U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute

[IamMe90]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

I’m confused are you claiming that because a religious justification can be offered for a law against Abortion that even a secular law making abortion illegal in limited circumstances would violate the Establishment Clause?

Just the existence of a potential, religious motivation behind a law obviously cannot render it unconstitutional alone; however, if those involved in the crafting of such legislation explicitly express that such a motivation exists, and this admission is documented such that it can be presented in court, that motivation clearly can sway a court to find the law in violation of the Establishment Clause. We have seen this already with courts rejecting Trump's immigration ban executive orders due to his own public use of the term "Muslim ban." 

This may be getting at the spirit behind Tywin's post. 

I think one problem is that while we all know that there exists a religious motivation behind the vast majority of anti-abortion or anti-LGBT legislation (given the explicit generalized political stances espoused by the creators of such legislation), we rarely have specific admissions of that motivation with respect to individual laws. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

By that token, anything derived from the 10 commandments could not be a law. That is obviously not the test of a law's efficacy. 

Not really. It comes down to the express motivations for the law, and it’s entirely possible that there would be some overlap. I really don’t see that as being a problem if a legislator’s religious views are not the driving force behind a proposed law.

[Chaircat Meow]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. It comes down to the express motivations for the law, and it’s entirely possible that there would be some overlap. I really don’t see that as being a problem if a legislator’s religious views are not the driving force behind a proposed law.

How are you distinguishing between a religious and an ethical view?

[Yukle]

Melania is out of hiding! Sort of. She went to an event where no media were allowed.

According to some conspiracies on Twitter, which must be true, it was a paid actress and Melania is dead/indisposed.

Perhaps one of Emperor Drumpf's crowning glories has been that conspiracy theories are much more commonplace, no matter how ridiculous. On that, did you know that Melania is also in the USA as a Dreamer?

 

On a much more serious note, Mitch McConnell managed to bring his festering corpse out of the swamp it normally rots within to declare the Senate will run to its near maximum possible time due to urgent government business. No such business happens when the Republicans need to defend Senate seats, but with the Democrats defending 1/4 of the Senate this coming election, it was really important that they not be free to campaign.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

How are you distinguishing between a religious and an ethical view?

Exactly.

[Martell Spy]

Trump’s Travel Ban Is in Trouble at the Supreme Court

Justice Kennedy’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case suggests the court’s next big decision might go badly for the president.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/04/donald-trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-218590

Quote

So it seems noteworthy that Justice Kennedy went out of his way in Masterpiece Cakeshop to signal that he does not believe that distinction to be significant. “Members of the Court have disagreed on the question whether statements made by lawmakers [as opposed to adjudicators] may properly be taken into account in determining whether a law intentionally discriminates on the basis of religion,” he wrote. To illustrate that disagreement, Justice Kennedy cited a 1993 decision in which he had disagreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia on that very point—with Kennedy taking the view that the statements of lawmakers do matter.

 

[mankytoes]

5 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I can totally understand that.  And the pledge is, objectively, weird.  However, I have a somewhat nuanced and more positive view of American patriotism.  We are not a country that has 1,000+ years of shared cultural history.*  In fact, our shared cultural history (such as it is) - our mythology so to speak - is our patriotism and in a sense our performing rituals, like the pledge and the anthem, signifies belonging.  Rejecting those rituals is unsettling to people whose narrative of place and time is given meaning by those rituals.  It is even more powerful when the people rejecting otherwise do not fit within (what I'm going to call) a dug in minority's view of what that myth looks like (white and male).  I wholly agree with you that anthem kneelers are in fact living out our nominally shared ideals way better than the people demanding anthem standing.  But the reason that it is such a powerful protest in my mind is that by kneeling they are both rejecting and embracing our supposedly shared values at the same time. 

*Noting that most of the European countries' mythology of shared cultural history was made up in the 19th Century and used nefariously.

That's an interesting point of view, I can definitely be guilty of underestimating the importance of these sorts of rituals. Maybe, to put it more positively, America does now have a more established national identity, nation building isn't so necessary and some of the intensive, public patriotism could be reigned in a bit (and what patriotic American wouldn't appreciate being told that by a limey)?

There was an Iranian woman on tv who'd been involved in protests removing her hijab. She explained that she didn't think there was anything wrong with a hijab, the other women in her family wear them, it was the coercion in wearing it that she was protesting against. I think this follows the same line of thinking as the NFL forcing players to stand. 

I asked those rhetorical questions about whether the players are being patriotic, I was trying to imply that it's very hard to say. Maybe they aren't. Surely that's ok? People have the freedom of religion, sexuality, speech, expression, surely they have a choice not to be patriotic too? Maybe people prefer to associate with a state, a city, with all of humanity or just as individuals. You might not agree, but surely you can respect it like any other opinion? 

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Absolutely not. If there is legitimate medical reason to limit abortions in certain situations, I’m all for hashing it out and figuring out what the best outcome is. What I am against is people who say abortions violates their religious views so therefore it should be illegal. Personally speaking, I don’t think there are many legitimate medical reasons to outlaw abortions, and the reason abortions should and need to be legal is because it’s a lot safer than a back ally abortion. The desire to seek an abortion will always exist, so we might as well make it safe, legal and rare.

You mean well, but you obviously have NO IDEA WHAT IT IS TO BE PREGNANT AGAINST YOUR WILL.

Nor are we speaking here only of rape, but just, well, regular sexual life of an average female human being  So many way of ending up preggers, which one never wanted to expected, from rape, to birth control failure, to o there are many other reasons too.  But evidently most male don't know about any of them, including those mentioned above.

[Yukle]

Ha! Lulz.

Check out Lord Drumpf's Eagles celebration. Aside from the fact none of them came (and to save face Emperor Dumpster said they weren't invited to his party anyway), it went for 12 minutes and his Trumpetness didn't know the words to the one song they sang.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/05/trump-white-house-philadelphia-eagles-visit

[TrueMetis]

So players kneeling instead of standing in front of the flag, kneeling being pretty much as far as you can go in showing respect and deference = unpatriotic.

The actual President of the United States not being able to remember the words to a song celebrating America during an event made to celebrate America = Probably not going to be considered unpatriotic at all.

 

America's obsession with patriotism is fucking stupid but they could at least be consistent in their stupidity.

[Mexal]

6 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So players kneeling instead of standing in front of the flag, kneeling being pretty much as far as you can go in showing respect and deference = unpatriotic.

The actual President of the United States not being able to remember the words to a song celebrating America during an event made to celebrate America = Probably not going to be considered unpatriotic at all.

 

America's obsession with patriotism is fucking stupid but they could at least be consistent in their stupidity.

This WH has been consistent with nothing.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This WH has been consistent with nothing.

At some point inconsistency becomes consistent, no?

[LongRider]

Just now, Pony Empress Jace said:

At some point inconsistency becomes consistent, no?

No.  As in, no.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, LongRider said:

No.  As in, no.

WITCH! 

HUNT THE WITCH! CAN PARDON!

[Larry of the Lawn]

Patriotism is like pornography, you know it when you see it

[Yukle]

19 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So players kneeling instead of standing in front of the flag, kneeling being pretty much as far as you can go in showing respect and deference = unpatriotic.

The actual President of the United States not being able to remember the words to a song celebrating America during an event made to celebrate America = Probably not going to be considered unpatriotic at all.

Notice how well Lord Drumpf changed the point of the argument, though.

Kneeling was done in response to the specific plight faced by African-American communities. Trump successfully altered the narrative to it being black men hating America. Just like he did with Obama.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Notice how well Lord Drumpf changed the point of the argument, though.

Kneeling was done in response to the specific plight faced by African-American communities. Trump successfully altered the narrative to it being black men hating America. Just like he did with Obama.

That's because his propaganda network and the other news agencies keep letting him define the issues. 

They fail to outright call him a liar.

[Yukle]

5 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

That's because his propaganda network and the other news agencies keep letting him define the issues. 

They fail to outright call him a liar.

Absolutely.

Turning up to meetings with Huckabee-Sanders is enabling the lies. They should treat her for the joke she is. Play kazoos when she tries to speak, ask stupid questions like, "Did you put money on Free Parking?" Just to show how contemptuous she treats her country, but also remove it as a source of the propaganda machine.

They must reduce each component of the propaganda to what it is, by no longer treating it as a valid source. Start running segments called, "This week on Fox!" where they play a clip where they criticised Obama for something they praise Trump for. Make them a running joke, which is how they should be treated.

[LongRider]

8 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Absolutely.

Turning up to meetings with Huckabee-Sanders is enabling the lies. They should treat her for the joke she is. Play kazoos when she tries to speak, ask stupid questions like, "Did you put money on Free Parking?" Just to show how contemptuous she treats her country, but also remove it as a source of the propaganda machine.

They must reduce each component of the propaganda to what it is, by no longer treating it as a valid source. Start running segments called, "This week on Fox!" where they play a clip where they criticised Obama for something they praise Trump for. Make them a running joke, which is how they should be treated.

I like your ideas, especially the one of playing the kazoo while Huckee Boo Boo farts out her lies.

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Yukle said:

On a much more serious note, Mitch McConnell managed to bring his festering corpse out of the swamp it normally rots within to declare the Senate will run to its near maximum possible time due to urgent government business. No such business happens when the Republicans need to defend Senate seats, but with the Democrats defending 1/4 of the Senate this coming election, it was really important that they not be free to campaign.

My understanding was that it had nothing to do with campaigning and everything to do with trying to ram through as many judicial nominations as they could before they (potentially) lose the Senate.