Senate The US Politics discussion

Wow. These kinds of poorly thought out statements are sadly no longer as surprising as they once would have been.

 

President John Tyler (10th U.S. President in 1840's, born in 1790) has two living grandsons. Tyler had a son when he was in his 60's, and that son had kids when he was 75.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive

 

I know the line between politics is blurry these days (even more so for one such as yourself who has a sports team mentality to politics) but really. This should in the wacky news thread

 

Wasn't Pat McCrory originally viewed as a moderate, anakinfansince1983? I thought I remembered you being optimistic about him, or some other liberal North Carolinian I know (which is actually a few lol). Is this a recent break from moderation from him, or has he been a disaster from the start?

 

anakinfan: Reagan was no better than the current crop--he simply possessed a charisma unmatched since JFK, which allowed the GOP to push through inhumane economic policies.

In addition to the transgressions you described, you must also take into account his bellicose Cold War rhetoric which helped ratchet up nuclear fears for the first time since the early 60s, as well as his administration's embrace of right-wing death squads in Central and South America (the chronicles of which are almost unbearable to read...watch Oliver Stone's Salvador for a taste).

Ronald Reagan was an utterly loathsome mouthpiece for the Radical Right, and the creatures on display today are his spiritual children.

 

That's weird behavior. You'd think you'd have some courage by the time you became a governor. Now he's the laughing stock of the nation.



EDIT:

Obama commuted the sentences of 61 jailed for drug-related offenses
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-commutes-sentences-61-federal-prisoners-152903660.html

 

They're bluffing.

 

Because companies don't have principles?

especially new and forward thinking ones.


They can easily find a new location and I can see many companies following suit.

 

Nah. In real life, nobody cares. Or at least it isn't a big deal.

 

How is this a show of principles? It is simply appealing to the lowest common denominator without engaging in any sacrifice whatsoever. Please note that they are still gladly doing business in that state, and will continue to do so.

I would love to see a state pass a law that says to any business "if you boycott our state because of a law we pass, then we will not allow you to do business here." It'll never happen but if it did, you'd see all these corporate boycotts end immediately.

 

Beezer -- you understand that you've basically described international sanctions, which Republicans support and want to keep doing in Cuba and Iran?

 

I disagree with the premise that I am describing something akin to international sanctions.

 

It's a show of principles because they've stated that they won't create work in that state thus removing tax revenue but still enables them to do business within the state. They said they would do it and they have, similar to what some Hollywood type studios have done.


They've basically said we won't bring our corporation to a bigoted state. We'll do business there and will take in the revenue but we'll keep our infrastructure out. That to me is a principled stand.

It may only be 400 jobs but this state decision has now cost 400 people a job.
Not a great decision for those 400 people.


I'm not familiar with how trade etc... works in the US so I'm not going to delve into the latter part of the point except to say that I very much doubt any state would look to cut out a potential major trading partner.

 

I disagree. A principled stand would be withdrawing from the state entirely.

What they've really said is "you people are so dirty that we won't invest in your community, but we will still gladly take your money." Where is the principle in that?

 

I can see where you're coming from with that point but I disagree that it's not principled. They have already invested in putting these jobs into the state so they will take a loss as a company.

It also sends a message. the "We won't invest in your community" stance is a direct message to the state saying they disagree with what they have done.

Bringing it back to the approach often raised by conservatives about choice, This (to me) is the equivalent of a customer refusing to buy something from an openly bigoted store. In this case this is a store that has just come out as being bigoted after being courted for trade and then being backed away from in disgust.


I, personally applaud them for backing away.

 

Setting aside the fact that there is nothing bigoted about the law, a better analogy would be:

A customer who works as a plumber refuses to buy something from an openly bigoted store. But when that same store calls him to hire his services, he shows up with a smile on his face and gladly does the job. Where is the principle in that?

 

How else do you describe a framework where in all citizens and business of a given area are legally forbidden doing business with certain other businesses, individuals, or states? That's literally what a sanction is.

 

The plumber is refusing to give them trade but isn't stupid enough to stop trade coming in to him.

I have no issue with that. I don't like you so I won't give you my hard earned cash but if you want to give it to me then fair enough.



And yes the law is bigoted. I don't know enough about transgender and the issues surrounding it so I'm not going to be drawn into the detail but when a law is introduced that treats people differently based on their dangly bits or lack thereof has prejudice behind it

 

Because it is punishing the state and its potential tax base, not punishing private individual customers who have a choice to support Paypal or not. Why would Paypal target their customer base? They're targeting the state's tax base is what they're doing. Very clever.

You need to think things through more.

edit: Beez, I thought you were a libertarian?

 

In this hypothetical, the business has willingly, freely withdrawn from the given area, and is welcome to return at any time. As such, the denizens of the given area have collectively decided "if you will not do business with us, we will not do business with you" and incorporated that into law.

I just don't see that as analogous to international sanctions, which are a whole 'nother issue.

 

You have the order of events backwards pardner.

 

Exactly, hence there is nothing principled about his stand. He completely abandons his "principles" when he stands to lose financially.

It is pretty easy to be "principled" when you lose absolutely nothing, not so much when you stand to lose something.