2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.

Was Scalia a "conservative judge"? If you say yes, then I'll know it's the nonsense you' re going for. If no, then it's No True Scotsman.

(I don't deny that conservative *rhetoric* is all about" original intent", but that doesn't translate into what their judges actually do.)


I just missed "tend to".

The rhetoric of conservative judges, and the intent of a conservative is to elect judges who do not try to rule from the bench. Obviously, every justice has their pet issue (and Scalia's seemed to be Citizen's United for some reason).

The point is: in general, people are extremely dissatisfied when the courts make a controversial decision. Its a shortcut to our democracy, and instead should be left to our elected officials. I recognize that the point of the Supreme Court is to handle difficult cases (including civil rights), but I do hold the belief that the less the Supreme Court makes these sorts of precedent-setting super laws... the better this country will be.

trpmb6 wrote:Can we all just admit that we all want to stack the court with people who agree with us politically?


That's basically what I'm admitting to. We all want the courts to agree with us on our issues, and then the courts to disagree with everyone else on issues we don't care about.

Or the 3rd option is, the courts don't do any of those shenanigans, and we keep that shit in Congress. You know, where it belongs.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:44 pm UTC

Again, what people who call themselves conservatives *say* they want (and what they claim their "intent" is), and what people who call themselves conservatives actually tend to do and try to do, are not the same thing. (That goes for notions of "small government" as well as it does for notions of what judges' jobs should b, plus a wide array of other things.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Again, what people who call themselves conservatives *say* they want, and what people who call themselves conservatives actually tend to do and try to do, are not the same thing. (That goes for notions of "small government" as well as it does for notions of what judges' jobs should b, plus a wide array of other things.)


Never claimed otherwise. Its still a value that I hold.

But yeah, politicians are politicians. I know how the world works.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:49 pm UTC

There's always room for a political alliance between people who want to limit the power of the court in principle and people who haven't been a fan of recent politicized court rulings or would like it exerting its power in another direction.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

I want a Supreme Court who is going to interpret the constitution in a manner biased towards the freedom and equality of all, and not increase the power of wealthy individuals at the expense of the freedom and equality of society as a whole.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:19 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?

If I can't I have no business supporting him, and I really wish more people would ask themselves that question about their choice. Too many otherwise-constructive political debates devolve into name calling, insults, and tearing down the opposition's platform.


Agreed. I've previously asked the same question of the other side in this thread specifically because of this tendency. A candidate should stand on their own merits.

I think his plan for a wall along the border may be a stretch, but I fully agree with the message. We can't guarantee the safety and well-being of our citizens without secure borders. I think Clinton's characterization of his deportation plan is a little off the mark, too. Rather than going door to door rounding up anyone without documentation, Trump would simply instruct his immigration, justice, and border patrol to be more efficient and determined in their efforts when they find anyone who is here illegally. Proof of citizenship is required for most employment, and in most areas of the country, it is required for a wide range of licenses and permits. Anyone here illegally knows they're here illegally, and granting amnesty and citizenship condones the breaking of our laws while simultaneously slapping all legal immigrants in the face.


I believe that "instruct them to be more efficient and determined" is perhaps not much of a plan. Obama's admin has deported quite a lot of people, so it seems unlikely that they're all just sitting there, waiting for such instructions to come down the pipe.

In practice, it seems to be more a matter of money. Dramatic expansion of government programs that are not themselves productive comes with a bunch of cost. Now, sure, security sometimes is worth the cost, but I've not yet seen a persuasive breakdown of why this plan is worth it.

He has walked back his ban on Muslim immigrants statement to mean extreme vetting, and given the state of the world and the demographics of known terrorists, I believe it's unfortunate but not entirely unreasonable. While I don't personally know any Syrian refugees, I've known plenty of Bosnian refugees in the past. From what they've told me, and what I know of how I'd feel about relocation, I have to believe that the majority of Syrian citizens would prefer to remain in their own country if a safe zone could be established rather than being uprooted and moved across the globe.


While, in theory, a safe zone in Syria sounds nice, I have my doubts about either candidate establishing that. How do you think Trump would accomplish this?

Trump's plan to renegotiate NAFTA is something I've been waiting to hear a candidate support for quite some time. It may be good for the region, but it's terrible for the U.S. His plans to bring companies and jobs back to the U.S. from other countries is also a solid one which will give our economy a much-needed relief. Being tougher on China and other countries which devalue and manipulate currency will also help us on a global level.


NAFTA is, honestly, not a big deal. Sure, it has problems, and outsourcing production to Mexico likely has costs, specifically in manufacturing jobs, so it does form an example of a policy that would likely be more appreciated if anyone other than Trump were proposing it. But, in the grand scheme of things, US manufacturing is probably not going to have a massive rebound in jobs required anyways. And the scale of trade between US/Mexico/Canada is not immense.

In general, his policies in this area are more or less sane, but he's overselling the effects, and his lack of trustworthiness reduces the value of any such promises further. It doesn't matter what he promises if he doesn't get around to doing it.

One thing I haven't heard him talk much about which I really wish he would is how he would handle government entitlements. He talks big about corruption and putting Americans back to work, but with all the social welfare programs spiraling out of control, he'll need to address it sooner or later if he's elected.


It's a traditional republican issue, sure, but you're not going to get it from Trump. He fundamentally isn't a small government sort of person. It is deeply unlikely he will seek to limit his own power.

KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if you pretend that Trump's statements are somehow eloquently worded like yours and that he isn't "really going to build a wall", then I can pretend that Clinton really isn't going to open up a pathway to citizenship and that all of that rhetoric is just fake right-wing propaganda. I mean, really, Trump has made the wall his cornerstone immigration policy for the past year. Its completely fucking stupid and demonstrates his utter ignorance towards this problem.


Honestly, he probably wouldn't build the wall. He might add some fencing or whatever, but the plan of "Make the Mexicans pay for it" will probably not work out. So, we'll see some marginal border security additions, success will be declared, nothing of import will change. The usual, with regards to the border.

ahammel wrote:
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation.
What decisions, specifically, are you worried that the Clinton Supreme Court will hand down?


In fairness, even Fivethirtyeight frames a Hillary election as highly probable to pack the court with liberal judges, and they predict an overall partisan shift much greater than under Trump.

But partisanship is there for either side, of course. It's not great either way.

Personally, I don't want Roe v Wade revisited. It'd just be ugly, and it'd never end. Conservatives have been pretty bad at fighting abortion strategically, though. They can't stop themselves from calling for an outright ban, and it casts every attempt to revisit restrictions in a fairly obvious light. But, conservative judges have not attempted to overthrow RvW yet. Even when they have five judges on the bench. It might mean some bad calls on restrictions, but it's unlikely for the whole ball of wax to *actually* come up. Sometimes, I'm not even sure that pro-lifers actually want change. Sometimes it seems like they just want the eternal battle. Anyways, I think the 14th amendment often needs to be taken more seriously, and that personal autonomy is reasonable, and that even a cursory reading of the founders works indicates a general intent in favor of it. Ruling any way other than how they did would have unfortunate implications, and I'm pretty sure even the most conservative judge realizes that.

On the flip side, I also don't want Heller revisited. This seems much more likely with Clinton in the seat. She hates the decision, and has explicitly said it was wrongly decided. A larger partisan shift in judges makes this a more probable reversal.

sardia wrote:A side note, it's fairly common to say Trump flip flops a lot/can't trust Trump, but don't we have it backwards? Isn't Trump just sending out feelers to gauge the (republican) public perception? Like when he was riling up crowds about abortion, until he went too far, and his base turned on him. Trump immediately backed down on his statement that mothers who abort should be punished. So if the crowds cheer when he proposes brutalizing muslims, then he'll amp that up in the next line.


*shrug* I mean, yeah, that's what he's doing. Just, yknow, crudely. Clinton does essentially the same thing, but much slower. I mean, her shifting to supporting gay rights was no doubt because she realized that this was the politically strategic thing to do. It's something many politicians do to some extent. Trump's particularly crude about it, though, which is a little offputting.

But it's a demagogue vs idealist thing. I'd rather elect someone who actually shares my ideals, rather than someone who'll do whatever the majority wants at the time. It makes for more consistent long term policy. Even if Trump happens to proclaim my exact ideals now, I can be certain that his position will rapidly shift, and that makes him less valuable than someone who can be relied upon to fulfill promises.

Sableagle wrote:
Yablo wrote:It was intended to be a place where citizens could be free to do what they liked as long as they didn't harm another's mind, body, possessions, or livelihood. It was intended to be a place where people had no need to rely on or fear their government.
They also intended "citizens" to include only white people and "possessions" to include all black people.*

Buncha progressive librull weirdoes sure put a spanner in them spokes over the years, eh?


In fairness, slavery was a hot potato even at the drafting of the constitution, and the founding fathers were hardly in agreement on this point. We got a messy compromise that eventually blew up, rather than some unified ideology.

And it'd be a bit of a stretch to give "progressive liberals" credit for all this without a certain amount of distortion. Most anti-slavery stuff was shoved through by Republicans, and it wasn't particularly new, even at the time. Slavery vs anti-slavery was an old, old fight, and what you define as the previous normal depends a lot on what area, social class, etc you're looking at.

gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.


In fairness, the originalist doctrine is *all* about not bending the constitution. That said, not every conservative judge is an originalist, and many certainly have explicitly bent it. Hell, even within the same doctrine, different views on what it originally was could theoretically generate conflict. So, your general point is certainly well taken. No party is blameless when it comes to partisanship.

That said, if memory serves, you do have a strong correlation between Democrats being in control of the court, and prior precedent being overruled. So, if we stop looking for perfection, and look at trends, sure, we can see that Democrats do prefer to use the court as a means of change.

Thesh wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression
That sounds like money = speech to me?


Contributions aren't spending, and Buckley v. Valeo did not strike down the laws on contributions. Spending money on advertising and giving money to a candidate are very different things.


Please. Trying to draw a distinction between contributions and spending is just a way to try to get to the conclusion you want. Are you seriously arguing that the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict charitable contributions? There's broader implications here.

Of course, in practice, everyone is much more eager to defend the right of the rich donor to give a million dollars to a kid's cancer ward than for the homeless person to ask for change.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:39 pm UTC

The fact that the Republican party was responsible for most anti-slavery stuff doesn't mean it wasn't a progressive liberal thing, it just means the Republican party used to be the more progressive of the two.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The fact that the Republican party was responsible for most anti-slavery stuff doesn't mean it wasn't a progressive liberal thing, it just means the Republican party used to be the more progressive of the two.


What makes something progressive?

Was there a time when you would define embracing slavery as progressive?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Please. Trying to draw a distinction between contributions and spending is just a way to try to get to the conclusion you want. Are you seriously arguing that the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict charitable contributions? There's broader implications here.


No, there isn't. Money isn't speech, you can restrict spending as necessary. There is no slippery slope, no one is trying to restrict contributions to actual charities, but money is power and putting limits on that power is necessary to maintain freedom and equality for everyone in society.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

I agree with KnightExemplar abotu the Supreme Court in theory. It's an awkward feature of our constitution and the role of the supreme court that for some issues, the Supreme Court is the path of least resistance.

And I wonder where we would be as a country if not for the backlash that you get from these decisions.

But at the same time, would we be a better country if Brown v. Board never happened? Loving v. Virginia? Obergefell v. Hodges? I can see the argument, but at the same time I don't know how long we would have waited for these advancements to go through state legislatures, and we'd probably still be waiting today trying to get a constitutional amendment. Would the waiting have been worth it? Difficult to say it would.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:03 pm UTC

I think the problem is that Congress is too concerned with trying to keep a majority in their constituencies that they won't do anything that's right until the public has widespread support, which is why we had to fix some things in the courts.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:06 pm UTC

That's a good point. At least theoretically, congress could work faster than the court but that's not really practical in actuality.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:I agree with KnightExemplar abotu the Supreme Court in theory. It's an awkward feature of our constitution and the role of the supreme court that for some issues, the Supreme Court is the path of least resistance.

And I wonder where we would be as a country if not for the backlash that you get from these decisions.


*shrug*

Gay marriage is an issue that came rather a long way without the courts forcing it. Public opinion seems to be the big factor, regardless of venue.

I mean, if you want to bash the amendment process, you of course bring up prohibition. If you want to support it, you bring up a more universally beloved amendment. The less public support a legal change enjoys, the more conflict results from shoving it through. It's not unique to the Court, it happens everywhere.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:19 pm UTC

You're right, gay marriage was a bad example.

But sometimes you want progress to even outpace public opinion. When Loving v. Virginia happened, public support for interracial marriage was around 20%.

Tyndmyr wrote:The less public support a legal change enjoys, the more conflict results from shoving it through. It's not unique to the Court, it happens everywhere.


I agree with this a lot. But then, are these supreme court rulings controversial because it is the supreme court doing it? Or is it just because it is controversial?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The fact that the Republican party was responsible for most anti-slavery stuff doesn't mean it wasn't a progressive liberal thing, it just means the Republican party used to be the more progressive of the two.


What makes something progressive?
I would say one necessary condition would be to want social change (because whatever specific traits you associate with "progress", it certainly must involve change of some kind).

Was there a time when you would define embracing slavery as progressive?
During the period under discussion (early United States history), slavery was the status quo, so embracing it doesn't meet the necessary condition of wanting social change.

More specifically, I'd say that progressivism is a change toward more liberty and more equality, which precludes embracing slavery from ever being a part of it, even if there was at some point an attitude that chattel slavery was or led to social "progress" of some kind.

("Eighteenth century philosopher and political scientist Marquis de Condorcet predicted that political progress would involve the disappearance of slavery, the rise of literacy, the lessening of inequalities between the sexes, reforms of harsh prisons and the decline of poverty.")
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Please. Trying to draw a distinction between contributions and spending is just a way to try to get to the conclusion you want. Are you seriously arguing that the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict charitable contributions? There's broader implications here.


No, there isn't. Money isn't speech, you can restrict spending as necessary. There is no slippery slope, no one is trying to restrict contributions to actual charities, but money is power and putting limits on that power is necessary to maintain freedom and equality for everyone in society.


So we should overturn Citizens, and make it so unions, corporations, newspapers, etc can't use their platforms to support a candidate? Where do you draw the lines?

What if I want to take out an ad on primetime TV and advocate for a political issue. Can I do that? What if there is clearly only one candidate that supports that issue and by proxy it could be said my ad supporting the building of a great wall along the southern border was in fact an ad endorsing Trump? How do you differentiate the different spending and draw the lines? Speech is speech. Just because I have to spend a ton of money to buy an ad slot doesn't make it any different than if I write a book. Or if I write an opinion editorial in a prominent newspaper ready by thousands of people.

This is what the justices had to struggle with on Citizens. And that's why they ruled the way they did. (I am grossly simplifying mind you)

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Gay marriage is an issue that came rather a long way without the courts forcing it. Public opinion seems to be the big factor, regardless of venue.

It did? From the start (here in Massachusetts), most of the states that legalized it did so by court rulings and not by legislative or popular action. When people did vote on the question, they mostly voted against it. Starting from, perhaps, the 70s there was was a broad and slow shift towards gay acceptance that produced a climate where these court rulings were possible, but things would have progressed much more slowly without them.

GodShapedBullet wrote:You're right, gay marriage was a bad example.

(No it wasn't.)
Last edited by Lazar on Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Please. Trying to draw a distinction between contributions and spending is just a way to try to get to the conclusion you want. Are you seriously arguing that the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict charitable contributions? There's broader implications here.


No, there isn't. Money isn't speech, you can restrict spending as necessary. There is no slippery slope, no one is trying to restrict contributions to actual charities, but money is power and putting limits on that power is necessary to maintain freedom and equality for everyone in society.


So we should overturn Citizens, and make it so unions, corporations, newspapers, etc can't use their platforms to support a candidate? Where do you draw the lines?


No. That's not the issue.

If you overturn Citizens United, then unions, corporations, newspapers and etc. etc. would be subject to the local and federal laws. As others have noted, the ruling of Citizens United is a restriction on government... the government isn't allowed to create any laws with regards to regulating 3rd party money and elections anymore.

------

Similarly, if Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow, that doesn't mean that abortions become illegal in New York State for instance. New York will probably keep abortion rights, while other states would make their decisions locally.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:So we should overturn Citizens, and make it so unions, corporations, newspapers, etc can't use their platforms to support a candidate? Where do you draw the lines?


I would say individuals should be able to donate to candidates they are able to vote for, and only an individual and their campaign should be able to campaign for themselves.

trpmb6 wrote:What if I want to take out an ad on primetime TV and advocate for a political issue.

Can I do that? What if there is clearly only one candidate that supports that issue and by proxy it could be said my ad supporting the building of a great wall along the southern border was in fact an ad endorsing Trump? How do you differentiate the different spending and draw the lines? Speech is speech. Just because I have to spend a ton of money to buy an ad slot doesn't make it any different than if I write a book. Or if I write an opinion editorial in a prominent newspaper ready by thousands of people.


You can draw the line wherever you need; if you want a fucking black and white world where what the precise law and where to draw the line can be determined without having to weigh the consequences to society with the importance of the freedom and degree that it is curtailed, then you need to join a religion. Everywhere you draw the line is a grey area, where there are consequences or loopholes either way; you weigh them and determine what's best for society as a whole. This has no bearing on whether or not money is speech.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:35 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:So we should overturn Citizens, and make it so unions, corporations, newspapers, etc can't use their platforms to support a candidate? Where do you draw the lines?


I would say individuals should be able to donate to candidates they are able to vote for, and only an individual and their campaign should be able to campaign for themselves.
This would prevent newspapers like NYT from issue opinion pieces endorsing candidates etc. as that would be campaigning. Should we really ban that?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:36 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Please. Trying to draw a distinction between contributions and spending is just a way to try to get to the conclusion you want. Are you seriously arguing that the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict charitable contributions? There's broader implications here.


No, there isn't. Money isn't speech, you can restrict spending as necessary. There is no slippery slope, no one is trying to restrict contributions to actual charities, but money is power and putting limits on that power is necessary to maintain freedom and equality for everyone in society.


So we should overturn Citizens, and make it so unions, corporations, newspapers, etc can't use their platforms to support a candidate? Where do you draw the lines?


No. That's not the issue.

If you overturn Citizens United, then unions, corporations, newspapers and etc. etc. would be subject to the local and federal laws. As others have noted, the ruling of Citizens United is a restriction on government... the government isn't allowed to create any laws with regards to regulating 3rd party money and elections anymore.

------

Similarly, if Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow, that doesn't mean that abortions become illegal in New York State for instance. New York will probably keep abortion rights, while other states would make their decisions locally.



Fair enough, but my remaining points hold valid. Where do you draw the lines? I personally take issue with any notion of restricting speech. I don't care if a billionaire wants to buy a 24/7 ad buy on some network to show his support for a new world order. Let him waste his money. If a newspaper wants to endorse a candidate using their platform, by all means do so. Restricting speech in any form is dangerous.

I would be interested to see which candidate benefited the most from the Citizens United ruling this election cycle. If it were to turn out that it was Hillary though, I'm sure they would just spin it as a "well we had to use it to counteract the other side".
Last edited by trpmb6 on Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:37 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Gay marriage is an issue that came rather a long way without the courts forcing it. Public opinion seems to be the big factor, regardless of venue.

It did? From the start (here in Massachusetts), most of the states that legalized it did so by court rulings and not by legislative or popular action. When people did vote on the question, they mostly voted against it. Starting from, perhaps, the 70s there was was a broad and slow shift towards gay acceptance that produced a climate where these court rulings were possible, but things would have progressed much more slowly without them.


I should have said Supreme Court, really. There were a number of lesser court battles, yes.

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The fact that the Republican party was responsible for most anti-slavery stuff doesn't mean it wasn't a progressive liberal thing, it just means the Republican party used to be the more progressive of the two.


What makes something progressive?
I would say one necessary condition would be to want social change (because whatever specific traits you associate with "progress", it certainly must involve change of some kind).

Was there a time when you would define embracing slavery as progressive?
During the period under discussion (early United States history), slavery was the status quo, so embracing it doesn't meet the necessary condition of wanting social change.


It was never really the status quo in most of the north. Really, it was two battling status quos. Literally from the beginning of the country.

Both sides believed the way they'd traditionally done things was right.

More specifically, I'd say that progressivism is a change toward more liberty and more equality, which precludes embracing slavery from ever being a part of it, even if there was at some point an attitude that chattel slavery was or led to social "progress" of some kind.


And what constitutes important liberties is somewhat subjective, yes? It's not hard to imagine people complaining over their right to do x restricted by giving rights to others.

Essentially, you're redefining all of past history by the standards of today.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Thesh wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:So we should overturn Citizens, and make it so unions, corporations, newspapers, etc can't use their platforms to support a candidate? Where do you draw the lines?


I would say individuals should be able to donate to candidates they are able to vote for, and only an individual and their campaign should be able to campaign for themselves.
This would prevent newspapers like NYT from issue opinion pieces endorsing candidates etc. as that would be campaigning. Should we really ban that?


That's a matter of how you define "campaigning" isn't it? It seems like you want all law to be based on some completely black and white code, without considering the consequences to society.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:That's a matter of how you define "campaigning" isn't it? It seems like you want all law to be based on some completely black and white code, without considering the consequences to society.


He sort of asked you to consider the consequences, so that's really not fair.

But yes, law should be some sort of black and white code, so much as is possible, so that people know in advance what is legal. If you want laws to guide behavior, people should probably have some idea of what is legal and what is not. This is trivially obvious.

You're refusing to sketch out ANY standard you will be called to defend.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The fact that the Republican party was responsible for most anti-slavery stuff doesn't mean it wasn't a progressive liberal thing, it just means the Republican party used to be the more progressive of the two.


What makes something progressive?
I would say one necessary condition would be to want social change (because whatever specific traits you associate with "progress", it certainly must involve change of some kind).

Was there a time when you would define embracing slavery as progressive?
During the period under discussion (early United States history), slavery was the status quo, so embracing it doesn't meet the necessary condition of wanting social change.


It was never really the status quo in most of the north. Really, it was two battling status quos. Literally from the beginning of the country.

Both sides believed the way they'd traditionally done things was right.


I was going to point this out and then decided against it. So I'm glad you did. Only 2% of the total white population of the US owned slaves at the HEIGHT of slavery. That translates to around 6 or 7% of whites in the South. Definitely not a huge population of slave owners by any stretch.

Slavery was one of our first partisan battles. Many founding fathers found slavery to be hypocritical to our core tenants. But they knew we had to be united. So they compromised. Tragic I know. They at least gave us a venue for rectifying it in the form of constitutional amendments. I know I've read letters from one of the founders who believed that over time slavery would no longer be an economical factor in the south and would cease to be a factor in keeping the North and South united. Little did he know that he was both right but also horribly, horribly wrong. Since it nearly led to the country being split in two. But I can't seem to find the letter I'm thinking of anywhere.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:That's a matter of how you define "campaigning" isn't it? It seems like you want all law to be based on some completely black and white code, without considering the consequences to society.


He sort of asked you to consider the consequences, so that's really not fair.


Okay, let me put it more clearly: There is absolutely no one who thinks writing an opinion article is the same thing as campaigning.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

I never said owning slaves was the status quo. Slavery as an accepted, legal practice was the status quo in the South, and federally.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:06 pm UTC

No, it wasn't. There was a legal split, even prior. The Missouri Compromise is a particularly obvious demonstration of this.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

The Northern states had had slavery too, as had the British Empire in general. The keeping of certain classes of working people in servitude has been a pervading status quo of human societies; the categorical abolition of it, particularly on the basis of something approximating a modern notion of human rights, was an innovation – and a progressive one. You can't just reduce it to a "competing status quo" as soon as it gains sway anywhere.

And the Missouri Compromise was about managing the presence of slavery within the US, not eliminating it. Even at the start of the Civil War, the North wasn't seeking national abolition.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

Sure they were. Yes, yes, it may have been secondary in Lincoln's mind to keeping the states together, but the Civil War was primarily fought over slavery, and both sides were entirely aware of the results that would follow depending on who achieved victory. I am aware that it is, in some circles, popular to pretend that other causes were primary, but even a cursory look at southern states succession declarations at the time will firmly cement that slavery was why they did so.

Culturally, slavery never had traction in the north that it did in the south. This was true from the earliest days of our country. The north *always* wanted to federally regulate it, and the south did not, and the tension over slavery built and built until conflict became inevitable and escalated into war.

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

There is absolutely no one who thinks writing an opinion article is the same thing as campaigning.
How is it different?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure they were. Yes, yes, it may have been secondary in Lincoln's mind to keeping the states together, but the Civil War was primarily fought over slavery, and both sides were entirely aware of the results that would follow depending on who achieved victory. I am aware that it is, in some circles, popular to pretend that other causes were primary, but even a cursory look at southern states succession declarations at the time will firmly cement that slavery was why they did so.

Not in my circles; you're preaching to the choir. My point is that Northerners and Republicans were not, at that time, making serious efforts at abolishing slavery: the proximate motivation was pro-slavery paranoia surrounding Lincoln's election.

Culturally, slavery never had traction in the north that it did in the south. This was true from the earliest days of our country. The north *always* wanted to federally regulate it, and the south did not, and the tension over slavery built and built until conflict became inevitable and escalated into war.

This doesn't contradict the reality that there was a national status quo that was permissive of slavery in the South, even to the point of placing restrictions on the rights of Northern states to oppose the institution within their borders.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:34 pm UTC

Slavery was the status quo at the beginning of the British colonization of the Americas, it just ended in the North before it ended in the South. But in both places it was the abolition of slavery that involved social change.

(The Missouri Compromise was about whether states would have slavery. At a federal level it was still permitted in the sense that some states were allowed to allow their citizens to own slaves. The status quo was to allow some Americans to enslave others, and Abolitionism was an effort to end that status quo.)

My original point was that embracing slavery was never a movement for social change, because the people embracing it already had it. Most of what you've said isn't even relevant to that point, and none of the rest in any way contradicts it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

In other news, FBI is reopening investigations against Clinton's email server.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-reopens-clinton-email-server-investigation-230454
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:42 pm UTC

Nonsense. Slavery banning in the US predates the constitution. Even if you ignore state actions, the Northwest Ordinance is a sweeping federal law banning slavery that predates it.

That doesn't make the Republican party liberal reformists, especially because the Republican Party would not yet exist for quite some time.

The Republican Party was a result of established abolitionism, not the other way 'round.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

The only nonsense here is the increasingly tenuous strawman arguments that you're resorting to. (And I hate to invoke that barnyard cliché of Internet discourse, believe me.) No one is claiming that abolitionism postdates the creation of the United States or the Republican Party; we're pointing out that it was a movement for social change which can be characterized as progressive.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:50 pm UTC

Slavery was permitted in the United States until the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. The Republican and Democratic parties have changed philosophical and ideological alignment since they were formed.

Are you denying both of these facts, Tyndmyr, or just one? If just one, which one?

(And yeah, I've never said or suggested that the Republican party created abolitionism, so I'm not sure why you're arguing against that point no one has ever made.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

elasto
Posts: 3132
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:That's a matter of how you define "campaigning" isn't it? It seems like you want all law to be based on some completely black and white code, without considering the consequences to society.


He sort of asked you to consider the consequences, so that's really not fair.


Okay, let me put it more clearly: There is absolutely no one who thinks writing an opinion article is the same thing as campaigning.
How is it different?

IP laws have fair-use exemptions - which turns something black and white into something with shades of grey; likewise it wouldn't be impossible to have campaigning laws with built-in shades of grey.

The goal shouldn't be perfection - the law is far too blunt an instrument for that - merely to make the situation appreciably better than today.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:In other news, FBI is reopening investigations against Clinton's email server.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-reopens-clinton-email-server-investigation-230454



Yeah. It has not been a particularly good day for Clinton. There is also this audio clip from an interview she had with the Jewish Press back in 2006. It's interesting how a lot of what she talked about then is still relevant today. Not much of it is necessarily earth shaking though. We already knew that her positions on policy evolve with the political landscape and the people she is talking with. Especially in a private setting. I'm not sure what to make of her talk about the Palestinian elections. The Right is certainly trying to paint it as "she's tried to rig elections before!" when in reality I think she was just saying "You don't want to push an election without having a good idea of whether or not the guy you want to win is actually going to win." http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ Note, the observer is clearly a right leaning website and the publisher is the son in law of Trump. That's why I provided my commentary.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Essentially, you're redefining all of past history by the standards of today.
Also, no I'm not. Progressivism as a philosophical and political movement existed at the time you're talking about, and was opposed to slavery.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser, Mutex and 9 guests