CDZ Partisan ideology makes people ugly.

[JakeStarkey]

As i said before the only answer is that those who refuse to perform should be forced to perform, just like the baker is forced to bake a cake. Would make about as much sense.

Fallacy of false equivalency.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ha, just because CA doesn't get to decide the president that is a stealing "our democracy." Wow, how do you reason with that ideology? You don't, they must be ignored.

More people voted for Hillary than Trump. This isn't complicated. 3 million more votes trump 80,000 votes in three Rust Belt states.

But this was about performers having a right to protest. I mean, is still America?

Trump won the popular vote in 30 states, and the electoral votes they held.

Hillary had a chance to win in at least a few of those states, but she screwed it up

The reason hillary lost is simple, Hillary.

Trump won the popular vote in 50 of the elections run on Nov 8. What the left is doing is attacking our Republic, just as Hillary said. Of course we all know she is a dummy so I guess the left won't listen.

America, not just the left, is questioning the validity of the election, and the validity of Trump to be president.

 

[JoeB131]

OK, then, if the baker puts up a sign saying we bake cakes specifically for traditional marriage then the baker would be in compliance?

Probably not, since that's a largely subjective standard.

For instance, they would have to prove that they didn't provide services for women who did any of the following.

Wore Braids
Wore Jewelry
Had a tattoo
wore pants
Weren't virgins on their wedding nights

Since all of these activities are proscribed by the bible, then by the logic you've put forward, they should also refuse to provide services to any customers who engaged in any of these activities.

Of course, no one enforces these rules anymore, not even the churches. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As i said before the only answer is that those who refuse to perform should be forced to perform, just like the baker is forced to bake a cake. Would make about as much sense.

Well, no, not really. Your argument would make sense if they offered their specific services to anyone who asked for them, and then specifically refused to serve Trump because he was president. And that would only be if the service was in a jurisdiction where public accommodations are protected for specific classes.

Performance at inaugurations is not a public accommodation.

Now, on that subject, the Rockettes agreed to perform at the innaguration, and even though they would have every right to be creeped out by performing for a guy who has said the things about women Trump has said, the Union that represents them has told them they are obligated to perform.

The Rockettes To Perform At Donald Trump's Inauguration, Whether They Like It Or Not

Earlier in the day, any talk of boycotting the performance seemed quickly quashed by the Rockettes' union — the American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA). In an email obtained and published by Broadwayworld.com, a union representative wrote that "Everyone is entitled to her own political beliefs, but there is no room for this in the workplace." The letter noted that dancers who are not full time did not have to sign up to perform, but "if you are fulltime, you are obligated."

However, realizing that was bad press, the company that runs the Rockettes backtracked.

Rockettes bosses on inauguration: 'It's always their choice to perform'

OK, then, if the baker puts up a sign saying we bake cakes specifically for traditional marriage then the baker would be in compliance?

Not if the PA laws say if a merchant etc holds his wears out to the public. If he does, then he must generally serve every one who wishes his service.

 

[Auld Phart]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 states, and the electoral votes they held.

Hillary had a chance to win in at least a few of those states, but she screwed it up

I agree, that she didn't run a good campaign. No one is actually arguing that.

But still, 3 million more people voted for her over Trump despite her awful campaign.

But still, 3 million more people voted for her over Trump despite her awful campaign.

Could have been 30 million.

She failed to get the necessary electoral votes

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's just annoying that a candidate runs the ugliest, most divisive campaign in history, and then his supporters complain that people are reacting with complete disgust at his actions. Want to change things? That starts at the top.

Well said. Trump ran as president of HALF of America... he shouldn't be surprised when the other half objects.

And hillary did what? The majority of voters rejected Hillary.

The larger majority of voters rejected Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

And hillary did what? The majority of voters rejected Hillary.

Hillary didn't specifically announce her intent to deport people who disagreed with her.

Like Trump did.

 

[Mac1958]

Interesting how quickly we veered away from the thread topic.

This is an issue that is plaguing both our political processes and (now) our culture.

Would anyone like to offer some honest, candid, non-ideologically-based input?
.

 

[JoeB131]

Could have been 30 million.

She failed to get the necessary electoral votes

Obviously, you miss the point... If you are having a system based on one person, one vote, not one where you only let white male landowners have the franchise, then electing by disproportionate representation violates the very spirit of that philosophy.

People have always gotten this. The first guy to win in this method was Rutherford B. Hayes, who for the whole of his term was referred to as "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud".

Legal technicalities don't confer legitimacy.

 

[JoeB131]

Interesting how quickly we veered away from the thread topic.

This is an issue that is plaguing both our political processes and (now) our culture.

Would anyone like to offer some honest, candid, non-ideologically-based input?
.

Why, that was already covered, dude.

In America, you have ever right to protest when a Nazi steals your presidency.

It is still America, after all.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, well, maybe someone will, later.

 

[Auld Phart]

Could have been 30 million.

She failed to get the necessary electoral votes

Obviously, you miss the point... If you are having a system based on one person, one vote, not one where you only let white male landowners have the franchise, then electing by disproportionate representation violates the very spirit of that philosophy.

People have always gotten this. The first guy to win in this method was Rutherford B. Hayes, who for the whole of his term was referred to as "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud".

Legal technicalities don't confer legitimacy.

If you are having a system based on one person, one vote,

one person, one vote, per state.

Winner of the popular vote per state, win the electoral votes for that state.

electoral votes win the presidency.

Why do so many have a problem understanding that?

 

[Iceweasel]

I have to disagree with the premise posited in the OP. Partisan ideology may or may not make someone act ugly. Believing is one thing, acting out another. But more importantly it isn't really a party issue. The deep divide is between conservative and liberal ideologies. Left vs. right. Political parties are where we tend to go to implement our beliefs, or defend them.

It isn't the right that's constantly pushing and pushing for more and more social change so I can't wrap my mind around those that pretend to sit on the high fence and claim it a simple matter of two political parties duking it out.

If anything this election should have made it crystal clear. Trump is not a traditional party member by any stretch. The party wasn't the issue for many people, maybe most. Had the actors been on opposite teams I probably would have voted for Democrat Trump opposing Republican Hillary and her continuation of the status quo.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK, then, if the baker puts up a sign saying we bake cakes specifically for traditional marriage then the baker would be in compliance?

No, that's evil. Traditional marriage is wrong because it wrongly assumes men and women are what they are for a reason. BUT we must limit the marriage to only two people because it's traditional and shit.

You can't make this stuff up!

 

[JoeB131]

one person, one vote, per state.

Winner of the popular vote per state, win the electoral votes for that state.

electoral votes win the presidency.

Why do so many have a problem understanding that?

We don't have any confusion. Hillary got more votes. The people chose her.

You won on a technicality. If you are good with that, that' fine... I'm sure you wouldn't be if it went the other way.

 

[Mac1958]

I have to disagree with the premise posited in the OP. Partisan ideology may or may not make someone act ugly. Believing is one thing, acting out another. But more importantly it isn't really a party issue. The deep divide is between conservative and liberal ideologies. Left vs. right. Political parties are where we tend to go to implement our beliefs, or defend them.

That's a perfectly valid point, thanks.

The ideologies have existed for a long time, and yes, I'm really talking more about behavior than ideology.

I see two problems on a macro level. First, each end of the spectrum has become so binary, all-or-nothing, black & white, that any cooperation is seen as abject capitulation. Any willingness to even admit they UNDERSTAND the other's point is seen as some kind of surrender. That's just not the way adults should behave. No one will "get their way" all of the time, and the wild swings we see in our politics will continue until we can at least communicate and at least get along like adults.

Second, the old saying "everyone is screaming and no one is listening" couldn't apply more. What, precisely, is the goal of a strategy like that?
.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have to disagree with the premise posited in the OP. Partisan ideology may or may not make someone act ugly. Believing is one thing, acting out another. But more importantly it isn't really a party issue. The deep divide is between conservative and liberal ideologies. Left vs. right. Political parties are where we tend to go to implement our beliefs, or defend them.

That's a perfectly valid point, thanks.

The ideologies have existed for a long time, and yes, I'm really talking more about behavior than ideology.

I see two problems on a macro level. First, each end of the spectrum has become so binary, all-or-nothing, black & white, that any cooperation is seen as abject capitulation. Any willingness to even admit they UNDERSTAND the other's point is seen as some kind of surrender. That's just not the way adults should behave. No one will "get their way" all of the time, and the wild swings we see in our politics will continue until we can at least communicate and at least get along like adults.

Second, the old saying "everyone is screaming and no one is listening" couldn't apply more. What, precisely, is the goal of a strategy like that?
.

You ignored everything I said to posit your view is the only correct one. Isn't that what you accuse others of?

I said what's wrong with the simple view, it isn't all about party politics. It's often how people see life, what's important or unimportant. I oppose big government and live with massive compromises. Exactly what do I divide in half if I vote for less taxes and regulation?

You remind me of judges that simply divide everything 50/50 in the interest of fairness. Well, sometimes people are right and sometimes they are wrong. 50/50 is a copout.

 

[Mac1958]

I have to disagree with the premise posited in the OP. Partisan ideology may or may not make someone act ugly. Believing is one thing, acting out another. But more importantly it isn't really a party issue. The deep divide is between conservative and liberal ideologies. Left vs. right. Political parties are where we tend to go to implement our beliefs, or defend them.

That's a perfectly valid point, thanks.

The ideologies have existed for a long time, and yes, I'm really talking more about behavior than ideology.

I see two problems on a macro level. First, each end of the spectrum has become so binary, all-or-nothing, black & white, that any cooperation is seen as abject capitulation. Any willingness to even admit they UNDERSTAND the other's point is seen as some kind of surrender. That's just not the way adults should behave. No one will "get their way" all of the time, and the wild swings we see in our politics will continue until we can at least communicate and at least get along like adults.

Second, the old saying "everyone is screaming and no one is listening" couldn't apply more. What, precisely, is the goal of a strategy like that?
.

You ignored everything I said to posit your view is the only correct one. Isn't that what you accuse others of?

I said what's wrong with the simple view, it isn't all about party politics. It's often how people see life, what's important or unimportant. I oppose big government and live with massive compromises. Exactly what do I divide in half if I vote for less taxes and regulation?

You remind me of judges that simply divide everything 50/50 in the interest of fairness. Well, sometimes people are right and sometimes they are wrong. 50/50 is a copout.

Oops! I thought you were temporarily removing yourself from partisan ideology to discuss its behaviors.

My bad, sorry.
.

 

[Freewill]

OK, then, if the baker puts up a sign saying we bake cakes specifically for traditional marriage then the baker would be in compliance?

No, that's evil. Traditional marriage is wrong because it wrongly assumes men and women are what they are for a reason. BUT we must limit the marriage to only two people because it's traditional and shit.

You can't make this stuff up!

You don't have to make it up, done for us.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have to disagree with the premise posited in the OP. Partisan ideology may or may not make someone act ugly. Believing is one thing, acting out another. But more importantly it isn't really a party issue. The deep divide is between conservative and liberal ideologies. Left vs. right. Political parties are where we tend to go to implement our beliefs, or defend them.

That's a perfectly valid point, thanks.

The ideologies have existed for a long time, and yes, I'm really talking more about behavior than ideology.

I see two problems on a macro level. First, each end of the spectrum has become so binary, all-or-nothing, black & white, that any cooperation is seen as abject capitulation. Any willingness to even admit they UNDERSTAND the other's point is seen as some kind of surrender. That's just not the way adults should behave. No one will "get their way" all of the time, and the wild swings we see in our politics will continue until we can at least communicate and at least get along like adults.

Second, the old saying "everyone is screaming and no one is listening" couldn't apply more. What, precisely, is the goal of a strategy like that?
.

You ignored everything I said to posit your view is the only correct one. Isn't that what you accuse others of?

I said what's wrong with the simple view, it isn't all about party politics. It's often how people see life, what's important or unimportant. I oppose big government and live with massive compromises. Exactly what do I divide in half if I vote for less taxes and regulation?

You remind me of judges that simply divide everything 50/50 in the interest of fairness. Well, sometimes people are right and sometimes they are wrong. 50/50 is a copout.

Oops! I thought you were temporarily removing yourself from partisan ideology to discuss its behaviors.

My bad, sorry.
.

You have no response because you project your shortcomings onto others. You're damn right your bad. Just because YOU are incapable of making decisions doesn't mean it a flaw when others can. You're the one with the simplistic black/white vision.