BTW I notice that I am "a glorious beacon of light" so how dare you plebs argue with me?
Brian
Too funny!
Anyway, I just want to clear a few things up from that quote I saw.
What Blade means by "a nanny state where the the government would supersede any of the state authority given to them by our constitution." is this:
- Right now, there's a huge fight going on over gay marriage/marriage equality. A ton of states have outlawed gay marriage, and the vast majority of those laws have been overturned by the federal court system as being blatant violations of the 14th amendment, specifically Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This has gone to SCOTUS because ONE district court upheld the gay marriage bans in his district, resulting in conflicting rulings and precedents. Early indications based on the Court's behavior and handling of the topic (they refused to take appeals of the cases where the bans were overturned) suggest that they are likely leaning toward declaring all such bans unconstitutional. Needless to say, the Right is hopping mad, which also explains Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's seditious behavior.
- There is a big push to have 'gender identity and sexual orientation' added to the protected classes list, meaning that discrimination based on those characteristics is illegal. Right now, that includes race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, having kids, disability, veteran status (the "NO BABY KILLERS" idiots), and genetic information. (Odd, that last one.) That means that while refusing service to someone for being black, Irish, or female is a crime, in most states, you can absolutely refuse any and all services to someone whose sexual orientation you dislike. In fact, several states have passed laws outright allowing that (covering by calling it 'religious freedom'). Virtually every American of progressive leanings finds that repugnant, archaic, and a relic of a racist state we are trying to undo. The Religious Reich, of course, considers anti-gay discrimination a cornerstone of a healthy society.
Anyway, if gender identity and sexual orientation are added to the federal protected classes list (which is handled via laws and was created largely because Southern states straight-up REFUSED to stop official discrimination until forced to by the federal government), then the states' laws allowing the practice will be automatically voided.
BluishDan and I have repeatedly called Blade a racist simply because a) his arguments come STRAIGHT from Stormfront, and B) he has actually linked, in this forum, to white supremacist sites to try to support his positions. The recent arguments of his I've seen you quote here have done nothing to dispel that impression.
The Koch brothers have publicly stated they'll be funnelling over a billion dollars to right-wing candidates in the next election cycle. George Soros has done nothing of the sort. As their support mostly goes to Tea Party candidates, we can expect any Primary candidate they support to be part of the extreme right. (Once the primaries are over, they will simply back whoever the GOP candidate is, because the Dem candidate will likely want them to pay taxes.)
If you want to see who is trying to convert the US to a single-party state, you need look no further than the GOP. Between disenfranchisement campaigns aimed at the poor and minorities, numerous cases of election 'results' being skewed far, far to the right of exit polls (which is, in any other nation, treated as a serious indication of election fraud), and the repeated attempts to convert blue states (specifically, states that vote blue nationally but red locally, usually due to gerrymandering) to an 'apportionment' electoral vote distribution while retaining the winner-take-all system in red states, the GOP is doing everything it possibly can to lock itself into position as the only party in power forevermore.
The "Obama wants mandatory voting" is a sound byte the Right is taking completely out of context and waving around. He was discussing ways to limit the effectiveness of money on voting (because right now in the US, you can have all the Democracy you can buy thanks to Citizens United), and said that mandatory voting would certainly have an impact on it, and he's right. If everyone in the US voted (last election it was around 30% turnout), the effect of money on the elections would be vastly diminished. Right now, a lot of the campaigning is actually simply trying to convince the Left - who are terrible at turning out to vote - to stay home by making it appear to be a lost cause. (Let's also not forget all the robo-calls that hit poor and minority areas every election giving them the wrong date and location!)
If I remember correctly, there are something like 20 or 25 Western nations with mandatory voting, and in most cases, carries a very minor penalty. I think it was Belgium where the fine came to around $20 American, unless you were dumb enough to ignore the notification and force the courts to take action. Personally I'm rather on the wall on the topic - I definitely understand both sides of the issue, and don't really know what way I'd eventually lean on this one.
So yeah, keep in mind that with Blade, you're dealing with someone who is on the far right, even by American standards. (I know he'll paint me as part of the Soros/FEMA Conspiracy to Destroy America, Kill All Christians, And Give The Smoldering Remains To ISIL, but honestly, by our standards, I'm mainstream liberal. If you want far left, talk to an anarchist or communist!
Edit: Oh, nearly forgot. There's a wonderful new bill in Oklahoma that was passed by their House and is in front of their Senate that not only bars same-sex marriage, but would require that all marriages be performed by a 'religious leader', and that marriage certificates could only be made out by said 'religious leader'. In effect, it would also bar any non-theists from marriage as well, unless they sucked it up and had a religious wedding.
