Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/03/08 19:09:35
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I believe to a certain extent that the US government is the US people.
"to a certain extent"... meaning they're representative of the people, since 'the people' gave consent to be governed.
Recognize the distinction.
You have the individual...
You have a group of individual in a society... as in 'the people'...
Then you have the various groups of governments (local, regional, states, feds...).
They're all distinct with different wants, needs and agendas. Right?
So, what is Ethics?
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
What is morals?
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
We're dealing with what one individual or groups of individuals believes in...
If one person or groups believes in something, then it's a moral thing for that person/group to fight for said beliefs. It's a MORAL thing for them to engage the government to push said belief on everyone.
What does that mean if a different person or group disagrees?
See the conundrum of skyth's statement:
...you have an ethical and moral duty to help out others. I have no problem with law enforcement action against people who refuse to do that...
Also:
Citizens United broadened what it means to be a person, so it would probably be more accurate to say that the US Government is now a combination of people and corporations.
Not quite buddy.
First, Citizens United is really about a private entity wanted to show a critical movie on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season. So, the makers of Citizens United's 1st Amendment prevailed over the existing laws at the times that were seen as 'incumbent protection' laws.
That led to changes to BCRA laws that gave rise to superPACs and stuff.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/08 19:11:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
And take money from poor people for "greenhouse gases"
No need for scare quotes on that one.
Yes, nations tax people. To do stuff. Shocking, I know...
So we're both agreed they tax poor people for for "greenhouse gases" but its ok right? The people least able to afford it, but screw those guys they should just buy a Prius, and put up solar panels. What do you mean my solar panels are subsidized? It should be, because I 'm good. Not like those factory worker peasants. They drive gas guzzlers. They're bad.
Nonsense both parties sucketh, and both parties have their good points. One sided "our side is good their side is bad" is just logically asinine. *
*I am not speaking about any particular poster here. Except for Malfred. And maybe cat lovers. Ok especially cat lovers. They got no reason to live.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 19:20:47
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/08 19:26:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
@whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Citizens United, I realized my mistake on that after posting, and didn't get my edit in on time. Sorry
In any case, my main point was that in the US, corps are people too, so its not quite so simple as saying government = people because many if not most government officials represent corporate interests as much if not more so than their individual constituents.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 19:31:34
2016/03/08 19:37:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
That's my argument.
Hence my snark "you will be made to care".
Besides... what statuatory laws exists that requires a 'citizen to help other people out'??? And no, paying your taxes isn't that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Citizens United, I realized my mistake on that after posting, and didn't get my edit in on time.
In any case, the point being that in the US, corps are people, so it may once have been true to a degree that the government = the people, but its not quite that simple these days.
US corps are people is a legal fiction that's needed.
Otherwise, it'd be extremely difficult to write laws and enforce it on Corporation.
Furthermore, I don't believe it's EVER been true that the government = the people. Just look at the Declaration of Independence:
...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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted amongMen, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 19:42:03
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/08 19:42:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
That's my argument.
So no taxes used to fund the fire brigade, schools, the police or emergency health care?
EDIT: And if you're not talking about taxes, what then? Maybe laws that require one to help in the case of an emergency? Some countries have them, Finland does. I think that's a good thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 19:48:43
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
That's my argument.
So no taxes used to fund the fire brigade, schools, the police or emergency health care?
EDIT: And if you're not talking about taxes, what then? Maybe laws that require one to help in the case of an emergency? Some countries have them, Finland does. I think that's a good thing.
I'll be honest, I hear fire brigade and I have this image of column of tanks painted bright red with sirens and horns going...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/08 19:57:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So you can't back that up. Got it. Thats ok, you still get a nice internet cookie. Oh wait, where did the cookies go? Rodney you scamp!
To another point, I am seeing Southerners by droves vote for a Yankee, a NY Yankee. Ladies and Gentlemen, the South has fallen.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 20:04:58
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/08 19:59:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Alpharius wrote: GENERAL IN THREAD NOTE: "FTFY" quote shenanigans are considered against RULE #1 here on Dakka Dakka.
In other words - don't do it.
Got it. Back to not posting. Sorry I forgot.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/08 20:08:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
@whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
To another point, I am seeing Southerners by droves vote for a Yankee, a NY Yankee. Ladies and Gentlemen, the South has fallen.
Not just Southerners. Evangelicals are also voting in droves for our "Christian" (wink, wink) billionaire friend from the north. The religious right may well have fallen, as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 20:12:03
2016/03/08 20:14:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
No worries.
Paying your taxes is a "duty". There's nothing altruistic about it.
To me, that's distinctly different than "helping your neighbor". You should help your neighbor as it's the right thing to do. However, the government should stay the feth out and not use LEO to "make" you help your neighbor.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/08 20:21:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
2016/03/08 20:22:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
Yeah, I was referring to the latter, rather than the former.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
No worries.
Paying your taxes is a "duty". There's nothing altruistic about it.
To me, that's distinctly different than "helping your neighbor". You should help your neighbor as it's the right thing to do. However, the government should stay the feth out and not use LEO to "make" you help your neighbor.
Taxes are the way governments get people to help other people. For example, you are paying taxes to provide healthcare for people on Medicaid and Medicare. If you don't want to help and refuse to pay taxes, your gonna get in trouble. The government is already in the business of forcing people to help their neighbors out. Whether you agree or not that they should collect these taxes is one thing, but just because it's not voluntary doesn't mean it's off the table for discussion.
Again, I dont pretend to know what skyth meant by law enforcement action against people who refuse to help other people out, but I think tax collection enforcemnt is Prime Example #1 of this exact kind of government behavior.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 20:30:57
2016/03/08 20:32:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people
The idea was referring to paying taxes. Was in response to Frazz's comment about people with guns (ie IRS) forcing you to follow the law.
2016/03/08 20:41:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
Duty to Rescue is a thing that exist in many countries (apparently not in USA, though.) It is a legal requirement to render assistance in a medical (or possibly other) emergency, as long as it doesn't cause danger to the person helping.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
Duty to Rescue is a thing that exist in many countries (apparently not in USA, though.) It is a legal requirement to render assistance in a medical (or possibly other) emergency, as long as it doesn't cause danger to the person helping.
There are Duty to Rescue laws in 10 US states (Google search, not personal expertise), but they seem pretty forgiving as to whom these laws apply, and in what circumstances.
2016/03/08 20:47:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
TheMeanDM wrote: As a medical professional (nurse, etc) we have that duty.
If I were just a "civillian", we do not have a duty....
Yep. But in many countries civilians have that duty as well.
jasper76 wrote: There are Duty to Rescue laws in 10 US states (Google search, not personal expertise), but they seem pretty forgiving as to whom these laws apply, and in what circumstances.
Thanks. I missed that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 20:50:46
People here in the US, I would argue, have been far more litigious when it came to Joe Blow trying to save Gramma Jane and ended up paralyzing her because they didn't know what they were doing.
Therefore the Good Samaritan laws...to help encourage more people to lend that hand if they can with (less!) fear of litigation should something go awry.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/03/08 21:21:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Seems to be a major difference between writing the law as a carrot (you are not going to be held liable for damages made in an effort to help) and using it as a stick (you must help or suffer the consequences).
Incentivizing the desired behavior with the carrot approach is definitely my preference.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/03/08 21:23:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Seems to be a major difference between writing the law as a carrot (you are not going to be held liable for damages made in an effort to help) and using it as a stick (you must help or suffer the consequences).
Incentivizing the desired behavior with the carrot approach is definitely my preference.
That's what we have in the UK. There isn't a compulsory help law, but the law says that first aiders making a genuine attempt to help casualties won't be prosecuted if something goes wrong.
The SunSentinel, which once endorsed Jeb!, refuses to endorse any remaining GOP candidates (including hometown Rubio), stating "We cannot endorse businessman Donald Trump, hometown Sen. Marco Rubio or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz because they are unqualified to be president." Pretty scathing article from their Editorial Board. Bad news for Rubio.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board is not going to make an endorsement in Florida's March 15 Republican presidential primary because the kind of person who should be running is not in the race.
We cannot endorse businessman Donald Trump, hometown Sen. Marco Rubio or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz because they are unqualified to be president. Ohio Gov. John Kasich is the best of the bunch, but if you measure a candidate by the caliber of his campaign, Kasich's lack of traction and organization make a vote for him count for little.
ADVERTISING
We showed our cards a year ago, before the extraordinarily large field of Republican candidates shaped up. We favored the adult in the room, Jeb Bush, a smart, experienced and principled conservative. But the nation wasn't ready for another Bush, and our former governor wasn't ready for the anti-establishment edge in today's Twitter-fueled campaign era.
So now, here's how we see the choices:
Donald Trump
If you're angry, like so many voters are, vote for Trump. If you want to send a message to the Republican establishment and the Washington elite — and you feel voting for Trump will poke a stick in their eye — knock yourself out. Trump's celebrity and trajectory could well propel him to the White House in November.
Compare candidates in the Sun Sentinel Voter Guide
Compare candidates in the Sun Sentinel Voter Guide
Maybe you think Trump doesn't really mean all the over-the-top things he says about Mexicans, Muslims, McCain and more. After all, this guy authored "The Art of the Deal" and knows negotiations start with an extreme position. He's already said he's willing to cut a deal on one of his hard-line immigration stances — mass deportations.
But if you believe Trump doesn't really mean everything he says, then you believe he is fooling everyone. So you're buying a pig in a poke.
And what if you're wrong?
Part of Trump's appeal is that he's willing to change his mind, that he's not in lockstep with the rules that make Washington dysfunctional. He's taken positions other Republicans have run from, such as funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion health services and calling the Iraq War a mistake. To get things done, he says you've got to be flexible.
But conservative Republicans exhausted by the Obama Administration fear Trump is too willing to compromise and too bendable on core values. He has been both pro-choice and pro-life, for and against a ban on assault weapons, and for and against bringing in Syrian refugees. That he wrote checks to Hillary Clinton's last presidential campaign is a final straw.
Trump also is absurdly vague on how he would "make America great again." We all know Mexico is never going to pay for that wall and we're never going to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. When asked to explain how he will implement his bombastic pronouncements, Trump's complete lack of government experience shows.
Supposedly, Trump is a good businessman, but we know folks in Tampa who lost huge sums of money on Trump Tower Tampa, which never broke ground. His list of failures goes on: Trump Shuttle, Trump Vodka, Trump Magazine, Trump University, Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. You might think the Trump brand suggests quality, but history proves you wrong.
Trump would shake up Washington, no question. He might even unite Republicans and Democrats against a common enemy — himself. But given his smug, erratic, often petulant demeanor, do you really trust him with the keys to our nuclear arsenal?
The presidency is serious business, not reality television. Trump may be entertaining, but he lacks the experience and temperament to be president. He does not deserve your vote.
Marco Rubio
If you think Marco Rubio can unite the Republican Party under a winning banner, vote for him. But remember that he has almost no experience and has done little but run for office. Then, when he gets in office, he doesn't go to work very much. He holds the worst attendance record in the U.S. Senate.
Because Rubio has failed to do his job as a senator, broken the promises he made to Floridians and backed away from his lone signature piece of legislation on immigration, we cannot endorse him for president.
Without question, Rubio has a great personal story and tremendous political skills. He is smart and knows the issues beyond the talking points, no matter that one rote debate performance.
But Rubio is not the new-age Republican he claims to be. His positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, gun control, government surveillance and Cuba are those of yesteryear. And unlike Trump, Rubio is reliant on big donors who will expect big favors down the road.
Rubio's strongest suit appears to be foreign policy, but his neoconservative views should give voters pause. In an October interview about ISIS, for example, he advocated a no-fly zone over Syria that would take down any Russian jets there, too. Asked if he thought a military conflict with Russia would scare the American people, he said, "Sure. But the consequences of not doing anything would scare them even more."
Let us be clear: war with Russia is the last thing this war-weary nation wants and it was alarming to hear Rubio so cavalierly roll the dice. Fortunately, more considered minds from the U.S., Russia and other powers last month negotiated a cessation of hostilities in Syria's civil war.
We recognize that Rubio and Ted Cruz are the party's best shot at stopping Trump. If Rubio can secure Florida's winner-take-all primary, and certain other cards play out, perhaps Trump won't cross the finish line and another candidate can emerge at a brokered convention.
But a vote for Rubio should be more than a protest vote.
Rubio lacks the experience, work ethic and gravitas needed to be president. He has not earned your vote.
Ted Cruz
If you want someone who won't compromise on social issues, who will stand strong for limited government and will make his decisions based on the Bible, your choice is clear: Ted Cruz.
Cruz is unequivocal. He is anti-establishment and anti-Washington. And he is so determined to kill Obamacare that he was willing to shut down government for 16 days, America's economy be damned.
In talking tough against ISIS, Cruz promises to carpet-bombing Syrian villages, which betrays his ignorance of smart-bomb technology, let alone our nation's military strategy. Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that wanton bombing is categorically "not the way that we apply force in combat. It isn't now, nor will it ever be."
In the push for needed tax reform, Cruz promises to replace the Internal Revenue Service with a tiny office in the Treasury Department that will process tax returns submitted on postcards.
And in the face of Washington gridlock, Cruz has alienated almost everyone he's worked with, leading Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham to half-jokingly say that if someone killed Mr. Cruz "on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."
Cruz scares us. He also should scare Republicans who want to win in November. Cruz has not earned your vote.
John Kasich
If you consider yourself a mainstream Republican, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is your man. He's a solid conservative who's fought public services unions, opposed same-sex marriage and battled to limit abortion rights. He supports a path to legalization — though not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants. He has strong credentials in government at the state and federal levels. And he's popular with those who know him best, boasting a 62 percent approval rating among Ohioans.
If he could survive the primary, Kasich would prove a strong candidate in November. Recent polls show he averages a 7.4 lead over Hillary Clinton, which is larger than the leads posted by Rubio, Cruz or Trump.
But while Kasich is the most qualified of the four candidates left standing, he lacks presidential presence. And he doesn't have a chance of winning because the Republican base is in rebellion and he got out of the gate too late to build a viable campaign organization.
Perhaps in a more-rational election year, the Sun Sentinel would endorse John Kasich. But we can't urge you to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 22:40:07
2016/03/09 03:51:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
