Bestbuy discriminating against Christians recorded.

[RDKirk]

Apart from the conservative push to overturn Roe v. Wade, are there any other high profile example of radical changes the GOP has been pushing for? It's always been my understanding that the main critique of the GOP is that they want to keep things the same and are an impediment to the changes the Democratic party wants.

The only other one I can think of is when they push to have corporations recognized as people.

Cancelling Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights Act is on their agenda.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cancelling Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights Act is on their agenda.

The Voting Rights Act one is a fair point...I had forgotten about that

With regards to affirmative action, are they looking to strike down all of it, or just particular facets of it that they think are being implemented poorly and it's more of a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" sort of thing?


With regards to social and cultural changes, would you estimate that more calls for radical changes are coming from the left or the right?

And with those changes, are they reactionary in nature, or are they "change for change's sake" type of things?

It would seem like the ones coming from the right are reactionary... As to where the one's from the left are the latter in my estimation.

 

[RDKirk]

The Voting Rights Act one is a fair point...I had forgotten about that

With regards to affirmative action, are they looking to strike down all of it, or just particular facets of it that they think are being implemented poorly and it's more of a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" sort of thing?

I don't think the GOP recognition of Affirmative Action is nuanced enough to acknowledge the difference. That baby goes out with the bathwater.

With regards to social and cultural changes, would you estimate that more calls for radical changes are coming from the left or the right?

And with those changes, are they reactionary in nature, or are they "change for change's sake" type of things?

It would seem like the ones coming from the right are reactionary... As to where the one's from the left are the latter in my estimation.

There is a difference between a conservative and a right-wing activist...and the GOP contains both.

 

[KCfromNC]

Who's saying anything about invalidating legal marriages?

The post which advocated for going back to the status quo pre Obergefell v. Hodges.

I get it, though, change is scary. But really, step back and look at more than just how it feels. These reactionary, regressive GOP proposals cause actual harm to actual people. That's a big deal, especially compared to the scary but harmless case of having to know that other people use phrases you don't like or can consult with their doctor to get care you don't personally approve of.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The post which advocated for going back to the status quo pre Obergefell v. Hodges.

Actually 2014 was just a year I plucked at random because it was almost 10 years ago.

Public polling would indicate that the majority of society is "over it" with regards to SSM as even over half of republicans support it now.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually 2014 was just a year I plucked at random because it was almost 10 years ago.

Public polling would indicate that the majority of society is "over it" with regards to SSM as even over half of republicans support it now.

Majority isnt enough in a country where the president (and scotus picks) are often the minority choice.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Majority isnt enough in a country where the president (and scotus picks) are often the minority choice.

The only way to remediate concerns with regards to SCOTUS influence is to win elections when it counts, and for SCOTUS justices to start doing the right thing and voluntarily retiring. RBG (though beloved by many) made a pretty selfish decision by not retiring when Obama was still president and could've appointed someone different.

 

[durangodawood]

The only way to remediate concerns with regards to SCOTUS influence is to win elections when it counts, and for SCOTUS justices to start doing the right thing and voluntarily retiring. RBG (though beloved by many) made a pretty selfish decision by not retiring when Obama was still president and could've appointed someone different.

Thats on them.

Whats on us is to work for a system where the governed can meaningfully express their consent to be governed. (I will admit I'm not really doing anything more than argue about it tho.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thats on them.

Whats on us is to work for a system where the governed can meaningfully express their consent to be governed. (I will admit I'm not really doing anything more than argue about it tho.)

If the SCOTUS is the source of what a person sees as the problems, then what I mentioned above is really the only recourse.

Nothing civilians can do about that until a justice retires/dies, and a president appoints someone to replace them pending senate approval.

The only input we have on the matter is voting for whatever options are given to us for the POTUS, and whatever Senator options are available for the state we live in. (and for the latter, a person's viable options are often pretty limited depending on the region of the country they live in)

 

[durangodawood]

...Nothing civilians can do about that until a justice retires/dies, and a president appoints someone to replace them pending senate approval....

What do civilians do at that juncture?

 

[Pommer]

The only way to remediate concerns with regards to SCOTUS influence is to win elections when it counts, and for SCOTUS justices to start doing the right thing and voluntarily retiring. RBG (though beloved by many) made a pretty selfish decision by not retiring when Obama was still president and could've appointed someone different.

Right.
After she saw Garland get confirmed it should have been a no-brainer.
Huh?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Right.
After she saw Garland get confirmed it should have been a no-brainer.
Huh?

At the time Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan (in 2010-2011), RBG was already nearing 80, and had two recent bouts with different forms of cancer that both have pretty dismal looking 5-year survival rates for people in their 70's.

She probably should've looked at retirement before the Garland debacle even happened (which was 5 years later). Assuming that you're going to make it through another subsequent presidential term (and potentially the one of an opposing party after that) with those set of circumstances was a pretty hefty gamble (and one that backfired)

 

[RDKirk]

The only way to remediate concerns with regards to SCOTUS influence is to win elections when it counts, and for SCOTUS justices to start doing the right thing and voluntarily retiring. RBG (though beloved by many) made a pretty selfish decision by not retiring when Obama was still president and could've appointed someone different.

I agree.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually 2014 was just a year I plucked at random because it was almost 10 years ago.

Public polling would indicate that the majority of society is "over it" with regards to SSM as even over half of republicans support it now.

But a good example of how quickly this far right manufactured outrage on various topics moves along to something equally as pointless. I mean, in just the past decade we've had reactionary panics about gay marriage, Benghazi, crt, drag queen story hour, and any number of other civilization ending issues. And just as quickly as they're trotted out to rile people up, they're dropped in favor of the next panic of the week.

You'd think people would catch on at some point.

 

[ImaginaryFiction]

But a good example of how quickly this far right manufactured outrage on various topics moves along to something equally as pointless. I mean, in just the past decade we've had reactionary panics about gay marriage, Benghazi, crt, drag queen story hour, and any number of other civilization ending issues. And just as quickly as they're trotted out to rile people up, they're dropped in favor of the next panic of the week.

You'd think people would catch on at some point.

None of those are civilization ending issues nor ever billed as them. You chose to over inflate their reaction in an attempt to do the mental gymnastics necessary to be a proper contrarian. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill because being politically opposed to the other side is more important than anything else.

Is it wrong for a society to resist things that don't align with it's own set of morals, values, standards and national pride? No it isn't.

America is a very young country compared to others. Yet we went from nothing to arguably the top of the food chain and a world super power in record time thanks to those morals, standards and values.

Once we began to abandon them it's no surprise we started seeing a lot more problems in America. More drugs, more homeless, more violence, more crime, more protests/riots, more pedophiles, politicians becoming more corrupt, more censorship, more laws, less money, more inflation and so on.

I'm old enough to know we had those issues 30 or 40 years ago but not to the degree we do now, not even close. Especially not so many of them at the same time.

And since we began to abandon religion, American values, pride, morals and standards were seeing new problems coming up like people who actually argue children NEED transgender surgery, people actually on tv defending so called "minor attracted persons", people who actually are uncomfortable by the American flag and so on.

 

[KCfromNC]

None of those are civilization ending issues nor ever billed as them. You chose to over inflate their reaction in an attempt to do the mental gymnastics necessary to be a proper contrarian. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill because being politically opposed to the other side is more important than anything else.

So you say, and yet compare the number of posts in this and the American Politics forum talking about them vs. whatever passes for serious GOP political theory these days.

Is it wrong for a society to resist things that don't align with it's own set of morals, values, standards and national pride? No it isn't.

America is a very young country compared to others. Yet we went from nothing to arguably the top of the food chain and a world super power in record time thanks to those morals, standards and values.

Or maybe it has to do with being lucky enough to be on a different continent from two world wars, and the subsequent boom in technology and engineer know how that resulted.

Once we began to abandon them it's no surprise we started seeing a lot more problems in America. More drugs, more homeless, more violence, more crime, more protests/riots, more pedophiles, politicians becoming more corrupt, more censorship, more laws, less money, more inflation and so on.

That's a quick about face from culture ware issues not being the end of civilization to ignoring them leading to our downfall.

And since we began to abandon religion, American values, pride, morals and standards were seeing new problems coming up like people who actually argue children NEED transgender surgery, people actually on tv defending so called "minor attracted persons", people who actually are uncomfortable by the American flag and so on.

Post hoc ergo proper hoc. Might as well blame it on global warming, or women getting the right to vote, or anything else totally at random.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

None of those are civilization ending issues nor ever billed as them. You chose to over inflate their reaction in an attempt to do the mental gymnastics necessary to be a proper contrarian. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill because being politically opposed to the other side is more important than anything else.

Is it wrong for a society to resist things that don't align with it's own set of morals, values, standards and national pride? No it isn't.

America is a very young country compared to others. Yet we went from nothing to arguably the top of the food chain and a world super power in record time thanks to those morals, standards and values.

Once we began to abandon them it's no surprise we started seeing a lot more problems in America. More drugs, more homeless, more violence, more crime, more protests/riots, more pedophiles, politicians becoming more corrupt, more censorship, more laws, less money, more inflation and so on.

I'm old enough to know we had those issues 30 or 40 years ago but not to the degree we do now, not even close. Especially not so many of them at the same time.

And since we began to abandon religion, American values, pride, morals and standards were seeing new problems coming up like people who actually argue children NEED transgender surgery, people actually on tv defending so called "minor attracted persons", people who actually are uncomfortable by the American flag and so on.

Agreed - well said

 

[ImaginaryFiction]

Cancelling Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights Act is on their agenda.

As well they should.

Affirmative action isn't needed. There are state and government laws that say you can't discriminate and tons of lawyers around willing to sue for it at the drop of a hat.

It's also racist by nature. To say you'll hire X amount of blacks means you're saying you will not hire X amount of non blacks based purely on their skin color. Same thing with schools that admit X amount of blacks. If we want to get rid of racism then it needs to be across the board and schools need to admit the best students and employers need to hire the best employees. You can't be against racism then promote racist policies. If everyone is told they need to be responsible for themselves, work hard, learn, and have ambition then everyone gets smarter and stronger. Everyone needs to get by based on their own level of ambition. And if blacks truly are equal then it's time we treat them like it and they act like it. With millions of black doctors, lawyers, teachers, fire chiefs, business owners and even a black president it's time to face facts, there is no systemic racism where affirmative action is called for.

Not sure what you mean by voting rights, but everyone of legal age can vote. There is no group of people who cant. The only people who can't vote are felons, crazy people, and non us citizens. That's perfectly fine to me. In fact I'd argue you also cant vote unless you have a job and paying taxes, and if you don't work and pay taxes then the only exception should be disabled, retired or a veteran.

 

[durangodawood]

.....Not sure what you mean by voting rights, but everyone of legal age can vote. There is no group of people who cant......

Thank you, Voting Rights Act!

 

[stevil]

If you don't want to allow Christian related items in the work place ok fine, it's a work place intended for work and you're on their property and on their clock, but you can't deny a Christian while over indulging gay pride.

I would like to know if USA Christians want discrimination based on religion or if they want anti-discrimination protections?
Pick one! not half one, half the other.