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.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
You know whats going to be funny? His Inaugural Address, and every speech after that one. His speech impediment, and his lack of vocabulary is hilarious.

He will have the best speech writers.

It's obvious that in the past 10 days the GOP regulars managed to get hold of the closing stage of the campaign and rein in Trump's wild spirits, e.g. cutting him off from his Twitter account. This will continue and Trump's speeches will be a lot more scripted than before.

His acceptance speech was pretty good for example.

Good as time as any for an updated Trump quote in my signature.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Trump isn't going to start launching nukes at Mecca.

You are talking about guy who has already asked why they haven't already been used!

Why you think he wouldn't be willing to use them since they should have been already used according to him?

Because Trump understands the virtue of being considered 'unpredictable' on the international stage?

I don't mean that as a joke, there is a genuine benefit to having your enemies consider you crazy.

When did Europe, Japan, Israel, South Korea and so on become the US's enemies?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Ah, that great tragedy that comes from enforcing the law. If the angels would weep surely the desert would flood...

Yes, it is a tragedy when you consider things like the people who would be deported came into the US as young children and have known no other life. And, like I said, you can pretty well guarantee that this mass deportation effort would be focused on racial minorities. They aren't going to spend any effort trying to deport a white British person who overstayed their tourist visa, even though that person is just as much of an illegal immigrant. Nor are they going to show much concern for legal residents who get caught up in a "papers, citizen" enforcement system where anyone who looks "Mexican" enough is presumed to be an illegal immigrant.

It's fascinating. At once we're to believe that Trump will be a dangerous panderer to Jew haters, and in the next moment he will be expanding the protections that religious minorities (such as myself) have against state coercion.

These laws offer no protection against state coercion for religious minorities.

None of them are the US' enemies.

Stop being melodramatic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Trump isn't going to start launching nukes at Mecca.

You are talking about guy who has already asked why they haven't already been used!

Why you think he wouldn't be willing to use them since they should have been already used according to him?

Because Trump understands the virtue of being considered 'unpredictable' on the international stage?

I don't mean that as a joke, there is a genuine benefit to having your enemies consider you crazy.

When did Europe, Japan, Israel, South Korea and so on become the US's enemies?

Curious, to focus only on Israel, what makes you think Trump is not inclined to, in the interest of hyperbole, simply give Netanyahu all the leeway he wants? Among other things.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I'm the orthodox Jew, remember? The RFRA's are my pander. But I suppose we all look alike to you, eh?

So you admit to being an anti-LGBT bigot? Because that's who those "religious freedom" laws are pandering to, and I don't think that's a group you want to voluntarily associate yourself with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
None of them are the US' enemies.

Stop being melodramatic.

Of course they aren't our enemies, and that's the entire point! Being "unpredictable" with things like suggesting that NATO is obsolete or that the US doesn't have an obligation to defend our allies is the kind of unpredictability that scares our allies, not our enemies.

I think we are getting close to red-text territory again, maybe we can self moderate a bit?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Well, 4 more years of not going Socialist.

Which was going to happen, no matter what. Clinton is not a socialist.

Centralized government with subsidized control over healthcare, housing, transportation, AND the overtax method that leads to people needing more government assistance, which leads to more taxes and MORE government assistance. Breaking to the point that whatever you WOULD earn is simply collected by the government and what you need is doled out to you, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Doesn't sound like Socialism at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

I know he's not very popular because of the Religious Freedom Act, but fiscally Indiana has been much better off than most of her neighbors.

Yeah, screw the LGBT people, they're just collateral damage of making sure business is profitable enough. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, you know.

Drama much? The FORA wasn't put into place to rob LGBT people of their rights, at all. Take the same principle that was used during the whole pizza parlor fiasco and apply it elsewhere, it suddenly becomes obvious why the law was passed. Had it been a vegan establishment who was approached by the NRA to host a dinner, they would refuse to have their name attached to such an event. If an Indian restaurant was asked to cater ANY sort of function, and asked specifically to prepare beef, they would refuse on religious grounds. But a Christian run restaurant refusing to cater an LGBT wedding and have their name as an endorsement to that lifestyle is suddenly crushing the rights of all LGBT people across the nation. Also funny that the couple in question were customers to that pizza place for quite a while, never being refused service. But hey, as long as we gain equality we can simply destroy anyone's religious convictions, right? I mean, omelets and eggs, you know.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Ah, that great tragedy that comes from enforcing the law. If the angels would weep surely the desert would flood...

Yes, it is a tragedy when you consider things like the people who would be deported came into the US as young children and have known no other life. And, like I said, you can pretty well guarantee that this mass deportation effort would be focused on racial minorities. They aren't going to spend any effort trying to deport a white British person who overstayed their tourist visa, even though that person is just as much of an illegal immigrant. Nor are they going to show much concern for legal residents who get caught up in a "papers, citizen" enforcement system where anyone who looks "Mexican" enough is presumed to be an illegal immigrant.

At the risk of being reductionist: given that the illegal migrants are disproportionately non-white, to claim that enforcing the law is racially tinged because the population that happens to be breaking the law is itself non-white is a rather aggressive Catch-22.

Are you of the notion that there are a very great number of "white British person" in our class of illegal migrants?

 Peregrine wrote:

It's fascinating. At once we're to believe that Trump will be a dangerous panderer to Jew haters, and in the next moment he will be expanding the protections that religious minorities (such as myself) have against state coercion.

These laws offer no protection against state coercion for religious minorities.

If you believe that then you are, and there is no other way to put it, legally incorrect.

It is a matter of objective fact that Jews, Native Americans, Muslims, Voodoo practitioners and other more exotic faiths have all disproportionately made use of the Federal and State RFRAs. From Kosher food to Peyote, RFRAs have checked government power and forced accomodation for religious faith.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
[i]
All overreactions to nothing. Dubya didn't suspend elections and become the Eternal President of America (or Hitler, as he was so often called). Obama didn't march everyone into FEMA death camps to be forcibly converted to Communist Islam whilst stealing all their guns!!! Trump isn't going to start launching nukes at Mecca.

The issue isn't so much a Trump presidency but that the GOP has control of every branch of the government. That much control means they can pass whatever the party wants and there is little to nothing the Dems can do to stop it. Affordable Care Act is gone 100% (there goes my health insurance) and we will probably see bills passing that attack LGBT rights, women's reproductive rights, environmental regulation, worker rights, funding for social services, etc.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Most manucturing jobs have not been lost overseas, but to mechanisation. Lower taxes will, if anything, speed this up as that extra money will be invested in to further efficiencies. The likely reductions in labour laws in the US and UK will probably also help. If anything the average worker will be worse off.

More fun facts; The US is slated to overtake China as an manufacturer in 2020! Actually pretty big news that was generally buried under all the complaining about jobs moving overseas.

 Just Tony wrote:
Centralized government with subsidized control over healthcare, housing, transportation, AND the overtax method that leads to people needing more government assistance, which leads to more taxes and MORE government assistance. Breaking to the point that whatever you WOULD earn is simply collected by the government and what you need is doled out to you, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Doesn't sound like Socialism at all.

I guess we're just going to forget the primary campaign where Sanders ran on a platform of "more socialism!" in contrast to Clinton, and everyone wanted Sanders because Clinton's centrist pandering to the wealthy and powerful was not enough?

The FORA wasn't put into place to rob LGBT people of their rights, at all.

Uh, no, that's exactly what it is intended to do. The goal is to allow people to refuse service to LGBT people, and is the exact equivalent of racial discrimination in the era of segregation. If "whites only" signs rob non-white people of their rights (as the courts have rather decisively stated) then "straight only" signs do the exact same thing.

Had it been a vegan establishment who was approached by the NRA to host a dinner, they would refuse to have their name attached to such an event. If an Indian restaurant was asked to cater ANY sort of function, and asked specifically to prepare beef, they would refuse on religious grounds. But a Christian run restaurant refusing to cater an LGBT wedding and have their name as an endorsement to that lifestyle is suddenly crushing the rights of all LGBT people across the nation. Also funny that the couple in question were customers to that pizza place for quite a while, never being refused service. But hey, as long as we gain equality we can simply destroy anyone's religious convictions, right? I mean, omelets and eggs, you know.

Those analogies are not accurate because "NRA members" and "people who want to eat dead cows" are not oppressed groups. Nor is "eating dead cows" an important part of a person's identity. If they aren't able to get beef dishes served at their event then they have suffered no meaningful harm. That is not at all the same as a gay couple being refused service in yet another example of being told "you are less than me" by society. You know, just like how non-white people faced similar poor treatment before segregation was made illegal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I'm the orthodox Jew, remember? The RFRA's are my pander. But I suppose we all look alike to you, eh?

So you admit to being an anti-LGBT bigot? Because that's who those "religious freedom" laws are pandering to, and I don't think that's a group you want to voluntarily associate yourself with.

Tsk, tsk. Temper temper.

But you beg the question: is exercising my right to refuse to associate (a necessary part of the right of association) an exercise in bigotry in your mind?

What are, after all, "LGBT Rights"?

Are there people arguing that gays, lesbians or transgender people may not bear arms? Speak freely? Enjoy their 5th amendment rights? Travel freely? If there are such people you ought to point them out that we may recognize them together.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to be churlish, but one can't help wonder where this concern was while Pres "Really Good at Killing People" Obama was supervising drone strikes.

Obama never called in for nukes to be used...Trump has. Bit different.

As nasty as drones are they aren't going to wipe out humanity out of the planet. Nukes do have that potential. So it's "bit" scarier to have "let's use nukes!" president than "let's use drones!" president.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
At the risk of being reductionist: given that the illegal migrants are disproportionately non-white, to claim that enforcing the law is racially tinged because the population that happens to be breaking the law is itself non-white is a rather aggressive Catch-22.

This would be a valid point, except there's no reason to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when his campaign is saying stuff like "a taco truck on every corner" that makes the racism very clear. The intent is not to enforce a law regardless of race, it's to use the illegal act as justification to remove an undesired racial minority.

Are you of the notion that there are a very great number of "white British person" in our class of illegal migrants?

I don't know, but I bet there isn't going to be much effort put into finding the answer to that question.

It is a matter of objective fact that Jews, Native Americans, Muslims, Voodoo practitioners and other more exotic faiths have all disproportionately made use of the Federal and State RFRAs. From Kosher food to Peyote, RFRAs have checked government power and forced accomodation for religious faith.

And that is not what we're talking about here. The issue is legalized discrimination in the form of "religious freedom" to refuse service, not things like being granted access to a normally-illegal drug for religious uses. Please don't confuse the issue by bringing in unrelated laws involving religion.

tneva82 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to be churlish, but one can't help wonder where this concern was while Pres "Really Good at Killing People" Obama was supervising drone strikes.

Obama never called in for nukes to be used...Trump has. Bit different.

As nasty as drones are they aren't going to wipe out humanity out of the planet. Nukes do have that potential. So it's "bit" scarier to have "let's use nukes!" president than "let's use drones!" president.

You do realize that in your comparison, the guy actually killing people is not as scary as the guy simply blustering, right? Perhaps that's... not a solid foundation, maybe?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
[Are there people arguing that gays, lesbians or transgender people may not bear arms? Speak freely? Enjoy their 5th amendment rights? Travel freely? If there are such people you ought to point them out that we may recognize them together.

Well, no, it's not so much about rights as Trump supporters advocating their murder. That would interfere with the exercise of their rights.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
But you beg the question: is exercising my right to refuse to associate (a necessary part of the right of association) an exercise in bigotry in your mind?

Yes, in the context of your business refusing service. And the courts have pretty decisively agreed with this concept in banning racial discrimination. If you have a "whites only" policy with your business you're going to find yourself in a lot of legal trouble, and no amount of talking about "but the right of association!!" is going to save you.

What are, after all, "LGBT Rights"?

Are there people arguing that gays, lesbians or transgender people may not bear arms? Speak freely? Enjoy their 5th amendment rights? Travel freely? If there are such people you ought to point them out that we may recognize them together.

The right to go about our business without being subject to discrimination, much like black people had to fight in court and were granted the right to service without discrimination.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Not to be churlish, but one can't help wonder where this concern was while Pres "Really Good at Killing People" Obama was supervising drone strikes.

Obama never called in for nukes to be used...Trump has. Bit different.

As nasty as drones are they aren't going to wipe out humanity out of the planet. Nukes do have that potential. So it's "bit" scarier to have "let's use nukes!" president than "let's use drones!" president.

You do realize that in your comparison, the guy actually killing people is not as scary as the guy simply blustering, right? Perhaps that's... not a solid foundation, maybe?

But not as scary as one willing to use nukes. You know? The ones that are powerful enough to wipe every single human dead? You seriously see nothing wrong with the little fact that every human could be dead within few months by "Let's use nukes" Trump deciding to use nukes to fix problems?

There's no saving grace whatsoever in Trump's policy. He's bad for economy(US economy was actually improving. That's going to change). He doesn't value human life. No human rights. He's more than willing to use nukes. All he cares is filling his own pockets with money while having temper not suitable to lead anything while having access to nukes. Everybody's life is hanging on maniac managing to keep his calm or his underlings disobeying orders. Not good prospect.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He will have the best speech writers.

It's obvious that in the past 10 days the GOP regulars managed to get hold of the closing stage of the campaign and rein in Trump's wild spirits, e.g. cutting him off from his Twitter account. This will continue and Trump's speeches will be a lot more scripted than before.

His acceptance speech was pretty good for example.

True, but do you hear him? he repeats phrases constantly. He has no focus, not even for something as trivial as talking!

 Buzzsaw wrote:
You do realize that in your comparison, the guy actually killing people is not as scary as the guy simply blustering, right? Perhaps that's... not a solid foundation, maybe?

The "it's just blustering" argument would be a lot more persuasive if it wasn't being made about the candidate from the party which started our current wars.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
At the risk of being reductionist: given that the illegal migrants are disproportionately non-white, to claim that enforcing the law is racially tinged because the population that happens to be breaking the law is itself non-white is a rather aggressive Catch-22.

This would be a valid point, except there's no reason to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when his campaign is saying stuff like "a taco truck on every corner" that makes the racism very clear. The intent is not to enforce a law regardless of race, it's to use the illegal act as justification to remove an undesired racial minority.

Aww, Joe Biden and his slight Indian accent will be crushed at such promiscuous intimations of racism.

 Peregrine wrote:

Are you of the notion that there are a very great number of "white British person" in our class of illegal migrants?

I don't know, but I bet there isn't going to be much effort put into finding the answer to that question.

Well, it's good that you're satisfied with the facts you've made up. Really helps us understand where you are coming from. Again: when the population of criminals is disproportionatly made up of ethnic minorities, it's silly to say that enforcement that falls mostly on ethnic minorities can only be explained by racial animus.

 Peregrine wrote:

It is a matter of objective fact that Jews, Native Americans, Muslims, Voodoo practitioners and other more exotic faiths have all disproportionately made use of the Federal and State RFRAs. From Kosher food to Peyote, RFRAs have checked government power and forced accomodation for religious faith.

And that is not what we're talking about here. The issue is legalized discrimination in the form of "religious freedom" to refuse service, not things like being granted access to a normally-illegal drug for religious uses. Please don't confuse the issue by bringing in unrelated laws involving religion.

I like how you not only don't know what RFRA laws are intended to do, but apparently have not allowed your complete lack of understanding of how those laws (and those are the laws we are, in fact, talking about) interact with the cases you are discussing. Really gives weight to your opinion.

You're just wrong and don't understand how these laws work. I mean, I wish there was a pithier way to say it, but the Indiana RFRA was identical to the Federal RFRA and it's associated decisions. RFRAs can only function as a check on government. To imagine otherwise is to profoundly misunderstand the nature of these laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
...

But not as scary as one willing to use nukes. You know? The ones that are powerful enough to wipe every single human dead? You seriously see nothing wrong with the little fact that every human could be dead within few months by "Let's use nukes" Trump deciding to use nukes to fix problems?

There's no saving grace whatsoever in Trump's policy. He's bad for economy(US economy was actually improving. That's going to change). He doesn't value human life. No human rights. He's more than willing to use nukes. All he cares is filling his own pockets with money while having temper not suitable to lead anything while having access to nukes. Everybody's life is hanging on maniac managing to keep his calm or his underlings disobeying orders. Not good prospect.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
the Indiana RFRA was identical to the Federal RFRA

Then why was it necessary to pass it, if the federal law already grants the same protections?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
You do realize that in your comparison, the guy actually killing people is not as scary as the guy simply blustering, right? Perhaps that's... not a solid foundation, maybe?

The "it's just blustering" argument would be a lot more persuasive if it wasn't being made about the candidate from the party which started our current wars.

Hillary Clinton?

Little joke, if only because Hillary really, really likes war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
the Indiana RFRA was identical to the Federal RFRA

Then why was it necessary to pass it, if the federal law already grants the same protections?

Because there is a difference between Federal and State laws and jurisdictions.

Not to be rude, but I'm noticing a lot of your objections to the RFRAs boil down to you having no idea how they work or what they do.

The stupidity this win legitimatized has already begun and can be seen even in this thread.

From a complete outsiders point of view, this campaign really struck me as vote for X because I hate Y more.
Full of negativity, no talk of progress or reform or consiliation or moving forward.
Just two highly loathsome candidates braying at each other for weeks - one of whose views are downright scary and the other who didnt seem to hold any views at all (clintons campaign managers should be shot, I couldnt tell you a single policy view of hers).

4 years of listening to Trump beat his drum really is a bit depressing to be honest. Heres to hoping as someone else said he gets tied up in Congress with deadlocks and stalemates and whatnot.

How about instead of speculating about the intent of the RFRA law we look at the statements of the anti-LGBT bigots who supported it as an important step in making their bigotry into law: https://web.archive.org/web/20150329222503/http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849 Or perhaps we could look at this nice picture of the anti-LGBT lobbyists attending the signing ceremony for the bill: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/indiana-governor-was-surrounded-anti-gay-activists-when-he-signed-religious-freedom-bill3003/#gs.P3hxy5o Clearly this is just about protecting the freedom of persecuted minorities and not an attempt by the Christian right to do a little persecuting of their own...

 Ratius wrote:
Heres to hoping as someone else said he gets tied up in Congress with deadlocks and stalemates and whatnot.

Too bad there's going to be no resistance from there or from the supreme court...

 Peregrine wrote:
How about instead of speculating about the intent of the RFRA law we look at the statements of the anti-LGBT bigots who supported it as an important step in making their bigotry into law: https://web.archive.org/web/20150329222503/http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849 Or perhaps we could look at this nice picture of the anti-LGBT lobbyists attending the signing ceremony for the bill: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/indiana-governor-was-surrounded-anti-gay-activists-when-he-signed-religious-freedom-bill3003/#gs.P3hxy5o Clearly this is just about protecting the freedom of persecuted minorities and not an attempt by the Christian right to do a little persecuting of their own...

Err, how about we actually look at the law rather then the partisan ramblings of some people who clearly do not represent all of the people that benefit from the aforementioned law?

Again, your arguments seem inextricably linked to a basic lack of understanding of law in general and this law in particular.

Edit: from the first link of "anti-LGBT bigots";

Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!
A Christian business should not be punished for refusing to allow a man to use the women’s restroom!
A church should not be punished because they refuse to let the church be used for a homosexual wedding!

What monsters these people are... Why, what civilized nation doesn't fine people for refusing to acquiesce to the abasement of the place of worship! It's like the dark ages!

Edit 2: Wow, the second link is almost better then the first! I especially like how one of the people is condemned as follows: "Curt Smith who equate homosexuality with bestiality and adultery. He helped to write the bill that Pence signed."

Uh, not to be unnecessarily... well, factual, but that's a pretty plain reading of the condemnation of male-male homosexuality in Leviticus. The view that this constitutes "bigotry" would, basically, make all believing Christains, Jews and (I think) Muslims (among others) irredeemably bigoted for taking their faith seriously.

It's hard to imagine a better argument for the need of the RFRA, frankly, then this unsophisticated anti-religious bigotry.