By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead

vivster said:
gergroy said:

Or maybe you don’t understand what you are arguing against?  The US is a republic that elects it’s representatives democratically.  A direct democracy would not have any representatives and people would vote on the issues directly.  I haven’t seen anybody advocate or bring up a direct democracy except you.

The abolishment of the electoral college would not change us to a democracy.  We would still have elected officials.  The presidency is the only elected position that has this system in place... changing it to match how every other official is elected would still be a republic system....

Actually in Europe anything resembling the electoral college would disqualify you from being a democracy. It's against the principle of a direct vote. The principle of the direct vote is NOT the same as a direct democracy as it only pertains to the voting of officials and not the voting on issues and laws.

And that's only one of many things that invalidates the US as a democracy. So yes, you are right, the removal of the electoral college would not make you a democracy. For that many other things would have to happen as well.

Don't most Europe countries have a prime minster that is indirectly elected by Parliament/congress?  I much rather have the electoral college system then having my congress man dictate who get my indirect vote for president.  At least this way I have the option to vote for a congress man from one party and a president from a different party.

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

The President that will nominate a new justice and makes an argument that the idea of a god and superstition must be protected.

I see it all the time, how judges and public officials think they can force members, citizens and officials into compelled speech by forcing prayers and tryinf to force people to adhere to religious precepts and how the line that SHOULD separate church and states is always at risk (and in a lot of cases already overlooked) by those in government that don't understand this is NOT a theocracy where you can force people to entertain your magical sky daddy. And new nominations will follow that perspective, the perspective that people should be forced to believe in the idea of a god.

Law is as good as the people who interpret and enforce it.

Out of curiosity, what are you talking about?  If anything, the United States governments have been unusually hostile to religion this past decade.  Society in general has also ebbed from the religious revitalization that started in the 1960s and 70s.

The United States is in no danger of becoming theocratic at the moment.  Unless one considers the destruction of religion to be a form of theocracy.

So you don't know of instances where the US government completely disrespects the separation of church and state and just looks away from violations?

Well, let me take you out of your bubble then:

The court always having to intervene in fragrant disrespect on the separation of church and state and the rights of nonbelievers in public institutions:

If you think that disrespect shown above towards non-believers, Atheists, people of other faiths is not enough then show me your examples of public officials disrespecting Christians to counter the number of cases I listed above but be warned because I have even more cases, I just got tired of listing them.

The hostility and abuse of power against non-believers and atheists doesn't look like a big deal when you don't give a fuck about it.

Last edited by AbbathTheGrim - on 26 September 2020

Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

NightlyPoe said:

Your minor examples aren't providing much persuasive evidence that the United States is even remotely close to a theocracy.  I'm not even sure how or why your first and primary example demonstrates it at all.

You seem to think that you hit a homerun, but it's declaring a burgeoning theocracy in a country and culture that is currently going through a significant religious ebb is silly at best.

> claims that the government is hostile to religion (Christianity)

> ignores flagrant assaults again freedom of speech and thought against Atheists, nonbelievers, people of other faiths by public officials

> offers no examples of any hostilities against religion (Christianity)

> calls my examples "silly" while offering nothing

You have no examples to give, not even in the "minor" ballpark of what I've shown, of hostilities towards Christians of any sort and yet you claim Christians are the ones having it hard here.

What is your opinion of the President of the United States using "nonbeliever" as a negative?

Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

NightlyPoe said:

Considering I didn't say that the government is hostile to religions in that post, it's not surprising that I failed to include any examples to back it up.

"If anything, the United States governments have been unusually hostile to religion this past decade."

NightlyPoe said:

What is more striking is that you believe these small controversies adds up to the whole country being a theocracy, when you just need to look around a little and realize it's just not and has no chance to become one given the current cultural climate.

I haven't said the country is a theocracy. My first post criticizes the approach the Extreme Left has had towards discussions or lack of discussions and how they stifle dialogue and keep antagonizing the Right and "when the Left rises, so does the Right" and in whatever confrontation that may happen in the future (if any) there is still the danger of the Right taking power and not giving a fuck about the separation of church and state. I don't take Democracy and the Constitution for granted. What can happen if the Right and the Left don't give a fuck about sharing this nation anymore? Who knows what will be left of this nation?

Of course, there are places in the US where things run pretty much as a theocracy and the website I continue to link shows the fights nonbelievers have to pull in order not to be forced to do compelled speech by way of prayers and proselytization, enforced by public officials.

NightlyPoe said:

Wish he wouldn't.  Doesn't amount to much.  Trump's hardly much of a religious person himself.

Well, it seems that you yourself may have come to terms about the things you are willing to turn a blind eye about.

This line right here ======> Doesn't amount to much.  Trump's hardly much of a religious person himself.

If I use that line and tell you that most of the people who criticize the Amy nominee are "hardly much of religious people themselves", is that enough for you to stop caring about their "attacks"? I ask because that last line seems to read like an excuse not to pay attention to the President of the United States.

Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

"That wasn't the same post."

> Replies to me with a post saying the government is hostile towards religion

> I react and counter-argue

> says he didn't say the government was hostile

> I quote and link

> says "that wasn't the post" (????)

I don't even know what you pretend to be doing here.

"You brought up theocracy, not me."

Did I say you did? Where? Like I said, my whole point is me worrying about what this country will become if the two sides escalate their hostilities. If a lot of people on the Religious Right could have their way they'd try to force people to be believers if given a chance, compel speech normalizing the idea of a god if they could (they do) and use public spaces for proselytization (they do and I linked precedents).

"Not blind eye. I said I wish he wouldn't. However, Trump doesn't give a crap about religion one way or another and doesn't care about whether a person is a believer or not."

He cares that Evangelicals (his base) cares. He could be thinking about AOC's tits while he signs orders that give power to the church and appointees that will chip away the separation of church and state and it would not matter at all. What matters is what he signs and how he disrespects the separation of church and state.

NOW, before you jump the gun, let me be clear, I haven't said Trump will turn this into a theocracy, I mentioned Trump because you talked about "attacks" against people's faith and I should add philosophy/freedom of thought, etc. and how it mattered when it was about "Catholics" but doesn't matter when it is about nonbelievers and atheist. So far I have seen Trump appoint Right-leaning appointees (which is not illegal lol), try to fuck with the Johnson Amendment, disrespect nonbelievers, etc. which is NOT making this a theocracy but it is indeed a complete disregard for nonbelievers and atheists.

Let me put it this way and simple, anyone can have or not have as much outrage for the confirmation of a "Catholic" like Amy the same way that you have or not have outrage for the words of Trump against unbelievers and atheists.

My position? Don't use people's identities against them: believers, Catholics, Atheists, etc. and just look at the merits and find out if they respect our Constitution: freedom of thought, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, freedom of religion.

"That doesn't make any sense. Of course a non-religious person attacking a religious person for their beliefs is a danger. Flipping the script is not a valid defense."

Is a religious person attacking a non-religious/atheist person for their "beliefs" also "danger"?

That bit you quoted is about me pointing how you feel outrage for the questioning, criticism, "attacks" on Barrett and me asking you if you pretend that you can dismiss something like the attack from Trump towards unbelievers and dismissing that attack as "nothing to worry about" because of what you pretend to sell as an alleged irreligiosity within Trump because then, likewise, people can say the attacks on Barrett are not a big deal because those "attacking" are "hardly" religious either.

My position? I don't care whether someone is religious or not, their attacks are attacks and are independent of subjective appreciation of religious commitment.

Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:

I already posted videos of both Biden and Schumer saying that they would do this in the last year (last two years in Schumer's case) for the previous two Republican presidents.  So, yes, we are talking about the same thing.

You posted a video of Biden saying the president shouldn't nominate someone in the summer particularly. Not that he would do both. (Block a nominee and support a nominee in the same timeframe.)

Schumer's cited reasons were not the timeframe, but that the supreme court is 'dangerously out of balance', after Bush obfuscated the hearing process of his two previous nominees difficulty, who gave their word to respect legal precedents, and yet quickly started overturning them.
You could argue a naked pursuit of power in Schumers case, except his move would have lead to balancing the court, as it was already in a liberal minority at that time.
While Mitch McConnel and co. are doing this while it already has a conservative majority.

NightlyPoe said:

I'm not sure why that matters.

Beyond which, Democrat shenanigans on court nominees are still a few judges short of being even.  Right now we're talking about just the Scalia seat, but Democrats managed to maintain liberal control of the court by forcing Republicans for decades now to nominate poor judges because they were more willing to play hardball while Republicans just let liberal justices pass on through.

Frankly, it would take another couple of seats for Republicans to even the score.

'Court shenanigans' and 'playing hardball' is a pretty ambiguous. If you're going to suggest these are equivalences, you'll have to be more specific. Was it a break from traditional proceedings, followed by a promise to not have it both ways, and then the same people do a 180 again to fill another supreme court seat?

NightlyPoe said:

my goodness, aren't the Democrats all on record 4 years ago saying that it's the Senate's Constitutional duty to vote?  Has that moral principle fallen by the wayside?  Well, yes, because the shoe's on the other foot.

You know that the context of that position is that you also do not block the hearing procedures of a nominee. Something the GOP suddenly did, but at least gave their word that they wouldn't be hypocrites and have it both ways.

NightlyPoe said:

Skipping the bit about foreign definitions of liberal and progressive as completely irrelevant.

It wasn't a foreign take. US progressives commonly do not take corporate donations.
US liberals are seemingly ok with corporate donations, it seems.

NightlyPoe said:

Ah.  Well, let me assure you, I think everyone is being a hypocrite.  Anyone who doesn't just admit that in 2016, Republicans didn't want to confirm the nominee and Democrats did because Obama was the one making the choice was lying.  In 2020 anyone who doesn't admit the opposite is also lying.

Everything else is just a food fight.  You're not alone, so I'm not making it personal.

But I am trying to make you understand that the above truth is what is motivating you and every other person involved.

If you have a specific or demonstrable reason, such as an old post you can link to, then it's fine to call someone out for being a hypocrite.
Otherwise, don't suggest that people are for no particular reason on a particular subject.

Of course it excuses the action.  Why wouldn't playing by the same rulebook as the opposition be excusable?  No moral was violated in not confirming a nominee 4 years ago.  No Senate rule was violated.  It wasn't even an ugly process as Republicans laid off Garland as a person and let Democrats cast him as a moderate (he's not).

What do you gain by doing something to help the opposition when they've already explicitly told you they would not do so for you?  What we're talking about is essentially maintaining etiquette after all.

That may be your opinion on what was more ugly, or if it was the same thing or not.
But what you should do is you call it out when it happens for either side, rather than make excuses when it happens to yours. And be consistent.

If you're now going to say "But what about the democrats?", then you should have said "But what about the Republicans?" during those prior situations you're referencing.

Last edited by Hiku - on 02 October 2020

NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said:


As you obviously have an issue with me that I have no control over, I ask that you stop responding to my posts.

You do have control of constantly going out of your way to make things personal for no apparent reason, attacking staff such as here, among other things. And it's not exclusive to how you interact with me.

RBG was anti-indigenous and anti-black , part of her reasoning for being pro-choice was based in eugenics. I don't cry over powerful racist, white people.