Page 186 of 186 FirstFirst ... 86136176184185186
Results 2,776 to 2,785 of 2785

Thread: How Low Can We Go? The President Donald Trump Thread, I guess. :(

  1. #2776
    generally largely right Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    I wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy in fact had planned to retire, but then noticed what a nutjob Gorsuch is and thought "oh, I'll wait until there's at least a Democrat senate or it all goes to shit".

  2. #2777
    Strangerer Rum 509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Kari View Post
    Same. I am very very very angry. I am trying not to just lash out.
    Same here, which is why I am mostly not saying anything here lately. I have no interest in getting into arguments with people that I agree with even if we disagree on some points. I was going to say "some small points," but that would imply that I consider any of your view points to be "small." This absolutely is not true. Our priorities are equal to each other's. Different, but equal.

    For now, I am trying to deal with a small handful of Right-Wing friends, trying to understand their viewpoints. Latest update? One friend posted that Death Valley was 134°, in 1913 or so, as if this was proof that global warming does not exist. I've known this fact since I was about 8 years old. If you had to say something to this person, what would you say?

    And then, someone objected to the so much higher amount of money donated to the Ossoff campaign than the Handel campaign. I said this was not true, and quoted this article or one like it, from Newsweek: http://tinyurl.com/ya7txswl

    And asked him for his source. After several back and forths, he never offered a source. And this has happened with several right wing friends, they never, NEVER, have offerred a source.

    So think about this, how do we get these people to be Democrats? Or rather, what kind of political party could include these people, and us?

  3. #2778
    Senior Member rubidoux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Rum 509 View Post
    One friend posted that Death Valley was 134°, in 1913 or so, as if this was proof that global warming does not exist. I've known this fact since I was about 8 years old. If you had to say something to this person, what would you say?
    That they're confusing climate and weather.

    It's amazing how many people think like that, but I guess not everyone paid attention during Geography lessons in junior high.

  4. #2779
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,347
    Yeah...or the data from all the way back to the late 1800s that show a steady average temperature increase to today. Or the fact that the hottest average temperature on record keeps getting smashed with every new year?? Or the THOUSANDS of scientists, people with doctorates in their field, who say that climate change is actually happening?
    Or you can believe twat knuckle taint faced Trump, who's vocabulary is bested by a 7 year old, about what's meteorologically true or not.

  5. #2780
    Let them eat cheese flan Nancy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,191
    The Supreme Court’s Incredible Privileging of Religion

    In obliging the state to directly aid Trinity Lutheran and other churches, the Court is allowing the religious right to have their cake and eat it, too.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/1435...eging-religion

    The Court on Monday struck down a major barrier between church and state, ruling for the first time ever that the government must give direct cash aid to a church. In a 7-2 ruling, the justices found that Missouri violated the Free Exercise Clause when it excluded Trinity Lutheran Church from a reimbursement grant program to resurface its playground with recycled tire scraps. The exclusion was based on a provision in Missouri’s constitution prohibiting the use of public funds for church aid.

    “You’re now saying that the First Amendment not only permits but requires the government to use taxpayer funds for a church,” said Greg Lipper, a former senior litigation counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He called the decision a “minefield in playground’s clothing.”
    What I want to know is: why were there only two dissenters? Betsy DeVos is hailing this as a victory, and the liberal members of the Supreme Court are still bending over backwards to compromise.

  6. #2781
    Only knows desire. Perky Compson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    There were only two dissenters because First Amendment law is a really thorny area of constitutional law and it's not as simple as saying religious schools should never receive public funds. It's been a few years since I intensively studied this, but there's a legal test set up that identifies whether the statute is secular, whether the desired use of the funds is secular, and whether allowing the religious institution to use the funds causes "excessive entanglement". Here, the statute provides funds that can be accessed to resurface playgrounds. Non-religious institutions can access it, but religious institutions cannot. The disbursement of grants alone to religious institutions isn't considered excessive entanglement under precedent, the statute that creates the grants doesn't mention religion, and there's room for debate about whether resurfacing a playground inherently advances religion.

    A lot of the reason for the existing case law goes back to the history of poor families trying to send their children to the only "good" schools in their area - private schools that happened to be religious - and trying to access government stipends for transportation and textbooks. In an ideal world the public schools would be the best schools in the region, but in reality many poor families have relied on "government money" to keep their kids in safer, higher-achieving schools. From there it became a question of whether religious schools could use access those funds generally without poor families acting as a middle-man.

    In short, this case is actually an area where reasonable legal minds can disagree without it being a partisan issue.

    On the upside, a good SCOTUS decision this week regarding immigration and deportation, making it easier for legal immigrants facing deportation to challenge their plea deals if they were misled about the chance of deportation.

  7. #2782
    Quote Originally Posted by Kari View Post
    SCOTUS was enough reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.
    If you're liberal. For some of my Republican friends, SCOTUS is the only reason they voted for Trump. They can't stand him, but didn't want a Democrat appointing a new justice.

  8. #2783
    Let them eat cheese flan Nancy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Perky Compson View Post
    A lot of the reason for the existing case law goes back to the history of poor families trying to send their children to the only "good" schools in their area - private schools that happened to be religious - and trying to access government stipends for transportation and textbooks. In an ideal world the public schools would be the best schools in the region, but in reality many poor families have relied on "government money" to keep their kids in safer, higher-achieving schools. From there it became a question of whether religious schools could use access those funds generally without poor families acting as a middle-man.
    I know that in my area, a lot of poor black families depend on religious schools for the best education possible, and I've tried to have an open mind about charter schools. The fact remains however that we are living in the GOP's America, and I know full well that it won't be long until my tax dollars are used to send public school students on class trips to the Creation Museum. Fuck that.

  9. #2784
    and it sounds like all our lives Kari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    15,398
    Quote Originally Posted by JayPeaches View Post
    If you're liberal. For some of my Republican friends, SCOTUS is the only reason they voted for Trump. They can't stand him, but didn't want a Democrat appointing a new justice.
    Well, right, that is what I meant. Would have been really awesome if we could have just banded together and kept our petty grievances for after the election, but that's not how we roll I guess.

  10. #2785
    Quote Originally Posted by Kari View Post
    Well, right, that is what I meant. Would have been really awesome if we could have just banded together and kept our petty grievances for after the election, but that's not how we roll I guess.
    Ahh, sorry. I misinterpreted what you meant.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •