• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Braun open to U.S. Supreme Court rescinding ruling that legalized interracial marriage

Braun signifies what the far right, QAnon loving, strategy actually is in 2024.
While claiming to be about 'individual freedoms', they clearly want nothing more than to remove any and all 'freedoms' they do not agree with. This desire to establish a theotratic government is very disturbing.
 
KingLeo said:
Braun signifies what the far right, QAnon loving, strategy actually is in 2024.
While claiming to be about 'individual freedoms', they clearly want nothing more than to remove any and all 'freedoms' they do not agree with. This desire to establish a theotratic government is very disturbing.
Click to expand...
Yes and their attacks are just projection and lies are their gospel. I find the lies most disturbing and un-American. Truth, Justice and the American way.

 
TheParser said:
Well, if this were a federation of truly independent states, each state could pass any law it wanted,

There would be no federal Supreme Court.

State A might allow abortion, but it might be a felony in state B.

State C might have no bail for sucker punchers, but it might be a felony in state D.

Americans could then move to the state where they would feel most comfortable.
Click to expand...

Beyond it being an idea that was tried and failed with the Articles of Confederation, that's a lot of migrating you're suggesting.
 
That’s reactionary politics on display…
 
j brown's body said:
Beyond it being an idea that was tried and failed with the Articles of Confederation, that's a lot of migrating you're suggesting.
Click to expand...
You are indeed right.

A whole lot of people would be moving to states of their choice.

But maybe we could then have a more harmonious "United" States of America, maybe something like today's former Yugoslavia?
 
post said:

The 10 US states with the most hate groups | TheHill​

https://thehill.com › changing-america › respect › 5785...
Oct 26, 2021 — "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which defines a hate group as an organization that attacks or maligns an entire class of people, ... According to the civil rights organization's estimations, the top 10 states with the most hate groups in 2020 per capita are: Montana, Tennessee, Nebraska, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Idaho, and Nevada.

Montana has six hate groups, including two anti-Muslim groups, two white nationalist groups, a racist skinhead organization, and a chapter of the Proud Boys — a self-described brotherhood of Western chauvinism that spreads “anti-political correctness” and “anti-white guilt” agenda, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Without breaking down the groups per capita, California has the most hate groups with 74. The state is followed by Florida, 68, Texas, 54, New York, 37, Pennsylvania, 36, Tennessee, 34, Virginia, 33, Georgia, 29, North Carolina, 29, and Arizona, 26.

(Tennessee population is only 6,916,897 )

With a population of a little more than 1 million, Montana has six hate groups per million civilians in the state, whereas no other state has five per group per million civilians. Almost 85 percent of Montana’s population is white, according to the U.S. Census. In total, there are 838 hate groups in the country. Compared to 2018, which had 1,020 active hate groups, there has been a decrease. However, groups are communicating online through encrypted platforms making it more difficult to trace.."
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, the important point of my post is NOT "hate groups."

It is about the right of people to live in a state where they feel comfortable.

You mention a state where -- you say -- 85 percent of the people are Caucasian.

What is wrong with that?

I bet you dollars to donuts that the 15% that are NOT Caucasians are very happy living there.

For those people who prefer to live in a more cosmopolitan area, that is also great. Go for it!

It is simply a matter of choice.
 
TheParser said:
Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...
Those some people are morons who want 50 separate nations instead of actual United States.
 
highroller said:
You mean Confederation
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I think that the English language is the greatest in the world.

I want to respect it by using the correct word.

I have just googled the difference.

(I wish more people, please, would understand the difference between it's and its. Please!)
 
Somerville said:
Certainly looks like Senator Braun (R-IN), believes states should allow discrimination against certain individuals and prohibition of various legal practices. What this would mean for many Americans is being banned from traveling across the nation, as their legal status in one state would be considered illegal in other states and therefore subject such persons to arrest or imposition of fines.



Someone, probably an aide, must have whispered to him that he had made a boo-boo when he included interracial marriage in his list of items to be done away with.
Click to expand...
If only he had been against interracial gay marriage, I might have supported him.


(let me add this for the conservatives here /s)
 
TheParser said:
Well, if this were a federation of truly independent states, each state could pass any law it wanted,

There would be no federal Supreme Court.

State A might allow abortion, but it might be a felony in state B.

State C might have no bail for sucker punchers, but it might be a felony in state D.

Americans could then move to the state where they would feel most comfortable.
Click to expand...
There would still be a Supreme Court. There is no point to even a loose federation if there isn’t some shared governmental structure. Otherwise all you have at best is an alliance of independent countries.

The federal constitution should define the minimum set of rights and protections the people have with the states free to go over and above that. Being able to marry whoever you want would seem a obvious right that any free person should have.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There is good reason to oppose federal anti-lynching laws, and that’s because the federal government should not possess plenary power and does not under the constitution of 1787. Although that’s moot point since the constitution of 1787 is not the de facto constitution.

In addition despite a lot of handwringing, lynching is not a major issue in the US. It has not been one for almost a century now, and even when lynchings were occurring in the south many whites were lynched as well. So the narrative used to support federal power grab is usually false.

I think over a century from the end of the civil war to world war 2 there were maybe a couple of thousand lynchings total. More people are murdered in America every year then were ever lynched
Click to expand...
If Lynching is only defined as a person hanging by the neck from a tree. If lynching is defined as taking the life of a person for who they are i.e. race, religion, sexual preference, etc. It is still with us, not that current, but Mathew Shepard was tied to a fence & beaten for being gay. That to me was a lynching.
 
TheParser said:
You are indeed right.

A whole lot of people would be moving to states of their choice.

But maybe we could then have a more harmonious "United" States of America, maybe something like today's former Yugoslavia?
Click to expand...

What if there are few jobs in such states that meet their cultural demands?
 
Gaius46 said:
Since when does society have a right to children? And if society has a right to my kids it should reimburse me for their care and education. Figure its about 300K per kid.
Click to expand...
He's trying to push some religious angle with that crap, but last I remember, priests diddling young boys never produced children.
 
TheParser said:
Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't it surprise me that you and the only person foolish enough to "like" your post @TurtleDude think this is a swell idea.

Maybe the two of you should consider buying your own country where you can ensure everyone is lily white.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Or are afraid of their own sexual impulses to the point they need to shame others for theirs.
Click to expand...
i didn't consider that. i now wonder what serial rapists say.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
It won't matter. The Democrats pay for their crazy minority, but the Republicans never pay a political cost for their crazy majority.
Click to expand...
Because their base are shitty racist morons, and the others are selfish and just want shit for themselves so they don't care that their party has turned into the Taliban
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom