matters way more--my Congressional race had a thousand vote difference, while the township trustees had tens of votes difference.

You could have just voted third party/wrote someone in for President or "undervoted" and left that part of the ballot blank if you really didn't want to participate in the presidential election.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/127751-US-EU-make-final-plea-for-free-trade-deal

With the anti-globalization wave impacting major elections, including that of US President-elect Donal Trump, the United States and European Union made a final plea on Tuesday to conclude a trans-Atlantic free trade deal.

Just three days away from Trump's inauguration, and on the same day British Prime Minister Theresa May unveiled her Brexit blueprint, Washington and Brussels issued a joint report to sell the benefits of the massive trade pact that just needs the political will to conclude.

The rationale for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) "is even stronger today than it was when we started these negotiations," US Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement.

"We launched the TTIP negotiations in 2013 because we were convinced that the transatlantic trade relationship, already the biggest in the world, could be an even stronger driver of job creation, growth and competitiveness on both sides of the Atlantic."

The joint report said that "with the political will to prioritize long-term gains for our economies and our broader relationship, the United States and the EU could achieve what we set out to do in 2013: conclude an ambitious, balanced, comprehensive and high-standard agreement."

The sides have held 15 negotiating rounds in the effort to reduce tariff and regulatory barriers to trade and investment between the two economies.

However, the report acknowledged the parties have "significant work to do to resolve our differences in several important areas of the negotiations."

DIE ALREADY.

"I will step in"

if he 'rounds up' children for deportation, hits voting rights or 'silences dissent'

resident Obama laid down a marker for President-elect Trump after he takes office

In his final press conference, Trump brought up contentions issues for the U.S. citizenry, and pointedly told Trump he would speak up if his successor strayed far from current policy on rights issues

He mentioned 'systematic discrimination' and efforts to 'punish' immigrants who came here as children

He praised the press for making 'this place work better' in another signal to Trump, who has attacked networks and news outlets

Invokes Jim Crow efforts to 'restrict the franchise' and prioritizes voting rights amid looming fight with the GOP over voter ID laws

But he explains that doesn't mean he would 'get on the ballot'

https://archive.is/1hEqC

Who does he think he is?

>praises the press
>has also dissed Fox News before on at least a couple occasions

Also, I repeat-- how are voter ID laws an attack on voting rights? You only have the right to vote if you're a citizen. Having voter ID ensures that you're a citizen. It's not necessary, though-- in my state, the way that you register to vote involves you proving your citizenship by using your identification to register.

The argument tends to be that poor, rural people would have difficulty obtaining legal ID necessary to vote.

It's only a hypothetical argument at the moment (and one that's easily solvable just by distributing ID to all legal citizens IMO), but it makes sense from a certain standpoint.

I'm not too well-versed in the voting ID stuff, but I can point to a case study of why people are opposed to voter ID.

Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law

A federal appeals court has struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law, holding that it was “passed with racially discriminatory intent.”

…

"The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted," Judge Diana Motz wrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. "Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

The court's opinion bluntly described the legislation as a clear effort to suppress the black vote.

"We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history," Motz added.

I know NC lately has just been a clusterfuck of BS activities, but I can at the very least understand the worries for voter ID when it's been ruled that voter ID was used to purposefully depress certain voters.

Also, going into the area I specialize in – voter ID laws would likely suppress transgender voters. If your new face and clothing looks like the genderbent version of your ID, you will likely not be allowed to vote.

Strict Voter ID Laws Impose Added Costs for Transgender Voters

Fees associated with updating photo ID with a change of gender can range from $8 to $358…

Some states only allow individuals to update their IDs after receiving transition-related surgery…

(Emphasis mine)

Transition-related surgeries are expensive. Sexual reassignment surgery can reach above $100k. Other things, like facial electrolysis, can be $20k.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with voter ID. Don't get confused there. The problem is that voter ID costs money and time, and for some people, a lot of money and time. If voter ID was easier to change and widely available for free, I'd imagine you'd hear a lot less opposition.

Didn't seem to stop the poor and rural citizens from voting in this elections in states with voter id laws.

Meanwhile in Washington, King County routinely has the dead vote in oir elections.

I'd be really mad if I was a Democrat right now. They're doing the worst they've probably ever done in history and all the DNC candidates want to do is stick their fingers in their ears and carry on as normal. Maybe if the RNC ever gets hacked it'll be revealed they actually took over the DNC years ago.

Also, SCOTUS looks likely to overturn part of the Lanham Trademark Act that bars 'disparaging trademarks', which'll clear the way for the Slants (an Asian-American indie band) and the Redskins (the Washington variety, not the Idaho one).

Rivers said:

If your new face and clothing looks like the genderbent version of your ID, you will likely not be allowed to vote.

There's ID checks in Michigan and that's not really how it works. They take your ID, compare the signature and address information on it with the one you give on the information card, then cross check it with the information they have in their binder.

I'm not one to delve into the transgender debate, but unless you get plastic surgery on your face, I don't think hormone treatments are going to change it a ton from the one in your ID picture. I'd imagine hair and clothing matters very little to the precinct folks since that's always going to be different--sometimes drastically so--from your ID picture.

And if you get really worried, you can always schedule all the big surgery and stuff for right before your license expires (which currently costs $20 to renew in Michigan), then when you go in to renew it and get the new picture, you're all ready to go.

I've never really understood the cost argument anyway. You need an ID to open a bank account, drive, go to