or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 226

post #3376 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


The problem with this argument is that the government is now Constitutionally prohibited from using its power to discriminate in such a fashion. The government retaining its power to prevent persecution of protected classes does not logically extrapolate to a scenario where the government uses power to institute persecution in the future, because of those restrictions. It only really makes sense if you're working backwards from the axiom that government power is bad.

Certainly government power can be used for good or bad purposes. "Not giving the government power" is one option, but putting firm restrictions on those powers is another.
Nobody claimed in happened in a bolt from the heavens. That doesn't mean it wasn't effective overall.

Institutionalized bigotry has self-sustaining power. You grow up with it, you don't question it, and it just becomes the natural state of things. Legally preventing that sort of scenario works, over time, to lessen the prevalence and certainly the impact of bigotry.


No, no, no, you don't get it.  If government regulation/enforcement doesn't work perfectly and without fail, it's terrible and should be done away with entirely.  If it is the private sector, however, things are different.  In that case you just need to let the free market kick in (unmolested by naughty government tinkering) so that we can live in Ayn Randian utopia times.

post #3377 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The problem with this argument is that the government is now Constitutionally prohibited from using its power to discriminate in such a fashion. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The government retaining its power to prevent persecution of protected classes does not logically extrapolate to a scenario where the government uses power to institute persecution in the future, because of those restrictions. It only really makes sense if you're working backwards from the axiom that government power is bad.

Certainly government power can be used for good or bad purposes. "Not giving the government power" is one option, but putting firm restrictions on those powers is another.
Nobody claimed in happened in a bolt from the heavens. That doesn't mean it wasn't effective overall.

Institutionalized bigotry has self-sustaining power. You grow up with it, you don't question it, and it just becomes the natural state of things. Legally preventing that sort of scenario works, over time, to lessen the prevalence and certainly the impact of bigotry.

What is "institutionalized bigotry" though? For decades race based admissions in California required Asians to score far higher than other groups for college entry. So the smallest minority group was objectively harmed in this case and folks refused to admit it for years...heck, I bet this statement is dismissed by at least one poster. I think noting unintended consequences, and the inertia not to admit to them due to unattractive truths, is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post


No, no, no, you don't get it.  If government regulation/enforcement doesn't work perfectly and without fail, it's terrible and should be done away with entirely.  If it is the private sector, however, things are different.  In that case you just need to let the free market kick in (unmolested by naughty government tinkering) so that we can live in Ayn Randian utopia times.

Everyone drink! Rand Rule.
post #3378 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

The Civil Rights Act was hugely instrumental in removing Jim Crow Laws from the south something that anyone who knows anything about that period knows to be a historical fact. That the removal of these law would have, from all evidence, been drug out for many more years had it been left up to the south to remove these inequities on their own volition is another historical fact. If you want to wallow in ignorance about the historical accuracy of those times just to hang on to some idealogical disdain for the power of these laws ,both pro and anti segregation then be my guest. Not only did live through that period but I have many family members who continue to live in the deep south . They rum the social gamut from construction laborers to government officials so I feel like I have a rudimentary insight into matters of attitude around race relations in that part of the world

 

I'm not arguing that the Civil Rights Act did not help remove Jim Crow Laws.  I have been arguing all along that there are examples, both at the federal and state level, of laws forcing private organizations and individuals to segregate and discriminate.

 

If you codify bigotry into law, it will permeate longer than it otherwise would. 

Well it aint perfect but we are a republic and thats kinda how we get 'er get done in one of those things

post #3379 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

It's curious that history has shown otherwise

Different world. We disagree on a philosophical level. I see the world in a different way. I'm okay with private business having the right to discriminate because I predict that the long term effects of social engineering will be far worse. A vengeful, corrupt and all powerful government who wages war, literally and figuratively, against its own citizens is exponentially more dangerous than someone being turned away by a bakery. The side effects of my plan are easily predictable. They are measurable. Yes, my plan has some undesirable ramifications but they are limited in scope and can only cause so much harm. The consequences of your plan are beyond your imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Or refusing blacks service at lunch counters. Huh, the analogy still seems to fit.

Yes, I'd have expected someone to face penalties for violating the Civil Rights Act back in 1995. This is exactly the same argument you see (and still see, in some quarters) against the Civil Rights Act. How much of that are we supposedly rolling back in favor of liberty? Businesses can refuse to hire women? You can be fired for having kids? That stuff happens already, albeit less than it used to, and it's actually illegal. Removing those protections and then assuming social pressure will keep a lid of discrimination just doesn't seem plausible. There's an awfully large segment of society that is pretty happy sacrificing a small amount of liberty in exchange for having the power of law at work on reducing that kind of discrimination.

Should churches have their tax exempt status revoked if they don't perform gay weddings? As you pointed out, businesses can currently refuse to hire anyone, they just have to give a reason other than race, gender, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Every time a "conservative" says they support Trump, I use the Kelo v. New London example.  When did conservatives stop pretending to care about private property rights?

I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. We are left with a choice between Hillary and Trump. That's not a difficult decision for me.
post #3380 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Different world. We disagree on a philosophical level. I see the world in a different way. I'm okay with private business having the right to discriminate because I predict that the long term effects of social engineering will be far worse. A vengeful, corrupt and all powerful government who wages war, literally and figuratively, against its own citizens is exponentially more dangerous than someone being turned away by a bakery. The side effects of my plan are easily predictable. They are measurable. Yes, my plan has some undesirable ramifications but they are limited in scope and can only cause so much harm. The consequences of your plan are beyond your imagination.

This is more than a little hysterical. The government is not "waging war" on citizens because of...what? Political correctness?

In your example so far, a baker would have had to bake a cake. Holy shit, the world is ending.

Quote:
Should churches have their tax exempt status revoked if they don't perform gay weddings? As you pointed out, businesses can currently refuse to hire anyone, they just have to give a reason other than race, gender, etc.

Churches aren't businesses, and religious services aren't commerce.

It's a huge slippery slope to assume that the government is going to intrude into private religious observation because they're currently regulating commerce.
post #3381 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

This is more than a little hysterical. The government is not "waging war" on citizens because of...what? Political correctness?

In your example so far, a baker would have had to bake a cake. Holy shit, the world is ending.

This needs repeating:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I'm okay with private business having the right to discriminate because I predict that the long term effects of social engineering will be far worse. The consequences of your plan are beyond your imagination.

It's not possible for a government to be limited, constitutional and just, but at the same time vengeful and exhibit such control over its people that it can loot a private citizens bank account in Oregon because they didn't give a lesbian couple a wedding cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It's a huge slippery slope to assume that the government is going to intrude into private religious observation because they're currently regulating commerce.

We'll see.

In other Trump news:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/08/ann-coulter-stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/
Quote:
The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, Wolf, I don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans they think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.



post #3382 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

This needs repeating:
It's not possible for a government to be limited, constitutional and just, but at the same time vengeful and exhibit such control over its people that it can loot a private citizens bank account in Oregon because they didn't give a lesbian couple a wedding cake.
We'll see.

One person's "Loot a private citizen's bank account" is another's "Enforce a judicial ruling for illegal discrimination." I don't see it as "vengeful," I see it as using the powers granted the government to enforce laws designed to protect people from discrimination.

Is someone measurably hurt by "having" to sell cakes to anyone who requests one? What's the downside here?

The Civil Rights Act allows for the government to enforce penalties for discrimination. We've run that experiment for 50 odd years now. Is society better off now? That's obviously a matter of opinion, but I rather suspect you're not going to get a lot of traction in popular elections for a platform of legalizing bigotry.
post #3383 of 8748
Originally Posted by suited View Post
 


It's not possible for a government to be limited, constitutional and just, but at the same time vengeful and exhibit such control over its people that it can loot a private citizens bank account in Oregon because they didn't give a lesbian couple a wedding cake.

 

 

That's the Oregon State government.  Isn't the right in favor of the States having the power to legislate these things for themselves without Federal intervention?  I'm not just being cute.  It seems like it's ok when the State electrocutes somebody who is mentally ill or passes a law that makes it illegal for its own municipal governments to pass laws banning certain types of discrimination but then these kinds of laws are oppressive. 

 

There are many bigger injustices in day-to-day life than these bakers in Oregon getting sued over a cake.  Which, yes, I think is a silly result.  But I don't cry a river for them either.

post #3384 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. We are left with a choice between Hillary and Trump. That's not a difficult decision for me.

 

I will vote third-party.  Easy as that.  I want the Republican party (and Democratic party) to take on a more libertarian bent.  The best way I see is to try to help the Libertarians to get to at least 5%, but realistically would love to see at least 15% polls to get Johnson on the debate stage.  If this was 2012, I would rather he didn't make the debates because Obama would trounce him.  Hillary and Trump are awful debaters though.

post #3385 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post
 
Originally Posted by suited View Post
 


It's not possible for a government to be limited, constitutional and just, but at the same time vengeful and exhibit such control over its people that it can loot a private citizens bank account in Oregon because they didn't give a lesbian couple a wedding cake.

 

 

That's the Oregon State government.  Isn't the right in favor of the States having the power to legislate these things for themselves without Federal intervention?  I'm not just being cute.  It seems like it's ok when the State electrocutes somebody who is mentally ill or passes a law that makes it illegal for its own municipal governments to pass laws banning certain types of discrimination but then these kinds of laws are oppressive. 

 

There are many bigger injustices in day-to-day life than these bakers in Oregon getting sued over a cake.  Which, yes, I think is a silly result.  But I don't cry a river for them either.

 

Neither side is for federalism when a state is doing something it doesn't want.  They all pay lipservice to it.

post #3386 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


That's clearly a direct extrapolation. You're really bringing the nuance and subtly that libertarians are known for to this discussion.

 

Serious question time again:

 

Why would a person of a certain demographic want to patronize, and therefore enhance the profits of, a business operated by a person or persons who holds negative views of said demographic?  Don't situations like that generally call for boycotts rather than patronage?  That's what happened with the Woolworth's lunch counter and countless other instances.

post #3387 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


We are left with a choice between Hillary and Trump.

 

You may want to check your ballot, as you are wrong.

post #3388 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Or refusing blacks service at lunch counters. Huh, the analogy still seems to fit.

 

The Woolworth's lunch counter situation was resolved via the free market, without government intervention.  The first blacks to eat at the counter were Woolworth's own employees.

post #3389 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Different world. We disagree on a philosophical level. I see the world in a different way. I'm okay with private business having the right to discriminate because I predict that the long term effects of social engineering will be far worse. A vengeful, corrupt and all powerful government who wages war, literally and figuratively, against its own citizens is exponentially more dangerous than someone being turned away by a bakery. The side effects of my plan are easily predictable. They are measurable. Yes, my plan has some undesirable ramifications but they are limited in scope and can only cause so much harm. The consequences of your plan are beyond your imagination.

 

Well it appears that you you are neither a seer but it nor a student of American history.   We've all seen the consequences of allowing private businesses to discriminate.  These practices tended trickle UP into local, state and finally federal the federal government.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


The Civil Rights Act allows for the government to enforce penalties for discrimination. We've run that experiment for 50 odd years now. Is society better off now? That's obviously a matter of opinion, but I rather suspect you're not going to get a lot of traction in popular elections for a platform of legalizing bigotry.
 

Land of the free and home of the bigots has a nice ring to it

post #3390 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Well it appears that you you are neither a seer but it nor a student of American history.   We've all seen the consequences of allowing private businesses to discriminate.  These practices tended trickle UP into local, state and finally federal the federal government.  

So if it trickles up to the federal government how could the opposite possibly trickle down from the federal government?

And no one has addressed the objectively verifiable negative impact laws have had on minorities such as Asian college applicants in CA.

The answer, of course, is neither private business nor all level of governments are perfect, and to think one is necessarily superior to the other is bogus and displays unwarranted elevation of one over the other.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field