Elephants and Jackasses...

Just out of curiosity, why do you have quotation marks around rights?

 

Looks like it's Canada's turn!!!

Kevin O'Leary from Shark Tank announced he's going to run against Trudeau in 2019.

 

So kinda like the US version of primaries when we had like 30-odd people running for the GOP nomination?

One of the big things I've learned this election is how little I know about the way politics work in other countries, so I'm trying to remedy that a little.

I think trump is gonna make an entire generation very politically active, either for or against him.

 

As with most things, when you start talking about "rights" it gets into a very messy territory between what's an actual right and what shouldn't be legislated. 90% of the complaints levied by the protesters marching aren't about equal rights, they are more about social currency equality which shouldn't be something the government gets involved in. When you are having your government spending time on enacting laws surrounding gender usage of bathrooms, what an absolute and complete misuse of time and energy.

 

This is a weird ass chicken and egg argument. Except we know what comes first. Laws come first. Then judicial review. And our Constitution is pretty explicit about who should be setting policy. Hint: it is not the judicial branch.

You're right. It's called electing people to create or repeal laws that are good and bad for the country. They are given broad latitude to do so. Necessary and proper and all that jazz. SCOTUS doesn't determine whether laws are good or bad. They determine whether they are constitutional. That's it.

Should legislators use more restraint? Maybe. Depends on the law. Bathroom bill laws are stupid. Child labor laws are not. A law that would have legalized marriage for gay people across the country wouldn't have been stupid. It would have righted a severe wrong.

You think passing laws is easy? Whoo boy. But creating a law isn't bypassing the system. It's using the system in the fucking Constitution. And little recourse? The recourse is either a) legislative or b) judicial. The latter of which isn't fast and easy, but you pointed to that as a pro not a con.

You can argue executive actions bypass the system, but it is silly to say that Congress can. Either way, if people have a problem with it, guess what they can do? Bring it to the courts.

 

Agreed. Laws do come first, then judicial review. With that said, we've empowered the government to enact laws in places they shouldn't even be semi-involved in. We've given up control over so many aspects of our lives by involving our government in every.little.detail. of our day to day living. This creates the environment we are in today. Looking to the government to completely control our lives and being crippled when they can't or someone is in power who doesn't agree with either the loud majority/minority.

The law legalizing marriage for gay people across the country was more about receiving the federal benefits of being considered legally married more so than the social acceptance of gay marriage. In that case, yes, gay marriage should be legalized. All marriages between human and human should be recognized, no questions asked. Going a little deeper, something like the Red Cross denying blood from a gay man is not something which should require legislation. There is a statistical increase of risk of in a subset of the population and with something as crucial as an ample supply of clean, voluntary blood donations, voluntary being the key word here, we shouldn't hear a peep about this, yet, it's an issue being brought up as a denial of "rights" against gay men.

Passing a law is generally easy. Laws get passed daily around the country. I never said creating a law is bypassing the system. Executive orders, backroom ACA deals, highest bidding lobbyists, suspect business interests, these are things which shouldn't be involved in the creation of laws. In addition, we've again empowered our legislatures to tackle issues and pass laws they shouldn't be touching with a ten foot pole and selling out the population to the highest bidder on things that actually REALLY matter to our everyday lives. The TPP is a prime example. Something which would have had far reaching and potentially catastrophic impact on our country, drafted by a group of fucking blood suckers who had no business even going near something as complex as another trade agreement without bringing in some non-biased, well educated people. I'm also not saying ordinary people shouldn't be involved in law creation, just that something as monumental as that trade deal could have been, should get a little more vetting than a 6 month rubber stamping through congressional committees. We have wet land impact studies that lasted longer than the creation of the TPP.

 

To also further my point the women's march was nothing more than a dislike of Trump, this is now circulating around the celebrity twitter circles which I'm sure is going to get traction for all the wrong reasons.

https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/823328548362403840

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/823642931772932096

Please continue to tell me this is not completely based around the fact of disliking Trump, with the issues being just a nice undercurrent to try to add a little legitimacy to crowd sourced complaining.

 

Le Pen is leading right now because the two other major candidates are splitting their votes. In polling done on head to head match ups, both of them are beating Le Pen by 60-40 or better.

 

Ahem. "we've decided the easier way is to work around them by allowing congress or a president the power to bypass the entire system and put in place their own ideas with little recourse"

That may not be what you meant, but it is definitely what you said.

Just out of curiosity, how do you propose we get a legislature that doesn't sell out the "population to the highest bidder?"

 

Even if it is about disliking Trump is this a bad idea? You just wrote a post essentially saying you want our politicians to be held to high-minded norms about governance, so shouldn't you be out there marching about this?

Hell forget governance, he promised to do it. Don't you think politicians should be held to their word?

 

Yes, politicians should be held to high-minded norms about GOVERNANCE, releasing your tax returns, regardless of who has done it and for how many years they've done it, has nothing to do with governance. It's a bullshit dog and pony show which has zero meaning.

Do I think politicians should be held to their word? For the most part yes, but seeing as how the average person lies an inordinate amount of time every day, glass houses and all that jazz.

Just to clear up as well, he promised to do it when his audit was over. I didn't realize the last day to file your 2016 tax returns was the magic date when Trump's audit was going to be completed. It's a profoundly dumb symbolic notion draining more energy from focusing on something of value and instead trying to court social capital because you don't like the guy. Again, if these marches were really about something of value, this type of shit wouldn't be the next jumping point.

 

Well, the story has morphed a bit. Kelly Anne Conway said they wouldn't be released period. Now she reverted to the original stance of them being released after the audit is over. Link

And it could very well be about governance. We won't know. He could be doing a lot to increase his own personal wealth. We don't have a very good idea about that. Don't say you don't like shady backrooms and then take away a flicker of candlelight.

You're holding the president of the United States to the same standard you do the average person? Jesus fucking christ. It's becoming clear that you don't really mind shady shit going down as much as you mind democratic causes being advanced.

Trump and his pals literally want to have a say about what women do with their own bodies. The idea that you would write that off as something without value is telling.

 

The first part is a bit disingenuous. It's not a requirement to release your financial history to become president. It's a nicety people have done to show the air of not being corrupted, but as I said, it's primarily a joke. People were trying to tear apart Bernie Sanders tax return because he didn't show his full deduction long form blah blah blah. I can only imagine the absolute shit storm of criticism if Trump has even .05 of money unaccounted for or designated to something people may not agree with.

Yeah I'm holding the POTUS to the same standard I would any one else. They aren't any different than your average person. They are people running for office. To elevate them to some sort of deity status is inherently wrong.

Trump and his pals want to have a say about reproductive rights, another thing government shouldn't be involved in. Yes, to me, the idea is without value because it's a discussion the government shouldn't be having in the first place. On either side. There was already a law passed allowing abortions, right wrong or indifferent. Having the president or vice-president leading the charge and drafting legislation to repeal the law, that is a misuse of their office. When you see that actually happening, then you march and protest. Until that point in time, it's nothing but media driven fear mongering.

And before you say, but but but Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood is funded in part by federal allotment of medicaid. At any point in time, the program can be cut, just like any other program the government decided to cut. If a congress decides they don't want to allow medicaid to be accepted at Planned Parenthood centers anymore and it passes the voting process in the legislature, poof it's gone. Just like what happens to some military bases or medicare prescription plans or any of the other thousands of programs out there which take federal funding of some sort. They are all subject to the same cuts, whether we agree with them or not. There are very few protected services the government can't touch in one way or another.

 

I'm not holding them to some diety status. Higher standard than the average person is still a pretty fucking low standard. But okay, so you think politicians and lawmakers deserve the same treatment as the average person.

And yet, earlier you said you wanted them to not engage in backroom politics, not be engaged with suspect business interests, bring in well-educated folks, and again, basically be high-minded statesman who look out for the good of the American public in a non-partisan way. People who can avoid doing that don't sound like average people. Hell, they don't even sound like average politicians i.e. folks who are still at least generally held to a higher standard than the average person with them being civil servants and all. We at least try to do that. I mean, we just elected someone who threw all of that shit out the window, but I don't think anyone is going to say, "We need political candidates who are even worse. Hell, Popped Cherries for President. That sounds like a grand idea. Gravy for governor too!" Fuck no. The idea that you think the person who has their hands on the nuclear button should just be your average run of the mill person is preposterous.

But Let's just stick with lying. Straight up naked lying. You think that's fine and expected, but backroom politicking shouldn't be allowed or acceptable? One kind of goes hand in hand with the other, no? Your position doesn't make any damn sense here. None at all.

Besides all of those things that you're outlining as to what politicians should do? Yeah, they just amount to niceties. There is nothing more requiring them to do that than what the American people will tolerate by sending them to or kicking them out of office. So you like some norms and not others. But the only reason I can see that you're shrugging off one norm is because the side you dislike is mad about it being disregarded. You don't like liberals. That's the impetus for your criticisms about all of this.

I guess you could say we should pass more laws regulating behavior of elected officials, but that doesn't fit with your LIBERTARIAN vibe that I'm picking up.

You're acting like January 20th, 2017 was the start of this. It's not. None of this exists in the vacuum. Want to know how effective the "Well, the government shouldn't be having this discussion in the first place" bit is to stopping a political agenda? It's zero percent effective. Why? Because they don't want a say; they have a say. They have power. They can do shit and there is very little anything anyone can do to stop them in any meaningful way right now. Elections have consequences. The only thing people can do is cause a ruckus and remind them that the next election has consequences too. That's all. That's what the protest was about. The protesters wanted to send a strong message that they don't approve and will keep fighting tooth and nail. I'm not sure how you're so willfully obtuse about this. Trump, Pence, Republicans et al have said repeatedly that they wish to curtail abortion rights. Hell, Trump took it a step further and said women should be punished for having abortions at one time. And you think the laws around abortion are set? Oh, Roe v. Wade was decided and that's it. You're not paying attention. We have already had these discussions in this thread, so I won't post it all again: but to sum up, Republicans go to extraordinary lengths to limit access to abortions. Roe v. Wade is not set in stone by any means. Hell, next week in Washington there is another big protest that occurs every year called the March for Life. You have people on the other side imploring their leaders to "misuse their office" and enact policy that goes against the letter and spirit of Supreme Court decisions on abortion. They don't give a shit about the concept of stare decisis. Fortunately, the courts have thus far.

But guess what, Trump has a Supreme Court pick. At least one, probably more. He was emphatic during the debates that he wanted to appoint pro-life justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and kick the issue back to the states.

If that happens, it will be a Republican victory that they have been dreaming of since 1973. It will have taken them over four decades to accomplish. How long do you think it would take for women to get those rights back?

You want people to wait and see what's going to happen? They are telling us what they want to do over and over again, in no uncertain terms. It would be the high point of idiocy to think "oh maybe, they won't do what they have said they are going to do all along." It's not media driven fear. If people waited, it would be too late. The cynic in me says it is already too late. Elections have consequences. And remember, in your opinion, laws are easy to pass.

So why wait for one to be proposed? The hardest part about getting laws passed is getting your team elected and in place. The Republicans control all three branches of the federal government to one degree or another. They can and most likely will do everything they can to solidify their power (remove the filibuster, appoint more conservatives to SCOTUS and other judicial benches, further tinker with districts later, etc.)

But suuuuuuure, better to just wait it out and see what happens. Wouldn't want to annoy all the Popped Cherries of the country with one day of protest that reminds political leaders that there are a lot of pissed off people wanting to counter their agenda That would just be too much.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. After the election losses this cycle, we are in need of about 1,000 pounds of cure and every ounce of prevention we can get.

 

As for the tax returns, I think our politicians should be held to a higher transparency standard than your average American. Most governments, state and local, have very strict policies on the behavior of their employees. I work for the state of Texas, and I can be fired without warning for even the smallest appearance of impropriety. The APPEARANCE of, not the actual instance of. As an inspector, I've been offered meals and other types of trinkets(t-shirts, pens, etc.), things that hold little to no value all the time. And I politely refuse every single thing. I can accept a bottle of water, though. Even if their inspection is complete, I can take nothing because of how it looks. When I put in a mileage claim for my driving, if its not correct to the exact penny, I get nothing.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring complete financial transparency from people in the highest offices to make sure they have no conflicts of interest or will be financially enriched from holding office.(beyond their actual salary, and other possible investments)

 

It moves the needle quite a bit that way when you look at it as if Merrick Garland should have been Scalia's replacement. And you're right. Roberts isn't a sure bet to overturn Roe. But he's not a sure bet to uphold it either.

Basically liberals are having to rely on old people not dying and John Roberts's judicial principles. I think we are understandably nervous about all this.

 

Seriously? Just take a moment to look at the amount of anti-abortion legislation that's come out of the last 8 years. Conservative states have been doing everything in their power to gut reproductive rights and healthcare. It is WAY harder to get an abortion in most states than a gun. And getting an abortion has absolutely no physical impact on any other living breathing humans, while clearly guns don't meet that standard. And the Supreme Court HAS dredged Roe v Wade back up on a number of occasions. Sorry if women care more about their own bodies than about your ability to buy a gun right now no questions asked.

 

I'm calling it now, Mattis/Trump is the relationship to watch, especially when it comes to NATO, Russia, and the Intelligence Community.