U.S. Politics: Houston Avoids Second Disaster

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

No, they are not contradictory statements. We are talking about the intent of the Presidential order and what that means for those being discriminated against. This is literally what the conversation is about.

And when discussing how they are being discriminated again, it is absolutely correct that trans people are not "not eligible" for military service. They aren't even being banned from it. The President called for them to be actively removed from service. That's how they are being discriminated against.

I was responding to your post, which seemed to clearly make some declarative statements, not what Trump's intent in a tweet was.  You stated:

Quote

Not even banned, literally kicked out is what they were attempting. Cause these people were already serving. They were never not eligible till now.

"They" plainly suggests what the administration is attempting.  It is inaccurate to state the memo is "literally kicking out" serving members; it clearly states that will be (meaning has yet to be) determined by Mattis/DoD.  It is also misleading to state "they were never not eligible til now."  Transgender members were not allowed to serve openly and could be discharged solely for being transgender - until Obama's efforts last year which is what Trump and his memo are responding to:

Quote

• This policy was crafted through a comprehensive and inclusive process that included the leadership of the Armed Services, medical and personnel experts across the Department, transgender Service members, outside medical experts, advocacy groups, and the RAND Corporation.
• Effective immediately, transgender Service members may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military solely for being transgender individuals.
• These policies will be implemented in stages over the next 12 months-starting most immediately with addressing the needs of current Service members and their commanders, and followed by training for the entire force, and ultimately, beginning to admit transgender recruits.

 

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I still haven't personally met anyone who regrets their decision to vote Trump, at least not enough to actually do something about it.  A couple have mentioned that they are disappointed and have given unfavorable reviews of him, but admit they'd still vote Republican next go around for reasons that end up being very uninformed and bullshit.  

That's what I imagine the polls would reflect if there is another election.  That 20% who says they've abandoned him would still vote for him because they've been so conditioned to vote for the Republican candidate even when that candidate is actively burning down their house.  They get attached to single issues, like women's reproductive control, and just go with that.  

IME the ones that have always voted Republican because all their friends have and all their parents have, etc... aren't single issue voters.  They are the ones that are most susceptible to the messaging and will always believe it.  They're taxed too much, democrats are the big spenders, democrat run cities are a mess because democrats run them, the rich are job creators, blah, blah, blah....  The fox new parroters.

Single issue voters seem to keep backing him no matter what.  Guns, abortions, war, and those who just want to 'stick it to snowflake liberals' seem to be issues that make people just keep loving some Donnie Johnnie.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I still haven't personally met anyone who regrets their decision to vote Trump, at least not enough to actually do something about it.  A couple have mentioned that they are disappointed and have given unfavorable reviews of him, but admit they'd still vote Republican next go around for reasons that end up being very uninformed and bullshit.  

That's what I imagine the polls would reflect if there is another election.  That 20% who says they've abandoned him would still vote for him because they've been so conditioned to vote for the Republican candidate even when that candidate is actively burning down their house.  They get attached to single issues, like women's reproductive control, and just go with that.  

I am not optimistic enough to think that Trump's approval going down 20% translates into him losing 20% of his votes, the electorate doesn't work that way.  But at the same time, it is ridiculous to assume that every single Trump supporter is a devoted supporter no matter what. 

For example, Obama's favorability (RCP average) in Nov 2008 was 69%.  He got 69.5 million votes.  In Nov 2012, his favorability had fallen to 51 (RCP average).  He got 65.9 million votes.  Taking into account US population growth of 3% in that period, that means that Obama's favorability falling by 35% cost him about (69.5 - 63.8) = 5.7 million votes, or 8.2% of his support. 

There's no reason to say that political gravity does not also affect Trump.  Based on the experience with Obama between 2008 and 2012, a 20% decline in Trump's approval rating ought to cost him approximately 4.5% of his voters (either going to the other party or a 3rd candidate).  Even if we assume that the Democrat wouldn't pick up any of these voters (which is pessimistic), Trump would still have lost PA, MI, WI, FL and NE-2 if he lost 4.5% of his supporters.  And of course, that is more than enough to cost him the election (Trump would only get 230 EVs in that scenario).

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Say what you want about Richard Nixon, at least John Erlichman and H.R. Halderman weren't KGB.

That we know of.  Dun dun duuuun!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That we know of.  Dun dun duuuun!

Yeah. I don't know about the rest of him, but Haldeman's haircut was right out of the GRU handbook.

[Kalbear]

59 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

"They" plainly suggests what the administration is attempting.  It is inaccurate to state the memo is "literally kicking out" serving members; it clearly states that will be (meaning has yet to be) determined by Mattis/DoD.  It is also misleading to state "they were never not eligible til now."  Transgender members were not allowed to serve openly and could be discharged solely for being transgender - until Obama's efforts last year which is what Trump and his memo are responding to:

 

Note that this isn't entirely the whole story. As an example, there's a trans woman currently serving who was on NPR earlier who hasn't been kicked out - but has no idea about their deployment status, had their reassignment surgery cancelled, and has no idea about their ability to serve or retire or be discharged honorably despite their having a bronze star. 

So while it's true that they're not being kicked out right this second - yet - their lives and their ability to serve is already being directly affected. 

[James Arryn]

Cheers Tyler!

 

Also, people are still debating whether or not Trump's a bigot? Well, I guess we can't know whether he is or isn't, but he sure as shit plays one on tv. 

 

Edit, also while we're on it, it boggles my mind when you see supporters 'defend' Trump by saying he's not actually himself a bigot, he's just playing to his bigot base. I mean...that's a defense? Being a bigot means your wiring is screwed up. Being a non-bigot willing to practice bigotry for personal gain probably means you don't even have the wires. 

True story, we used to debate this about Hitler. In Mein Kampf he talks about how a people like those in post WWI Germany need a skapegoat, a target to blame, which will both soothe their own sense of defeat and engender a righteous indignation which a leader can then channel for more Reiching. This obviously raises interesting questions about Hitler re: the Jews. I always personally thought the not-actually-anti-Semitic Holocauster was more 'evil'. Can you imagine? 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So while it's true that they're not being kicked out right this second - yet - their lives and their ability to serve is already being directly affected. 

Exactly.  I just think it's important to clarify the facts of the matter so people don't arrive at inaccurate assumptions on what actually is happening.

[Bonnot OG]

Good read by a person of color that was at Berkeley this past weekend and a critique of how the media portrayed things.

https://medium.com/@zosamudzi/on-berkeley-453252b51d23

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Am I feeding it, or is it feeding me? 

You know what you did.

*rolls up newspaper*

WHACK

"Bad Ace. Bad!"

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Most of the Republicans I'm close with come from evangelical Christian backgrounds, and they vote the party because Republicans have done a very good job convincing these people that Democrats hate them and that Republicans are the ones who support their values.

And yet, they supported a candidate who couldn't make it more obvious that not only is he not a Christian, but that he also doesn't know anything about the religion:

Quote

Just days before his presidential inauguration, Trump met with two Christian leaders at his office in Trump Tower. Invited to pray with the incoming president were the Rev. Patrick O’Connor, senior pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, of Queens, New York ― where the president was confirmed as a child ― and the Rev. Scott Black Johnston, senior pastor of Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church.

 

In comments previously unreported, the pastors told CNN, Trump boasted: “I did very, very well with evangelicals in the polls.”

O’Connor and Johnston reminded Trump that neither of them is an evangelical. To which the president-elect reportedly asked: “Well, what are you then?”

The pastors are both mainline Protestants ― like Trump, who describes himself as a Presbyterian. O’Connor and Johnston explained this to the president-elect, who nodded and asked them: “But you’re all Christians?”

“Yes,” they said. “We’re all Christians.”

Shocking, I know.

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

But then, Exodus pretty much says that unborn fetuses are property, not human lives. But why listen to the source material AMR?

I tend to find that non-believers actually know more about the Bible than many Christians do.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Quick legal question. If the transgender ban is overturned by the Supreme Court, does that (a) automatically apply to all federal government positions (there's no way you couldn't ban in one field, but could in another) and (b) could they write a decision so broad that it applies to all public businesses too, or would they need a separate case to make it uniform for the nation that you cannot discriminate against transgender individuals during the hiring process?

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Quick legal question. If the transgender ban is overturned by the Supreme Court, does that (a) automatically apply to all federal government positions (there's no way you couldn't ban in one field, but could in another) and (b) could they write a decision so broad that it applies to all public businesses too, or would they need a separate case to make it uniform for the nation that you cannot discriminate against transgender individuals during the hiring process?

I don't think it's as impossible to make a military distinction are you're suggesting here. There are for example medical conditions which make someone ineligible for military service but wouldn't preclude other government posts. No idea how you'd waggle transgender into a medical category, but then none of this makes any sense to me, and yet it's still happening.

[OldGimletEye]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Quick legal question. If the transgender ban is overturned by the Supreme Court, does that (a) automatically apply to all federal government positions (there's no way you couldn't ban in one field, but could in another) and (b) could they write a decision so broad that it applies to all public businesses too, or would they need a separate case to make it uniform for the nation that you cannot discriminate against transgender individuals during the hiring process?

Seems to depend on what legal issues would be in play.
If we're talking about equal protection, it seems to me that the Supreme Court has typically been more deferential to the military.
If the Court were to strike down the transgender ban on equal protection grounds, I would think the holding in that case would be quite sweeping in its implications.
Also, equal protection doesn't apply to private actors, usually. Private actor conduct has to be regulated by another provision ie the commerce clause.

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah. I don't know about the rest of him, but Haldeman's haircut was right out of the GRU handbook.

I have a memory of Haldeman and Erlichma being labelled the Nazi twins. I have no,luck finding a reference though. 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D6CxH3yoyiH8&ved=0ahUKEwiS2-WGvP3VAhUJ0IMKHeRZCHAQwqsBCCEwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHOfA2XJHTRn1NZ08TpNEXpEjH4pg

I did find this little ditty that I also remembered. 

[Martell Spy]

Yeah, we gotta unrig the economy by doing just as the Koch Brothers want, just like Timmy the minion says. I guess that Republican attempt to strip 800 billion out of Medicaid was all a dream.

Quote

 

“One of the keys to selling tax reform is the president making the point that tax reform will unrig this economy by stripping out the special-interest deductions and carve-outs that riddle this code,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a group founded by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers that is spending heavily to push changes to the tax code.

 

Trump to seize populist mantle for pitching messy tax overhaul
The administration is building its message around 'unrigging' the economy while lawmakers battle over corporate tax provisions and middle-class rates.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/29/trump-tax-overhaul-populism-242134

Trump Doesn’t Have Tax Plan, Does Have Plan to Lie About It

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/trump-doesnt-have-tax-plan-does-have-plan-to-lie-about-it.html

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/29/2017 at 6:22 PM, Lew Theobald said:

Which is precisely why the Supreme Court did NOT mandate same-sex marriage on Equal Protection grounds, but based it instead on a largely-undefined dignity right.  Had it been decided on Equal Protection grounds, there would have been no clear bounds to the implications.

So in other words the Supreme Court used substantive due process grounds in that case. 

That seems about right, since the Court has considered issues of family and marriage to be within the scope of substantive due process.

Also, I think you could make a decent case under substantive due process against the transgender ban.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

If the Court were to strike down the transgender ban on equal protection grounds, I would think the holding in that case would be quite sweeping in its implications.

Exactly.  While the decision itself would not apply to non-military venues, it would send a crystal clear message on where the court stands on the matter.  In other words, if transgender discrimination occurs elsewhere, the decision would be precedent that gave anyone a very strong case - especially considering the court's historical deference to the military - and lead to analogous decisions.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Also, equal protection doesn't apply to private actors, usually. Private actor conduct has to be regulated by another provision ie the commerce clause.

Nah, this is what incorporation of the EPC is all about.  Any amendment that is incorporated through the EPC means it is the federal government's duty to protect that individual right.  This is why it's illegal for employers to discriminate based on race, religion, etc.

48 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Which is precisely why the Supreme Court did NOT mandate same-sex marriage on Equal Protection grounds

Yes it did.  See Obergefell v. Hodges.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/29/2017 at 6:45 PM, dmc515 said:

Nah, this is what incorporation of the EPC is all about.  Any amendment that is incorporated through the EPC means it is the federal government's duty to protect that individual right.  This is why it's illegal for employers to discriminate based on race, religion, etc.

No incorporation was about applying the Bill of Rights in the Consitution to the states (as in state governments) as well as the federal government. That's the whole reason why the 1964 Civil Rights Act had to be based largely on the commerce clause.

[sperry]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

His numbers are a disaster right now. Check this recent Pew Poll:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/29/a-new-polling-low-for-trump-just-16-percent-like-his-conduct-as-president/?utm_term=.5a599f27952b

 

You can cite poll numbers all you want. But Republicans haven't turned on him, or thrown him under the bus. When the rubber meets the road, they're not going to be able to run against him in 2020, and thus they're going to support him. The moderate ones will wish there was a different candidate, but will vote for Trump when the other choice is a democrat. And the base of blue collar mopes in burnt out midwestern towns isn't going anywhere.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

That's the whole reason why the 1964 Civil Rights Act had to be based largely on the commerce clause.

It is true that Title VII of the CRA is based on the commerce clause, but the entire basis of the CRA is the EPC, its incorporation, and section 5 of the 14th amendment.