Conservatards are getting BTFO
EAT SHIT CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSTON EAT SHIT AND FUCKING DIE
http://abc13.com/politics/elections/local/abc13.com/runoff/
http://m.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/Turner-leading-King-after-early-vote-tallied-6694567.php
EAT SHIT ANTI LGBT REPUBLIKKKANS
>>5382713
Literally who?
>HRC
That the gay support guys?
A'righ, a'right, I'll root for them.
>>5382713
>black
>pro-lgbt
pick one
>>5383440
Said he'll bring hero back. Pastors also turned it into a referendum on hero.
TOP KEK Get fucked conservakeks
>>5383440
Obama is black and pro lgbt
I can't believe he won. Hope for Houston.
>>5383674
not in 2004
Prepare for Houston to become Detroit 2.0.
also
I'm a person, not a political issue for people to vote over.
>>5383743
Nigga, Houston has had democrats in charge since for fucking ever. Business is booming and nothing is really going to change. I just wish they'd fix all these fucking potholes.
>>5383743
People who demand the state interfere in private lives, suspend natural rights and use minorities for pogroms aren't a model of small government.
Better him than the fundies turning Houston into Islamabad.
>>5383743
Spot the self loathing Uncle Tom.
>>5383756
posting that shitty milquetoast liberal meme won't make an appeal to moderation true.
all private businesses should have the right to ban trannies from using the "wrong" restrooms, as unenforceable as that may be
>>5383754
Oil hit $32 a barrel. We have a rent crisis looking and tens of thousand of oil and gas jobs going up in smoke while still trying to absorb 4k a month in new residents.
We have a looming pension crisis and owe billions to bloated police and fire bennies.
This city has issues.
I think we can fix stuff, but we have work to do.
>>5383780
Screw what bigots want. eff em
>>5383787
Not that I mean to gloss over those issues as "no big deal," but the economy is still growing, people keep moving in and there's no real sign of anything going the way that Detroit did. I can't be assed to keep up with Houston politics since I don't actually live there, but all of the problem seem pretty fixable to me.
>>5383780
>private businesses
so you support businesses putting up signs say NO GAYS OR BLACKS OR TRANSEXUALS ALLOWED
face it, your a bigot like bill king and the rest of the Jesus freaks. And hero WAS NOT ABOUT BATHROOMS RETARDED JESUS FREAK. TAKE YOUR BIBLE AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS
>>5383780
You'd just have them inadvertently harass a lot of postmenopausal women.
The government shouldn't endorse people harassing or robbing others/Jews, that's the barbarous shit they used to pull off in Europe and still pull in the Middle East.
Am a libertarian actually and I don't like the left.
That said, so long as the dems are the less bad party in civil liberties and civil rights, I'm gonna have to keep voting for them.
Thanks for helping them, raghead.
>>5383800
Yes Houston is very fixable. We have to fix it though.
>>5383801
private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. let the market decide if it is a successful business idea.
only government should be held to anti discriminate laws.
>>5383787
Houston isn't going to fix much if the Dems spend all their political capital passing bathroom laws.
>>5383802
>so long as the dems are the less bad party in civil liberties and civil rights
they fucking aren't you Quisling
they're both bad, but at least with republicans you can defend yourself
>>5383812
To be honest, I think this is a decent argument, but it should be either "everyone is protected" or "no one is." Since we have federal laws that explicitly disallow discrimination of certain groups, it is unfair to have a double standard and allow discrimination of the other groups.
>>5383814
It was never about the bathroom. Just Jesus freaks angry about gay marriage. Trans was just the acceptable group to pin the hate on.
>>5383812
By discriminate you mean use arbitrary reasons such as minority status or religion as a retroactive way of breaking contracts and committing theft.
You want the government to endorse an end to the rule of law.
>>5383816
>gun control legislation passing in Texas
Not even the democrats bother with that one. We get to have both open carry and concealed carry on public universities in 2016.
>>5383801
its called freedom of association, yes
you're not going to scare me with your buzzwords
>>5383812
Good luck repealing the civil rights act.
White only or Muslim only or Christian only is just bad policy for a modern economy.
>>5383812
>private businesses should be allowed to discriminate.
Yes Jim Crow, nazi germany, and apartheid South Africa were really great countries right?
>>5383816
> derms support body freedom, marriage equality and economic justic
> they're not better on civil rights
You are either insane or incompetent
>>5383826
Screw "freedom of association"
If you want a douche only bar open a private club or go to Gaslamp
>>5383824
Texas actually has had pretty shitty gun laws relative to a lot of other states
>>5383816
>defend
There's devided opinions on 2a in the dems and they know they have no chance of passing anything.
The fundies hikejacked your party though, so that's all meaningless when their election strategy involves using minorities who happen to be good citizens as boogiemen.
I can't possibly vote for a social authoritarian party that wants an end to civil liberties and natural rights in favor of their own version of sharia.
>>5383828
>hmm fuck how do i prove that the free market is evil bigots?
>i know, i'll bring up 3 examples of government imposed discrimination!
its too easy to deal with libshits lol
>>5383842
How so? Permits are shall-issue and non-discriminatory and soon we'll be open carry. It's never been hard to acquire a gun or a permit.
>>5383828
those are all examples of government enforced discrimination.
not private parties discriminating with no government support.
>>5383845
you really need to get out more if you think evangelicals want to oppress you
its the fucking nanny staters cat ladies on both sides that are actually taking your liberty away, it has very little to do with religion
>>5383850
>no one is equal with the protection laws for special groups.
What? The protections from HERO apply to literally everyone and allow people to fight back against discrimination legally.
>>5383850
>if a bakery doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes.
This one is actually really borderline. Flat out refusing to serve gay people is certainly discriminatory, but refusing to make a certain product really isn't.
>>5383863
everyone discriminates against eachother peacefully all the time, why does it matter if some people do it categorically, even if its unreasonable?
go fuck yourself
>>5383851
You should read the long list of exeptions on where one can legally carry, and the extra penalties for running afould of the law.
All local, state, county, federal property is barred. All oil and chemical company property. Any and all bars.
You go into a bar with a concealed carry and get into a fight you are a felon.
So literally it gives local sheriffs way too much power over who has rights and who doesn't.
>>5383868
If the discrimination is unreasonable, I think it is perfectly okay to seek compensation for that. Hence why we have the legal system in place.
>>5383847
NEWSFLASH: every society is statist and authoritarian. I'm a big government statist. That means anti discrimination laws, single payer healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, ban all guns, legalize weed, etc. nobody, including conservatards, care about your fairy tale "libertarian" anarchism.
>>5383875
why?
you aren't owed the services of others, their volition is needed to obtain what you want from them
>>5383877
>DUDE FUCK RIGHTS LMAO
this is your argument?
you're so lazy you can't even find examples of heinous systematic private discrimination?
maybe that's why you're a nanny stater, you just want other people to do shit for you
>>5383850
The way it is, a land lord could use it as a retroactive excuse to take a tenants money without compense, or an employer could use it to cheat a contract. Sure a granny picking customers is fine but you have the state sanctioning criminal activity if you follow your implementation.
>>5383860
I mean I don't doubt the national security wing of the dems like Clinton aren't bad, but really, they aren't as bad as fundies who openly use other Americans a way to gin up a hate vote. Indistinguishable from national socialism.
It doesn't help that the fundy right is now cooperating with Marxist feminism and other far left groups that want nothing more than state intervention in lives and an end to civil liberties for the sake of offing some boggieman. The groups from both ends of the horseshoe are one and your party has betrayed what it claims to stand for by pushing them.
>>5383873
>All local, state, county, federal property is barred. All oil and chemical company property. Any and all bars.
I'm sorry aren't the reasons here all really self-evident?
Obviously, you can't carry on federal property because that's against federal law. I do suppose that it is unfair that you are not allowed to carry in state and local property, but it's really not that big of a deal. Firearms in chemical and oil properties are just an obvious hazard waiting to happen. Likewise, guns in bars is just asking for people to get shot.
I really don't see a big problem; you can conceal carry almost anywhere you would regularly go unless you're a government employee.
>>5383889
"fundies" controlled the republican party in the late 90s early 00s
this never came to anything close to national socialism
horseshoe theory is very poorly reasoned "you're just as bad as they are" shit
>>5383867
if you are christian and gay marriage is against your beliefs. you get ass raped in court and have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.
if you are muslim and work as a truck driver at a company that delivers beer. then decide that allah forbids you to do your job. the job you knowingly and willingly entered into. then you get fired by your employer because you do not want to do the work they are paying you for. then the government says you get to ass rape the employer for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
why is the fucking muslim's religious beliefs being protected more than the jesus freak?
>>5383892
>I really don't see a big problem
"I don't really care about the second amendment"
cool senpai
>>5383860
> it has very little to do with religion
BULLFUCKING SHIT the Jesus freaks in the GOP openly court people advocating the death penalty for homosexuals.
>>5383881
Are you against civil lawsuits? If a post OP passing transwomen gets thrown out the girls bathroom because their past gets leaked out or something, I think it is perfectly fair for the women to sue. Just like how people can sue for products that turn out to be defective after a really long period of time.
>>5383896
I dunno, you look at the way they wrote the rfa laws in Indiana and you'll see it was the state declaring that it would interfere in private lawsuits to help take property from individuals and deliver it to offenders so long as you could come up with a religious justification.
>>5383897
Have either of these ever happened in America?
>>5383899
>can legally carry guns in like 99% of the state
>muh second amendment
Are you serious? Just let it go. It's not worth the time to fight for the legal right to carry in bars.
>>5383907
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/30/muslim-truckers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol-awarded-240000/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/
>>5383901
when will this meme die
obama's favorite preacher wanted to gas the kikes but that kind of gets buried away
>>5383915
They haven't meddled in my civil liberties quite as much and they don't justify things by using lgbt as boogiemen.
Dems are definitely winning the "less ugly contest"
>>5383892
All Oil company and chemical company property. Ever go to a gas station? All remote rig sites. Have you ever been here?
>>5383921
if you don't think your right to privacy, right to money, right to contract and right to self defense are civil rights i don't know what to tell you other than perhaps move to europe
>>5383923
>gas station
Just leave it in your car. That's perfectly legal. If some crazy dude comes shooting the place, I think the Judge is going to look the other way if you whip out your gun and shoot the dude.
>>5383918
Yeah both are ridiculous. I blame greedy lawyers and hypocritical leftists.
>>5383920
Cruz attended a rally where the pastor said kill gay people. Republicans won't stop till all gays blacks women Muslims etc. are in death camps.
>>5383929
That's exactly what the rfa and social conservative policies in your wing of the party advocate. Hell they even want the state to interfere in bodily autonomy. Radfems being on the same page as them definitely shows just how authoritarian the party has gone.
>>5383932
>at
Opps I forgot. Hey deputy dick wad doesn't like you? Felon. Have a nice life never working.
>>5383941
>>5383942
>Hell they even want the state to interfere in bodily autonomy
as in not letting people put in their bodies whatever they want? show me the democrat who wants to dissolve the FDA and legalize all substances faggot
because i know a republican who did
>>5383944
What? Deputy dick wad can't arrest you for having a gun in your car. It's legal by Texas law; it's been upheld in court.
>>5383921
i'm far more worried about the democrats wanting to take my guns and importing muslism. than what the republicans' opinion of a cis lesbian.
>>5383948
It's true though, he's even gone as far as to spread conspiracy theories blaming lgbt for terrorism. https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/01/next-stop-on-crazy-train-maybe-planned-p
Thought he did a good job in fighting the contraceptive mandate but he's gone full nat-soc now.
>>5383955
>guns and importing muslism.
are you a white trash Jesus freak?
>>5383951
>as in not letting people put in their bodies whatever they want?
There's more to bodily autonomy than that but yes that is part of it. Bodily autonomy means any modification or alteration to your body, from surgery to hormones, implants and morning after pills. All of it.
>>5383961
no. a gun toting libertain-ish lesbian that is suspect of people from cultures that would toss me off a building.
>>5383974
dath rayciss
>>5383974
>libertain-ish
BUT BAN ALL MUSLIMS BIG GOVERNMENT
STFU cunt. The only people who are going to throw you off a cliff in this country are republishits. You don't deserve to live you are that stupid.
>>5383974
Exactly the reason to worry about domestic fundies who try to turn lgbt into some evil Jew monsters in their election posters and rhetoric. I don't want the Taliban here, regardless of what nouns they use for God.
>>5383987
you live in a fantasy world
>>5383989
>e
The Democrats have gone completely insane.
If Jim Webb was their candidate. I would vote for him.
So I'm left hoping that Rand Paul creates a miracle and is the GOP nominee.
>>5383918
>Fox News
>>5384002
FAUX LIED PEOPLE DIED LMAO
>>5384002
though shall not commit logical fallacies.
>>5383951
Paul doesn't represent the party though. Agree the fda is holding back medicine and that dereg is good.
That said, the bulk of the party is pushing a paternalism where the state gets to chose what you do with your body.
>>5383997
>rand
Well he can talk the talk, but I don't know if he actually walks the walk.
>>5383954
Opps you forgot to take in out of its ankle holster.
>>5384016
Rand filibustered the mass data collection renewal of the Patriot Act. He tried to filibuster the "Freedom" Act too.
Only candidate to openly say he isn't going to give Israel aid money.
Rand walks the walk. He just has tread carefully because of his party and state.
Which is why Rand and Webb should form a new party that splits the difference between the Dems and repubs.
>>5384021
Rand Paul can suck my fucking dick.
Rand Paul is anti-gay and supports banning all abortion in any cases. He also supports banning people from other countries. Pro TPP and other trade deals shipping our jobs overseas. SMALL GUBMINT, EXPECT FOR THIS THIS THIS
Berine sanders is the only sane candidate running. And is 100% pro lgbt from day one.
>>5384033
Democrats are the party of rich old white people. Trying to tell everyone else how they will fight against the evil old rich white people. that are supposedly oppressing them. The democrats will only need to strip away most of our rights and take most our wealth in taxes, to accomplish it.
>>5384021
Know that, would've actually voted for him over Clinton a few months back. He's spineless when it comes to dealing with the soc cons in the party and I don't know if he'd care about the wing of the party that relies on those posters.
Granted the primaries are messed up so he can't afford that, even so I don't think I could take a chance with those groups growing.
>new party
Don't the libertarians already do that?
>>5384039
draft doding career politician.
wants to raise everyone's taxes. thinks the social programs of a country of 4 million people can be applied to a country of 320 million.
>>5384055
isnt too bad in civil liberties and civil rights. Hell slate is skewering him for being too pro 2a.
>>5384055
>draft doding
Yes god forbid someone doesn't want to support the American empire's illegal wars overseas and killing Vietnamese people.
>>5384065
Jim Webb is better than Bernie in everyway. Got laughed out of the party for not promising huge increases to the welfare state.
>>5384097
STFU redneck. Go back to your trailer park.
>>5383827
NOOooooo everything that sticks it to the degenerates is good for the economy and good for america!!!1!!!
>>5383828
Well if you ask /pol/tards...
>>5383691
This. When it came time be reelected he needed something to give him an upper hand against Clinton. Because Hillary was still honest about how she feels about us, pretending to be ok with gay marriage but him above her.
>>5383847
>>5383858
>implying /pol doesn't cheer and jerk off in their echochamber all day over the prospect of putting their prejudices into law and finally having their "day of rope" where they murder everyone who upsets their feels
but they're totally for small government and personal freedom, just for the RIGHT people and things ;^)
>>5383877
>I'm a big government statist
Good thinking. Giving the government as much power as they want over our lives has always worked out great for minorities.
>inb4 lolbertarian or anarchists
Both of those are just as bad. The government needs to be big enough to protect us but small enough to not screw us over in a major way. Instead of going to extremes like the power hungry politicians want us to do we should be looking for that Goldilocks zone.
>>5383877
>I'm a big government statist. That means anti discrimination laws, single payer healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, ban all guns, legalize weed, etc.
Except when the government wants things you disagree with, then the government suddenly has too much power.
Yeah we all heard that story a hundred times already.
>>5384865
>legalize weed
You do realize governments don't legalize anything, right? The only power they have in terms of that is to ban or stop their ban. Everything is legal by default and they only become illegal when someone with the power to enforce their own sense of morality decides to ban it. I'm not some hippie anarchists but weed is illegal because big gov said so. To say you want their ban on it to stop is to say you want to limit the power of the government. You're not a full on statist, which is a good thing. Full on anything is bad
>>5384833
>The government needs to be big enough to protect us but small enough to not screw us over in a major way
your system has been tried and failed miserably, as the government always increases in size. all you have against libertarianism is conjecture and your feefees
>>5384033
>Rand Paul is anti-gay and supports banning all abortion in any cases.
That's true, but the supreme court has made both of these issues irrelevant.
>>5385286
>but the supreme court has made both of these issues irrelevant.
No it hasn't. We are still fighting for abortion and LGBT rights to this day. Guess you haven't been paying attention to.
>>5384865
>Except when the government wants things you disagree with,
What's wrong with that? Do you think everyone is an anarchist retard like you? No, most normal people are statists. That means they support government in policies they like, and oppose it prohibiting stuff they hate. That's literally how society operates.
The difference is liberals are right and conservatives are dead fucking wrong.
>>5383832
Neither shillary or osama supported marriage equality, furthermore the concept of "economic justice" is ridiculous.
>>5385602
>Neither shillary or osama supported marriage equality,
Go back to /pol/. GOP sure as well don't support marriage equality or even gays as human beings.
>furthermore the concept of "economic justice" is ridiculous.
Yeah let's let corporations rape and murder us.
>>5383397
>REPUBLIKKKANS
please go
>>5385589
Roe vs Wade isn't going anywhere, and gay marriage is legal. The biggest hold up is rights for transgender people.
>>5385618
>Go back to /pol/
You really are braindead, the whole argument is that both sides are retarded and that the current representative democratic system is a failure.
>Yeah let's let corporations rape and murder us.
And how exactly do corporations rape and murder anything?
>>5383440
>>>/pol/
>>5385785
Not just trans. Making it illegal to fire you for getting gay married or lose your apt. is also still a struggle.
>>5385850
only for people who hate liberty
>>5385867
I hate the liberty of bigots. Fuck em.
>>5383897
Muslims are brown, so the left likes them more than us gays.
>>5385867
>only for people who hate liberty
Define "liberty"
Freedom to what? Freedom for the boss to exploit the worker.
>>5385850
Right, but that's something that can be reasonably handled on the local level and already is in most cases. Houston is an outlier among major cities. In regards to national politics, Rand has a ton of other pros (anti-war, anti-NSA spying, etc.) that none of the other candidates have. Even Bernie tows the party line when it comes to foreign policy and is willing to continue drone strikes.
>>5385867
The government interfering in lawsuits to help criminals break rental contracts or steal your property is national socialist tire statism.
Just cause you take property from a Jew or fag doesn't make it any less contrary to neg rights
>>5386163
You have to be retarded idiot if you think Paul is going to be the nominee. It's going to be trump.
>>5386172
>is national socialist tire statism.
HURRRRR DURRR I'M A FUCKING RETARD
This is why libertarians deserve a bullet to the fucking head. To stupid to live.
>>5386311
When the fuck did I ever say that? I'm just saying who I support the most out of the two major parties.
>>5386323
Which? I'm saying the state endorsing discrimination and theft against minorities, be they lgbt or Jew or any boogiemen of the week is as old school authoritarian as you can get.
>>5383780
How fucking stupid and brainwashed into deep deep conservatism are you to think that picture is liberal? It's fucking the most center picture you can have.
>>5383440
Polling has showed that white people are actually the most anti-lgbt racial population
>>5387167
Really? Got that poll handy?
>>5382713
>Falling for the Democrats' minority coalition pandering bullshit and taking their cock down your throat this willingly
It's just like how Johnson said: "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years," don't think they're not rubbing their hands saying that right now but with "fags" instead of "niggers." Big government is good for no one.
>>5384820
No one but you mentioned /pol/ you retard, /pol/ has been statist for the longest time, you're attempting to argue with anti-statists by accusing them of being statists because they don't agree with your favored form of statism.
>>5383801
>your a bigot
retard detected
>>5387303
>Big government is good for no one.
Yes because Somalia is so great right?
No the truth is big government IS good. Just like at Europe were big government democratic socialism and unions still have vast power. We need socialism in this country.
>>5383691
He was never strongly against it either, he was just waiting for the time when he could actually get it legalized properly.
>>5383780
>all private businesses should have the right to ban trannies from using the "wrong" restrooms, as unenforceable as that may be
Why though? Because it grosses them out? Should they be allowed to do the same with people they find ugly? Or black people?
>>5383816
>but at least with republicans you can defend yourself
What's that supposed to mean? Because Republicans are pro-gun? Won't really save you against bigots, they can easily outnumber you and at that point easy access to guns just means you're more likely to be dead before the ambulance arrives. Instead, we should just enforce harsher penalties for homophobia/transphobia. That might sound kind of Orwellian, jailing people for saying they hate trannies and all that, but a large part of the anti-immigration rhetoric is based on the idea that we shouldn't let them in since they don't share our values. The same should apply to people within our country, if they want to kill other American citizens their own citizenship should be revoked, even if they were born here. At that point they've shown they can't comply with America's values.
>>5383850
>if a bakery doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes. then that should be fine. so long as the bakery is up front about it and doesn't try to violate any outstanding contracts.
What about an ordinary grocery store? Should they be allowed to refuse service to gays/blacks etc just because they don't like them?
>no one is equal with the protection laws for special groups.
Or you could just make it law that NO ONE can be discriminated against based on race, religion, orientation, or gender.
>>5383875
It's not really practical to have to get a lawyer for every single case of discrimination. It's far better to just make a fixed law and keep it enforced.
>>5383929
There is no such thing as a "right" to money. If you're referring to right to private property that's one thing (though how strictly that "right" should be applied is debatable), but "right to money" implies that the government is violating your Constitutional rights if you're living in poverty.
>>5384055
Is there any reason the social programs can't be scaled? More population means higher costs, but also higher tax income.
>>5387303
I don't get why people say "don't vote for this party, they're just pandering, they don't really care about you", when literally every political system has functioned that way. It's appealing to voters, its how politics has always functioned. Most politicians don't have time or aren't even in the right place to have a personal interest in the issues.
>>5383397
>Leftists on LGBT
I thought this was just a meme or you were acting like this ironically.
>Democrat for the Mayor of Houston
Austin is already a festering liberal manure pile. Houston can stand on its business growth alone, and doesn't need any of that ilk dampening its values, culture, or economy.
>HRC endorsed
Flip flopper establishment politician hated by much of her own party? What an endorsement!
>>5383397>>5383471
>Eat shit >Get Fucked
Brilliant argumentation
>Anti-LGBT
Implying politicans even have the power to overturn discrimination rulings even if they wanted to.
Implying the "pro-LGBT" movement isn't also correlated with failed immigration, economic, and social policies, as well as violations on private property.
>>5383411
>That the gay support guys? A'righ, a'right, I'll root for them.
I don't understand this mentality. The only thing you know about him is his orientation, and his political support for those with that same orientation.
>>5383684
Go to hell. Houston was one of the last vibrant bastions of conservatism that to is being trampled by student factions, democraphically blue factions, and social justice painting of conservative policies as "totes ebil"
>>5383756
> fundies turning Houston into Islamabad
That's rich. Tell me what's closer to Islamabad- 1977 Utah, or 1977 Bronx, NY?
Detroit of today, or Clovis NM? Fundies need to be fought when they want to change the Tx curriculum, but in all other aspects they are peaceful and prosperous.
>>5383792
>Screw what bigots want. eff em
Then they lose revenue and get bad press. Do you see how that works?
>>5383801
>so you support businesses putting up signs say NO GAYS OR BLACKS OR TRANSEXUALS ALLOWED
Yes.
>You're a bigot
The entire purpose of property is to do with it as one sees fit without infringing on another person's autonomy in terms of bodily harm, taking their property, or restricting their movement.
>Bible
Implying I am religious.
>>5398382
>I thought this was just a meme or you were acting like this ironically.
No, it's the LGBT Republicans who are regarded as a meme. Though not *all* Republicans are bad for LGBT, people view it as contradictory.
>The entire purpose of property is to do with it as one sees fit without infringing on another person's autonomy in terms of bodily harm, taking their property, or restricting their movement.
Businesses are not just private property. They're a contract between an individual or corporation and the government. That's why there are specific laws applied to businesses.
>be freshman in highschool
>Fat, like to offend feminists and SJWs.
>in eighth grade faggy gsa member became a transboy
>he/she was popular in middle school
>he/she had army of white knight friends surrounding him/her like the kingsguard
>always insulted me and my dudes for having guns in our homes
>"you're all shootings waiting to happen!"
>he/she "rebelled" against the teacher any time possible by refusing to follow orders
>always yells at kids in class
>first term
>don't have classes with the kid, but he/she still attacks my posts saying there's more than two genders
>like really there's been two genders for billions of years and it only took tumblr two years to fuck it up
>white knights keep shitting on my posts with same stupid arguments
>think tranny is behind it
>think tranny has gotten crazy popular now that they're in highschool
>have class with them second term
>think tranny will keep making fun of me in front of class along with white knights
>scared.jpeg
>mfw that short little munchkin has inch thick eyebrows, looks depressed all the time and has blonde/green hair
>mfw they don't get the "trans" part of transgender cuz they just look like a white oompa loompa
>mfw I have more friends than them
>>5383827
>White only or Muslim only or Christian only is just bad policy for a modern economy.
You seem to be conflating homogeneous communities- which tend to be the easiest to administrate and have less internal conflict- with the ability for a business to serve and/or hire from a demographic of their choosing- which of itself is bad business.
>>5383828
>Jim Crow
State governments and the courts restricting one race from using facilities and services meant for another was fucked and uneconomical.
> nazi germany
The business policies under the NSDAP were largely set by the NSDAP. Business owners couldn't work with Jews et al even if they wanted to.
>Apartheid South Africa
Apartheid was largelt
>Were really great countires
During white-government, the GDP, standard of living, life expectancy etc of South Africa skyrocketed. Infant mortality, family size, rapes, murders and other violent crimes, and diseases plummeted. Post white-government, all of that was reversed.
Pro-tip: apartheid ended under white government. Similarly with Rhodesia.
Third Reich Germany, despite its racial policies, was a modernized, prosperous, civil and peaceful country to live in.
During the Jim Crow era, despite Jim Crow being slowly smashed from governor to governor, despite most people being content with the situations, and despite the nation being more propserous per capita than manhy others, there were civil rights issues, I agree.
>>5383832
> Dens support body freedom
Republicans believe within a pregnant woman are two sovereign bodies, not one. Philosophically, I agree. Practically, I support abortion.
>Marriage equality
The definition of marriage has been set by states for decades thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments.
>Economic "justice"
Lopping off the income of the top earners and distributing it to the rest would barely make a dent in effect.
>>5389845
europe is fucked because of the unions and democratic socialism... I can assure you... I'm a belgian and unions are gangsters that physically attack workers willing to work during strikes. They will also destroy the country by completely shutting down public transport (at least 10-12 times a year (( not even joking...)) ) and they have literal billions abroad, whilst protesting companies that do the same... socialism leads to corruption and inefficient bureaucracy ... believe me, you do not want "democratic" socialism... not that that even exists...
>>5383839
Bars can refuse to let people enter because they are wearing sneakers, or otherwise not up to their unwritten dress code. They can refuse to let people enter because they smell like smoke. They can refuse to let people enter who the bouncer plain doesn't like. They can refuse to let people enter who say they are part of the press and want to investigate apparent violations within the establishment. They can refuse to let police enter save for those with warrants. They can refuse to let people with weapons enter. They can refuse to let tall people enter- as they may have a greater possibility to hit the ceiling fan meaning a possible liability burden on the establishment. Establishments, entities, and private owners have an infinite amount of reasons, all perfectly legal and acceptable, many arbitrary not to let people enter or be served.
So what if some more categories get added to the list of a few of these places?
>>5383845
>end to civil liberties and natural rights in favor of their own version of sharia.
I've spoken to some real deal 6,000 year old Earth fundies, and even if just for propaganda purposes, they mostly spout "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
>>5383873
Damn.
>>5398436
>The definition of marriage has been set by states for decades thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments.
And that was a problem due to the confusion when people moved between states. If marriage is to have any legal meaning at all, we have to have a federal definition of marriage. Either abolish marriage as anything but a religious thing no one in the government cares about, or have a consistent definition of marriage at the federal level. We have to do one or the other.
>Lopping off the income of the top earners and distributing it to the rest would barely make a dent in effect.
It makes a huge difference when there's severe income inequality. An amount of money that's nearly insignificant to an extremely wealthy person can mean the difference between life and death for dozens of people living in poverty. It's all about diminishing marginal utility - the fewer dollars you have, the more each is worth on average. From a utility perspective, concentration of wealth is wasteful.
>>5383877
>every society is statist and authoritarian
Do you understand the concept of degrees? The PRC is more authoritarian than Taiwan. Russia is more authoritarian than Norway. KSA is more Authoritarian than Turkey. State spending in proportion to GDP is larger in NK than SK, and in Belarus than in Poland.
> I'm a big government statist.
Do you realize that a large government is an apparatus that can be used by your opposition as well as your comrades? At least in a federated society, Vermonters can have mini-Sweden, and New Hampshire can have mini-Singapore.
>single payer healthcare
It would probably be more efficient than the US' current system, but there are various issues that can arise that I may get into in a later post
>Higher taxes on the "rich"
Ever hear of the Laffer Curve? Also, even if we taxed "the rich" 100%, it would barely make a dent in any of the policies intended to be enacted, and paled in comparison to the amount being borrowed.
>Ban all the guns
Despite constitutional protection for firearms, and despite unjustified firearm usage per 100,000 people is mostly demographic dependant, and despite all of the justifiable uses of firearms, and despite the logistical challenges (taking away the guns.. from millions of people ... with guns), and despite melee weapons causing more deaths than firearms, you will have an enforcement problem- namely LEOs hate chasing paperwork.
For every manhour spent on tracking down ever firearm or ammunition box without a permit, there is a manhour not spent on patrol.
>Legalize weed
The federal government bars state and local governments from fully legalizing weed, and somehow big government is the problem?
>fairy tale "libertarian" anarchism.
Le 'all libertarians are anarchists' meme never gets old.
>>5398491
>I've spoken to some real deal 6,000 year old Earth fundies, and even if just for propaganda purposes, they mostly spout "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
"Hate the sin, not the sinner" doesn't mean anything positive. It's not tolerant except in a very perverted sense. It doesn't mean they have the slightest bit of acceptance for people who are gay or trans, because from their perspective, it's 100% a choice. They may not hate the sinner. These are the people who will drive LGBT kids to suicide by forcing them into conversion therapy, all the while claiming they're doing it out of love for them. Christian fundamentalist "love" is nothing like actual love, they consider making someone miserable or even ending their life a good thing as long as it stops them from sinning.
>>5383832
>body freedom
Don't hide behind a silly euphemism, you coward. You want to chop up babies/the unborn.
>>5383832
>economic justice
>>>/Sweden/
>>5398523
>Le 'all libertarians are anarchists' meme never gets old.
Many libertarians I've met insist that libertarian does not mean reasonable limits on the extent of government, it only means no government at all. Which is the same as anarchism, and is a literal fairytale, since by these libertarians definition of government (something along the lines of an entity that uses violent force to make people follow the rules), in the absence of any other government, anyone willing and able to threaten people's lives is a de facto government, and the only way to stop that would be for the people to join together and defeat them, thereby becoming a government themselves.
>be freshman in highschool
>Fat, like to offend feminists and SJWs.
>in eighth grade faggy gsa member became a transboy
>he/she was popular in middle school
>he/she had army of white knight friends surrounding him/her like the kingsguard
>always insulted me and my dudes for having guns in our homes
>"you're all shootings waiting to happen!"
>he/she "rebelled" against the teacher any time possible by refusing to follow orders
>always yells at kids in class
>first term
>don't have classes with the kid, but he/she still attacks my posts saying there's more than two genders
>like really there's been two genders for billions of years and it only took tumblr two years to fuck it up
>white knights keep shitting on my posts with same stupid arguments
>think tranny is behind it
>think tranny has gotten crazy popular now that they're in highschool
>have class with them second term
>think tranny will keep making fun of me in front of class along with white knights
>scared.jpeg
>mfw that short little munchkin has inch thick eyebrows, looks depressed all the time and has blonde/green hair
>mfw they don't get the "trans" part of transgender cuz they just look like a white oompa loompa
>mfw I have more friends than them
>>5398543
Where do you drawn the line of a new life beginning? Why?
>>5383987
Wow, leftists really are like rabid dogs.
>>5383941
>Republicans won't stop till all gays blacks women Muslims etc. are in death camps.
During the last administration, there was a period where republicans controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, had a favorable SCOTUS, had a plurality of governorships and a plurality of state legislatures. This means they could have done anything they would have wanted, whatsoever- or at the very least try.
Not even basic-bitch "white identity/white nationalist" policies were instituted (tackling the EEO, tackling statutes and court rulings against real estate restrictive covenenants, tackling affirmative action, tackling "hate crimes", border wall etc) let alone Jim Crow instituted.
Not even basic-bitch "Christian identity" policies were put into effect. Prayer in schools? BTFO. No-fault marriages? Brought in by Reagan, untouched by everyone since. Abortion? Roe V Wade set it in stone, (and everyone just sort of accepted it, but tried tackling PP instead with mixed results) let alone turn the US into a theocracy with women out of the workplace and sodomy laws ramped up to stonings.
Not even basic-bitch "free market" plans from Cato and Heritage were instituted. Not buying insurance across state lines, or massive right to work overhaul, or tackling public sector unions, or tackling no-bid contracts, or increasing the SS/Medicare age, (Hell, Medicare was even expanded during this period), let alone turn everything into a Rothbardian ancap society.
>>5398553
It's ironic someone would support Sanders and Sarkeesian/Zoe Quinn at the same time. His campaign and supporters are being silenced by the mass media constantly if it doesn't look good for Hillary while Hillary gets the attention and is being promoted as the "winner". Which is what happened with Sarkeesian and how she became the victim.
>>5383961
>Being wary of Muslim migration is equated to Christian Fundamentalism
We have various issues, namely that most of these people are less educated than many of their immigrant cohorts, that most were raised in, ruled by, and support some sort of Sharia, come from more unstable regions, and once here are more prone to be on welfare programs, have various expensive clashes with school systems, bureaucracies and businesses over cultural concerns (5x prayer in school,preferred gender segregation in school, headcovering issues with public IDs, sale of pork in stores, etc).
>>5383959
>We know that he was a man who registered to vote as a woman..It's..reported that he's registered as an Independent and as a woman [and is] a trans.. leftist activist.
I bet you believe Scalia is a racist too.
>>5383987
>BUT BAN ALL MUSLIMS BIG GOVERNMENT
The government has few roles and responsibilities, mainly to those it already governs. The government has no roles or responsibilities to those not under its governance- those not even in its country yet (save for treaties and other select agreements.)
One of the roles and responsibilities of government is to set immigration policy. There can only be a certain number of immigrants coming annually, as we can't logistically take the whole world.
>This is a power the government already has. No new power is being advocated or advocated or conferred.
The government also has the power to choose from where these immigrants come from- unfortunately the more we accept from X, the less we accept from Y; by default we are already denying certain people from coming.
>This is a power the government already has. No new power is being advocated or advocated or conferred.
When deciding which people should be able to come to this country, and in which amounts, and in which ratios, and what hoops they have to jump through, the political nature of their countries, security issues, economic issues, etc.
>Powers gov already has. No new power..
>>5383961
You DO realize that Angela Merkel is part of Christian democratic party? Her actions are partially result of her Christian ideals. Pretty much all Christian Democrats of Europe have been pro-refugee.
Christianity in Europe isn't same as it is in USA. It is very much about following Christ and having these good, but sometimes naive ideas of being responsible of entire world's problems. Back in Cold War when Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan, they tried to make them abandon their Islamic ways as atheism and communism walk hand in hand. Being pro-Christian definitely isn't being anti-Islam, I'd say atheists are more against it.
>>5384033
>Anti-gay
Expound. I think I know what you're talking about, but don't want to put words in your mouth.
>Supports banning abortions
However, in a 2013 interview he said that he would not oppose abortion in some individual cases involving a woman's health.[37] He opposes the use of federal, state, or local government funds for abortion.[35] Paul favors a federal ban on abortion, but he has said that until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade or the nation passes a constitutional amendment to ban abortions nationwide, the legality of abortion should be left to the individual states to decide without federal involvement.[44]
1. Practicality. Mixed bag. I hope he would have been more pro-choice, or more of a federalist about it.
2. Philosophical consistency. The claim in question is whether Paul is selective about increasing state power. The state, to small government supporters, should be limited to little more than protecting individuals. Now abortion policy hinges on whether one considers a fetus an individual. He and others thinks they are, and therefore the government is justified in protectign them (though I disagree practically).
>TPP
1. Practicality
I disagree with many of the components of the TPP, specifically some of the IP ones,
2. Consistency
but generally speaking fewer restrictions and regulations on international trade is decreasing the role of the state.
>>5384039
>Bernie
>Unsustainable public programs
>Free tuition
>Financial markets tax
>Gun rights flip flopper
>Sane
>>5384097
Webb got skewered by his own party for being proud to serve in Viet Nam.
>>5384820
>All people right of you are /pol/
>/pol/ in turn is one person
>>5385589
>Abortion
I can't comment
>LGBT "rights"
specify which rights, and why each right shouldn't be accepted by a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
>>5385618
>OP sure as well don't support marriage equality or even gays as human beings.
I wasn't aware that even at the peak of GOP power, they drove us all out to detention centers, removed our rights, and forced corrective rape on us.
>Yeah let's let corporations rape and murder us.
I don't agree with cronyism or many corporate policies, but specify what your specific grievances are and how you plan to implement "economic justice". A top 5 or a top 10 is a good start.
>>5385948
>Freedom for the boss to exploit the worker.
You can put it that way, yes. There is a reason big-city bar owners rarely hire straight males as tenders. Employers put up the risk and the money to run their business, so they can run it how they see fit to the extent it doesn't trample on someone else's rights.
>>5389845
>All small governments are equated with Somalia
Never mind Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and a lot of the other nations high on the economic freedom index.
Also
>somalia
>nation under civil war
>with various factions
>each wanting to be the.. ruler
>All big government is good, and in all aspects
Never mind the PRC, USSR, etc
>Europe is desirable
Most european nations are already high-productivity, have access to resources, and are ethnically homogenous.
>>5398803
>I don't agree with cronyism or many corporate policies, but specify what your specific grievances are and how you plan to implement "economic justice". A top 5 or a top 10 is a good start.
Reversing Citizens United would be a good start.
>>5398803
> unsustainable programs
Since when does "pays for itself" mean the same thing as "unsustainable"?
You realize that heavy investments in education and public infrastructure do pay for themselves in the long term, right? Or are you one of those people that can't see past the next fiscal quarter?
>>5393378
>Why though?
Any reason
>Because it grosses them out?
Regarding the bathroom issue? Liability reasons for one. Loss of customers for another.
>Should they be allowed to do the same with people they find ugly
Sure.
> Or black people?
If they can take the loss of revenue and bad press
>Guns won't save you from bigots
If a fabled bigot zombie armie is knocking at my door, they're in for a surprise.
>they can easily outnumber you
Said bigots (right wing conservative christians) already outnumber me. I'm not exactly in fear for my life, not was I when the GOP was at the peak of its power.
>Instead, we should just enforce harsher penalties for homophobia/transphobia.
That should be done by a case by case basis in the courts. What you propose would mean that any and all transactions may be under consideration by a public body as possibly falling under behavior which negatively affects-(or even having the possibility to not positively affect, such as NOT serving someone) a certain protected class), for review and eventual dispensation of penalty.
There is an infinite amount of speech, transactions and interactions that can fall under this category.
This is pretty much going to do little more than enrich ambulance chasing attorneys doing little more than finding trouble.
It really isn't that much of an issue when people can vote with their dollars and their legs.
>That might sound kind of Orwellian, jailing people for saying they hate trannies and all that
I wonder why.
>A large part of the anti-immigration rhetoric is based on the idea that we shouldn't let them in since they don't share our values.
1. It seems to me that you would like to subject that rhetoric as well under said pentalties
2. It seems to me you think propensity to assimilation isn't a legitimate factor in assessing immigration
>>5383918
The thing is, one of these is a private company while other case is being a stubborn and selfish employee. While I don't get why someone would damage their business by refusing to bake a goddamn cake for gays because of ideological reasons, I think they are free to do it because this is their company and this is how it works. It's not promoting hate speech either. It's up to the customers to decide whether they continue going to such bakery. Same way I think private Christian schools are free to ban gay behavior since they are not government funded, I don't know why gays would even go to such schools unless their parents forced them to do it.
But that trucking company was also free to pick its employees, and if the drivers refuse to do their fucking job then they might as well start walking because they are not fit for that job. In same way if there was pro-LGBT bakery and one of the bakers refused to service homosexuals, the employer has every right to fire this person. Isn't it pretty simple?
>>5398829
>If a fabled bigot zombie armie is knocking at my door, they're in for a surprise.
And what's to stop them from getting guns as well? Whether you have a gun or not, you're pretty much screwed when you're attacked by five guys with guns.
>2. It seems to me you think propensity to assimilation isn't a legitimate factor in assessing immigration
Not at all, I'm just saying that the minority of people who do go around killing gays/trans people because they're gay or trans haven't exactly assimilated into the American culture (where we pretty much universally agree that kind of thing is wrong) and so the same reasoning should apply here. If one cannot integrate into American society (even if they were born here), they should have their citizenship revoked. Citizenship rights are not something we owe people, it's basically part of a contract. If they don't do their part (e.g. reasonably integrate into our culture and follow our norms), there's no reason why they deserve citizenship.
>>5398856
If I recall, (and I may be getting this mixed up with something else) the Muslim truck driver basically ended up being a non-issue since they worked out an arrangement where they traded routes with someone else so they personally didn't have to transport alcohol but still did their fair share of the work.
>>5393378
>if they want to kill other American citizens their own citizenship should be revoked
>If x commits a crime against y, the rights and privileges of x could be removed
Hear me out here! What if we create a system whereby parties can try to attain justice for wrongs committed against them or to people they represent, in combination with subjecting people to investigation and trial for statute violations?
What if once convicted, the accused undergoes various punitive measures restricting the accused's rights and privileges, and/or instituting some sort of fine? What if among these measures can be included imprisonment, house arrest, and various classifications such as misdemeanor and felony, which may affect voting, gun ownership, future sentencing?
Oh and for those not citizens of this nation within its borders committing such crimes, what about getting them out of the country? Lets say we call this.. deportation.
>What about an ordinary grocery store? Should they be allowed to refuse service to gays/blacks etc just because they don't like them?
IMO yes.
>Or you could just make it law that NO ONE can be discriminated against based on race, religion, orientation, or gender.
1. There are an infinite amount of categories by which an infinite amount of people can be discriminated against. Like I mentioned with my bar example- dress code, hygiene, smoking, the way you look, being considered a security issue by professional opinion, the way you speak etc
2. It is almost impossible to discern whether discrimination was aimed at a protected class or not. Services may not have been offered because the customer was a dick, or gave a funny look, or looked like someone who may ask for a return, or any number of reasons or combinations of reasons.
3. It is entirely unfeasible to look at every single possible transaction and sale and determine whether discrimination was taking place.
>>5393378
>It's not really practical to have to get a lawyer for every single case of discrimination. It's far better to just make a fixed law and keep it enforced.
1. Class action lawsuits and lawsuits done on the behalf of people by legal foundations already exist.
2. Already, once case law determined that for a jurisdiction, for any perceived violates of statute or the rights of others (criminal or civil), all persons and entities in similar situations have to follow what was decided upon in court.
3. How would this decrease the amount of lawsuits? If anything it would increase them, because potential defendants and attorneys are now incentivized to seek damanges for discrimination- feigned, minor, or major. Furthermore, once businesses have a positive obligation to prove they are not discriminating (where before the defendant had the positive obligation to prove discrimination beyond a reasonable doubt, and seek reciprocal damages), it starts a chain that is never broken.
>Why didn't you X this person?
Well she looked similar to a shoplifter that wore a hijab, she wore a hijab of the same color, we have a right to refuse service to those we believe to be shoplifters.
>Oh so you're religiously/racially profiling now?
No, I mean yes, I mean maybe, I mean.. look we just want to protect our assets
>Fined $10,000
Furthermore, any transaction under which money is gained from a good or service can be considered a business. Under your proposed system, do you have a workaround for scale and scope?
e.g. During a snowstorm a man with an extra truck attachable snow plow in his garage decides to rent it out to his neighbors. He decides to tell Bill, who was a chill guy, but not Frank, who was a faggot who can stay snowed in. Is he going to get fucked by the discrimination commission?
What about if it was a brick-and-mortar hardware store selling shovels? Are they the only people who would be subject to it?
Or if it was an online store? How would that work?
>>5393420
>Is there any reason the social programs can't be scaled?
It depends on the program, but
>Logistics
Administration of smaller and more localized services can be more responsive, the end user being more capable of dealing with the administration.
>Serviceable population
Area 1 has a population of healthy, fairly well off people, whereas area 2 has a population of obese, impoverished people. Services before tailored to the needs and conditions of either population will now be split between the needs of both. Another example is 'federal jobs programs'. A centralized system works most efficiently with a cookie cutter approach, so to simplify let's say 3 different types of job training are offered (asphalt laying, bricklaying, telephone pole installation) to keep the administration down to 3 areas of expertise, while still covering a majority of public services.
However it would suck people away that may have been put to work on more locally tailored programs, like plowing snow in Alaska, or dredging lakes in Louisiana.
>but also higher tax income
Area 1 may provide higher tax revenue per capita, and the system may be solvent. Area 2 may provide lower tax revenue per capita, and the system may become insolvent, and since the service is free, it incentives the impoverished people to use it more so if they had to pay for it themselves.
> It's appealing to voters, its how politics has always functioned
>Problem 1: Giving the baby candy because it's cheaper than broccoli and it enjoys it better
Sometimes politicians vow to give goodies at the expense of constitutional restrictions or economic capacity
>Problem 2: Giving the baby candy coated with poison
Well these people vow to give a bit of X, which I like, but they also want to do a lot of Y and Z, which I don't like. Well it's not like they are going to fool one-issue-voters into thinking X is more important than Y and Z, right?
>Problem 3: Giving the baby hollow candy
Promising 100% but delivering 10%
>>5398421
> it's the LGBT Republicans who are regarded as a meme
Most of us are libertarians who slowly became against open borders, were turned off by social justice, and found a need for a strong military presence.
Authoritarian left? Perfectly expected of the LGBT community. Libertarian left? Perfectly expected of the LGBT community. Libertarian right? Perfectly expected of the LGBT community (those that like their weed and like their guns especially). Moderately authoritarian right? How dare they!
>Though not *all* Republicans are bad for LGBT, people view it as contradictory.
>Bad for LGBT
Why does sexual orientation take primacy over the other hats individuals can wear? Maybe in terms of criminal justice, foreign, economic, and some social policies the republican party agrees with an LGBT person on 60% more issues than the democratic party.
>Businesses are not just private property.
Then how is trespassing a legally enforceable violation in businesses?
> They're a contract between an individual or corporation and the government
Lol what?
1. Maybe I missed that part in Contracts Law 101, but as far as I know
K=LE+OA+C+C+MA
wherein
K=valid contract
LE=legally enforceable or not illegal
OA=Offer/Acceptance wherein the intended activities of the buyer and seller are expressed (is the product being sold? leased?)
C1=consideration, wherein something of reasonable and mutually accepted value is given in return
C2=capacity, wherein both parties are reasonable enough mentally to understand the situation
MA=mutual assent, or the fact that both parties are assenting.
(modern professors probably don't use this formula anymore but the basics remain the same)
Where was the offer and acceptance? Where was the consideration? Where was the mutual assent?
>>5398421
IDK where you learned law, economics or finance, but commerce can be as small as two individuals and last for a blink of an eye.
>I have an orange
>I want an orange
>Do you want to pay for an orange?
>Yes $1
"Businesses" arise and die millions of times a day without even formal licencure before the government can even know of the transaction's existence, and yet somehow you think businesses operate at the government's pleasure, solely under their sanction? The Cold War is over. We won.
>>5398518
>That was a problem due to the confusion when people moved between states
There are an infinite amount of licenses, rights, and privileges recognized in one jurisdiction but not in another. Firearm licences, business licenses, car registration, security clearances, alcohol sale licenses- you think of it, I can name it.
> If Xis to have any legal meaning at all, we have to have a federal definition of X.
Implant any of the above into X and see where your argument fails.
>Either abolish marriage as anything but a religious thing
I actually agree with this, but there is a problem once children are reared. One of the few roles of government are ensuring children are being kept in homes not unsuitable to their needs. Married, monogamous (& where biological parentage)households are in most aspects of development, nutrition, and income of the child, the best institution to be reared in.
Would living in a 10-person no-marriage commune where each person takes equal care of the children be a state of affairs which would necessarily violate the rights of the child? No, but it increases the risk exponentially.
>It makes a huge difference when there's severe income inequality.
No. It's not an arithmetic fart in the wind in comparison.
>An amount of money that's nearly insignificant to an extremely wealthy person
How do you know that?What amount do you set it? How would you allocate it & justify the opportunity cost?
>>5398536
>"Hate the sin, not the sinner" doesn't mean anything positive. It's not tolerant except in a very perverted sense
In even fundie Christianity, everyone is assumed to be born a sinner, live a sinner, and die a sinner. Even those considered born again or saved are in some respects, still sinners. However, having faith in Jesus typically means taking a path actively reducing sin- in this case homosexual behavior or in some interpretations, transgenderism. Even among these people, there is hope and a theological possibility for salvation, so long as they accept their predilections and behaviors as sinful. It's fucked up, but it was revolutionary - but it puts everyone on equal footing spiritually and it got rid of punitive stonings.
>These are the people who will drive LGBT kids to suicide by forcing them into conversion therapy
This is fucked up, but lets view it less emotionally:
A subset of group X (X1) subject another subset of group X (X2), who in turn are a small percentage of the total population, to certain programs, resulting in an even smaller subset of X2 (X2A)being harmed or harming themselves, the total individuals in (X2A) minuscule in comparison to those being harmed or self harming for other reasons.
I don't see what you're proposing here? For the state to step in? Child Protective Services is already a thing.
>>5398555
>Many libertarians I've met.. no government at all
In the US, the greatest concentration of libertarians can be found in the libertarian party- a political party, which seeks to get into and use the apparatuses of government. It's more common to be a minarchist than an anarchist.
>willing and able to threaten people's lives is a de facto government,
Other way around- the government is an entity that functions by coercion. The level of coercion acceptable and necessary is what is debated.
to stop that,people join together &defeat it, becoming a government
Repelling the use of force with force =morally/=initiating force
>>5398818
I actually break with most other libertarians and agree with that- at least on the grounds that it was a misinterpretation and expansion of the 1st amendment.
>>5398826
>pays for itself
Even Kelton and the MMT crowd (who Sanders supports) say that most of it will be paid through debt issuance.
>Education
Do you mean for liberal arts degrees and students on 6-year-plans?
> public infrastructure
Failing infrastructure needs to be maintained, but it doesn't create much ROI. Yes, I understand roads, bridges, tunnels, and electric grids
1. Tend to be nonrivalrous and nonexcludable, thus most efficiently done under public administration, and
2..have a multiplier effect which under-girds and facilitates private investment many times over,
but x% depreciation in infrastructure does not threaten x% of the private commerce which uses said infrastructure. Once infrastructure reaches (x+n)% depreciation (there are various actuarial methods used to calculate this) is it most efficient to do infrastructure repairs or overhauls. Below that curve, it's dumping money into pitfalls that will occur again in a year, so it's best to let problems accumulate a bit to fix them all in one go. Above the curve, the problems have advanced to the point where it costs more money to repair and overhaul them than if it was done continuously.
Apart from nuclear projects and sure-thing natural resource excavation, most infrastructure projects simply throw money into places where it was going to go already, get milked by unions, and those pavers, linemen, rf engineers, civil engineers etc go back to their default state.
That said, infrastructure is something we are already doing. If you want to increase the scale and rate at which it's being done, cool beans, but there's an opportunity cost involved as well- the money can be put into something more fruitful.
>>5398871
>And what's to stop them from getting guns as well?
Assuming that all of these Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists, with whom I already interact with on a daily basis, who know the addresses and patterns of LGBT people already, who were at the peak of political power under the Bush Administration with no effect, who outnumber LGBT people by an order of magnitude, just anomalously and spontaneously one day
>*SNAPPED!*
and tried getting to my house, they would find it a waste of time and resources as seiging a well defended position is not something quick, pleasurable, or inconspicuous.
> Those that cannot integrate into American society, assimilate to our culture, and follow our norms(even if they were born here), they should have their citizenship revoked
You do realize that cultures and norms change with demographics, time, and location right?
You do realize that we as LGBT persons would fall outside of such norms right?
You do realize that giving the power of the government to remove our rights as citizens- that is to say our constitutional and civil rights- for norms violations, gives administrations opposed to us as much power as administrations who support us, right?
>>5399836
> paid through debt issuance.
Funded through debt issuance, more accurately.
And debt isn't something easy to pay back, let alone intended to by these folks.
Alright LGBT, that was enough shitposting for today. I have to get to work. The reason I was so autismal about politics is because the LGBT community seems gung ho about supporting the Left, seeing no demonizing qualities in the Right, solely over LGBT issues. If I just changed someone's mind at least slightly regarding at least one issue, than that's progress.
See you all on election day, and remember to vote Trump.
>>5399682
>Oh and for those not citizens of this nation within its borders committing such crimes, what about getting them out of the country? Lets say we call this.. deportation.
I'm saying that should apply to everyone, immigrant or native. If you beat gays or trannies just because they're gay or trans, you clearly haven't integrated into American societal values, and since integration is the basis on which you're granted citizenship, your citizenship is retroactively declared invalid. If you want to regain citizenship, you have to start from square one.
>>5399755
>Then how is trespassing a legally enforceable violation in businesses?
Because a business's facilities is private property of the business. But the business itself is a legal entity formed through a contract with the government.
>Where was the offer and acceptance? Where was the consideration? Where was the mutual assent?
Acceptance/assent exists implicitly when one establishes a business as a legal construct.
>>5399783
>IDK where you learned law, economics or finance, but commerce can be as small as two individuals and last for a blink of an eye.
>>I have an orange
>>I want an orange
>>Do you want to pay for an orange?
>>Yes $1
>"Businesses" arise and die millions of times a day without even formal licencure before the government can even know of the transaction's existence, and yet somehow you think businesses operate at the government's pleasure, solely under their sanction? The Cold War is over. We won.
That doesn't change the fact that in actual practice the government does have laws regulating FORMAL transactions. Informal transactions like the oranges are just those too minor for the government to bother with.
>>5399808
>In even fundie Christianity, everyone is assumed to be born a sinner, live a sinner, and die a sinner. Even those considered born again or saved are in some respects, still sinners. However, having faith in Jesus typically means taking a path actively reducing sin- in this case homosexual behavior or in some interpretations, transgenderism. Even among these people, there is hope and a theological possibility for salvation, so long as they accept their predilections and behaviors as sinful. It's fucked up, but it was revolutionary - but it puts everyone on equal footing spiritually and it got rid of punitive stonings.
You're kind of missing the point. They refuse to see homosexuality and transgenderism as anything but a sinful choice, and so basically cannot be accepting of such things. They don't see gays and trannies as being in the same category as normal sinners, they see them as being those who make no effort to stop sinning.
>A subset of group X (X1) subject another subset of group X (X2), who in turn are a small percentage of the total population, to certain programs, resulting in an even smaller subset of X2 (X2A)being harmed or harming themselves, the total individuals in (X2A) minuscule in comparison to those being harmed or self harming for other reasons.
So because the number of people being harmed is small, you're saying it's a non-issue?
>>5383440
it would be pretty funny if he came on here and saw all of the anti-black shit and became extremely anti-lgbt.
![uQqSAR5[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/PBJCVXh.png "uQqSAR5[1].png")
>>5387167
oh yea i remember that poll. It was from some polling website and had a sample size of like 20,000. Please post it when you find it.
>>5387214
I was able to find this
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Conservatives seem to be even more anti-lgbt than blacks are yet /lgbt/ doesnt seem to hate them nearly as much as they do blacks.
I was also able to find this
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=pmap_facpubs
"Finally, support for SSM varies by sex and race/eth
nicity, but only one difference really
contributes to regional differences. Women are 7.6
percentage points more likely than
comparable men to favor marriage equality, but the
Southern sample is slightly more female
than the RUS sample, so gender differences do not c
ontribute to the South’s greater opposition
to SSM. Holding the other variables constant, non-
Hispanic whites are the most likely to favor
SSM, but Latinos only lag 2.6 percentage points beh
ind. African Americans are 8.8 percentage
points less likely than whites to support SSM, and
Asians lag 1.2 points behind blacks. As
Southerners are almost twice as likely as other Ame
ricans to be black and are 6 percentage
points less likely to be white, dropping race from
the model increases the regional difference to
4.3, implying that regional racial differences acco
unt for about 0.4 percentage point of the
regional difference in support for SSM. "
