• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

CharmCityChampions

Practice Squad
To be fair, the GOP are just as argumentative and childish. We are just seeing this side of the Democrats because they are not in power any more. Rest assured, had Hillary won, we would be seeing the usual crap from GOP right now.

But I want to say, there are many people like @The Raven . You may have noticed he and I (and the other great posters here as well) disagree on a lot, but I have the utmost respect for him. He's a young guy as well, and he has a good head on his shoulders, and has ideals that he strives for and is committed to. He has integrity. I may think he is wrong, he may think I'm a jaded fool, but this entire thread is proof that there are many reasonable people in this world who can talk about differences without making it personal or attacking each other. So don't give up on it! Just find a different group of people.

Oh I don't have any issues with you guys here and with discussing politics, I was just talking about things in general lol.
 

The Raven

Veteran
I'd say Willbacker already beat me to the punch. I'm not so sure there is such a beast as a nonpartisan anything anymore. But that is mere speculation on my part. Which, coincidentally, is precisely what is fueling the intelligence community: speculation. The Ruskies played around with our electorate process? Hmm...naturally, since Trump has a history of doing business with those commie bastards, and everyone hates Trump, that must mean Trump is somehow involved. Lets throw everything we can think of at the wall and see what sticks. There is no evidence, merely speculation.

What would I say if it were someone other than Comey? I honestly do not know. See, I know what you're getting at here (I think), so it's important to note that my stance on all of this isn't based on a pro-Trump perspective, it is my disgust with all the nonsense and yes, "fake news", that is a large driving factor here. Let's say instead of Comey, it was someone that I personally have the utmost trust and faith in - Trey Gowdy. If Gowdy were leading the investigation, and Trump fired him, it would certainly raise an eyebrow. Gowdy doesn't fuck around, he will go for the throat righteously. But, at the end of the day, they have been looking into this for some time already, and still not a shred of actual evidence. The proof is in the pudding. So ultimately, I would find myself in the rare predicament of feeling disappointment in Gowdy.
HOWEVER....I don't think Gowdy would get fired in the first place. Comey was fired for, well being Comey. It's not like nobody saw this coming. Most of us just thought Trump would wait until after the investigations to get rid of him, for this exact reason (people accusing him of trying to obstruct justice).
[doublepost=1495835193,1495831428][/doublepost]A side note - 130+ posts deep, and nobody was called a homer or troll yet. I'm impressed LOL
I'll let Russia rest. It seems we agree on some other things at least, but not this. And that's okay. I think that your reason for not buying Russia is perfectly valid, and to be honest, I shared your viewpoint until the Comey firing. That's when I bought in. I will say, though, that if Trump and Congress actually set an agenda and got to work on real policy, you wouldn't see the press and the Dems bashing so much. The press is lowkey tired of this nonsense, as are the Dems.

Also, high five for not being assholes.

Now, this goddamn healthcare debacle...
[doublepost=1495913867][/doublepost]
Since you guys took my topic and flipped on me... can we add an alignment poll?
I'd be for that.
[doublepost=1495914225][/doublepost]
As a young person, I would say I learn towards being conservative. To be honest though I cant even stand politics anymore. I don't watch the news (only local mainly), I can't stand the constant bickering and childish attitude between both parties and within both parties, especially the democratic party right now. I don't think I've ever seen a bigger group of people act like children and whine and cry as much as the democrats do it lately. People want this country to be successful? Then our politicians need to get off their high horse and actually try to work with each other, not this crap they are doing now. I'm just sick and disgusted with it all. No wonder many younger people don't bother with politics anymore, because of this crap we have going on now. Once news outlets start reporting news that isn't biased and doesn't have a agenda, then ill start watching, until then...I'm out. Really, I don't even talk about politics with people much anymore either, because it gets my blood boiling having to talk about these morons we have as our politicians.

As someone tangentially involved in politics, and as someone who one day wants to make the transition inside the beast, let me tell you not to give up. It's hard to get involved, but get involved. Local central committees are dying for people to get involved at the grassroots level. I know a few and they all have the same complaint. To quote one guy, "They call us out of touch, but they aren't here talking to us."

People say the system doesn't work for them, but this system only works when you work for the system, so to speak. Get involved. I would encourage you to get involved locally, and look at the things going on at the county level. Looking at the local and county level gives me a lot of optimism.

From my perspective, I'm seeing more and more bipartisanship at the state level. Dems, yes, even the ones in Maryland, are moving right, and Republicans are indeed moving left on some issues. I mean, that Hogan pushed any sort of paid sick leave policy at all is a pretty big step to the left.
 

K-Dog

MVP
Who here has recently read the constitution?
Does anyone here own a copy of it?
 

29BmoreBird22

Staff Member
Moderator
Writer
Can you specify what the "separation of church and state" really is?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We have two clauses in the First Amendment that are fairly clear to me when discussing this matter.

1. The Establishment Clause. This particular clause says that the national government CANNOT establish a national religion, much like what England did in the 1600's.
2. The Free Exercise Clause. This clause says that the government CANNOT stop you from practicing any religion ( see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah for a very interesting case that provides an exemption due to unnecessary sacrifice of animals).

There's a lot of gray area in here as to what the government can and cannot do. For example, schools are allowed to display religious figures (10 Commandments, Bibles) IF they have non-religious figures as well (Constitution). A public space may display a nativity, but only if they also display Santa. Government aid can go to private, religious schools for funding for supplies (computers, for example) under the Lemon Test which says that this is for an educational purpose and what's stopping a public school student from looking up religious teachings on a computer? Get the idea, kinda?

Essentially, when people talk about America being a Christian nation (I am a Christian), I have to shake my head. America SHOULD NOT have any religious affiliation, at all.

Conservatives are known to be extremely black and white about the Constitution (what it says is what it means, no room for reading between the lines), but when it comes to the First Amendment, they just kinda brush aside the fact that we cannot establish America to be a Christian nation.
 

The Raven

Veteran
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We have two clauses in the First Amendment that are fairly clear to me when discussing this matter.

1. The Establishment Clause. This particular clause says that the national government CANNOT establish a national religion, much like what England did in the 1600's.
2. The Free Exercise Clause. This clause says that the government CANNOT stop you from practicing any religion ( see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah for a very interesting case that provides an exemption due to unnecessary sacrifice of animals).

There's a lot of gray area in here as to what the government can and cannot do. For example, schools are allowed to display religious figures (10 Commandments, Bibles) IF they have non-religious figures as well (Constitution). A public space may display a nativity, but only if they also display Santa. Government aid can go to private, religious schools for funding for supplies (computers, for example) under the Lemon Test which says that this is for an educational purpose and what's stopping a public school student from looking up religious teachings on a computer? Get the idea, kinda?

Essentially, when people talk about America being a Christian nation (I am a Christian), I have to shake my head. America SHOULD NOT have any religious affiliation, at all.

Conservatives are known to be extremely black and white about the Constitution (what it says is what it means, no room for reading between the lines), but when it comes to the First Amendment, they just kinda brush aside the fact that we cannot establish America to be a Christian nation.

Don't forget about the militia clause in the second amendment. I've read scholarly articles and spoken to con law professors who maintain that the second amendment should be at least a little more limited due to the militia clause. That is up for debate though.

Back to religion: if a school shows the Bible, should they not also have to show religious texts from other religions, as a means of not showing preference? I know that some laws, such as laws to expand prayer in school, must specify that you have the freedom to pray in accordance with all religions.
 

29BmoreBird22

Staff Member
Moderator
Writer
Don't forget about the militia clause in the second amendment. I've read scholarly articles and spoken to con law professors who maintain that the second amendment should be at least a little more limited due to the militia clause. That is up for debate though.
I would tend to agree with that as well. America spends more on it's military than countries 2-12 on the list. We don't ever need to form a standing militia. There isn't a given right to a gun, but I'm going to just stop that one there because this is one topic I could see getting heated.
 

The Raven

Veteran
I would tend to agree with that as well. America spends more on it's military than countries 2-12 on the list. We don't ever need to form a standing militia. There isn't a given right to a gun, but I'm going to just stop that one there because this is one topic I could see getting heated.
I mean, I know I've never heard of any militias, and I've lived in some pretty rural areas, too. Don't know anyone that's joined one either. I'll let it rest because I think I've made my point.
 

jboy19

Pro Bowler
I would tend to agree with that as well. America spends more on it's military than countries 2-12 on the list. We don't ever need to form a standing militia. There isn't a given right to a gun, but I'm going to just stop that one there because this is one topic I could see getting heated.

Under Heller the second amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm without any connection to service in a militia.
 

29BmoreBird22

Staff Member
Moderator
Writer
Under Heller the second amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm without any connection to service in a militia.
I never debated whether it currently is legal; I was saying I disagree with the interpretation that was decided, but again, not going to go too far into this.
 

K-Dog

MVP
"
Essentially, when people talk about America being a Christian nation (I am a Christian), I have to shake my head. America SHOULD NOT have any religious affiliation, at all.

.

While I will wholeheartedly agree this is not a christian nation, it is not exactly secular either. Which I think is the real point the founding fathers were aiming for. Religion can be found all over a few historical documents and words and writing of many, but not all founding fathers.
I think the thing to pay attention to is the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion (as some have actually claimed )

The thing about the constitution is that is is not intended to limit the people it is meant to limit the government in the case of the first amendment is absolutely limits the government from "this should be your religion or that should be your religion or you should worship your God in such a manner as this... " but additionally it also limits the government from saying "my kid can not pray at school, or I can not read my bible and have a bible study at the park "

Religious symbols and mentions on government property is kinda tickey-tack for me. If a judge has the ten commandments hanging in his office or there is a manger scene on government property, or even "In God We Trust" on money. Those things are very religious of course, but they are not establishing a state (mandated) religion. But I can certainly understand how someone can feel "threatened" by such things. They are not forcing or mandating any religion, but noting at least, celebrating at most it's existence.
 

29BmoreBird22

Staff Member
Moderator
Writer
The thing about the constitution is that is is not intended to limit the people it is meant to limit the government in the case of the first amendment is absolutely limits the government from "this should be your religion or that should be your religion or you should worship your God in such a manner as this... " but additionally it also limits the government from saying "my kid can not pray at school, or I can not read my bible and have a bible study at the park "

Religious symbols and mentions on government property is kinda tickey-tack for me. If a judge has the ten commandments hanging in his office or there is a manger scene on government property, or even "In God We Trust" on money. Those things are very religious of course, but they are not establishing a state (mandated) religion. But I can certainly understand how someone can feel "threatened" by such things. They are not forcing or mandating any religion, but noting at least, celebrating at most it's existence.
The government can, however, prevent organized prayer at school.

In every single history class I was in, we always had the Ten Commandments hanging. Never thought much of it. You don't even really notice it and I was in those classrooms for nine months a year. I think you'd only really notice or be threatened if you were hardcore against any religious propaganda, for lack of a better word.

It's also interesting to say the Constitution is meant to limit the government because the Constitution actually strengthened the federal government and gave more governing power to the federal government. Just an interesting thought.
 

K-Dog

MVP
The government can, however, prevent organized prayer at school.

In every single history class I was in, we always had the Ten Commandments hanging. Never thought much of it. You don't even really notice it and I was in those classrooms for nine months a year. I think you'd only really notice or be threatened if you were hardcore against any religious propaganda, for lack of a better word.

It's also interesting to say the Constitution is meant to limit the government because the Constitution actually strengthened the federal government and gave more governing power to the federal government. Just an interesting thought.

1) but not if it is student lead and voluntary participated.

2) which there are more than a few of those out

3) possibly symantics. It is able to be strengthened when its duties are more defined.
 

Oldfaithful

Hall of Famer
do any of yall own guns?
It's hard to be a gun-owner in California so no. I do not own any. My uncle somehow managed to acquire a concealed carry permit in California(which is REALLY hard to get).

I think some regulation is necessary with guns(more thorough background checks, making firearms training MANDATORY, etc) but not too much. Imo too much regulation on anything never tends to work out.

But that's just me.
[doublepost=1495994782,1495994426][/doublepost]
To be fair, the GOP are just as argumentative and childish. We are just seeing this side of the Democrats because they are not in power any more. Rest assured, had Hillary won, we would be seeing the usual crap from GOP right now.

But I want to say, there are many people like @The Raven . You may have noticed he and I (and the other great posters here as well) disagree on a lot, but I have the utmost respect for him. He's a young guy as well, and he has a good head on his shoulders, and has ideals that he strives for and is committed to. He has integrity. I may think he is wrong, he may think I'm a jaded fool, but this entire thread is proof that there are many reasonable people in this world who can talk about differences without making it personal or attacking each other. So don't give up on it! Just find a different group of people.
That is very triggering and upsetting. Being a member of the GOP is not indicative of the behavior of all republicans. Remember, when the GOP screws up it's not a republican issue. This forum is supposed to be a safe space and I'm hurt by this. :p

I have to agree with that. Even though @The Raven is older than me. He's not disrespectful about his opinions. So I am more than willing to listen. I agree with him on some, but not everything.

Fly on the other hand is a massive homer-troll. :p . Nah. He's cool too. Check yo facebook
 

JO_75

Hall of Famer
I want to throw out some questions and see if we can get a good debate going about some stuff.

1) We've made so much advances in technology, some may argue too much but yet in politics we still have the same old tired 2 party system. Do you guys feel the 2 party system is out of date and should have been advanced in a way by now that we should have had legit 3rd party candidates to vote for?

2) Speaking of our 2 party system, most would say this is the most divided our country has been in years(many blame the last 8 years of Obama on the fact we are so divided at this point) so shouldn't we also just get past candidates being for Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Liberal, and trying to unify this country as those labels also divide the country down the middle.
 

K-Dog

MVP
do any of yall own guns?

For sake of conversation I will say yes, but I choose to not state publicly what I may or my not have.
[doublepost=1495999822,1495999309][/doublepost]
I want to throw out some questions and see if we can get a good debate going about some stuff.

1) We've made so much advances in technology, some may argue too much but yet in politics we still have the same old tired 2 party system. Do you guys feel the 2 party system is out of date and should have been advanced in a way by now that we should have had legit 3rd party candidates to vote for?

2) Speaking of our 2 party system, most would say this is the most divided our country has been in years(many blame the last 8 years of Obama on the fact we are so divided at this point) so shouldn't we also just get past candidates being for Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Liberal, and trying to unify this country as those labels also divide the country down the middle.


I can answer both questions in this.
The past three or four presidential elections I voted for Gary Johnson.
Sometimes because I just wanted third party visability. Sometimes I believed he really was the best man for the job ( it wasn't a stretch this past election)

The loyalty to party over the people is disgusting. They are in it for themselves not us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top