All The Things You Aren't Supposed to Talk About : Politics, Religion, & Money! && Grammar!!

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#52
Bernie is far from acting like Trump, from the opposite end of the spectrum. He's been the one avoiding attacks on HIllary, and maintaining the debate on issues instead of gossip and electability. He's not a flip-flopper, or an instigator. His audience isn't even the uneducated, those guys are basically firmly locked in behind Hillary's veil of free good feelings for everyone.

Look, if my job was to make you think that Bernie is just like Trump, and after seeing a couple of Bernie signs at an anti-Trump protest you already believed it, I'd take a trip to Cancun because clearly I have the easiest job in the world and I could do it in my sleep.

If you're looking for the kind of people that can create media storms out of anything using social media, don't look at the past couple of months, look at the past couple of presidential terms when Facebook and Twitter grew to massive proportions. The people that have spent years figuring out how influence public opinion through social media and create media storms are not under Bernie's wing.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
#53
Bernie is far from acting like Trump, from the opposite end of the spectrum. He's been the one avoiding attacks on HIllary, and maintaining the debate on issues instead of gossip and electability. He's not a flip-flopper, or an instigator. His audience isn't even the uneducated, those guys are basically firmly locked in behind Hillary's veil of free good feelings for everyone.

Look, if my job was to make you think that Bernie is just like Trump, and after seeing a couple of Bernie signs at an anti-Trump protest you already believed it, I'd take a trip to Cancun because clearly I have the easiest job in the world and I could do it in my sleep.

If you're looking for the kind of people that can create media storms out of anything using social media, don't look at the past couple of months, look at the past couple of presidential terms when Facebook and Twitter grew to massive proportions. The people that have spent years figuring out how influence public opinion through social media and create media storms are not under Bernie's wing.
I never said Bernie was acting like Trump. But that there "mobs" are the same people. For where I'm at, watching and talking To this is 100% true. There all saying "yeah I support this guy because there gonna give me free education." Or "hell yeah this is my guy he's gonna build a wall".

They are the same, focusing on very basic and simple reasons to cast a vote for so & so. And maybe our experiences with people are different but from where I sit they are the same group.

As far as Sanders and Trump being the same.........no, just hell to the no.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#54
Results from tonight's primaries:

Wyoming: Cruz 66.3% (9 delegates) , Rubio 19.5% (1 delegate), Trump 7.2% (1 delegate), and Kasic literally received no votes.

Washington DC: Rubio 37.3% (10 delegates), Kasich 35.5% (9 delegates), Trump 13.8% (0 delegates), Cruz 12.4% (0 delegates). ]

Total Delegates: Trump 460, Cruz 370, Rubio 163, Kasich 63.


Wyoming had less than 1000 people vote...what gives Wyoming? What else did you have to do today? Like take a nap on your rocking chair or something?

Washington DC was all for the most establishment types. No surprise there.

The big game...errr...election will be this upcoming Tuesday! I'm ready to see some more folks get shuffled off the stage and get the real election process up and running.


"That's all Folks!"
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#56
All of these career politicians are sociopaths, and Trump is a narcissistic sociopath, despite note being a career politician

we need accomplished (not in politics) people that actually give a shit as our leaders....

I still say we need somebody like a Larry Page (Google), he is powerful, and knows how to wield power, he created his own success, he is super super super smart, often does things in unorthodox ways, understands technology and what it means to society, is philanthropic, and as a CEO is taking actions to help provide free information to impoverished and isolated countries, as well as looking for ways to save lives and advance civilization...

He is just about perfect to be a President... only problem... he doesn't want to be, nor does anyone who is actually qualified...


we value all the wrong things in society right now... we want people who have a firm handshake, can look us in the eye, give us a sparkling white smile, pose for a handsome photograph, speak eloquently without offending us... you know who has all of these valued traits? psychopaths, charismatic, unphased (society seems to think this is valuable because it means they are tough and wont look away, in reality they don't look away because they are incapable of empathy and don't feel bad about committing, or seeing atrocities.). They can look you in the eye and tell you they care.. because they have no concern about lying to your face, they could even pass a polygraph where they say all the right things and don't mean a single one... because they don't have emotional responses that would trigger the machine... they are like lizard people, cold blooded, unfeeling... and our current society thinks that means strong, tough, and determined... a real go-getter



The politicians of the past that we look back at with admiration.. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, etc... msot of them suffered crippling depression and other "shortcomings" which would make them seem like bad candidates for office in this day and age... in reality, they were depressed because they feel, they were uncertain because they know their choices have sever ramifications, they were anxious because they cared about the lives they held in their hands....

at some point all of that stopped being a good thing and what we wanted instead was the IMAGE of a good person... and now those unfeeling monsters who could probably murder a school child with their bare hands and then play a round of golf and pose for photos make up almost every political position in our country.. our governors, our senators, our representatives, our presidents.


This message is brought to you by Prozac... when the world isn't right, just pop this pill
 
Last edited:

repomech

resident remnant robot relic
#57
Dialling it back to the (apparently) less controversial topic of religion... ;)

Religion isn't simply one's individual beliefs, morals or views on the world, the heavens, and society. Religions are movements in society and politics. In fact, a close reading of history would reveal that religions form and ascend as political movements tied to the emergence of states (secession, unification, conquest etc.) and dynastic or political transitions within states. They seek the establishment and institutional relationship with a state, and bolster it with their vision of social order (even if only able to achieve this on a small scale).

And this is really true across all religions - you can map movements as different as the great schisms of Christianity, the emergence of the Sikhs, or the millenarian religious societies of China accordingly - they had that in common. Calvinism established its theocracy in Switzerland, the Lutheran strand of Christianity was that of the ascendant Scandinavian states, Mormonism tried for separatist theocracy in Utah before it was set back and settled for regional power, and what was the first great schism of the Christianity of the Roman Empire than the political fracture of the Empire itself? Orthodox Christianity in the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Church of its western portions. In the era before modern political parties (which are very recent), religious movements were a key vehicle through which a break with business as usual would occur in politics, or a social order was buoyed. Once religions cease to perform this role, they can still persist for centuries, but they're on a half-life (and typically susceptible to revivalist schisms that seek to reinvigorate the in group/out group policing of social identity lines and their order, as well as set sights again on the arena of politics in new circumstances - witness the recent rise of evangelical Christianity in the USA, or Islamist trends in numerous regions of the world).

That's a really different, but arguably more useful (to a historian at any rate) way to think about religion than the more common view which tends to treat it narrowly as only a set of doctrines or ideas about god (and the argument could be made there have been non-theistic religious movements). Viewed this way, it is worth noting that religions are probably something that emerged with settled agricultural civilizations (and indeed the very idea of god or gods, may only be that old - we'll never know for sure short of a time machine, but there's a paucity of evidence for cut and clear worship of gods - as distinct from supernatural beliefs in general - prior to civilization, and certainly nothing like professional religious castes, temple complexes etc).

Getting down to brass tacks, I don't belong to any religious movement/order. I was born outside any of them based on a decision, concious or not, that my parents, a substantial portion of my extended family, and many of their generation undertook - which was to walk away from the traditional religions they grew up in, and where not totally abandoning them, at the very least marginalizing them further into a private social background in the interests of having a society characterized as widely as possible by non-sectarian intermarriage, burial, socialization, politics etc. That reality isn't complete by any means, but as a vision, I feel it's "the good one". Rather than the looming tension of sectarian strife, we agree to a secular state and set of public institutions as well as political, social and cultural commons (political parties based on policies, not religious identities and institutional patronage of and by religions), and let people walk away from the past at their own pace, or keep a little piece of it for now, respecting their conscience accordingly. That leaves a lot of questions still - is that even possible across an entire mass civilization, or does it only work in certain concentrations, mixes and strata of society under certain conditions? How does a society in which religions have monopolized areas of life, for example social ritual (marriage, burial etc.), find its way in these matters post-religions-of-the-past?

Now, what was probably being asked as much as anything, is what do I believe about the universe, the nature of existence, deities etc. My views would best be described as broadly conforming to "Naturalism". By that I don't mean some kind of hippy/whole foods lifestyle thing. I mean in the strict sense of philosophical Naturalism: "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."
 
Last edited:

repomech

resident remnant robot relic
#58
Elections in a typical year:



That said, these US primaries aren't your typical year are they? A lot of dissatisfaction with the course of the establishment's politics and economic policies over the past few decades starting to erupt into public view - in both parties. Whatever your views, anyone who is genuinely shocked by where this is coming from must be living in a bubble. The US has always been characterized by a two party system - the constitutional structure favours it (adopt a parliamentary system if you want more parties), but it hasn't always been the same two parties that it is today, and there's no reason it always will be. Social and political convulsions do happen. Anyone remember the Whigs?
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
#60
Elections in a typical year:



That said, these US primaries aren't your typical year are they? A lot of dissatisfaction with the course of the establishment's politics and economic policies over the past few decades starting to erupt into public view - in both parties. Whatever your views, anyone who is genuinely shocked by where this is coming from must be living in a bubble. The US has always been characterized by a two party system - the constitutional structure favours it (adopt a parliamentary system if you want more parties), but it hasn't always been the same two parties that it is today, and there's no reason it always will be. Social and political convulsions do happen. Anyone remember the Whigs?
Yes I do remember the Whigs, the Tea as of late has "tried" to make a comeback but whatevs. I feel like the parties exactly like your saying are changing now. You here less about Reps and Demos, and more Liberal and Conserative party's.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#61
Yes I do remember the Whigs, the Tea as of late has "tried" to make a comeback but whatevs. I feel like the parties exactly like your saying are changing now. You here less about Reps and Demos, and more Liberal and Conserative party's.
Unfortunately the Tea Party was hijacked by establishment Republicans (Rubio started out as a tea party member, for example.) I've been to a few of their rallies and it was pretty good stuff. Then the IRS started targeting Tea Party groups which intimidated most. The movement was brought down by the inside like a cancer.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#62
Personally, I think building a border wall is a complete waste of time and resources. Even Trump's hypothetical wall would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and that money would be much better invested in our own infrastructure. Roads, buildings, bridges, sewers, national grid.

Maybe we should entertain the idea of opening our borders and let people in to become citizens. I mean, we have something like 6 million illegal immigrants or something? Well, make them into citizens, and have them pay taxes like the rest of us then. In fact, wouldn't it just be cheaper to turn them into citizens than deporting every last one of them?

But then again, I am also not someone living in the south close to the border, so my perception of this differs slightly compared to @simplyTravis , or @juegosmajicos , so I'm welcome to hear your guys' thoughts on that.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#63
This is not quite a serious post...

It'd be good to see Trump as president only to see the face of all the beautiful people around the world.

All those slebs that want to move to another country. Those who are in fact horrible actors and perverted singers that are appalled by a so called "ultra right-wing" candidate. Why haven't they moved to North Korea already?

All Those bloody luvvies like George Clooney and others. They're arses who believe they're saints just because they're not really acting but trying to save the world against the "doom of global warming" or something like that. They would cry for months, poor things!

Those arse commie actors like Sean Penn and idiots like Michael Moore who supports dictators like Hugo Chavez. I'd love to see people like him moving to a communist country after Trump get elected. Would they?

Those idiots worldwide like those in Britain who wanted to ban Trump. What do they think? I haven't been told that Britain is now being ruled by the Chinese Communist Party!

All those arses that rule the UN and EU and can't even check the North Korean nukes properly. The kid dictator laughs at them. Bloody losers!

The feminazi. The "gender-fluid" teen singers (WTH is this? those new gender terms are laughable!) The awfully bearded hipsters with bad hair like this ridiculous "Digital Prophet" called David Shing (WTH!!!!!!!).

It'd be extraordinary to see their faces. They're all weeping like children.
 
#65
Personally, I think building a border wall is a complete waste of time and resources. Even Trump's hypothetical wall would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and that money would be much better invested in our own infrastructure. Roads, buildings, bridges, sewers, national grid.

Maybe we should entertain the idea of opening our borders and let people in to become citizens. I mean, we have something like 6 million illegal immigrants or something?
Well, make them into citizens, and have them pay taxes like the rest of us then. In fact, wouldn't it just be cheaper to turn them into citizens than deporting every last one of them?

But then again, I am also not someone living in the south close to the border, so my perception of this differs slightly compared to @simplyTravis , or @juegosmajicos , so I'm welcome to hear your guys' thoughts on that.
The wall is fun rhetoric, but this would be just as disastrous.
We should just buy Mexico.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#66
3/15/2016 Primary Results (may update when final numbers come through):

Democratic Party:
Florida: Clinton: 64.5% (122 delegates), Sanders 33.3% (60 delegates)
Illinois: Clinton 50.5% (unknown), Sanders 48.6% (unknown)
Missouri: TOO CLOSE TO CALL Sanders 49.7% , Clinton 49.3%
North Carolina: Clinton 54.6% (56 delegates), Sanders 40.7% (26 delegates)
Ohio: Clinton 56.5% (75 delegates), Sanders 42.7% (38 delegates)

Totals
Clinton 1,021 pledged delegates, 467 super delegates with a total of 1,488 delegates
Sanders 774 pledged delegates, 26 super delegates with a total of 800 delegates

Republican Party:
Florida: Trump 45.8% (all 99 delegates), Rubio 27% (dropped after loss), Cruz 17.1%, Kasich 6.8%
Illinois: Trump 39% (all 24 delegates), Cruz 30.5%, Kasich 19.6%, Rubio 8.5%
Missouri: TOO CLOSE TO CALL - Trump 41%, Cruz 40.7%, Kasich 10%, Rubio 6.1%
North Carolina: Trump 40.4% (27 delegates), Cruz 36.7% (24 delegates), Kasich 12.6% (7 delegates), Rubio 7.7% (4 delegates)
Ohio: Kasich 47% (all 66 delegates), Trump 35.9%, Cruz 13.2%, Rubio 2.3%

Totals
Trump 619 delegates
Cruz 394 delegates
Rubio 167 delegates
Kasich 136 delegates


Random Thoughts of the Night:
Sling TV - I decided to try out CNN on Sling TV tonight and it was much better than in the past when watching debates or election results. I think I'll keep my subscription! It didn't drop once and seemed to deal with people viewing in during the Trump speech en masse better than in the past.

CNN Word of the Night: NAIL BITER!

CNN - Overall the network did a decent job on coverage. It was a nailbiter (not.) They had good usage of graphics and seemed generally fair when talking about each candidate as nail biters. Their panel was generally more liberal but seemed to, strangely, favor Trump except for the former Rubio lady which was nail biting to say the least. She is going whole hog with Cruz. Hillary Clinton won South Korea according to Wolf Blitzer, which was a hilarious gaffe. The overall feeling was not very favorable of Clinton. They talked about the Republicans 95% of the time but I'm assuming its because of more people viewing in for those results during their nail biting races. They seemed to say nail biter a lot but the feeling just wasn't there. Like a poorly voice acted automaton in a japanese RPG translated into English.

Protesters and Media Lose by Looking Unfair, Helps Trump - The show of force in Chicago did not convince anyone to take votes away from Trump. The #NeverTrump movement is not working. Americans love an underdog and don't like seeing people being picked on non-stop. Polls and Exit Polls are also not good predictors because people are afraid to say what they really think. Expect Trump to keep winning the more vicious his competition gets.

Rubio Drops- Rubio massively in Florida. I'm somewhat surprised he dropped out. I'm afraid Cruz is going to try to add him as a VP. I don't think that will help with his votes at all.

Cruz Struggles- Cruz is trying to pull in all the other voters from Rubio but the fact that Kasich is still in the race will be a huge problem. Kasich is becoming the Republican Anti-Trump and very fast. Cruz can't do that because his viewpoints are very close but presented far more professionally ane eloquently. Cruz will most likely drop after the next two big rounds. More on that further down. Cruz's speech was nearly the exact same as the last big race but with some Rubio voter pandering and some intense anti-Trump spinning regarding the media. Essentially he said that the media loves him and secretly wants him to win. Sure...sure Cruz.

Trump Sweeps - Trump won. Trump won big. Trump won with his big.... hands. Seriously though, Trump has been through the ringer and I was even thinking that he would just be close to Cruz after looking at Facebook a little too hard (kinda like sunspots when staring at the sun, it blinds you to reality.) Instead of swept the competition. This has visibly shaken Cruz but Kasich is strangely emboldened. The victory speech was well done, funny, strongly worded, and a bit irksome in one part. Bad idea for him to say that we really need the rich to fix problems. I think that is true to some extent but will probably hurt his chance with former Bernie voters if the Clinton campaign grabs that sound bite. He also lashed out at "disgusting reporters" which will probably work with his base. I was really hoping he would answer questions afterwards to keep distancing himself from the others.

Kasich Disrupts - Kasich is the new golden boy and the "Neo" of the establishment Republican party. He will stay in to essentially play the numbers game to disrupt Trump's chances and make a brokered convention.

Republican Party is Broken - Seriously guys. Listen to your voters. They don't want a brokered convention. You will destroy the party if you take away the nomination from Cruz or Trump. I half-way think they would rather Hillary Clinton be in than either of those two even if it means destroying the party.
The ongoing rumor (taken with much salt) is that the Republicans are trying to figure out any way they can to take out the two candidates and make deals with them.

Trump/Cruz Ticket? - Ok, seems far fetched but I think it is an inevitability with Kasich involved. If the votes are looking too close and neither candidate will get enough delegates within a big race or two we will probably see Cruz run as Trumps VP to spite the Republican Party. This should happen as they are very close in various ways. I think it would be beneficial as Cruz could potentially keep Trump in-line when it comes to the law. I've heard a pro-Trump radio host or two stating that Cruz is in the pocket of the establishment but I highly doubt it. Cruz started as a staffer for Bush and did suggest policy positions during W's first election but was quickly discarded. Then the fight with American courts vs. the world court/geneva convention rulings broke sides massively as W's cabinet was extremely for the world court decision which Cruz defended and won for the US at the supreme court.

Clinton Wins Big- I didn't find much on Hillary tonight and didn't get a chance to see her speech. She's winning big. She'll definitely be the candidate.

Sanders Loses Big- Sanders will need to drop out soon. It would be smart for him to drop out so Hillary can start using Trump as a punching bag. I would suggest he runs with Clinton but I don't think she would allow that.

Sanders Voters Will Vote For Trump: Ok, this sounds crazy. But I believe it will happen when Hillary is invoked as the candidate for a few reasons. The superdelegate situation is ridiculous. If you look up at the top of this post you can see how completely lopsided the superdelegate votes, which can't be voted for, will go to Hillary. The next thing is that Hillary is seen as uber-establishment and old guard in the Democrat party. I think Sanders voters are looking for new blood. Unless Hillary can take most of his positions (which she won't because she will try to seem more conservative for that Southern vote) the Sanders voters will either write in, vote for third party, not vote, or go Trump. I've heard this from multiple people in more private conversations and it looks like online forums and tweets are leaning that way too. They will take their ball and go home.

That's it for now. I'll update the final numbers tomorrow morning when they are for sure counted. Apparently the last 1% of votes are like super hard to count.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#67
Personally, I think building a border wall is a complete waste of time and resources. Even Trump's hypothetical wall would cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and that money would be much better invested in our own infrastructure. Roads, buildings, bridges, sewers, national grid.

Maybe we should entertain the idea of opening our borders and let people in to become citizens. I mean, we have something like 6 million illegal immigrants or something? Well, make them into citizens, and have them pay taxes like the rest of us then. In fact, wouldn't it just be cheaper to turn them into citizens than deporting every last one of them?

But then again, I am also not someone living in the south close to the border, so my perception of this differs slightly compared to @simplyTravis , or @juegosmajicos , so I'm welcome to hear your guys' thoughts on that.
I'll try to put in my 2 cents with things I've witnessed or that has happened to me. Please read through this not as someone who hates other races but is putting it as plainly as possible. I don't think you need the preamble, and if you knew me in the real world you definitely wouldn't need it, but these things are considered taboo to say in today's political realm.

First of all, I've had my identity stolen 7 times and 5 of those times were by illegal aliens. The first time was in college by someone named "Hector Travis" in Brownsville at a hospital for a broken arm, which was interesting as I have never visited Brownsville. I then had it stolen 2 times for Progressive insurance. Another time for a car which was driven off the lot. Then the last time was for a Winnebago which was driven off the lot under my name but actually an illegal immigrant. The reason I know this is because I would call and follow up with Lifelock. The people would then be prosecuted and me given their names from police. The last two times were not by illegal immigrants but rather credit card scandals which originated out of Russia and China where multiple people were targeted. Luckily shut down by my bank.

I'm also a teacher. I've seen how much money is thrown at ESL (English as a Second Language) programs that help out students that are, in a large percentage, from illegal immigrant families. I've had my classroom taken for classes to become in compliance for what is essentially over-priced computer games that these students get to play. Studies point out that immersion is the best teacher of language. The act of making ESL a major initiative, I believe, hurts these students in the long run as it takes them longer to understand the English language.

Taxes. I see thousands of dollars being used for illegal immigrant families through the free lunch program and various other resources. Most illegal immigrants also don't report their taxes (however I don't blame them.) In the way that Texas tax law is set-up; school, emergency, and local road taxes come from home ownership. Illegal immigrants are not paying for the infrastructure of Texas yet getting benefit from it because they generally do not own home but instead rent.

Outside Influence is not always positive. Listening to the stories of my students that go back to Mexico and other countries is occasionally heartbreaking. I love hearing about where they come from. I love culture from other places in general. But what is normal here is not so in other countries. Most people are trying to escape that but tend to occasionally bring the bad things back with them in the way of drugs, strangers, gang members, diseases, etc.. I've had students been taken away by bad parents back to Mexico so they can go work as a child laborer instead of finish school, I've dealt with suicide watch after a Pakistani girl's parents died when being shot by terrorists, and multiple other issues dealing with drugs.

Drugs. The drug pipeline which ruins many lives come mostly from Mexico. I'm so tired of heroin addicts and meth heads ruining kids lives. A wall would drastically slow down this pipeline.

Disease. I have to load up on Vitamin C every single break from school. Spring Break and others mean new diseases coming from overseas or the border. The anti-vax movement doesn't focus on the fact that large groups of illegal immigrants are unvaccinated and constantly cross borders.

With all that being said, I'm am 100% totally for LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I think we need to secure the border with a physical wall but open the gates to process more people (legally) than we do now. That way they are responsible for their input into America. I also think they should be mildly proficient in English and should be able to pass an exam on American History. This is logical if you want to have a group of people that are self-sufficient and not just symbiotic or parasitic to the general culture.

We also need to have tax paid vaccinations for any legal immigrant upon their acceptance into the US.

My stance on this does not come a place of hate. Far, far from it. I've worked at 90+ % hispanic schools and will treat any student in my classroom or school with the same dignity of anyone else regardless of their background. I actively run Kids of Survival style art workshops with at-risk students even knowing that the majority of them think of the US and cops in general as evil (seriously was told by a kid that he had "stuck a cop before and would do it again" last week). That is not my job to decide who I teach. However, I don't have to agree with how our tax dollars and society is run at the moment because it hurts children, it hurts our economy, and it hurts America more than those stereotypical lines of "Who will cut your grass, build your house, etc.." can ever help out. I can't completely say we are using these poor people in a quasi-slavelike way closer to indentured servitude because they want a way out, however that is what I used to say. The general discussion is far more anti-American than in the past which is concerning to me on many levels. I see too many people using and abusing the government either by skimming off the top or blatantly lying about legal status. It needs to be fixed and it is not to late to do so. It never is.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#68
a wall wont work, I agree that we need a stronger border presence, but I think increased personel on the border is the answer, not volunteers who shoot on sight either... we also need MUCH broader paths to citizenship... we should incentivize faster legal immigration with quotas, we need better people at the offices to make firm decisions without playign the ol' bureaucratic shuffle
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
#69
Not happy with the results last night. With Rubio losing Florida it remains a coin flip on if Trump will outright win the nomination or if we will head to a contested convention, now though, Trump no matter what will get incredibly close the magic number of 1,237. Which will make things all the worse.

It is now virtually impossible (it was already extremely unlikely before yesterday) for anyone to outright stop Trump. When you remove the unbound delegates about 960 (counting the 20 or so uncalled delegates still in Missouri) remain, Cruz would need over 85% of these in order to become the presumptive nominee and Kasich has no possibility at becoming the presumptive nominee (which he admits, his strategy is all about taking it to the convention).

I will never understand how already over 7,500,000 people have voted for Trump. It's honestly preposterous in my mind. How in the world could so many people have voted for someone who flat out lies nearly every chance he gets and knows so little about foreign policy that he claims and I quote “They [the military] won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.” when told the military would refuse to carry out his numerous already talked about plans that break both our laws and international laws and treaties. Not to mention the millions of other issues that would have rendered him unelectable at any other point in our nations history.

The only answer I can think of is that he truly is one of the greatest con artist of all time.
 

repomech

resident remnant robot relic
#70
Are you kidding me? US Presidents routinely break and flaunt international treaties and laws. Torture and predator drones have become part of your mainstream since the Bush Administration. Just admit you don't like that he's boorish (and there's no doubt that he acts like a class A ass), and fear that he's incompetent, but let's not pretend there's some righteous standard of international law that the establishment is terrified might be transgressed, like some virgin loss of innocence. Some of his detractors at the top likely are more miffed he flaunts breaking with their foreign policy consensus (ie proposing cooperation with Putin, or condemning the foolish and illegal attack on Libya). Do you seriously believe past US administrations consistently adhered to international laws?

"I can't believe". I keep hearing this (in some wording or another). Sure you can. Decades of flawed (from the perspective of even a pretence of optimizing social good) economic policies have destabilized and decimated the lives and livelihoods of huge swaths of American society, people feel disenfranchised, discarded, angry and sick of being spoken down to. Others fear demographic shifts in the society, and others yet are just shitty people. Or some combination of all of those. Some people want someone to act as a PA system to their anger. Some people might think he'll fix some things or at least bring attention to them. Some people are simply ready to vandalize the government with their votes, in order to give the political class a black eye - he's one big rotten tomato being hurled at the establishment.

"What's wrong, what's right? - people don't care when they hate their lives" - The Violent Femmes

Is it pretty? Fuck no. But it's completely believable, and it's as American as apple pie.
 
Last edited:

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#71
Are you kidding me? US Presidents routinely break and flaunt international treaties and laws. Torture and predator drones have become part of your mainstream since the Bush Administration. Just admit you don't like that he's boorish (and there's no doubt that he acts like a class A ass), and fear that he's incompetent, but let's not pretend there's some righteous standard of international law that the establishment is terrified might be transgressed, like some virgin loss of innocence. Some of his detractors at the top likely are more miffed he flaunts breaking with their foreign policy consensus (ie proposing cooperation with Putin, condemning the foolish and illegal attack on Libya). Do you seriously believe past US administrations consistently adhered to international laws?

"I can't believe". I keep hearing this (in some wording or another). Sure you can. Decades of flawed (from the perspective of even a pretence of optimizing social good) economic policies have destabilized and decimated the lives and livelihoods of huge swaths of American society, people feel disenfranchised, discarded, angry and sick of being spoken down to. Others fear demographic shifts in the society, and others yet are just shitty people. Or some combination of all of those. Some people want someone to act as a PA system to their anger. Some people might think he'll fix some things or at least bring attention to them. Some people are simply ready to vandalize the government with their votes, in order to give the political class a black eye - he's one big rotten tomato being hurled at the establishment.

"What's wrong, what's right? - people don't care when they hate their lives" - The Violent Femmes

Is it pretty? Fuck no. But it's completely believable, and it's as American as apple pie.
We are, after all, a group of peoples centered around breaking free of monarchy style classes. I think that is why anti-establishment folks are so big right now. It is our culture to not be controlled and basically fend for ourselves.
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
#73
Are you kidding me? US Presidents routinely break and flaunt international treaties and laws. Torture and predator drones have become part of your mainstream since the Bush Administration. Just admit you don't like that he's boorish (and there's no doubt that he acts like a class A ass), and fear that he's incompetent, but let's not pretend there's some righteous standard of international law that the establishment is terrified might be transgressed, like some virgin loss of innocence. Some of his detractors at the top likely are more miffed he flaunts breaking with their foreign policy consensus (ie proposing cooperation with Putin, or condemning the foolish and illegal attack on Libya). Do you seriously believe past US administrations consistently adhered to international laws?

"I can't believe". I keep hearing this (in some wording or another). Sure you can. Decades of flawed (from the perspective of even a pretence of optimizing social good) economic policies have destabilized and decimated the lives and livelihoods of huge swaths of American society, people feel disenfranchised, discarded, angry and sick of being spoken down to. Others fear demographic shifts in the society, and others yet are just shitty people. Or some combination of all of those. Some people want someone to act as a PA system to their anger. Some people might think he'll fix some things or at least bring attention to them. Some people are simply ready to vandalize the government with their votes, in order to give the political class a black eye - he's one big rotten tomato being hurled at the establishment.

"What's wrong, what's right? - people don't care when they hate their lives" - The Violent Femmes

Is it pretty? Fuck no. But it's completely believable, and it's as American as apple pie.
I'm vehemently against our nation chipping away at/ignoring our treaties and laws and prior to this election cycle I had hoped that the rising public awareness brought by the internet would mean the majority of people on the republican side would be as well. It is discouraging that so many of his supporters applaud or ignore Trump trying to take this outrage to the next level, making it a campaign promise to blatantly ignore our treaties, increase torture to greater lows, directly go after civilians, and further degrade/regress our ethics as a nation. It's disgusting, disturbing, and in my mind shows he lacks strong morals, foreign policy knowledge, or judgement that I'd trust.

That somehow isn't arguably even the worst part, the quote is. He, a potential commander in chief, had the audacity to claim the military will obey all his orders no matter how much they disregard international law simply because he is a "strong leader" (he has thankfully somewhat backed away from this). That honestly sounds like something a dictator would say, that is a sign of poor and dangerous leadership, that is nearly as unamerican as it gets.

Since we are on the topic though, I will readily confirm one reason I dislike him is because he's boorish and I most certainly do fear he is extremely incompetent, I could go on for days why I can't stand him and why I don't want him to be president. I have never opposed someone running for president as much as I do him.

I suppose you are right that I can technically believe it, if anything you can always trust us humans to mess things up. I suppose it is more that I am very disappointed in america and so called conservatives. Things need to change yes, but throwing tomatoes is not a legitimate answer.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#78
I voted for Ted Cruz in the Ohio primary. With Rand Paul out, Ted Cruz is the only candidate that can be considered a constitutionalist.

Over the past week I have realized that I am neither Republican or Conservative, but a Libertarian instead. I am extremely fiscally conservative, way more than Republicans, but on social issues I am pretty liberal. Things like gay marriage I am indifferent too. I think Churches have the right to not marry gay people, but marriage as far as the government is concerned should be free from religious constraints. Even things like drug use, I do not believe the government should have the right to tell me what I can put into my body. Do you realize how many people are serving long prison sentences for drug use and possession? We are a pretty educated society I believe, its not healthy, but neither is overeating and obesity. Are we going to outlaw food? Sounds crazy, but its already began in New York with soda/pop size limits. If government is in control of health care, they will make laws that they feel make us healthier. The strongest form of Tierney is the one that believes its doing things with our best interest at hand. The less the government is in our lives the better.

Why have so many jobs left the country? Regulation on American businesses is crippling. Maybe you agree with many of these regulations. They are often presented as ways of protecting our environment, and preventing climate change. How much of a difference did it make that those manufacturing jobs went to China or India where they have no such regulations? The same pollution is being pumped into the air, probably more so, but we lost jobs in the process. Tax rates for business haven't helped either. We live in a global economy, we must become competitive with global corporate tax rates. Trade imbalance is literally exporting your countries wealth. Name me a business that buys more than it sells and doesn't go bankrupt?

The election process in general is starting to look more and more corrupt. I am not for Sanders, but the fact that the democrats created super delegates proves to me that they rigged the system to make sure we have the choice they decided upon. The GOP is no better, even if you dont like Trump, its insane that the establishment is trying so hard to prevent him from getting the nomination. Its exactly why I cringe at the idea of Socialism. So we are to assume we can fix corrupt government by making it bigger and giving them more power over our lives?
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#80
Topic: Politics and Video Games.

Where do you stand with censorship in video games? I honestly like the idea of ESRB as a self-regulatory body but dislike the government stepping in to censor games. I also don't like the idea of 8 year olds playing GTAV because that just isn't right for them to be exposed to that combination of brutality, worship of lawlessness, and poor treatment of women. I don't know how you could keep these kids from playing it because it is ultimately left up to the discretion of the parent to be lazy enough to not research what their kid is doing. The title clearly has an M on it.

What would you consider too much that would require the government to step in and say, "uhhh..no!" to? This is a grey area for me because I don't think we should be playing games that are generally anti-American such as terrorism based training modules but at the same time I don't have a problem with a strategy game where I can play as an opposing force against America.

Some people will say that school shooters train themselves in these kind of games but the same argument has been used against owning guns. I don't necessarily think that taking violence out of gaming is the answer. I'm more keen on having kids that are sociopathic not being treated as the normal student body. Due to FERPA laws you are not allowed to know who wants to kill their class with a knife and tie them up, but I guarantee your principals and SPED coordinators do. But I digress...


 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
#81
For me, I think it is the parents' responsibility to manage what their kids are playing. My brother brough GTA for my 15 year old nephew, assuming the M was just for shooting violence. I am now the "bad uncle" because I told my brother what all was in the game and he took it away from my nephew. My nephew also glazed over the details of the game in an effort to get a game he knew he shouldn't get.

So, yes, I do think there should be an advisory board, but I also think it is on the parents to do a better job regulating what their kids are playing.

So, no, I don't think the government should step in to regulate or censor games in general. But I have to wonder, in the age of self-publishing, if a game is ever released to the internet where the object is to rape or kill the gays or murder Muslims... Should someone step in to have it removed? What crosses the line from free speech and expression to something that no one should be exposed to?

I'm not saying that I know or have an answer. (Sorry, all of this may not even be an answer to what @simplyTravis was asking, but his post made me think of it.)
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#82
For me, I think it is the parents' responsibility to manage what their kids are playing. My brother brough GTA for my 15 year old nephew, assuming the M was just for shooting violence. I am now the "bad uncle" because I told my brother what all was in the game and he took it away from my nephew. My nephew also glazed over the details of the game in an effort to get a game he knew he shouldn't get.

So, yes, I do think there should be an advisory board, but I also think it is on the parents to do a better job regulating what their kids are playing.

So, no, I don't think the government should step in to regulate or censor games in general. But I have to wonder, in the age of self-publishing, if a game is ever released to the internet where the object is to rape or kill the gays or murder Muslims... Should someone step in to have it removed? What crosses the line from free speech and expression to something that no one should be exposed to?

I'm not saying that I know or have an answer. (Sorry, all of this may not even be an answer to what @simplyTravis was asking, but his post made me think of it.)
I thought that was a pretty good answer actually. I think those are also good questions to ask. Who does that job? I think that would have to be a state-regulated thing, personally. But then, that would be very hard to stop seeing as the internet can't be shut down at the state level. Then that leads to a whole other can of worms if they start doing that kind of thing (reporting that you went to site A and so on.) I guess its possible with region locking. The best thing would be for the people to put pressure against this kind of thing so the government doesn't have to jump in, kind of like what the whole ESRB system is about.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
#83
Onto another subject (other than double-posting like a boss) ...Money!

I really hate doing taxes and looking at things in percentages. After throwing down 30% of my money into health insurance and income tax then I have to add 8.25% sales tax, land tax, hidden taxes (such as in gas prices), and whatever other tax I might have missed, it makes me glad to be blessed that living here is so cheap compared to a big city or overbearing state. I can see why people in larger cities with more regulations and taxes on income feel so helpless. I don't see how politicians can try to squeeze more money out of us working shlubs and expect everyone to function. I guess if you tell people it's "free" they will believe it. That money has to come from somewhere...

How about y'all? Did the tax fairy treat you well or did it come in the middle of the night and drain you of your life? Because we all know...


...and occasionally taxes on death!
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#84
I think education will always beat violence born from ignorance. It comes from both school and home. Is a child really affected negatively by watching an action movie or even playing GTA if they have their parents telling them along the way, "oh wow, you get to be an asshole in this game, that's cool, but it's very different from real life, where things have consequences, such as this or that". Neglect does infinitely more wrong than any violent media does to a kid in my opinion. That's not to blame parents exactly, because in many cases these parents are both working to keep food on the plate, while under pressure from just about every institution around them (housing, utilities, loan agencies, checking fees, and on and on), so that it's hard for them to even spend quality time with their kids.

So I don't separate the issues of youth violence and money. Financially stable parents logically have access to more and better resources to help their children and have more time to spend guiding them, giving them a place where they belong. Lack of financial stability is the root of many of the problems americans face, in my opinion, and we'd be better off attacking that problem directly than arguing about whether we should ban guns, open more mental health hospitals, censor violent media, create safe spaces, build border walls, make history with the first [BLANK] president, or whatever other stupid shit passes as political entertainment.

The most immediate way I can think of addressing financial stability is to cut down on corporate welfare. It's becoming more and more infuriating to see that propaganda of the Bernie sign ripped in half:

Which is all too accepted by the public because they can't fathom that we actually do live in socialism, not because of interstate highways, but because of all the money that is collected from people and given to these companies as subsidies only for them to turn around and avoid paying their own taxes by taking their money and production out of the country, or abusing other tax loopholes. Regardless of who people want to vote for, they have to stop living in denial of how much of their wealth is already being taken away for things that don't benefit them or their community - after all, laws are passed without regard for your opinion as a citizen, so it's only natural that you're not seeing the true benefit of your work or your taxes - and start participating politically in a more intelligent, informed manner.

For example, don't let the media convince you that this is your one chance to decide the fate of the nation, and that once a new president has stepped into office, there won't be anything else for you to do until 2020. There are plenty of things to do in between now and then, other than giving up control over your rights to huge corporations with very expensive lawyers and powerful lobbying groups.

That's a rant, but to summarize my thoughts: Violence and crime are the result of poor education, a lack of financial stability, and a lack of political participation.
 

isturbo1984

Whoremonger & Cokefiend
#86
Topic: Politics and Video Games.

Where do you stand with censorship in video games? I honestly like the idea of ESRB as a self-regulatory body but dislike the government stepping in to censor games. I also don't like the idea of 8 year olds playing GTAV because that just isn't right for them to be exposed to that combination of brutality, worship of lawlessness, and poor treatment of women. I don't know how you could keep these kids from playing it because it is ultimately left up to the discretion of the parent to be lazy enough to not research what their kid is doing. The title clearly has an M on it.

What would you consider too much that would require the government to step in and say, "uhhh..no!" to? This is a grey area for me because I don't think we should be playing games that are generally anti-American such as terrorism based training modules but at the same time I don't have a problem with a strategy game where I can play as an opposing force against America.

Some people will say that school shooters train themselves in these kind of games but the same argument has been used against owning guns. I don't necessarily think that taking violence out of gaming is the answer. I'm more keen on having kids that are sociopathic not being treated as the normal student body. Due to FERPA laws you are not allowed to know who wants to kill their class with a knife and tie them up, but I guarantee your principals and SPED coordinators do. But I digress...


First of all, anyone who thinks video games makes people violent is an idiot (I really do hope, for the sake of argument here, you are not one of them... and are just using it as an anecdote). Rhetoric of the non-gamers I find is extremely ignorant and boring. Many studies have shown that it it the opposite. It's all old-aged remnants of anti-gamer media that seems to only exist in religious extremist views these days; self-proclaimed pastures, highlighted in youtube videos, making complete asses of themselves.

As for as government censorship comes into play... My opinion, is gaming shouldn't be treated differently than literature, cinema, music or any other type of entertainment medium. Hell, if we can all look at child porn legally by just calling it "art," then there is no reason why M-rated games and content need to be regulated by any government. Unless you are China, then, its understandable. The problem with gaming here is that it is treated with special gloves than any other entertainment medium.

Besides, the government controls and regulates laws already with video games according to the ESRB anyway. There is no need for the government to micro-manage video games after the ESRB, and then the parents. Parents should do their fucking jobs, to end all debates. Not the government for them. Same goes with porn, R-rated movies, intoxicating substances, ect. Taking rights away from parents does not help children or society. That said, off-topic, I do think all persons should legally be required to take (and pass) some sort of parenting license before having children.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#87
I think the rating system is great, and it's up to parents to monitor what their kids are playing.

People who are filled with hate, anger and potentially homicidal behavior gravitate towards violent entertainment. Violent people weren't created by violent video games, but it only makes sense for violent games to appeal to violent people.

Jueg is right about socialism already being a thing. We have social security, welfare, medicare, green energy businesses that would never have been successful without government subsidies. With that said, I don't want to follow suite to failed policies. Many European countries are drowning due to entitlement programs, and unions who have priced themselves out of the global market. How can you compete on the global scale with a 35 hour work week, and two months vacation per year? You cant, just ask France.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#89
This new terrorist attack makes me wonder how long will Europe take to finally accept that they're at war so they need to do something real instead of discussing if Islam is the religion of peace or not.

I also believe that ISIS is the consequence of the void that Obama let at the middle east because of a rushed and misled leaving operation from Iraq and Afghanistan.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#90
A couple of nuggets from a Rand Paul speech that I really enjoyed. One being that borrowing money to give to our enemies in hope that they will eventually become an ally is ludicrous. Even if the cause made sense, you still have the conundrum being it doesn't make any logical sense to borrow money just for them give it away.

Imagine if citizens operated this way. Your broke, but then get a loan to give to your church or charity. People think you a fool if you do this, but when government does it, just politics.

Pakistan is no friend of the United States. They harbored Osama Bin Laden just a few miles from one of Pakistan's military bases. Are we to believe they didn't know he was there? I was born at night, but not last night. And yet our incompetent politicians still want to give Pakistan billions of dollars that US tax payers are on the hook for. If you divide up the debt among every man women and child in the US, you would crap at just how much debt each of us hold. What will inevitably happen is an adjustment that causes severe inflation. Just paying the interest on our debt will soon become our nation's single highest expense. If I must balance my finances in life, then so should my government. Our citizens are becoming more and more fiscally responsible, and our leaders give money we don't have to enemies who hate us. Trump is right, our leaders are morons.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
#92
Yep, I'm not saying I never get in heated debates over this shit, but it doesn't determine friendships. My brother in law, who is one of my best friends is an atheist and somewhat liberal. I love arguing this stuff with people who can end the argument with fuck you asshole, and I will see you tomorrow for lunch. LOL

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#93
Yep, I'm not saying I never get in heated debates over this shit, but it doesn't determine friendships. My brother in law, who is one of my best friends is an atheist and somewhat liberal. I love arguing this stuff with people who can end the argument with fuck you asshole, and I will see you tomorrow for lunch. LOL

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
That's a healthy way of doing things, unlike my Aunt and Uncle who seem insistent on making it a bigger deal than it is about their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. They'll say things such as, "You know, this is very important to us..." and really it's them trying to get us to "follow" in their steps, but that's not how respecting someone else's belief system works. I may not agree with their beliefs, but I respect them who they are as individuals and as family.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#94
So I want to spend a couple minutes expressing my thoughts on Mississippi's new Religion Freedom bill, and it's simply this, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!"

How in the absolute flying fuck can this be allowed, let alone tolerated? To discriminate against others based on religious beliefs? Sadly, MS is not the only state to have similar laws, and it sickens me we have fucking fascists in this country who insist that someone else's beliefs are more important than others. They aren't, and never will be. This whole business of freedom of religion is a two-way street. Not only are you allowed to exercise your own religion, it also my right not to bother or participate, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

But here's the thing. So if these businesses are allowed to deny services to people based on those parameters, then I guess that means some business could just as well deny those who ARE religious, and/or only accept those who are part of the LGBT community. I mean, it's only fair, right?

And not to mention the whole if you are trans-gender, you must use the bathroom that belongs to the gender that is on your birth certificate. I mean, wtf? How do you plan on even enforcing that in the first place? Are you going to have Police standing outside every Bathroom, checking your birth certificate to make sure you're in the right one? It's just mind-boggling to me that there are people who think this is acceptable practice.

You have every right to believe in what you want to believe, but I have every right not to believe in what you believe as well. And under no circumstances, is it tolerable to enforce your beliefs onto others, especially in the cases of discriminating against others.

Sorry for my rant, but man does this piss me off. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and fuck you to everyone who thinks this is a good idea.

*drops mic*
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
#95
So I want to spend a couple minutes expressing my thoughts on Mississippi's new Religion Freedom bill, and it's simply this, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!"

How in the absolute flying fuck can this be allowed, let alone tolerated? To discriminate against others based on religious beliefs? Sadly, MS is not the only state to have similar laws, and it sickens me we have fucking fascists in this country who insist that someone else's beliefs are more important than others. They aren't, and never will be. This whole business of freedom of religion is a two-way street. Not only are you allowed to exercise your own religion, it also my right not to bother or participate, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

But here's the thing. So if these businesses are allowed to deny services to people based on those parameters, then I guess that means some business could just as well deny those who ARE religious, and/or only accept those who are part of the LGBT community. I mean, it's only fair, right?

And not to mention the whole if you are trans-gender, you must use the bathroom that belongs to the gender that is on your birth certificate. I mean, wtf? How do you plan on even enforcing that in the first place? Are you going to have Police standing outside every Bathroom, checking your birth certificate to make sure you're in the right one? It's just mind-boggling to me that there are people who think this is acceptable practice.

You have every right to believe in what you want to believe, but I have every right not to believe in what you believe as well. And under no circumstances, is it tolerable to enforce your beliefs onto others, especially in the cases of discriminating against others.

Sorry for my rant, but man does this piss me off. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and fuck you to everyone who thinks this is a good idea.

*drops mic*
*Stands and applauds*
*for a long time*
*legs start to cramp from standing and applauding so long*
*hands go numb from clapping*
*gets random stranger to take over standing ovation while feeling returns to my legs and hands*
*Stands and applauds again*
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#96
So I want to spend a couple minutes expressing my thoughts on Mississippi's new Religion Freedom bill, and it's simply this, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!"

How in the absolute flying fuck can this be allowed, let alone tolerated? To discriminate against others based on religious beliefs? Sadly, MS is not the only state to have similar laws, and it sickens me we have fucking fascists in this country who insist that someone else's beliefs are more important than others. They aren't, and never will be. This whole business of freedom of religion is a two-way street. Not only are you allowed to exercise your own religion, it also my right not to bother or participate, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

But here's the thing. So if these businesses are allowed to deny services to people based on those parameters, then I guess that means some business could just as well deny those who ARE religious, and/or only accept those who are part of the LGBT community. I mean, it's only fair, right?

And not to mention the whole if you are trans-gender, you must use the bathroom that belongs to the gender that is on your birth certificate. I mean, wtf? How do you plan on even enforcing that in the first place? Are you going to have Police standing outside every Bathroom, checking your birth certificate to make sure you're in the right one? It's just mind-boggling to me that there are people who think this is acceptable practice.

You have every right to believe in what you want to believe, but I have every right not to believe in what you believe as well. And under no circumstances, is it tolerable to enforce your beliefs onto others, especially in the cases of discriminating against others.

Sorry for my rant, but man does this piss me off. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and fuck you to everyone who thinks this is a good idea.

*drops mic*

I agree with you on the big picture, but there are some stuff that the religious organisation or private organisation deserve to keep in my opinion. I don't know exactly what bill you're talking about, so correct me if I'm wrong.


I mean, for example, a religious organisation believes that a woman should wear a dress and a man pants. So if a gay man tries to go inside with a dress on, I believe that this religious organisation has the right to say "no, you can't come in like this". It's their religion, their property and their rules. If you disagree, go somewhere else.

In conservative churches, you can't step in the temple without taking off your hat. In conservative Muslim spaces, women can't step inside without covering her hair. If you disagree, go to another temple.

Churches (I mean, those that really follow the bible and the ancient doctrine of the apostles) celebrate straight marriages. They have to keep their right to not celebrate a gay marriage. It's their religion, their temple, their property, their rules.

Churches have bathrooms for their members. The gender thing about their bathrooms is their right. It's their property.
 

sjmartin79

White Phoenix of the Crown
#97
I believe he's referring to the bills that are being enacted around the country that allow businesses to refuse service to anyone if it "voilates" any of their "deeply held beliefs".
With those bills in place, a waitress at a cafe or the cafe itself could refuse to make grilled cheese sandwiches for a gay couple.
Or a baker could refuse to make cupcakes for a Muslim birthday party.
A woman wearing a cross necklace goes into a bookstore run by an athiest, and the athiest could refuse to sell her a book.
Etc, etc etc
And the bills state that if doing that service would violate your deeply held beliefs, then you cannot be sued for discrimination.

From what I understand, the bulk of the bill is in regards to private businesses and individuals, and it gives those businesses and individuals a license to discriminate however they choose. It's a slippery slope.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
#98
I believe he's referring to the bills that are being enacted around the country that allow businesses to refuse service to anyone if it "voilates" any of their "deeply held beliefs".
With those bills in place, a waitress at a cafe or the cafe itself could refuse to make grilled cheese sandwiches for a gay couple.
Or a baker could refuse to make cupcakes for a Muslim birthday party.
A woman wearing a cross necklace goes into a bookstore run by an athiest, and the athiest could refuse to sell her a book.
Etc, etc etc
And the bills state that if doing that service would violate your deeply held beliefs, then you cannot be sued for discrimination.

From what I understand, the bulk of the bill is in regards to private businesses and individuals, and it gives those businesses and individuals a license to discriminate however they choose. It's a slippery slope.
Yeah, it blatantly gives businesses the right to discriminate against people. Like I said, how is that even allowed in the 21st Century? I may not necessarily agree with some people's beliefs, but if I were a business owner, the last thing I would want to do is deny them service based on something that is part of their private life.

Georgia for example just passed a similar bill, and guess what? Over 100 businesses and corporations including Apple, and Coke would leave the state if it passed. As such, the Governor vetoed the bill, but the state congress is trying to override the veto.

These bills are the exact equivalent of denying service to Black people, or anyone of a different race that is not white, and we know damn well that is not right. So why should people deny service to those who are LGBT, or even part of a different religion?

As SJ said, it's a slippery slope when you allow legislation like this.
 
Top