2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[godfather]

Boy did NasstyNate take it personal. Man, Oh man..

 

[Maximus]

We were done a long time ago.



Oh, is that what this was about? Haha.. now it makes a lot more sense.



It's funny because I'm quite sure that's the impression that many have of you, to be quite honest "Nasty Nate."

I kind of figured this was going down this road since you didn't actually rebut anything I've actually said. As in, not once.

But if you want to know what I think, and this is just my guess, but I'd venture to say that I am both older and more educated than you? Which makes the 17-year old comment a bit odd meaning that I'd have been posting here since I was 10.

I'd also guess that I've quite a bit more life experience; I don't think you have any kids, or are married? I also think I've quite a bit more social experience, and career experience than you do as well, just based on how you respond to criticism in these conversations.

How old are you btw? Just curious.



I actually don't post on topics I know little about. You'll find my name in very few threads on the board.

So sorry, try again.



But that's more than you can say for yourself, right? I mean, you have no political experience whatsoever, AFAIK. Not only that, you don't really seem to understand any of the candidates or their positions but feel inclined to assert arguments one way or another. Why post if you have no idea what you're talking about?

For example, you make comments like the last paragraph of your last post, referencing a historical context which doesn't exist. You say "prove me wrong," and when someone immediately does, this is how you respond.

Instead of arguing on the merits, you obviously just get bent out of shape because you don't know how to simply man up and say "ok, I was wrong." Think about this conversation for a second, I've asked you to do that several times -- what is it that you were arguing with me about? The use of the word "unimaginative?"

Are you kidding me?

With respect to my own personal career, I have never used that to bolster an argument. I've made arguments based on legitimate sourceable and credible information; and with respect to this "conversation," facts which in many cases you don't even dispute.

Yet, here we are, continuing down this rabbit hole of you falling apart at the seams post by post.




I'm not sure what you're talking about "in this thread," but in the Indiana thread, remember exactly what we were discussing.

Let's revisit it briefly...

You argued that the Indiana RFRA was completely constitutional and that you were a legal scholar and you rested your argument on your authority. When I stated that others would disagree you doubled down.

So I did actually want to know what the truth was, and I didn't outright accept your opinion on the matter. I went and did my homework and found that your opinion seemed to be in the minority of legal scholars I queried, and I dropped it since I agreed with the assertion "we're on the same side of this," and didn't feel it necessary to prove you wrong.

I just found it odd that you said equivalent to "she isn't a constitutional scholar, but I am."

And I guess that was supposed to end the conversation.

But since you've asked, if you remember I told you I would contact several legal scholars to get their opinions of this.

Here's some of their responses which completely contradict your position:

"The simplest answer is that the state rfras are constitutional. Any discrimination against same-sex people or couples is conducted by private parties, not the state. However, the simple answer isn't necessarily the correct one, in fact in this case it's likely the wrong one. I want to mention two theories under which the rfras could be (and likely are) unconstitutional: 1) if they shift burdens to others i violation of the establishment clause, see cutter v wilkinson, and 2) if state inaction is designed to facilitate private discrimination. James oleske has a new article exploring the second theory that is coming out later this year in Colorado law review."

"The question here is deep and important, and cannot be answered quickly. My short answer is that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, but in this instance is likely being applied in an unconstitutional way (e.g., permitting a religious defense for Mr. A in a case where A has caused harm -- say, by an assault -- to Ms. B.). It's a complicated issue, but anyone telling you it is certainly constitutional under any and all form of administration isn't really evaluating the issue correctly, I think."

"it certainly feels unconstitutional-ish under the authority of Romers v. Evans, as interpreted by my colleague Dale Carpenter in the attached article. He interprets Romer (invalidating Colorado's constitutional amendment prohibiting localities from enacting human rights ordinances to protect gay rights) as representing an "animus" strand of equal protection law. Some opponents of Indiana's RFRA see it as a shotgun approach to achieving the same end via a surgical strike in Romers."

"It isn't clear, but it does not seem likely that a court would have agreed that the law does protect people or organizations that discriminate against LGBTQ folks on religious grounds."

Here's a quote from a conversation I had while you and I were actually debating the issue. You stated that "there is no state action," or something to that effect. I literally just emailed her your post.

"A law is state action. Therefore, it is possible to bring a claim that a law (like RFRA) violates the Equal Protection Claim.

In order to make an argument that a law has a disparate impact on a group and therefore violates equal protection, it must be shown that
(1) the law has a discriminatory impact
(2) the law had a discriminatory intent i.e. the law was passed in order to disadvantage that group, not in spite of that effect.
Someone defending the law would argue that the intent was not to discriminate against LBGT people, but to protect religious people, and that the disc effect was incidental and not the point of the law.

Finally, even if both of those things are true, the law is not automatically unconstitutional.
Instead, assuming that the affected group is a protected group, it merely means that the law is subject to some kind of heightened scrutiny. Race classifications, as you say, trigger strict scrutiny. Sex classifications trigger intermediate. It is not clear what sexual orientation triggers.

So the law then must undergo whatever level of scrutiny applies. It may or may not survive that closer scrutiny. In fact, I highly doubt it would."

Of the several dozen scholars asked, the vast majority stated the law likely would not survive the courts and be deemed unconstitutional either due to how it's being administered, it's disparate impact, or for other aforementioned reasons. I only found 3 that would openly state the law was constitutional.

Now, could I have found more scholars that took the conservative side of this opinion? Of course. But the point is that neither of us are conservatives, and your argument that legal scholars would essentially fall in line behind your position was wrong.

So see Nate? I do do my homework, and no, I'm not a legal expert, nor am I the sole arbiter of truth.

I honestly just wanted to know what the truth was, and it seemed it was far more in-depth than what was being discussed in the thread by the supposed "legal scholars." I really didn't think it was that a big deal at that point and felt satisfied knowing and understanding the actual truth so I dropped it.

It felt petty to respond even though we disagreed since, again, "we're on the same side." But apparently it bothered you, so there you go.

I think you were very likely wrong, but as you see, I let it go... I didn't think you'd ultimately change your opinion, and the thread had lost steam anyway, so what would've been the point in posting that?



As you said, projection.

You often say things that you simply can't back up. Here you did it again, get called on it, and I think you realized that you fucked up; so you lash out. It's frankly pathetic.



Who crowned me king? You? Is that how small you feel? Is that what you think? That's sad man... Seriously, you should think about why you feel the way you do. Maybe you can fix some larger issues in your personal life.

Outside of your inferiority complex though, just keep in mind, you've still not presented an argument. In fact, after all of this, all of it, you've continually reiterated the same nonsensical critique of the word "unimaginative," as if that's meaningful in anyway.

I find it hilarious that this is because you disliked the phrase "unimaginative." You don't disagree with the premise or even the conclusion of my argument; just how it's phrased, yet, here we are with you having some sort of breakdown.

Boy did Gour take it personal. Man oh man, that's a wall of text.

TL;DR

 

[gourimoko]

Boy did Gour take it personal. Man oh man, that's a wall of text.

Lol @ the instigating.. You're learning from Jigo, I see..

The wall of text was requested by Nate. He wanted a "beatdown" about the Indiana RFRA law; so I just copy and pasted some correspondence that he could read. If you didn't follow that thread, more than half my post won't make sense.

But honestly, I'm a bit shocked at the direction this all went. I mean, does anybody even know what he's arguing with me about? I don't.

The kid does this in quite a few threads. He lashes out whenever challenged, and it's tiresome.

 

[gourimoko]

And btw, he pulled this same shit on the fucking admin and got called on it.. He pulled it on you too, Max, IIRC. He pulled the same "me and Q-Tip can talk amicably" bullshit on Keys.

Randolphkeys : Nate, your tone was condescending before I got in on this post, and just out condescended you. Going forward, it might be time to take it back a notch. It clearly wasn't working for you.

NasstyNate : Only if you define condescending as having an opinion different from yours. It's not my fault that you misread my post and went off on some wild tangent about AAU basketball in your first response to me. Q-Tip was able to engage amicably even though we disagreed. We even found out that we agree with each other on a lot of points, including Delly's strengths on our team.

I respond in kind, and you came out with your nose up high treating me like an idiot. When I pushed back, you withdrew from discussing any of my points and started running victory laps. I'm happy to take it back a notch going forward, but I am not some simpleton you can push around.

This is his shtick... whenever challenged, bitch-up.

It's literally his exact same argument. He gets challenged, this makes him feel "stupid" as he puts it and then accuses others of pushing him around.

He takes it personal, no matter what, whenever challenged, again:
Admin to Nate: Really, everyone who asked for the personal stuff to end were doing you a favor.

The guy is ridiculous. If anyone has no clothes, it's him.

 

[spydy13]

But honestly, I'm a bit shocked at the direction this all went. I mean, does anybody even know what he's arguing with me about? I don't.

It seemed like a pretty innocuous comment to me (what you said about Hillary's strategy).

Maybe he's just a Hillary supporter that can't deal with her being slighted in any way?

 

[gourimoko]

It seemed like a pretty innocuous comment to me (what you said about Hillary's strategy).

Maybe he's just a Hillary supporter that can't deal with her being slighted in any way?

It's insane though, because he agrees with my position.

My conclusion is that she would say anything to get elected. He said he agreed, she would; he said this twice.

I said that's an unimaginative campaign, and he flips the script?

 

[gourimoko]

Boy did NasstyNate take it personal. Man, Oh man..

Lol, to put it mildly.

 

[spydy13]

It's insane though, because he agrees with my position.

My conclusion is that she would say anything to get elected. He said he agreed, she would; he said this twice.

I said that's an unimaginative campaign, and he flips the script?

Floating the idea that she might not be the greatest, smartest, bestest, importantest politician ever like she's convinced her supporters is tough to handle though.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I see I got tagged in this one... look, political discussions can turn ugly amongst family, let alone people swapping ideologies on the internet. Let's try to keep the focus on candidates, not each other.

Lord knows I pissed a few of our more right-leaning members a few years ago somehow and it kept me out of these threads the last few years, so my actions might speak more loudly than my words.

 

[Sebastian]

Lol, to put it mildly.

Only one proper way to settle this.

Meet at dawn at the Q. Your choice of pistols or sabers.

 

[Maximus]

Lol @ the instigating.. You're learning from Jigo, I see..

ME????!!!!!!!!!!!

On a serious note, just apologize to Nassty, he will stop kicking your ass up and down and all over this thread...then we can move on. kthanx

 

[gourimoko]

ME????!!!!!!!!!!!

On a serious note, just apologize to Nassty, he will stop kicking your ass up and down and all over this thread...then we can move on. kthanx

You first:

Thanks for letting me know that im entitled to my opinion...no need to be AssholeNate.

Alright.. I'm done..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Even reading only one side, this is epic. A hell of a lot better than that Mayweather/Pacquiao slapfest.

 

[Jordan]

On a different note...

@gourimoko, I was talking with my mom today and she mentioned how close of friends Biden and Obama are. She has political connections (especially in the Sherrod Brown camp) but I've always wondered if this is true. I don't know if you know anything about it, but if so, are the two of them good friends? It really has no political impact but it's a cool story if true.

 

[gourimoko]

On a different note...

@gourimoko, I was talking with my mom today and she mentioned how close of friends Biden and Obama are. She has political connections (especially in the Sherrod Brown camp) but I've always wondered if this is true. I don't know if you know anything about it, but if so, are the two of them good friends? It really has no political impact but it's a cool story if true.

They are very good friends, and not just for the cameras. Both Barack and Michelle Obama think very highly of Joe Biden. He's an honest and loyal guy, even if he can put his foot in his mouth more often than one might like.

Btw, Sherrod Brown is a great guy.

I miss Ohio politics. There's not much to do in California except raise money.