Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore accused of statutory rape

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

POP QUIZ: Is Roy Moore...

  • ...in shock?
  • ...superhumanly determined?
  • ...convinced he can lie his way into winning an election that he lost?
  • ...a golem sent to Alabama by God to test America's willingness to suspend their morals in the name of blind faith?
  • ...genuinely insane?
  • bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    POP QUIZ: Is Roy Moore...

  • ...in shock?
  • ...superhumanly determined?
  • ...convinced he can lie his way into winning an election that he lost?
  • ...a golem sent to Alabama by God to test America's willingness to suspend their morals in the name of blind faith?
  • ...genuinely insane?
  • Roy Moore is a Republican.

    He's 1.5% behind Jones after all the votes were counted. So who gives a fuck that he won't concede? I kind of enjoy knowing that he's furious. And if he still can't let go, may he live out the rest of his days suffering as a sore loser that he is.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    What I find heartening about the results of this election is that it disproves the alt-right's claim to being the voice of the people. Bannon, Moore, and Trump are all characterised as "populists," but in reality, their noxious platform is not at all as popular as they think it is.

    We already knew that they were full of shit. Even the most unpopular Democratic candidate such as Hillary managed to get 3 million more votes than Trump, despite their efforts to suppress minority votes and despite Russian interference.

    Meiam:

    BeetleManiac:

    Looking at the numbers this morning, Moore still got 91% of the Republican vote. The Democrats just had better turnout. While not as uplifting as mess defections, it does show that the Republican base is not as secure or dominant as it once was. Uneducated white dudes with made up racial grievances cannot solely carry an election anymore.

    Yeah I just started looking at the numbers. One that blows my minds is that 70%+ of white women voted for him, when he claim that they shouldn't have added amendment to the constitution after the 10th (the 19th is the one that allowed women to vote). Women literally voted for someone who said they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    I wouldn't be surprised if schools in Alabama stop teaching the Bill of Rights after the Second Amendment.

    1. Right to say what we want(except those liberal journlists, who should be deported).
    2. Right to have all the guns we want.
    3 and onwards...Not important.

    Okay, I'll concede they probably mention the 10th, because that's the one that usually gets trotted out when it's time to discuss why Gay Rights shouldn't be protected by the constitution.

    Saelune:
    Man, we need mandatory voting. Ironic that the best way to maintain our freedoms is probably to 'give up the freedom' to not bother.

    If you had mandatory voting, a lot of current voter suppression stuff wouldn't really work.

    Saelune:
    Man, we need mandatory voting. Ironic that the best way to maintain our freedoms is probably to 'give up the freedom' to not bother.

    This. I've been advocating for this for the longest time. Voting needs to be considered a duty, not just a right. Of course, I'm sure that some jackass will think of some reason why it harms their rights or existence.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    POP QUIZ: Is Roy Moore...

  • ...in shock?
  • ...superhumanly determined?
  • ...convinced he can lie his way into winning an election that he lost?
  • ...a golem sent to Alabama by God to test America's willingness to suspend their morals in the name of blind faith?
  • ...genuinely insane?
  • He's still waiting for his god to declare him the real victor. Dude is straight up delusional. Personally, I hope he keeps trying to litigate this. I hope he continues to be an albatross around the collective neck of the Republican party.

    Saelune:

    bastardofmelbourne:

    BeetleManiac:
    Looking at the numbers this morning, Moore still got 91% of the Republican vote. The Democrats just had better turnout. While not as uplifting as mess defections, it does show that the Republican base is not as secure or dominant as it once was. Uneducated white dudes with made up racial grievances cannot solely carry an election anymore.

    What I find heartening about the results of this election is that it disproves the alt-right's claim to being the voice of the people. Bannon, Moore, and Trump are all characterised as "populists," but in reality, their noxious platform is not at all as popular as they think it is.

    Bannon and people like him were emboldened by Trump because Trump's victory implied that they had a popular mandate. This proves that they did not, and that they can lose even an extremely safe Republican seat (the previous election results were 97% Republican) if the other side can manage the eternal judo-flip of American politics; voter turnout.

    Jones had 97% of the black vote and black voters counted for 29% of the total ballots cast - versus the 26% of the population that they represent. He won largely because a) black people came out and voted for him in record-breaking numbers - more than voted for Obama! and b) college-educated white Republicans refused to vote for a candidate whose policies were toxic. Doug Jones won the turnout battle.

    The dark secret of American politics is that it has always been about the turnout. More than half of Americans don't vote in a presidential election and even fewer vote in congressional or special elections. Donald Trump does not represent the wishes of Americans; he doesn't even represent the wishes of 51% of Americans. He represents the wishes of about 26%, most of whom would have been Republicans voting more out of party loyalty than out of appeal for his platform.

    The truth about the populist, racist, theocratic nationalists dominating American politics? There just aren't that many of them.

    Man, we need mandatory voting. Ironic that the best way to maintain our freedoms is probably to 'give up the freedom' to not bother.

    I so, so don't want to go there. I hate the idea of making civic participation mandatory. If I want to just say fuck it, I don't care, I should be able to. And if things like voting are forceably required by the state, then what's next? Mandatory health care?

    Oh, wait-

    Yeah. As distasteful as that idea is I don't know of a better way to safeguard us against the Trumps out there. Because as stupid as most people are, most people aren't quite stupid enough to vote for a psychopath, and if the votes actually represented every eligible voter than we wouldn't have Trump.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    POP QUIZ: Is Roy Moore...

  • ...in shock?
  • ...superhumanly determined?
  • ...convinced he can lie his way into winning an election that he lost?
  • ...a golem sent to Alabama by God to test America's willingness to suspend their morals in the name of blind faith?
  • ...genuinely insane?
  • It was 2:32 into that clip before I had to reach for the sick bag.

    TheVampwizimp:
    I so, so don't want to go there. I hate the idea of making civic participation mandatory. If I want to just say fuck it, I don't care, I should be able to.

    As long as your vote remains secret, you don't have to cast a valid vote, though. In Australia, you can put a blank form in the box if you don't want to vote, but only a very small amount of people do.

    TheVampwizimp:
    I so, so don't want to go there. I hate the idea of making civic participation mandatory. If I want to just say fuck it, I don't care, I should be able to.

    See, that's a common misconception I see all the time about mandatory voting. Believe it or not, we have apathetic people over here in Australia as well. What do these poor bastards do when the law says that they have to vote or else be fined twenty bucks? They go into the ballot box and draw a big dick on the ballot before casting it. They don't have to "vote" for anyone; they just have to show up and get their name ticked off to basically announce that they're not voting.

    TheVampwizimp:
    And if things like voting are forceably required by the state, then what's next? Mandatory health care?

    Oh, wait-

    Well, if you don't want public healthcare and want to stick with private options, then a mandate is the best way to keep insurance markets stable. It's the same with cars. The good news is that everyone gets sick eventually, and when you do get old and sick, you'll be glad the premiums aren't so high because of all the healthy people paying for insurance that they wouldn't otherwise sign up for.

    Not perfect, but again, the alternative is a publicly-funded universal healthcare system like Medicare-for-all. That's a much better solution that no-one can stomach because of the substantial tax hike involved.

    Personally I keep going back and forth on mandatory voting, I voted in every election since I was allowed to, but I don't really like the idea of punishing people for not voting. I'd rather they reward it instead, or essentially tie it to some rights (ie as a citizen your responsibility is to vote and in exchange you have certain rights). So maybe if someone doesn't vote they can't claim governmental benefit (say can't get tax refund for money given to charity if you didn't vote) or something along that line. But even that I'm not sure.

    I do think democracy work best when everyone vote, since otherwise certain group/demographic have oversized power and this skew the entire system.

    Moore not conceding is not really a surprise, wonder if he'll ask for a recount? There was a mini scandal before the election when a court said Alabama had to keep all voting record (apparently that's not standard practice!?) but then that was overturned.

    Meiam:
    Personally I keep going back and forth on mandatory voting, I voted in every election since I was allowed to, but I don't really like the idea of punishing people for not voting. I'd rather they reward it instead, or essentially tie it to some rights

    The reward is not having Donald fucking Trump as President. The reward is not having fascism as your government. The right to be healthy, the right to be not-white, the right to live in a country where your humanity is not being attacked by literal fucking Nazis are the reward.

    Adam Jensen:
    He's 1.5% behind Jones after all the votes were counted. So who gives a fuck that he won't concede? I kind of enjoy knowing that he's furious. And if he still can't let go, may he live out the rest of his days suffering as a sore loser that he is.

    Yes.

    His spluttering, apoplectic rage at being thwarted (AGAIN!) is truly delicious. Roy Moore has been judged and found wanting by his fellow humans. No wonder he clings to God so tightly: there's no risk of rejection from a (non-existent) being that doesn't judge during one's lifespan.

    Saelune:

    Meiam:
    Personally I keep going back and forth on mandatory voting, I voted in every election since I was allowed to, but I don't really like the idea of punishing people for not voting. I'd rather they reward it instead, or essentially tie it to some rights

    The reward is not having Donald fucking Trump as President. The reward is not having fascism as your government. The right to be healthy, the right to be not-white, the right to live in a country where your humanity is not being attacked by literal fucking Nazis are the reward.

    But mandatory voting doesn't mean its guaranteed that the populists will lose. In the Netherlands its a big weakness of our populist that he has trouble globalizing his supporters because the average populist voter really doesn't like politics and can stay home because of it.
    If you force people who aren't interested in politics to vote its more likely they will be conned by the populist and vote for him.

    Hades:
    But mandatory voting doesn't mean its guaranteed that the populists will lose. In the Netherlands its a big weakness of our populist that he has trouble globalizing his supporters because the average populist voter really doesn't like politics and can stay home because of it.
    If you force people who aren't interested in politics to vote its more likely they will be conned by the populist and vote for him.

    We've not had that problem in Australia, at least not anywhere near the extent of getting a Trump.

    Thaluikhain:

    Hades:
    But mandatory voting doesn't mean its guaranteed that the populists will lose. In the Netherlands its a big weakness of our populist that he has trouble globalizing his supporters because the average populist voter really doesn't like politics and can stay home because of it.
    If you force people who aren't interested in politics to vote its more likely they will be conned by the populist and vote for him.

    We've not had that problem in Australia, at least not anywhere near the extent of getting a Trump.

    I saw someone in the paper arguing that Australia has already had its "Trump moment" with Tony Abbott, and we just kinda...shuffled him off to the side after a couple of years. Nowadays he's a joke.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/roy-moore-slams-u-s-immorality-homophobic-youtube-video-n829781

    Roy Moore can and should rot in Hell. He is everything wrong with Republicans, Christianity, and the right as a whole.

    I find it funny that people who despise communism paint themselves red, which is also a popular color of fascism.

    Saelune:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/roy-moore-slams-u-s-immorality-homophobic-youtube-video-n829781

    Roy Moore can and should rot in Hell. He is everything wrong with Republicans, Christianity, and the right as a whole.

    I find it funny that people who despise communism paint themselves red, which is also a popular color of fascism.

    Hell is too good for him. The fucking amount of hypocrisy and hate spewing from his mouth is almost unbelievable, and the fact that he only lost due to a 1% margin is absolutely unacceptable.

    bastardofmelbourne:

    TheVampwizimp:
    I so, so don't want to go there. I hate the idea of making civic participation mandatory. If I want to just say fuck it, I don't care, I should be able to.

    See, that's a common misconception I see all the time about mandatory voting. Believe it or not, we have apathetic people over here in Australia as well. What do these poor bastards do when the law says that they have to vote or else be fined twenty bucks? They go into the ballot box and draw a big dick on the ballot before casting it. They don't have to "vote" for anyone; they just have to show up and get their name ticked off to basically announce that they're not voting.

    TheVampwizimp:
    And if things like voting are forceably required by the state, then what's next? Mandatory health care?

    Oh, wait-

    Well, if you don't want public healthcare and want to stick with private options, then a mandate is the best way to keep insurance markets stable. It's the same with cars. The good news is that everyone gets sick eventually, and when you do get old and sick, you'll be glad the premiums aren't so high because of all the healthy people paying for insurance that they wouldn't otherwise sign up for.

    Not perfect, but again, the alternative is a publicly-funded universal healthcare system like Medicare-for-all. That's a much better solution that no-one can stomach because of the substantial tax hike involved.

    Huh, I didn't know Australia had mandatory voting. I think my only real problem with it is this:

    Until 2016 I'd never voted in the 11 years I've been eligible. The reason is because I just don't think I'm well educated enough on politics to decide between candidates, especially since I'm cynical enough to believe that both of them are probably lying cunts with a lot of bad ideas. I certainly could spend the time to educate myself, but that has it's own problems, not the least being that politics just makes me angry, and I can't seem to keep up with it without feeling sick from rage (and that was before our current clusterfuck).

    I imagine that less than 10 percent of the U.S. population is legitimately qualified to judge these things. Obviously that doesn't mean they don't deserve to vote if they want to, but I figured it was the responsible thing for me to do when I admitted to myself that I don't know enough to make an informed decision.

    The last election was uniquely clear-cut for me. In the primaries it was between the one honest and benevolent politician in the country, and a lying establishment lapdog. I voted Sanders, and when he didn't get the nomination, the general was between that lying establishment lapdog and a narcissistic, racist, fascist, sexual-assaulting shitbag with no experience and a complete inability to tell any kind of truth. I voted Clinton.

    And by this point the Republican party is so far gone into the very worst parts of American culture that I have an easy choice, even if I also hate the Democratic party as an institution.

    Anyway, as long as I have the option of voting for a dick scribble, it's probably the best option available. Kinda like mandatory healthcare.

    TheVampwizimp:

    Huh, I didn't know Australia had mandatory voting. I think my only real problem with it is this:

    Until 2016 I'd never voted in the 11 years I've been eligible. The reason is because I just don't think I'm well educated enough on politics to decide between candidates, especially since I'm cynical enough to believe that both of them are probably lying cunts with a lot of bad ideas. I certainly could spend the time to educate myself, but that has it's own problems, not the least being that politics just makes me angry, and I can't seem to keep up with it without feeling sick from rage (and that was before our current clusterfuck).

    I imagine that less than 10 percent of the U.S. population is legitimately qualified to judge these things. Obviously that doesn't mean they don't deserve to vote if they want to, but I figured it was the responsible thing for me to do when I admitted to myself that I don't know enough to make an informed decision.

    I believe that pretty much everybody (over a certain age) should vote. But of the reasons given to abstain, humility is one of the better ones. I can agree that the average voter does not know enough.

    However, plenty of other people who are just as ignorant, but less aware of it, will be voting anyway. And so, in a way, voting-- even while aware of one's own ignorance-- helps to widen the voterbase, and thus make the voterbase more accurately representative. It prevents those who are both ignorant and self-assured from skewing the result too much.

    So, the correct response to humility is awareness and self-education, not abstention, and you made the right choice to get involved and vote in the last election. I hope, even given the depressing nature of the political mire at the moment, you carry on doing so.

    Silvanus:

    TheVampwizimp:

    Huh, I didn't know Australia had mandatory voting. I think my only real problem with it is this:

    Until 2016 I'd never voted in the 11 years I've been eligible. The reason is because I just don't think I'm well educated enough on politics to decide between candidates, especially since I'm cynical enough to believe that both of them are probably lying cunts with a lot of bad ideas. I certainly could spend the time to educate myself, but that has it's own problems, not the least being that politics just makes me angry, and I can't seem to keep up with it without feeling sick from rage (and that was before our current clusterfuck).

    I imagine that less than 10 percent of the U.S. population is legitimately qualified to judge these things. Obviously that doesn't mean they don't deserve to vote if they want to, but I figured it was the responsible thing for me to do when I admitted to myself that I don't know enough to make an informed decision.

    I believe that pretty much everybody (over a certain age) should vote. But of the reasons given to abstain, humility is one of the better ones. I can agree that the average voter does not know enough.

    However, plenty of other people who are just as ignorant, but less aware of it, will be voting anyway. And so, in a way, voting-- even while aware of one's own ignorance-- helps to widen the voterbase, and thus make the voterbase more accurately representative. It prevents those who are both ignorant and self-assured from skewing the result too much.

    So, the correct response to humility is awareness and self-education, not abstention, and you made the right choice to get involved and vote in the last election. I hope, even given the depressing nature of the political mire at the moment, you carry on doing so.

    I think we should have voting tests, ones that determine if you know what you're voting for. Also candidates should be known by their policies, not who they are or how they pretend their policies are. Imagine if Candidates were just anonymous lists of policies and voters were people proven to know what they were?

    Then when candidates renege on their policies, we can definitively go "Hey, you said you would do this" and they would have to explain why they didnt. Might be a good reason "Turned out my idea wasnt a good one" or some such. Or they turn out to be liars.

    And voters would not be able to excuse themselves that "They didnt know they meant it" or "I didnt know what I was voting for".

    But I also wish I would win the lottery and could eat pizza and soda all day without any negatives. *sigh*

    Saelune:

    Silvanus:

    TheVampwizimp:

    Huh, I didn't know Australia had mandatory voting. I think my only real problem with it is this:

    Until 2016 I'd never voted in the 11 years I've been eligible. The reason is because I just don't think I'm well educated enough on politics to decide between candidates, especially since I'm cynical enough to believe that both of them are probably lying cunts with a lot of bad ideas. I certainly could spend the time to educate myself, but that has it's own problems, not the least being that politics just makes me angry, and I can't seem to keep up with it without feeling sick from rage (and that was before our current clusterfuck).

    I imagine that less than 10 percent of the U.S. population is legitimately qualified to judge these things. Obviously that doesn't mean they don't deserve to vote if they want to, but I figured it was the responsible thing for me to do when I admitted to myself that I don't know enough to make an informed decision.

    I believe that pretty much everybody (over a certain age) should vote. But of the reasons given to abstain, humility is one of the better ones. I can agree that the average voter does not know enough.

    However, plenty of other people who are just as ignorant, but less aware of it, will be voting anyway. And so, in a way, voting-- even while aware of one's own ignorance-- helps to widen the voterbase, and thus make the voterbase more accurately representative. It prevents those who are both ignorant and self-assured from skewing the result too much.

    So, the correct response to humility is awareness and self-education, not abstention, and you made the right choice to get involved and vote in the last election. I hope, even given the depressing nature of the political mire at the moment, you carry on doing so.

    I think we should have voting tests, ones that determine if you know what you're voting for. Also candidates should be known by their policies, not who they are or how they pretend their policies are. Imagine if Candidates were just anonymous lists of policies and voters were people proven to know what they were?

    Then when candidates renege on their policies, we can definitively go "Hey, you said you would do this" and they would have to explain why they didnt. Might be a good reason "Turned out my idea wasnt a good one" or some such. Or they turn out to be liars.

    And voters would not be able to excuse themselves that "They didnt know they meant it" or "I didnt know what I was voting for".

    But I also wish I would win the lottery and could eat pizza and soda all day without any negatives. *sigh*

    Unfortunately, such a requirement would require extreme impartiality. Otherwise it could be used to great lengths to surpress voters. And I'm not sure that we could find such impartiality in our country.

    But I agree that I wish for a system that only allows for voting from people who actually know what they are voting for.

    cjspyres:
    Unfortunately, such a requirement would require extreme impartiality. Otherwise it could be used to great lengths to surpress voters. And I'm not sure that we could find such impartiality in our country.

    But I agree that I wish for a system that only allows for voting from people who actually know what they are voting for.

    Yeah, the only time the US tried doing something like that was to deny black people voting rights.

    Saelune:
    I think we should have voting tests, ones that determine if you know what you're voting for. Also candidates should be known by their policies, not who they are or how they pretend their policies are. Imagine if Candidates were just anonymous lists of policies and voters were people proven to know what they were?

    In practice, it would just be another tool that could be exploited to suppress certain demographics from voting. You want more people voting, not less.

    It'd be better to tackle it from the other direction; rather than trying to make sure that only educated people can vote, try to make sure that everyone who wants to vote is educated. Make civics mandatory again. Yes, it's boring, learning about how your Senate works and what your Constitution actually says. But it's important, because otherwise you'll assume there are protections and prohibitions that don't actually exist. Like, a lot of Americans assume the Second Amendment has always guaranteed an individual right to bear arms, whereas that interpretation is actually comparatively recent; similarly, a lot of Americans assume that Facebook or Twitter is prohibited from interfering with their user's freedom of speech, when in fact they can, because they're not the government.

    Speaking as an Australian, I honestly can't count the number of times I've had someone claim to me that they have a constitutional right to free speech, and I have to go "uh, actually..." No-one reads our Constitution. That's how you get shit like the dual-citizenship debacle going on right now. People just don't learn this shit. And they oughta. That's where the work needs to be put in.

    bastardofmelbourne:

    Saelune:
    I think we should have voting tests, ones that determine if you know what you're voting for. Also candidates should be known by their policies, not who they are or how they pretend their policies are. Imagine if Candidates were just anonymous lists of policies and voters were people proven to know what they were?

    In practice, it would just be another tool that could be exploited to suppress certain demographics from voting. You want more people voting, not less.

    It'd be better to tackle it from the other direction; rather than trying to make sure that only educated people can vote, try to make sure that everyone who wants to vote is educated. Make civics mandatory again. Yes, it's boring, learning about how your Senate works and what your Constitution actually says. But it's important, because otherwise you'll assume there are protections and prohibitions that don't actually exist. Like, a lot of Americans assume the Second Amendment has always guaranteed an individual right to bear arms, whereas that interpretation is actually comparatively recent; similarly, a lot of Americans assume that Facebook or Twitter is prohibited from interfering with their user's freedom of speech, when in fact they can, because they're not the government.

    Speaking as an Australian, I honestly can't count the number of times I've had someone claim to me that they have a constitutional right to free speech, and I have to go "uh, actually..." No-one reads our Constitution. That's how you get shit like the dual-citizenship debacle going on right now. People just don't learn this shit. And they oughta. That's where the work needs to be put in.

    You dont need a diploma to know what politicians are running on.

    I just tire of people who pretend they did not know Trump was a racist. They knew. They are also racist, thats why they voted for him.

    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    Damn straight there were voting irregularities ... Black people come out in force to vote against him due to Moore doing everything possible to silence and impede voting by minority groups.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/us/alabama-voting-blacks-.html

    If it was actually free and fair elections with early voting options, Doug's lead probably would have quintupled...

    bastardofmelbourne:

    Speaking as an Australian, I honestly can't count the number of times I've had someone claim to me that they have a constitutional right to free speech, and I have to go "uh, actually..." No-one reads our Constitution. That's how you get shit like the dual-citizenship debacle going on right now. People just don't learn this shit. And they oughta. That's where the work needs to be put in.

    Yeah, but we have federal precedent for freedom of benign political activity. Which is arguably better, because it cuts the necessity of courts to adjudicate in any extent.

    Plus Australia is a signee and ratifier of both the ICCPR and the ICESCR, which is arguably a pledge of effectively 'not going backwards' ... in terms of the universal declaration of human rights. If I remember correctly the 'Principle of Progressive Realization' clause. Not sure how to feel about an Australian Bill of Rights, preferably I'd rather we create no law concerning its already HCoA ruled implication of freedom of speech in the Australian Constitution.

    What exactly would a Bill of Rights do that merely its assumption and implied meaning through the established constitution actually do? Beyond look like a pretty piece of paper that ultimately is meaningless and would have to alter all other existing clauses.

    Effectively you're writing legislation for the sake of creating more legislation with arguably less conditions to actually live up to its ideals, and that has never gone well in any social experiment.

    You could say our 'bill of rights' is effectively stuff the HCoA has made precedent by saying it 'is implied' ... which is not much more different from any other Bill of Rights, and arguably less transgressable given the idea of precedent.

    That's .... infinitely better than a flowery piece of paper that inevitably holds no water when simply crossing state borders or the like. Someone once explained it to me that it is a moral or ethical dilemma of the difference between; "I have a right..." and a person telling you; "You've done nothing wrong."

    And if that's accurate (I'm nota law student), I prefer that second angle because it's more reflective of the reality that total free speech is impossible without intimidation and the loss of property. Ala no spray painting graffiti in someone's living room, or not sending death threats, or creating a hostile workplace, or riling up a mob through vilification.

    It's better to say there's a line, because there's always a line and we're better off accepting there is a hierarchy of rights, some more important than others (privacy v. freedom of expression, ala a doctor with confidential medical information). There is obvious extents to what you can actuallyt say ... in same way there's restrictions in how much you can do anything.

    The U.S. has a Bill of Rights ... didn't stop them arguing around it for what was effectively 50 years of McCarthyism with the Espionage Act of 1917 & 1919. To put it bluntly, I'd rather have a "bill of rights" that is made clear and knowable through what can and can't be done through existing conditions of possible transgressions, than a pretty piece of paper that is ultimately going to have legislation that transgresses ideas of it through merely societal acceptance to its transgression.

    To put it bluntly, the Australian Constitution works, precisely because we haven't had McCarthyism inspite of not having a Bill of Rights. In Australia you couldn't just arrest and question communist sympathizers. You actually have to prove one has transgressed the Crimes Act(s).

    Hell, Australia had a thriving Communist Party that actively disseminated Marxist, Leninist, and Maoist materials and ran for public office. We didn't need a Bill of Rights to protect that, but sure as shit the U.S. Bill of Rights would have done you fuck all good. And once again, it was the HCoA that ruled the governments attempts to invalidate the possibility of CPoA members running for public offices was void as of March, 1951.

    What would you rather have? Flowery words, or precedent and the necessity to prove transgression of the Crimes Act(s)?

    After all ... Australia was the only Western nation to have the choice to have a democratically electable communist government if its people so chose. And this was the 50s.

    I'll take that liberty over a Bill of Rights anyday... I mean, at nearly the exact same time you had this. What did a Bill of Rights do for Americans then?

    5 years imprisonment for holding a public opinion on the nature of communism (and how it might benefit your fellow person)? Pretty sure the U.S. Bill of Rights also talks about cruel and unusual punishments. Surely a possible 5 years imprisonment for being a communist could be classed as cruel. And keep in mind ... you didn't necessarily have to be a communist yourself. You might just belong to a group 'interpreted' as being communist. It didn't matter the reasons why you belonged to that group, what you actually did, what you actually believe ... no, whether it was merely interpreted as communist.

    Which we can draw significant allegories to with current perception of belonging to any group the government has considered proscribed by law.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    Lulz.

    I don't normally condone suffering, but this guy's a scumbag. The psychological agony of humiliation and frustration that this guy must be going through, his inability to come to terms with his defeat, is richly deserved. Albeit only consolation for him never seeing a court case over the accusations of groping minors.

    Addendum_Forthcoming:
    After all ... Australia was the only Western nation to have the choice to have a democratically electable communist government if its people so chose. And this was the 50s.

    NZ had a communist party, though they might not have had enough candidates running to ever form a government.

    Though, in general, yeah, when people talk about the protections of the US Bill of Rights, does that only include the parts the US hasn't ignored when it suited it?

    Thaluikhain:

    NZ had a communist party, though they might not have had enough candidates running to ever form a government.

    Though, in general, yeah, when people talk about the protections of the US Bill of Rights, does that only include the parts the US hasn't ignored when it suited it?

    Yeah, the CPNZ? They didn't have enough candidates in enough seats if I recall. Whereas the CPoA (to differentiate from the Country Party) did field enough candidates for elections to public office to, in Bizarro world, field a hypothetical government majority party, or a minority government with other parties.

    Also, precisely. Take for instance the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. 8th Amendment, solidly U.S. Bill of Rights territory. Protected precisely fuck all Americans or emigres residing in the U.S. colonies/federated states. Articles of Confederation detailing one's right to life? Death penalty in 31 U.S. states. Protects precisely fuck all from other states implementing it. The Bill of Rights and its issuing Amendments are merely a functionary document to the U.S. Constitution ... so why does Australia need one when we have a functional constitution already?

    For shits and gigs?

    Sure, it might feel good ... but Australia is already a ratifier of the ICESCR. We already have the 'feel goodzies' of ethical dilemmas as to the appliction of the conditions of one's rights...

    Didn't stop us using extranational holding centers for specifically boat people. Not illegal immigrants ... plenty of fucking illegal immigrants. The difference is most of those people have money if they came by plane ... and you can practically buy an Australian visa by dumping AUD$1M in an Australian bank account.

    'Feel goodzies' isn't worth it ... I'd rather have a cold, clinical Crimes Act(s) that governments have to argue for that are easy to read, that have an adjunct document determining punishments for transgression ... not Baby's first moral philosophy with a whole lot of namby pamby rhetoric on a document.

    About the only thing a Bill of Rights might do is create the frameworks for arguing lawful remuneration when rights are broken. But even then, we have meaningful systems of remuneration in things like wrongful imprisonment, or as a victim of a felony. You don't need to argue that one's moral right of mobility was wrongfully taken away, you have a document showing how much you have suffered from it, from wrongfully having to defend ones innocence, from the years kepts from productive service, for the psychological damages of being held and kept from greater society, and that the courts should recognise and accommodate for it.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    Well what do you expect huh? He's a winner! Not some sissy liberal!

    And winners, they don't have to listen to words like 'No!'

    Or 'stop'

    Or 'I'm only fourteen!'

    They just aren't in their vocabulary!

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    POP QUIZ: Is Roy Moore...

  • ...in shock?
  • ...superhumanly determined?
  • ...convinced he can lie his way into winning an election that he lost?
  • ...a golem sent to Alabama by God to test America's willingness to suspend their morals in the name of blind faith?
  • ...genuinely insane?
  • ...well, he does believe he has a direct line to God, so I'm thinking E is totally possible.

    bastardofmelbourne:
    Roy Moore is still refusing to concede the election.

    Remember kids it's only voter fraud if you're a losing conservative

     Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

    Reply to Thread

    Log in or Register to Comment
    Have an account? Login below:
    With Facebook:Login With Facebook
    or
    Username:  
    Password:  
      
    Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
    Register With Facebook
    Register With Facebook
    or
    Register for a free account here