Because one is exactly like the other in the minds of regressives. My point is legislating biblical morality is bullshit, and legislating equality and justice is the duty of a cohesive society. Are they both morality? Yes. But certain people wanted to nit-pick my comments because I insulted a political party.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I am not a regressive, and I will show you exactly how 'progressives' have legislated their view of morality upon others. It is a Constitutional right that we have ability to freely associate. That right has been held by the Supreme Court to accrue both to the individual and to groups. Frankly, this is a no-brainer. Any free society believes that you can speak with whom you like, and enter into relationships with whom you like. For instance, regulations that banned interracial marriage were struck down (and rightfully so). Regulations that required groups, such as the NAACP, to reveal their member lists were struck down (and rightfully so). Now there is a huge difference between public and private. As a government by the people, and for the people, the government, and its agencies, are not allowed to discriminate against anyone. Everyone is supposed to be 'equal under the law' - and this is exactly what MLK and the Civil Rights movement was advocating. The right of a person, regardless of sex, race, religion, to be treated precisely the same BY THE GOVERNMENT. Those words in caps are for emphasis. Now let's turn to the idea of Freedom of Association and private action, because this is a very different analysis. If, as the Supreme Court has held, the right of association is an individual right, it is necessary that I also have a right to NOT associate. You can't have one without the other. Think of it this way, if I'm free to choose whom I associate with, for instance, to marry whom I choose, then by that choice I am necessarily choosing to NOT marry others. It may seem obvious, and it is, but here's where liberals tend to get tripped up. By forcing anyone to associate with someone they don't want to, in a private context, they are abrogating that person's right to associate. Through regulation, the government is forcing you to associate and enter into relationships - private, business, or otherwise, that you would not choose. For example, Affirmative Action. This is a clear case of a liberal moral legislation. It requires certain private employers to employ certain groups in certain numbers, This is not freedom. Requiring that a private person (such as a landlord) rent a certain amount to certain groups - regardless of that private person's choice in the matter, is also moral legislation. In essence, liberal moral legislation follows this train of thought: We believe that private individuals should enter into associations with x number of group y, regardless of that private person's feelings on the matter. Now these legislative moves have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course, neo liberals will scream 'BUT WAIT, IF WE DON'T LEGISLATE SUCH ASSOCIATIONS THEN GROUP X WILL BE UNFAIRLY TREATED' and then the leave off the 'by private persons.' Because there is a clear delineation between public, and private acts. And by forcing a private person (usually through the idea that since you are regulated by the state in x regard, you now are subject to whatever laws governing you we choose to create, including losing your right to freely associate. The Supreme Court has held that private contracts must not discriminate. So while I certainly agree that neoconservatives have long attempted to legislate morality, neoliberals have done the same thing. Now, you may like a certain outcome better than another (for instance, I think privately discriminating against a group is morally wrong) but there is no difference in saying 'you are free to not serve group x' and saying 'you are free to serve group x' in a private context. Ultimately, as with any freedom - true freedom isn't choosing what I would, it's choosing what I wouldn't. Actual, honest to God freedom can result in very distasteful choices. Abrogating that freedom, because group x doesn't like your choice regarding y, is moral legislation.
My friends family are hardcore Trump supporters, and they're not afraid to share their beliefs. I got a good look at how they view the world this weekend. One of their central arguments is that Trump is a successful business developer and because of that knows what it takes to develop an economy and run a country. They said his speech was due to him being a New York person and thats just how they are. They were kind of laughing that the Republican Party can manage to stop him. It all sounded kind of shallow. He's a business developer great, whats he know about developing an economy? Whats he know about international affairs, about diplomacy with countries who have different social norms who may not react to his personality positively? Whats his view on social issues? I didn't ask any of these questions but its things they kind of glanced over. This family is great, very warm and welcoming and generally I stay out of political discussions so I didn't really challenge their views. What I came away with is the whole Trump movement is very hollow and there's not much content to him besides his claim I will win which gets people excited.
"One could argue that his business dealings in other countries actually make him more qualified in that regard than many of the other candidates." Clinton was Secretary of State, not a comparison he's going to win.
That right there has me laughing. This hits the nail on the head so hard. They don't even follow what he says. Stuff that has been public knowledge, and reported on, they either are unaware of what he actually says, or think the benefits of social progression only applies to themselves and not everyone else as well.
I honestly think that is part of his appeal. Most people are pretty liberal on social issues outside of the religious right but they can be as bat shit crazy as the extreme left. I don't think either extreme is a prime example of where most Americans feel comfortable. I think the idea is to find a candidate that will let people and hopefully keep the economy strong. I'm not saying I think Trump can or will do those things but he fits the idea that I think many have. I'm also interested to see if his message changes after/if he gets the nomination. It feels like some of what he's doing is pandering to get votes and his actual platform may come out later.
You're sure about that? Spoiler There's obviously more to her work in foreign diplomacy but this is all that matters to many people. She got an ambassador killed on her watch. Juice Edit: I'm all for making a point and illustrating with harsh truths, but let's at least make a courteous effort to spoiler it for people who might not want it.
Oden this is why I don't get bogged down in political conversations. That was a fucked up terrible situation, no doubt she has some level of culpability. However, its not comparable to Trump. Trump had no way of effecting that situation when it occurred so its senseless to bring this up. Its impossible to say if he would've made things better or worse.
Another reason I don't get involved I don't favor any candidate whatsoever, but you assume bc I'm a millennial I must be a Bernie supporter, well done. I stay out of political conversations bc looking to listen to people not shout them down and tell them how stupid they are.
Trump does not have a platform. He does not consider himself a politician. He considers himself an entertainer competing in a reality show. That should be obvious to anyone who reads or listens to any interview with him where he discusses his campaign. He does not have a plan or the same opinion day to day or any idea of what he'd do while in office. He just blurts out whatever comes to mind at any given time and this entire thing has been completely driven by his ego. It has been so completely baffling to see him being taken with even a modicum of seriousness. And I don't understand how the majority of his appeal for a lot of people is based on this image of him as a successful businessman. Most of his business ventures have been goddamn failures, and most of those goddamn failures have been complete scams (and he is being sued for one of them). He's bankrupted CASINOS. He said it was a great time to start a mortgage company because of how strong he knew the real estate business was going to be for a while, in 2006. Pretty much all of his success except for The Apprentice has just been piggybacking on his dad, it's not really his to claim. The only supporters that make a little bit of sense to me (like actual supporters, not the people who are going to vote along party-lines regardless) are the people who say they like him because he "speaks his mind" or whatever and have either not been paying attention or have been too stupid to realize that the party leaders have been saying and wanting the exact same things for decades but have had to code it. They all think Mexicans are rapists too, they just know they're not supposed to say what they mean. And now they're all pissed because Trump's blowing their cover and they have to pretend they have no idea how Trump was created. The fact that he's the frontrunner is a complete embarrassment.
How do you think we feel? It was a choice between Hitler and Goebels. Somewhere The Lamb just opened the 7th Seal. I'm disappointed Cruz will not be joining us for the election because the debates would have been side splitting. Debating Trump will just be sad. Facts do not stick to that man. However, a huge bonus is we got to see Fiorina fired 3 times now. So, the convention.
There is one thing predictable about Trump: he will not do one single good thing for America. He doesn't know anything, and he's not what what his supporters insist he is: he is not "tough", he is not "cool" and Im sort he's not fucking smart, he's stupid There is such a thing as a He's a spoiled, constipated baby who for as long as I have had memories has been nothing but a disrespectful sack of anuses. Bankrupting corporations left and right and suing anyone who speaks out against him. And the goddamn regressive left is what helped spawned this doughy dingleberry who very well might beat Clinton (unles Sanders runs indie as he should) who will do nothing...NOTHING for this country. How is a Lucky Sperm Contest Winner become a "man of the people"? Because the tribe has become too watered down: morons outnumber the smart. And now these morons get to elect one of their own to be empires of the galaxy. What effects America effects us all. If only Hillary is left, all that Trump has to do is not talk whatsoever in any debates and he'll win. His mouth will make him lose, she'll destroy him there. That, and the no doubt 100 plus scandals he has simmering under the surface. You're gonna tell me this guy is clean? Honky please. Slimy enough to dry up with salt. And the funniest thing? We still dodge a bullet by Cruz dropping out. Can you imagine HIM in charge? How does the worst US politician of the 21st century get this far? Why do the BIGGEST nuts run for the GOP and not the reserved ones? Huckabee, Bachhman, Cain, Cruz.... absolute, without debate, deranged human beings.
Hey speaking of rapists, if Lena Dunham leaves the country because of a Trump win, maybe it wont be all bad?
As I have chosen to abstain from voting based on the options, I haven't paid too close of attention. Is the ticket officially set at this point? Is it going to be Trump v. Clinton?
I honestly didn't know much about Trump's businesses except that he made money in real estate in NYC, and he filed bankruptcy on some casinos in Atlantic City, and he built Trump Tower in Chicago. So I looked him up, and your claim is not quite accurate. http://time.com/3988970/donald-trump-business/ People who hate Trump will read that article and say "See, look at all his failures." People who support Trump will read it and say "See, he has plenty of successes." The truth might be somewhere in the middle. There might be a little bit of hyperbole in your post.... This has been the most interesting election of my lifetime for me (and I'm kinda old), mostly because I had a grand realization that it really doesn't matter. It finally occurred to me that most of my life I've fretted over each presidential election, being happy as a clam when my guy won and worried that the U.S. would fail when the other guy won, and that it really never mattered that much anyway. The Republicans predicted the demise of the U.S. when Mr. Obama won in 2008, and again in 2012. It didn't happen. The Democrats predicted the demise of the U.S. when Mr. Bush won in 2000 and again in 2004. It didn't happen then either. What most people don't realize, and would probably never admit even if they did, is that the U.S. presidential election is mostly a popularity contest, and we mostly vote for whoever makes us feel the best. Everyone overlooks their own candidate's faults and points out how disastrous their opponents would be in office. In the end, Trump will be a crappy president, Hillary will be a crappy president, Cruz would be a crappy president, and Bernie would be a crappy president, because whoever wins the election will not have made it based on the real issues affecting us, but because that person made the most people feel good about electing them. I've said this before here, but it bears repeating: Congress is the institution that has the most control on our lives, but as long as each of our representatives brings as much of other people's money as possible back to our districts, who the fuck cares what else they do? They keep the spotlight on the president, which feeds that person's ego, and Congress goes on about their business screwing over the American public to keep themselves in office, which satisfies their own perverse thirst for power too. The American people are none the wiser, because they've never bothered to turn off TMZ and read the Constitution. Collectively, we get the government we deserve.
It matters. It's huge. With Scalia's death the Court is split pretty much evenly between conservative and liberal. The next president, whoever he or she may be, will appoint the tie breaker on the Supreme Court. That one appointment, regardless of your political leanings (For the record, I'm a pinko liberal.), should be enough to make you want to get off your ass and go vote.