• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Seditious Republicans march toward authoritarianism

Where does he argue that “democracy requires ethnic homogeneity to thrive”?

“At the same time, social scientists have found that greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower social trust. Ethnically heterogeneous societies exhibit less political and civic engagement, less effective governing institutions, and fewer public goods. The sociologist Robert Putnam has concluded that greater ethnic diversity weakens social solidarity, fosters social isolation, and inhibits social capital:”
 
When your burning and obsessive hatred of any and all things Trump causes you to blindly vote for any Dem on every ballot regardless of policy, you were never a conservative in the first place.

That goes for you and double for your hack buddy, Tom Nichols.

You are conflating tribalism with political philosophy.

Real conservatives would be aghast at running up massive deficit spending during an economic expansion, for instance.
 
It’s almost like Rachel Maddow — and you, in defense of your post — are intentionally ignoring that the entire point of the article was to argue that Israel's unique Jewish-centrism is not inconsistent with liberalism.

That said, Menashi himself is Jewish, and it is well known that most modern Jews have Neo-Nazi tendencies, so

I think he’s making a pretty explicit argument that democracies function best when groups stick to their own kind.
 
“Original intent” is not the touchstone of Originalism. “Original meaning” is.

The notion that “we the people” is limited to landowning white males ignores the 14th Amendment, which provides that all persons have equal protection of the laws.

People who criticize originalism as being racist refuse, either because of stupidity or for polemical reasons, to accept that originalism acknowledges that the 13-15th Amendments worked a fundamental change in constitutional structure.

Originalism: Good in theory, but not practiced by the modern GOP, unless it can be used to argue for unlimited gun rights.
 
I think he’s making a pretty explicit argument that democracies function best when groups stick to their own kind.

It's rather hard to read his second paragraph in your post and not come to the clear conclusion that he doesn't think diversity is very healthy for a democracy, or for a happy and stable society:

“Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

That's not exactly a ringing defense of diverse communities of any kind, and seems to pretty clearly indicate that he thinks demographically homogeneous communities are superior to diverse ones in several areas, government and politics being one.
 
Originalism isn’t racist, it just has racist results due to its refusal to understand how law is supposed to work. “Only the words on the page matter” is a complete bastardization of common sense.
 
Are there any non-white people whose original intent we are supposed to consider?
 
GOP Jesus is white though.
 
When your burning and obsessive hatred of any and all things Trump causes you to blindly vote for any Dem on every ballot regardless of policy, you were never a conservative in the first place.

That goes for you and double for your hack buddy, Tom Nichols.

We must give a sound defeat to Trump and his allies to show that the American people will not stand for his antidemocratic, Treasonous actions.
 
That’s a good thread. Dems need candidates who can hold a mirror to them and offer them a way out of the mess they’ve voted themselves into.
 
Then whose original intent are you talking about?
 
The most popular branch of the theory focuses on original meaning, not original intent. I have explained this on multiple occasions.

So whose original meaning?
 
Junebug you’re ignoring the obvious fact that words cannot operate on their own. Someone has to write them. And who writes them matters because who a person is and what a person believes when he writes words shapes how the words are used and what meaning they are supposed to have.
 
Obviously the people who wrote it matter. Otherwise there would be no distinction between the original meaning and current meaning.
 
You realize you are writing words on an anonymous message board, right?

I don’t care what the writer’s intent was. The writer’s intent isn’t the law. The words are.

I’m not arguing about intent. You say original meaning matters. I’m saying that who the writer is and what they believe in shapes what words are used and therefore what meaning a law has.

But it’s beside the point, you’ll never back down from originalism. But at the end of the day, even Scalia dint apply originalism consistently. No court ever has. It’s a terrible interpretative philosophy that appeals to a certain subgroup of legal minds that don’t want to bother with critical thinking.
 
Back
Top