2016 U.S Election Thread

We've always had a few prissy old fusspots who have gotten in a tizzy based upon religion,class, race, gender, etc. over equal rights.
They inevitably have someone they want to discriminate against.

Nevertheless, America's progress has been graced by an expansive, egalitarian inclusivity.



... and we even put up with the fusspots.

 

And.....I don't approve of people thinking the individual opinions they hold should define the society I live in. Nor do I approve of stagnation being created by intolerance...But I do not expect or even hope for MY opinion to be forced upon your choices.

 

What we have here is a self proclaimed "super nice guy" who claims to have gay friends, but does not approve of them calling themselves gay because doing so is a soft sell of their perversion. He uses derogatory terms for them, but not to their face, because he is just so nice. He claims that he believes in equality for all, except a few small things like marriage and protection from hate crimes. Oh well. No one is perfect

 

One suspects that the contempt disguised by a patronizing demeanor is reciprocated in spades - and more successfully.

 

Your(NB&PP) various attempts at assuming you know more than you do are not impressive.

I believe "marriage" is biblical and should not even be called that presently by the civil authorities when they issue a "marriage license" to be used by a Judge etc. A marriage should only be performed in a religious ceremony IMHO. The fact the law does not agree with me is beside the point.

I have been know to use the term "homosexual" with queers, but don't use "gay." If they don't like it, TS!

 

Yes, it is.

"And he (Solomon) had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines..."---1 Kings 11:3

 

Not sure who you are addressing here. If it is I, I'll just say that you had your say and I had mine, and the law and history are on my side. If you want to live in a Christian theocracy, there is always Uganda. It would appear that you are a religious bigot as well if you think that an atheist should not be allowed to marry. God day sir.

 

If that is true, it's ironic that you should align yourself with the most fanatical of Islamists in your getting your frillies in such a bunch over the matter..

You may note that is advanced nations with a Judeo-Christian heritage that have been making impressive strides in regard to equality.

Of course, despite your seeking to support you prejudice via scripture, the bible does not opine on such legal, domestic contracts.

 

And there are only two basic references to even homosexuality in the Bible.

1. Leviticus and other OT references which tell us to KILL homosexuals. Not sure if Birddog believes in that, so we'll wait to hear.

2. Paul.....a "lifelong bachelor" who encouraged Christians to NOT get married at all, if they could. Psych majors can figure that one out pretty quickly.

 

Christian sects differ concerning sexual orientation, but state marriage contracts do not require sex - homosexual and heterosexual married couples are both free to be celibate if they choose.

 

True, which undercuts the anti-gay Christian argument "We don't hate the sinner, we hate the sin".

Okay, if so, then unless you can PROVE that a gay couple is going to have sex after they are married.....you can't oppose the marriage itself, since it's not about the "act" of sex, but the two people (the "sinners").

That's when they throw out "tradition" or "the Bible",,,,,but as we see the Solomon tradition was.....700 wives.

 

My opinions and belief systems are more important to me than all the gibberish most of you put out.

 

You need not be so euphemistic. Your prejudices are not amenable to reason. That's obvious.

 

To get the thread back on track, I am impressed by Randy Paul as the only likely Republican presidential candidate who can transcend the persistent GOP pantload of pestiferous positions.

Not only does he candidly admit that the Bush/Cheney two trillion dollar nation-building gambit in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, when he states,

"The party can’t become the opposite of what it is. If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, 'You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,' they’re either gonna stay home or -- I mean, many of these people joined the Republican Party because of these social issues. So I don’t think we can completely flip. But can we become, to use the overused term, a bigger tent? I think we can and can agree to disagree on a lot of these issues. I think the party will evolve. It’ll either continue to lose, or it’ll become a bigger place where there’s a mixture of opinions."​

... he is accommodating the Party's arse-draggers in recognizing the ineluctable progress that Republicans need to accept as an existential reality. Emancipation and women's suffrage stuck in Angry White Guys' craws in the past, and they had to accept it.

As TPs and other alienated dissidents seek a 2016 model Willard, they could do far, far worse than Randy (Carrot Top Adelson's veto on behalf of a foreign power notwithstanding.)

.

 

It's true that I don't respond well to twisted, liberal "reason!"

 

If you must pretend that reason is "twisted" rather than expose your impotence in attempting to defend your mindless prejudices in a reasonable manner, so be it.

You have a pattern of proclaiming your biases and not being able to support them with logic or data.

When challenged with facts, you just spout some churlish yip and hightail it as far from intelligent discourse as you can.

We have disposed of your championing the principles of sharia law in regard to marriage equality, and you have been educated as to the progress that has been made in nations with a strong Christian ethos in that regard.

Now, please try to follow the discussion regarding the thread's topic, the 2016 elections.

Do you think that Randy Paul, with his honest condemnation of the Bush's Iraq fiasco and willingness to gently dump the suppressive church lady social agenda, can win the GOP nomination without being bankrolled by Carrot Top Adelson and that special interest lobby?

 

It's just that your "intelligence" does not impress me.

Rand Paul has a stronger chance than many think. There will be plenty of money to support his campaign. He is smart enough and well spoken, so he can appeal to a wider type of voter than some think.

I agree with Rand's foreign policy, and I was never in favor of Bush putting ground troops into Iraq except for a Special Ops force to help target bombing.

 

Don't sulk over it. Einstein's beloved "Chico" used to say the same thing, and he still got his belly rubbed!

I have repeatedly stated that I would enthusiastically vote for Randy as the Foreign Policy President if the responsibilities were bifurcated and domestic matters not within his purview but, as of late, he has shown impressive progress in discretely sweeping the Party's old biddy agenda under the carpet whilst adopting a Goldilocks strategy of differentiating himself from both the wacko birds like Carnival Cruz and the corporate bum kissers like Landslide Willard. Of course, weaning the GOP off the fat cat teat whilst humouring the state-into-the-womb fussbudgets invites the ire of hardcore factions, but his suckering the despised Cheney into a personal contretemps over the consequences of the $2 trillion Cheney/Bush nation-building fiasco was inspired.

Congressional Republicans are loathed by the American people. Will that impact the first-term senator's national reception? Will the hardcore bible humpers endure his calls for tolerance? Will the prospect of slashing corporate welfare dismay the boardroom empire? Will the rabid Israel-first fanatics launch a scorched-earth assault upon his candidacy?

Thus far, he's been cutting a sprightly tarantella through the GOP's minefield to nomination, but he confronts formidable obstacles in the offing.




But is the GOP ready for it?

 

rand will not be allowed to win with his stance on foreign policy.

 

You may be correct, but that's unfortunate. Rand is not a complete isolationist, and neither am I. We just can't be the world's policeman, but we do need to protect our interests and protect our citizens.

 

I don't believe Congress is loathed even though they have very low approval polling. A lack of approval of their lack of accomplishment is not the same as loathing them. The majority of Rs like myself realize Congress has accomplished little due to a balking Senate. The House will maintain their majority which should tell you something.

 

i am right there with you but like i said...he wont be allowed unless he changes his policy. there is just too much money and power at stake. our next president will most likely be straight up fascist or commie. take you pick...LOL. I still think A romney/paul ticket would work. not sure if they would win but then again if they lost any other conservative type candidates probably would as well as the whole system has probably been rigged. US politics is basically a civil cold war right now with government agencies attack political rivals, voter fraud, using taxpayer money to buy off unions etc. etc.

 

Of course, most of Congress's failure to fulfill its responsibilities to the nation has been the result of Boehner's inablility to make the TP berserkers behave.

Americans know that.

Fortunately, Americans loathe TPs even more than Congressional Repubs and, as they fizzle, Boehner may have a chance to redeem himself.

 

I'm not impressed again! You are wrong on both accounts. The fault is not Boehners that the majority of congress does not want to pass laws that please the left. We TPs represent the basic portion of the R party that gives it constitutional correctness and stability, yet we are versatile enough to be practical and effective.

 

It tells me gerrymandering keeps the GOP in power in the House.