US Politics

[FredEffinChopin]

I'm fairly certain we won't see eye to eye on this specific point, but I need to make sure that I am being understood as intended before letting it go.

 

I'm not citing the invalidity of their religious beliefs as a basis for saying that their religious beliefs don't qualify them for these specific exemptions. Hobby lobby has two separate beliefs (ridiculous as the beginning of that sentence is) that bear on their stance on these 4 contraceptive methods. One of them is a religious belief that prevents them from participating in anything abortive in nature. The other attempts to be a scientific sort of assertion about when a pregnancy occurs. You can't combine the two just by saying "religious" in between them, or by saying the scientific assertion is religious because the person that holds them is. If someone is trying to argue that the thing they don't want to pay for is something that they believe is against their religion, they should be able to demonstrate that that thing is what they say it is, which in this case is abortion. What's not to stop abstinence from being abortion next? Or the 16 other contraceptives that they are agreeing to provide? It's a misunderstanding of the methods in question, and I don't think it should be confused with religious belief or protected as such. 

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, it's really more like they're saying "life begins at insemination" and any interference after that point is abortion.

[TheRevanchist]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/migrants-buses-california-protests/11938555/

 

Immigration is an interesting topic in politics and is becoming more of a national issue as of late. There are a few views that follow this topic.

 

The main argument against illegal immigration is the cost. In California, approximately 20% of the state's budget goes to supporting illegal immigrants. The cost of illegal immigration when the US is struggling to keep afloat is a sticking issue amongst conservatives, though the Republicans in my area are not like those from other non-agriculture based areas, as they have a lot of friends and workers they strive to support.

 

The argument for helping illegal immigrants is that we need to help people. We are a privileged nation and need to offer any help we can to those in need. The illegal immigrants are coming to find any food and healthcare they can get, as they know there is not a future for them without leaving the terrible places they come from.

 

There are other issues that go along with these, but these are the main divides as I have seen them.

[Vecha]

I'm sometimes embarrassed to be an American...we are pretty much last place in almost everything when compared to other Western Countries. 

[deanb]

UK has a pretty bad case of anti-migration at the moment, sort of a combi with the "anit-EU" we apparently have according to the news (polls suggest we care more about jobs and cost of living than EU mind). So don't feel too bad. Does seems to be a wave of isolationism spreading around the globe. Sort of a knock on from the recession I guess.

[TheRevanchist]

Agreed that the problem is more than just the US.  A lot of countries have had this issue, as there is always a sense of nationalism and not being accepting of those who are 'not like us'.  That's human nature.  It's your actions that make you the man you are, not what country or state you are from and certainly not what actions your government may take, either way.  Take solace from what you do and what you support.

[staySICK]

I wonder how much of a decline we'd see if legal immigration was easier and cheaper.  I understand the need for background checks and the like, but as I understand it the current process is way too convoluted and really expensive.   

[TheRevanchist]

I would think that the process should take some time and will be expensive.  First off, you need to make sure that the person you are admitting full access to the country is not a serial killer or repeated rapist.  Background checks and such would take time and money to investigate.  And, with government, they probably do their work using WordPerfect 5.1 (because it was the best back in the 90's).

[FredEffinChopin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-congress-is-in-session/2014/07/01/0f9e9dbe-015a-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html

 

Interesting for a couple of reasons, but depressing for the comment section. 

[TheMightyEthan]

Sigh...

[Mister Jack]

I believe it was Churchill who said the quickest way to kill your belief in democracy was to have a five minute conversation with the average voter.

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh, my disillusionment has nothing to do with the voters, it's the ridiculous procedures set up for the minute-to-minute operation of the government, most of which is not constitutionally required, it's just how they chose to run things.

 

I mean yes, sometime's I'm frustrated with the populace as well, but I can understand that different people are going to have different views about things, even if it's for stupid reasons.  It doesn't crush my soul the way the government's procedures do.

[Vecha]

I believe it was Churchill who said the quickest way to kill your belief in democracy was to have a five minute conversation with the average voter.

 

it was, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”"

 

But I like your quote a hell of a lot more. 

[TheRevanchist]

When it comes to US politics, there are some big injustices that have been going on in regards to policies and legal restrictions.

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1966503

 

In this instance, the workers are trying to get rid of the union that has not represented them for 20 years, but is trying to force them to become members.  The workers for this farming outfit number in total of 5000 people.  That's a nice pool of people paying union dues!  However, the employees have been super vocal they want nothing to do with the union.  They make better wages than what the union offers.  Better wages than what the union offers.

 

Now, the ALRB (Agricultural Labor Relations Board) went and, without asking the employees or asking the employer for any input, wrote it's own contract and wanted to enforce that upon the workers and the farm, without signatures and without a vote by the workers.  In true democratic fashion, the workers voted on whether or not the union should be allowed in.  However, the ALRB, knowing that they are losing this battle and losing it's power base with the UFW (United Farm Workers, whose board shares family members and friends with the ALRB board), has decided that the votes must have been corrupted by the farmers.  No evidence this has taken place, only the spouting out of BS from the board's mouth.  Therefore, they do not want to even open the boxes and count those votes to see if there was a decision made.

 

This has been a terrible thing for the workers.  They have protested on major streets.  They have protested at the state's capital.  They have protested at the hearing where the judge made the decision.  This contract actually prohibits the workers from being able to protest, which doesn't make sense to either the farming outfit or the employees, except that they can't protest what the ALRB and the UFW wish to do.

 

No one has made sure their voices have been heard, which is the EXACT thing a union is supposed to do, but the UFW and ALRB have not performed any tasks at this farm, ever.  Now that the UFW has had a 90% reduction in membership from it's peak, the cash cow is slowly going towards death, ending the jobs of the UFW board members as it dies.  They need to bring on more union dues to stay alive.

 

You can read more about what the ALRB is suppsoed to do at their website:  http://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/aboutus/abouttheboard.html

[staySICK]

I love about 85% of this article.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U7ldNPldXRt

[TornadoCreator]

I believe it was Churchill who said the quickest way to kill your belief in democracy was to have a five minute conversation with the average voter.

 

Indeed, it's why I feel there should be an exam before people are allowed to vote. My suggestion is, if you can't explain 5 policies that you candidate/party support, your vote doesn't count. It would mean half of Ron Pauls votes wouldn't count, as well as a massive amount of UKIP votes in UK. It'd also mean those people who vote in USA to make sure the government keeps out of Medicare while arging AGAINT socialised medicine, and the people in UK voting to stop benefit fraud and immigration loopholes that don't actually exist; these people would all be ignored finally... letting important issues that actually exist rise to the top. It may be hard to set up, but it'd be worth it.

[deanb]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7

 

I've heard whispers of this. Is it really a thing? Seems super stupid, as well as something you'd think was illegal given modification to car and all that, never mind the environmental angle.

 

II'll have to read the politico article, popped on a feed other day but didn't have time to check out.

[TheRevanchist]

I have not seen such a thing. I've seen cars driving with American flags on them, like 3 at a time.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I'm sure there are people who do it, but they must be rare, because I live in one of the reddest states and have never seen that before.

[Alex Heat]

I actually saw one of those chumps the other day.  Confederate flag and Nascar bumper stickers and everything.

[TornadoCreator]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7

 

I've heard whispers of this. Is it really a thing? Seems super stupid, as well as something you'd think was illegal given modification to car and all that, never mind the environmental angle.

 

II'll have to read the politico article, popped on a feed other day but didn't have time to check out.

 

So glad I don't live in the American south, it's this kind of thing that would push me to violence; and with guns legal over there I'd have surely killed someone by now.

[TheMightyEthan]

I dunno, I've managed not to kill anyone yet.

[Alex Heat]

Ethan knows a good cleaner is all. 

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7

 

I've heard whispers of this. Is it really a thing? Seems super stupid, as well as something you'd think was illegal given modification to car and all that, never mind the environmental angle.

 

II'll have to read the politico article, popped on a feed other day but didn't have time to check out.

 

So glad I don't live in the American south, it's this kind of thing that would push me to violence; and with guns legal over there I'd have surely killed someone by now.

 

 

Criminals who aren't allowed to own guns have guns. The legality isn't the issue.

[TheMightyEthan]

Legality is part of the issue. Someone who isn't a "criminal" but happens to own a gun is way more likely to use it in a fit of rage than someone who doesn't own a gun. But yeah, people who really want guns to commit a crime are always going to be able to get them.