Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
So, more Trump news:
Trump Embraces Pillars of Obama’s Foreign Policy
: "...President Trump, after promising a radical break with the foreign policy of Barack Obama, is embracing key pillars of the former administration’s strategy, including warning Israel to curb construction of settlements, demanding that Russia withdraw from Crimea and threatening Iran with sanctions for ballistic missile tests."
Trump warns Israel that new settlements ‘may not help’ achieve Middle East peace
Black is White! Night is day! Left is Right! Bizarro World!
REPORT: Voter Fraud Investigation ‘No Longer a Top Priority’ for President Trump
. What a shocking surprise.
Speaking of South Park...
South Park Creators backing off Trump.. "Satire has become reality"
I also generally oppose forcing religious leaders to go against their spiritual definition of marriage in favour of one handed down by the state.
It's part of why the gay marriage ban angered me so, because it forced a Southern Baptist definition of marriage upon everyone.
edited 2nd Feb '17 7:27:09 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranGay marriage is not about forcing anybody to do anything against their will or beliefs. If a priest or a minister won't officiate the wedding, there are plenty of other options: judge, justice of the peace, ship's captain...
edited 2nd Feb '17 7:36:54 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.The issue here is that Justhelping seems to be making assumptions of our positions that those of us in this thread, at least, don't actually hold. And pointing out that we don't hold a particular belief, or pointing out how said assumption is wrong shouldn't scare someone off. Not like anyone got aggressive with them; this was quite gentle and mostly agreement with the position of not forcing a church to do something, while pointing out that's not something any of us were arguing for and is not really the point of arguing for equal rights for LGBT folks.
If this is what makes said poster leave, then political discussion does not seem to be for them. But no one here actually wants justhelping to leave.
And the other half of the coin here is that marriage carries a lot of implicit legal rights: custody of children, tax filing laws, inheritance laws, etc. When people are talking about rights associated with marriage, those are the ones that have legal weight and demand equal protection under the law, above and beyond the basic decency of people loving whom they wish.
The rush to repeal Obamacare has stalled
Factors: Trump chaos, AARP lobbying, realization that lack of a replacement is not politically feasible, delay in confirming Tom Price as health secretary..
Insurance companies are agitating for concrete commitments though. Many of them may pull out of the marketplace in the spring if they can't get commitments and/or the Trump admin doesn't enforce the individual mandate. Also, repeal requires Democrat votes in the senate (it takes 60) and the Dems won't vote for it without a replacement plan.
edited 2nd Feb '17 8:01:02 PM by Elle
That's a good thing. Many Conservative Republicans will think Congressional Republicans couldn't get the job done, and will either try to get radicals to replace them in the Primaries, or not vote, guarenteeing a(t least a) House swap.
Of course, this is only 2 weeks into this new Congress. Who knows what a Year and 2 weeks will be. But I'm not expecting anything to really change with this Congress.
Sorry I've been inactive here. I've been dealing with computer upgrade stuff. To the one who was asking about doing that yesterday, now's the time to buy just in case Trump does ram through a tariff.
With the reps starting to stall out and wander aimlessly it's really starting to look like things MIGHT not be so bad. Hard to say yet, seeing as it hasn't even been a month. We have to keep fighting. I'll admit this computer stuff and my own emotional issues (I think my quicksilver moods might be undiagnosed bipolar disorder) have me not talking very much about Net Neutrality in person. Not actually sure of what dangers will actually rear their heads if we lose that. We'd be OPEN to our enemies stifling websites like ours en mass, but that doesn't mean it would happen. We'll just have to wait and see.
Any use by NK of nuclear weapons will get 'overwhleming' response
Isn't Trump's Supreme Court pick Episcopalian? What are his thoughts on gay marriage?
Oh God! Natural light!That would be...unpleasant, yes.
Are there any actual sources on his views there, though?
Oh God! Natural light!He has some history of letting "religious freedom" translate as "businesses can screw over people based on the religious beliefs of their owners" but I haven't seen anything regarding LGBT rights directly.
If we are assuming he's basically similar to Scalia, Scalia was one of the dissenting judges in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that cemented the legality of gay marriage , basically arguing that the 14th amendment defense (equal protection) did not apply to the case because originalisim.
edited 2nd Feb '17 8:56:18 PM by Elle
@pweigle: Actually, as I understand it, that last one is a myth - captains of ships don't have any power to perform the legal side of a wedding.
But more seriously, the only people who could be compelled to marry gay couples against their religious convictions are government officials (I don't know off the top of my head which offices actually issue marriage licenses), not pastors, and that is because the various government offices involved have a duty to issue forms and licenses to those who qualify and pay whatever fees are required, regardless of the officeholder's views. Their duty as the holder of that office comes before their views.
Basically, there is a compulsion to perform the secular aspect of marriage (the part that's a legal document that confers all manner of joint rights and such), but nobody is asking to compel people to perform the spiritual part of a marriage (the part that's usually in a church or other house of worship, overseen by some manner of pastor, and often done in nice clothes that are often purchased to be used specifically in that ceremony).
It should also be noted that the religious ceremony of marriage is a pure formality. You are married in the eyes of the law when you get the license, not when you say "I do" in front of a priest.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

edited 2nd Feb '17 7:05:35 PM by Draghinazzo