Lets have a discussion

Let me start by saying hello. I am new to this forum but not the work of the vlog brothers and I have a lot of respect for what they put into this world.

This will be long winded enough so let me get right into it. I voted for Gary Johnson. Not because I wanted him to be president or because I believed in his platform. I voted for Gary simply because the lesser of two evils was not good enough for me so in lieu of selling my morals for a tick box I voted with the hope of a 3rd party reaching 5%. This, in my mind, was the only way I could see myself voting for a brighter future. I do wish the Green Party had been in a position to get 5% but it was not going to happen. Had I not been able to vote for a 3rd party I would have voted for Trump.

Let me give you a bit of background. I am from Texas, mostly Libertarian leaning Republican, Voted for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, Voted Bush for his second term (too young the first). I am also an atheist, not anti-theist. I work in IT but went to school for engineering. I do not believe that most welfare programs should exist but also give heavily to charities that do exactly what I say our government should not do. I drive an old diesel truck most of the time but do own a hybrid Nissan Altima. While I run or work out, breathing too much with a “don't mess with me” grimace on my face, I mostly listen to an acoustic version of Hero by Elizaveta.

I cannot tell you how trump won, it still confounds me. I also cannot speak for trump voters as a whole. I only speak for myself and a group of personal acquaintances on why they did and I would have voted for him over Hillary Clinton. I am not doing this to have a debate or to change your mind in any way, simply to give you another perspective. This is a belated response to Johns My Post-Election Thoughts video. If anybody cares to know what goes though my mind or the minds of my friends I will answer any questions as honestly as possible. I did use a lot of labels, most of all atheist, to describe myself but I would normally reject these labels, just easier for these purposes.

Just reaching out and trying to open a dialog.

Comments

  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭
    Though your life is different the mine & you don't think the same way I do, we voted the same person for the same reason. I don't really care much for the idea of Johnson as a president, I was just hoping enough people would help get the Libertarian Party partial federal funding.
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭
    Do you understand what exactly the Libertarian Party stands for? Because I feel like a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson don't. According to what I have seen of the Libertarian Party's platform they want to dissolve most of the federal government, I believe the Department of Education is one of them. They stand for a lot of the things that the Republican Party didn't like about Ted Cruz, and that is the extreme at which they want to dissolve the power of the federal government. Gary Johnson is also a huge supporter of cannabis legalization, that is where I feel a good portion of his support actually came from besides his ad campaign as not Clinton or Trump.

    Before I looked into Gary I was planning on voting for him, but then I heard about his lack of knowledge about Aleppo and when he couldn't think of a respectful foreign dignitary, though I can see how he could just not respect foreign dignitaries as many of them run their countries in a very different way than he would. When I then looked into his positions I realized that he stood for pretty much the exact opposite of the person I really wanted to vote for, Bernie Sanders. Really he stands for a completely different thing than Obama too, Obama did things that unarguably expanded the federal government, such as the Affordable Care Act.

    So I just kinda want to know what parts of the Libertarian platform did people actually agree with besides Johnson wants legal weed and he is Trump or Clinton, because that seems to be where a majority of his vote came from.

    The last thing I want to say is that I can tell you every bit of how Trump won the Electoral College (unless there are faithless electors). He used a lot of strategy, and really @Smith it sounds like the demographic you fit into (this is widely guessing based off of what you said about yourself) is the one that Trump used to win, young white men making a decent living. Really you hear a lot of people saying that he got the 'Obama Democrats' who were more moderate but have been leading Democrat because of Obama, and in all reality this makes a lot of sense because on many of the issues Trump stands in the middle. He says everything in a way to get people riled up and excited, but he really isn't all that right wing. Trump was actually a Democrat up until 2009 when he made a flip. There was actually speculation that he was still allegiant to the Democrats at the beginning of the election, and that he was trying to make the Republican party look illegitimate. That has been shown to not be the case at this point. So Trump is relatively moderate, and he gets people excited, those are two major pluses for him, he was also a political outsider. Now lets think of the person besides Clinton who was a major Democrat, Bernie Sanders, he wasn't nearly as moderate as Trump, he was far left, but he was also somewhat of a political outsider (more in that a lot of people didn't know who he was because he is in fact a politician). Both Sanders and Trump were, for the most part, using the major parties to get support, only one ended up succeeding in hijacking their respective party, this did not bide well with many of those who supported Sanders. Now if you look at where Sanders led Clinton in the primaries that is where you start to see Trump's obvious path to victory, Sanders was beating Clinton in the rust belt and the less populated areas, though he wasn't in the lead in all of the less populated states. So Trump saw a major opportunity in the rust belt, a good portion of the Democrats felt cheated by the democratic party, they wanted a strong leader who didn't seem like your typical politician, and they saw those things in Trump. Another thing we always see was the number of lowly populated states won by the Republicans that gives them a major advantage in the electoral college, as the Democrats always fair better in areas with high population density.

    There is a further possible discussion to be had about the electoral college but I won't get into that besides asking one question: should my vote be worth more than yours? And should the candidates pay more attention to me than to you? Because I live in Iowa and my vote is worth more than a vote Texas, and Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton both spent more time in Iowa than like half the rest of the country (though other battleground states do get more attention).

    Sorry if this is long winded or seems inflammatory but I was another person who didn't want either of the two major parties to win and I'm shocked by the results in comparison to the polls, but I have been saying to one of my history teachers for months that the polls didn't account for everybody and that I didn't really trust them, so maybe I asked for this. I guess in four more years I will get to vote in my second election and it hopefully won't be this bad. I just want Bernie back, democratic socialism sounded like a lot of fun, Sweden says it's fun.
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Smith said:


    I cannot tell you how trump won, it still confounds me. I also cannot speak for trump voters as a whole. I only speak for myself and a group of personal acquaintances on why they did and I would have voted for him over Hillary Clinton. I am not doing this to have a debate or to change your mind in any way, simply to give you another perspective.

    I'll start out by saying that I live in Australia and so I have no dog in the fight.

    The impression that I get is that people voted Trump, not because they liked Trump but because as normal Republican voters, they felt chained to the nomination.

    The bigger issue isn't Trump or Hillary but the Supreme Court. The court after the death of Antonin Scalia has been tied 4-4 Conservative/Liberal. Whoever won the Presidency and could control the Senate, immediately gets to name Scalia's replacement; maybe three more Supreme Court judges as they die off.

    Drill down ballot and you find that in the House elections it was:
    Rep: 59,328,624 (239 seats)
    Dem: 55,429,936 (193 seats)
    ...with 3 independents.
    In the Senate, results are far harder to get but it looks like it will end up as a Republican controlled house 51-49.

    That's the whyfor of Trump. The country has tilted Red.





    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    @TelMolagMora. We probably are not that different. Most people want the same things just different opinions on how to get it. Thank you for your reply.

    @Rollo I am not happy we went as deep red as we did. I think this will weaken the checks and balances that I trust and rely on. I have to run for now but I would like to address you later this evening.

    @Luke Your reply did not seem inflammatory at all. I do understand what the Libertarian party stands for. Just like every party some of it I can live with some of it I do not like. I did not vote Lib Party because I wanted it to win though. I voted for the Lib Party because of how our system works and I am tired of having to listen to the same “Hot button” issues parroted over and over with the same radicalism on different sides of the scale. I believe that with just a bit of help and support a 3rd party could come into this and be viable in the next couple of elections. It was my hope that this would lead to a race for the most moderate candidate rather than the one that exemplifies the collective flaws of their supporters.

    I do believe in “Small Government” but to be more accurate “A government that interferes as little as possible with the lives of the people.”
    I voted for President Obama because I thought he was the right person for the job. I still do. In fact had I been able to vote for him again I would have. I do not like the Affordable Care Act but not because of its core idea. I personally have had to deal with medical bills while everything what I had worked for and towards hung by a thread. That is not something I would wish on anybody and I do think it is necessary for the government to step in and fix a system that is not working and hurting many many people. What we got was a system that requires most citizens to pay private companies outrageous amounts of money or be punished by the government. This is specifically one of the main “hot button”draws Clinton had for me. I also believe that the Affordable Care Act was the best President Obama could do with what he had to work with.

    When I said I did not understand how he because president I was not referring to the electoral college. I was surprised that many people voted for him. As in “Did we really just elect the guy who hosted celebrity apprentice” sort of not understanding. Even the people I know voted for him did not expect him to win. I do not know many Obama Democrats either. I know a lot of republicans who voted for President Obama but just because we thought he would make a good president does not give the slightest indication what we voted down ballot.

    I personally have no problem with your vote mattering more than mine. The electoral votes are split based on state population with the exception of D.C. I may be wrong but the states can choose to split their electoral votes to match their popular vote. I personally do not care for that. Even if I were currently living in a blue state I would still want that state to put as much power behind their chosen candidate. It may mean my vote has no influence on the national level but it increases the likelihood that the president will most closely reflect the will of my state/neighbors/friends. I also believe it helps keep corruption of the system in check. Rather than one large election run by the federal government its many much smaller ones run by the states. If anything goes wrong with the system in any given state it is up to that state to fix it.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Smith said:

    I think this will weaken the checks and balances that I trust and rely on. I have to run for now but I would like to address you later this evening.

    A man with a wooden leg called @Smith :D

    I don't think that the so-called "checks and balances" actually exist.

    In theory, the "checks and balances" are because of the separation of powers into the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.
    The problem is that unlike a Westminster System where the Executive sits inside the legislature, apart from the President none of the Executive are elected positions. In a Westminster System, the entire cabinet must come from people who have already been elected to the parliament.

    Also, you've managed to politicise the Judicial branch; which is dumb. Voting for judges? Seriously? In practice, High Court judges in Australia are appointed by the Governor-General in consultation with the Prime Minister but due to compulsory retirement at 70, and the fact that in theory judges and the Governor-General must maintain political neutrality, it's never been an issue.

    Because America has successfully combined the worst possible aspects of First-Past-The-Post, Winner-Takes-All, The Electoral College, and politicised all three branches of government, the very notion that there even are "checks and balances" in the American system of government is a lie.
    Smith said:

    I personally have no problem with your vote mattering more than mine. The electoral votes are split based on state population with the exception of D.C. I may be wrong but the states can choose to split their electoral votes to match their popular vote.

    re DC:

    The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
    - A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State

    - Amendment XXIII, Section 1, United States Constitution (passed 1961).

    DC gets three electoral votes based on its population if it were a state.

    Problem:
    DC has passed a referendum on Statehood. If DC becomes the 51st state of "New Columbia" and the Federal District shrinks to become just the area which includes the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court and the White House (it's an L shaped thing on the map), does that mean that that new smaller Federal District would also get three Electoral College votes, despite only having one family living within its borders?
    Smith said:

    I may be wrong but the states can choose to split their electoral votes to match their popular vote.

    Only Maine and Nebraska do anything approaching this.


    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    Sorry for how broken this is. I would have been more eloquent with second amendment examples but thought it best to use an example we probably agreed on.

    The Supreme Court has always been political. It always will because everybody uses a different measuring stick and everybody thinks that theirs is the only correct one. Let me talk about Marriage Equality for a moment. I know very few people that actually care what bits you have or what bits you do or do not like to touch. It simply comes down to it is nobody's business. If marriage was only a religious construct then I may have a different view but it is not it is a legal construct. Because it is a legal construct and the government has no right to tell me or anybody how to live their lives anybody who wants to get married should be able to get married with the same ease of anybody else. I think its stupid that anybody had to ask the government to get married and I think it is a travesty the government played along for as long as they did/have.

    We have religious freedom. Anybody can worship anything they so choose. The government has no right to govern your relationship with your god. Etc etc

    And here is where the tension comes from. I am pro marriage equality and anti suing a church for discrimination. There are many religious doctrines that I find ridiculous/laughable but it is their right and as long as their interpretation of their religion does not tell them to kill or maim me or anybody else I do not and should not have the power to stop them. For the sake of human decency nobody should want to either.

    About a year ago the supreme court ruled and I was very happy with their decision that day. I was a bit more proud of our country and extremely happy that everybody could get back to doing their own thing and we could stop talking about it like it was a debatable thing (Yeah I was a bit foolish). Ideally that would have been the end of it but the concerns of the other side were never addressed. What happens if a same-sex couple walks into a church whose congregation truly believe it is a sin? What happens if they are asked to leave? What happens if they sue for discrimination? I do not have a satisfactory answer and until I do I will side with the church. The couple can find any one of countless other churches to get married in or anywhere else for that matter. I am sorry they had to deal with the people of that church it sucks. There are a million different ways to phrase these questions. I understand that my answer is unsatisfactory because it cannot pass simple tests. I also understand it becomes a very different story if you replace same-sex couple with black couple.

    Everybody needs to be able to sit down and talk it out but we only ever hear the most extreme examples from the other side so for the time being it looks like its all on the supreme court. The supreme court while split 5con-4lib legalized it what would happen if the discrimination suit made it to the supreme court if it were 5lib-4con.

    As for the checks and balances I think they are there and working quite well for the time being. I unfortunately can not point to examples of it being successful its one of those things you only notice when it's not.

    Both sides play to extremists. A republican candidate will not automatically lose my vote because they are anti-marriage equality. They know if they say it the religious extremists will vote for them. Its the whole point of polarization. I would be less likely to vote for a republican if he said "We should require licenses to right a bicycle on the road" than if he were to parrot something to secure his position.

    Also I did not know that about DC. I thought it automatically got the same as the lowest state. In all the drama I also hadn't thought about the statehood vote. Will be interesting, not sure where I stand on it. Kind of makes me think about Dallas/ Austin could they vote for statehood and be a state within Texas? Not sure. Have no idea if there are any other implications other than what I saw with a quick read of the wiki on it and I am not willing to give anything solid back based on that.

    *Edit* Above I said " the concerns of the other side were never addressed" I am aware that is a two way street and the same can be said about from the other perspective. I was simply trying to draw an example for the court.
    by Smith
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    Smith said:

    What happens if a same-sex couple walks into a church whose congregation truly believe it is a sin? What happens if they are asked to leave? What happens if they sue for discrimination? I do not have a satisfactory answer and until I do I will side with the church. The couple can find any one of countless other churches to get married in or anywhere else for that matter. I am sorry they had to deal with the people of that church it sucks.

    Let me pose this issue slightly differently.

    What happens of you are a publican? You can refuse anyone entry into the pub; without reason. What happens of you are a homeowner? You can refuse anyone entry into your house; without reason.
    Irrespective of whether a place is open to the public or not, entities can refuse entry, simply on the basis that they own the premises.

    I for example am not allowed into the nearest Mosque during services because I am not a Muslim. That's perfectly fine. Some mosques will close to non-Muslims during prayer-times so that those praying are not distracted; others will not, that's their business.

    What happens if a same-sex couple walks into a church whose congregation truly believe it is a sin?

    This is interesting question since Christian churches believe that all have sinned anyway. If they had to exclude all sinners, then the door would be permanently shut.

    What happens if they are asked to leave?

    The question would be "why" they are asked to leave.

    What happens if they sue for discrimination?

    The courts would have to decide if discrimination really was the issue. Courts are given the job of testing cases. Even if it is a case of utter discrimination, given that a church is a private entity, do they not have the right to refuse anyone entry, like a homeowner or publican?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    That was meant more as an example of why there is still push back on marriage equality and the importance of the supreme court. But no there is not a fair parallel between a homeowner and a church. I suppose you could say that a bar owner could have his liquor license revoked and so the government could in theory punish them. A better and more present example is: What if I am renting a house out? Currently there are laws in several states that would force somebody, who believes whatever they believe, to rent to somebody who they wouldn't want.
    Rollo said:


    What happens if a same-sex couple walks into a church whose congregation truly believe it is a sin?

    This is interesting question since Christian churches believe that all have sinned anyway. If they had to exclude all sinners, then the door would be permanently shut.

    I cannot speak to someones relationship with their god. We must simply accept that they square it with their morals/beliefs. We have no choice its the argument being made. If somebody says "I do not want to do X because of my religious beliefs" You can either entertain the notion or we can dismiss them. Telling them how to religion right has already been tried. Dismissing them would set a troublesome precedent. Which is why we are where we are right now.

    I used the church example (which like it or not is a very real very scary thing for some people) because it was a case that actively required participation. The home owner is more passive. Also the idea that somebody somewhere would not intentionally find the most backwards church just so they could push the issue does not match history.
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 510 ✭✭

    Do you understand what exactly the Libertarian Party stands for? Because I feel like a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson don't.

    Don't insult people's awareness of what someone stands for unless they show actual signs of ignorance. It comes off as very as condescending.

    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    Smith said:

    But no there is not a fair parallel between a homeowner and a church.

    Why not?

    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • DJohnGradyDJohnGrady Škofja LokaPosts: 6
    I figured I'd add my experience as a one-time Trump (sorta) supporter.

    I had a somewhat poor opinion of Trump before the election. I mean, I work in financial news, so naturally I'd read a lot about him, and always felt his image was a bit... let's say exaggerated. I thought it was funny when he decided to run for President (again).

    I also happen to frequent a lot of left-leaning sites, among them Tumblr. After Trump "came out" as a politician, as it were, there were a lot of people making really rude, gross comments about Trump's family, and especially his wife, Melania. As it happens, I live in Slovenia, and naturally I felt compelled to correct the record when people were saying things like she was a "whore from a backwards third-world country" or that she "used sex to escape from a corrupt Eastern European country."

    This from people claiming to hate Trump because he was a xenophobe and a misogynist.

    The amount of seething hate towards anyone remotely associated with a positive opinion of Trump was disconcerting. I participate in debates about immigration, because I'm an immigrant myself, and I'd get accused of being a racist for suggesting that immigrants have to follow the law in order to come into the country.

    It wasn't that Hillary or Bernie supporters where necessarily hateful, but there is a certain section of the spectrum that feels it's OK to do anything, including throw out their own principles, if it can be counted as against Trump. There was someone in a protest recently holding a sign saying "rape Melania" on it. My twitter has plenty occasions of self-proclaimed feminists spreading Melania's nude photos around as a way of slutshaming her.

    Trump was built up in these echochambers to be the ultimate evil, and therefore it was OK to do anything to defeat him. And by being so spiteful towards anyone who might have a different opinion than that of Trump being the literal reincarnation of Hitler, it was impossible to have an open, respectful conversation. That leads to so many people living in fear of something that, quite frankly, is just in their own imagination.

    Now, when Oprah calls for calm, and expresses hope - she gets backlash from the otherwise forward-thinking, progressive people who are so against hate that they don't realize how blinded they are by hatred of Trump.

    Bottom line is that it's going to be really hard to establish a productive dialogue if you think that opening the discussion to someone else will invite "hate and cruelty" into your community.
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    @TelMolagMora I do not mean to speak for him but I honestly do not think he meant it that way. That question rubbed me the wrong way too but I nothing else in his post read the same way for me.

    @Rollo Let me put it this way. I do not know anybody who is concerned in the least that a gay couple will sue for entry into their house. There are people who truly hold the belief that homosexuality is a pretty bad sin and also hold the belief that their church could get sued for discrimination if it does not perform a same sex marriage. But if the homeowner specifically is important I will re-frame the question again. I am not trying to change your mind on anything just communicate the actual fear that some have.

    What if I am a homeowner who decides to rent out a room in a state that already has anti-housing discrimination laws in place?


    @DjohnGrady Yes.. I agree with most of that but especially that last line. I flew off the handle a bit when he said that. I watch his videos, I have respect for both him and his brother, we agree on most things. But now I am “hate and cruelty” incarnate? I was there! I was already showing up! I was listening! Instead of using his platform to reach out the rest of the way he chooses the same path so many others choose. It is very hard to listen to anybody whose opening position seems like “You do not matter because you represent hate and cruelty” or “You don't matter because you represent racism” or “You don't matter because you represent sexism, homophobia etc etc” When I hear that my reaction is generally “Well ok then if that is the argument then you are wrong and there is no point in continuing this conversation because it will not benefit either of us”

    I understand that it is also hard to look past the extremists to talk with who you really need. I do not hold liberals as a whole responsible for the actions of a few extremists from their end but the more time goes on the more it seems like more and more liberals hold any degree of republican responsible for the worst examples of their side.

    If my only options are to be with or against them then I will be against them every single time. Not because I do not believe what they believe. I will be against them because history and personal life experiences have taught me anybody who takes that approach is in the wrong.

    Anyway I could rant for pages on that but it would not be helpful. I am here because I had hoped that was just a moment of poorly chosen words in the wake of the elections.
  • DJohnGradyDJohnGrady Škofja LokaPosts: 6
    Smith said:


    Anyway I could rant for pages on that but it would not be helpful. I am here because I had hoped that was just a moment of poorly chosen words in the wake of the elections.

    Same here. I've watched a good chunk of the vlogbrothers run, and lots of other things, so I know John Green is a great guy, and that what he said there wasn't the most accurate representation of his opinion.

    It just seems to me that the left side of the issue has build up this image in their mind that they are the only ones who are tolerant and open minded, and are completely oblivious to how the things they say affect others. Which is kind of ironic, if you think about it.
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    In my opinion most of the image was painted for them through statements that start like "I'm not calling him a racist but I do not see anything that demonstrates he is not a racist" which then goes through a warped game of telephone. On the right I think its a bit different where they can say "We think we should have open borders" and immediately we are pounded with the worst case scenario restated 100 different ways constantly, relentlessly.

    As for tolerance and open mindedness every group has people that fall in vastly different degrees. The loudest and most extreme ones on both sides are given the most time and do the most damage.
    by Smith
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    Sorry for the double post. I just wanted to address the echo chamber that John and now John Oliver have mentioned.

    Bringing more people into your space will not stop the echo chamber effect. It may change what is echoing slightly. It will however humanize both sides within that group.

    Breaking the echo chamber effect has to do with media deliver. Lets take youtube. I get a link that says "Look at this ridiculous person" So I click and watch a Laci Green video that is so far beyond extreme I think this person cannot possibly be serious.

    Because of the way youtube gives recommended videos I then start seeing videos like "10 reasons why all white men should die" and "10 ways every white man is oppressing you and why you should scream it into their face every chance you get" Exaggerations I am sure (or really hope) but the fact is I am linked a video on youtube that I dismiss as being extremist and not representative just to have the algorithm pelt me with more and more of the same. I do not know that it is possible but it may go a long way if youtube changed their algorithm to "I see you are into marriage equality I recommend this video with a different point of view"
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    Smith said:

    Let me put it this way. I do not know anybody who is concerned in the least that a gay couple will sue for entry into their house. There are people who truly hold the belief that homosexuality is a pretty bad sin and also hold the belief that their church could get sued for discrimination if it does not perform a same sex marriage. But if the homeowner specifically is important I will re-frame the question again. I am not trying to change your mind on anything just communicate the actual fear that some have.

    What if I am a homeowner who decides to rent out a room in a state that already has anti-housing discrimination laws in place?

    @Smith Let me ask the question entirely reversed.

    http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/victoria-news/peel-welcomes-exemption-change/41510
    The Peel Hotel says it’s happy with a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) decision to allow it to refuse certain people entry to the venue.
    Controversy first surrounded the well-known Collingwood gay pub when it won the right in 2007 to be able to refuse entry to heterosexual people and lesbians.
    Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely told the Star Observer he was satisfied with the new exemption which has effectively removed a reference to refuse entry on the grounds of sexuality, but gives the venue the right to refuse a person if they upset the “character” of the venue.

    - Star Observer, 9th Jan 2011.

    What happens if a straight couple walks into a gay nightclub? What happens if they are asked to leave?

    Is it right to apply the same set of conditions on this?

    It just seems to me that the left side of the issue has build up this image in their mind that they are the only ones who are tolerant and open minded, and are completely oblivious to how the things they say affect others. Which is kind of ironic, if you think about it.

    +1 This

    The very definition of a "bigot" is one who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. The social left/right, economic left/right; right across the whole political compass, are packed to the eyeballs with bigots.

    I'm willing to put virtually everyone into that basket of deplorables.

    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    I am perfectly fine with that. I believe that everybody has a right to be a horses patoot. Again I am not trying to debate whether it is right or wrong. The issue I am trying to demonstrate (not even debate this) is where ones rights end and anothers begin.

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/01/16/new-lawsuit-could-extend-lgbt-success-to-housing-discrimination/

    https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

    http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html
    (I know this is england... I stand by the reference)


    I am stating as a matter of fact: The issue is that people are worried they can be sued into acting counter to their religious beliefs. Democrats therefore receive pushback on marriage equality and supreme court justices.

    I do not know how to restate this again so if you still think that I am trying to debate you on something lets just move on.
    by Smith
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    Smith said:

    I am perfectly fine with that. I believe that everybody has a right to be a horses patoot. Again I am not trying to debate whether it is right or wrong. The issue I am trying to demonstrate (not even debate this) is where ones rights end and anothers begin.

    If we head right on back to your original question:
    Smith said:

    What happens if a same-sex couple walks into a church whose congregation truly believe it is a sin? What happens if they are asked to leave? What happens if they sue for discrimination? I do not have a satisfactory answer and until I do I will side with the church.

    I think that the general principle here is exactly a property rights issue; namely, do you have the right to refuse entry?

    There is a principle at Common Law in Westminster jurisdictions known as the "right to quiet enjoyment". It is the right to quiet enjoyment and reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of property.

    Discrimination laws usually look at what sort of relationship exists with the public and what sort of injury might result - who is hurt and how?
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    Fair enough I did ask that question. I had intended it was to illustrate why the supreme court and the individual beliefs of the judges were important. Basically my take on why the supreme court is politicized and present some of the reasoning behind why republicans are blocking President Obama's nomination.

    I should have used a second amendment example.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Smith said:

    Basically my take on why the supreme court is politicized and present some of the reasoning behind why republicans are blocking President Obama's nomination.

    The Supreme Court was politicized almost from the beginning. Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton probably would have had a fist fight in that "dank cellar". Marbury v. Madison (1803) is one rollicking ride of pigheadedness.

    I think that the why Republicans blocked any of President Obama's nominations, is because politics is like a Rangers v Celtic match. Both sets of fans yell at each other from either end of the stadium.

    Aside:
    Smith said:

    I should have used a second amendment example.

    I think that the Second Amendment serves no useful purpose in a modern urban society and it probably should have been repealed c.1880.

    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    *There was a disconnect between my inner monologue and the tone of this. When I read over it again before posting it came off sarcastic to me. It is not intended that way I edited what I noticed but for the sake of the conversation please read it while imagining a big burly dude in a pink tutu dancing in the middle of the road singing it to you. I am sorry in advance for how poorly I may have chosen my words on this one but I am out of time for the night.

    I will not try to defend the act of blocking his nomination. I think it is petty and childish. I do understand why they are doing it. As much as I may hate the fact they are doing it I am glad. President has already appointed two very left leaning and that got us to a balance that was working. This was a 3rd VERY left leaning nomination replacing a VERY right leaning.

    Second Amendment:
    Food:
    50lb bag of rice - $20
    50lb bag of red beans - $30
    9mo worth of meat for one person - $50

    Food security with a small garden for 9mo = $100 or about 36cents aday

    Of course that does not take into account parts you sell off
    That also requires you know somewhere you can hunt for free which isn't hard down here. Unless you yourself own the land and then you can also charge people who will drive for hours hundreds of dollars each. That money can easily pay any taxes you need to pay. Pays for upkeep. etc etc.

    Non-self protection: I like my dogs better than I like the coyotes that would kill them.
    Recreation: I enjoy shooting at the range.

    Self protection... It only makes the news when it goes wrong. Or incredibly right google child shoots intruder.

    Bad people will do bad things.
    Anybody set on doing bad things will accomplish them. If not a gun a knife, if not a knife a bomb, if not a bomb a truck, if not a truck a bit of gasoline.
    "Guns are not safe we should get rid of the guns" "Knives are not safe we should get rid of the knives" "Trucks are not safe we should get rid of the trucks" "Blunt instruments are not safe we should get rid of bats"
    If we start getting rid of things because people can or have done bad things with them where do we stop? who draws the line in the sand that says we can go this far and no more? Its already been done somebody thought to put it on paper long ago.
    If you want to have a conversation about background checks and the like sure lets do that.

    I would not be so worried about some things if they did not keep referring to an AR-15 (a semi-automatic weapon) as an "Assault rifle" because they think it looks scary.
    by Smith
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    Sleep is overrated anywho. I thought of a better way to phrase it.

    Have you ever been caught without jumper cables?
    A spare tire?
    A fire extinguisher?
    A first aid kit?
    A generator when the power went out?
    Food for a week because everything iced over and you cannot get to the store?

    I have not. I do not have many friends who have. I will hopefully never have to utter the words "I never thought this would happen to me" best you can get from me is "I hoped it would never happen to me but I planned ahead".

    Now on a city by city level? Sure I am in New York regularly. They do not like guns in New York. I have two choices A. Not carry a gun and go or B. Not go. I choose A. I am going to their house they do not like guns so I do not carry a gun. All I ask is not to complain about mine when you come to my house.

    My house is about a 20min response time for the police. If they can find it after you get 5 minutes out of the city you are not guaranteed.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    I don't need to address the first two points about Food and Recreation; mostly because they're fringe cases. I can see practical advantage to some people having guns, such as farmers, but does that mean it should be enshrined as a right?
    Smith said:

    Self protection... It only makes the news when it goes wrong. Or incredibly right google child shoots intruder.
    Bad people will do bad things.
    Anybody set on doing bad things will accomplish them. If not a gun a knife, if not a knife a bomb, if not a bomb a truck, if not a truck a bit of gasoline.
    "Guns are not safe we should get rid of the guns" "Knives are not safe we should get rid of the knives" "Trucks are not safe we should get rid of the trucks" "Blunt instruments are not safe we should get rid of bats"

    Bad people will do bad things. That's why it's a good idea to enact law. All law in principle exists for the regulation, protection and standardisation of society.

    The problem with your "X is not safe; We should get rid of X" argument is that it negates the fact that for some things that are not safe, we have many regulations.

    "Trucks are not safe we should get rid of the trucks"

    I bet that there are at least a thousand regulations surrounding trucks usage, pollution control, roadworthiness, load limits, brake testing, speed limits etc etc etc where I live.

    Guns exist to shoot things. A gun that does not shoot, fails at it's only purpose and becomes merely a decorative item.
    Smith said:

    If we start getting rid of things because people can or have done bad things with them where do we stop? who draws the line in the sand that says we can go this far and no more? Its already been done somebody thought to put it on paper long ago.
    If you want to have a conversation about background checks and the like sure lets do that.

    Someone did think to put it on paper long ago. That same someone also thought that it was "absurd" for the Constitution to remain static.

    Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only.
    - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (1789)


    The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself.

    -Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer (1816)

    The question I ask is. is the Second Amendment fit for purpose? If thousands of dead people and millions if not billions wasted on patching people back together and inflated associated health care costs is "good", then maybe so.

    I should point out that I live in Australia, which also has the right to bear arms and got it at law at the same time that America did - in 1689.
    We had a massacre in 1996 where a guy shot 35 people. In response, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned in the hands of the public. We haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years.
    Again, what is the best "good" of the law. As for me, I'd rather be living in a nation where criminals are armed with scissors than guns.



    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    *Edit* Struck out something I should not have said the way I did. Left it in because the emotion behind it was the same I felt while reading the response :/

    I am going to have to jump around on this reply.

    "We had a massacre in 1996 where a guy shot 35 people" How many years before that did you go massacre free? That man who was obviously not stable did he have access to diesel? There are 100 ways to hurt many many more people with a bit of diesel fuel. It might have been a good thing he used something with very limited potential.

    We already have MANY gun regulations. But if you are talking about gun show loopholes I will give you that one.

    "I don't need to address the first two points about Food and Recreation; mostly because they're fringe cases. " And this my friend is the problem. You believe they are fringe cases. I am 28. The food one is a reality from my life. It is a reality for people I know. Its a reality for HUGE geographical sections of the US. While growing up I never had to worry about going hungry because of that "Fringe" case. I know my kids will never go hungry because of the skills I learned growing up. Infact the only time in my life I have gone hungry regularly was after I moved to one of those urban areas you are solely concerned about. I will admit that particular case is unlikely to matter to me going forward. My employment is pretty solid and I have enough money in the bank to weather long hard times. That does not change it for anybody else.


    As for the x is not safe we should get rid of x. The point of that was not X hurts the environment and etc etc. The point of that was X could be used by a bad person to hurt not bad people. A truck could be used mow down people. A knife is pretty straight forward.

    I have these Japanese saws in my garage. Never used them they were given to me as a gift. Those saws sole job is cutting things. If it so happens in my lifetime I never have a call for those saws does that make them a failure? All have my guns have been shot many times at many different things. I have never pointed one of my guns at somebody else. That, in my mind, does not make them failures it makes me lucky.

    But back to work for me. Will check again in ~8hrs.
    by Smith
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    Smith said:

    "I don't need to address the first two points about Food and Recreation; mostly because they're fringe cases. " And this my friend is the problem. You believe they are fringe cases. I am 28. The food one is a reality from my life. It is a reality for people I know. Its a reality for HUGE geographical sections of the US.


    The plural of anecdote is not evidence.


    I bet that the number of people who go hunting in the United States in a given year, can't be anymore than about 4% of the population. I'm also willing to bet that the number of people who depend of hunting to survive is less than 1%.
    That's very much a fringe case if 96% of the population do not go hunting.
    Smith said:

    I have these Japanese saws in my garage. Never used them they were given to me as a gift. Those saws sole job is cutting things. If it so happens in my lifetime I never have a call for those saws does that make them a failure?

    Well yes.

    If they've remained in your garage, they've never been used as a saw; they've never even been used as decorative devices. Technically, they're junk in the garage.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    Total number of people over the age of 16 that hunt annually - 12.5 million
    Gun deaths in United States due intentional and unintentional in 2013 ~12 thousand (not including suicide)
    Not trying to say anything with those numbers just wanted to put them up real quick because after I saw your %'s I wanted to know.

    And after reading your response I did end up giving you an impression I did not mean. My family did not require hunting to survive. It simply made us food secure. Food insecure != starving in the streets. That is on me I spoke in a way that was misleading.

    There is no better way to ask this question. So it is your argument that we can write off at least 4% of the population? I am asking it this way to be very clear I am not trying to say that is the wrong answer. If the answer is "Yes to heck with those hill billies they need to get with the times" That is fine we can move forward on that.

    And we were operating on different definitions of fringe. I had understood fringe to have a much more negative connotation representing a much smaller group.

    Again the saws were bad examples. They are junk I do need to get rid of them in fact. I should have asked about fire extinguishers. I have carried probably 20 of them between different vehicles and only ever used one. Does that mean the other 19 are junk and that I carried them for nothing?


    I was looking around for the % of americans who think we should completely ban guns. Didn't find that number before I had to run but I did find this very interesting poll I hadn't seen in its entirety. (only cherry picked stats)
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
    by Smith
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    Smith said:

    I should have asked about fire extinguishers. I have carried probably 20 of them between different vehicles and only ever used one. Does that mean the other 19 are junk and that I carried them for nothing?

    Why is a fire extinguisher? What is its point?
    A fire extinguisher is bascially an insurance policy against fire.


    If the Second Amendment exists as an insurance policy, against what does it operate? It isn't the government since:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

    - Article III, Section 3, United States Constitution (1789).

    It is isn't the government, then it must be insurance policy against other people and if it's insurance policy against other people, then the call that people need guns for self-defence is only true if everyone else in society has them in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that if people do not have the necessary means to kill each other then they don't.

    http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

    "Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.
    "From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide."

    - The University of Sydney, 14th Dec 2006.

    If we back up the bus:
    I can see practical advantage to some people having guns, such as farmers, but does that mean it should be enshrined as a right?

    My question is whether or not the law is shaped by society or if it shapes society.
    If it is the former, then whether or not having guns should be enshrined as a right, should be up for debate. If it is the latter, then has the existence of the Second Amendment created a society which is fifteen times more dangerous per capita than the country I live in?

    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • SmithSmith Posts: 16
    edited November 2016
    I do not think we can agree on guns as a whole... ever. We have very different view of guns as an item. I hate to use "Guns are just tools" argument because I play with hammers all the time tossing them up and catching them. It is seen as comical and normal to hit your thumb with a hammer etc etc. But in my view carrying a fire extinguisher and carrying a gun, though not the same, are done for the exact same reasons.

    I will say that I am, in an infinitesimally small way, more open to the idea that all guns are removed. If no civilian (cop or not) or military in the world has or is allowed to have a gun I would be open to the idea. I am quite alright with having guns and never needing them. I find it unacceptable to need one and not have one because somebody else decided I should not have one.

    "My question is whether or not the law is shaped by society or if it shapes society."
    Both are true. Our current society is shaped by the laws in place and our society will shape the law for the future. This is currently going on and it is why the second amendment is just a big deal to so many people. To sound like a "murica" type: the way I see it if guns were outlawed the world would be a less free place. The act of outlawing guns sets a precedent that would not greatly effect me but may effect generations to come negatively. The only thing that would happen between the days before the outlaw and after is me and many others like me would become criminals.

    I am glad that banning guns has worked out for countries before but a smart chap once said "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Unfair in this context I know but I really wanted to use it.



    Lets pretend for a moment that what we say actually matters. Lets operate under the assumption that guns are not going away in the USA for the foreseeable future.

    The way gun shows work is ridiculous. Unfortunately the same laws that allow them to happen are the same ones that would allow me to give a gun to my (grown) child. The same laws that allowed my father to give me a gun (Family gun so to speak. Six shooter that does act as a decorative piece). And the same law that would allow me to sell a gun to a buddy.

    Those people who carry around AR's as a political statement I am willing to throw under the bus.

    Hollow point ammo is disgusting. Hollow point ammo does not increase "stopping power" or serve any other purpose than to increase the likelihood of death after the fact. The only argument for them that holds water is about penetration or more specifically the lack of penetration. There are other ways to accomplish this. In fact if the military were to use them it would be considered a war crime. Note: Pepper spray also fits this category.

    I would be willing to see a gun registry in my lifetime. Not government run though. They cannot be trusted not to abuse information they have access to.

    I also am not willing to give up anything while some of the loudest voices are yelling for arbitrary restrictions based on their lack of understanding.

    I have an idea how this would be accomplished but would that satiate your concerns? If not, and you would be able to settle with something shy of completely banning weapons? Assuming we get to keep all current forms of guns what would you like to see changed to be okay with it?
    by Smith
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,898 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2016
    Smith said:


    "My question is whether or not the law is shaped by society or if it shapes society."
    Both are true. Our current society is shaped by the laws in place and our society will shape the law for the future. This is currently going on and it is why the second amendment is just a big deal to so many people. To sound like a "murica" type: the way I see it if guns were outlawed the world would be a less free place. The act of outlawing guns sets a precedent that would not greatly effect me but may effect generations to come negatively. The only thing that would happen between the days before the outlaw and after is me and many others like me would become criminals.

    Two things of not here. All laws are an imposition on someone's freedom to some degree. The removal of the second amendment would very much make the world a "less free place". I absolutely agree with that. If that is true, what is the net goodness of protecting a criminal's right to own firearms?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and that criminals should possess the constitutional right to the means to destroy all three?
    Smith said:


    Assuming we get to keep all current forms of guns what would you like to see changed to be okay with it?

    Based on that assumption, there is no possible change.
    Smith said:

    I would be willing to see a gun registry in my lifetime. Not government run though. They cannot be trusted not to abuse information they have access to.

    Fair call. America does really well when it opens the market to private enterprise. Health care expenses show that.

    That's probably why if there is a gun registry, it should be run privately and not government run because that clearly works brilliantly. :D

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/your-mobile-phone-records-and-home-address-for-sale-20161116-gsqkwe.html
    Corrupt insiders at offshore call centres are offering the private details of Australian customers of Optus, Telstra and Vodafone for sale to anyone prepared to pay.
    A Fairfax Media investigation can reveal Mumbai-based security firm AI Solutions is asking between $350 and $1000 in exchange for the private information, but even more if the target is an Australian "VIP, politician, police, [or] celebrity".

    - Sydney Morning Herald, 16th Nov 2016.
    by Rollo
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭

    Do you understand what exactly the Libertarian Party stands for? Because I feel like a lot of people who voted for Gary Johnson don't.

    Don't insult people's awareness of what someone stands for unless they show actual signs of ignorance. It comes off as very as condescending.

    That is why I said I wasn't trying to be inflammatory, I just know that a lot of the people that I know who were thinking about voting for Gary Johnson didn't know anything about him beyond that he has an affinity for marijuana. I wasn't trying to insult anybody, I was trying to ask a question to see if some people who voted for him looked into his core values because that isn't what I am seeing.
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
Sign In or Register to comment.