Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[popper]

I think how one approaches the issues discussed in this thread is important in understanding the arguments presented. For example, I'm not a materialist (and I don't think Nate is either). Judging by the arguments presented here I suspect most of you are. If that is accurate then lets debate on those materialistic terms. If that is not accurate please advise on what other terms the debates should be conducted. Please have the courage to disclose your foundational beliefs so we can ascertain the most effective means of debate.

[pancakes3]

You can have democratically dictated rights for things that affect people equally but things get blurry when the right in question disproportionately impact the population differently.

If you want to limit, say, the right of someone to use drugs, or drive cars, or build an addition to their garage within 5 feet of their neighbor's yard, sure, vote in the legislatures and pass rules locally as you see fit.

laws that target a minority, especially a protected class, cannot be left to the "democratic process" because those rights are too easily trampled by a majority. That's the entire point of having a bill of rights. people could democratically vote in laws like slavery, or denying women the right to vote, or outlaw homosexuality. people can vote to ban guns, endorse stop and frisk (4A violation), cruel and unusual punishment (death penalty for the mentally disabled) and it's all fair game, so long as the local legislature passes it. it's not too hard to see that without the 1A, some states would successfully ban CNN and others Fox News. The Bill of Rights protects us from ourselves. That is the purpose of having a bill of rights - not federalism.

The right to abortion is one of those rights that are too easily trampled by the democratic process. For one, the person bearing the consequence, namely women, disproportionately bear the brunt of the punishment. Men and women each have a vote, and men are more easily able to vote to ban abortions, despite not being the one impacted by the repercussions. For another, wealthy people are also insulated from the repercussions of being forced to carry a child to term against their will.

Moreover, these are arguments that were already adjudicated in the 70's when Roe was first decided. SCOTUS really doesn't have any legal reasoning to overturn it. The offered explanation is that they do not believe that the 14th amendment provides for a right to privacy. That's an ideological disagreement. Rightfully or wrongfully, those rights have already been afforded to Americans for 50 years, and have been enjoyed by Americans for 50 years. Taking that right away isn't just correcting the record, it materially affects Americans and how they live in society.

On a practical level, SCOTUS did not give the practical impacts of their decision any thought, and the only goal was to overturn Roe, by any means necessary. There was no thought as to how people have to readjust their way of living, how health care providers have to change their medical practices, etc. It was deeply irresponsible, and without cause or merit.

Overturning Roe is one of the rare instances where the government took an existing right away. Taking a 30,000 ft view of the jurisprudence, it's just a shocking position for Clarence Thomas to take in saying "I know we have 50 years of precedent that provide for a right to privacy that has resulted in a full body of law that further cemented that right in other manifestations such as gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. but we think that those are too many liberties, and we need to strip those liberties away from the American people."

Nate's argument is that "well, the democratic process will decide whether people should actually enjoy those liberties" which, as a premise, is stating that less freedom is the correct position.

[dckingsfan]

Yes, it threw them out the window, but it didn't REVERSE them. With Roe vs Wade the standard, our position on abortion was ultimately decided by 9 people in robes. All it would take is to get 5 sufficiently zealous judges and anything was possible. I argue we were closer to a no-abortion allowed dystopia then than we are now with the decision being made democratically.

Rights being left up to what passes in the US as democracy is one reason why there was a civil war. It will lead to balkanization and unraveling of the united part of the united states.

Yeah. That looks destined to happen. I blame social media which has pushed each side further and further into their echo chamber. I don't recoil from it though. I see no particular reason why all 330 million of us should live by the same rules when we can't begin to agree on them. I welcome a separation. Folks on both sides will be much happier.

The first that would happen is we would default on our debt. You think inflation is bad now - go talk to the folks in Venezuela.

Second, our collective economies would contract big time.

Third we would begin create borders and arm those borders - it might only be like Mexico... but still. Forget being a worldwide power - China then gets to dictate currency and trade. Want to hear the right scream... And armed conflicts across the world would increase along with nuclear proliferation.

Fourth, you don't like Russian or China meddling in our affairs - well, get used to it.

No - in the end, no one would be happier or better for a breakup.

[dobrojim]

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

[dobrojim]

Someday several decades from now we'll solve this problem and undo the damage these six murderers did. But in the intervening years thousands and thousands of women are going to suffer and die, for no reason except hate.

I don't understand how one can be so blinded by ideology that one can conclude that the pro-life side roots their position in "hate" rather than a genuine concern for the lives of babies. There are reasonable arguments for both viewpoints, but your ranting and raving like a lunatic isn't useful or persuasive.

They're not 'babies'. End of story.

[popper]

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

Edit - are you a materialist or do you have some other foundational/spiritual belief system? The answer will help me relate to you. Please have the courage to answer.

[dckingsfan]

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

I thought "without use of any false equivalency". DeSantis and Scott have ethical issues. Then you flipped to the Biden family.

It matters not - we will get what you started and get two or three more terms of Trump.

[pancakes3]

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

Edit - are you a materialist or do you have some other foundational/spiritual belief system? The answer will help me relate to you. Please have the courage to answer.

From a political standpoint, there are only material policy decisions. A government can't provide for its citizens through spiritual means. This isn't to say that spiritual satisfaction isn't important, just that it's not as important a consideration when debating politics.

Spirituality is a deeply personal, and individual matter. Even in congregations, a priest can have a sermon, but to gain substantive spiritual guidance, you need to engage on a personal level, and the Government is not equipped, nor is it designed to provide that sort of guidance.

Moreover, the separation of church and state is explicitly written into the Constitution. So from a formalist perspective (it's explicitly disallowed by the Constitution) and a practical perspective (it is impossible to create policy on a macro level using micro-level considerations), there is no way to coherently build a non-materialistic political framework.

In being a person who does not care if a person is gay or trans, how do you view Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs saying that he's explicitly ready to overturn Lawrence and Obergefell? What do you think about DeSantis passing a Don't Say Gay bill in your state? What do you think about DeSantis's retaliation against Disney for the same? What do you think of him issuing official guidelines in direct contradiction to federal guidance stating that transitional treatments are not to be provided to children and adolescents, including nonmedical, social treatments such as the adoption of pronouns, hairstyles, clothing, and use of bathrooms?

[popper]

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

I thought "without use of any false equivalency". DeSantis and Scott have ethical issues. Then you flipped to the Biden family.

It matters not - we will get what you started and get two or three more terms of Trump.

Wrong again DCK. I was asked to condemn Trump independent of former presidents. I was happy to do so. Not sure why exactly as I've condemned Trump numerous times on this thread. Subsequently I responded to a different post about different individuals.

If it makes you happy then I independently condemn Scott and Biden for their ethical shortcomings. This is becoming ridiculous.

DCK - are you a materialist or do you have some other foundational/spiritual belief system? Please have the courage to answer.

[dckingsfan]

If it makes you happy then I independently condemn Scott and Biden for their ethical shortcomings.

false equivalency...

[dckingsfan]

From a political standpoint, there are only material policy decisions...

A difficult concept.

When we start applying our belief systems to governing it immediately leads to rationalization.

I will vote for Trump because he is on my team and believes in what I believe in. Then those on the other team become "against" that belief system. And what happens - less people attend church (as an example).

This forcing of belief systems onto government has been an abject disaster for the US.

The ideology of Christian supremacy helped create legislation that dispossessed native people...

In the fifties it was used as a mechanism for racism...

Now is no different.

[popper]

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

Edit - are you a materialist or do you have some other foundational/spiritual belief system? The answer will help me relate to you. Please have the courage to answer.

From a political standpoint, there are only material policy decisions. A government can't provide for its citizens through spiritual means. This isn't to say that spiritual satisfaction isn't important, just that it's not as important a consideration when debating politics.

Spirituality is a deeply personal, and individual matter. Even in congregations, a priest can have a sermon, but to gain substantive spiritual guidance, you need to engage on a personal level, and the Government is not equipped, nor is it designed to provide that sort of guidance.

Moreover, the separation of church and state is explicitly written into the Constitution. So from a formalist perspective (it's explicitly disallowed by the Constitution) and a practical perspective (it is impossible to create policy on a macro level using micro-level considerations), there is no way to coherently build a non-materialistic political framework.

In being a person who does not care if a person is gay or trans, how do you view Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs saying that he's explicitly ready to overturn Lawrence and Obergefell? What do you think about DeSantis passing a Don't Say Gay bill in your state? What do you think about DeSantis's retaliation against Disney for the same? What do you think of him issuing official guidelines in direct contradiction to federal guidance stating that transitional treatments are not to be provided to children and adolescents, including nonmedical, social treatments such as the adoption of pronouns, hairstyles, clothing, and use of bathrooms?

Thoughtful response Pancakes. I'll try to respond in detail soon. I have medical appointments tomorrow. Your first sentence though doesn't make sense to me. The foundation of our entire government is that we have natural rights emanating from God, not man.

Edit - BTW I didn't appreciate your comment earlier that I either don't really worry for my kids or grandchildren or that my worries are misplaced. How about I respect your worries and you respect mine.

[popper]

If it makes you happy then I independently condemn Scott and Biden for their ethical shortcomings.

false equivalency...

Why don't you answer my question dck? Please muster the courage. It will set you free.

[Pointgod]

I see you can’t condemn Trump without trying to create a false equivalency between Bush, Clinton, Obama (like WTF) and Biden (even more WTF).

I think you’ve said before you’re a Desantis guy right?

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

Oh, for some reason I thought you were an Ohio guy like Nate. I would love to live in a world where the most evil, dangerous Republican in the US was DeSantis. He doesn't scare me as much as Trump does. I'd still hate for him to be President but I wouldn't be wistfully reconsidering my choice not to move to Frankfurt in 2006

You should really look up Desantis. He’s a monster like Trump, except less impulsive and way more cunning. He’s lies and gaslights breathlessly like Trump and he’s gone full on dictator in Florida. It’s ironic that the Florida Cubans love him when he acts exactly like a South American dictator. Desantis should scare the hell out of your because he’ll pretend to be reasonable but is the same type of sociopath as Trump

[Pointgod]

I hereby condemn Trump (without use of any false equivalency). Yes, for now I would support my governor Desantis for president.

I guess you don't have any gay or trans family members. DeathSantos is a clown.
His agenda is basically fascist, all based on singling out whatever 'other' is
the most convenient target of the moment. And then there's the head in the sand belief
that more guns is the answer to our appallingly violent society.

Maybe you voted for that crook Scott too. You're not making a very good
case for rationality.

I do have a gay family member, recently deceased. He was a super intelligent lawyer but a troubled soul and drug/alcohol addicted. I don't personally know a conservative in my circle that cares whether a person is gay or trans. Scott has ethical issues just as the Biden family does.

Edit - are you a materialist or do you have some other foundational/spiritual belief system? The answer will help me relate to you. Please have the courage to answer.

First, my condolences on the loss of your family member.

I think the question you need to ask isn’t whether you care if someone in your circle is gay or trans, but rather if they have the equal rights afforded to everyone and if they should be discriminated and targeted against because of who they are. I’m sure you’d be disgusted if someone was targeting your family member and calling them a groomer simply for existing. That’s the atmosphere that Desantis has fostered in Florida and the right wing is spreading nationally. Cynically attacking and targeting marginalized people for political power. For people truly concerned about division in the country giving Desantis power can literally only add fuel to the fire.

[Zonkerbl]

Read on Twitter

[Kanyewest]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/liz-cheney-republicans-trump-constitution-00043374

Interesting rift between Cheney and Trump although the Cheneys have been fairly unpopular since the Bush administration

[dckingsfan]

If it makes you happy then I independently condemn Scott and Biden for their ethical shortcomings.

false equivalency...

Why don't you answer my question dck? Please muster the courage. It will set you free.

It is a false choice. Start with a false premise and work from there.

When did you stop beating your wife?

What you are asking is: choose a side based upon your belief. What did that get us? We have a weaponized religion sect that has given us Bush and the forever wars and Trump and everything that falls from that. You voted for Bush and Trump based upon that false choice. The country will pay the price for that in terms of national debt, inability to deal with climate change, the melt down of our healthcare system, institutional racism, etc..

[Zonkerbl]

I think it's just extraordinarily difficult for people who have succumbed to the temptation of Satan to prioritize their hedonistic needs over everyone else's to break out of their delusion and realize their actions are causing actual harm to other people for no good reason.

I think this is what has happened to the force birth people. They've embraced evil - "the ends justifies the means" - and yet explaining this as simply as possible to their face has no discernible effect.

I mean, I get it - if I were someone who took pride in my moral superiority by dint of being a member of an extremist Christian sect, it would be difficult for me to admit that I was in fact a Satan worshiper. It's embarrassing and humiliating. But you know - it happens to everybody. Look at the Scientologists. We're preprogrammed to be deluded, to make up crazy explanations for our irrational behavior. We're pack animals that value loyalty to our team - "facts" and "logic" are recent, artificial, synthetic inventions that directly contradict our evolved behavior.

[queridiculo]

You should all be very afraid of what's bound to happen next.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-federal-elections-state-legislatures/

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats.

The court will look next term at a case from North Carolina, where Republicans want to restore a redistricting map that was drawn by the GOP-led legislature but rejected as a violation of the state constitution by the state’s supreme court.

The Supreme Court in March let the North Carolina high court ruling stand for the upcoming fall elections. But three of the court’s conservative justices at the time said they were skeptical state courts had a role in refereeing the rules for federal elections, and a fourth said the issue was ripe for consideration.

[...]

But the effort to have the Supreme Court examine what is called the independent state legislature doctrine has been a Republican-led effort. The GOP controls both houses of the legislature in 30 states.

The doctrine comes from the U.S. Constitution’s election clause, which says that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” While most often invoked in the redistricting process, the independent state legislature doctrine would also give lawmakers control over issues such as voter qualification, voting by mail and other election procedures.

In the past, that has been widely interpreted as giving states that power, but in a shared manner between residents and the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

Minority rule from here on and out and forever.

This is what the subversion of Democracy and a slide into Autocracy looks like.