Mathew,

I completely understand the difference.  However, I also understand the difference between rhetoric and reality.  The Republicans have taken no action, because the POTUS hasn’t nominated anyone.  It is posturing so Obama will nominate someone less liberal.

It takes two to tango, and two to compromise.  Both sides want the other to give them everything they ask for.  If I demand you give me all your money, and you say “no,” I won’t give you anything--then you aren’t compromising either.  Not compromising on certain issues isn’t dishonorable.

Obama could easily get a nominee considered if he went to the Senate and asked them to give him a list of nominees they would approve.  He won’t do that and isn’t required to.  You seem to be repeating the liberal slogan that anytime Republicans don’t rubber-stamp Obama’s agenda, they are being anti-democratic.

You seem to have this odd view of the world which is black and white—Republicans are bad, Democrats are good.  I am not a Republican, and I won’t defend the rhetoric or actions of every person to call themselves a Republican.  Democrats threaten to withdraw funding when they think it is important to their values. They want to cut funding to programs they don’t like.  They refused to compromise on reduction in funding of Planned Parenthood.  You and I may agree with the value of Democrats, but that doesn’t mean both sides don’t use similar tactics to get what they want.  To think otherwise is naïve. 

- Jared

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:

You do not see the difference between opposing a nominee and declaring a refusal to consider any nominee of a sitting president?  

This is not an isolated incident, it is part of a larger pattern of rejected the democratic concept that compromise is honorable.  Republicans have repeatedly threatened to withdraw funding from the judiciary if judges make decisions that they disagree with.  I have been told that historians are afraid to challenge some frequently repeated, yet misleading and unjustified, historical claims because they depend on government funding and there is a history of Republican law makers cutting funding to any academic group that speaks out against their preferred propaganda.

On Mar 1, 2016, at 8:25 AM, Jared Reeves <[address removed]> wrote:

Mathew,

First, you are saying the Republicans haven't  fulfilled their Constitutional duty when no one has been nominated?  That is not possible.  You are arguing their against rhetoric.  Tough words and posturing are allowed in a democracy.

Second, the Democrats are hypocrites, if they claim they have never opposed a Republican nominee.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/democrats_double_standard_for_high_court_nominees.html 

- Jared

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:

It is blazingly obvious that the Republicans are not fulfilling any duty to consent to a Supreme Court nominee when they are declaring that they will refuse to consider any nominee from the elected president.  And no, the Democrats have never taken such stance.  Your opposite claim is shamelessly ridiculous, it is on par with climate warming and macro-evolution denialism.

On Mar 1, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Jared Reeves <[address removed]> wrote:

Mathew,

You said, “(m)any Republicans do not like democracy because poor people vote…”  This is different from your current claim that “…Republicans do not like poor people voting…”  However, I would describe both as inaccurate, with the first comment being blatantly ignorant.

First, your anecdotal evidence is an over generalization and not proof about “many Republicans” or Republicans in general.

I think Republicans don’t encourage certain demographics to vote, because they don’t tend to vote Republican.  This is common sense and is equally true of Democrats.  Just last night I was watching CNN and a Democrat commentator was talking about the 2012 election and how they didn’t want certain voters to turn out.  I remember the 2000 election when the Democrats were trying to prevent overseas votes from Servicemembers from being counted in Florida. That is politics.  If you think only one party is morally blameworthy for not encouraging certain groups to show up to vote, you are naïve.

Also, there are legitimate non anti-democratic reasons to want voter ID laws.  Voter ID can strengthen democracy because it gives people confidence that there is less fraud, and therefore their vote counts.  If there are no costs, and only benefits, then it is a reasonable proposition.  If Democrats thought this would impact likely Republican voters, the sides would take opposite positions.  That is politics.

It is not anti-democratic for the Republicans to fulfill their Constitutional duties of consenting on the Supreme Court nominee.  To suggest otherwise is to oppose the US Constitution (to call it anti-democratic would be a misuse of the term).  Democrats have not been a rubber stamp for many Republican nominees.  Plus the POTUS hasn't nominated anyone, so you are simply arguing against rhetoric.

Opposing certain rights for certain groups isn’t necessarily anti-democratic (such as marriage), because in a pure democracy, the tyranny of the majority would decide.  Many Republicans are wrong on this issue, but that is completely different from claiming they are anti-democratic.

- Jared

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:

Again, I said that Republicans do not like poor people voting on the grounds that poor people vote for candidates who promise to give poor people money and tax other people to raise the money.  Romney's statement about moochers is one example of this, other examples are their widespread efforts to make it more difficult for poor people to vote.  They currently say they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee until there is another President.  That is blatantly anti-democratic.  They oppose civic equality for gays and atheists.  Again, that is anti-democratic.

I once car pooled with three people from the department of agriculture.  One was a director.  The second guy kept defending the use of the word nigger which he indicated was utilized commonly in his school when he was younger (all three were white).  The third guy told me that he thought that only people who owned property should vote. 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Jared Reeves <[address removed]> wrote:

Don,

I would be interested in this evidence.  A few right wing nut jobs who don't support democracy isn't evidence that many in the Republican party are opposed to democracy.  It is one thing to argue that Republicans don't encourage votes from those unlikely to support them (just like the Democrats); it is another thing to say that many Republicans are opposed to democracy.  

This whole hidden agenda/conspiracy of the "others," sounds a lot like like religion (not based on facts).  So, again I ask for the evidence that "(many) Republicans don't like democracy."

- Jared

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Jared,

Obvious Republicans asserting that they don't like democracy is logically similar to fascism.  And the vast majority of public statements by Republicans will not reflect such a grossly evil sentiment.  However, it is very much the case that such sentiments exist and have occurred by high end Republican strategists to the party elites and funding oligarches. 
There is far too much evidence that Mathew could find to support this view.

Don

---

Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Broad Base of Reason Rally 2016
From: [address removed]
To: [address removed]
Date: Mon, 29 Feb[masked]:06:36 -0500

Mathew,

Wow, you really beat that straw man to death.  Many Republicans don't like democracy?  I recommend genuinely researching opposing ideas, rather than making caricatures based on bad assumptions.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]> wrote:

The view that a large percentage of voters do not pay taxes and receive welfare and vote for candidates who promise them no taxes and welfare payments appears to be popular with many Republicans.  I doubt Romney's comment about moochers lost him votes overall.  That is an unstated rationale behind many Republican policies such as requiring picture identification to vote, not having early voting, not providing voting locations in poor neighborhoods, allowing unrestricted campaign contributions from businesses and wealthy individuals, saving money in Flint Michigan by switching a poor neighborhood to a source of water contaminated with lead, a flat tax, cutting government programs that spend money on the poor, opposing Obamacare which subsidizes insurance for the poor, favoring raising the social security retirement age, etc.  Many Republicans do not like democracy because poor people vote and when many people are poor the result is tax and spend policies favoring poor people which they think are bad policies for the country.

On Feb 28, 2016, at 7:27 PM, Tom Fields <[address removed]> wrote:

Mitt Romney lost for several reasons.  One was failure to articulate an immigration policy (except for hoping that illegals would "self-deport").  He could have dusted off the old Bush plan (a fairly pragmatic one that called for a pathway to citizenship) and used it.  Second, Obama's much-criticized ACA was largely based on his old Massachusetts health plan. And then there was the unfortunate comment (which he didn't think would be captured and broadcast) about 47 percent of Americans being non-productive moochers.  He also lacked that "common touch" that most successful candidates have. He's a decent man, but not the kind that you would want to hang out with.

Tom

---

From: "Mathew Goldstein" <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Saturday, February 27,[masked]:43:11 PM
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Broad Base of Reason Rally 2016

There were, and still are, people who said that Romney as president would be dangerous because he is Mormon.  Romney did not refuse to campaign for president because people said that.  Trump says Romney lost because he was Mormon.  I do not know if he is correct about that, but Romney no doubt did lose some votes because he was Mormon.  Republicans have been slandering Obama and that did not stop him from getting elected a second time.  I think we can expect any Democratic candidate for president to be publicly slandered by Republicans.  My examples above are slander by Republicans, your example below suggests slander by Democrats.  Either way, a mistaken reaction is to be intimidated into silence.  If not being intimidated is "disregard" then disregard in that sense is the correct reaction.

On Feb 27, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Bo Matthew <[address removed]> wrote:

Everyone,

Shall we disregard the possible detrimental effects that religion can cause? Homosexuals being cast out of their own homes before they reach maturity, extremist groups developing and just overall oppression? I was talking to a few people yesterday that said that they would not vote for Bernie Sanders simply because he is believed to be an atheist, I told them and I quote "What about universal healthcare, tuition free education and democratic socialism?", They told me that they agreed with his politics, however said that "He is dangerous and can not be trusted" and began to state that Hitlers policies were good when he ran for power and turned out bad. I was astounded that Bernie was compared to Hitler simply for being an unconfirmed atheist, What are your thoughts?

- Bo

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Derek <[address removed]> wrote:

No, I think religion should teach whichever misinformation or propaganda they choose to. Free speech and religion is protected under their first amendment. Religion should not be regarded in the public sphere though. That "shall" remain separate.

Derek 

On Feb 26, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Jared Reeves <[address removed]> wrote:

Bo,

I think restricting ideas and speech is a slippery slope. Misinformation and bad ideas will always exist. You fight bad ideas with better ideas, not by banning bad ideas.  Luckily the first amendment protects speech in most instances.

- Jared

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Bo Matthew <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi guys,

Does anyone agree that it should be illegal for mosques, churches and temples, to teach people that evolution and the Big Bang are false? And is it illegal to create a cult?

- Bo

On Thursday, February 25, 2016, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Starpower of Speakers Shows Broad Base of Reason Rally 2016

In an election year that rings with declarations about religion, the nonreligious voter is ignored. But 56 million people, of all demographics, should be counted and courted.

Washington, D.C. — February 23, 2016 —  What do Bill Nye, Andrés Roemer, Johnny Depp, Maryam Namazie, and Killah Priest have in common? Two things: They all want reason — not religion — to guide public policy and they will all be speaking at Reason Rally 2016.

That the man who made science cool to generations of kids, the Mexican consul in San Francisco, in-demand Hollywood celebrities, an Iranian civil rights activist, a rapper — and more — are headed to Reason Rally 2016 on June 4 indicates the reach of the event’s message: Nonreligious voters cross all demographic lines and are coming out as a force to be reckoned with in upcoming elections.

In fact, 56 million people identify as “nones,” just a shade fewer than those that identify as evangelicals and more than those who identify as Catholic or mainline Protestant [http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/]. Yet exit polls focus on how evangelicals voted and campaign strategists still court them.

“No longer hiding their lack of religion, ‘nones,’ atheists, and secular voters are demanding that their voices be heard and their votes sought,” says Lyz Liddell, executive director of Reason Rally 2016. “And those votes will go to candidates who base their policies on science and facts.”

Iranian civil rights activist Maryam Namazie adds another level of concern to the value of reason-based policy: the destabilizing effects of policies guided by religion. “I am excited about Reason Rally because the demand for reason, secularism, and universal rights in the age of ISIS is an historical task and necessity,” she says.

Joining her and other “nones” at Reason Rally 2016 will be scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss. “The Reason Rally is important precisely because it demonstrates for all to see that people who care about reason, rationality, and empirical evidence as the basis of public policy are not alone. We are far more prevalent than the media makes out,” Krauss says.

Reason Rally 2016 is a Voting Bloc Party to celebrate both the growing number of “nones” and their willingness to speak up for reason, with entertainers — Margaret Cho, Penn Jillette, Baba Brinkman, Julia Sweeney, John de Lancie, and Mark White — joining scientists —Carolyn Porco, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott — in a four-day extravaganza of lobbying, comedy, music, and serious discussion about how to impact this election.

For more about the speakers and the schedule of events, visit Reason Rally 2016 [reasonrally.org] Registration is now open so you can get your tickets to the pre-parties, after-parties, and the limited VIP package. Or just come to the Rally itself: It’s free and fun!

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Bo Matthew from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jared Reeves from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Derek from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Bo Matthew from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Tom Fields from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jared Reeves from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Don Wharton from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jared Reeves from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jared Reeves from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jared Reeves from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Mathew Goldstein from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jared Reeves from DC Atheists Meetup.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]