7 ms·

The non-equality of half and most is unaffected by any context.

reitanqild 10y ago
I give you an upvote for that. But I think the idea is clear and you are needlessly discussing over one word instead of focusing on how this could happen. (Yes, I don't like Trump but I think we - at least Europeans - should respect Americans and their choice.)
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Here's my reason why there's nothing i can respect there: One of my best friends is a person in the USA, requiring constant medical support (literally one skipped day can kill them) in a queer marriage. The people directly around trump would rather see my friend die, alone. Not all of the people who voted for him, by far. Many are not even aware of the consequences this has already had. (Yes, various friends of mine have been accosted on streets by complete strangers just for existing.) Many can be talked to and would understand the situation. But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? Sorry, i have none. Not until i know that my friend can live in safety and dignity.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    > But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? You seem to be assuming that no one voted for Trump, only against Hillary. Personally, I voted for him because I support his Supreme Court nominees and his gun rights platform.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      No, i am assuming that many people were direly mislead. Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor?
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        > Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor? Do you support the Iraqi war? Because the other candidate did. This is not all black and white.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        She supported it in the past. She did also: At the very least make the effort to claim she does not any more, at the very least researched the words a person actually believing those things would use, and at the very least made the effort of claiming she would not repeat such. Or is this fake? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/07/hillary_clinton_voting_for_iraq_war_was_from_my_perspective_my_mistake.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/07/hillary_cl... If it's real, I'm ready to give her the benefit of the doubt. If Pryor disawoved his previous actions in a similarly convincing manner, i would also give him the benefit of the doubt. But right now he has made no such statements, leaving me to believe he both internally and externally still stands by them; and is thus at least down vis-a-vis Hillary on one count.
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        The name is familiar, but doesn't ring a bell. After a cursory overview of his Wikipedia page I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as disqualifying.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        A quote from this document, wherein he is the primary author: http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.states.pdf http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102.... "The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        As a matter of jurisprudence, I agree with that - in that the purpose of the statement is to say the US Constitution does not impose such a moral judgement upon the individual states. I'm far more concerned with statements like: > Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality. and > Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders. FWIW, I'll also say that I strongly disagree with the amicus, on multiple grounds.

I give you an upvote for that. But I think the idea is clear and you are needlessly discussing over one word instead of focusing on how this could happen. (Yes, I don't like Trump but I think we - at least Europeans - should respect Americans and their choice.)

Mithaldu 10y ago
Here's my reason why there's nothing i can respect there: One of my best friends is a person in the USA, requiring constant medical support (literally one skipped day can kill them) in a queer marriage. The people directly around trump would rather see my friend die, alone. Not all of the people who voted for him, by far. Many are not even aware of the consequences this has already had. (Yes, various friends of mine have been accosted on streets by complete strangers just for existing.) Many can be talked to and would understand the situation. But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? Sorry, i have none. Not until i know that my friend can live in safety and dignity.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? You seem to be assuming that no one voted for Trump, only against Hillary. Personally, I voted for him because I support his Supreme Court nominees and his gun rights platform.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    No, i am assuming that many people were direly mislead. Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor?
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      > Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor? Do you support the Iraqi war? Because the other candidate did. This is not all black and white.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        She supported it in the past. She did also: At the very least make the effort to claim she does not any more, at the very least researched the words a person actually believing those things would use, and at the very least made the effort of claiming she would not repeat such. Or is this fake? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/07/hillary_clinton_voting_for_iraq_war_was_from_my_perspective_my_mistake.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/07/hillary_cl... If it's real, I'm ready to give her the benefit of the doubt. If Pryor disawoved his previous actions in a similarly convincing manner, i would also give him the benefit of the doubt. But right now he has made no such statements, leaving me to believe he both internally and externally still stands by them; and is thus at least down vis-a-vis Hillary on one count.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      The name is familiar, but doesn't ring a bell. After a cursory overview of his Wikipedia page I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as disqualifying.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        A quote from this document, wherein he is the primary author: http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.states.pdf http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102.... "The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        As a matter of jurisprudence, I agree with that - in that the purpose of the statement is to say the US Constitution does not impose such a moral judgement upon the individual states. I'm far more concerned with statements like: > Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality. and > Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders. FWIW, I'll also say that I strongly disagree with the amicus, on multiple grounds.