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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Segregation was not the sole product of state laws, especially when even after passing the Civil Right's Act it persisted in some places well into the late 70s.

It is simultaneously foolish to regard Jim Crow as the product of public or private actions. Jim Crow needed both to exist. The private to produce the sentiment and the public to legitimize it.

You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it? That's not surprising at all, you raise generations of state mandated racists and that kind of conditioning is going to take a while to scrub away. In the absence of state enforced segregation society is going to move away from bigotry you don't need to enshrine protected classes of citizens in perpetuity to get away from socially acceptable bigotry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


So you support repealing the laws banning segregation and allowing businesses to have "whites only" policies?

Universities/student govs are already creating 'blacks only' areas for 'safe spaces' so are you a proponent of 'good' identity politics?

Get rid of all that gak.

I am a liberal college professor (yeah, I fit the stereotype) and I can tell you that those programs are student initiated and opposed at nearly every level of the faculty except for the extremely higher up admistration (who ironically, tend to be much more conservative than the teachers and Dept. heads). I oppose them adamantly. The presidents and deans are often looking at the bottom economic line, not what best serves for a vibrant debate and education so they do what their "customers" want.

@prestor Jon asked:' "What right do you have to force another person to perform a service for you against their will?"

Your rights end when they infringe upon another's rights in the public sphere. I have the right to carry a gun. I do not have the right to deny someone else the right to life.

How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Are there suddenly "Heterosexuals Only" signs up on businesses in Charlotte now that its not a violation of the protected class status of LGBT people whereas before it would have been? No, because businesses in Charlotte weren't clamoring for the right to discriminate against LGBT people.

Of course not, but remember that Charlotte was the city that passed the LGBT-rights law that HB2 was a response to. Of course Charlotte isn't going to see lots of discrimination. But Charlotte is not the entire state. And we even have people in this thread talking about how businesses should have the right to refuse service. If nobody actually wants to refuse service to LGBT people then why is it so important to have the right to do so?

You seem to be claiming that a primary factor in why we don't have segregated businesses anymore is because we passed a law against it and I'm countering that by saying that if that law went away tomorrow we wouldn't go back to segregation because times have changed, attitudes have shifted and society has evolved. Ergo we don't need laws forcing businesses not to commit acts of discrimination that businesses don't want to make because such acts of discrimination would be counter productive and not tolerated by society.

I think you have an excessively optimistic view of things. Remember how much attention and sympathy (and donations!) anti-LGBT businesses have received when they've had legal problems over refusing service? Discrimination may be isolated to certain areas in 2016 instead of being nationwide policy, but that desire still exists.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
They don't get to blame the liberals

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

My Facebook feed is full of #NeverTrump Republicans blaming the Democrats for Trump's soon-to-be Presidency.

Again, supposedly Trump won with less votes than McCain achieved. So it really is the Democrats fault.

Thanks Obama!

Trump got about the same number of votes as McCain and about 2 million less than Romney. Whereas Hillary got 10 million votes less than Obama in 2008 and 7 million votes less than Obama in 2012 so while both Parties saw lower turnout the Democrats saw it happen to a much greater degree.

After my last post this morning, I said would stay away for a day or two. Instead, I've been reading every post since then. And all it has done is prove my point: we all lost last night.

Reading the posts here, and seeing the near vicious glee with which some people are using last night as an excuse to rabidly turn on their fellow Dakka members is, well, deplorable. Posters who I once had respect for, are now on my ignore list due to the disheartening way in which they've used last night as a license to attack people who have never attacked them, for the perceived slights that many posters here never made against them, due solely to differing political sides. So, yes, we all lost last night.

I do have one positive shout-out to make: To Whembly, for being a better man than most in this thread this day. When i start taking turns on the bottles of Scotch tonight, one shall be raised for you. Would you prefer the Glemmorangie, the 12 year MacAllan, or the 18 year Glenlivet?

I'm calling it now: Trump will not be a 1-term Potus and will indeed be elected for a second term.
Those who voted him in are so disenfranchised with the "establishment" that if Trump makes a different (for good or ill) those voters will celebrate the change no matter what. If Trump fails to make any significant change, those voters will blame the prior cabinet and claim that Trump needs 1 more term to "finish cleaning things up"

No matter what Trump does, he'll get a 2nd term. He basically has to start WW3 and a Nuclear holocaust for people to not vote for him, and sadly those events are more likely to happen in his 2nd term.

The "Silver lining" for me is that we probably just avoided Civil War 2 since all the Trump supporters were claiming a revolt if Trump didn't win.

Oh, and a side note on my earlier comments about not voting, my Country (Dallas, TX) voted blue anyway, so my conscience is clear that my vote would not have mattered. Too bad it was an island of Blue in vast, VAST see of Red. What happened to all the talk about TX turning Blue this year? #no faith in polls

-

Prestor Jon wrote:
How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?

Because it's not about hateful individuals, it's about patterns of discrimination in society as a whole. If I, as an LGBT person, find that every property owner has decided to exercise their "freedom" to not rent houses to people like me then I have nowhere to live. If the grocery stores refuse to do business with me then I have nowhere to eat. Etc. And at every step of this process I'm being told "you are less than a person, we hate you".

And, again, this is something that the courts have settled rather decisively in the context of the harm that racial discrimination does. The underlying reasoning is exactly the same with other forms of discrimination, the only difference is adding additional protected classes that were too thoroughly hated to be added to the laws when they were originally written.

Double post.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 LordofHats wrote:
Segregation was not the sole product of state laws, especially when even after passing the Civil Right's Act it persisted in some places well into the late 70s.

It is simultaneously foolish to regard Jim Crow as the product of public or private actions. Jim Crow needed both to exist. The private to produce the sentiment and the public to legitimize it.

You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it? That's not surprising at all, you raise generations of state mandated racists and that kind of conditioning is going to take a while to scrub away. In the absence of state enforced segregation society is going to move away from bigotry you don't need to enshrine protected classes of citizens in perpetuity to get away from socially acceptable bigotry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


So you support repealing the laws banning segregation and allowing businesses to have "whites only" policies?

Universities/student govs are already creating 'blacks only' areas for 'safe spaces' so are you a proponent of 'good' identity politics?

Get rid of all that gak.

I am a liberal college professor (yeah, I fit the stereotype) and I can tell you that those programs are student initiated and opposed at nearly every level of the faculty except for the extremely higher up admistration (who ironically, tend to be much more conservative than the teachers and Dept. heads). I oppose them adamantly. The presidents and deans are often looking at the bottom economic line, not what best serves for a vibrant debate and education so they do what their "customers" want.

@prestor Jon asked:' "What right do you have to force another person to perform a service for you against their will?"

Your rights end when they infringe upon another's rights in the public sphere. I have the right to carry a gun. I do not have the right to deny someone else the right to life.

How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?

Do you do business with the public? Should I be afforded the right, in your opinion to, as a private business owner, say "no Jews allowed", "no christian allowed" or "no blacks allowed".

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Caveat: my fear is the dems will do exactly what the GOP has been doing, tack to their extreme base. We do not need social economic ideals that have never worked in other countries. We do not need to tear down the barriers of justice. We do not need sanders voters shouting about conspiracy theories. We need a centrist left president to fix the crap again.

Somehow I suspect we're not going to get what we want.

This has been a rather sobering election for me, because I'm not forced to accept that I'm not living in the country I thought I was. It's not like I think Trump will end the world (I'm not that much of a drama queen), but I've always had a certain optimism that when faced with hard choice Americans have slowly but certainly managed to make steady movement forward in addressing the sins of the past to produce something better. Now try reconciling that with the election of a raw populist, whose platform lacked any real policy proposals and whose campaign ran on simply poking the bear over and over again.

In all the talk of there is truth. Middle America is dying. Small town America has been rotting for decades, and the rust belt has largely been abandoned by the economic modernization since WWII. Yet there's no reason to believe Trump (or anyone really) can solve those problems. People lambast Hillary Clinton as a liar and a cheat, but when she talked about the future prospects of the mining industry she was one of the most bluntly honest politicians in the country (at least for a moment). There is no future in mining work. By machine and simple economics US manufacturing ceased to be a meaningful employer and I don't believe that a guy who won't pay his own contractors is going to do any of the very left/socialist things that would have to be done to turn that around.

Trump is the epitome of the problem of conservative politics and why I left them; he isn't going to help the people who voted for him. People who voted for him on the basis of a legitimate complaint that their representatives don't represent them. For all the talk about sticking it to the political class (whoever that is), Congress got reelected, Trump is a successful in his third Presidential run (run away successful, and certainly national campaigns will ever be the same in his wake), and we've basically gone back to letting the party that has dictated economic policy for most of the last 30 years to have a free hand to continue doing so. Regardless of how the overall economy might do, there's nothing the Republicans can (or even will) do to help the people whose outrage Trump manifested into a powerful political force.

Yet we have posters here on this very board making the same lofty arguments made after Obama was elected in 2008. How many terms he serves doesn't really matter. That he was elected at all is kind of a punch to the groin that people really are dumber than I've always wanted to give them credit for.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

I do have one positive shout-out to make: To Whembly, for being a better man than most in this thread this day. When i start taking turns on the bottles of Scotch tonight, one shall be raised for you. Would you prefer the Glemmorangie, the 12 year MacAllan, or the 18 year Glenlivet?

Aw shucks... thanks man.

I'm definitely a MacAllan man.

Don't fret Tanner... this happens every four years. Just be proud that it's essentially a legal revolution that has largely been bloodless. That's saying something....

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Are there suddenly "Heterosexuals Only" signs up on businesses in Charlotte now that its not a violation of the protected class status of LGBT people whereas before it would have been? No, because businesses in Charlotte weren't clamoring for the right to discriminate against LGBT people.

Of course not, but remember that Charlotte was the city that passed the LGBT-rights law that HB2 was a response to. Of course Charlotte isn't going to see lots of discrimination. But Charlotte is not the entire state. And we even have people in this thread talking about how businesses should have the right to refuse service. If nobody actually wants to refuse service to LGBT people then why is it so important to have the right to do so?

You seem to be claiming that a primary factor in why we don't have segregated businesses anymore is because we passed a law against it and I'm countering that by saying that if that law went away tomorrow we wouldn't go back to segregation because times have changed, attitudes have shifted and society has evolved. Ergo we don't need laws forcing businesses not to commit acts of discrimination that businesses don't want to make because such acts of discrimination would be counter productive and not tolerated by society.

I think you have an excessively optimistic view of things. Remember how much attention and sympathy (and donations!) anti-LGBT businesses have received when they've had legal problems over refusing service? Discrimination may be isolated to certain areas in 2016 instead of being nationwide policy, but that desire still exists.

I used Charlotte as an example because they felt the need to pass municipal statutes to specifically protect LGBT people from discrimination. If there isn't anyone in Charlotte isn't a hotbed of rampant anti LGBT discrimination why did they need to pass a law to protect them from nonexistent discrimination? In the absence of the protection of being a protected class in Charlotte isn't causing harm to LGBT people then how is the revocation of that protected class status bad for LGBT people?

I'm not claiming that no discrimination would ever exist anywhere but it is unlikely that it would exist to the level that requires state and/or federal laws forcing people to provide services against their will. A bakery or pizzeria gaining national celebrity over not providing services for a gay wedding and having laws and circumstances misrepresented and spun in the media by special interest groups and ratings driven media is pretty weird for sure. I don't see how it became some sort of national cause celeb but different strokes for different folks and all that. I don't see how making a cake or a pizza is a tacit endorsement of every aspect of the lifestyle of the person you make the food for and an endorsement of every action/decision they make but it's not my place to enforce my reasoning on others who feel the need to refuse service to someone for the sake of the conscience. Your labor is your own, who you contract with is your right and your conscience is your own and the State shouldn't force you to violate any of those.

 LordofHats wrote:


Trump is the epitome of the problem of conservative politics and why I left them; he isn't going to help the people who voted for him.

That's because Trump isn't conservative. He's literally a RINO and the only saving grace here is what, if any, influences will the people have around him. If he surrounds himself with solid conservatives... then yeah, maybe something good will come out that way. I'm not holding my breath.

People who voted for him on the basis of a legitimate complaint that their representatives don't represent them.

Not just their representations... but against the status quo (whatever that means).

For all the talk about sticking it to the political class (whoever that is), Congress got reelected,

Yeah, that's the funny thing about US politics. We hate the collective body of Congress... but, when it's OUR representative/senator...we lurrrrrrrve them. I'm not sure how we can break this dichotomy w/o some successful 3rd party in the mix.

Trump is a successful in his third Presidential run (run away successful, and certainly national campaigns will ever be the same in his wake), and we've basically gone back to letting the party that has dictated economic policy for most of the last 30 years to have a free hand to continue doing so.

Um... wut? That... doesn't make sense to me, as the democrats held power to Congress as recently...

Regardless of how the overall economy might do, there's nothing the Republicans can (or even will) do to help the people whose outrage Trump manifested into a powerful political force.

That's kinda dismissive... no?

The Republicans have a rare opportunity in that the next 2 years, they'll have quite a bit of say of getting things done (dependent on the status of the Senate filibuster of course).

Will they waste this opportunity, like the Democrats did in 2008-2010? That's the question...

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I think that it is the nature of a politician to lie, and to expect otherwise is to expect water to flow uphill.

Which is odd, because politicians don't really lie as much as people think they do.

I apologize, as an attorney I sometimes dive into the jargon recklessly. For purposes of libel laws, there are different standards for proving libel depending on whether the individual is a public figure, a limited public figure and so on. For purposes of libel laws, Trump has been a public figure for many years.

As I was using the term, distinguishing between state and non-state (private) employment, Trump is still a private figure, right up until he takes the oath of office.

You're mistaken. I know what you're saying, I was asking what the feth it has to do with Trump being guilty of hardcore flip-flopping.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?

Because it's not about hateful individuals, it's about patterns of discrimination in society as a whole. If I, as an LGBT person, find that every property owner has decided to exercise their "freedom" to not rent houses to people like me then I have nowhere to live. If the grocery stores refuse to do business with me then I have nowhere to eat. Etc. And at every step of this process I'm being told "you are less than a person, we hate you".

And, again, this is something that the courts have settled rather decisively in the context of the harm that racial discrimination does. The underlying reasoning is exactly the same with other forms of discrimination, the only difference is adding additional protected classes that were too thoroughly hated to be added to the laws when they were originally written.

Yet LGBT people aren't a protected class in NC and don't face that level of discrimination so what is the problem that making them a protected class would solve? You're justifying a law that infringes on individual liberty on the basis that it is necessary to prevent a hypothetical scenario that isn't currently happening from possibly happening at a future time. That's not a very compelling case.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Silver lining time for those of you who are feeling depressed: Trump will be a one term president (I still have my doubts that he will ever actually serve as the CIA has a mandate to protect the country at all costs. (Can I get one last, "thanks, Obama"?). But if he does serve, his promises will prove hollow, his appeal will grow tiresome, and his voice will become intolerable.

The guy has a notoriously short attention span, and when you also figure in his age, I can't see him staying interested or engaged for more than 4 years. Honestly, he might grow bored of the particulars of the job after 6 weeks and leave it all to Pence. Which may be what some GOP voters are hoping for, because Trump clearly isn't much of a conservative.

Interesting read from Glenn Greenwald... (yes, that Glenn):
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/

Prestor Jon wrote:
I used Charlotte as an example because they felt the need to pass municipal statutes to specifically protect LGBT people from discrimination. If there isn't anyone in Charlotte isn't a hotbed of rampant anti LGBT discrimination why did they need to pass a law to protect them from nonexistent discrimination? In the absence of the protection of being a protected class in Charlotte isn't causing harm to LGBT people then how is the revocation of that protected class status bad for LGBT people?

I don't know the exact situation in Charlotte because I don't live there, but I suspect that the bathroom access issue (which was the big controversy here) was in fact dealing with a problem that existed. I don't know that businesses were refusing to sell to transgender customers, but being forced to use the wrong bathroom hurts pretty badly. And it doesn't take much of that for people to feel like their identity is being invalidated, even if the majority of businesses don't do anything wrong.

Your labor is your own, who you contract with is your right and your conscience is your own and the State shouldn't force you to violate any of those.

But by this argument the laws banning segregation (and other forms of discrimination) should not have been passed in the first place. Do you honestly believe that we should have allowed it to continue for the sake of not violating anyone's conscience?

It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it?

You seriously think racism and segregation came about and continued because states required it? That without a state to make everyone be racist no one would have been racist?

Why bother anymore? It really is insane to keep trying.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 LordofHats wrote:
Segregation was not the sole product of state laws, especially when even after passing the Civil Right's Act it persisted in some places well into the late 70s.

It is simultaneously foolish to regard Jim Crow as the product of public or private actions. Jim Crow needed both to exist. The private to produce the sentiment and the public to legitimize it.

You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it? That's not surprising at all, you raise generations of state mandated racists and that kind of conditioning is going to take a while to scrub away. In the absence of state enforced segregation society is going to move away from bigotry you don't need to enshrine protected classes of citizens in perpetuity to get away from socially acceptable bigotry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


So you support repealing the laws banning segregation and allowing businesses to have "whites only" policies?

Universities/student govs are already creating 'blacks only' areas for 'safe spaces' so are you a proponent of 'good' identity politics?

Get rid of all that gak.

I am a liberal college professor (yeah, I fit the stereotype) and I can tell you that those programs are student initiated and opposed at nearly every level of the faculty except for the extremely higher up admistration (who ironically, tend to be much more conservative than the teachers and Dept. heads). I oppose them adamantly. The presidents and deans are often looking at the bottom economic line, not what best serves for a vibrant debate and education so they do what their "customers" want.

@prestor Jon asked:' "What right do you have to force another person to perform a service for you against their will?"

Your rights end when they infringe upon another's rights in the public sphere. I have the right to carry a gun. I do not have the right to deny someone else the right to life.

How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?

Do you do business with the public? Should I be afforded the right, in your opinion to, as a private business owner, say "no Jews allowed", "no christian allowed" or "no blacks allowed".

If that's how you want to run your business that's your business. All it does is limit your clientele and advertise to the world that you're a bigot. You'll end up causing more harm to yourself than to any of the people you discriminate against. It's your life, your choices, your decision to be the person you want to be, if that's a person that doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings or serve black people at your lunch counter, etc. then you be you. I'd rather have honest people that show their true selves and take the consequences for it than have a govt that takes that liberty away from people in the name of social engineering. Minority rights are vital in a free society and the smallest and most important minority is the individual. We're all equal in the eyes of the state and the law and the we're all free to make our own choices.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

Trump is the closest thing you're going to get to a 3rd party candidate. I think it's wrong to view him across the Democrat/Republican divide, because he represents neither establishment. He was elected on a wave of anti-establishment sentiment from both sides; young people who were disgusted with the coronation of Clinton and didn't vote, and old people who were disgusted with current policy and did vote.

 LordofHats wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it?

You seriously think racism and segregation came about and continued because states required it? That without a state to make everyone be racist no one would have been racist?

Why bother anymore? It really is insane to keep trying.

You think everyone in the south just woke up one day and decided to be racists by happenstance? You misconstrue my argument to the most extreme caricature of it and then bemoan MY insanity? I didn't say that nobody would be racist but that the state was requiring people to be racist. Under segregation even if you didn't want to discriminate it was illegal for you to mix races in your place of business or school. It was literally illegal to not be racist and that is going to go a long way to stifling the evolution of society. If the State makes it illegal for society to improve itself then society isn't going to improve itself. When the State prohibits inclusion you will get very little of it and when the State demands segregation you will get a lot of it. In the absence of State mandated discrimination you will get less people discriminating because there is no exterior force requiring them to be discriminatory. Did the State create racism, no but the State actively enforced racism and actively prohibited any movement against racism and I don't fault people for failing to overcome the power of the state on their own.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

Um... a RINO is a pejorative used to describe Republican members whose political views or actions are consider insufficiently conservative.

Not that they're "not Republicans".

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

Um... a RINO is a pejorative used to describe Republican members whose political views or actions are consider insufficiently conservative.

Not that they're "not Republicans".

Republican In Name Only

 LordofHats wrote:
This has been a rather sobering election for me, because I'm not forced to accept that I'm not living in the country I thought I was. It's not like I think Trump will end the world (I'm not that much of a drama queen), but I've always had a certain optimism that when faced with hard choice Americans have slowly but certainly managed to make steady movement forward in addressing the sins of the past to produce something better. Now try reconciling that with the election of a raw populist, whose platform lacked any real policy proposals and whose campaign ran on simply poking the bear over and over again.

In all the talk of there is truth. Middle America is dying. Small town America has been rotting for decades, and the rust belt has largely been abandoned by the economic modernization since WWII. Yet there's no reason to believe Trump (or anyone really) can solve those problems. People lambast Hillary Clinton as a liar and a cheat, but when she talked about the future prospects of the mining industry she was one of the most bluntly honest politicians in the country (at least for a moment). There is no future in mining work. By machine and simple economics US manufacturing ceased to be a meaningful employer and I don't believe that a guy who won't pay his own contractors is going to do any of the very left/socialist things that would have to be done to turn that around.

As you point out, manufacturing and some small towns have been dead or dying for decades. White poor folks have been white poor folks for a long time. So why this spike in rural populism? Why do the Trump zealots believe so strongly *right now* that the country is headed for ruin?

I keep harping on the point, but I think it's a simple response to Obama and the last 8 years. There are social politics that brought these emotions to a head -- mainly, that those folks weren't ready for an African-American president, gay marriage, etc. The last eight years pushed them out of their comfort zone. In this election, they decided to push back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was probably inevitable.

Of course, what wasn't inevitable was Trump facing a candidate whose unlikeability rivaled his own, and was as 'establishment' as you can get. That's how a perfect storm is created. Last night was the luckiest night in Trump's life after being born wealthy. But then elections -- like fights -- are all about matchups.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

Um... a RINO is a pejorative used to describe Republican members whose political views or actions are consider insufficiently conservative.

Not that they're "not Republicans".

Republican In Name Only

This. If you wanted it to mean "insufficiently conservative" you should go with COIN (Conservative Only In Name).

Republican has often correlated with conservative. With Trump this is now no longer really applicable, at least as far as presidential candidates go. In Trumps new GOP, you're the RINO Whem.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's funny that you call him a RINO, Whem.

I think we just established that, according to the republican voters, he certainly is a republican and is in fact what they want in a president.

Um... a RINO is a pejorative used to describe Republican members whose political views or actions are consider insufficiently conservative.

Not that they're "not Republicans".

Republican In Name Only

This. If you wanted it to mean "insufficiently conservative" you should go with COIN (Conservative Only In Name).

Republican has often correlated with conservative. With Trump this is now no longer really applicable, at least as far as presidential candidates go. In Trumps new GOP, you're the RINO Whem.

President's has a say in the direction of his/her party... but, they don't dictate it.

Sorry...that's not how this work here.

 gorgon wrote:

I keep harping on the point, but I think it's a simple response to Obama and the last 8 years. There are social politics that brought these emotions to a head -- mainly, that those folks weren't ready for an African-American president, gay marriage, etc. The last eight years pushed them out of their comfort zone. In this election, they decided to push back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was probably inevitable.

My facebook feed is full of acquaintances who feel, very strongly, that the country began to go to hell exactly eight years ago. They are non-specific in their discontent, but they seem to feel that American should be for Americans, meaning them.

The last eight years so an explosion in how our society talks about social justice. Concepts nobody had heard of eight years ago, such as white privilege, rape culture, identity politics, etc. are now commonly understood, if not universally acknowledged. Gay marriage is the law of the land, and Obama pushed for trans rights through Title IX. And, of course, you had Blacks Live Matter, which dragged an awkward situation into the sunlight, which, broadly speaking, is that black people tend to do worse at many levels of the criminal justice system.

Now, from a tangible perspective, black income still lags well beyond white income (even when adjusted for educational level), white people are still broadly overrepresented in media, politics, and business, and in general white people are doing pretty well (lower unemployement, lower incarceration rate, fewer births out of wedlock, etc.). So... I think this was in many ways about perception.

That said... I don't think people voted for Trump because he says awful things. All the data suggests that more people felt Hilary was qualified, she had a higher favorability rating, and people rated her temperament as better. People voted for trump despite who he is, not because of it. Sure, the boys on the Alt-right like that they are getting more dog whistle stuff, but the average person just feels that they're being left behind, and wants that to stop.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 LordofHats wrote:
Segregation was not the sole product of state laws, especially when even after passing the Civil Right's Act it persisted in some places well into the late 70s.

It is simultaneously foolish to regard Jim Crow as the product of public or private actions. Jim Crow needed both to exist. The private to produce the sentiment and the public to legitimize it.

You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it? That's not surprising at all, you raise generations of state mandated racists and that kind of conditioning is going to take a while to scrub away. In the absence of state enforced segregation society is going to move away from bigotry you don't need to enshrine protected classes of citizens in perpetuity to get away from socially acceptable bigotry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


So you support repealing the laws banning segregation and allowing businesses to have "whites only" policies?

Universities/student govs are already creating 'blacks only' areas for 'safe spaces' so are you a proponent of 'good' identity politics?

Get rid of all that gak.

I am a liberal college professor (yeah, I fit the stereotype) and I can tell you that those programs are student initiated and opposed at nearly every level of the faculty except for the extremely higher up admistration (who ironically, tend to be much more conservative than the teachers and Dept. heads). I oppose them adamantly. The presidents and deans are often looking at the bottom economic line, not what best serves for a vibrant debate and education so they do what their "customers" want.

@prestor Jon asked:' "What right do you have to force another person to perform a service for you against their will?"

Your rights end when they infringe upon another's rights in the public sphere. I have the right to carry a gun. I do not have the right to deny someone else the right to life.

How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?

Do you do business with the public? Should I be afforded the right, in your opinion to, as a private business owner, say "no Jews allowed", "no christian allowed" or "no blacks allowed".

Yes,

On the off chance that you might want to know why: because I reserve to myself the right to discriminate in favor of certain people, which necessarily means reserving the right to discriminate against certain people. It is immoral for me to claim for myself a right which I would not endure others to have, so it must be a universal right.

Let's give two examples: housing and food services.

-Housing: Many people will notice that Jews tend to live in concentrated areas. There are many reasons for this, some of which are direct consequences of Jewish law. The most significant one is the limitations that Sabbath observance places on transportation and the use of certain conveniences.

Because observant Jews cannot drive (or ride beasts of burden) on the Sabbath, as a Jewish community grows it begins to resemble a field of daisies: at the center is a shul (synagogue), surrounded by the houses of the community. Because they cannot drive, the maximum distance someone can easily walk determines the limits of the community's size.

Now, is it therefore moral for me to say that, in renting a domicile for example, that I will prioritize observant Jews? Clearly it is moral, I have an obligation to other Jews not to unduly burden them, and there is no moral reason why a non-Jew must live in specific proximity to a Jewish house of worship.

-Food Production: many will similarly be familiar with the concept of Jewish ritual slaughter and dietary purity laws (Kashrut) and the analogous Islamic doctrines (Halal). This extends not only to Kosher slaughter, but also to the production of many prepared goods.

For example, there are certain purity laws that cover wine, specifically that wine not be rendered 'impure'. What this means depends a great deal on whose interpretation one follows, but the most stringent rule is that kosher wine may not even be looked upon by a gentile. Note that this is an extreme position even by my lights, but nevertheless, it is well within a wine maker's purview. If he is intending to produce kosher wine that will be beyond reproach there is ample reason why he might refuse to employ any gentiles in any capacity in his vineyards.

Let me be clear: You Do Not Need To Think These Things Are True. Merely that they are important to the person involved. Each of these examples an area where there is a clear moral reason for an action that discriminates in favor of one group.

The corollary becomes inescapable: one engages in discrimination in favor of one group, at the expense of other groups. Moreover, what is the moral logic that would prohibit this? Why, after all, ought I be restricted in the free exercise of my choice to enter into a contract with anyone of my choosing be restricted?

I suggest that there is no moral logic that would prevail. If that is the case, then it would be rank bigotry to say that Jews (or Moslems or Hindus or whatever) may so engage in such discrimination, but others may not. An atheist may have reasons he holds as dear as my reasons, should he not have the same freedom I enjoy? I contend he should.

It is precisely that all people should have freedom to pursue their conscience that must be respected. That your freedom of conscience may lead to bad outcomes is no more an argument against that freedom then, for example, your freedom to write erotic stories involving children or public figures is an indictment of the Freedom of Speech.

 gorgon wrote:

I keep harping on the point, but I think it's a simple response to Obama and the last 8 years. There are social politics that brought these emotions to a head -- mainly, that those folks weren't ready for an African-American president, gay marriage, etc. The last eight years pushed them out of their comfort zone. In this election, they decided to push back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was probably inevitable.

This election was not about social issues, in spite of every media effort to highlight "muslims" and "racism". It, like the 2 elections prior, was about "change". You did not see 278 electorate votes mustered due to hating gays or black people. Latinos had exceptionally good turnout for Trump because the "Latino" bloc is not one homogenous group.