No, Clinton IS the moderate. The question is whether those on the Left will support her. The same question applies to the maverick con man and xenophobe who appears to be on track for the GOP nod.Originally Posted by Classic-X'er
The Chicago results by ward show that Hillary won upper class white and black areas while Bernie won working class whites.
It appears to me that the Nuns must go against their religious views or get out of the business of serving others.
This is interesting , even if not directly related.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jefferson/
"To James Madison (6 Sept. 1789), Jefferson writes:
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.[27]
Beginning with the evident propositionthe earth belongs in usufruct to the livingJefferson aims to prove that the deeds of each generation, defined by a nineteen-year period,[28] ought to be independent (or relatively so) of each other. Moreover, usufruct implies that each generation has an obligation to leave behind their property to the subsequent generation at least in the same condition in which it was received. For instance, any debts one incurs while owning some land are not to be inherited by another who obtains possession of that land after the former passes. What applies to individuals applies to any collection of individuals.
To instantiate the principle, there must be a period of adjustment. Present debts will be a matter of honor and expediency; future debts will be constrained by the principle. To constrain future debts, a constitution ought to stipulate that a nation can borrow no more than it can repay in the span of a generation. Temperate borrowing would bridle the spirit of war, inflamed much by the neglect of repayment of debts.
Usufruct theoretically fits neatly with Jeffersons notions of political progress and of periodic constitutional renewal. Concerning the latter, he writes to C. F. W. Malone (10 Sept. 1787):
No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
At the end of nineteen years, there will be a constitutional convention, at which defects in laws can be addressed and changes can be made.[29] Should the principle of usufruct be adopted, republican government would have a built-in mechanism for obviating revolutions.[30] Without the debts and wars of one generation passed on to the next in a Jeffersonian republic and with that republics constitution being renewed each generation to accommodate the needs and advances of the next generation, the stage is set for political progress.
Clinton is the more moderate of the two choices for Democratic voters. She's the only moderate Democrat running to choose from. You do realize that she's been the only Democratic candidate running for president.
Most people consider Sanders a Democrat, and I think he re-registered as such. I'm not sure.
It's similar on both sides. The parties are subject to a takeover by relative outsiders: Trump and Sanders. Trump is doing better because he has weak and split opposition.
Not from what you said, at all. They only have to submit a statement stating their religious objections, and then are exempt from the requirement that they deliver contraception. They still work for the organization, which also does not believe in contraception. I don't see a problem for your side. Obama gave in to you. If the nuns still want to make an issue of it, it's because they want the issue.
Myself, I don't quite see why they should get an exemption. Should I be able to refuse to serve a black man at a restaurant, because it goes against my racial beliefs in segregation? Should I as a county clerk be able to refuse a marriage license to a gay couple because it goes against my religious belief? I say no. That's not freedom. It's discrimination.
No, but the practice of Catholic hospitals buying control of non-Catholic hospitals so that they have a monopoly on medical services in many localities is abridging the constitutional rights of non-Catholics--or non-believing Catholics. Catholic organisations and corporations must be forced to divest themselves of hospitals that give them a monopoly on medical services to communities. If a community can only support one hospital, that hospital cannot be owned by either Catholics or Evangelical Christians--for just the conscientious objection reason. Catholic hospitals can still serve the community and nuns can serve the community. They just can[t have a monopoly on serving the community.
Yes, the freedom to discriminate argument was the argument Barry Goldwater used to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. There are other issues here. Should a parent be able to refuse to treat a child's illness because of a religious belief that it is wrong to interfere with God's will by preventing nature from taking it's course?
And because he has been self-financing at that crucial first stage of his campaign and has celebrity recognition that other candidates lack outside their home state. How many people heard of John Kasich before his first debate? Or Rand Paul? Or had heard Jeb Bush talk? Or Marco Rubio? Or Ted Cruz? Or for that matter, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders? Trump entered this race with more name recognition than anyone except Hillary Clinton.
Interesting. Thomas Jefferson believed in the concept of a jubilee.
I remember Nobama 8 years ago. It didn't stop him. But it did mobilise Republicans for the next 8 years.
That's funny. I would have thought Berlusconi was Mussolini's reincarnation.
You don't see much value in people having Constitutional rights. A racist has the right to accept the law and change accordingly or the right to sell his business to a willing party or close his doors to public service. A county clerk has the right to quit their job or apply for a transfer to another department or question her own motives for refusing. You're not a nun therefore your opinions and views relating to them doesn't apply.
For all his authoritarian bluster, Trump at least does not appear to like war. And it is in wartime that we lose a lot of our civil liberties that we then have a difficult time clawing back. Be it Lincoln and Davis's civil war, Woodrow Wilson's WWI, Roosevelt's WWII, Truman's Cold War and Korean War, Johnson and Nixon's Vietnam or the current War on Terror.
The power to perform a marriage implies the right to refuse to marry a couple for all sorts of reasons (including such non-discriminatory issues as conflicts of time). A clergyman can refuse to marry a couple for practically any objections, especially those established by his sect. Prior divorces? Sure. Recent cohabitation? I know of one clergyman who so does. Racial differences? Perfectly legal. Yes, it is.
The power to license a marriage comes from the State, and the State must license a marriage between two persons legally allowed to marry.
Freedom to discriminate is the dubious freedom to deny rights and to abuse people.
...Public accommodations? The imposition is slight. The dubious right to refuse to serve a person of the 'wrong' race solely for reason of race is a severe degradation of that person. It could even be dangerous, as for persons on the brink of diabetic coma or for some motorist getting drowsy.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Details...
As I've noted in other threads regarding other issues, an owner of a private home, a private club, and churches, are considered exempt from equality laws. Thus, Augusta National until recently (still?) didn't allow female members and gets away with it as it is a private club. Churches can decline membership and services according to race, sexual orientation or whim. This is perfectly legal, yes, but if one is a hospital rather than a church one has to serve the public... the entire public.
I don't know of any religious beliefs that condone racism.
I still side with the nuns on abortion.
However, it appears that the Supreme Court will need to make call on this.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...edom/75287750/
in September, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals came down on the other side, placing what the objectors believe above what the opt-out method provides. We conclude that compelling their participation in the accommodation process by threat of severe monetary penalty is a substantial burden on their exercise of religion, the court said....
I agree that the mixing of religion and business is bad business. If the churches would stick to their primary mission , we would have fewer problems.
I thought that Jefferson's ideas were very interesting. He mentioned a 19 year cycle( I have been thinking of 50 years). My view is that we need some way to prevent the unrestrained accumulation of wealth.
Your idea of a Democratic moderate is either
(1) someone ready to leave the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, or
(2) someone who would take dictation from the leadership of the GOP -- the analogues being leaders of the tolerated 'bourgeois' minor parties in the old German Democratic Republic.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
This religious studies PH.D. knows of quite a few religious beliefs that condone racism. Hindu beliefs on caste are the biggest numerically, obviously. And if you want to see them at their rawest, rent http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109206/ The Bandit Queen on Netflix. Of course the US has a fair number of "identity Christian" cults and LDS offshoots that follow Cleon Skousen's Anglo-Israelite teachings too.
Not even the Jews were able to enforce redistribution of wealth in jubilees for very long. The result was the highly unequal society that Jesus grew up in and ultimately, the Destruction of the Temple.
Many of Trump's more rabid supporters are Skousenites. They view "enemies within" (e.g. Wall Street, Jews, "the money power," etc) as being more dangerous than external ones. This is one of the factors driving Putin bromances. To them, Putin is some sort of Orthodox Christian Crusader, going after gays, Muslims, Wall Street, so called Atlanticism, etc. They are blind to geopolitical reality. In a past life on the leadership team of a pro-Western geopolitical forum I had to ban several Skousenites when they would go into a mode of ranting - regurgitating what they had read in Quigley, Skousen, etc.
==========================================
#nevertrump
I think more Skousenites are Ted Cruz followers, actually, based on how Cruz won Skousen's native Idaho. We'll know Tuesday who wins UT and AZ. My bet in both places is on Cruz based on ID and WY.
