|
Nice job on the OP. That is a pretty impressive amount of material for a monthly thread.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Radish posted:I agree that the US has a lot of puritanical roots but at the same time our media is hyper-sexually charged and people want sex. You can't just tell people that safe sex is now gone because "we said so" and not expect an extreme backlash from people that are used to it. If they kept it to the oppression of poor people (via pricing it too high unless you had an insurance company negotiating it for you like with Hobby Lobby) then I can see it festering for a while but the religious true believers won't be stopping there. We as a culture use sex to sell things, but then hold it up as the forbidden fruit that people should be ashamed of having. Plus, we're trying to ensure that the poor remain poor, and that there are enough poor people to exploit into the future. Taking family planning away from the poor knocks out two birds with one stone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Nice job on the OP. That is a pretty impressive amount of material for a monthly thread. I'm pretty sure he's just c/p from the last month's op and then adding stuff at the end or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:We as a culture use sex to sell things, but then hold it up as the forbidden fruit that people should be ashamed of having. Plus, we're trying to ensure that the poor remain poor, and that there are enough poor people to exploit into the future. Taking family planning away from the poor knocks out two birds with one stone. Which I agree with. I just don't think they are going to stop with the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Honestly, after the ruling Obama should've just said "no, gently caress you guys. Congress has sole authority over these matters and if you don't like it you can eat poo poo, we're going to continue enforcing the VRA" and force a showdown while directly calling out people like Roberts on their long held desires to dismantle the VRA. Be he didn't. And he won't do anything when the court goes 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby and we see ALEC go twice as hard at pushing religion-defense bullshit nationwide. Uh, what if the states say no, and implement their racist voter suppression laws anyway? Does Obama just go full-on Constitutional Crisis and deploy the 101st Airborne again to enforce his will without congressional approval or even the justification of enforcing a court order? Ehhhh thanks anyway, but that's okay, I'd rather not give President Perry moral standing to say "gently caress you SCOTUS, privacy isn't in the constitution, so states if you want to go back to banning abortion and sodomy, and start executing minors again, have at it, I'm ordering the executive branch not to interfere or enforce any that SCOTUS horseshit, 9th Amendment baby!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I'm pretty sure he's just c/p from the last month's op and then adding stuff at the end or something. At a brief glance it appears a lot more has been added and the c/p is from the post he made last month so I'm not really sure what your point is. It's still pretty impressive and I say this as a person who probably isn't exactly in his "target audience."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:Which I agree with. I just don't think they are going to stop with the poor. Agreed. I think we're going to swing back to some Guilded Age hellhole within my lifetime. It's a huge reason to why I've made very sure to not have kids-- nobody deserves that kind of oppression given to them, and refusing to give the 1%ers another body to extract value from may be one of the few ways to actually hurt them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Why would they co-sponsor it? They have nothing to gain for themselves by doing so and anyone who does so knows they'll be primaried. The SCOTUS ruling was literally "Congress has the ability to set the VRA guidelines it's just that the current ones are too out of date so they need to pass new ones". I mean yeah the intent was to gut it and there's no way that it'll pass in this Congress but SCOTUS is agreeing with you there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:At a brief glance it appears a lot more has been added and the c/p is from the post he made last month so I'm not really sure what your point is. It's still pretty impressive and I say this as a person who probably isn't exactly in his "target audience." My point was an attempt to explain how it got so much material, I don't think he's ever trimmed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Yeah the GOP has a million reasons why they shouldn't move the VRA amendment forward this year. It would only stop their state/local buddies from disenfranchising 'certain people' from voting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah the GOP has a million reasons why they shouldn't move the VRA amendment forward this year. It would only stop their state/local buddies from disenfranchising 'certain people' from voting. They've gotten what they need, so there's no point in hiding it anymore. What are black/poor people going to do, vote them out of office with the franchise that they lost?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The SCOTUS ruling was literally "Congress has the ability to set the VRA guidelines it's just that the current ones are too out of date so they need to pass new ones". The thing is that the SCOTUS really doesn't have the authority to say they're out of date, and the argument of it being out of date was such a blatant lie that Obama should've publicly called them on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The only way they were out of date is every state should probably be forced to have their voting laws approved since holy poo poo people have really decided Jim Crow needs a second chance pretty much all over the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:This does work sometimes but the more studied and practiced ones will reply with "The rights of one person end where the rights of another begin". And while that's true, it's also a lovely argument and then it takes us right back to "is a fetus a baby?" and they'll never, ever concede on that issue. For this reason I find the argument of "should government be able to mandate liver donation, enforceable by arrest and being chained down to a stretcher while they do it?" to be more useful in explaining my opinion on the matter. It cuts out the "fetus has right to life" arguments because the person in need of a chunk of liver is unquestionably alive, and it also allows an easy segue into discussion of banning things which might potentially prevent the donation (No alcohol! That worked out great last time). Also the complication rate for a living liver donation are lower than that of pregnancy. But that's only if someone asks me and is one of those wishy-washy on the fence about it people. Actively arguing a true believer is just a dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
greatn posted:Look, you may not agree with their methods, but witches don't exist anymore, and I think the Puritans are at least partially to thank for that. Darkwater? Is that you? It's been so long!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:The only way they were out of date is every state should probably be forced to have their voting laws approved since holy poo poo people have really decided Jim Crow needs a second chance pretty much all over the country. Pretty much the second you remove legal anti-discrimination requirements the practices snap right back to Jim Crow-era policies and half the country thinks that racism is over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:They've gotten what they need, so there's no point in hiding it anymore. What are black/poor people going to do, vote them out of office with the franchise that they lost? They will need more as demographics change. You will definitely see poll taxes/literacy tests and the like return to GOP state legislatures as demographics change more over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The thing is that the SCOTUS really doesn't have the authority to say they're out of date, and the argument of it being out of date was such a blatant lie that Obama should've publicly called them on it. Although I agree with you because the Radical Republicans specifically wrote the Reconstruction Amendments to give all discretion to Congress to keep the racist-rear end 1860's SCOTUS from undoing the Civil War...if Congress thinks the SCOTUS exceeded its authority here, the Constitution gives Congress several ways to deal with that. Obviously that sucks because Congress is currently interested in doing both jack and poo poo, but I don't want to go back to Jacksonian executive disregard of court orders. Radish posted:The only way they were out of date is every state should probably be forced to have their voting laws approved since holy poo poo people have really decided Jim Crow needs a second chance pretty much all over the country. Counterpoint: the current SCOTUS is totes cool with disenfranchisement, so as long as you don't literally write "no blacks" into your voting laws and thereby signal that racism isn't actually over, they'll probably approve whatever. The VRA needs to be a constitutional amendment specifying the NAACP as the election law pre-clearance granting body. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They will need more as demographics change. You will definitely see poll taxes/literacy tests and the like return to GOP state legislatures as demographics change more over the years. Yup, but everything I see tells me the VRA is going to die after it hits its next sundown date (It has one of those, right? that's the reason for reauthorization), so all this stuff will happen post-haste. I doubt it will hurt me personally because I'm male and white (and can pass for straight and Christian) but it will pretty much be the end of the country as anything other than a hollow apartheid state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yup, but everything I see tells me the VRA is going to die after it hits its next sundown date (It has one of those, right? that's the reason for reauthorization), so all this stuff will happen post-haste. I doubt it will hurt me personally because I'm male and white (and can pass for straight and Christian) but it will pretty much be the end of the country as anything other than a hollow apartheid state. It will just make red states redder pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually it would change those arguments' effectiveness, because the Court (and most Americans) aren't going to buy the argument that mandating straight-up contraception coverage is actually a substantial burden on religion. But since the men on the Court seem good with that argument when it comes to abortion, the tactic is to claim whatever you hate causes abortion according to your beliefs and count on the court's reluctance to pass judgment on the validity of religious belief. The substantial burden analysis does not turn on the specifics of what's being mandated. It'll be about Hobby Lobby having to pay for health insurance (if it has a claim under RFRA), and the Greens indirectly paying for that as owners of the company. http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/04/3a...gious-practice/ The contraception-specific piece is in strict scrutiny which is more complicated. rkajdi posted:They've gotten what they need, so there's no point in hiding it anymore. What are black/poor people going to do, vote them out of office with the franchise that they lost? So do you actually have evidence states have been doing poo poo to try to do this? Voter id has minimal impact on turnout. Evil Fluffy posted:The thing is that the SCOTUS really doesn't have the authority to say they're out of date, and the argument of it being out of date was such a blatant lie that Obama should've publicly called them on it. Counterpoint: City of Boerne v. Flores. rkajdi posted:Yup, but everything I see tells me the VRA is going to die after it hits its next sundown date (It has one of those, right? that's the reason for reauthorization), so all this stuff will happen post-haste. I doubt it will hurt me personally because I'm male and white (and can pass for straight and Christian) but it will pretty much be the end of the country as anything other than a hollow apartheid state. The sundown date is only for pre-clearance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
quote:
I want to repost this, and stare at this, and admire this because it is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:
Higher impact on election results than voter fraud "prevented" by these measures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It will just make red states redder pretty much. It could also make battleground states (FL and VA in particular) red again. Plus, the big issue to me is that it's actually going to oppress the people living there. Lots of people can't leave the hellholes they live in right now because of money or family support issues, and I'd expect that would make things worse. You can't run an apartheid state without an oppressed class, after all. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:So do you actually have evidence states have been doing poo poo to try to do this? Voter id has minimal impact on turnout. We've just seen Alabama try to bring voucher tests (specifically made illegal under the VRA) back http://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/naacp-legal-defense-fund-calls-state-alabama-stop-using-discriminatory-voucher-test. If that's not enough to make you think these ingrates are trying to rise up again, I don't know what else to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The substantial burden analysis does not turn on the specifics of what's being mandated. It'll be about Hobby Lobby having to pay for health insurance (if it has a claim under RFRA), and the Greens indirectly paying for that as owners of the company. http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/04/3a...gious-practice/ You're probably right about strict scrutiny, but either way I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the SCOTUS is a lot more likely to rule for Hobby Lobby if this is about abortion instead of birth control, which is why the right is spinning it that way. Roberts was really, really interested in pinning down the government at oral arguments over whether their logic would permit congress to require actual abortion coverage if they wanted, so he could move into "ah but here they believe these things cause abortions so it's the same thing!" The religious right has spent 40 years convincing people that miscarrying a few cells is like cutting up a squalling baby, crying about persecution, and wedging in the idea that anytime the government makes it easier in any way for a woman to get an abortion, it's religious oppression. It's certainly no accident that now that they've largely succeeded there, all of a sudden they're discovering that more and more contraceptives cause abortions and even the very definition of what is an abortion grows wider and wider.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The religious right has spent 40 years convincing people that miscarrying a few cells is like cutting up a squalling baby, crying about persecution, and wedging in the idea that anytime the government makes it easier in any way for a woman to get an abortion, it's religious oppression. It's certainly no accident that now that they've largely succeeded there, all of a sudden they're discovering that more and more contraceptives cause abortions and even the very definition of what is an abortion grows wider and wider. Yup. For all these idiots being all about the Constituion and being Founder cultists, they sure aren't willing to understand that the right to privacy and an abortion is now part of the 9th ammendment and thus on the same level of importance as all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. But of course if you undermine the actual right to something via economic violence, you can keep up appearances enough to get away with it for a few years until you have inertia on your side again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yup. For all these idiots being all about the Constituion and being Founder cultists, they sure aren't willing to understand that the right to privacy and an abortion is now part of the 9th ammendment and thus on the same level of importance as all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. But of course if you undermine the actual right to something via economic violence, you can keep up appearances enough to get away with it for a few years until you have inertia on your side again. You're an idiot if you think they actually care about rights in all of this garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:You're an idiot if you think they actually care about rights in all of this garbage. I agree. But it should be called out when they try to hide behind the facade of Important Dead lovely White Men and act as if any of it matters one iota.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:My point was an attempt to explain how it got so much material, I don't think he's ever trimmed it. I've trimmed and rewritten several sections as they get resolved, more information comes out, or they fall out of date. I've also added a lot of material to it, it's about 17 pages now. There's a reason it takes me several hours to put it together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:No details, but Naval Medical Center Portsmouth has issued an "Active Shooter" alert It's a drill. Been scheduled and announced for a week or so. Either that, or a horrendous coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They will need more as demographics change. You will definitely see poll taxes/literacy tests and the like return to GOP state legislatures as demographics change more over the years. 24th amendment bars poll or other taxes preventing voting. Of course it only does that on the federal level, one of the states (Arizona I think?) was looking to split federal and state voting eligibility to being back proscribed restrictions
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I agree. But it should be called out when they try to hide behind the facade of Important Dead lovely White Men and act as if any of it matters one iota. If only the -Ds had the balls to. Really, though, we have social media now. Use it to correct people with communist stuff like facts and properly collected data. Then crawl even deeper into the bottle when they say "Your facts are interpreted as lies in my brain." ^^^ Holy poo poo I remember reading that. I think it is Arizona. Seems like something that'd take the fast-track to the SCOTUS, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
By 'on the federal level', do you mean for offices in the federal government, or elections that the whole country takes part in, which is pretty much just the presidential election? Is it likely that anyone would argue that technically, even the presidential elections happen at the state level, since you're voting for electors who then vote for the president?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Higher impact on election results than voter fraud "prevented" by these measures. Well obviously. But pre-clearance wouldn't help (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board). VitalSigns posted:You're probably right about strict scrutiny, but either way I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the SCOTUS is a lot more likely to rule for Hobby Lobby if this is about abortion instead of birth control, which is why the right is spinning it that way. Roberts was really, really interested in pinning down the government at oral arguments over whether their logic would permit congress to require actual abortion coverage if they wanted, so he could move into "ah but here they believe these things cause abortions so it's the same thing!" Rereading the transcript it looks like it was just Kennedy asking about it once unless I missed something. But who knows what the logic will be until the decision comes down. made of bees posted:By 'on the federal level', do you mean for offices in the federal government, or elections that the whole country takes part in, which is pretty much just the presidential election? Is it likely that anyone would argue that technically, even the presidential elections happen at the state level, since you're voting for electors who then vote for the president? Poll taxes violate EPC at every level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:It could also make battleground states (FL and VA in particular) red again. Plus, the big issue to me is that it's actually going to oppress the people living there. Lots of people can't leave the hellholes they live in right now because of money or family support issues, and I'd expect that would make things worse. You can't run an apartheid state without an oppressed class, after all. I'm kinda confused at the voucher test thing. In Kentucky for example you need to identify yourself with a photo id or some forms of nonphoto id OR be known by a poll worker. I have always been vouched for by a friend's mom who always volunteers as an election judge for the precinct I've been in. This appears to be the system that Alabama wants to implement however with a more restrictive id checking system (Kentucky is pretty much anything thing your name to the address you're registered at). The concern is that they'd let through any white people that didn't have id and deny anyone else which seems quite reasonable. Why is my state allowed to do what it does? Also, I thought that the old outlawed voucher system was something where you were required to have an election official say you lived in the precinct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
made of bees posted:By 'on the federal level', do you mean for offices in the federal government, or elections that the whole country takes part in, which is pretty much just the presidential election? Is it likely that anyone would argue that technically, even the presidential elections happen at the state level, since you're voting for electors who then vote for the president? I believe it applies to elections for any federal officeholder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
I always thought it applied to all elections, but nopequote:
Due Process does apply to all elections though. Bush v Gore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This appears to be the system that Alabama wants to implement however with a more restrictive id checking system (Kentucky is pretty much anything thing your name to the address you're registered at). The concern is that they'd let through any white people that didn't have id and deny anyone else which seems quite reasonable. Why is my state allowed to do what it does? Bottom line is it shouldn't have. Though it was probably allowed to pass by some combination of the following: * The Justice Department civil rights division being a giant pile of poo poo under every president from Reagan to Bush II. * That the ID requirement in KY is much, much lower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:If only the -Ds had the balls to. The Democrats are as bound up in "tradition" and "civility" as the GOP is. It's bad enough that have to worry about being outvoted by living shitstain bigots, I don't see why I should have to repsect the opinions and thoughts of dead ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:Bottom line is it shouldn't have. Though it was probably allowed to pass by some combination of the following: These are Kentucky's options for voter id for reference: KAR posted:(1) Personal acquaintance - "PA"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:46
|
|