U.S. Politics: The Bipartisan Dismemberment of the VA

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ormond said:

I really don't think "if you don't do X, you are going to hell" is "force". I think it's verbal abuse, and I don't think that's the same thing. If someone really has no power to affect my life beyond insults, I think it's hyperbole to say they are "forcing" me to do something. And I don't think that's just "haggling" -- I think the expansion of the meaning of words like "force" beyond their original intent leads to silly stuff like the "trigger warnings" controversies on college campuses. I think if you believe someone telling you that you are going to go to hell is "force", you have as much of a problem as they do. 

I certainly think they're intending to try and force you, but okay. I'll disagree then. How about this one: I would say that the encouragement of people to terrorize groups that they don't agree with by using violence is definitely force, right? Or is threat of force not force either? 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

lol, this is such a christian way to argue it.  "no, my dear, it's not force to tell you that you have to accept jesus as your lord and savior or else you will experience eternal suffering because who wouldn't want to love jesus?!?  when it's about jesus, no matter the language, it's just love and free will. it would be force to say you have to press the red button or else you'll be tortured indefinitely, but nope, not force when jesus is involved!!!!"

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

lol, this is such a christian way to argue it.  "no, my dear, it's not force to tell you that you have to accept jesus as your lord and savior or else you will experience eternal suffering because who wouldn't want to love jesus?!?  when it's about jesus, no matter the language, it's just love and free will. it would be force to say you have to press the red button or else you'll be tortured indefinitely, but nope, not force when jesus is involved!!!!"

Well, the reality is, the moral problem of hell has a different character depending on whose perspective you are viewing it through. 

An individual Christian who believes that you will go to hell if you do a particular thing is just describing their understanding of reality. You are basically describing natural phenomena. In one way, it's the moral equivalent of telling someone that if they jump off a building, gravity will send them plummeting to earth. The individual Christian has no control over the rules of the game. 

Now, from God's perspective, it might be different. If God has the power to send you to hell or not for doing something, then the decision to do so is an obvious act of coercion. I concede that this is a theologically unsophisticated way of looking at the issue, as some Christians describe Hell merely as the state of being in the absence of God's love, which is an individual choice that human beings make. I don't think this really makes any sense, but there you go. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Oh no! Clinton's lead plummets in the wake of the Orlando attacks

Quote

The poll, conducted from Friday to Tuesday, showed Mrs Clinton with an 11.6-point lead over Mr Trump, down from the 13-point lead she had in the previous five days.

But wait, isn't a 1.4% change less than the margin for error, which means this could just as easily be background noise?

But of course it feeds the media machine if they can attribute any change to significant events.

[Jo498]

16 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

An individual Christian who believes that you will go to hell if you do a particular thing is just describing their understanding of reality. You are basically describing natural phenomena. In one way, it's the moral equivalent of telling someone that if they jump off a building, gravity will send them plummeting to earth. The individual Christian has no control over the rules of the game. 

Now, from God's perspective, it might be different. If God has the power to send you to hell or not for doing something, then the decision to do so is an obvious act of coercion.

I am not sure but when I last year read Dante again I sometimes had the impression that even in the Xtian tradition one could see hell as a consequence of "natural law", roughly that "you shall reap what you sowed" (somewhat similar to the karmic religions). It's just because of God's mercy that there is the possibility of salvation if one repents one's evil ways. Of course, it is after all God who caused this kind of justice or karmic law that implies people going to hell so that justice will be served. But that traditional God of Dante (the Love that moves the sun and all the stars) is in some respects closer to Eternal Justice (as a principle) than to a (personal) Eternal Judge who individually grants mercy or condemns at will.

And, although a minority position in church history, there is the idea of universal salvation (apokatastasis panton) with only finite punishments, not eternal damnation (roughly because mercy will override justice in the end). There is, I think, also the more recent position that non-believers will get what they expect, namely simple annihilation in death, not eternal torment.

[Kalbear]

Today Senate Democrats launched into a filibuster blocking all action until gun reform is on the table. Awesome.

[Jace, Extat]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Today Senate Democrats launched into a filibuster blocking all action until gun reform is on the table. Awesome.

#Dope

[The Anti-Targ]

I also see that some of the less extreme people on the right are deciding that some more gun control might be needed. For certain things to change you actually need the people least likely to vote for change to put the change in motion. When Democrats start to talk about gun control they lose elections, when Republicans start to talk about, where are those voters going to go? There's no 3rd party, and they won't be voting Democratic.

Even Trump is going to talk with the NRA about seeing about how guns can be kept out of the hands of terrorists. It would be rather a tragic irony if domestic Islamic terrorism ended up moving the right to put in place more federal gun controls. The thing with every shooting spree up until these 2 incidents involving Muslims with a political agenda is it could always be put down to the actions of one insane / evil person. Now though, we have a claimed level of organisation, within the USA, that raises the spectre of regular and systematic mass shootings by people who legally obtained firearms in the USA.

[alguien]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Today Senate Democrats launched into a filibuster blocking all action until gun reform is on the table. Awesome.

Looks like they were actually able to achieve some positive steps with their filibuster. That's great. I hope they keep this fight going. 

 

[Commodore]

Senator Joe Manchin was more honest about it: 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/joe-manchin-due-proces-whats-killing-us-getting-gun-control-passed/

Quote

 

“The problem we have and really the firewall that we have right now is due process. It’s all due process,” Manchin said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “So we can all say, yeah, we want the same thing but how do we get there?”

“If a person is on the terrorist watch list like the gentleman, the shooter in Orlando, he was twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened, but that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do, but there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list,” Manchin said.

“There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person’s under suspicion,  there should be a five year period of time of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits, maybe we can come to that type of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us now.”

 

As much as the left would like that sort of unchecked power, you can't take away someone's constitutional rights by just putting them on a list. 

 

[snake]

5 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Senator Joe Manchin was more honest about it: 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/joe-manchin-due-proces-whats-killing-us-getting-gun-control-passed/

As much as the left would like that sort of unchecked power, you can't take away someone's constitutional rights by just putting them on a list. 

 

I got 10 bucks says they can and they will.  Security is more important than rights these days.  Or so it seems.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

Senator Joe Manchin was more honest about it: 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/joe-manchin-due-proces-whats-killing-us-getting-gun-control-passed/

As much as the left would like that sort of unchecked power, you can't take away someone's constitutional rights by just putting them on a list. 

Glad you see it that way.  Merely putting someone on a list doesn't take away their constitutional rights.  That's right: 

Quote

you can't take away someone's constitutional rights by just putting them on a list. 

 

[Maltaran]

Well, in practice you can, but only until the Supreme Court says you can't

[Kalbear]

I think the phrase should be that it is unconstitutional to take away someone's rights by putting them on a list that is not made via due process or proper representation. 

Which is accurate.

I agree with @Commodore here. The idea that you can infringe someone's granted rights by the constitution by adding them to a list that represents no criminal action, no trial, no due process and no representation should be something that everyone should fight against. No matter what you think about gun rights or terrorism, doing this is a fundamental violation of every American's civil rights. 

This is different than being unable to board a plane (not a guaranteed right) or be able to purchase explosives or chemicals (not a guaranteed right). 

[MerenthaClone]

Commodore has the right of it here:  the watch-list idea is a terrible one, in part because there's no recourse for you if you're on it.  It shouldn't ever be on the table, and I'm upset that anyone is supporting it beyond and immediate knee-jerk reaction.  

However, he's wrong about the motivation behind the proposal, I think.  Its not an all-encompassing authoritarian impulse like he seems to think. (Also, I'm kind of sad that he somehow thinks that the Republican party stands for anything approaching individual liberty) Sadly, the "left" is reduced to it because the right is completely intractable on the idea of gun control that is widely supported across the country, and the list (sadly) is a point that I think the right could potentially compromise on.  I think the Democrats general strategy in how they're supporting "gun control" is politically asinine and misguided because it won't focus on what actually contributes most to gun crime.  Instead we're left talking with a group that screams "but what about mental health funding?" then laughs in the face of people who buy their bullshit and earnestly try to work out a mental health solution.  Last time we talked about gun control most people seemed to agree that a broader background check and something like a card you could get printed at a licensed firearm dealer that said "hey, this person has been cleared by NICS to buy a gun" that lasted for 30 days or something would be adequate.  You get the hysterical overreaction that currently swallowing the left in part because every good-faith effort to try to find compromise is rebuffed immediately even when the people in question agree with the proposals.  Not everyone who says "gun control" wants to take your guns (in fact, most don't), and I honestly think a very small, simple solution like the above check, possibly with a very discounted voluntary-but-highly-suggested gun safety course would go a long way to improving gun violence in the US. Details can obviously be hammered out, but not while the answer to literally everything is "NO!" 

If you scream "no compromise" at every. single. thing. it becomes impossible to work together to find a solution.  Sometimes, that is really the right thing to do.  I don't believe it is here.  But when I cannot come close to imagining why someone would object to something similar to the above (if you do, please tell me, I'm honestly trying to listen), I can't really begin to be sympathetic.  Being intractable promotes intractability on the other side, too.  I've tried to make a good faith effort to listen to the concerns of gun owners and I'm screamed at for being an authoritarian who wants to take all the guns.  I don't, but if you're going to call me that regardless of my honest attempts to understand and find a compromise, why shouldn't I?

e:  Of course, the issue isn't solely limited to gun control at all, and there's a reason the GOP loves that the discussion has been dragged there.  If you have half of the elected officials in the country earnestly trying to say that gay (and black/latinx/Muslim/other minority) people aren't "people" enough to have the right to marry, adopt, work, practice their faith, or live within this country,  why should we be shocked when someone slightly more radical than them decides they shouldn't have the right to live, either?  

e2:  Lets not forget that the same party as described above also supports and receives endorsements from people who claim that certain minorities shouldn't have the right to live, either.  

[BloodRider]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think the phrase should be that it is unconstitutional to take away someone's rights by putting them on a list that is not made via due process or proper representation. 

Which is accurate.

I agree with @Commodore here. The idea that you can infringe someone's granted rights by the constitution by adding them to a list that represents no criminal action, no trial, no due process and no representation should be something that everyone should fight against. No matter what you think about gun rights or terrorism, doing this is a fundamental violation of every American's civil rights. 

This is different than being unable to board a plane (not a guaranteed right) or be able to purchase explosives or chemicals (not a guaranteed right). 

I mean, I agree, but to play devil's advocate, all the police need right now to ignore your rights is reasonable suspicion.  Which has been redefined to mean not the reasonable person standard, but how the cop was feeling and whatever shit they can throw at the wall that sticks.

So why not set up a secret court that reviews people on the no-fly list and determines if they can buy a gun.

Quote

the watch-list idea is a terrible one, in part because there's no recourse for you if you're on it. 

Well that's just not true.  You go to buy a gun, and are denied the ability, you can surely seek redress, no?

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Well that's just not true.  You go to buy a gun, and are denied the ability, you can surely seek redress, no?

No, you can't. There is nothing to get you off of the terrorist watchlist other than someone saying 'okay' arbitrarily. You have no way to remove your name. You can request it, but that's all. And there's nothing you get afterwards. 

Again, this is a horrible idea. I'm ashamed that Clinton is pushing it, because it is so horrible. It is far better to simply ban all assault weapons, period. 

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

No, you can't. There is nothing to get you off of the terrorist watchlist other than someone saying 'okay' arbitrarily. You have no way to remove your name. You can request it, but that's all. And there's nothing you get afterwards. 

Again, this is a horrible idea. I'm ashamed that Clinton is pushing it, because it is so horrible. It is far better to simply ban all assault weapons, period. 

I think this is one of the things about Clinton that worries some Democrats.  Her response to the Orlando tragedy is not surprising.  She has shown willingness in the past, such as supporting the Patriot Act, to curtail civil liberties for the goal of improving security.

[James Arryn]

Yeah, her capacity for hawkishness, foreign or domestic, is a major problem for me. 

[Kalbear]

I messaged her with this:

Quote

 

I have supported you this entire campaign. I have donated money and voted for you, and will do so again. I will volunteer as well. But please do not support the policy of keeping people from buying guns if they are on the terrorist watchlist.

I do not support the NRA. I do not support guns at all, and wish that the 2nd amendment did not exist. I support a full ban on assault weapons and far more besides. I cannot, however, support denying someone their constitutional rights based on their status of a list that does not have due process, does not have oversight, does not have representation and is arbitrary. It is a clear breach of constitutional protections and should not be done. I would much rather ban assault rifles for everyone instead of this. 

Please reconsider this. Please reconsider and take the strong statement that we should not erode our rights in such a careless way. 

Thank you.