2020 Presidential Race

#19,053
#19,053
RockyTop85 said:
As to the first one: Potentially. I don’t feel particularly put upon by learning that if I illegally murder or beat a gay man it might be a hate crime.

The civil rights act is what makes it illegal to refuse to serve a protected class. I suppose there’s more of a beef there, but it’s still equal treatment since the civil rights act just outlaws bases for discrimination. It doesn’t say you can’t discriminate against black people, it says you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, so it just enforces treating everyone equally. You’d still have the religious basis to refuse to serve as that’s not recognized under the 1A and the civil rights act cannot countermand that.

Don’t know enough about the last two to comment on that.
Click to expand...
My problem with classifying things as hate crimes that aren't actually hate crimes(i.e. the motivation wasn't actually based upon race, religion, or sexual orientation) is that it perpetuates a message of persecution where persecution may not have been in play.

In some ways, I think SCV has a very valid point. We no longer live in the world we did when the civil rights act was passed. If someone want to refuse service for reasons as absurd as skin color, religion, or sexual orientation, why not let them and let the market take care of itself? I happen to believe that as word spread, such establishments would see less business, and profit little or be forced to close altogether. True bigotry(as compared to perceived bigotry) is far less accepted in today's world.

As for Louder's last comments, I think it's in reference to the mythical "white privilege". The concept gets heavily pushed along with white guilt. I'm a straight white male. I don't think that makes me superior to anyone. I also don't think it makes me inferior to anyone. It's insulting to me that people think I've been privileged in any way, or that I should feel guilt for being white. I'm of the opinion, too many people put emphasis on what makes us different, and not enough emphasis on what makes us the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and tbwhhs
#19,054
#19,054
Ever notice how many times we let the chance to have honest conversation pass and choose just to be snarky to each other instead?
 
#19,059
#19,059
tvolsfan said:
Nothing about him was ever remotely democratic, and there’s a good chance he was murdering people for the Bolsheviks well before he came to power.
Click to expand...

Exactly. His intentions, and those of the Bolsheviks before him, were disguised through popular political speech - where no normal citizen could possibly see the coming calamity of what they supported - and false promises that all would be made whole and fairness would be the rule. Guessing it won’t work out that way either under Bernie, Warren, et al.
“Peace, bread and land”.
 
#19,065
#19,065
SpaceCoastVol said:
Explain 'affirmative action' then.
Click to expand...
Affirmative action is not a benefit afforded to all protected classes. It’s a specific doctrine that applies on the basis of one discriminating factor. The idea being, apparently, to try to undo decades of disadvantage created by slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation and level the playing field. It is strictly education based. There is no “you must hire protected classes” affirmative action from the government, that I’m aware of. .

Women, the elderly, gays, and foreign nationals don’t receive consideration under affirmative action, that I’m aware of. Nobody is proposing that gays should, either.

Affirmative action is bad policy, it should be repealed in favor of pure merit based admissions for public colleges. I don’t think it does what was intended but I also don’t think it’s some boogeyman.
 
#19,066
#19,066
C-south said:
The math doesn’t add up. If it did we’d have went something along that route a long time ago.
Click to expand...
zeppelin128 said:
@Persian Vol is probably best to speak about it.
Click to expand...

When you remove the advertisement expenses, bureaucratic expenses, and overall for profit motive of private health insurance, the cost will decrease significantly. And so theoretically there should be a drop in the cost if you were to simply transfer your payment method from a private entity to a public entity. There has been skepticism on whether we will truly save that much money considering the plan includes also providing comprehensive health insurance including dental and vision. The reality is that the overall cost might ultimately not come down to the degree projected, but the beauty in the plan isn’t simply the decrease in cost, but that there would be a far more simplistic system that would eliminate the complex and restrictive in/out of network barriers that currently exists, and that it is fully comprehensive. You would have the freedom to go to any doctor or hospital you want, without the stress of worrying if you would be covered or not. No more awkward phone calls from your insurance company in the hospital bed and being told that your treatment won’t be fully covered. It’s not free, but it’s free at the point of service.
 
#19,067
#19,067
RockyTop85 said:
Affirmative action is not a benefit afforded to all protected classes. It’s a specific doctrine that applies on the basis of one discriminating factor. The idea being, apparently, to try to undo decades of disadvantage created by slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation and level the playing field. It is strictly education based. There is no “you must hire protected classes” affirmative action from the government, that I’m aware of. .

Women, the elderly, gays, and foreign nationals don’t receive consideration under affirmative action, that I’m aware of. Nobody is proposing that gays should, either.

Affirmative action is bad policy, it should be repealed in favor of pure merit based admissions for public colleges. I don’t think it does what was intended but I also don’t think it’s some boogeyman.
Click to expand...
I think w actually agree. But ya know what... Jim crow was over a looooong time ago, so it is a hollow argument to justify preferential status based on race.
 
#19,069
#19,069
SpaceCoastVol said:
I think w actually agree. But ya know what... Jim crow was over a looooong time ago, so it is a hollow argument to justify preferential status based on race.
Click to expand...

I don’t think we’ll agree on whether the justifications for affirmative action are valid, but I do agree that affirmative action does not effectively address those justifications. I don’t think the government can do fix those problems and trying creates new problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#19,072
#19,072
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t think we’ll agree on whether the justifications for affirmative action are valid, but I do agree that affirmative action does not effectively address those justifications. I don’t think the government can do fix those problems and trying creates new problems.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Affirmative action is racist government policy. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM
#19,073
#19,073
Saw my first Presidential 2020 ad today.. watching the Texas vs Iowa St. game there was a Pete For America one...short on substance...must have been from one of his rallies...not a terrible one though
 
#19,074
#19,074
VolnJC said:
Saw my first Presidential 2020 ad today.. watching the Texas vs Iowa St. game there was a Pete For America one...short on substance...must have been from one of his rallies...not a terrible one though
Click to expand...
Did they show his husband picking out white house china patterns? It'll be a sad day when something like that happens.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top