LGBT equality and the US Supreme Court

>>5882633
Fuck off
People's rights > LGBT rights
Do you want another AWB? Because that's how you get an AWB.

>>5882633
He's a fucking Jew! If nominated, we will have 4 Jews on the Supreme Court. 4 of them out of 9 for a religion that is maybe 3% of the American population. Absolutely fucking NO!

>>5882658
>4 of them out of 9 for a religion that is maybe 3% of the American population. Absolutely fucking NO!

Do you seriously give a shit about organized religion in 2016? he could believe in the Jedi faith. JUST FUCKING GET HIM ON THE COURT

>>5882649
>People's rights > LGBT rights

LGBT rights ARE people's rights

>>5882649
>People's rights > LGBT rights
So LGBT aren't people? Or their rights are less important than other people's?

>>5882633
>elect hillary
>not saving the country with the Trump
Nobody wants that cuck in the house.

>>5882665
>It's the current year!!!

bamp

>>5882694
Yes?

>>5885417
Well that's an opinion I disagree with, so from my perspective any conclusion following from it is invalid.

>>5885441
Cool story. My right to not coddle you and go along with your delusion should Trump(2016) your right to have your delusions validated.

>>5885449
Again, that's your opinion. I am not obligated to agree with it or consider any conclusions following from it to be valid.

>Hillary Clinton

Fuck off, I'm not voting for that snake. Stop shilling her.

>>5882633
"Don't vote for who you actually want to vote for or the boogeyman will get you!" Yeahh go fuck yourself. I'm not settling for the lesser of two evils.

File: 1429515730141.gif (1024KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

1024KB, 250x188px

>>5882633
>wants to overturn the Heller decision
Fuck no.

> And the GOP extremists in the US Senate are blocking him from even a vote.
Just like Joe Biden in 1992.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0
>Senator Joe Biden in 1992: "President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Lay off the facebook memes and educate yourself, cuck.

>>5882633
>And the GOP extremists in the US Senate are blocking him from even a vote. It's time for the LGBT community to stand up to these extremists.
It's called checks and balances. You should have learned that in your Civics class. They are why presidents aren't unilateral dictators. The president nominates, the senate decides to confirm. They chose to not confirm. Get over yourself.

>>5889847
>Yeahh go fuck yourself. I'm not settling for the lesser of two evils.
So you'd rather vote for the greater of two evils?

>>5889877
It's also courtesy to at least allow a hearing

>>5889868
>cuck
Good job completely invalidating yourself

>>5889957
It's also a courtesy to say please and thank you. Do you know what isn't a courtesy? Having the highlight of your legal career being a political pawn for a lame duck president.

Obama deliberately nominated a moderate-left judge that might appeal to the Republicans in the case Hillary looks like she is going to win. At best, he's a contingency plan for the right to vote in. At worst, he's a pawn for the left to say "look! the republicans are obstructionist!". Hillary won't nominate him if she does win and he isn't confirmed.

The Senate has decided to not confirm any nominations until the next President is in office. To hold a hearing to tell someone "no" is more of a slap in the face than politely declining to hold a hearing.

Still not as much of a slap in the face as being told "you're only good enough in a politically heated landscape to appeal to both sides". Which is a shame. The court should have more moderates who do their actual job, rather than voting on their party lines.

>>5889966
Typical response. "You said something that triggers me! INVALID!"

Screaming "invalid" doesn't change the fact that it's "acceptable" for a Democratic Senate to stonewall (pun intended) a Republican President, but then it's "extremist" for a Republican Senate to do the same thing to a Democratic President.

>>5889986
Obama isn't lame duck until after the election. It would probably be politically wise for the republicans to hold a hearing in order to not appear obstructionist
>the courts should have more moderates
Ideally but, like everything, it's ultimately a tool of politics

>>5889994
You see what's really hilarious here is that you didn't even watch your own video, given that there was no seat to be contested in 1992
And also
>le triggered maymay
It's like you're looking for ways to show your retardation

>>5889986
>Hillary won't nominate him if she does win and he isn't confirmed.

Can't wait for Hillary to appoint an Ultra left wing Supreme Court justice after the election.

>freedom
>having the government just change who is being oppressed.

Being LGBT doesn't give use the right to force people to give us goods and services against their will.

If someone doesn't want to make you a cake or perform your wedding. Then you just need to suck it up and find another person to engage in trade with.

File: 1457665070434.jpg (27KB, 673x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 673x600px

>>5882633
The only extremists in government are the democrats, get fucked you fanatic.

>>5890068
>burning the constitution
A good thing desu

>>5890073
case in point

>>5889994
Calling people cucks is not a valid argument, and using it suggests that you're running out of arguments. If you had valid arguments, you wouldn't need to resort to calling people cucks.

>>5890073
My girlfriend and I want to keep our firearms and ability to conceal carry. So Garland and anyone else Obama nominates, can go get fucked.

>>5890078
>hurr we need to autistically attach ourselves to an ancient document becuz muh freedums

>>5890087
Ooh, lemme guess, you think the big bad gubbermint is gonna come and attack you and steal your guns

>>5890067
If you think businesses being required to sell things to paying customers is oppression, you've obviously never been oppressed. After all, you're NOT required to enter business in the first place, so you can easily choose to avoid this form of "oppression". Whereas doctors refusing to treat severely injured patients because they don't have money or the doctor just doesn't like them - something you apparently condone - is what many would consider oppression.

>>5890093
>le ancient document
>le so outdated
>ITS 2016 COME ON

I agree it needs to be changed but to suggest we do away with everything in it completely is retarded. America isn't meant to be a political carbon copy of other western nations.

>>5890087
>can go get fucked
What does this mean, in actual real-world terms? You think the government is going to do what you say just because of you reeeeeeing on some imageboard?

>>5890110
>America isn't meant to be a political carbon copy of other western nations.

That's not something you should be barging about.

>>5890097
>wow you're so stupid for having actual beliefs and convictions, what a fucking loser. You should be more like me and not care about anything besides being comfy and catered to, responsibility is for privileged bigots.

>>5890073
Yes let's destroy the only thing that provides us rights which can't be taken away by public opinion.

While we're at it, let's abolish every single law, throwing the country into a civil war over who will get to be in control of the new totalitarian dictatorship.

Man, radical leftists are so smart.

File: 1456728160789.png (2MB, 1655x1160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1655x1160px

>>5890114
>That's not something you should be barging about.
I assume you mean *bragging* but in this modern context, yes it is quite something that I feel should be bragged about.

>>5890093
>>5890114
Yeah, right? Americans are so stupid, holding to that 230 year old document. They should be like the Europeans, and have communist revolutions, fascist coups, wars and genocides every 50-100 years. Gotta keep things fresh!

>>5890120
Technically, the ONLY reason the Constitution "provides us rights which can't be taken away by public opinion"...is because public opinion says the Constitution should be followed. The Constitution is a blueprint for government, but it doesn't have any magical powers to protect us from public opinion. It's only useful so long as public opinion accepts it is useful.

File: fiscal-conservative.jpg (48KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x345px

>>5890144
>Yeah, right? Americans are so stupid, holding to that 230 year old document. They should be like the Europeans, and have communist revolutions, fascist coups, wars and genocides every 50-100 years. Gotta keep things fresh!

No I'm talking about social democracy. That means we should have free healthcare, free college, paid sick leave, strong unionization, progressive taxation, ban on all guns, etc.

There is nothing wrong with all this. We should be more like Europe, not less.

>>5890110
>shoehorning me into your memes
>>5890144
Especially like those revolutionary constitution-less British who've had a total of 0 revolutions since 1648!
>>5890120
>rights
>existing

>>5890156
>It's only useful so long as public opinion accepts it is useful.
It's already been trampled upon completely, the public has already deemed it as unuseful.

The only rights the government is afraid to overturn completely are the first and the second, because they're so divisive and could lead to serious, real violent conflict. Although they have been tampered with, most prominantly the second and as for the first, I find that modern leftist outrage culture has made it all but pointless. The freedom of speech is useless if the populace doesn't respect it.

>>5890170
>modern leftist outrage culture
>implying conservatives don't have as big of persecution complexes as leftists

>>5890167
>shoehorning me into your memes
come off of it mate, you're a walking meme.

>rights
>existing
All of our rights are endowed to us by mere action of existing (you could say given to us by nature, God, etc.). We only realize them as rights when they've been suppressed and taken away from us, that's when they become something to legislate and protect from tyranny.

File: oyvey.jpg (6KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 320x180px

>>5890166
>Greenberg

>>5890179
>you're a walking meme
Only as much as you want to see me as one
>all of our rights are endowed upon us by the mere action of existing
Says who? Most people are only willing to recognize rights they want to, hence why there's so much disagreement. Ultimately, the very notion of a right is a political tool

>>5890175
Conservatives are fully entitled to that, they are literally at the opposing end of the establishment narrative. You can be fired from your job for holding socially conservative opinions, meanwhile no conservative business owner is going to be able to fire you because he discovers you have a USSR flag on your wall at home or you aren't deemed patriotic enough.

>>5890117
>projecting this hard
Lmao >>5890190

>>5890190
sauce on any of that?

>>5890167
Congratulations. You identified one of two significant European countries that have had a contiguous government longer than the United States.

Note that the state you identified possesses institutions and laws that date back as far as the 11th century.

And rights exist as much as law exists as much as states exist.

>>5890193
Didn't mean to quote at the end

>>5890199
Rights exist as far as the general public is willing to acknowledge them

>>5890097
nah, Muslims and Christians who hate us for who we are or who we love.

then the general removal of muggers, car jackers, and people breaking into my home.

>>5890109
It is absurd that voluntary tansactions suddenly become compulsory because one party belongs to a government designated special protection group.

>yet another jew
where do all these jews even come from I swear to god I've never even met a jew but they're all over the fucking place in media and gov smdh

>>5890166
The "social democracy" nations of Europe actually have high(for europe) gun ownership. You can even own machine guns in some.

>>5890187
>Says who? Most people are only willing to recognize rights they want to, hence why there's so much disagreement. Ultimately, the very notion of a right is a political tool
Yes, dickweed, and the constitution is the only thing in the US that provides us with the political mechanism of a right outside the control of democracy.

The constitution is the thing that lets the supreme court decide that no, it doesn't matter how many people oppose gay marriage, it's still a legal right.

But you're opposed to that because it's "old" and because "a right is not really a thing".

You have the political mentality of a 14 year old.

>>5890216
Jews suck really
When's the last time you've ever seen a right wing jew anyway
Everyone hates them, they're the eternal victims, and they caused the Black Death

>>5890212
No, they exist as far as the general public is willing to acknowledge the authority of the state that enforces those rights, and as far as the state is able to compell them to accept its authority.

>>5890221
I think there was a popular one on social media but he suddenly went all retard because of trump

I'm in favor of more muslims if it means less jews 2bh

>>5890216
>where do all these jews even come from I swear to god I've never even met a jew but they're all over the fucking place in media and gov smdh

A lot live in NYC, which is a city that has a lot of influence over US politics and media.

>>5890226
more Ashkenazi jews live in the NYC metro area, than live in Israel.

>>5890226
>The New York metropolitan area is home to the largest Jewish population in the world outside Israel. After dropping from a peak of 2.5 million in the 1950s to a low of 1.4 million in 2002 the population of Jews in the New York metropolitan area grew to 1.54 million in 2011.
Guess we just have to burn NYC to the ground

>>5890232
Israel was created by the British to be a safe space homeland for the jews of Europe.

Most jews still live in Christian lands, rather than their own. Most of the jews in Israel are brown middle east types.

>>5890232
>Guess we just have to burn NYC to the ground

Why are you so antisemitic?

Jews are statically some of the strongest supporters of LGBT rights in America.

>>5890219
>outside the control of democracy
Except the constitution can be democratically amended
>it's still a legal right
And do you honestly believe that decision was made solely on legal grounds and that puic opinion played no role?
>you're opposed to it because it's old
Not necessarily. I said it was outdated, which implies it's outlived its usefulness. There are many other writings (both political and not) from earlier times that are still more relevant
>you have the political mentality of a 14 year old
Thanks for the feedback senpai

>>5890241
>Jews are statically some of the strongest supporters of LGBT rights in America.
k
But i'd rather we have more muslims over jews 2bh, so 9/11 part 2 when

>>5890237
>most jews still live in christian lands, rather than their own

Because they are parasites. There is a reason they have been kicked out of hundreds of places over the years.

>>5890187
>Most people are only willing to recognize rights they want to,
MOST people, which is why the constitution is important, so people cannot undermine the rights of others to accomplish their own ends.

We shouldn't base our rights on 200 year old paper, we should base it off our own morals.

>>5890193
It's right though.

>>5890198
>sauce
I'm not living under a rock and can observe modern cultural phenomena.

>>5890245
You're a fucking obnoxious idiot.

Yes, the constitution is not an invincible establishment which preserves objective human rights for US citizens. I'm not arguing that it is. The fact that something is not absolute, absolutely guaranteed rights, absolute legal interpretation, that doesn't mean that it does not serve a function in providing rights, and the rule of law to the citizens. No system is absolute, every system can be broken down. That isn't a reasonable criticism to make of anything, because nothing can hold to that ideal.

If you want an absolute solution, kill yourself, because death is absolute.

>>5890277
And as >>5890156 pointed out, the only reason that happens is because MOST people are willing to recognize the constitution as a legitimate source of authority.

>>5890281
I don't trust your morals to determine my rights. I trust them even less than those of dead men, because you have the ability to scrutinize me.

>>5890283
>my hand selected confirmation biased observations
Lol k senpai

>>5890294
>I don't trust your morals to determine my rights.

Why?

Why is 200 year old paper have more authority than me?

>>5890299
read the second sentence

>>5890287
>you're a fucking obnoxious idiot
Don't be so angry senpai
>that's not a reasonable criticism to make
But it is. Note how the right of liberty against slavery wasn't fully considered a human right until after the 13th amendment. What's considered a right is held to the scrutiny of the public, willingly or not

>>5890306
You didn't even address what I said.

Yes, the constitution can be amended, and those amendments are ultimately, derived from public opinion. However, the constitution provides a check on the power of public opinion, demanding drastic and overwhelming public and politcal support to overturn. It therefore protects the rights it guarantees by being very difficult to amend.

I don't think I can make this any clearer.

>>5890293
Honestly, the constitution, within the context of the period it was written, was meant to be a replacement, or rather an embodiment of the enlightenment ideals of, God. Like God, the constitution's validity is only powerful so long as the people respect it and believe in it. So it's almost something that does NEED to be viewed as sacred in order to work, otherwise our laws would be changing every couple of months or years. Not to say that it should never change, but most people lack an understanding of it in the first place, including our politicians, many of whom aren't in their seats from merit of their desire to be of duty to their people, but rather to serve the interests of their financial donors, there's no real way to weed that out except as Jefferson would've put it, through constant revolution and bloodshed.

I entertain fascism more and more each day as I dwell upon these things.

>>5890331
You seem to be completely missing what I'm saying. I'm not commenting on the amendment process. The very concept of a right and every further conceptualization of a right is derived because someone (often a huge amount of people) wants it to exist.

>>5890336
>fascism
>not authoritarian leftism
Shameful desu

File: 1458016089656.png (93KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 512x384px

>>5890348
leftism is inherently degenerate, you will be overrun by those stronger than you. This is also brings up the question of who your revolutionaries will be- considering most leftists are spineless degenerates.

>>5890357
>leftists are spineless degenerates
Stalin says hi
We can have a tight knit party controlling the top executive and legislative functions of the state

>>5890364
Stalin killed the same people in Russia. That Hitler killed through out Europe.

>>5890342
If an overwhelming majority of people desired the sorts of rights which have become guaranteed by supreme court rulings of constitutionality, they would not have needed to be agreed upon by the supreme court.

In the case of, for instance, the right to freedom of speech, the degree to which it extends in the US goes far beyond the limits of nearly any other country in the world. This is not because the general public is very particulary concerned with freedom of speech, it is because they are generally favorable towards it, and the courts have ruled strongly on it. Without a constitutional guarantee, freedom of speech would be more selectively restricted in the US, as it is in most western nations.

In other issues, such as gay marriage and abortion, and interracial marriage, public opinion has been strongly divided, yet the supreme court has come down firmly on one side of the issue, dictating the terms to the other side, who are compelled by tradition and respect for the law to acquiesce.

I shouldn't have to go far into the issue of gun control.

In all these cases, divided or tepid support for these rights have nontheless resulted in codification of them by the supreme court under the authority of the constitution.

The system works.

>>5890170
>The freedom of speech is useless if the populace doesn't respect it.
That's kind of missing the whole point of freedom of speech, unless by "doesn't respect it" you mean trying to ban it. Freedom of speech literally only means the government can't punish you for what you say. It does not in any way mean individual citizens have to listen to people they disagree with.

>>5890179
Rights only have de facto existence when they're enforced and protected. Otherwise they're purely hypothetical.

>>5890213
>It is absurd that voluntary tansactions suddenly become compulsory because one party belongs to a government designated special protection group.
Again, they're not compulsory, you're free not to go into business. By putting an item up for sale with $29.99 price tag on it, you're implicitly agreeing to sell it to anyone who has the money. And I don't think this should only apply to "special protection groups", businesses should not arbitrarily refuse service to anyone, whether they're a minority or not. I don't think gay business owners have right to deny service to straight people, even homophobic ones.

>>5890219
>Yes, dickweed, and the constitution is the only thing in the US that provides us with the political mechanism of a right outside the control of democracy.
And the Constitution is empowered to grant us rights by the consent of the people and/or the government.

>>5890283
>I'm not living under a rock and can observe modern cultural phenomena.
So in other words, you don't have a source and expect us to take your word for it?

>>5890294
>because you have the ability to scrutinize me
That implies you don't believe you deserve rights.

>>5890348
The difference between fascism and authoritarian leftism is the difference between willing nationalism, and necessary nationalism.

>>5890381
>That implies you don't believe you deserve rights.
No, it means that I don't gladly invite my enemies to the table where my rights are to be determined.

>>5890357
>leftism is inherently degenerate
How do you define degeneracy?

>you will be overrun by those stronger than you
The people who make this kind of statement tend to have a very poor understanding of what strength actually means. They think it's all about being a rugged individualist alpha male. However, that kind of mentality is often antithetical to working together, and those individuals will be overrun by those who are weaker individually, but can put aside their differences to create a whole greater than the sum of it's parts. That's basically the fundamental principle of civilization.

>>5890393
So you don't believe in democracy?

>>5890398
>So you don't believe in democracy?
I don't.

>>5890377
>abortion
And note how opinion is still very strongly divided on the subject 50 years later because although they are legally required to accept the Supreme Court ruling, many people see it as a false one that protects a right that doesn't exist

>>5890388
Nationalism should only be used by the state when necessary

>>5890364
>Stalin says hi
Stalin is dead (and he was more right-wing than you think), so are all the leftists who had balls. Soviet leftism died with the old guard of kikes who started it. The only way people were able to rally around leftist authoritarianism was because the kikes in Russia were the only ones who started an anti-tsarist revolution of any considerable magnitude, their original values of equality and destruction of hierarchy were shattered when it became aware of how much it was dragging the country down. The only saving grace of the USSR was basically to convert it into a nationalist dictatorship. This was even worse IMO because the illusion was still perpetuated that all were equal and the society was classless while the people who ruled were well aware that was bullshit. Stalin existed because of the power vacuum left behind from the Lenin. It was a movement built on a house of lies from the start.

>>5890412
I love how you manage to completely ignore the February revolution

>>5890398
>How do you define degeneracy?
qualities that are bound to cause social, cultural, economic, or physical deterioration in the future. The Webster definition is good too: " having declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state"

>They think it's all about being a rugged individualist alpha male
That's not what I'm saying though. What I'm talking about is that the leftist ethos is one that leaves them vulnerable to external threat, predominantly those who don't give a fuck about their values. Your society needs warriors, and it just so turns out that the best warriors tend to gravitate towards fascist ideals and not leftist ones.

File: whyivoterepublican.jpg (49KB, 640x552px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x552px

>>5890435
>and it just so turns out that the best warriors tend to gravitate towards fascist ideals and not leftist ones.

>>5890445
>I don't understand what fascism is

>>5882633
>2016
>believing that LGBT is still an issue

Typical plebeians, worried about self centered identity politics.

Sometimes I wish that we could just move all the special snowflakes to Mexico.

>>5890381
it isn't refusing service for arbitrary reasons for them.

they think we are a bunch of sinful people. that by making us a cake or performing the ceremony. They are also committing a sin.

people should be free to discriminate and offend.

only government must be held to a non discriminatory standard. viewing everyone in its jurisdiction as equal.

Which is why I am also against hate crime legislation. I don't really give a rats ass if someone is attacking me because i'm a lesbian. motivation is irrelevant, only that action matters.

>>5890021
Yes, Biden was using it as an example. We all know of his political backpedaling he's trying to do because it paints Obama's nomination scheme in a bad light. The point still stands.

>>5890083
>attacking the person
>not the argument
Ad Hominem 101. You don't have an argument to begin with.

>>5890451
Apparently you don't, if you think there have been enough fascist societies to constitute a meaningful sample size.

>>5890453
Okay, what about things like hospitals? Should private hospitals be allowed to refuse to treat a patient just because they don't like them?

>>5890456
Calling people cucks is L I T E R A L L Y an ad hominem. Pointing out that your argument seems weak isn't. Maybe you should actually try to learn what ad hominem means before you try accusing people of it.

>Obama nominates one of the most right wing centrist judge of any Democratic president ever
>Republicans won't even bring him up for a vote

This is why every Republican needs to be lined up and shoot.

This guy could appoint Reagan's dead corpse to the court and they would block it from a vote.

>>5890465
>he called people a cuck despite presenting an actual argument!
>i simply attacked that one single word and ignored everything else as "invalid" so that it would suit my own purposes!
Yawn. Come back when you actually want to talk about the issue instead of a meme'd word choice, faggot. [spoiler]That was spoken in the same fashion as the word "cuck". Don't hang yourself over it. Rise above your shitty attacks and actually address the argument. :^)[/spoiler]

>>5890467
Garland is a liberal, it was even on his wikipedia page until someone changed it to moderate, a few minutes after he was announced.

Don't forget that Clinton called Ginsburg a moderate when nominating her. Now she is known as the most far left justice.

The only thing that is going to make the GOP happy. Is is Obama nominates another Scalia.

>>5890467
Right wing? He's on record saying he doesn't agree with the Heller decision. How is that "right wing"? Please tell me how any candidate supporting a position of gun control is "right wing"?

>>5890467
>muh ebil rethuglicans maymay

lol getting so flustered over some gay ass lgbt shit that you'd suggest people who have different opinions should be executed

poor bants mate, hope you grow up

>>5890465
current law says that ERs have treat everyone until they are stable enough to be discharged.

I'm fine with this. As it is a life or death limitation.

If a hospital wants to refuse non emergency service. Then they should be free to do so.

>>5890461
We're defining ideology here, and the image of a corporate capitalist swindling a fat redneck doesn't relate to fascism at all.

>>5890473
>another Scalia
Would that really be such a bad decision? Scalia, despite appearing right-wing, is actually pro-constitution.

A right-winger would never support a decision protecting pot grower's 4th amendment rights against street thermal imaging of their homes. A right-winger would never say "let the state's decide" in the case of gay marriage.

Unlike a lot of justices, Scalia actually tried to stick to a strict interpretation of what the constitution laid out, rather than rewrite the document to suit the ideologies of the modern era.

>>5890470
Calling someone a cuck cannot under any circumstances make an argument more valid. It is, by definition, an ad hominem. Even if someone actually is okay with other men fucking their wife, it has literally nothing to do with whether their arguments are logically valid. And combining it with an actual argument just makes you look desperate/immature.

>>5890485
>A right-winger would never say "let the state's decide" in the case of gay marriage.
The supporters of "states' rights" almost exclusively seem to be right wingers.

>>5890166
>ban on all guns
kill yourself
with a gun

>>5890486
>still hung up over a meme word
>still won't address the argument
>tries to defend itself by saying it matters
I go to school with people like you who just walked out of a Phil 101 class and learned about yourlogicalfallacyis.com .

People interested in having a discussion over an issue overlook the mud-slinging and address the issues with the confidence that they can actually dismantle another person's argument.

Talking-point-reciters like yourself cling to straws like this, because they can't actually address issues, and repeat over and over the same thing in an attempt to get their opponents to concede out of annoyance.

If you have a counter, address the issue, or shut the fuck up. We get it. You don't like the word cuck. Grow the fuck up. This isn't your safe space.

>>5890493
It's not a two-way argument though.

Right-wingers want to overturn gay marriage in states that do allow it. It just so happens that people who support "states rights" are the more-moderate less-fundamental right-wingers.

>>5890485
Obama's two picks,and Ginsburg, really don't give a damn about the US constitution.

They are literally, it means what ever the hell I feel like it means.

Kagan was not even a judge until put on the Supreme Court. She was a law clerk for a judge, a dean at Harvard, and then spent a year as a Solicitor General for Obama.

>>5890493
Democrat Majority states are using states' rights too.

>legal weed
>gun control more restrictive than federal level.

oh and the big annoyance for me at the moment. not recognizing the gun carry permits from other states. Which is just like a certain supreme court case about gay marriage that just happened.

>>5890331

It's amusing to see people always forgetting the existence of the amendment process - funny because they do so as the amendment process is built against them and their minority/slim majority tyranny and whim of the moment cultural norms. They could amend the 2nd amendment or majorly change the 1st amendment or add some new bullshit 'no abortion ever/no gay marriage ever/no hate speech against minorities ever' amendment. They just would never in a snowball's hell have the popular support to do so.

But when has that ever stopped self-anointed philosopher kings who are so euphoric and enlightened they know what is best?

That's probably the biggest reason I put such trust and faith in '200 year old paper'. Because having it as a bedrock foundation to build upon allows innovation but stymies it in order to avoid the danger of utopianist hubris of those who believe they have all the answers - the kind of arrogance that gave us the Bolsheviks and the Khmer Rouge and Mao, the Nazis and authoritarianism and the Islamists today. With our constitution we have a relative balance between conservatism (in the literal sense of wanting to conserve past traditions and norms) and progressivism (in the literal sense of wanting to innovate and change). Moderate, sometimes agonizingly slow but progress none the less occurs - but it is not so ramshackle wreckless as you had in Cuba or Venezeula or post Shah Iran. Likewise we do not throw out the past traditions and values that led us to where we are but let them naturally and slowly (sometimes agonizingly so) evolve or die.

>>5890485

At this point with the partisanship as bad as it is I feel like they should just make a damn amendment that 4 of the justices are appointed by the GOP, 4 by the democrats and the last by the president or some such shit. I'd rather have these razor thin margins than see the presidency increasingly become a kind of election just to anoint permanent judicial kings.

File: biden1992.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>5890505
No, really? Democrats game the system when it's in their favor? Say it isn't so!

Next you'll tell me that politicians lie and twist their words to suit their purposes!

>>5890513
Obama should pick someone that can actually get approved by the Republican Senate.

The Senate should bother to go through the motions and formally reject nominees until they find one they like.

Just outright refusing to even consider Garland is just wrong. Obama needs to keep through nominees at them, instead of just sitting on Garland.

>>5890473
>Garland is a liberal,

Prove it.

> Is is Obama nominates another Scalia.

We need Obama or Hillary to nominate a left wing version of Scalia.

>>5890475
>Right wing? He's on record saying he doesn't agree with the Heller decision. How is that "right wing"? Please tell me how any candidate supporting a position of gun control is "right wing"?

>gun control is left wing!

Jesus christ you are the reason America is fucked.

It's common sense gun control.

And Garland is anti-marijuana legalization, pro-corporate, and supported Citizens United decision.

>>5890477
This isn't a fucking joke. LGBT kill themselves over these fascist Republicans pigs.

File: circuits.jpg (89KB, 1094x680px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1094x680px

>>5890513
The "Justice for Life" system is what is really outdated in politics.

They should just have each of the circuits appoint a judge for X amount of years.

>>5890521
you have people on the left, like bill maher, that want to do away with the senate and the 10th amendment. to make the US a unitary government with just a population based legislature, like the UK.

the founders of course rejected this when writing the Constitution, because mob rule sucks.

>>5890532
>>5890532
>Jesus christ you are the reason America is fucked.
>It's common sense gun control.
LOL okay. Do you know what is common sense to the majority of the American public?

The fact that CRIMINAL L A W B R E A K E R S aren't going to follow whatever gun control laws are passed and commit their crimes regardless.

They aren't going to obey "Gun Free Zones".
They aren't going to obey "Mandatory Background Checks"
And they certainly aren't going to obey "Don't Murder"

Another fucking law, which would only serve to restrict people who actually abide by the laws to begin with, won't stop "gun violence". It's about as fucking abstract as trying to legislate a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Terror".

>>5890477
>suggest people who have different opinions should be executed
>suggests that people who are different should be denied basic rights
k
>>>/pol/

>>5890532
the left already has Ginsburg. She of course has two types of cancer and extremely old. She is basically on borrowed time and hanging on. Probably hoping that the SheBeast gets elected .

>>5890539
>The fact that CRIMINAL L A W B R E A K E R S aren't going to follow whatever gun control laws are passed and commit their crimes regardless.

Using your logic we should abolish all laws since there will always be somebody who will break them.

Over 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun sales. And yet you retards are opposing anything being done.

>>5890534
Justices can be impeached.

>>5890546
>the left already has Ginsburg. She of course has two types of cancer and extremely old. She is basically on borrowed time and hanging on. Probably hoping that the SheBeast gets elected .

I want someone even more to the left of Ginsburg. As a Democrat, I feel like our party is always getting fucked over by appealing to "moderates." It's time for a left wing tea party movement.

Who would Hillary appoint?

Is Hillary more left wing or less left wing then Obama?

The main reason I want Hillary in the white house is the Supreme Court being taken over by liberals.

>>5890548
>90% support background check mayamay

polls are meaningless. you can run the poll in such a way to get the the result you want.

>>5890548
>Over 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun sales
[citation needed]

>Using your logic we should abolish all laws since there will always be somebody who will break them.
[slippery slope]

>>5890558
the only way to get to the left of Ginsburg, is Bernie Sander tier crazies.

>>5890558
Didn't Hillary say she would consider appointing Obama?

Or was that just a presidential campaign meme?

http://nationalreport.net/hillary-consider-naming-obama-supreme-court-2016-win/

>>5890573
Obama would never get Senate approval.

There are not enough Democrats that like him enough to put him in that position.

>>5882633
lgbt stuff aside, this guy is kind of a scumbag. Wants to torture people and ban guns other bad stuff.

>>5890588
so in other words, he's a jew.

Garland would be the 4th jew and the others are catholics.

20% of America is catholic and 2% is jewish.

that doesn't sound very representative.

>>5890567
>the only way to get to the left of Ginsburg, is Bernie Sander tier crazies.

Hillary is only slightly less liberal than Sanders according the congressional voting records.

>>5890573
I think that was campaign meme. Hillary would appoint someone far to the left of Garland if president.

File: 768ee712-2649-4bd6-b840-e7b665ff8a66-big.jpg (13KB, 429x275px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 429x275px

>>5890610
Oy vey, why are you such an anti-semite?

Don't you know we-- I mean, they have your best interests in heart, and would never let politics influence their decision? I mean, they are supposed to interpret the constitution, not their feelings!

:^)

>>5890002

Worth mentioning that the government shutdown was, although detrimental to America overall and not something I remotely condone, a great move as far as energizing the voters.

Standing up to Obama made the base go crazy, despite the harm it caused. Obstructing Obummer here will make their base go crazy, especially because the American people and the country lose absolutely nothing from the deal.

>>5890645
Are you saying that the obstruction actually makes the conservative base want to go out and vote? It often has no effect on democratic turnout where I'm from if it's done by a group of democrats.

>>5890645
The American people lose a functioning supreme court you idiot. As congress becomes increasingly dysfunctional, the supreme court has increasingly become the only vector for real change in this country.

The supreme court is what gave us the right to marry and the supreme court will likely be what protects us, nationwide, from employment discrimination and housing discrimination. The GOP knows this, this is part of the reason they are throwing the constitution out the window to oppose Obama's nomination.

Know who your enemies are LGBT.

>>5890610
What are you some kind of fucking nazi? Quit asking such questions you stupid goy.

4chan has fucked people's brains. LGBT on here care more about memes like "Oy Vey" and Donald Trump than protecting their own interests.

A minority which doesn't aggressively look out for it's own interests is a minority that gets throw under the bus.

>>5890680
>The supreme court is what gave us the right to marry
No, individual states gave you the right to marry or attempted to prohibit you doing that. Lawsuits were brought before courts, escalated and appealed until it hit the Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS doesn't do shit of it's own accord. It's the American people, through voting at local levels or filing local suits, that change shit. Take a fucking Government course inbetween your ____ Studies classes.

>The GOP knows this, this is part of the reason they are throwing the constitution out the window to oppose Obama's nomination.
Oh, right, you're one of those tin-foil hat liberals. Shut the fuck up.

>>5890680
>they are throwing the constitution out the window to oppose Obama's nomination
literally a fucking retard. the senate has the right to confirm or decline nominations. but since it doesn't choose to side with your >opinion, you cry butthurt little tears

if it was a republican president and a democratic senate, you would be applauding the senate for defending your "rights" and adhering to the tenets of the constitution. shut the fuck up you fucking hypocrite

>>5890691
No, I'm just old enough to remember the Bush administration you fucking teen. The people on here might be too young to remember how Bush turned *the gays* into a national enemy overnight, but I'm not.

I don't forget the people who fuck me over. The GOP has hushed on the gay issue because they've been on the defensive for a while but the moment they start winning again you and me are back on their hit list.

>>5890269
>what are human rights?

>>5890694
The Senate's responsibility is to confirm or decline nominations based strictly on their qualifications and credentials.

A: That the Republicans stated their intent to oppose Obama's nomination before we even knew who Obama was going to nominate and
B: That many of them have gone one step further and tried to stir up populist rage by saying "The American People should choose the next supreme court justice" -
...proves that they don't give a fuck about the due process of filling the supreme court as outlined in the constitution. If they tried to pull this shit 150 years ago they'd have been dragged out of Washington by their ankles.

>>5890699
>Can't coherently argue.
>Resorts to attacking people's ages.
Funny. I voted in 2000 and 2004. I bet you didn't.

>>5890720
I'm just an optimist who prefers to think that grown adults are sensible enough not to touch a hot frying pan again after the first time it burns them :^)

>>5890713
Read your fucking constitution. It does not say that. It says:

>"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."

The Senate has given their advice (wait for after the election), and chose to not consent (they are allowed to do that. it does not say they MUST confirm). You have decided that this isn't good enough for you, and are making attacks with no factual basis.

>>5890548
What's a good reason for increased gun control, though?

>>5890728
Then why are you voting for a Clinton?

Bill Clinton enacted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military. Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law.

>In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said, "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

You do realize he's going to be First... Gentleman(?), right? You do realize that Clinton is pandering to every demographic to scoop up votes, right? Or is this burn okay because you put some aloe vera on it?

>>5890689
you mistakenly assume your interests are everybody's interests

>>5890736
It will stop people who illegally obtain firearms from committing illegal acts of murder by...

Uhm...

It just will because I feel it will. What are you, a racist? Do you want more black people killed by white police officers?

>>5890736
smdh
YOU'RE FUCKING, A WHITE MALE

>>5890736
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

>>5890761
Nope. Give me a reason.

>>5890743
He doesn't assume. He is expressing how people not sharing his interests, which are more than likely pro-lgbt, is harmful to lgbt. There's a chance he is wrong about his very final statement, but that's not something you can disprove with opinions. You would need facts for that.

Whatever the case, your response was dumb and learn 2 reading comprehension.

>>5890768
"interests" is a broad category

>>5890737
>Bill Clinton enacted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military. Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law.

That was bill, not Hillary. It's sexist to blame Hillary for her husband's faults. And the 1990s was a different time on LGBT rights.

>>5890777
no, it's not sexist you dumbass, it's just incorrect

>>5890736
>What's a good reason for increased gun control, though?

It's 2016. You don't need a gun in 2016.

>>5890779
I genuinely don't know if you're memeing or not.

>>5890783
>I genuinely don't know if you're memeing or not.

Only government should be allowed to own guns.

>>5890786
I'm still not sure. In the chance that you're not, the current year is a stupid reason. I'd be more willing to accept that banning and destroying every last gun would make you feel safe as a reason. And why should only the government have guns?

>>5890777
>It's sexist to blame Hillary for her husband's faults
I can't tell if you're just being a troll or not. But holy shit.

Hillary, on DOMA:
>"I would have voted for it at that time but I think to go back and talk about DOMA now especially...is something that is divisive."

She jumped on the LGBT bandwagon in the mid-2000s because that's what democrats did back then. Democrats as a whole jumped on that bandwagon to gain voters. BERNIE was against gay marriage.

>>5890778
Are you saying that Bill Clinton didn't do those things?
Are you saying that Hillary Clinton had no influence in Bill's administration?
Are you saying that he hasn't had or will not have any influence on a Hillary Clinton administration?

Fucking educate yourself on the people you shill for, for fucks sake. You blame "Trump voters" for being ignorant and you can't even point to where, when, and why your own candidate started "supporting your issues".

Spoiler: If LGBT/gay marriage/equal rights wasn't in vogue right now, she'd still be against it. The Clintons are for whatever position will win them voters over the republican voter base.

>>5890791
>And why should only the government have guns?

Because your average moron is far to stupid to be allowed to own a gun. Example: Daily mass shootings in Amerikkka

>>5890793
>She jumped on the LGBT bandwagon in the mid-2000s because that's what democrats did back then.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS?

Again you keep talking about "jumping on the LGBT bandwagon" like it's a BAD thing. It's not. You should be thankful people have become more LGBT friendly.

>>5890793
bruh you get the wrong impression. i was mainly writing that to point out how utterly retarded it is to call such a statement sexist. fuck clinton, she's a snake and will ruin this country. i don't like trump either but at least he'll crash this plane fast and easy

>>5890797
Good, a better argument, not a good one, but better than what you had. There are a few things wrong with it, though. Gun ownership doesn't correlate either way with violent crime in general, only with gun related crime. "Mass shooting" as used by the media is dodgy at best.

>>5890800
>AND WHAT ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS?
No republican will win on a platform of opposing gay marriage in 2016. Open your fucking eyes and look at their positions.

Donald Trump has said that--while he doesn't agree with the decision to overturn DOMA--he will not push for anything to reinstate it. Like most republicans, he's said it should be up to the states. (You know, like weed, which liberals are fine saying "leave it up to the states". How ironic that, once again, 'states rights' works for one issue but not the other.)

Ted Cruz has taken a constitutionalist approach to it: it's obvious he doesn't like it, but he said it should be left up to the states to decide. (I'm not voting for Ted "The Rat" Cruz, so don't get your non-binary genderfluid undergarments in a wad.)

Regardless, it isn't the president who decides what *legislation* for LGBT rights are passed.

>Again you keep talking about "jumping on the LGBT bandwagon"
I mentioned it once. Quit twisting my posts to suit your narrative.

>like it's a BAD thing. It's not.
It is a bad thing. It means the Clintons, with a proven track record of signing and ordering anti-LGBT actions into law, are not genuine in their feelings for the LGBT community, and will only push the issue because right now, it currently resonates with voters.

Look at Obama. In 2008, THE YEAR OF HIS ELECTION, he said:
>"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
However, when that didn't win him support, he decided to do a full reversal of his stance over his first term, and only when he had the guaranteed support of public opinion, did he decide to stop enforcing DOMA and do away with DADT.

Democrats do not fight for LGBT rights on their own initiative. They fight for whatever wins them votes. Your issues are political fuel to get them elected. If you think that is a "good thing" then you are a fucking shill who should go vote for Clinton.

>>5890797
Well, if you don't have a come back, I'll be off to bed. Later.

>>5890835
>he's said it should be up to the states.

Did he say the same thing about interracial marriage in 1967 with the Loving v Virginia decision?

>Regardless, it isn't the president who decides what *legislation* for LGBT rights are passed.

No but the president has the power to pass pro-LGBT executive order, sign or veto LGBT legislation, and appoint pro-LGBT Supreme Court nominees.

>it currently resonates with voters.

Which will only grow stronger and stronger and religion dies out in America.

>Democrats do not fight for LGBT rights on their own initiative. They fight for whatever wins them votes.

Which is what politicians are supposed to do.

>>5890810
>Gun ownership doesn't correlate either way with violent crime in general,

But guns do lead to gun deaths. You cannot die that.

>>5890856
*deny that

>>5890835
>How ironic that, once again, 'states rights' works for one issue but not the other.)

That's not irony, it's common sense. No higher up in either party supports states' rights on all issues, they just hold different ethical positions regarding what is and isn't appropriate to put in the hands of states.

>It is a bad thing. It means the Clintons, with a proven track record of signing and ordering anti-LGBT actions into law, are not genuine in their feelings for the LGBT community, and will only push the issue because right now, it currently resonates with voters.

This is true for most candidates.

>However, when that didn't win him support, he decided to do a full reversal of his stance over his first term, and only when he had the guaranteed support of public opinion, did he decide to stop enforcing DOMA and do away with DADT.

Obama was being accused of being a gay atheist Nazi Muslim before he'd even been elected. I don't fault the guy for treading lightly on the way in.

>Politicians do not fight for most anything on their own initiative.They fight for whatever wins them votes.

Fixed that for you.

>>5890853
>pro-LGBT executive order
EOs are restricted to the federal government only. They don't affect you in any meaningful way.

>sign or veto LGBT legislation
A signature is nothing. Merely an affirmation of what Congress has done. Now, on a veto... maybe instead of worrying about the presidential candidate who's lying to your face to get your vote, you should turn to your local representatives and senators, and make sure they're genuine in their efforts to promote LGBT rights through legislation. You know, since that's their job.

Funny, Clinton sure did a good job vetoing DOMA in 96... oh...

>appoint pro-LGBT Supreme Court nominees
Funny, because that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Thank you for contributing further to the problem of legislating from the judicial branch.

>Which will only grow stronger and stronger and religion dies out in America.
Religion isn't going to die out in America, and you're delusional if you think that is going to be the case. Would it be nice? I don't doubt it. But a 7% change isn't "dying" when that number is going from 78 to 71.

>Which is what politicians are supposed to do.
People like you, who think like this, vote and then wonder why it takes for-fucking-ever for something to change. Instead of rewarding disingenuous candidates, you should try pushing for people more representative of your issues to get elected. But, if you're content with "settling" with whatever you've got, why aren't you content with "settling" with the LGBT rights you've got so far?

>>5882633
>Hillary
Guys guys guys.... we all know it's Bernie or bust

>>5890881
>Guys guys guys.... we all know it's Bernie or bust

It's time to realize that bust just can't happen. I will vote for Sanders in the primary, but will vote for Clinton in the general. We cannot risk the US Supreme Court.

>>5890856
most of which are suicides

File: 1448997649081.jpg (16KB, 598x331px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 598x331px

>>5882633
>Hillary Clinton
How did I KNEW this would be a shillary thread even before I read?

>>5890901
>We cannot risk the US Supreme Court.

Tbh, we probably can.
Either way, most of the bad shit Obama didn't stop is probably going to keep on. If Trump's a disaster (and it's more worrying that he'd turn out to be mediocre), maybe we can finally get some of the machine torn down.

>>5890903

Personally, I think we should legalize reds again and increase mental-health related gun regulation. You can't shoot up a mall with a box of barbiturates.

File: s_pp-ar-glock2.jpg (13KB, 250x265px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x265px

>>5890856
Cars lead to car deaths
Beers lead to beer deaths
Swimming pools lead to swimming pool deaths
Putting things up your butt leads to putting things up your butt deaths
Why not fucking ban everything?
Gun death statistics published by the anti-gun groups are a sham anyway - it isn't a realistic measure of gun crime or violence, since suicide skews it so immensely - and banning guns would just shift suicide towards the next-easiest method.

It baffles me why the LGBT community is generally so opposed to gun ownership. LGBTs have historically always been some of the highest rates of victimization, being the targets of violent hate crimes. You'd think of all people, the LGBT community would recognize not only the need, but the right to defend themselves against aggressors who want to hurt and possibly kill them - not for their money, not for their cellphones, just simply for being who they are.
You, of all fucking people, should realize why your right to self defense is inalienable and must be protected - you, of all people, should be the one that refuses to let yourself become a victim merely for being who you are.

>>5890914
Hillary is the LGBT candidate of choice, which is why every major LGBT organization and LGBT politicians have endorsed her.

>>5890914
because she is objectively the best candidate?

>>5890398
>but can put aside their differences to create a whole greater than the sum of it's parts
Never heard of any leftist doing this in modern ages, it's all about shoving their opinion down other people's holes.

>>5882658
yeah but he's a lawyer. Jew's may make up like 3% of americans, but they make up like 60% of lawyers.

File: 1448159071229.jpg (15KB, 720x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 720x360px

>>5890930
>a feminist that's being paid by big corporations to further fuck people up is the best candidate.
A fucking rock would do a better job.

>>5890190
>trannies and faggots get fired by subhuman conservashit employers EVERY DAY
I hope you commit suicide desu.

File: getting real tired of your bullshit.png (51KB, 457x496px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 457x496px

>>5890929
>Hillary is the LGBT candidate of choice
Because she supported DOMA?

>>5890955
>Because she supported DOMA?

Trump opposes gay marriage in 2016.

>>5890964
That doesn't make shillary any better it's like choosing between someone who threatens you openly and someone who threatens you behind your back.

>>5890930
>objectively
Hillary is literally the establishment candidate, with her in power NOTHING will change

at least with trump he'll do something, probably something really shit but at least something.

The only way we win is to feel the bern

>>5890984
Bern is not going to win though, he has a really strong bad luck.

>>5890984
>Hillary is literally the establishment candidate, with her in power NOTHING will change

And Trump will establish a fascist dictatorship and abolish our civil rights.

The establishment isn't a bad thing compared to that.

>The only way we win is to feel the bern

Sanders needs to be the VP pick as a national unity ticket.

>>5890980
Hillary doesn't hate us. Gay marriage was unpopular back than, it is now though.

Dan Savage already covered all this anti-Hillary bullshit already.

>Dan Savage slaps down ‘f*cking moronic’ whining over Hillary’s past LGBT views

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/dan-savage-slaps-down-fcking-moronic-whining-over-hillarys-past-lgbt-views/

>>5890996
>fascist dictatorship and abolish our civil rights.
Nothing he said so far supports this, not even his comments about extraditing all illegals.

>>5891002
>Nothing he said so far supports this,

-10000000/10

Pls go back and read some of his comments about Putin, Japanese interment camps, libel laws, Patriot Act, killing Edward Snowden, openly advocating war crimes like killing family members of ISIS, NSA, iPhones, Mexican American wall, Muslim ban, etc.

And that's not even half of the fucking fascist shit he has said.

>>5891000
Either way she's a spineless coward that sees politics as a game, as early as 200 trump was giving support to the lgbt rights such as non discrimination laws and civil unions.

>>5891010
>Either way she's a spineless coward that sees politics as a game, as early as 200 trump was giving support to the lgbt rights such as non discrimination laws and civil unions.

So was Clinton so I fail to see what you are getting at here anon.

She's advocated for the same shit in 2000 as well.

>>5890996
hillary
>supports NSA and PATRIOT act
>thinks Snowden is a traitor for exposing them
>supports strict gun control
>"hate speech is not free speech"
>drugs are bad mmkay
>doesn't want to deport illegal immigrants
>supports increased unilateral military action in the middle east
>supports more regime change operations

trump
>supports NSA and PATRIOT act
>thinks Snowden is a traitor for exposing them
>against gun control
>supports free speech
>drugs are bad mmkay
>wants to deport illegal immigrants
>supports multilateral military action in the middle east
>opposes more regime change operations

>>5890989
>>5890996
Comrades do not give up hope, together we can overthrow our totalitarian oppressors and forge a better future from their ashes

>>5890996
>Implying the VP does jack shit

They're there to play back-up incase the prez croaks. They basically do nothing else of value whatsoever.

Hillary is so unbelievably sleazy and corrupt, it's unbelievable that she's not only the democrat frontrunner, but is also by most measures the presidential frontrunner. She's embroiled in a criminal investigation and scandal that literally puts Nixon's Watergate to shame - Nixon, who we fucking impeached for being such a corrupt scumbag.

Trump being a blithering buffoon who blurts stupid shit out of his mouth without thinking is a lesser evil in my eyes.

Frankly though, regardless of who wins, we're all going to lose. Both candidates are irredeemably atrocious and represent the pathetic state of American politics.

>>5891044
sweet, do that, then assassinate Hillary

>>5891009
>Putin
Nothing supporting fascism
>Japanese interment camps
"I certainly hate the concept"
>libel laws
A good thing, I'm tired of news purposefully lying about someone to ruin his/her reputation.
>snowden
He said that back in the day the US were still strong, people like him were assassinated for treason
>war crimes
Do you know what obama calls when he kills 5 civilians in a a drone airstrike that's meant to kill a single terrorist with them? "Acceptable losses".
>NSA
You do realize that much of the data coleciton surveillance came to life from a democratic rule, don't you?
>iphone
Apple is a shitty company I literally don't care about this "issue" and as far as I'm concerned they should be cooperating with the FBI.
>Mexican American wall
It's a good thing, because he also said he would make LEGAL immigration more reasonable.
>Muslim ban
Banning people who are against our freedom isn't fascism, it's a logical conclusion to a problem.

File: partyvan.jpg (113KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 750x600px

>>5891067

>>5891044
>She's embroiled in a criminal investigation and scandal

The Republican frontrunner is, too. Trump is a con artist and a genius because he's successfully distracted the media from Trump U. on the strength of "offensive" gibberish that still resonates with voters.

>that literally puts Nixon's Watergate to shame

No it doesn't.
The closest precedent is the Bush e-mail scandal, which was easily one of the least terrible scandals the Bush White House faced. Watergate wasn't just a cover up - it was a cover up of the White House hiring a team to break into the rooms of political opposition and spy on them. We've been doing worse shit than that every day since like 2003, and what Clinton is under investigation for isn't nearly as malicious as Watergate.

>>5891076
>You do realize that much of the data coleciton surveillance came to life from a democratic rule, don't you?

Do you mean Truman?

>>5891076
Aren't you a good little fascist cocksucker.

>>5891044
I concur anon. Anyone who thinks Trump is a savior or Hillary will create progress is blinded by populism and propaganda. American politics are shite, and the presidential candidates show that.

>>5891067
if Hillary was assassinated Bernie would automatically win and republicans would be literally fucked for years to come

File: spiderman grandpa.jpg (70KB, 650x427px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 650x427px

>>5891112
>using the word cocksucker as an insult in /lgbt/
It's so funny when you idiots think that electing someone would actually change shit. Look at obama, he was barely able to do anything because the president needs the senate.

Fascism would actually be able to change shit, but once again thanks to human nature it would surely change for the worse.

Get something in your head, politics haven't evolved, at all, the only difference between rome and nowadays is that we have technology enough to pretend to be civilized.

Want to change the world? Become a scientist. Want to scratch that power fetish you have? Become a politician.

>>5891098
>Secretly backs coups in foreign countries
>Intentionally circumvents protections on top secret documents and sends them around using her laughably insecure personal e-mail, probably exposing everything to foreign intelligence
>Uses the same personal e-mail to skirt around oversight, by the way
>Conflicts of interest left and right with her law firms, the financial sector, etc
She desperately wants you to believe that she's your grandma who doesn't know e-mail works, but the simple fact of the matter is that whatever she's covering up must be worse than all of the condemnation and reputation damage she has suffered trying to keep a damper on it - we're not talking blow jobs in the oral office here.

Trump U is a shitshow too, don't get me wrong, but that's really more of a case of Trump being too eager to part fools from their money. It's child's play by comparison.

>>5890078

the constitution is wildly antidemocratic and if you actually care about democracy in principle youd see that its pretty moronic for 10% of senators to represent nearly 40% of the us population

>>5882694
do you actually argue like this in public

you're a fuckin child, kill yourself you bugcatcher lmao

>>5891121

>Secretly backs coups in foreign countries

Every president since at least the mid-1900s, and not what she's under investigation for.

>She desperately wants you to believe that she's your grandma who doesn't know e-mail works

She wouldn't have to not know - there's precedent for what she did, and she's not even the only candidate who was running who did this.

>who doesn't know e-mail works, but the simple fact of the matter is that whatever she's covering up must be worse than all of the condemnation and reputation damage she has suffered trying to keep a damper on it

That's not the simple fact, that's wild speculation. It could be pictures of Obama ramming his cock up her dusty ass for all I know - the electorate doesn't discriminate between mass murder and nudes.

>>5891131
>the constitution is wildly antidemocratic

But when it's scrapped, it's almost never in the service of democracy. And the US shouldn't be a pure Democracy, anyway.

arguing halfheartedly (but mean-spiritedly) about politics is a very slow form of suicide

y'all need to improve your lives cos right now you're just practicing to be old, and let me tell you

being old is a thing that does not actually require practice

>>5890499
I don't care about your original argument, I wasn't the one arguing with you. I'm just saying that calling people cucks is not a logical argument. And claiming that it isn't an ad hominem shows you have no idea what you're talking about it. I'm not saying your original argument is wrong, I'm just saying that calling people cucks IS an ad hominem and does nothing to strengthen your argument.

>>5890502
I don't mean to say that ALL right-wingers support state's rights, rather than those who support state's rights are usually on the right.

>>5890505
Yes, democrats engage in legislation on the state level, but they don't seem to use the "states' rights" rhetoric the way the right wing does. And saying that gun control is more restrictive than federal level isn't really saying much, it cannot possibly be LESS restrictive than federal level so any gun legislation on the state level will obviously be more restritive.

>>5890539
>The fact that CRIMINAL L A W B R E A K E R S aren't going to follow whatever gun control laws are passed and commit their crimes regardless.
That's what law enforcement is for. Without enforcement, we might as well not have any laws.

>They aren't going to obey "Gun Free Zones".
Which is why it only makes sense to call something a gun free zone if you can actually enforce it, by say having security guards at every entrance or exit.

>They aren't going to obey "Mandatory Background Checks"
They may not WANT to, but they are going to have to if it's the only reasonable way to get guns.

>And they certainly aren't going to obey "Don't Murder"
So we might as well legalize murder then?

>Another fucking law, which would only serve to restrict people who actually abide by the laws to begin with, won't stop "gun violence".
The reasonable action at this point is to have consistently enforced background checks (with some kind of coordination between states, so you can't get around background checks by going to different states), and to go after the black market. None of that will affect legitimate legal gun owners. Indeed, revamping the background check system (e.g. by having everything easily accessible over computer network) would actually make things EASIER for legitimate gun owners, as you wouldn't need to wait as long for the background check to be completed.

>>5890565
>>Using your logic we should abolish all laws since there will always be somebody who will break them.
>[slippery slope]
Well, they literally did say laws against murder don't stop murder. If you're going to advocate legalizing murder, I can't see much sense in having any laws at all, since murder is outlawed even in the most libertarian legal systems.

>>5890745
I don't think we really need new laws, just more consistent and effective enforcement of existing laws. I.e. thorough background checks and go after the black market to make it less profitable for people to sell guns that way.

>>5890779
Really the only reason you need a gun is to protect yourself from other people with guns. If we had a practical way of getting rid of all guns, there wouldn't be any need for them.

>>5890810
Violent crimes committed with guns tend to be more deadly than those with inferior weapons. That's the whole reason why guns exist in the first place - because they're more effective at killing people.

>>5890903
So? I don't see why we should enact policies to increase the chance of suicide. Suicide isn't a "non-problem".

>>5890928
>Cars lead to car deaths
This really doesn't help the pro-gun argument. Automobiles are substantially beneficial to commerce (while firearms aren't), and even so the country manages to function even with fairly strict regulations on automobiles. So logically strict regulations of guns make sense.

>It baffles me why the LGBT community is generally so opposed to gun ownership.
Could possibly be because historically, lgbt people were basically discriminated against by the authorities. In jurisdictions where the "gay/trans panic defense" was considered valid, it's also likely that a gay or trans person claiming self-defense after shooting their attacker wouldn't fly, since the authorities were clearly against them. A mtf would probably rather end up dead than end up spending the rest of her life in a male prison for killing someone in self defense.

>>5891137
Do you think that constitutes a valid counter argument? Why don't you express how I'm wrong, explain that you actually don't mean you think lgbt people should be treated as sub-humans.

>>5890856
>>5892285
And? Banning guns doesn't address the root causes of suicide or violent crime. Most violent crime involving guns, by the way, is caused by gangs.

>>5892285
even disregarding the fact that a person should have the right to suicide, it's insane to ban things because someone might hurt themself with it

>>5893041
>And? Banning guns doesn't address the root causes of suicide or violent crime. Most violent crime involving guns, by the way, is caused by gangs.
No, and there are alternate ways to address violent crime, however I don't see why we should make it any easier for people to either kill themselves or others.

>>5893052
>a person should have the right to suicide
Then why is attempting suicide illegal in many jurisdictions? And even if it isn't, wouldn't it be a violation of one's rights to prevent one from committing suicide while in jail awaiting trial?

>it's insane to ban things because someone might hurt themself with it
Not really, by that logic it should be legal for someone to build a nuclear reactor in their garage.

>>5893092
We're at an impasse, then. I don't think banning guns is a good price to pay for safety, and you do.

>>5892285
>Really the only reason you need a gun is to protect yourself from other people with guns. If we had a practical way of getting rid of all guns, there wouldn't be any need for them.
Nevermind the fact that it's impossible to poof guns out of existence

Justin Goodwin was beaten nearly to death in Massacusetts in 2009 by a gang of six people for being gay.

Angie Zapata was beaten to death for being trans in 2008

Duanna Johnson was shot to death by three people in 2008 for being trans. The police previously refused to take her report and assaulted her.

Sean William Kennedy was beaten to death for being gay in 2007.

Andrew Anthos, a 72 year old disabled gay man, was beaten to death with a lead pipe for being gay in 2007.

Michael Sandy was killed when he was struck by a car trying to escape four people assaulting him for being gay in 2006.

In 2006, six gay men leaving the San Diego Gay Pride parade were assaulted by a gang of three with baseball bats. One had to have reconstructive surgery done on his face.

The list goes on and on and on. 72 year old men have no chance to defend themselves by hand. You have no chance against a gang. You have no chance against a knife or a bat. The police often fail to protect you and turn a blind eye to your suffering.

Conservative fudds like to proudly declare
> God made man, but Colt made them equal!
Half of that statement is true - and frankly, I've never felt looked down upon at the range, the typical range-goer is more often enthusiastic about new people learning how to shoot and shares their passion, rather than a gay bashing bigot.

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and you have a right to self defense to protect it. This must be an inalienable right, because anything less puts your life and wellbeing into the hands of those who don't care about you.

>>5893092
why is taking drugs illegal in many jurisdictions? why is buttsex illegal in many jurisdictions? the government doesn't properly respect personal freedoms.

not really, by your logic it should be illegal to drink soda and eat cake.

Utilizing a temporary trip for the duration of the thread so people who who they are replying to, and who is replying to them,
>>5882633
>Yesterday, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court.

I am on the fence with him as it relates to 4th amendment rights- though he respects rights of defendants to the fullest degree such that there will be no hangups in conviction.

I am also weary of his take on 2nd amendment rights.


>And the GOP extremists in the US Senate are blocking him
While I disagree with their tactic both
> practically

(1.there is a good chance they won't have as many seats next cycle and/or Trump/Hillary may choose someone less amenable,

2. there are many decisions that will reach a dead end thanks to the court split,

3. most Republicans think the "4-4" court is at a 'liberal' bent with Kennedy making 5-3 more likely

4. Sri and other justices were just fine

5. They can use the 'advice' part of advice and consent to negotiate with Obama over a Justice that will make both happy and strengthen the image of both parties,)

>and philosophically
(This just increases the inefficiency of government and the trust in people for the government to properly conduct the duties everyone agrees on- arbitration and adjutication),

Calling them
>extremists
May be a bit too harsh. They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. They are using a tactic of democrats preceding them. They are working within the bounds of the constitution.
from even a vote. It's time for the LGBT community to stand up to these extremists.

>It's time for the LGBT community to stand up to these extremists.
Why? Why do you knock on my door like some drunken Mormon asking if I want a relationship with Jesus christ? Furthermore, why do you treat us as a monolith?

>>5882633

>switching the US Supreme Court from a 4-4 to a 5-4
>1.
Garland is more or less centrist, jurisprudentially
>2.
A 'liberal' 5 would encumber rights and privileges related to property ownership, commerce, federalism, and firearms.

>for LGBT rights
>rights
Enumerate which "rights" you think are constitutionally recognized.

>Maintain X, Overturn Y
Typically justices would use stare decisis in decisions deciding on cases. Even Scalia said that he would maintain stare decisis in most circumstances, especially if something was recognized a certain way for centuries- even some constitutional explanatory material was later found contrary to what was decided. Only a few oddballs (not in the pejorative) like Thomas is and Bork was would overturn any case, any time, if they opine that they are too offensive to the constitution.

>Obergefell
My thoughts on it hosted here.
http://pastebin.com/yqQYL8h5
TLDR: OvH a shit.

>interrupt the term "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply to sexual orientation and gender identity.
>1.
Why do you think that's the court's job? Is this some equal protection argument?
>2.
What makes you think Garland would go along with such a thing?
>3.
Why would you think this is preferable?
>4.
Why do you think the 1964 CRA was sound?
(Full disclosure: I am of the Goldwater/Rehnquist/Bork view on that act.)

>Overturn Hobby Lobby
You want to force privately held employers of a religious variety to pay for contraceptives? When there are less restrictive routes available? FFS why?

>>5882633
>Block so called "religious freedom" laws
I can rant for hours about this, or start off by asking
>1.
WHY!?
>2.
Don't you realize that religious freedom laws are in place to ensure that religious individuals, organizations,and firms can operate how they like without bleeding through to the public sphere too much?
>3.
Do you realize how tax exempt status of religious institutions came about?
>4.
Do you realize that religious protections in amendment 1 & elsewhere came about to decrease turmoil from religious infighting that was rife across Europe? Each and all can practice how they wish, each can not interrupt the practice of another, even all cannot interrupt the practice of even 1. It was an unprecedented truce.

>Block any objections to adoption by LGBT voters.
Except if considered reasonable.
>1.
Does a higher rate of divorce exist among same sex couples?
Divorce of course being very harmful to a child's development.
>2.
Does a higher rate of spousal abuse exist among same sex couples?
>3.
Does a higher rate of child abuse exist among same sex couples?
>4.
What are the academic performances, SAT and ACT scores, college acceptance rates, rates of various criminal behaviors, and estimated incomes of children of same sex couples?
>5.
How do the preceding break down when taking income into account, when taking age of the couple into account, and when taking the sex of the couple into account?

>we need to elect Hillary Clinton
I would rather knock my teeth out with a hammer. Provide a better reason.
>and a Democratic senate
I would rather drill through each of my fingers and toes. Provide a better reason.

>>5882658
Stormie pls go.
>>5882665
>Do you seriously give a shit about organized religion?
Here's one for you:
What if he was a Baptist? Or a Muslim? or a Scientologist? They are all religions which may not respect the law budding into what happens to individuals within their tight knit communities.

>LGBT rights ARE people's rights
The rights or privileges of one may clash with the rights or privileges of another. This is the basis for.. almost every civil court case ever?

All the poorer for LGBT newly-constructed privileges, which now seek to clash with hiring discretion of employers, coercing transactions with vendors, affecting parents and children alike through changes in the curriculum and administration etc.

People typically have a right operate their businesses, transact, raise their children, and affect their local government how they wish. These things were eroded away over the course of the generations, and now you want to ensure they are weathered even more.

>>5883105>>5885549
MAGA
>>5890067
This desu
>>5890073 >>5890093>>5891131
What is the point of having a system of law if you want them changed with every shift in public opinion?
Unless you are making some Lysander Spooner argument that the constitution does not apply to you nor anybody, what authority do you have to not only smash this system of law but institute your own? Why is it greater than anyone else's- if you want to be truly democratic, then we have to give deference to the Christians in the U.S., and make this nation a theocracy.

>>5890097
Pic related. They may not take firearms in one fell swoop, as would turn out disastrously, but they may erode the 2A over the course of generations.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
>>5890109
Learn the difference between positive rights, negative rights, positive obligations and negative obligations. TLDR: our legal system does not expect people to even attempt to solve the trolley problem.

The philosophical implications of this is the state is forcing an individual or organization to perform a certain action, pay all costs associated with it,and not take opportunity cost into account. It is slavery writ-small.

The legal implications of this is that it cal be applied

Also, oppression, like everything, can exist on a spectrum.
> doctors refusing to treat severely injured patients because they don't have money or the doctor just doesn't like them
A doctor can get sued under many statutes for this, lose one's reputation, and/or fucked over by the AMA for violating one's oath.

>>5893428
>Furthermore, why do you treat us as a monolith?

LGBT community tends to vote on blocks, like African Americans and Jewish Americans. 76% of LGBT voted for Obama

>TLDR: OvH a shit.

So you would be ok with overturning Obergefell and Loving v Virginia, a 1967 case overturning bans on interracial marriage?

>Why do you think that's the court's job? Is this some equal protection argument?

Because it is. And yes, everyone has the right not to be discriminated against.

>What makes you think Garland would go along with such a thing?

Yes

>Why would you think this is preferable?

Because there already a bunch of states with LGBT anti-discrimination laws already on the books.

>Why do you think the 1964 CRA was sound?

Why do you think a society could exit peacefully with legal discrimination? Why do you think that historically persecuted minority groups should be allowed to be discriminated against on the same "equal footing" as other groups when a few years ago they were second class citizens under government law?

>You want to force privately held employers of a religious variety to pay for contraceptives? When there are less restrictive routes available? FFS why?

I don't believe private employers should have the right to deny women access to contraceptives.

>>5893526
>WHY!?

There is no reason for them (religion is already allowed to exist under the 1st) and their only purpose is to discriminate. It's state sanctioned discrimination.

>Do you realize how tax exempt status of religious institutions came about?

And I don't support any tax exemption for religious institutions.

>Do you realize that religious protections in amendment 1 & elsewhere came about to decrease turmoil from religious infighting that was rife across Europe?

When did I say I wanted to prohibit religion?

>Does a higher rate of divorce exist among same sex couples?

It's about average as straights.

>Does a higher rate of spousal abuse exist among same sex couples?

I don't think so. Last LGBT spousal abuse I heard of was a football player beating up his boyfriend.

>What are the academic performances, SAT and ACT scores, college acceptance rates, rates of various criminal behaviors, and estimated incomes of children of same sex couples?

What does this have anything to do with equal rights under the law?

>How do the preceding break down when taking income into account, when taking age of the couple into account, and when taking the sex of the couple into account?

What does this have anything to do with equal rights under the law?

>I would rather knock my teeth out with a hammer. Provide a better reason.

Why on earth would you want a Trump presidency or a GOP congress?

>What if he was a Baptist? Or a Muslim? or a Scientologist? They are all religions which may not respect the law budding into what happens to individuals within their tight knit communities.

If their religious views conflicts with the constitution, they shouldn't be allowed on the court. Garland's doesn't.

>>5893578
>All the poorer for LGBT newly-constructed privileges, which now seek to clash with hiring discretion of employers, coercing transactions with vendors, affecting parents and children alike through changes in the curriculum and administration etc.

Why are you calling LGBT rights "privileges?" You may not realize it, but you are using far right wing religious talking points for all of your posts.

If race is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual orientation and gender identity should also be covered. Civil Rights Act isn't going to be repealed, regardless of your own views on it. Your view is in the minority of Americans.

>>5891131
Furthermore the system of government is not supposed to be democratic. The 999 could rant and rave that one's speech should be invalidated, right to be considered innocent until guilty waived, and property taken without due process. It does not matter and will not matter if it was 1 against 1,000; 100,000; or 100,000,000.

In no system of government but this one is the rights of the individual so respected.

>>5890493
Scalia actually got flak from the RCC for his recognition of each state through their democratic processes to decide on abortion, rejecting the argument that abortion is the taking of life without due process of law, and the other side which supported a constitutional recognition of privacy within one's womb.

>>5890493>>5892220
>but they don't seem to use the "states' rights" rhetoric the way the right wing does.
It's irrelevant whether they use that rhetoric or not. They are working within the 10th Amendment framework, which Scalia et al supported for both sides of the aisle.
>>5890114
I'm sorry. I rather don't like my free speech being taken down a peg for being 'offensive', not the right to defend my self and my home eliminated- not only in terms of firearms, but even down to carry of pepper spray, or being subject to a centralized government- itself subject to the edicts of Brussels- and federalism and local control is but a shadow, or bringing in all the world, or having an unsustainable public sector, or dealing with the absolutely mind-numbing business regulations common there.

>>5890166
>free healthcare
Not free, not translatable to the US economy, demographics, & health issues,
>free college
Not unless there are stricter standards for entering college, stricter standards for retention, affirmative action is eliminated, & people have limits for how many times they can change a major.

All in all, it's much simpler to reform the current system.
>paid sick leave
What does the employer get out of this?
>strong unionization
unionization already killed industry after industry, & public sector unions are sucking taxpayers dry at the local, state & federal levels.
>progressive taxation
we already have progressive taxation, and Laffer himself thinks we are on the wrong side of his eponymous curve
>ban on all guns
Wrong on practical, legal and philosophical levels, which I can expound on if you want.

If you like Europe so much, why not move there, instead of working to make the US more like it?

>>5893750
>LGBT rights "privileges?"
Because instead of negative rights, where governments and individuals are obliged not to act in a way that restricts the liberties of an individual- marriage, adoption, service, and hiring "equality" want to coerce individuals, firms, organizations, institutions, and states to provide goods or services.

Luckily for you, the EPC covers both rights and privileges, but there is a difference nonetheless, that becomes important in the judiciary when rights clash with privileges, and when positive rights clash with negative rights.

>you are using far right wing religious talking points for all of your posts.
My arguments are also used by people that you do not like, and therefore are invalidated. Good to know.

>If race is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual orientation and gender identity should also be covered
So support new federal legislation to amend it. Why take the backdoor through the courts?

>in the minority
>1.
(Citation needed)
>2.
If a majority support it, then no problem legislating it

>>5893716
>LGBT community tends to vote on blocs
Don't you think that was for pushing certain issues important to the community as a whole and individuals within it through the three branches? Smacking down DOMA, getting rid of DADT, voiding sodomy laws etc.?

Once those things were accomplished, we can go back to our individual selves. One can be gay, and have interests related to those, and be a business owner, with interests relevant to those, and be a medical patients, with relevant interests, and firearm owner etc.

People's interests can't be fit into one square of the political map or another.

>So you would be ok with overturning Obergefell and Loving v Virginia, a 1967 case overturning bans on interracial marriage?
Loving was a terrible decision as well, imo.
>everyone has the right not to be discriminated against
Business owners already have the right to not serve people for an infinity of reasons, qualities and traits:
The customer is too loud, is panhandling, doesn't speak the language, is covered in shit, slanders the business, sheds hair, matches the description of someone who shoplifted from a similar establishment, has argued with an employee before,brings a pet, has had a dog that soiled the storefront, wears inappropriate dress, makes threatening advances etc.

Among those qualities and traits of not to be served, the government codified a few, as "protected classes", and determined it would be wholly unreasonable not to serve them: sex, race, etc.

Now you want to add yet another. At what point do you think discrimination will become invalid?

If a business can't discriminate against someone in a same sex marriage, what about a polygamous item? What about discriminating against large-age-gap couples, putting sanctions against those who were in arranged marriages?

The same argument can be applied to employers, or legal recognition by state governments.

>>5893679
>A doctor can get sued under many statutes for this, lose one's reputation, and/or fucked over by the AMA for violating one's oath.
Wouldn't the oath be a form of slavery then?

>>5893716

>religion is already allowed to exist under the 1st
You're omitting a vital operative clause-
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof

>Because there already a bunch of states with LGBT anti-discrimination laws already on the books.
This is not a proper answer. Texas has X, so everyone should have X goes is why we have a federalist republic- that each state has a lot of latitude in deciding how it is to be run. This is the same reason drug enforcement, firearms laws, and taxes are different nationwide. Would you like it if I argued that since the Gulf states have flag burning laws, they should apply nationwide as well?

>Why do you think a society could exit peacefully with legal discrimination
Like I mentioned before
1. There were preceding civil rights bills at the federal and state levels that were slowly eroding discrimination
2. There is already an infinite amount of qualifiers one can legally discriminate against, and that CRA specifically strengthened the civil rights of certain groups, because it deemed that the discrimination was too systemic and too irrational to be given any legal protection.

>Why do you think that historically persecuted minority groups should be allowed to be discriminated against on the same "equal footing" as other groups
Because the autonomy of private individuals, private institutions, private firms, and local and state governments should be paramount, and because legally recognized discrimination always has existed, does exist, and will exist, as I pointed out.

>a few years ago they were second class citizens under government law?
Jim Crow laws were being phased out, spousal rape has been recognized, and all have the right to vote and transact. Most of the other things being "fought for" were either privileges or clashed with the the rights f others.

>>5893161
>The list goes on and on and on. 72 year old men have no chance to defend themselves by hand. You have no chance against a gang. You have no chance against a knife or a bat. The police often fail to protect you and turn a blind eye to your suffering.
Guns would only improve the situation if we had a way of making sure the victims are better armed than their attackers.

>>5893998
How would you define religion? Such a broad interpretation of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" would seem to be a slippery slope unless we have some clear criteria of what a religion is. Otherwise anyone could demand anything saying it's part of their religion.

>>5893995
Well that's the point of an oath.

>>5894016
So in your mind, should slavery be legal if the government stays out of it? If a family is unable to pay their debts to someone, should that other person be allowed to force them to do work for them until the debt is satisfied?

Fuck me, browser crash
>>5893995>>5894016
>Wouldn't the oath
Well I used "oath" as a misnomer there. In modern day the "oath" refers less to the Hippocratic Oath, but shorthand for "accepting the standards and practices, and code of ethics of the medical association.


>be a form of slavery then?
No, because the doctor voluntarily signs on with the association, giving it dues, in return for all benefits the association offers. Violation of the association's code, which may include fucking over a patient, may in turn translate to poorer reputation and poorer job openings for the professional.

>>5894062
>No, because the doctor voluntarily signs on with the association, giving it dues, in return for all benefits the association offers. Violation of the association's code, which may include fucking over a patient, may in turn translate to poorer reputation and poorer job openings for the professional.
Isn't creating a legally recognized business basically the same thing then? You voluntarily agree to follow the laws regarding businesses when you do that. So it's not like slavery at all.

>>5893716
>I don't believe private employers should have the right to deny women access to contraceptives.

What rights does the business owner have then?

How is that legally nonrestrictive, and not impede on the ability of the business owner to operate it how one wants to, given limited resources?

If insurance through an employer does not cover X, Y, or Z, does that mean contraceptives have greater precedence?

Equal precedence? If so, if the business owner then obligated to cover X, Y and Z out of pocket?

At what point does the medical conditions of and preventative measures for employees stop being the responsibility of the employer?


>>5893742
>There is no reason for them (religion is already allowed to exist under the 1st) and their only purpose is to discriminate. It's state sanctioned discrimination.
>Allowed to exist under the 1st
>Allowed to exist
No, they are allowed to exist, and its institutions, members, and organizations are allowed to freely exercise their religion as they see fit, restricted only in key circumstances- hurting someone's feelings is not one of them.

>And I don't support any tax exemption for religious institutions.
Why not?

I would get into an autistic historical rant when i get the time.

>When did I say I wanted to prohibit religion?
False dichotomy. There is a world between accepting the existing of religion, and prohibiting religion, including the infringement of its free exercise, which you implied when you said
>Block so called religious freedom laws
So enumerate which laws you would like repealed in the legislature or voided in the judiciary

>Divorce
noted

>>5893742
>What does this have anything to do with equal rights under the law?
Very simple: non-discrimination can be applied, such that it is considered reasonable. When there is a reasonable..reason.. for discrimination, then at times discrimination can be valid.

So if an adoption agency, which has limited resources and infinite responsibility, sees two sets of applicants of the same background, income, and clean criminal record, except for one different- that is to say one is homosexual and the other heterosexual, wouldn't it then be reasonable to extrapolate the data for homosexual couples in general and their children to a decision on adoption?

If homosexual couples participate in actions which may become deleterious to the child in greater rates then their counterparts, imo it should be taken into account.

Spousal abuse is highest among lesbians, in fact, and iirc a bit higher for gay men then straight couples. I need to find the studies.

>Why on earth would you want a Trump presidency
To get a foot in the door to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965, show Europe they can be for border protection without being racist, institute slight protectionism, and stop the little proxy wars with Russia, so both NATO and the Russian Federation can work on stamping out radical Islam worldwide.
>or a GOP congress?
Low taxes, smashing public sector unions, instituting interstate health insurance, ensuring no new AWB, and getting rid of welfare cliffs.

>>5894150
>Isn't creating a legally recognized business basically the same thing then?
State and federal governments required that businesses that needed relevant licenses to operate
>not
do X. Don't dump in the lake. Don't mix paper and plastic. Don't hire illegal immigrants.
This is different in that it requires a positive action, that it
>must
do X. You must provide service. You must provide contraception payments.

The only exception to this was taxation, which always required a positive action from individuals and groups.

>You voluntarily agree to follow the laws regarding businesses when you do that.
Private contractual association =/ law enforced through coercion.

The former was agreed upon by both parties. The latter, at risk of sounding like a libertarian memer, was done under duress.

>So it's not like slavery at all.
You missed where I pointed out that if the law recognizes the forcing of action writ-small, it by logical extension also recognizes the forcing of action applied writ large.

This becomes especially problematic in times of national security, when the government can force firms to build a different OS and facility to comply with one of its writs, or in times of war, when it may want to commandeer the production of one company for its war machine.

If the government is given the power to decide the actions of private individuals and firms for a purpose one likes, it gives the same power for purposes one may not like.

>>5894269
>>Isn't creating a legally recognized business basically the same thing then?
>State and federal governments required that businesses that needed relevant licenses to operate
>>not
>do X. Don't dump in the lake. Don't mix paper and plastic. Don't hire illegal immigrants.
>This is different in that it requires a positive action, that it
>>must
>do X. You must provide service. You must provide contraception payments.
>The only exception to this was taxation, which always required a positive action from individuals and groups.
Wouldn't this reasoning mean it would be a violation of rights to tell businesses that they cannot charge black customers extra? I mean, regardless of any notion of positive and negative rights, I doubt any business could legally get away with that in a western country.

>>You voluntarily agree to follow the laws regarding businesses when you do that.
>Private contractual association =/ law enforced through coercion.
>The former was agreed upon by both parties. The latter, at risk of sounding like a libertarian memer, was done under duress.
How was it done under duress? I understand the notion that things like taxation involve coercion, however no one is threatening to put you in jail for NOT opening a business. The only issue is that when it comes to contracts with the government, there is only one government, so there is the monopoly problem. But that still doesn't mean you're forced to enter a contract.

>>5894005
That's entirely dependent on the would-be victims wanting to arm themselves, and the law allowing them to.

In my state, you need to jump through about half a year's worth of hoops and paperwork to even be allowed to purchase a gun (with neutered, low capacity magazines only, of course) - god help you if you want a carry permit without some serious political connections. Bad guys don't play by the rules.

>>5894523
That's pretty much what I'm saying. You need a system where it's not too hard for law abiding citizens to get guns, while at the same time making it difficult for criminals to get guns through either legal or illegal channels.