What’s needed to stop an American dictatorship?

Nope, I do not. What is this heritage of yours?

 

Not something I would have voted for given the choice. We'll be paying the piper, sooner or later.
It's like with anything, though, taking the bad with the good.

 

Speaking of "utter, biased nonsense", I was going to let your post go without further comment, but I think it's so misleading something needs to be said to correct it.

Not exactly. What happened is that on July 31, in a close 5-4 decision, SCOTUS stayed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and the federal district court enjoining the Trump Administration from funding the border wall with Pentagon funds without congressional approval. The conservative majority gave no reason for its decision. Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, joined by three other Justices, without hearing the case on its merits. Berkeley law dean and professor Erwin Chemerinsky writes: "This should not be a close constitutional issue. The spending power is quintessentially in the hands of Congress. There is no emergency power in the Constitution — even assuming that the wall is being built because of an emergency — that allows the president to spend money without congressional authorization."

Wow! What a build up! I was expecting something really shocking!

You're right that I don't agree this was "outrageous" and "apalling". If this was "one of the most eggregious examples" you could find of abuse of governmental power during the Obama administration, I'd say his administration stacks up well against most. From your description, I had visions of Obama personally holding the poor nuns down and pouring abortifacients down their gullets. Hyperbole, to say the least! What really happened was less dramatic. The original case was Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell,. It seems that Obamacare, seeking to provide contraceptive insurance coverage to all women, required most employers to offer health insurance coverage that includes free birth control. However religious nonprofits could be exempted if they signed a form notifying the government, which would then set up the coverage through the group’s existing plan at no additional cost to the organization. the Little Sisters said that filling out the form would constitute "material cooperation with evil". In a per curiam opinion, SCOTUS remanded the case to the lower courts, with the instruction that :"Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates the challengers’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by the challengers’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage."

Meanwhile the Trump administration took over and issued an executive order catering to its religious base by exempting the Little Sisters from "undue interference from the federal government." The matter returned to Supreme Court again as Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, after Pennsylvania challenged the breadth of the exemption. A majority of the Court held that the Departments had the authority under the ACA to promulgate the religious and moral exemptions; and that the rules promulgating the exemptions are free from procedural defects. In their dissenting opinion, Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg noted that "in accommodating claims of religious freedom, this Court... does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs." They argued that the majority's decision left women workers "to fend for themselves". I agree with the dissenters.

Of your various selections from the Cato Institute, one that puzzles me is Hosanna‐Tabor Church v. EEOC (2012) in which "the government" sued a church school that fired a teacher for violating one of its religious tenets. The court ruled that punishing a church for not retaining an unwanted teacher violates the First Amendment. The name of the case indicates that "the government" entity doing the suing was the EEOC, an independent regulatory commission. Yet you attribute its actions to the Obama Administration. Is that fair? In the Commission's defense, it was enforcing the law as written by Congress, and the Supreme Court, by judicial interpretation, carved out a "ministerial" exception to employment discrimination laws. Given the intensity of conservative opposition to the Warren Court, your deference to the Roberts court's decisions smacks of partisan bias.

As for the next "enormous overreach of power" by the Obama administration, which you couldn't take the time to research, I gather it had to do with discriminatory intent versus disparate impact in enforcing the Fair Housing Act.. Without so much as mentioning the statutory provisions you're talking about, it's hard to comment on the merits of your conclusion. I suspect you're referring to the 2013 disparate impact rule. The Trump Administration's new rule would shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff in housing discrimination cases, making such lawsuits virtually “impossible”. if that's what you like, I can see why you like Trump, but I hardly think it's a basis for your charge of "enormous overreach of power". Same goes for the plight of the raisin growers. Compared to the extravagant claims of executive power by the Trump Administration, the alleged abuses of Obama seem picayunish.

 

I believe all races have certain innate advantages over others. OMG, does that make me a raaaaaaaaacist?

 

I notice you simply make a rather snotty catcall without saying anything of substance. If you think Trump has violated the first amendment , you could state your case. However, that is not the way you choose to make your case.

 

I’m in favour of two parent families (and that the couple can be same sex) I think most lefties are - but I also understand that this cannot always be possible and that then such people should be given the help they need – I think it would be worse to force a child to be brought up in a house where the parents didn’t get along or were abusive.

I know many lefties that are also religious we are not all godless atheists, but even as an atheist like most lefties I preach tolerance and that includes freedom of belief.

I can think of nothing more authoritarian than to forced a loyalty oath. To me a country by its acts and deeds earns the loyalty of its people the state shouldn’t force loyalty onto them.

I don’t like abortions preferring contraception, my question would be why are abortions seemingly still needed, what is wrong with society that abortions are still wanted?

There is no proof of this, many studies show that people would much prefer to work than not, I mean many people do voluntary work, they work for nothing – hell the moderators on these forums don’t get paid. The right wing belief that people have to be forced to work by a policy of ‘work or starve’ is a myth promoted by those that wish to cut benefits so that the money can then be given in tax cuts.

You mean tax – I’d again point out that there are many wealthy people and groups that push this viewpoint because they want tax cuts that vastly favour themselves.

 

As a leftie I want good education, the kind of education that respects rational though and teaches people to question.

I would point out that if you look at these forums it is mostly those on the right that reject rational argument and are least likely to question their beliefs even when they cannot defend them from criticism.

For example let us look at a couple of points raised by a right winger

Has the person looked into the facts – no they are just repeating propaganda points.

Does it make any rational sense – no – I mean just look at the statement that that free food and housing for all is already in place?

 

Open borders are a good thing especially for trade but you need agreements between those on either side of the borders. There are 50 states in the US they all have borders you can see them on a maps it is just that because of agreements they are open borders (but there can be different laws in different states) . There are many borders in Europe until the EU these used to have border posts with custom and passport checks but through agreement that has become the EU these became open to free trade then the free movement of people. But there are the more closed borders on the edges of the US and EU, it would be beneficial to not have them as well (and the EU is still expanding) but you have to have agreements first.

So actually it would be beneficial to have a world without borders but we are a long way from that.

 

I’m sorry to say that some people are dependent on food banks and food stamps basically free food but that is not seen as a good thing by lefties it is indicative of a society not functioning as it should.

I’m a believer in public housing although that is not free it’s just rented out cheaply because it is a way for the low paid to not get exploited by high rents and gives them greater stability these schemes have been known to pay for themselves and even show a profit for the public bodies that run them.

Free medical care actually works out cheaper than such a system that the US currently has the NHS in the UK used to be one of the cheapest and best healthcare system sin the world until ‘free market’ reforms and defunding were forced on it by successive neoliberal governments but despite that it still does incredibly well.

Again free university and professional education pays for itself by encouraging many more people into it, which is good for society and its economy.

Cheap subsidised public transport is very good for a society the beneficial environmental impact can be immense it allows people to get to work that otherwise they might not have been able to get to and increases recreational travel both of which is good for the economy and social cohesion.

 

I think this is on its head - the true cost of the things mentioned above (education, transport, healthcare) are all positive for society and the majority of people in it, if anything it is the few that wish to have tax cuts that are only beneficial to themselves that are the ones that are truly selfish.

 

I’ve talked before about wealth sponsored propaganda promoting anti-communism in the US and that it had a big influenced American domestic and foreign policy.

That it was very good at was convincing the gullible that anything vaguely left of centre was out and out communism (or would inevitably lead to it).

Well many think that was a thing of the past but actually it never gave up, and as someone has said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

There are a lot of people that fall for propaganda

Most of the things on this list could have come directly from the Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s.

It is simplistic and inaccurate but it was and seems still is effective in convincing the ill-informed.

 

Balbus, I'm not sure they're ill informed--I'm beginning to believe that they have been assigned to this site and are being paid well to blather on with the well known right wing BULLSHIT.

 

Man, somebody's paying them for this drivel??!

 

It's hard to find good help these days...

 

I get that you mean well. I respect that. It's just that there's stuff you haven't seen. That applies to all of us of course but some of us realize it more than others. Often we want the same things, like an honest polite society where we look out for each other, which boils down to following Jesus' teaching. Our differences lie mostly in how to get there. Lefties seem to think that taking from those who have and giving it to those who haven't is a solution to the inequities in outcome. Righties would say no, instead we'll give everyone a chance to make what they will of themselves and live with the consequences. Some will generate greater material wealth than others. To us righties, it's inherently obvious that the latter approach will yield a greater, more powerful, accomplished, and happier society. And we cannot see how any valid argument can be made against it. All we see is emotional whining and attribute it to one of two things - the people who want stuff but don't want to toil for it, and the people who want power over the people. It's not a "dogma" or a teaching we learned, it's something we see for ourselves starting in early childhood by observing people's behavior. We're truly shocked that others act as if it's not obvious, and therefore suspect them of the above ulterior motives. I wish we would come together by sharing our common beliefs and then discussing how to best make the most people happy. From what I've observed though, it's like only the righties want to do that. And again, we're puzzled, and have to suspect that they just don't want to come clean about their ulterior motives. Lord only knows. We're about teaching a man to fish and we see them as wanting to give a man a fish. I hope this helps you understand where we're coming from.

Helping to lift a fellow man up after a fall and getting him back on his feet is in our nature as righties. What we don't believe in is maintaining a man who's perfectly capable of earning a living. The housing thing, it's one thing to provide opportunities for a man to earn a living sufficient to afford housing, another to gift him housing because he isn't earning enough. Your point of view is from a person who has never been to a public housing "project". The projects are breeding grounds for all sorts of ills from crime to drug addiction, single motherhood of large numbers of kids who are neglected, and make their own activities with the other neglected kids and teach each other how to coexist. As a result there's an exceptional amount of discontent and dysfunction. Once you see it firsthand, it's obvious that it's not the way to go. But it was born of good intentions. Yet they have no appreciation for that; they tear the places up because they have no sense of ownership. Folks who work for stuff and purchase from the fruits of their labor, they take care of their things. Even if all they can afford is a van to live in, or whatever, if they worked for it, they treasure it.

Basically the same philosophy goes for anything earned vs provided as an entitlement. Righties believe the old saying "easy come, easy go". We can clearly observe that the happiest people are those who have worked for what they have. And that goes double for people of low economic status. Some of the most beautiful, generous, and happiest people I've ever met were also of low economic means! They take pride in what they've accomplished, take nothing for granted, they get up early and get their work done before indulging in leisure activities. They had a sense of discipline instilled in them, they love their people, and treat others with dignity and respect. Their material possessions are of low value monetarily but they don't use that fact to be ill-behaved and indignant, instead are filled with gratitude. This generates happiness and good will among themselves and their community, a stark contrast to the result achieved by providing people with housing, food, utilities, and such which ultimately fosters resentment.

 

It's fun for conservatives to annoy people. In their mind they get to come here with the brains full of facts and logic and upset emotional people. It's not a new thing. Even when I was in college before Trump there was a small number of conservative students who insisted on ruining everyone's day. They could just do things they enjoy but what they enjoy is arguing. They didn't have enough students to have their own clubs and protests just enough to claim free speech and bring a sign that counters yours..

As long as they do that the revolution is still alive. The community is damn sure that one day society is just going to stop being liberal. They will get so tried of women not knowing their place and goverment taking tax the party will just not exist.

Without brave solders like 6 or VG that day can not come. They will probably have a page in history books right next to MLK.

 

Naaa, they're on every forum out there. That's Trump's base. He has a 42% approval rating, which is a lot of people in our country who hate our country and everything good it stands for.

 

This is a typical, highly flawed, right wing viewpoint....


Guess all those right wing non millionaires must be really, really, lazy.