He's a classical conservative in terms of his stated political preferences:Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Smaller government
Less spending
Pro Guns
Religious
Pro School choice
Not a fan of unions
He's a classical conservative in terms of his stated political preferences:
Smaller government
Less spending
Pro Guns
Religious
Pro School choice
Not a fan of unions
Actually treating people differently based on religion is hard coded into our laws. (Look up reasonable accommodation).
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
"The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion."
Wow looks like it is already explicitly REQUIRES to accommodate people for no other reason than their religious beliefs...
Or in normal person speak - he did his best to honor his campaign promises. You adore the system as it is - where politicians say one thing to the voters and then do business as usual. Its a joke that the Republicans control the House and Senate and still increase spending, fund Obamacare and have done nothing to prevent the ever increasing scope of government control. I'm for the guy who wants to gum up the system before we turn into Europe. And if you like Europe - go.
But the patrols wouldn't be there to protect muslim communities but to, quote "secure" them before they become "radicalized". Of course anyone with a shred of brains would know that increasing police presence in ethnic neighborhoods just to hassle them is going to cause more radicalization, not less.
The ironic thing about this is that America has actually done a far better job of integrating it's muslim populations than Europe, to the extent that it has barely any problem with radicalization of American born muslims compared to Europe, a state of affairs which it appears Cruz would do everything in his power to reverse.
I've seen a lot of very, very stupid material posted on this forum under the guise of "Using your logic"/"So, what you're saying is..." but this takes the biscuit. Are you really too dense that you're unable to tell the difference between targeting an individual and then giving a physical description, part of which includes skin colour, and targeting an entire religion? Or is your opinion of everyone else here so low that you thought no one else would notice?Also under your logic if you are looking for a black suspect for a crime (based on eye witness testimony) you'd scream that the 14th amendment is being violated when the police are on the lookout for black males.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
AA is based on race, not religion. The first amendment says nothing about race.
Are you trying to become a Cruz clone? Police patrols might or might not be a bad thing, but sending them to areas entirely on the basis of religion is a clear violation of the first amendment.
Using your logic, the police should patrol black neighborhoods more heavily, whether they're poor or not, or crime-ridden or not. Is that your actual position?
Hope is the denial of reality
The GOP is going to be a mess regardless. The only viable long-term move would be to banish the crazies, but that would be politically-disastrous I'm the short term and therefore won't be done.
I do know that as long as most GOP voters support the likes of Trump and Cruz, there's no chance in hell I'd vote for a Republican for any national office. And I doubt I'm the only one making that choice. The GOP is at a risk of becoming a party made up entirely of evangelicals and racists.
Hope is the denial of reality
Classical conservatives also try to get conservative policies passed as laws, something Cruz is both unable and unwilling to do. Is it really hard to understand that governing requires compromise and ability to form personal relationships?
Hope is the denial of reality
I wonder how much those two have in common: Trump's not exactly a paragon of evangelical family values.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Trump is getting 40% of the evangelical vote, the kind of evangelical that goes to church on a Sunday and forgets everything they're taught by Monday. It's been amusing listening to evangelicals explain their support for Trump. Suddenly all the character traits they deemed important in previous presidential candidates are no longer important. It's as if being racist compensates for those flaws.
Hope is the denial of reality
Or as if they never actually gave a shit about the things they said were important before, it's just considered impolite to say "I hate gays, blacks and think women belong in the kitchen" out loud.
Still, doesn't mean they're a healthy or a happy alliance over the long term. Trump's base doesn't seem to give to much of a shit about homosexuals either way, for example, whereas your average evangelical more spends about 70% of their waking hours thinking about them.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
The Trumpists aren't really against any part of the evangelical platform, even if they don't really care about gays or abortions. It's no worse am alliance than the one between evangelicals and libertarians. The main problem is this kind of an alliance risks forcing fiscal conservatives into the Democratic Party, especially if the latter is smart enough to adjust its economic platform.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think the whole Sanders thing shows that if the Democrats adjust their economic platform too much, they'll undergo a similar impulsion.
Is America finally ready for multiparty politics?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I'm not sure if the Sanders phenomenon isn't simply a reaction to Hillary Clinton being strongly disliked by nearly everyone...
We can't have a multi-party system due to our single member district winner-takes-all system (see Duverger's Law). It's a more extreme version of your system (how are the Libs Dems doing?) as the results are more pronounced in presidential elections. The only way a third party can survive in this system is to become a regional party (e.g. SNP), which isn't going to happen.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think it's pretty clear that there's a decent number of Americans who are genuinely excited and energized by what he's offering. I mean, they also loath Clinton but that's by the by...
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
You get that every primary. These are the same people who elected Obama. I'd want to see a similar situation next time around before I pronounce a left-wing shift to the DNC. Plus there are no commies running for other offices.
Hope is the denial of reality
And what is it about honoring campaign promises that prevents someone from being a "crazy loose cannon"? I wasn't aware that was the definitive metric. Do you have something which backs up your claim that someone CAN'T be a loose cannon if they honor a campaign promise to screw the party whose ticket they're running on?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm not necessarily suggesting the DNC is shifting leftwards, I'm saying them shifting rightwards on economics is a bad plan re: party unity.
Plus, I don't think there's enough support in America (or any other western country) for genuine fiscal conservatism to make it worth the bother.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Which is why I referenced the 14th amendment...
And no it isn't, simply stating it doesn't make it so. The establishment clause and how it has been interpreted by the courts does not in anyway indicate that law enforcement cannot take into consideration the characteristics of potential threats. At a minimum you would have to show that it causes harm or entangles church and state. That would not be the case.
My actual position is that police should patrol neighborhoods based on if they are crime-ridden. If there is a particularly factor that helps ascertain where threats are (say investigation of predominately Italian places of business if the police are attempting to investigate the mafia in the old days of New York City. The goal isn't to hassle Italians but to do police work and they have a lead to do it with) then the police should be free to do it.
The bottom line is that when confronting the ugly specter of suicide bombings is that the only unifying characteristic is that the perpetrators are Muslim Jihadists. Being politically correct and leaving us open to more attacks is absolutely insane. No other religious group in the modern day acts like this. Does that mean we should ban Muslims or attack Muslims or anything like that? No but additional investigation and keeping your eyes open isn't illegal or unconstitutional.
Who are the lefties going to vote for? The Republicans?
Fiscal conservatism, no, but fiscal sanity, why not (i.e. not increasing taxes by $200 billion a year a la Sanders)?
You're moving the goalposts. The question isn't one of taking a demographic trait into account; it's basing a policy entirely on that trait. If you send extra cops to Muslims neighborhoods with the only determinant being the religion of its inhabitants, you're pretty blatantly violating several amendments.
Hope is the denial of reality
Eh? If you campaign on not funding Obamacare and then vote to fund Obamacare how are you not breaking your campaign promise? Republicans didn't go out and say "We will try to stop Obamacare but if it puts us at risk of government shutdown and endangers are chance of re-election we'll back down." They said they were going to fight it without qualifications. Gotta respect a guy who actually sticks to his guns - frankly if the House and Senate have Republican majorities it would be the minority party in the Senate and the president who would be the obstructionists if nothing gets done. The president is not the the branch that gets to set policy and make laws.
So essentially the congress that has a sub 20% approval rating are the people who you should be trying to make friends with? Sorry but if you go into a den of sell outs and big government socialists I'm totally OK with the guy who gives them all the finger. The nice thing about politics is that political tides change. Cruz may actually be ahead of his time... Though sadly I actually don't believe that is true. The next generation has been raised on the ideal of being pampered by the nanny state. We'll continue to slide further down into the rabbit hole of bit by bit.
Yeah, gotta respect the guy who utterly fails at the one thing politicians are elected to do: govern. When did you decide that form is more important than substance?
So it's better to have awful laws on the books than to move even the slightest amount from one's preference point?
Hope is the denial of reality
Except he is one person and there are more big government senators than small government senators. What do you want him to do? Cave in and go along to get along even if he gets nothing but maybe some more money for a campaign and/or seats on committees? That kind of shit is what people are sick of.
Can you provide a single example where Cruz's vote would have led to a different law being on the books today?
You're not impinging on establishment, Lewk, you're screwing around with free exercise and the Court has, in fact, long held that if there are non-religion metrics which the government can use to accomplish the same purpose, it should be using those rather than referring to religion. And that would be the case here.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Once again if there is harm being done then there is no violation of free exercise. To be fair - I don't think religion should be the ONLY criteria but that it isn't inherently illegal or wrong to use it when *investigating* potential terrorists ties. If you know mosques are recruiting grounds do you have to also investigate churches and synagogues just to also investigate mosques? No - that's stupid.
If you know specific mosques are recruiting grounds you can investigate them because you're investigating that other evidence. You cannot investigate all mosques, lacking evidence of anything besides the fac that Allah is worshiped on their premises. That interferes with free exercise and any blind man can see how. It doesn't even MATTER if you're also investigating synagogues or churches because, again, it's not an establishment issue. You are interfering with the free exercise of the Islamic religion, harassing and surveilling with no basis but their choice of worship, regardless of what you're doing with other worship premises.
And no, Lewk, the fact that some other people in some other place who are Muslim are engaging in or have engaged in terrorist activities is not evidence.
You're not just violating the 1st amendment here, by the way, but also the 4th. Search and seizure without due process, i.e. surveillance without any kind of probable cause or even suspicion.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 03-28-2016 at 06:06 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
A ding-bat. In the primaries.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Look at Canada which nationally has the NDP, Liberals and Tories ad well as regional parties. It's possible to have three even under our systems but I agree that the directly elected Presidential post helps lead to a binary choice.
I'd almost say that I want Cruz to win the elections to see Lewk eat his words on the merits of 'keeping your word' as the Cruz presidency goes down in flames for sheer inability to cooperate with anybody.
Congratulations America
It wouldn't be illegal because you'd only focus on one religion, it'd be illegal because religious affiliation does not justify general govt. surveillance. The vast majority of American Muslims aren't terrorists. Just because someone is a Muslim does not mean you have legally valid grounds to monitor him "just in case". It'd be easier to defend monitoring all American men just in case they may be rapists. At least that wouldn't be arbitrary
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote