Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

ParaGoomba Slayer September 16th, 2016 06:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2108269)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ParaGoomba Slayer (Post 2108189)
Hillary has to win because women should have the right to their own bodies. A blastocyst or a fetus is not a person, therefore it should not override the rights of a an actual person.

Okay, so if that is your single most important issue, Gary Johnson is the much better presidential candidate with that stance.

Since it's my single most important issue, I'm not going to throw away my vote on a third party candidate.

Dad_Scaper September 16th, 2016 09:26 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Yup. As I said earlier in this thread about third party candidates, my vote is both more precious and less precious than that. I don't care to own a bumper sticker that says "don't blame me," I just want not to have a xenophobic incompetent narcissist as President.

Nukatha September 17th, 2016 10:46 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
And I'm never going to throw my vote away either of these two.
How the heck do you personally determine a 'wasted vote'? It seems to me that by your metric, any vote for an individual who lost the election was wasted.

You have two individuals so entrenched in the cronyism and corruption that both exploit daily to their benefit. How can you, in good conscience, vote *FOR* either candidate?
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1625...cy-you-see-you

Dad_Scaper September 17th, 2016 11:04 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, your cynicism is dangerous to our democracy, and to world peace. Your cynicism with respect to Clinton is particularly upsetting. See dok's post, above.

Back during the primary season, I'd already read about the Clinton Foundation and I thought it might be a problem for her. Since all the coverage of it more recently, though, it turns out that the Clinton Foundation has dotted its I's and crossed its T's and has been an efficient force for good in the world. I don't understand where a well-informed person gets this incredibly toxic dislike of Clinton, but it's there. See dok's post, above.

But even if you were right, I have too much to lose. I have a job and a family and a community; I have a country and my country has its dignity. Electing the racist pumpkin would imperil all of it, *now*, in the *short term*. So I'll vote for Clinton, because I believe she's qualified and I believe the so-called "scandals" have been essentially meritless from people whose job it is to make scandals about her (and Obama, etc.). And what is a meritless accusation? Nothing. Nothing on the scale.

Against her, an unqualified narcissistic buffoon whose base is the worst of us as a nation.

So, a reason to vote for her, a reason to vote against him. You counter with a cynical comment about "cronyism and corruption," but cynicism is a point of view. Not facts.

Dysole September 17th, 2016 11:15 PM

Reasoning
 
Because although I want to fix our election system, that is not a feasible goal this election. Therefore while I am not enthused about either mainstream candidate, I will support the one more closely aligned with my views. (And it's not even a close contest; I knew my vote would be Democratic a couple months into the primaries) Until we fix the voting system, I see attempts to bring a third party candidate in as ultimately just going to kill one of the other two dominant parties or maintain its own status quo. That just swaps the faces; it doesn't eliminate the problem.

On another more personal matter, voting Democratic has sadly become a matter of survival for me even setting aside Trump. The GOP has made it very clear that they don't want me and will actively pass legislation targeting me. While I sometimes worry that the Democratic party might care more about my vote as a member of the LGBTQ bloc rather than me as a person, they haven't tried to pass legislation actively targeting me. When one of the parties in play has a theoretical future that confines you largely to the Pacific Northwest for safety concerns, you kind of get okay with the other candidate regardless of other concerns you might have.

~Dysole, who apologizes if she comes across as harsh

dok September 18th, 2016 01:01 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Dysole brings up a point I've brought up with some other people in other forums. If you can say "I'm OK with losing this election because [long game]" then you are coming from a place of privilege, where you basically think you're going to be OK no matter what happens. That's not true for a lot of people.

Additionally, you're probably:
  • Underestimating the extent of negative impact you, personally would suffer from a bad result
  • Wrong about how good that long game impact would be.
I'm going to copy something I wrote on another forum. It was addressed to someone who was leaning towards Jill Stein, but much of the content is meaningful anyway.

Spoiler Alert!

keglo September 18th, 2016 01:34 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110317)
And I'm never going to throw my vote away either of these two.
How the heck do you personally determine a 'wasted vote'? It seems to me that by your metric, any vote for an individual who lost the election was wasted.

You have two individuals so entrenched in the cronyism and corruption that both exploit daily to their benefit. How can you, in good conscience, vote *FOR* either candidate?
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1625...cy-you-see-you

Well said. I approve this message. :)

Nukatha September 18th, 2016 03:04 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2110332)
Dysole brings up a point I've brought up with some other people in other forums. If you can say "I'm OK with losing this election because [long game]" then you are coming from a place of privilege, where you basically think you're going to be OK no matter what happens. That's not true for a lot of people.

Additionally, you're probably:
  • Underestimating the extent of negative impact you, personally would suffer from a bad result
  • Wrong about how good that long game impact would be.
I'm going to copy something I wrote on another forum. It was addressed to someone who was leaning towards Jill Stein, but much of the content is meaningful anyway.

But I'm in the position where I honestly believe the policy that either Clinton or Trump would enact is damaging and downright dangerous to this nation. If I either result is a loss, why not take a stand?

Both, in different ways, seek to remove civil liberties of individuals. The government has no right to tell an individual to take part in an action that opposes his religious beliefs, and the government has no right to define marriage or remove an individuals method of personal defense. The government has no right to determine winners and losers in industry, yet does so now with countless subsidies to businesses and branches of industry that could not support themselves if left alone. Neither of these two candidates would do a thing about that, and would increase said support as it benefits them individually. Trump's pushed for government assistance to his personal endeavors for years, and you all know the huge donations Clinton's campaign and foundation have received from corporations over the years.

I honestly cannot see a year 2020 that actually has the United States better off then than today with either of these two in charge. You can argue all day over who is worse, but I have yet to be convinced that either is good. How horrible do your two choices need to be for you to consider a third option? I've been pushed over that line.

vegietarian18 September 18th, 2016 03:41 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party don't run their presidential campaigns with the goal of winning. If they wanted to wield political power, they could pump the funds they put into the presidential campaign into random seats in Congress and start to make little differences that way. Instead, they just want to influence the political discourse in the direction of issues they think are important. Which is just the future of our environment or your legal right to smoke marijuana, depending on which area of hippiness you prefer.

That doesn't mean you can't vote for them, if you think the issues that they push are important enough for you to give them an ever so slightly louder microphone for next time. But I think it's important to recognize that they don't have the complete platforms, experience, or support necessary to be successful as a president. It is voting for an idea rather than a difference.

What makes me sad is that I don't want to throw my vote away on a third party candidate, and I don't want Trump to win, but I don't want to support the direction I see the Democratic party going in. But I have to do one of these things. It's by far the least of the evils to vote for Hillary, but I am worried that the issues will continue to be attacked in the wrong way and we won't ever fix them but we will have to keep voting Democrat anyways.

Dysole September 18th, 2016 04:59 AM

Ahem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 211036)
The government has no right to tell an individual to take part in an action that opposes his religious beliefs, and the government has no right to define marriage or remove an individuals method of personal defense.

Just have to say that yeah we do put limits on people's religious beliefs. You aren't allowed to use your religious beliefs to justify murder or discriminating by race.

Marriage was established as a constitutional right in the 20s and reaffirmed with Loving vs Virginia and again with Ogerfell (sp.?). As long as marriage is attached to a bunch of federal privileges, it's something they need to define.

As for firearms, overturning the 2nd amendment is hard. Like stupid hard. The one amendment we've overturned was overturning something banning something. A president has insanely little control over that.

I kinda agree with vegie but again my hand is kind of forced.

~Dysole, who really should be asleep but she knew she wouldn't sleep well if she didn't respond

Tornado September 18th, 2016 12:35 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Is that some kind of veiled birther propaganda Kuba2016?

Not sure what you are going for but I support your platform.

And btw, I will have a great. :)

Nukatha September 18th, 2016 04:55 PM

Re: Ahem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysole (Post 2110376)

Just have to say that yeah we do put limits on people's religious beliefs. You aren't allowed to use your religious beliefs to justify murder or discriminating by race.


Dysole, you know what I meant, and what the Libertarian stance on the topic is.
Quote:

Marriage was established as a constitutional right in the 20s and reaffirmed with Loving vs Virginia and again with Ogerfell (sp.?). As long as marriage is attached to a bunch of federal privileges, it's something they need to define.
I don't follow. The only amendment to pass in the 20s was the 19th, guaranteeing that no individual can be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.
Show me exactly where in the Constitution marriage was ever established. Furthermore, I would argue that such legal benefits to marriage are, in fact, unconstitutional. Heck, Loving v Virginia would never have been a thing if governments had not attempted to overstep their bounds and define marriage.

Quote:

As for firearms, overturning the 2nd amendment is hard. Like stupid hard. The one amendment we've overturned was overturning something banning something. A president has insanely little control over that.

I kinda agree with vegie but again my hand is kind of forced.

~Dysole, who really should be asleep but she knew she wouldn't sleep well if she didn't respond
Oh, its absolutely hard, and for good reason. A system of government that rapidly bends to the daily whims of the populace or elected officials is chaotic and unstable. Relatively slow change is the only way to get things done on the grand scale. However, the president can still advocate for his/her causes, and as Mr. Obama and others before him have demonstrated: There are little to no consequences for overstepping one's Constitutional executive powers, allowing them to pseudo-legislate from their desk until Congress or the Court tells them otherwise.
Again, if I see the nation as worse off in 2020 than today under Clinton or Trump, then I cannot vote for either. Can you honestly say that a 2020 after 4 years of a Johnson administration would be worse than 4 years under Mrs. Clinton?

Dad_Scaper September 18th, 2016 05:33 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The line that "government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage" is absolute horse-puckey. First of all, (1) government has been in the business of defining marriage for a loooooooong time. Government cares about marriage for reasons that are deeply rooted in the common law, going back centuries and even millenia. So don't plant that flag that "government should get out of marriage" as if it meant something that was possible. Becuase, (2) it's not happening. As a practical matter, for reasons deeply - and I mean deeply - rooted in the law, those two things are not being separated.

Which means, (3) when you are telling people that government should get out of the marriage business, when they are complaining of an injustice, what you are *really* saying to them is f*** off. It is exactly the same as telling them, in the words of Paul Simon (who was actually doing an old folk song), you will care about them when they craft you a shirt without seam or needlework, and when they find you an acre of land between the salt water and the sea strand. You are telling them to wait for the impossible, and that is an outrage. Justice need not wait until you are ready to open the door for it. That line is routinely offered by people who do not need justice now, so they are perfectly content, from their comfy chairs, to talk about some fantasy world in which they might be willing to agree that others should have the same freedoms they already do.

Just so you know, Nukatha. That "government should be out of the business of marriage" line is an absolute slap in the face to people who want justice now. It's telling them to wait for something that will never, ever happen, and they know it, even if you don't.

Finally, (4) Johnson demonstrably knows nothing about governance. He brings some state house experience to the job, just like Clinton, except that Clinton was also a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State. So, you know, just like Johnson, except a zillion times more qualified.

Meanwhile, (5) while you're still riding around on Johnson's *ahem* bandwagon, it would be courteous of you to acknowledge the point that dok made more eloquently than I, which is that the baggage that's been attached to Clinton has been, literally, unsubstantiated accusations from an industry that exists solely to make accusations. For the same reason that you and I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," I believe you should be able to point to a single actual flame, before advocating for someone clearly less qualified.

Dysole September 18th, 2016 06:18 PM

Break It Down
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110476)
Dysole, you know what I meant, and what the Libertarian stance on the topic is.

I am well aware of the stances. I am also well aware that in BASICALLY SIXTY PERCENT of all states I can be fired (unless I work for the government), evicted, or denied a loan because I am a trans lesbian and I have no legal recourse. Because here's the thing Nukatha. When I've heard people talking about participating in something that goes against their religious beliefs, it isn't the conscientious objector to war stuff. It is almost entirely involving people who are LGBTQ (and even if it's not all, that's the vast majority). I certainly don't think a church should be required to perform any ceremony they don't want to, but once you're out in the public sphere, it's a different set of rules. Sorry if this comes across as less than charitable, but it just feels like people are using religious beliefs to hide behind discrimination (which is interestingly something that also happened during the large Civil Rights movement).


Quote:

I don't follow. The only amendment to pass in the 20s was the 19th, guaranteeing that no individual can be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.
Show me exactly where in the Constitution marriage was ever established. Furthermore, I would argue that such legal benefits to marriage are, in fact, unconstitutional. Heck, Loving v Virginia would never have been a thing if governments had not attempted to overstep their bounds and define marriage.
Couldn't find the 20s case so that could easily be my brain misremembering at a late hour but in the Obergefell (finally looked it up) case, several other earlier court decisions were cited as establishing the right to marry was one of the rights granted by the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. Whether or not the Court redefined marriage is an interesting argument since by the same logic, the court redefined marriage in Loving vs. Virginia which now allowed people of different races to get married.

Quote:

Oh, its absolutely hard, and for good reason. A system of government that rapidly bends to the daily whims of the populace or elected officials is chaotic and unstable. Relatively slow change is the only way to get things done on the grand scale. However, the president can still advocate for his/her causes, and as Mr. Obama and others before him have demonstrated: There are little to no consequences for overstepping one's Constitutional executive powers, allowing them to pseudo-legislate from their desk until Congress or the Court tells them otherwise.
Again, if I see the nation as worse off in 2020 than today under Clinton or Trump, then I cannot vote for either. Can you honestly say that a 2020 after 4 years of a Johnson administration would be worse than 4 years under Mrs. Clinton?
Yes. Yes I can. For one, no other libertarians are in Congress so he's in a worse position than Obama has been unless of course he becomes a Republican using the Libertarian label. We've been over why that's bad for me personally. For two, I have some problems with how Libertarianism reaches its conclusions based on its assumptions so I can't exactly say I'm fond of what they would do in office. For three, a few of Johnson's positions (I want to say vaccine and one other) instantly make me not want to cast a vote for him. I think there's plenty of reasonable doubt here.

~Dysole, who again apologizes if she comes across as harsh. This is an emotional topic for her.

wriggz September 18th, 2016 09:34 PM

Re: Break It Down
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysole (Post 2110492)
~Dysole, who again apologizes if she comes across as harsh. This is an emotional topic for her.

There are a few issue where you are fully allowed to be harsh. Human rights is definitely one of them.

I like the idea of individual freedoms (as seen above I'm actually in support of Trump's right to Privancy regarding his tax and health history). However, there are times where the common good and common sense have to override bigotry and tradition.

Equal rights for all humans is something that should not be based in political parties. "Some Animals are more Equal" is a quote that quickly comes to mind. We have to be vigilant, we have to be careful, and we have to stay the course.

But, wriggz you might say; You don't support the Right to firearms. It is true, I don't think this is a "God (universal, Biological, etc) given right". I think it is a privilege, and one you should prove. No one has the right to own nuclear weapons or even drive, the first is forbidden the second is a privilege. However, everyone has the Right to prove they are worthy of the privilege. You want to own a 9mm, Prove it.

It all comes back to the lottery of life. It would be wonderful if we voted for the candidate that was best for everyone, not ourselves, but I suspect that would be asking too much.

Ranior September 18th, 2016 10:49 PM

Re: Ahem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110476)
Again, if I see the nation as worse off in 2020 than today under Clinton or Trump, then I cannot vote for either. Can you honestly say that a 2020 after 4 years of a Johnson administration would be worse than 4 years under Mrs. Clinton?

For the record, even if you see the nation as worse off under Clinton or Trump, you absolutely can vote for either since those are the only two who can actually win. Yes you may think you are picking between the lesser of two evils and you may not actually want either person to be president....but those are your only two choices that can actually win.

Casting your vote for anyone else is your choice, but it will have as much effect on who wins as if you never cast it at all. As many of us here have and will point out, we care more than that. Although many of us also think Clinton will make a fine president so we aren't voting for someone we don't like. But even if I didn't, I'd still only cast my vote for someone that can actually win.

As for the second part, uhm yes. Easily. I think things will clearly be better with 4 years of a Clinton administration than a Johnson administration. I understand many feel otherwise, but I'm sure many also feel like I do.

Nukatha September 19th, 2016 10:45 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

The line that "government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage" is absolute horse-puckey. First of all, (1) government has been in the business of defining marriage for a loooooooong time. Government cares about marriage for reasons that are deeply rooted in the common law, going back centuries and even millenia. So don't plant that flag that "government should get out of marriage" as if it meant something that was possible. Becuase, (2) it's not happening. As a practical matter, for reasons deeply - and I mean deeply - rooted in the law, those two things are not being separated.
Except that we're not talking about any historical precedent here. I'm talking about the legal powers actually enumerated to the federal government in the US Constitution, which says nothing about giving the government the power to define marriage. An amendment ratified by the states is necessary to do so.

Quote:

Which means, (3) when you are telling people that government should get out of the marriage business, when they are complaining of an injustice, what you are *really* saying to them is f*** off. It is exactly the same as telling them, in the words of Paul Simon (who was actually doing an old folk song), you will care about them when they craft you a shirt without seam or needlework, and when they find you an acre of land between the salt water and the sea strand. You are telling them to wait for the impossible, and that is an outrage. Justice need not wait until you are ready to open the door for it. That line is routinely offered by people who do not need justice now, so they are perfectly content, from their comfy chairs, to talk about some fantasy world in which they might be willing to agree that others should have the same freedoms they already do.

Just so you know, Nukatha. That "government should be out of the business of marriage" line is an absolute slap in the face to people who want justice now. It's telling them to wait for something that will never, ever happen, and they know it, even if you don't.
If I may make the claim, I don't need the government to legitimize my marriage. It doesn't make my union any more legitimate to know that some bureaucrat signed off on some certificate. Its a union between two individuals. (3 if you're religious and count God), but the State is not in there, and has no reason to be in there. And what justice are you talking about at this point anyways? Last I checked, as it stands since Obergefell v. Hodges, marriage equality is a thing in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Quote:

Finally, (4) Johnson demonstrably knows nothing about governance. He brings some state house experience to the job, just like Clinton, except that Clinton was also a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State. So, you know, just like Johnson, except a zillion times more qualified.
Are you feeling alright? How, in your mind, does a two-term governor of a State 'know nothing of governance'?

Quote:

Meanwhile, (5) while you're still riding around on Johnson's *ahem* bandwagon, it would be courteous of you to acknowledge the point that dok made more eloquently than I, which is that the baggage that's been attached to Clinton has been, literally, unsubstantiated accusations from an industry that exists solely to make accusations. For the same reason that you and I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," I believe you should be able to point to a single actual flame, before advocating for someone clearly less qualified.
From today's news: it isn't a smoking gun on Hillary directly, but it is on those just under her. http://regated.com/2016/09/paul-comb...troy-evidence/

Clinton knew very early on that the assault on the Libya compound was not due to a Youtube video, and did make statements contrary to the that, with some ambiguity to fall back on, as is usual for politicians.

She seems to think that Mr. Comey called her 'truthful' after her testimony. She also lied about that whole 'Landed under sniper fire' thing.

Now, say what you will, but I cannot think of any reason to lie about that last one. It doesn't benefit her personally or politically to claim to have needed to duck and cover, and I believe it says a lot about her character. I can't vote for that.

Dad_Scaper September 19th, 2016 10:49 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I understand. In your fantasy world, marriage can be separated from the government.

You carry on in your fantasy world. The rest of us will try to make the real world - in which the two are inseparable, and have been for *centuries* - as good as we can for those of us who have to live in it.

I've heard Johnson in interviews. For a former governor, he does, in fact, sound clueless. Surprisingly so. Regardless, he's not nearly as qualified as Clinton. And I don't need to see another video throwing smoke at Clinton. After all these years of phony scandals and unfounded accusations, I'm ready to see some fire. If you haven't got it, admit you haven't got it and don't ask me to watch your video.

All Your Pie September 19th, 2016 11:00 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The precedent of giving the government powers not enumerated in the constitution (but also not specifically prohibited) is one that goes back to very near the founding of the nation and upheld through practically every Supreme Court decision from there on out. Without that principle, the federal government can do practically nothing. The same reason you've given for why its involvement in marriage is also unconstitutional would also void all federal regulatory laws, conservation, and aid. I'm not currently inclined to look up the court case that ruled this way; maybe I'll do it later.

Those federal marriage benefits aren't just the satisfaction of knowing that your marriage is recognized by the state. It comes with tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and numerous other federal provisions. Two people can be perfectly happy in their non-federal union, but that won't help them if their spouse dies and they don't have access to any of their property.

Dad_Scaper September 19th, 2016 11:15 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Government interference in marriage goes back to long, long before the founding of the United States. Didn't any of you guys see Braveheart? That story - literally - starts with government interference with marriage, and a practice that goes back to ancient times.

Land rights, inheritance rights, taxes, authority over children, all of it. The fabric of the activities of a married person's daily life is absolutely interwoven with both (1) the government and (2) the spouse, and there is no magic want that will separate the strands.

Nukatha September 20th, 2016 12:20 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Those federal marriage benefits aren't just the satisfaction of knowing that your marriage is recognized by the state. It comes with tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and numerous other federal provisions. Two people can be perfectly happy in their non-federal union, but that won't help them if their spouse dies and they don't have access to any of their property.
All of which, save the tax benefits, (which I also disagree with), can easily be written down in a legal agreement between any two persons, outside of the government or any legal marriage.

Dad_Scaper, tradition doesn't make something right. "The way we have always done things" is an incredibly weak argument.

Quote:

I've heard Johnson in interviews. For a former governor, he does, in fact, sound clueless. Surprisingly so. Regardless, he's not nearly as qualified as Clinton. And I don't need to see another video throwing smoke at Clinton. After all these years of phony scandals and unfounded accusations, I'm ready to see some fire. If you haven't got it, admit you haven't got it and don't ask me to watch your video.
I didn't link to a video.
If you prefer, here's a link from thehill. Feel free to skip the video and just read the article. http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...clinton-emails
And name for me three things that Mrs. Clinton has accomplished.

All Your Pie September 20th, 2016 12:58 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Naturally, you can accomplish most things by means of a legal agreement. However, marriage is a simple and all-encompassing way to get all the things you want from entering into a spousal relationship with someone all at once. Maybe an equivalent system where marriage and its benefits are separate could be created, but I'm not sure why we would bother. If your position is just that marriage should not be something inherently recognized by or related to the state, period, then I'm not sure why it would be worth going to all the trouble to change that. Seems to be a largely superficial difference to me.

I suppose I should also mention who I'm going to vote to elect in this election thread. It's Hilary, mostly for reasons that have been enumerated by other people. Plus I dread another conservative justice being appointed to the Supreme Court. Republicans have had their eye on the abortion and gay marriage decisions for a while, and a conservative-leaning majority could roll both of those back and would certainly prevent any further social progress. That's about the gist of my decision-making.

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 01:02 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110777)
Quote:

Those federal marriage benefits aren't just the satisfaction of knowing that your marriage is recognized by the state. It comes with tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and numerous other federal provisions. Two people can be perfectly happy in their non-federal union, but that won't help them if their spouse dies and they don't have access to any of their property.
All of which, save the tax benefits, (which I also disagree with), can easily be written down in a legal agreement between any two persons, outside of the government or any legal marriage.

Dad_Scaper, tradition doesn't make something right. "The way we have always done things" is an incredibly weak argument.

I'm not saying "right" or "not right." I'm saying it's the way it *is*. You are either deliberately or blindly misunderstanding my point. You want to say "in an ideal world, the government would not be involved in marriage." My response is not to agree or to disagree, just to say that we do not have the benefit of building from scratch. We live in a world where the two are deeply intertwined, and cannot be separated, so when you lecture the victims of injustice about your ideal world, you are telling them they will never have justice. Ever.

Edit: a written agreement between two people does not bind all the private and public parties whose relationships with either are affected because each has a spouse.

wriggz September 20th, 2016 08:28 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
My cousin and uncle recently got married. My cousin always said that marriage was for 'breeders'. my uncle is 60 and his partner is 70 so they are not apt to care about what society thinks.

Why did they get married? Definitely for the inexpensive legal benifits that are instantly recognized. Maybe for the same reason my atheist wife did, to declare before friends family and strangers that we love each other and will so forevermore. Maybe being raised in a culture that celibate marriage they wanted to feel included. Maybe they wanted a party?

At the end of the day this has no impact on anyone but the couple and the way the government views them. Your God wI'll recognise your marriage and not theurs. Why the he'll should any one else care? Do you also dis agree with my marriage since my wife is an athesis? What about other religions (non abrahamic)? You have a right to your views but don't interfere with the rights of others, as they arnt interferin with you (those words are mysteriously close to the wrods of a wise man).

I enjoy open debates. Gun control, best education systems, tax systems, these are topics of debate. In instances of equal human rights there is no debate. You are wrong when you treat some people more equal than others and are a bigot.

ollie September 20th, 2016 09:45 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2110803)
My cousin and uncle recently got married...

I thought this was going to be a cautionary tale illustrating the importance of the government setting some limits on marriage...

Ranior September 20th, 2016 10:12 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110777)
All of which, save the tax benefits, (which I also disagree with), can easily be written down in a legal agreement between any two persons, outside of the government or any legal marriage.

Dad_Scaper, tradition doesn't make something right. "The way we have always done things" is an incredibly weak argument.

So, to get this straight, you want a system in which two interested individuals can legally sign a document so that they are conferred rights such as inheritance, hospital admitting privileges, ability to file taxes jointly, etc, and presumably have the government oversee this program and administer it. You simply don't want this program called marriage, and want to overthrow the entire system we currently have in place just so it's not called marriage?

I have to assume I am missing a deeper point, but I really do not understand you. What exactly is it about the government conferring legal benefits unto married individuals that you disagree with? It seems like you agree that everyone, including gay couples, deserve the legal benefits that marriages provide, but you simply don't like the fact that it's called marriage?

I'm just really confused what your point is here. Do you think gay couples deserve the same legal benefits as "traditional" couples? My sense is you do, so I think many here are talking past you as most of us are assuming you're here to argue gay marriage shouldn't be a thing.

If that is so, then what are you arguing? You basically want the legal rights (such as hospital admitting privileges, filing taxes jointly, inheritance, etc) to be allowed for all couples, but create a new and separate system for couples to obtain that where it isn't called a marriage?

I guess my main point is that I'm confused what you are arguing here, and that means a lot of us are talking past each other I think. Could you possibly make two things a bit clearer:

1. Do you think gay couples deserve the full legal benefits and rights that "traditional" couples receive?

2. What is it about the government granting these benefits through a marriage certificate/license that bothers you so?

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 10:32 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I could be wrong, but the "government should get out of the marriage" line was routinely offered by people in quiet opposition to legalizing same sex marriage, in the form of an excuse to say no. So I addressed the point the same way I did then. You can't have his argument without an implicit rejection of the cause of same sex marriage. He's attacking Loving, too, which just demonstrates how naive the whole thing is.

It's just as naive - it seems to me - as the simplistic approach to campaign finance, above.

In the real world, people's right to marry comes under attack and marriage is intertwined with relationships with the government and third parties. No document signed between those two people will sweep all that away. No rule that "all campaign contributions must indicate who is making them" will work as intended.

Our standard of living and economy and safety are all very high in this country. Let's not get suckered into thinking that ongoing, incremental improvements aren't good enough.

Ranior September 20th, 2016 10:38 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I think you are wrong--but I don't blame you. Nukatha is one of the very few HSers I have every met in real life, and I know him to be a very smart guy. From other post on these forums, and particularly this thread he seems to be a pretty staunch libertarian, which makes me assume that he would support equal rights for all people.

To be fair, I may be the one making the wrong assumptions on those points. I totally understand why you and others here seem to assume he doesn't think gay couples deserve the same rights, and perhaps you are correct--but I simply cannot tell by what he is writing here which is why I want the clarification of exactly what it is he wants or is arguing.

With that being said, whatever it is he wants I would agree it seems naive--marriage and the government are intertwined, and there would seem to be no benefit of separating them. Certainly not one that would actually be worth the fairly massive cost it would take to scrap the current system and erect a new one.

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 10:57 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Hmm. Well, he can speak for himself, but I've never thought of "staunch libertarians" as defenders of human rights for all. It's always seemed to be more slippery than that, when talking to a libertarian. As Samantha Bee said, months ago, to Gary Johnson, "the problem is that I agree with about every other thing you say."

Rich10 September 20th, 2016 11:20 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ollie (Post 2110808)
Quote:

Originally Posted by wriggz (Post 2110803)
My cousin and uncle recently got married...

I thought this was going to be a cautionary tale illustrating the importance of the government setting some limits on marriage...

I'll admit that I first thought that your cousin married your uncle.

Marriage has a social component, a religious component and a legal component.

As far as the social component is concerned, people can decide who they wish to be with.

As far as the religious component is concerned, you might wish to stop going to a church that doesn't agree with your viewpoint on marriage. But it is the religion's right to decide which marriages they wish to support.

From the legal component, marriage has a number of benefits. These include social security, tax, and employment plan benefits. Is there really any reason to exclude LGBT people from receiving these benefits?

Since Gary Johnson has been brought up, As a libertarian, wouldn't Gary Johnson support the rights for LGBT people to get married?

Rich10 September 20th, 2016 12:00 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109930)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Setting up a home email server as opposed to using the government servers is in my humble opinion, a bunker mentality where you control the information. I could be fired if I did this. How about you? If in your job, you bypassed corporate security and used personal emails, without all of the requisite security, what would the reaction of the company that you work for?

If I sent a ton of work e-mails using my gmail account? Eh, probably nothing for a while. Maybe eventually some sysadmin would notice and complain. Maybe my supervisor would notice and complain. If I kept doing it after being warned not to do so, then I might get fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Yes, I admit that it is impossible to prove a negative. Do you admit that the appearance of taking so much money (whether to their foundation or to speaking fees for Bill) is unwise for a government official?

Bill Clinton was not a government official when he did those things. I don't think there's anything unwise about a private citizen collecting lots of money for a charity that does good works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Even if the Clintons weren't influenced by the $150 million +, doesn't this create the appearance of a conflict?

It can, sure. Money going to a charity is far less worrying to me than the run-of-the-mill legal campaign contributions, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
This "comically benign" method seems to have been successful.

Wait, what? How does it "seem" that way? You're assuming a quid pro quo. Show me something!

Where's the evidence here? Maybe you can't show me an attorney general declining to prosecute after getting a $25k campaign contribution, but can you show me anything that smells even comparably fishy? Something more than a meet and greet with donors? I'd like at least see some smoke before I yell fire.

You'll actually have considerably more success noting that Hillary worked as a senator for causes that were supported by her campaign donors. That's actually quite easy to demonstrate. And again, that's run-of-the-mill, utterly banal, legal corruption that's built into our system. This is what makes the Clinton foundation stuff so laughable to me. Why would anyone try such a strange way to influence a politician when there are such easy, direct, legal ones?

(To be fair, there's always a chicken-and-egg problem with campaign contributions. Are politicians voting a certain way because the interest groups give them money, or are the interest groups giving money to politicians because those politicians vote the way they like? Proving causality is very hard. But either way, it's very easy to make the connection - far easier than with the Clinton Foundation stuff.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109885)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
As for the media, excluding Fox News, it is hard to suggest that the "salacious news media" (most of the salacious reporting was about Bill, not Hillary;)) is biased against her. Do you really think that there is a conservative bias in the news media?

There is a bias towards creating the appearance of parity. There is a bias towards not appearing to take sides. When one candidate is easily the least qualified and most scandal-ridden candidate of my lifetime, attempting to portray the problems each candidate has in the same light amounts to a massive bias. And yes, that's what we're seeing. "He said, she said" reporting only works when there's roughly an equal amount of rightness and wrongness on both sides. And there isn't; not even close.

Donald Trump's "charitable foundation" gave a $25k contribution to the PAC of the Florida attorney general while she was considering whether to press charges against Trump over Trump university. The foundation later claimed this was a clerical error and they had intended to give the money to a charity in Utah with a similar name (one they have never given money to before or since). Riiiiiight.

Go ahead, try to find one story in HRC's history that suggests anything even close to the same level of quid pro quo as that story. And yet, that story has gotten extremely little coverage, because it's lost in the whirlwind of insanity that is the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, the e-mail scandal just keeps coming around and around, largely because there's just not a ton of other questionable stuff to talk about.

A combination of journalistic laziness and journalistic cowardice has led to a false balance that is actually, yes, quite biased.

If you don't think that there is a liberal bias to the media (excluding Fox), we will just have to agree to disagree.

To be blunt, this is a very broad, easy, lazy response. You're falling back on something you take as granted ("liberal media") without addressing what I wrote. I explained a very specific mechanic. Do you dispute that that mechanic is in play?

You yourself have admitted that Trump is a ridiculous, unqualified figure. So, go watch your NBC/ABC/CBS nightly news for a few nights. Watch how many segments are spent on negative stories on each candidate. Watch how much focus is given to each candidate's "gaffes" and "scandals".

What you will find is "balance". An obsession with covering the horse race. Equal weight given to both sides. Equal time spent on each side's critiques and failings. No real effort to play referee and say that one side is more right or wrong than the other. In an environment where one candidate actually is wrong more often, and actually is less qualified, by almost every reasonable measure, that's not balance. That's cowardice. That's hiding behind the veneer of balance by saying, "we are letting the viewer decide."

I don't dispute that the majority of mainstream media professionals are left leaning. That's well known. The question is whether that means that, in practice, they are biased towards the left in how they report the news. And the reality is that, particularly when it comes to election coverage, they are heavily biased towards making each candidate sound equally reasonable.

Let me start by saying that my heart really isn't in this debate. While I'm not a Clinton fan, I don't find Trump to be qualified to be president.

Regarding the personal servers, I think it was unwise (at best) to avoid the government servers. As I said, I could be fired for actions like this, and I'm certainly not Secretary of State.

Regarding the $153 million in speaking fees, this is not money going into a charity (although that has a different set of issues), this is about fees being paid (primarily to Bill Clinton) directly into the Clintons' bank account. It has been reported that the fees increased after Hillary became Secretary of State. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...im-about-bill/
I don't know if Hillary was influenced by this money (although personally, I would be influenced by $153 million). I'm not saying that what was done was illegal. I'm saying that it is unwise because even if it doesn't influence your decisions, it creates the appearance of impropriety. I expect more from someone who will likely be the president of the US.

Should I expect more? Was Hillary truthful when she said that there were no classified emails on her server? How about when she said that she didn't know what the "(c)" on confidential emails meant (although she used it herself)? How about Clinton's statement that the Benghazi attacks were caused by, “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” when other emails showed that she knew it was a terrorist group. How about when she apparently confused a girl who gave her flowers for sniper fire in Bosnia? There is a reason that in a recent NBC poll, only 11% of Americans say Clinton is honest and trustworthy (and yes, Trump is almost certainly worse).

Finally, after all of this (and much more because I'm just not willing to spend any more time on this), Hillary still doesn't suck as much as Trump.

vegietarian18 September 20th, 2016 12:18 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2110818)
Hmm. Well, he can speak for himself, but I've never thought of "staunch libertarians" as defenders of human rights for all. It's always seemed to be more slippery than that, when talking to a libertarian. As Samantha Bee said, months ago, to Gary Johnson, "the problem is that I agree with about every other thing you say."


The way that I have been able to make sense of it is to change perspective on what left and right are. The left, progressivism, is the vector of public thought. Our population's thoughts and perspectives on issues change through time, and the left usually represents what they change towards. (Although political parties have shifted names, America's political belief has gone leftwards through time. If today you held the political and social beliefs of Americans in 1916 [pro-segregation, against women's suffrage], you would be called far right.) However, the other vector, the right, is different. It only opposes the leftwards vector, it does not try to make a path of its own. As the leftwards vector goes straight left, the right vector opposes the left but not strictly. Each movement in the right oppose a different aspect of the left.

This why the right is so fractured, with the alt-right, conservative, and libertarian perspectives blending together in their arguments and identity. Each opposes a different consequence of progressivism. The alt-right opposes “political correctness” and the general change in the way people can speak that progressivism causes. The conservative right opposes the general societal shift away from religion and its societal norms that progressivism causes. The libertarian right opposes the general increase in government as a result of the social programs progressivism causes. The right is ideological perspectives that arise to oppose the shifts in public opinion, where the left is just public opinion as it shifts. That's why you agree with about half of what Libertarians say; they don't disagree with everything you say either.

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 12:30 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Oh, sure. I'm not trying to be disagreeable about everything Libertarian, and there's no reason why I should try. Why shouldn't we agree on the stuff we agree on? It's just that the disagreements are frequent and important enough that I don't care to take that path for myself.

I believe, as I said (I think) way upthread, that I understand the surface appeal of Libertarianism. I just think that it's a shiny sports car made out of plastic. Looks great on the showroom floor, but it's not built to handle the trials of every day wear and tear. Real-world perils - money, oppressive majorities, the danger of corruption - are too much for it. Its advocates claim the current system is corrupt, but their idea for campaign finance reform is to allow unlimited contributions, as if some pie-in-the-sky "transparency" would stop unlimited contributions from phony righteous-sounding causes.

Imagine: "Americans For A Living Wage" just gave $1.2 billion to a candidate who wants to dismantle the EPA, and not to the other candidate, in favor of raising the minimum wage. Sounds legit! And yet the Libertarian platform would have no problem with the making or receiving of the contribution, despite its cries of corruption in the current system, because the name of the giver is known.

Thanks, but no thanks.

vegietarian18 September 20th, 2016 12:47 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
With regards to environmental issues, I'm not sure there is a good libertarian anewer at all. At its core libertarianism holds that personal incentives can more effectively guide people to the right thing, but I don't think that's the case with environmental issues. It's kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma where an individual can agree that long-term protection of the planet is a priority, but if someone else wants to take their own success as a priority, then the environment still suffers. Pure libertarians might argue that consumers will choose the environmentally friendly product if that issue is important, but I don't think that's a reality.

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 12:57 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Right. For the same reason, you run into problems with developing new medicines, for instance. Why would you spend a fortune and years developing a new antibiotic, when there is no reason to think you'll ever get a return on that investment? And yet, new medicines have to come from somewhere.

Nukatha September 20th, 2016 01:28 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranior (Post 2110812)

So, to get this straight, you want a system in which two interested individuals can legally sign a document so that they are conferred rights such as inheritance, hospital admitting privileges, ability to file taxes jointly, etc, and presumably have the government oversee this program and administer it. You simply don't want this program called marriage, and want to overthrow the entire system we currently have in place just so it's not called marriage?

I have to assume I am missing a deeper point, but I really do not understand you. What exactly is it about the government conferring legal benefits unto married individuals that you disagree with? It seems like you agree that everyone, including gay couples, deserve the legal benefits that marriages provide, but you simply don't like the fact that it's called marriage?

I'm just really confused what your point is here. Do you think gay couples deserve the same legal benefits as "traditional" couples? My sense is you do, so I think many here are talking past you as most of us are assuming you're here to argue gay marriage shouldn't be a thing.

If that is so, then what are you arguing? You basically want the legal rights (such as hospital admitting privileges, filing taxes jointly, inheritance, etc) to be allowed for all couples, but create a new and separate system for couples to obtain that where it isn't called a marriage?

I guess my main point is that I'm confused what you are arguing here, and that means a lot of us are talking past each other I think. Could you possibly make two things a bit clearer:

1. Do you think gay couples deserve the full legal benefits and rights that "traditional" couples receive?

2. What is it about the government granting these benefits through a marriage certificate/license that bothers you so?

I haven't been very eloquent on here I suppose. I do often type a bit faster than I think.

Honestly, its entirely the principle of it. From what I've seen in trying to do a bit of historical research on the subject, marriage licenses were generally not a thing prior to the civil war. Following that, and between the civil war and the success of the civil rights movement, the entire existence of marriage licenses in many states existed for the sole purpose of preventing 'interracial marriages'. I feel like I accidentally set up a few straw men by saying this, as licenses did exist in several locations before that, but any location that established marriage licenses on the basis of controlling who can and cannot get married is built entirely on a false, misguided base.

So, I have two, semi-conflicting opinions on the matter. First, the federal government can, and ought to be limited strictly to the powers enumerated to it by the states in the Constitution.
To quote the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Taken at face value, this means to me that all government authority regarding marriage is in the hands of State governments, so long as they act with the consent of the citizens of said State.
Unfortunately, that opens up States to pass discriminatory laws on their own. So, I throw Occam's Razor at it, and decide that it is simplest to do away with it altogether.

It seems weird to me that we have an institution that provides distinct financial and legal benefits simply to any two people who want them. Mainly, my wife and I paid significantly fewer tax dollars last year than if we had filed separately. (I'd be stupid not to take advantage of this fact). But I don't understand why. We would still be together without that benefit, and from my vantage point, it looks like an unfair tax on single individuals.

If the point of institutionalizing marriage is to ensure a healthy, stable environment for raising children (which is the premise I work from) that tax benefit seems like it should extend to any household with children, regardless of the gender of the adults in the household, but not merely any couple.

And if you can refrain from rolling your eyes for a moment: I honestly expect that in around 15 years or so you will see a strong push from a number of people desiring marriage benefits for groups of 3 or more consenting adults. At what point, if any, does the government suddenly receive the right to decide what goes on in the bedroom? At what point is the government suddenly correct to impose its morals on what what constitutes a marriage? Again, it seems to me that this potential debate is one that we don't even need to have. If you just throw out the government's role in defining marriage, and instead focus on the benefit to society from offering some assistance to ensure kids are raised in a stable household, the whole civil rights argument just goes away.

Now, that's certainly not a 'true' Libertarian position, believing that it benefits the nation and society to subsidize child-rearing, but it does adequately sum up my opinion on the subject.

I'm at the point where I see government control actively harming many legitimate institutions.

No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, Common Core, and pretty much every other federal attempt to standardize and control educations seems to not have had actual benefits to the students. I have anecdotal evidence for this, with my wife being a public school teacher. She and her co-workers are actively pressured by the higher-ups (principal, executives, etc.) to allow failing students to pass courses so that the school looks good, despite doing a disservice to said students by forcing them into an even more difficult curriculum that they will certainly not be able to handle. On the occasion that a student performs so poorly that a teacher actually decides to fail said student, it takes an obscene amount of paperwork to do so. And even then you wind up with garbage like this http://www.kgun9.com/news/investigat...grade-changing

The fact that jerks like Martin Shkreli and Heather Bresch are able to price gouge old medications like Daraprim and epinephrine auto-injectors is a testament to artificially high barriers of entry into production of said medications. The patents expired ages ago, but it remains difficult for 'generic' pharmaceutical companies (the unknown guys who supply, say, the 'Great Value' brand or 'Wal-' brand products at Walmart and Walgreens) to actually break into production of said products.

Government subsidies of student loans, I would argue, are a leading contributor to high education cost. Pretty much every student can get approved for such a loan, which has no statue of limitations regarding collections. The total out of pocket cost over time can be multiple times the original cost of school, and that money just pads the pockets of people over at the likes of Sallie Mae. As with the housing market, where the prices of houses outpaced inflation at the same time loans were being given out like candy, I see the government-guaranteed student loans doing the same thing to tuition prices. If anyone can go to school now and pay later, they can attend any college without actually thinking about the out-of-pocket cost down the road. This lets a university raise their rates. Frak, I'm working at a university right now, and on the off chance where I just decide to ask a student how much they're paying for the class I'm teaching (usually because I'm incredibly disappointed at their lack of effort) they usually can't even give me a good ballpark number. Basically, as with the government encouraging banks to give out sub-prime loans back in the day, I see this same government intervention as running the young population of the USA into severe debt.

Bottom line for me is this: I'm not a hard-core Libertarian. I want government oversight to protect the public. Government infrastructure like Interstates, local public power/water infrastructure, the FDA/OSHA ensuring safe food and working conditions. The NSF/NASA support amazing technological advancements that few private individuals would consider backing, (due to the huge time/money investment necessary to develop said technologies before they actually turn into something an investor could make money from). But I see dozens of problems in this country that have been caused in part or in whole by government overreach, and I believe the best thing to do in our situation right now is to scale back the involvement of the federal government in those aspects of life. If it goes a bit too far, then we can always reinstate specific programs later. A four-year term of Gary Johnson would push America in that direction, where I honestly see Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump as pushing for more programs that, even with good intentions, would have the opposite effect they hope for. (EX: I honestly believe that NCLB/RTTT/CC were are developed with good intentions, but they just haven't worked). Couple that with my reservations regarding the moral standing and personal values of said two leading candidates, I cannot vote for either.

Now to find out if I exceeded the character limit. Oh cool, I didn't Yay!

Since I can't think of any better way to end this, here's that cute emoticon of the bunny with a pancake on its head.

:whocares:
EDIT: Check out these statements by each candidate in response to sciencedebate.org's 20 question survey
Website format
http://sciencedebate.org/20answers
.pdf
http://sciencedebate.org/goods/2016answers.pdf

I've only skimmed it so far, but it looks like a good read to familiarize yourself with each candidate's stance on science.

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 02:13 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Your premise is wrong. People don't get married for government benefits. And the legal implications of marriage go back - literally - millennia, without regard for the issuance of licenses. Your research into the history of licenses is interesting but a false trail, for the purposes of this discussion.

ollie September 20th, 2016 02:22 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2110871)
Your premise is wrong. People don't get married for government benefits.

Probably not a majority, but I bet there's a substantial minority who do.

My wife and I only married so that she could get a US visa. Had we stayed in the UK the only reason we might have got married is if/when we started earning enough money to get tax breaks, or if/when we had a kid and wanted the legal structure, or something similar. This isn't an uncommon story among my UK friends at least (either the marrying for some benefit or staying unmarried because there's no legal benefit).

(But I might still classify this as a false trail as far as the present discussion goes.)

dok September 20th, 2016 02:44 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110861)
If the point of institutionalizing marriage is to ensure a healthy, stable environment for raising children (which is the premise I work from) that tax benefit seems like it should extend to any household with children, regardless of the gender of the adults in the household, but not merely any couple.

I don't think your premise is accurate. As D_S says, the state recognized marriage essentially as a matter of course as it was an ancient institution. Over time, the state has attached a variety of benefits to it basically because it was an easy way to recognize a household. The presence of children is not necessary for many of these benefits to make sense.

There's literally thousands of federal, state, and local laws that reference spouses, giving them rights and privileges. Some of these involve raising children, others do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110861)
And if you can refrain from rolling your eyes for a moment: I honestly expect that in around 15 years or so you will see a strong push from a number of people desiring marriage benefits for groups of 3 or more consenting adults.

There are already polygamy advocates who have brought this up, and I've argued with them before.

Here's the thing: remember the thousands of laws I referenced above? Well, essentially 100% of them work just fine, without any modification, for a marriage involving two adults of the same gender. Default inheritance, hospital visitation, joint tax filings, spousal health care coverage, etc etc etc. All the rights associated with marriage simply assume two adults, so no adjustment whatsoever is needed for homosexual unions. But obviously, polygamy does not satisfy that "two adults" classification, so accommodating polygamous unions would mean adjusting laws and probably adding additional privileges that would only apply to those marriages.

So, in conclusion, polygamy is not about to become legally recognized for essentially the same reason that the state is not about to get out of the business of recognizing marriage: because either would require re-writing literally thousands of laws.

Ranior September 20th, 2016 03:38 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Thanks for the taking the time to clarify your point. At the very least we won't be arguing past each other as was happening before. Although I am with most of the other people here. Perhaps your way would be more ideal, but I cannot fathom there being a benefit to overhauling the current system of government and marriages for minor benefits. Overhaul the tax structure a bit if you are concerned that single people effectively get punished, I would have no issue with that. But given the numerous other laws that Dok and others have pointed out....it seems we have a system in place that does a fine job. We can have some minor improvements, but there seems no good reason to overhaul the entire thing. And I think we at least all agree that gay couples deserve the legal benefits of marriage as the system exists today, so yay progress! Nobody telling Dysole, myself, and countless others that our current or future relationships are less worthy than theirs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110861)

Government subsidies of student loans, I would argue, are a leading contributor to high education cost. Pretty much every student can get approved for such a loan, which has no statue of limitations regarding collections. The total out of pocket cost over time can be multiple times the original cost of school, and that money just pads the pockets of people over at the likes of Sallie Mae. As with the housing market, where the prices of houses outpaced inflation at the same time loans were being given out like candy, I see the government-guaranteed student loans doing the same thing to tuition prices. If anyone can go to school now and pay later, they can attend any college without actually thinking about the out-of-pocket cost down the road. This lets a university raise their rates. Frak, I'm working at a university right now, and on the off chance where I just decide to ask a student how much they're paying for the class I'm teaching (usually because I'm incredibly disappointed at their lack of effort) they usually can't even give me a good ballpark number. Basically, as with the government encouraging banks to give out sub-prime loans back in the day, I see this same government intervention as running the young population of the USA into severe debt.

Now as for this part. I work in the student loan industry at one of the major student loan servicers, and so have a certain amount of expertise into student loans, college costs, and the governments relation to it all.

To start with, you are absolutely correct that many for-profit schools are absolutely abusing the federal student loan system. As almost any student can get federal student loans for just about any place calling themselves a school, many for profit colleges have increasingly high tuition that causes their students to take out increasingly large sums of money that go right into the pocketbooks of these schools. The good news is that due to the efforts of many state's Attorney Generals, members of the US House of Representatives, members of the Senate, as well as the Secretary of Education, the entire Department of Education has slowly been clamping down on these abusers of the student loan system. This is a great example of the small incremental changes in governance that Dad Scaper has been quick to point to as truly effective governance. It also illustrates how many lower level elected officials can have positive impacts and matter just as much if not more than your votes for president. Getting back to the lead here though, schools such as Corinthian college and ITT Tech have recently lost their right to recieve federal student aid, the students affected have some options for loan discharges, and the schools are essentially shut down as they lose their access to income. Indeed both of these schools have closed with the last one to two years. Both were heavily fined as well. The US Department of Education is specifically looking for those for profit schools that are defrauding students of a real education and encouraging them to take out very large loan sums. It is getting a bit better on the for profit side of things.

As for the not for profit side of things, while tuition is rising fairly quickly, it has little to nothing to do with loans being easy to access. Instead it is for a far simpler reason: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-skyrocketing/

For those who don't wish to read the article, the reason most public universities have seen such large tuition increases is simply because state funding per student is down dramatically in the period surveyed which was 2000-2014. As Nukatha and I attended the same public university in Wisconsin, let us go to that data point. The average current public tuition in WI is 7.1k, which is up 2.7k during the time frame 2000-2014. During that same time state funding per student decreased by 3.4k. Assuming state funding per student had remained at 2000 levels, students today in WI may have actually seen a tuition decrease of several hundred dollars! Of course in reality that may not have happened as the local colleges may have simply taken those funds to hire more faculty, build nicer facilities, etc. But still it is a clear picture that the majority of the reason tuition has increased a public universities is simply because education has seen massive spending cuts from the government. College has always been very expensive and is heavily subsidized by the government up front. Over the past few decades however that subsidy is decreasing, making costs rise. Now students are forced to take out more debt as during their time in school due to those large cuts to education.

Of course there are many factors. There has been an increase in administrative staff at more colleges. There also has been an increase in services, and buildings being offered. But at least among public universities the majority of the crazy tuition increases is simply due to budget cuts. This is one of the many effects of the bush era tax cuts and the other spending cuts we have seen during the wave of Republican governance in recent year. Scott Walker in particular in Wisconsin has done a fine job in further cutting taxes and the education budget, but then freezing tuition rates forcing colleges into taking desperate measures. To my fellow young voters, we are getting screwed in this regard, largely because we do not show up to vote and politicians feel cutting education and rising costs on young Americans is easy as it won't cost them political power. Please remember to flex our political might and we might help save our children from the absurd debt we are being saddled with while trying to get an education.

With that being said, you are largely correct that the current student loan structure as a whole is largely like the sub prime mortgage crises. As almost any student can get student loans, regardless of showing any ability to pay them back, many risky loans are given out to students who will almost certainly have no ability to repay them. Partially this is because students are allowed to go for degrees that are shown to have little power in the current job market. While it is nice to chase your dreams, I do think many students need to be more realistic in their choice of degrees and colleges. But as Nukatha has pointed out, young students also do not really have a clue how much they are paying for tuition, classes, housing, or what that 10,000 student loan for four years will actually mean upon graduation. (Which will actually be about 50k at that point due to interest and will require payments of about 500 for 10 years or 260 for 25 years). Some students will be lucky if their college degree actually translates into an increase in income compared to if they had never gone to college, once you factor in those loan payments.

Of course, of particular worry, are those students who go to school and then fail to get a degree. They then do not have the benefit of the increased wage earning that a college degree provides, but still are saddled with the debt of getting an education. These borrowers are at particular threat of going into default.

There of course are no simple solutions to this entire mess, and I'm not even sure how much I'm fully helping here. I just do know a lot about this as I'm directly employed in this field and have thought a lot about it as a recent college graduate. It is clear though that among for-profit colleges, many are abusing the federal student aid program, and for that reason greater oversight is needed. (Furthermore, for parents and students, the simple response is to just never ever go to a for profit school). Among public universities, the major reason tuition is spiraling out of control is due to budget cuts. We need to demand spending per student return to prior levels to ease the burden of the cost of college. To do this we shall need to make cuts in other areas, or frankly raise taxes back to where they were a decade or two ago. Young people in particular need to show up and vote, and vote for those local and state politicians who understand the benefits of education and support increasing spending for students at college--and schools as well. As an individual with a parent and sibling in teaching K-12, local schools are struggling to handle and stomach budget cuts as well. Education spending should be increased, not cut. Voting for politicians who understand and support that will actually enact meaningful change. And as I've been saying young voters in particular need to make that clear. We are currently the generation that is getting screwed. Make sure that it doesn't become the new normal, and we can return to education being an affordable investment that is was for many of the past generations.

Finally, pressure should continue to be put on both public and private non-profit colleges to keep costs in check. It is true that fancy dorms, services and administrative staff costs have been rising and it is important that the schools do their best to keep costs affordable. At the same time though, it would do well to remember that increases in services and administrators has shown to help increase graduation rates. As you have more counselors and other administrators to help guide and oversee students, and give students more drop by tutoring and similar services available for free, they are more likely to stick with college and graduate. There will be fewer individuals taking out loans and then not graduation, meaning fewer will be saddled with debt they will never be able to pay off and eventually default. Overall we just need to accept that education is costly, but it is an investment that almost always pays off. For every dollar put into education today, decades down the road when the US has a more educated workforce, there will be more high earner contributing to taxes, less unwanted pregnancies, more stable households and marriages, and all the other benefits education has been shown to provide. It's one of the simplest and most proven investments that we can make, and for some reason over the past few decades education budgets have been cut in favor of tax breaks to corporations and rich.

Please, stop the madness.


~Ranior, who typed far longer on that than he probably should have, or anyone is probably really interested in. But if it isn't apparent, this is a cause he cares about a good deal and is more than willing to further elaborate on anything. Particularly regarding student loans or the student loan industry.

Ranior September 23rd, 2016 10:06 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
And, while it looks like I killed this thread with all my talk about student loans :P, I just am popping in to note recent news in the student loan world: The accrediting agency behind Corinthian and ITT schools, as well as many for profit colleges has lost it's government recognition. That means it can no longer accredit schools, and a college needs to be accredited in order to receive federal student aid. Just another slow incremental step in the Department of Education trying to clean up the for-profit abusers of the student loan industry.

While I completely agree there is plenty to still go in fixing student loans, I just think these small little things show exactly how large complicated messes actually get fixed. While we continue to discuss matters of the presidency and government, I think Dad Scaper has it exactly correct when he points out that for the most part we have a very high standard of living and things are quite good, and those issues that do need fixing will not be fixed with a magic wand, or some simple measure. Instead it will take small incremental changes brought about through the joint efforts of many individuals and agencies. I think the above example illustrates this perfectly.

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 10:40 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
A few words on Gary Johnson's thoughts on global warming.

Ranior September 23rd, 2016 11:31 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2111623)


Ugh. Pence, Trump, and Johnson's apparent ignorance on a myriad of different scientific issues makes me certain I shall never vote for any of them. But it does sadden me that some of these type of politicians are currently in power and make decisions, even worse many are on the house's Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Including it's chairman Lamar Smith who publicly doubts climate change, receives large amounts of funding from the fossil fuel industry, is a self-described Christian Scientist, and is a member of the Tea Party Caucus.

It really does sadden me to know many of these people have so much power and are so close to being elected again. (Well in the case of Lamar Smith he will certainly be reelected again in an ultra safe Republican District in Texas.)

Swamper September 23rd, 2016 12:14 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I don't agree with everything Johnson says, but I refuse to vote for Trump or Hillary. I know Johnson has no chance of winning, but hopefully if the third party candidates get some votes, the two main parties will straighten up and start acting right.

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 12:34 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Dok addressed the attacks against Clinton, above. All the smoke around her looks more and more ridiculous, the closer I look at it. Her foundation is incredibly efficient at doing good work in the world. The email scandal is a whole lot of nothing.

The hate for her is simply not founded in reality. As dok said,
Spoiler Alert!


So when I vote for her, it will not be because she is the lesser of two evils, it'll be because she is the most qualified candidate in the race, and has been since the beginning of the campaign season. She is not perfect, but who is? Her reputation as a liar - like most of the charges against her - is not supported by real evidence.

When I vote *against* Trump, it will not be because he is the greater of two evils. It will be because he is a menace to the United States and, more broadly, to world peace. He has normalized the vilest part of the American underbelly, which is now empowered and acting out. Heaven help us all if he wins. He is a *documented* liar, and a racist, and a terrible, terrible human being.

But your vote is so precious that you can't choose between the two, and will throw in for some unqualified turkey, who isn't as qualified or prepared as Clinton, because you feel like you don't have anything to lose and you'd just as soon see it burn. Even though we have had eight solid years of stability and economic growth by any reasonable measure, you want your precious vote to say "hell with it all."

Well, go ahead, I guess. Believe your myths. Hopefully your vote won't matter. "People will only believe what they already know to be true. That is the Universal Form of Conspiracy." ~ Umberto Eco. Everybody thinks they're the first to discover cynicism.

Tornado September 23rd, 2016 12:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Global Warming in an Election Thread? Nice DS.

Of course we figured out Global Warming in another thread.

I believe everyone thought my idea for global shading was an excellent simple solution. :)

Rich10 September 23rd, 2016 01:53 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper (Post 2111684)
When I vote *against* Trump, it will not be because he is the greater of two evils. It will be because he is a menace to the United States and, more broadly, to world peace.

I agree that from a temperament perspective, a Trump presidency scares me. He seems to think that complex geopolitical issues that have withstood multiple efforts over a period of years, can be quickly solved by his brilliant reasoning. He has shown such a thin skin that it seems that he could easily be goaded into an unwise and dangerous action. I will be voting against Trump. Unfortunately, I think that he's the greater of two evils.

Dad_Scaper September 23rd, 2016 02:11 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I would not go so far as to say, Rich, that reasonable minds could differ, when it comes to the hatred so many have for Clinton. It is, I believe, unreasonable.

Regardless, if you're voting against Trump, by voting for Clinton, that's good enough. :up:

edit:
Spoiler Alert!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2023 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.