Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

JD Vance Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 956
  • Views: 32K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
America’s decline started long before Trump.
Click to expand...
This should definitely be a separate thread and I suggest we defer it until after the election, but I could not disagree more. Or, to be more precise, we at least have to be much more specific what is meant by "decline." We have some profound challenges, no doubt. But I can say with no hesitation I'd rather be an American right now than at any other time in the history of the country. And I'm a straight, white, college-educated male, so my relative privilege would have been significantly greater in prior eras.
 
lawtig02 said:
This is not at all to excuse the press, who I agree has just capitulated on this without a fight, but I think this whole issue has been profoundly impacted by SCOTUS's lurch to the right. There's just no possible chance this SCOTUS would come anywhere close to finding the obvious tax-law violations are actionable under the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
I have seen a couple Catholic churches in Charlotte with big signs out front that say “Vote Pro-Life.” While they don’t directly endorse any particular candidate, they indirectly endorse certain candidates and seem to run afoul of 501(c)(3).
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that has nothing to do with being complacent with our industrial technology while Germany and Japan are forced into rebuilding theirs with a much more efficient one . Nor does losing sole proprietorship of nuclear power, chasing ghosts in Iran, Indochina and countless other places for the former colonial powers and blundering around in South and Central America help in maintaining a somewhat fictional military hegemony.
 
Oh. That, like so many other thing started when Truman and Eisenhower, finally recognized that if blacks could fight and die for the country, then the government needed to swing behind the Civil Rights movement. The Ivy Leaguers who ran the CIA still maintained a huge influence on foreign policy but hat's when everything stopped being all about the white power elite. That movement grew to include women and gays and, despite your earlier contention, does not represent a decline but a much needed refocus.

I would gladly continue this discussion but am quite willing to take it elsewhere.
 
Paine said:
100%. That’s what I’m saying. Those were choices made by America. We weren’t forced into free market dogma while Japan and Germany were doing industrial planning.
Click to expand...
I really do want to discuss this, but my views on it will be impacted by what happens on 11/5, and it definitely doesn't have anything to do with this thread. So how about we all put a marker on our calendars to start a new thread on this topic around the middle of November. I think it would be a really interesting discussion.
 
Icky Mettle said:
If Trump wins, perhaps. But if Trump loses, I don’t see it. When is the last time, if ever, a VP candidate on a losing ticket has been a real threat politically?

In my lifetime, there was Dole, Mondale, Bentsen, Quayle, Lieberman, Edwards, Palin, Ryan, Kaine, and Pence. Of those, only two were able to go on to become their party’s nominee for President, but each time they were essentially sacrificial lambs, nominated to run when everyone knew that had no real chance. And Vance will have that Trump taint on him.
Click to expand...
I did not know that Dole was Ford's running mate in '76. Learn something new every day.
 
Paine said:
Yeah don’t want to derail the thread. I’m talking about the decline of American global hegemony militarily and economically.

I think that started in the 1970s.
Click to expand...
No offense but that’s about as ahistorical take as I’ve ever heard on this forum. Americas global “hegemony” such as it ever was peaked in the 90s with the end of the Cold War.
 
Paine said:
I’m not talking about when it ended formally or informally. I’m talking about when the decline began, which I think is up for debate.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about when it peaked, after which comes decline. Everything’s up for debate I suppose but you’re arguing against facts.
 
Paine said:
Again, more than happy to discuss in the DMs what I mean by decline. Doesn’t help anyone to assume you know exactly what point I’m trying to make.
Click to expand...
I suppose that’s a credit to how well you’ve articulated your point. DM away if you feel it. Apologies to all for the derail.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I have seen a couple Catholic churches in Charlotte with big signs out front that say “Vote Pro-Life.” While they don’t directly endorse any particular candidate, they indirectly endorse certain candidates and seem to run afoul of 501(c)(3).
Click to expand...
Nonprofits, including 501(c)(3) NPOs, are allowed to take stances on political issues, provided those issues are within the purview of their mission, as long as they don't endorse specific candidates.

There is no violation of election law nor nonprofit law by a church encouraging folks to vote in a manner consistent with the ideological leanings of said church as long as they don't endorse specific candidates.
 
SnoopRob said:
Nonprofits, including 501(c)(3) NPOs, are allowed to take stances on political issues, provided those issues are within the purview of their mission, as long as they don't endorse specific candidates.

There is no violation of election law nor nonprofit law by a church encouraging folks to vote in a manner consistent with the ideological leanings of said church as long as they don't endorse specific candidates.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your second paragraph. Prohibited partisan political activity isn’t limited to endorsing specific candidates. These NPOs are prohibited from indirectly endorsing candidates and from telling people how to vote. I think telling people to vote pro-choice is an indirect endorsement of certain political candidates and certainly tells people how to vote.

While these organizations may take stances on issues such as abortion, telling them how to vote with regard to those issues is another story and is prohibited conduct.

Restriction of political campaign intervention by Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations | Internal Revenue Service

Political Campaign Activity by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations
www.irs.gov www.irs.gov

 
Last edited:
Yea I think the Catholic Church has the right legally to do this. What is so sad is the laundry list of shitty things orangeturd does that are in clear violation of many basic tenets of the church . But none of them matter. Of course treating women as second class citizens is a major tenet of Popes for centuries ( I grew up Catholic )
 
mpaer said:
Yea I think the Catholic Church has the right legally to do this. What is so sad is the laundry list of shitty things orangeturd does that are in clear violation of many basic tenets of the church . But none of them matter. Of course treating women as second class citizens is a major tenet of Popes for centuries ( I grew up Catholic )
Click to expand...
Catholic Church was cozy with Il Duce. In the end, survival and preservation of power often trumps simple morality (and as you mention, it's not like the Catholic Church is some paragon). ttump obviously has clear diversions from Mussolini's positions, yet has quite literally used the same slogans and propaganda. A first principle of mine is to never expect a large religious body to do the right thing, on net.
 
HeelingAg said:
Catholic Church was cozy with Il Duce. In the end, survival and preservation of power often trumps simple morality (and as you mention, it's not like the Catholic Church is some paragon). ttump obviously has clear diversions from Mussolini's positions, yet has quite literally used the same slogans and propaganda. A first principle of mine is to never expect a large religious body to do the right thing, on net.
Click to expand...
What I never understood was how they helped Nazi war criminal escape after the end. I understand how they didn't have a lot of choice during the war (although more than they seemed to have exercised) but I don't understand that. A lot of them had Vatican passports.
 
finesse said:
What I never understood was how they helped Nazi war criminal escape after the end. I understand how they didn't have a lot of choice during the war (although more than they seemed to have exercised) but I don't understand that. A lot of them had Vatican passports.
Click to expand...
I didn't really know that...thanks for the info
 
Icky Mettle said:
I disagree with your second paragraph. Prohibited partisan political activity isn’t limited to endorsing specific candidates. These NPOs are prohibited from indirectly endorsing candidates and from telling people how to vote. I think telling people to vote pro-choice is an indirect endorsement of certain political candidates and certainly tells people how to vote.

While these organizations may take stances on issues such as abortion, telling them how to vote with regard to those issues is another story and is prohibited conduct.

Restriction of political campaign intervention by Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations | Internal Revenue Service

Political Campaign Activity by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations
www.irs.gov www.irs.gov

Click to expand...
You can disagree as much as you like, but these kinds of activities have been going on for a long time and there has never been any real effort to place a message as simple as "Vote Pro-Life" as a prohibited activity.

From your second link...

Can an organization state its position on public policy issues that candidates for
public office are divided on?

• An organization may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office as long as the message does not in any way favor or oppose a candidate. Be aware that the message does not need to identify the candidate by name to be prohibited political activity. A message that shows a picture of a candidate, refers to a candidate’s political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography may result in prohibited political activity.

Nothing in the phrase "Vote Pro-Life" favors or opposes a candidate, it states a public policy position on an issue that divides candidates. As long as nothing about particular candidates or their stances are mentioned, then "Vote Pro-Life" is perfectly acceptable.
 
SnoopRob said:
You can disagree as much as you like, but these kinds of activities have been going on for a long time and there has never been any real effort to place a message as simple as "Vote Pro-Life" as a prohibited activity.

From your second link...

Can an organization state its position on public policy issues that candidates for
public office are divided on?

• An organization may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office as long as the message does not in any way favor or oppose a candidate. Be aware that the message does not need to identify the candidate by name to be prohibited political activity. A message that shows a picture of a candidate, refers to a candidate’s political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography may result in prohibited political activity.

Nothing in the phrase "Vote Pro-Life" favors or opposes a candidate, it states a public policy position on an issue that divides candidates. As long as nothing about particular candidates or their stances are mentioned, then "Vote Pro-Life" is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...
But see here:


"In contrast to the "pure issue message" scenario set forth in the 1995 ABA Comments, an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may avail itself of the opportunity to intervene in a political campaign in a rather surreptitious manner. The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its messages, such as "conservative," "liberal," "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," "Republican," "Democrat," etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening -- an intervention is taking place...

Basically, a finding of campaign intervention in an issue advertisement requires more than just a positive or negative correspondence between an organization's position and a candidate's position. What is required is that there must be some reasonably overt indication in the communication to the reader, viewer, or listener that the organization supports or opposes a particular candidate (or slate of candidates) in an election; rather than being a message restricted to an issue."

Does advertising "vote pro-life" indicate to the reader that the church supports or opposes a slate of candidates?

There is a distinction between taking a position on a public policy issue, such as taking the position that abortion is wrong, and telling people to vote for a slate of candidates that take the same position on that public policy issue.

The phrase “vote pro-life” certainly does express support for “pro-life” candidates and opposition toward pro-choice candidates, and encourages the reader to vote for those “pro-life” candidates over the pro-choice candidates.

I do agree that these types of messages have been going on for a long time and that there won’t be any effort to do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top