Politics Thread


This one was overturned by Miller v. California in 1973. Roth was primarily to enforce the conservative cultural norms of the 50’s, specifically the ban on “pornography”.

I think specifically that Miller changes the test from the average person in a given community to a hypothetical, reasonable person and takes into account contemporary standards.




Today we would add a new three-pronged test: “( a ) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . . . ( b ) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and ( c ) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”


The big no-confidence vote in the UK is coming up today. So who do you think it is going to be after the dust settles? Will the remainer who is currently in charge of Leave and nasty party cling on to power, or will a general election hand it to the Brexiteer in charge of the Remain party? :thinking: The UK is proving to be topsy-turvy land alright these last couple of days.

So what do you guys think of PM May’s chances, after all in Brexitland she made her stand and now she lives or dies for Brexit. Politically speaking of course.

Yes, apologies I was rattling it out on the top of my head. I didn’t and don’t know Miller verbatim.


So, Theresa May survived the no confidence vote by 19 votes (it was 325-304). This is fun.


Fascinating study. Generation Z’s views are pretty much what I expected. I think the Baby Boomers fascinate me the most given that they were an extremely activist generation in their youth during the 60’s and 70’s but now appear to have far less sympathy for the present day’s causes. Pew also notes the pronounced divide between older and younger Republicans,on several issues such as climate change and race, a divide that they did not find among Democrats on those same issues. For those interested in differences in the generational views on a host of political issues from race, to the role of of government, to climate change, to LGBT+ issues, this study provides much to chew over.


This is just horrible,

No, I don’t mean Brexit per-se, but if it is true that four million children are food-insecure in the UK…assuming that is true what are you trying to do? Go from one of our premier trading partners to the premier recipient of Dutch food-aid? :worried:



I believe it was more of a critique of decision making coming from the ruling party. That being said, it’s not like EU is a leading economic zone of the world, stellar in it’s organisation, nor UK isn’t able to negotiate trade deals without it’s supervision and regulations in place, is it? :wink:


The author’s understanding of the Miller decision is flawed. The plaintiff had died while awaiting the hearing and his attorneys did not attend the hearing as a result. In absence of the plaintiff, the court ruled that it was permissible to ban sawed-off shotguns because to the court’s knowledge they had no military use (they do, but no one was present to inform the court of that).

More importantly, in Miller the court did NOT take a collectivist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but an individual one. It simply limited that individual right to weapons of military value that might thus reasonably be possessed by members of a citizen’s militia. This is very different from the collectivist stance that there is no individual right and that the 2nd amendment only protects the rights of the states to maintain their own “national guards”.



All true, however food insecure children (and other people) in some of the most affluent places on the world in spite of recent (self-inflicted) troubles or throwing gay people of off buildings tied to chairs or otherwise persecuting them are some of the relatively few things that get the politician inside me riled up and actually angry. Those are red lines, not even the UK “nasty party” should want to cross.

The sad thing is, although I hate to say, that if the UK could have agreed on what they actually wanted from “Brexit” they could have had perhaps the stronger negotiating position in the negotiations with the EU. Of course they didn’t and haven’t reached any sort of consensus on what a Brexit is even supposed to do and deliver for them, so they squandered any advantages they might have had vis a vis the EU.

But then there was never a plan for Brexit in the first place because it was all the result of a bad rerun of the “Producers” starring The right honourable mister David Cameron MP and PM in its main role. Cameron was foolishly gambling on needing a renewed coalition with the LibDems who would surely have demanded him to let go of his promised referendum in the coalition negotiations. That referendum was only ever promised as a sop to ultra-regressive Tory Backbenchers in the first place and was never meant to enacted.
Cameron then further shot himself in the foot, or perhaps he was somehow made to by the more regressive Tories to set next to no conditions on the referendum, no 16 year voting age or mandatory thresholds on the percentage of voters or the majority required.

Just like with the Scotland referendum I’d have set a 16 year voting age and thresholds like 68% of registered voters must show up and the majority for Leave would have needed to be 55%.

Which would certainly be my preferred interpretation and would be one of the areas where we’d have irreconcilable political differences.
But then I’m of the view that individual gun ownership should be a privilege, not a universal right.


Just as a side note, 55% sounds weird to me - I’m rather used to seeing 50%+ (for like a common legislative pieces) and 2/3 of votes for matters of constitutional meaning.
Certialny UK has been put in rather difficult circumstances, be it decisions of your politicians or EU commision’s interest, which certainly is at odds with the outcome of the referendum. I would prefer if you stayed and tried to reform the whole thing, but whatever the backstage reasons referendum happened, and I just don’t see a legit way to work around it and leverage the outcome. Hope you get it sorted out to your benefit and, you know, hold people responsible for train-wrecking negotiations to account. :wink:


I’m from the EU not the UK. But I’m sure some of our UK members appreciate your sentiments.

You can basically set whatever conditions you want on a plebiscite. For example, the first Scottish devolution referendum failed because although there was a majority of voters for devolution at the time, not enough voters showed up as a minimum of 40% of all registered voters at the time would have had to vote YES for its results to have been legally valid.


Most countries don’t have a right to keep and bear arms as part of their Bill of Rights.

The Roberts court actually went a step further in their reasoning in Heller than the Hughes court did in Miller. The Hughes court treated the supporting clause as the sole reason for the individual right whereas the Roberts court also read an implicit right to self defense into the amendment based on its originalist reading of the original documents, ie. individuals have a right to keep and bear arms not only so they can ably serve in a militia if called upon, but also because they have an inherent right to self defense.


As a member of a minority that has frequently been oppressed throughout history, often under the guise of “self-defense”, I mean most Western Countries including mine have had variants of the “gay panic” defense as either completely exculpatory or at the very least penalty reducing grounds in law and jurisprudence you can understand why that interpretation, much more so then that of the Hughes Court, which does fit in with the idiosyncrasies of American history makes me very leery.

Even if opposing the Hughes Court interpretation is a political third rail I would still oppose the Roberts one.

True, see idiosyncrasies of American history above as to why. In the modern era a ragtag militia violently opposing a modern armed to the teeth professional military is increasingly fraught anyway. There’s likely more success to be had in less violent subversive actions and the threat of violence then in actually committing it.
In any case it’s often not access to weapons that is the main problem, particularly since we can commonly 3d print them on hacked printers in the near future but lack of access to training (and often intel too) for those civilians plotting a violent insurrection. Which for the most part is a good thing.

Shooting one bigot just puts my life at even more risk, particularly since his next of kin could possibly invoke legitimate “gay panic” / “freedom of religion” or an “indigenous culture” bullshit defense to just bankrupt me in civil suits, in addition to inflaming more of his bigoted brethren and turning me or people like me into walking targets. I mean being able to defend yourself is nice enough, having to stare down a bigot each and every day at five o clock on the main street for a wild-west style duel of pistols is both extremely risky and would get annoying really fast as long as it doesn’t kill you.

I’m okay with taking a rain check on that if you are, I believe that is the colloqial expression in the US, no?

As for the article, I think that looking at it from the individual point of view someone like me having a gun provides at best a false sense of security. As honestly, gun or no gun I don’t think I could stop a well-trained determined person, like a marine officer, such as our own cascat if they were really intent on doing me harm.
Collectively and taking into account American culture, I agree it might help if LGBTQ people as a collective group were known to be armed to the teeth and willing and able to use those firearms.


You should join the pink pistols!


It’s certainly a different take on self-empowerment than the one I think you’re used to, but it still strikes me as valid.

EDIT: I’d like to address the concerns in your reply more directly, but I’m out of time for the moment.


This is the problem I find with marginal struggles. I see many movements striving for social change, however everything from an identity outlook. Arming gay people can only solve so much. Arming women can only solve so much. Problems in society stem from the economic base of it. Changing problems stemming from the root of society is like dealing with weeds and illnesses. Cutting the stem or dealing with the symptoms will solve a problem, temporarily. The economic base will always be superior. Going back to the point, instead of arming gay men, we should arm everyone equally. If the majority has the power to act, they will turn from being begging to bargaining. It is a good initiative, however arming a minority alienates a majority.


Senator Kamala Harris of California has announced that she’s running for President. She’s a charismatic biracial American woman whose calm demeanor goes down well during these troubled times, and as a result I think she has the potential to do well among independents in the general election. CNN has already placed her at the top of the field of Democratic candidates. Of course she has to receive her own party’s nomination first, and her background as a prosecutor whose office was criticized for withholding exculpatory evidence that they were legally obligated to turn over to defendants may well turn into a big strike against her to a large slice of the Democratic base in the Black Lives Matter age.

Or is she being held to a higher more unfair standard due to her gender and ethnicity as some of her supporters argue?


This graf from the Intercept pieces says everything about why I don’t want Harris to win the nomination:

Harris revealed that her own parents questioned her choice to become a prosecutor. “My family and extended family thought, at best, it was a curious decision,” she recalled, saying that she had to defend it “like one would a thesis.” They asked, in Harris’s words, “why would you go and be a part of an institution that is not always fair and does not always pursue justice?” An understandable question from parents who met in Berkeley in the 1960s — a bastion of American progressivism at a time of rapid social progress — speaking to a daughter who was making the choice to jail people for a living at the start of the mass incarceration crisis of the 1990s.


Can she match Trump’s bullying in a live stand-up verbal match on national television (Trump’s favourite arena) and win? If so, yes, if not then no. Or maybe just slightly as it is more difficult for a woman to publicly deliver a verbal “smackdown” to a man due to cultural sensitivities and issues.
Fact remains though, either you can stand up to Trump and the most toxic Republicans or you can’t. Gender and culture figure into that equation but they are not and should not be its only variables.

If it is true, I don’t know about it to be honest. Then, yes, it is a big strike against her with me personally too, certainly given certain occupational sensitivities I have on this issue.
If this is the tenor of her campaign, then much like with Hillary I’d be disinclined to support her, were I American.

My money would still be on Warren, or Sanders again. Should he enter.