Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Ternaugh]

28 minutes ago, Badger said:

And the VA atty general, felt left out, and volunteered info that he dressed up in black face in college.  I hope their are pictures then, as I have no idea why he would be dumb enough to admit this.

 

 

 

 

Pre-emptive apology. He's in the succession line after the Lt Governor, and there's probably a picture somewhere.

[Cygnia]

Appeals Court Blocks Alabama From Executing Muslim Inmate Without the Presence of His Imam

[Lord Liaden]

Given all the facts, I really can't see any way to look at Alabama's Corrections decision excluding the imam, as anything but religious discrimination. Clearly the court saw the same. What the state government does next will show where their principles really lie.

[Pattern Ghost]

Ray and an accomplice abducted, raped, and stabbed to death a 15 year old girl. So, part of me doesn't really care if he gets to " die with a measure of spiritual comfort." At least he isn't getting raped and stabbed to death.

 

The other part of me thinks the state is just being petty and that the request isn't unreasonable. There's no real reason to deny it, and we're supposed to treat prisoners humanely. I think that last part is important. Not so much for the prisoners, but that we don't lower justice to the level of vengeance. The state shouldn't be in the vengeance business IMO.

[Badger]

6 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Pre-emptive apology. He's in the succession line after the Lt Governor, and there's probably a picture somewhere.

 

Well, the 4th in line is a Republican.  So, I figure the chances all go down would be non-existant.  Extreme measures will be taken to save at least one of the 3.

 

 

[Old Man]

[Cygnia]

Follow-up to my earlier post...?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/domineque-ray-alabama-execution-imam-first-amendment-scotus.html

[Hermit]

16 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

Follow-up to my earlier post...?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/domineque-ray-alabama-execution-imam-first-amendment-scotus.html

 

 

I share your outrage.

 

 

[Iuz the Evil]

That's offensive and seems a clear Constitutional violation. Not a good look for the Court.

[Lord Liaden]

And so it begins...

[DShomshak]

19 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

That's offensive and seems a clear Constitutional violation. Not a good look for the Court.

Oh, it's an excellent look from the POV of Evangelical conservatives.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Pattern Ghost]

I have to admit I seriously underestimated how much damage a bad President could inflict on the country. This latest from the SCOTUS is a pretty clear indicator of just how wrong I was. ?

[Lord Liaden]

It's classy of you to acknowledge that. OTOH "I told you so" would not only be petty, but bring no satisfaction whatsoever.

[Pariah]

Utterly inexplicable. There's no reason for a Court full of so-called Originalists to make such a ruling.

[Hermit]

17 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Oh, it's an excellent look from the POV of Evangelical conservatives.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Those praising this in the name of their religion are being incredibly short sighted. While I think Christianity is not going anywhere soon, there are more 'nones' in American demographics when it comes to religion every year: People who are atheists, agnostics, 'spiritual but not religious', or of a less populated religion but don't wish to come out just yet. Add to that those who are openly of a non Christian faith, and it's entirely possible that in a 100 years, while Christianity won't be gone, it will be a 'large minority' or LESS. 

 

Now that we've set the precedent of religions being somewhat interchangeable, well, the shoe might end up on the other foot. If we still have the death penalty in a hundred years, some Christian fellow being put to death might have to accept the state handing him over to whatever Hare Krishna ,Wiccan Priestess, or yes, Imam is handy and convenient for said State.  The Right to Freedom of Religion just took a hard blow here, and sadly, some very short sighted morons are cheering it on.

 

Speaking as a person who tries to honor Christ (Terrible at it but hey), I just want to wipe the dirt from my sandals and walk away from this at this point, but this is my country and I'm stuck with them. ?

So for me, I offer up Thoughts, Prayers... oh, and VOTING as much as I can as ineffective as that feels

[Lord Liaden]

Hermit, your point is valid; but the people who are cheering this decision are very often also highly motivated to keep that demographic from changing as you anticipate, by whatever draconian measures are necessary.They won't accept that their efforts are inevitably doomed to failure in the long term.

[wcw43921]

Could this be the story that finally turns Trump's supporters against him?

 

Because this story ain't gonna do it, I'm sure.  .  .

[Starlord]

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

Could this be the story that finally turns Trump's supporters against him?

 

I'm no psychologist but I'd guess true narcissists have no desire for pets, unless it's a 'trophy' animal (like a prize winning horse or a tiger, etc).

 

As to the question, sadly, Trump answered that 3 years ago as you can see below.

 

https://youtu.be/iTACH1eVIaA

[Sociotard]

A good contrast between the Sanders plan for single payer with how it works (with private insurance) in other countries.

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders

Quote

The Sanders plan permits supplemental private insurance, the type that covers things that the public system doesn’t. But because the public insurance plan pretty much covers everything, it’s difficult to see what role it would play.

Here’s the thing: None of our peer countries have built a health care system like this. Canada, France, England, Australia, and the Netherlands all run health care systems that have gaps in coverage.

Not one of our peer countries has found a way to provide health care that covers all benefits at no cost to patients — the price is just prohibitive. Instead, most provide free or low-cost access to core medical services while asking patients to kick in something for the parts the government can’t afford.

 

[Lord Liaden]

Passing on a request emailed me by our esteemed Dean Shomshak:

 

LL: AOHell is refusing to load the forum reply field today, so could you please post this to the politics thread? I'd like it posted before the discussion moves on too far.

 

Re: Pariah's incredulity on supposed Originalists blatantly violating the Establishment clause:

 

As I've posted before, some legal scholars think Originalism was always a fraud. But this is a different argument. To many Evangelicals, the SCOTUS did make an Originalist ruling.

 

Here I can actually speak from something close to personal experience, based on the chain email rants my conservative uncle in Texas used to forward me. One perennial was the list of supposed quotes by Founding Fathers about how the USA was Christian, Christian, only and fundamentally Christian, and so all those secular liberals needed to "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" (Sic; and not just in caps, but in extra-large font.)

 

How to reconcile this with the Establishment Clause? Ah, the Founders intent was only that Congress could not establish one Christian sect above others.

 

I have not personally read any Evangelical celebrations of this ruling. I think it is a plausible speculation, though, that many will celebrate it as tacit acknowledgement of "Christian America."

 

Dean Shomshak

[Pattern Ghost]

7 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

Could this be the story that finally turns Trump's supporters against him? 

 

 

Unlikely. Objectively, this is one of the good decisions he's made, even if it's probably on accident. (On accident, because he's just doing it to buck a trend and doesn't like dogs, but not because he realizes that it's a bad idea to get a pet just for the photo ops.)

[Hermit]

it's Trump's "hair", it will not tolerate other fuzzy rivals

[DShomshak]

Hey, I can post again! (No idea why this comes and goes.)

 

I thought of another reason the SCOTUS conservatives might back Alabama: To support the death penalty. I get the impression that opposition to the death penalty mostly comes from the left (though I haven't seen any statistics on this) -- notably on the grounds that it is applied preferentially to minorities and the poor, and even when there is strong evidence of bungled defense or active malfeasance by the prosecution and the state. So, enabling an execution in a deep red state, in the face of state misconduct, might just be a way of sticking a finger in the eye of liberals. It's not so much to privilege Christianity as to privilege states that still hold executions.

 

But this is speculation on my part. And even if I'm right, it's possible the justices are not consciously aware of their motivations.

 

Dean Shomshak

[TrickstaPriest]

On 2/12/2019 at 3:04 PM, Lord Liaden said:

As I've posted before, some legal scholars think Originalism was always a fraud. But this is a different argument. To many Evangelicals, the SCOTUS did make an Originalist ruling.

 

Here I can actually speak from something close to personal experience, based on the chain email rants my conservative uncle in Texas used to forward me. One perennial was the list of supposed quotes by Founding Fathers about how the USA was Christian, Christian, only and fundamentally Christian, and so all those secular liberals needed to "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" (Sic; and not just in caps, but in extra-large font.)

  

How to reconcile this with the Establishment Clause? Ah, the Founders intent was only that Congress could not establish one Christian sect above others.

  

I have not personally read any Evangelical celebrations of this ruling. I think it is a plausible speculation, though, that many will celebrate it as tacit acknowledgement of "Christian America."

  

 Dean Shomshak

 

My expectation of their interpretation of this was this as well.  Frankly I think he's forgetting how many Christian "sects" clearly, cheerfully, and willingly murdered and went to war with other Christian "sects". 

 

A proper historian could tell me if that oppression was part of the motivation in fleeing to America to begin with...

 

My personal thought is just that if your uncle thinks a Christian country is going to be more united, more strong, he is in for a really bad surprise.  If politicians have no outsiders to target, they have to look towards insiders... like the Irish.  I'm pretty sure I've started hearing those slurs in the media again...

[Sociotard]

Ya wanna quote from a founding father about Christianity's place over the others? I got that.

 

Lets start with George Washington's visit to the Touro Synagogue in Newport.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135

Quote

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

 

Or there's the 1796 treaty with Tripoli. Now, there were, granted, a lot of treaties ratified that tried to deal with the north African pirates, and this one only lasted three years before it was broken. Even so, the version that the US ratified included this little bit:

Quote

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

Now, amusingly, this treaty was the victim of bad translation. The original in Arabic didn't even include this bit! Nevertheless, this is the version that the Senate and President John Adams ratified. Read again, a number of founding fathers didn't mind putting their names to that text.