But could you try? I'm trying to understand your position but it's very difficult without specifics. Just try to be as PC as possible while saying it, and I'm sure the worst thing that could happen is your post will get deleted.

I agree.

I disagree. I think he loves campaigning.

Why does it spell doom?

If you don't like him, why do you want him more supported?

The distinction that can be drawn is that Victor is correct and you're wrong

Hi bahbahmickey, what do you mean here?

Do you think the fed should have not lowered interest rates? If so, why not?

I'm mostly liberal. (I'm not just saying that to piss off Fly. Though it is an added bonus) For example, I want universal healthcare and I agree that the GOP is trying to use dishonest tactics to try to steal elections.

But where I have a problem is when a person starts saying half the country is evil. Or that only the left wants equality, justice or human rights.

Once that happens, there is no chance of having a productive conversation.

<removed as about a poster>

Oh okay, fair enough. So you are saying you support the left's platform just not necessarily their tactics?

please point out which parts of my post were a mischaracterization.

lets run it down:

-do the republicans support health care for all at a reasonable price?

-did the republicans not just remove protections from the Dodd-Frank bill? did the republicans not just remove a provision which required financial planners to put the interests of their clients above their own (I mean, that is virtually word for word)?

-did the republicans not just remove regulations for dumping into rivers? and for monitoring harmful emissions from certain factories?

-did the republicans not push for voting regulations that target their political rivals to make it harder for them to vote? do the republicans support the electoral college which by definition creates a situation where all votes are not equal?

those are facts. I am not even getting into the even slightly abstract things like putting a guy in charge of the epa that recently wanted to end it. or putting a guy in charge of hud who doesnt believe in that either.

dude, the side that tries to jam "values" down throats is the right. I mean, that is the whole point of conservatism. and you, yourself have advocated for it many times with your calls to return to christian roots and morality.

my side doesnt do that. my side wants ppl to be treated equally and to be afforded their civil and human rights.

The problem isn't necessarily being handcuffed by the rules here. The problem is that if he says what he really wants to say, he'll have to admit a bunch of stuff he doesn't want to admit to everyone. He'll say what he really believes in the company of like minded people that agree with him, and unfortunately, there are a great deal many more of them than the naive left can even imagine.


If he doesn't explicitly say what his beliefs are, he can continue pretending we all don't know what he really thinks, and if he never explicitly states it, he can always deny it. Part of why he doesn't get much in the way of honest discourse from anyone here is that he's already revealed himself. I'll give him credit though, he doesn't try as hard as some of the others to hide it, and I respect that at least, contrary to what this post may sound like.

It's your characterizations of their motivations that I have the biggest problem with. You are suggesting that their side takes a different stance on these issues based on a moral failing.

It's a good strategy if your intention is to rally the troops I guess but it's not so good if you actually want to try to convince people that we need health care for all or that FAs should have fiduciary responsibilities.

<removed as about a poster>

It depends on which position you're taking. If you're arguing about the nuances of which procedures should be covered / are considered essential,and how you dole out those benefits to make sure people aren't exploiting it, you can't tell for sure what their motivations are.

If instead we're talking about whether we should have any minimal level of care at all offered you'd find that the people arguing against it almost certainly are doing so because they value certain peoples lives significantly less than others. That's where policy turns into morality.

The conversation on the impact of how the political debate is fine but don't let it become about taking shots at posters. If there's active engagement on the content from both parties then it might be fine but keep it in bounds please.

If you're unhappy at a post aimed at you then please report it rather than complaining about it here or responding.

Lol.

1) Who's rights are being infringed on or denied?

2) if a change is made, at what/who's cost?

For sake of accuracy, it's 63 million people, or what works out to 1/5th of the country, given that we have to subtract people under 18 or disenfranchised, and further account for the fact that nearly half of voting eligible people don't vote.

There was an attempt made early last week at the signing of a broad, sweeping EO under the guise of "religious freedom" which basically would have been open-season on LGBTQ community members, in that anyone who wanted to discriminate could have done so and then hid behind "deeply held religious views". Now, this did not end up happening, as someone must have informed Trump and his Cabinet that this would be blatantly illegal (and blocked immediately by the ACLU anyway), and we got some worthless Johnson Amendment EO instead; however, it shows the type of thinking this administration is employing.

There are also wide scale GOP efforts to curtail voting rights, not to mention making access to abortion more and more difficult in red and purple states, and their hopes of eventually overturning Roe.

What makes you think it would be "open season"? Do you think all corporations or even private businesses would immediately stop serving LGBT, or do you think that the free market will outweigh the very few businesses who choose not to serve them? There is a reason I mentioned cost. Forcing it upon those who don't believe in it is the cost. For you or me, we'd shrug our shoulders and make the damn cake. Would you make a racist cake? What if you were forced to, by law?

Voting laws are pretty scummy, I agree, but they seem to be beaten down in the courts pretty consistently.

Abortion access is pretty scummy too, but it's really hard to describe as denying people a right. It may be inconvenient but it's not anywhere near impossible. It is a matter of perception. I would agree in certain states they do make it a pain in the ass to get one.

Almost certainly because they value certain lives over others?

We know that we don't have 60+million (fair enough 2outsnoprob) psychopaths walking around the US. Once we start talking about big enough numbers widespread ignorance becomes more plausible than that group being afflicted by some psychological derangement. It is rational to assume most people are at least capable of understanding the value of basic human rights.

From there it's just about winning the war of ideas through conversation but this kind of clutching for the moral high ground gets in the way of that.

The language that was going to be contained in the EO before Trump came to his senses/sat down for his nightly 10-minute pow wow with Ivanka. And, no, I don't think "all" or even many businesses would do any such thing, but that's not the point; the fact that the option would be there, allowed by this administration, is the problem.

As far as the "racist" cake, if it didn't contain a threat or instructions on committing an illegal act, you'd have to make it.

And? At what point should something be forced on someone when their religious beliefs come into play? Should we force Catholic churches to perform gay weddings? There's a tradeoff somewhere. Where do you personally draw the line?

I'm all for letting gays get married. Always have been. What I'm concerned about is what we force others to do in accepting it. At what point are we being unreasonable? As you've said yourself, if that discrimination is allowed the vast majority of business would not discriminate. The same with employees. Businesses pay a price when they discriminate, and in many cases a very big price. If they are willing to do so, then should we still interfere?

If it was legal and IBM made it their policy to never hire another Asian person, they would pay an enormous price for that. The same with any other race. Do we have to intervene?

In this particular case we are talking about an example of a bakery not wanting to serve gay weddings. They would be in the tiny majority, and they would pay a huge price in terms of business. If they are willing to do so to keep with their beliefs, should we intervene, especially if the vast majority of businesses are willing to provide that service?

The religious morons have rights too. It just depends on where we all personally think that should be. Religion is protected under the Constitution so there must be extreme care when dealing with it in particular. I mean, they believe a dude lives in the sky, I think they are all nuts, but what I personally think doesn't mean anything, the Constitution FORCES me to consider their position. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I mean, dont doctors adhere to Jehovah witnesses not believing in blood transfusions even if their life is at stake?

Hell, I'd bet Trump is an atheist and couldn't give a rats ass about them wanting to shoot themselves in the foot. Politically it helps him though. Bush did the same thing and from what I've read he was fine with gays, even believed it was genetic. You sure wouldn't know that from his politics, as he sounded like he hated them.

This might have been a bad example. Racism and religious beliefs are two different things. I don't think you have a right to be racist but you do have a right to relgious freedom. Good point here

You really think it requires a psychological derangement to think that people aren't all created equal? There're a lot of different interpretation of complicated question, and people are obviously not inclined to volunteer their opinions on something so politically unpopular so we have no choice but to try and infer what we can from the policies that they throw their weight behind.

If someone did have grandiose delusions of race science, what do you think it would look like politically? They wouldn't be speaking their mind openly. But they probably would be passionately anti immigration and argue to reduce spending on the underclass who they see as being a waste of resources. Or better yet, lie to them, promise them the world, and then pass legislation completely contrary to their campaign promises.

No one is pushing for this, nor would it be possible to make happen. This is a boogeyman that exists nowhere but the conservative mind.

No one is forcing anyone to accept homosexuality or non-traditional marriage. What people are being asked to do is not discriminate in businesses open to the public, in accordance with federal law and basic business practice. The red-state baker needs to bake the cake, then presto - they go back to hating gays because Jesus told them they were bad all they want.

We have laws in this country for a reason. When it comes to an issue like this, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act are what's relevant. IBM can't do this. Nor is it reasonable to say that IBM should be able to do it, and we'll just let their business suffer if they do. That's not how it works.

They often don't end up suffering. Look up Memories Pizza in Indiana, which attempted to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Mind you, these are people who likely brought home, like, $600 a week, who conservaslime Dana Loesch managed to raise $800,000+ for, as a REWARD for hating people over who they sleep with.

This is good.

This is also good. I'm in agreement. Trump likely doesn't care one iota about religion and is likely an atheist/agnostic/"non-religious" etc, but could never have said so because it would have instantly ended his campaign.

I think you dismissed this too much. Aren't some Churches in Europe forced to marry gays? It may have been a Protestant one but I do remember seeing something years ago, I'll look it up. My point is valid, though. Just a few years ago I'd have scoffed at the idea that American college students would have the power to protest conservative speakers and create safe spaces and riot at Berkeley. Literally would have laughed at the idea. Not anymore. It's not funny at all what's happening.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm asking more philosophically. Religion and religious people have freedoms too. I don't know where to draw this line.

I think it's absolutely reasonable, but it might not be smart. That's why I think the free market should take care of it. At what point can the government dictate what is considered discrimination? When does the government start telling businesses how many of what type of people they need to hire instead of letting them do it themselves? I've been to many bars and clubs that were obviously discriminatory in their hiring practices. Hell, when the Borgata opened in Atlantic City they had a weight requirement.

This is a single instance, and was more of a way for one side to "make a point".

My entire premise is at what point is the pro-gay side over reaching specifically in terms of religious belief?

Woops

Anti-gay bigotry is reasonable to wil.

Absolutely 100% it's reasonable. Without a doubt, beyond question, there is no debate it's reasonable.

Lol at you for thinking everyone in America has to accept what YOU believe.

I'm an atheist and pro gay. In no way, shape, or form do I think my beliefs should be imposed on other people in their private lives, as I don't ever want their beliefs imposed on me in my private life. THATS HOW THIS ALL WORKS.

For you to even say such a thing is beyond laughable.

If you can convince a person that a certain policy leads to needless suffering then it would take a psychologically deranged person to not care at all about that. All else being equal the vast majority of people would vote for less suffering.

This isn't to say that there aren't a bunch of irrational things that can get in the way of people changing their minds about something. (fear, ego, tribalism etc)

I also think that you are maybe arguing against something other than what I was objecting to. To suggest that there is an evil tail wagging the whole dog is different than suggesting all republicans are scumbags.