POLITICAL THREAD

[Big_Blue79]

And there you have it. The power of the state trumps all. The road we are on.

/facepalm.

Voters were asked, at the polls. They answered. The end.

No. If he doesn't receive the required number under RNC rules, then nothing has been decided. Why/when we got on this idea that Trump receiving less than the required number mandates he is the people's choice, I'll never know. It's blatantly wrong.

@fuzz. At what point did the state become involved in marriage at all? It hasn't always been this way. Maybe that's the problem.

Religion and state have been entangled re: marriage for centuries, maybe millennia. Marriage as a state institution, interwoven with the church, has been around for our country's entire history. Marriage was important in common law in early America because women had no rights to things like property outside of their husbands. As this country and common law evolved, it retained importance because so many legal things are still tied to it, like succession, inheritance, medical insurance, etc... Would it be better if the state ceased any involvement whatsoever? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine that future when so much would have to change. Basically, you'd call it something else and it would have the same effect. Also, it just reeks of taking your ball and going home, which is just petty.

 

[fuzz77]

Food for thought.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...t-involved-marriage-anyway-kathryn-jean-lopez

Reads like more of the same. I disagree that "redefining marriage" changes anything for anyone who is married. What? Did you think you were joining an exclusive private club and now they've opened the doors to the rip-raff?

Not so many years ago we (society) had this same debate over interracial marriages. Before that it was the rejection of arranged marriages. In 2009 a Louisiana Justice of the Peace refused to perform an interracial marriage. With change always come the inevitable cries that the world is ending and we're all going to Hell in a hand basket. Been that way since Noah. 10 years down the road nobody will question it any longer and today's children will wonder why it was ever an issue.

 

[starchief5]

No I am not.

Are all men created equal Wkycat?

I believe that all men are created equal and have equal worth because I believe God created them as a unique species. If I believed that humans were just the product of chance and random selection (which many on here obviously do), nothing more than the most advanced form of mammal, I would have to logically conclude that all men are not born equal. We are nothing more than animals. Few (sorry PETA) would claim that animals are born equal among themselves. The weakest are culled out (and often eaten) by their own kind all the time with nary a tear shed among themselves. The strongest and smartest survive.

The idea that all men are created equal can only come from a religious concept. "God created people (not the animals) in his own image; God patterned them after himself ..." The Founders certainly had this concept. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Only of course if you were a white land owner, wink wink)

Otherwise you just have two groups of people, one group believing that all are born equal and the other saying we aren't. Just opinions. There is no absolute authority (if not God and the Bible) to fall back on to prove your point. All you have is the political process. The winner gets to declare the rules.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

So how many times has it happened? And then why have the bill exempt non-profits from performing services for which they receive federal and state dollars? Pretext is pretext.

I don't know personally, but a few posters here already posted its happened to them. Difference is they didn't file a lawsuit about it. They moved on and found someone who would perform the function.

No. If he doesn't receive the required number under RNC rules, then nothing has been decided. Why/when we got on this idea that Trump receiving less than the required number mandates he is the people's choice, I'll never know. It's blatantly wrong.

Wasn't the discussion. I wasn't discussing whether or not Trump would be the nominee. That's definitely up in the air.

I was discussing which candidate was currently the most popular. Jamo argued it was not Trump based on polling results. I pointed out the actual polls, the election, show its currently Trump.

 

[fuzz77]

It is. Especially considering they swore under oath it was impossible. And we know theyd never lie! Good thing they made sure to let us know their method would only work for this ONE single iphone. Whew. Otherwise Id be concerned the government was monitoring our every move.

I doubt that they swore that it was "impossible". Besides, being wrong <> lying especially if you truly thought something was impossible to do. I'm sure there are many things possible today that were previously hailed impossible. That doesn't make liars out of those who said it couldn't be done, it just makes them wrong. I doubt the person testifying was the one to crack the phone...and that's even if the phone was truly cracked. They may have dropped the action and claimed gained access to save face.

 

[Willy4UK]

I believe that all men are created equal and have equal worth because I believe God created them as a unique species. If I believed that humans were just the product of chance and random selection (which many on here obviously do), nothing more than the most advanced form of mammal, I would have to logically conclude that all men are not born equal. We are nothing more than animals. Few (sorry PETA) would claim that animals are born equal among themselves. The weakest are culled out (and often eaten) by their own kind all the time with nary a tear shed among themselves. The strongest and smartest survive.

The idea that all men are created equal can only come from a religious concept. "God created people (not the animals) in his own image; God patterned them after himself ..." The Founders certainly had this concept. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Only of course if you were a white land owner, wink wink)

Otherwise you just have two groups of people, one group believing that all are born equal and the other saying we aren't. Just opinions. There is no absolute authority (if not God and the Bible) to fall back on to prove your point. All you have is the political process. The winner gets to declare the rules.

Starchief endowed by their creator? You mean the man and woman who had to conceive my sorry ass?

No god created me. Two humans had unplanned sex and I came sliding out on a bed of after birth 10 months later. Why 10 months? Cause I didn't wanna come out, it was as if I knew how shitty this place was gonna be.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

[QUOT="DaBossIsBack, post: 4271637, member: 11798"]You wouldn't.

That is because it was not funny.[/QUOTE]
Adults believing in the great flood is funny to me. Maybe it's not to you though.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I doubt that they swore that it was "impossible". Besides, being wrong <> lying especially if you truly thought something was impossible to do. I'm sure there are many things possible today that were previously hailed impossible. That doesn't make liars out of those who said it couldn't be done, it just makes them wrong. I doubt the person testifying was the one to crack the phone...and that's even if the phone was truly cracked. They may have dropped the action and claimed gained access to save face.

They did. It was the entire legal dispute. Snowden and others pointed out that was an absolute lie. I have no knowledge if they could or not; but Id be shocked to think the government couldn't.

 

[starchief5]

Is anyone going to be shocked when a state or county refuses to license priests or pastors who will not marry gay couples? Sure, they won't have to marry them in god's eyes or whatever, but if they're going to be able to marry people in the eye's of the law, I guaran-damn-tee you we're going to see counties or states going in that direction.

I'm not aware that state or counties give clergy licences to perform weddings. At least they didn't a generation ago. Maybe they do now. I haven't checked. The clergy (or whomever) just signed the paper work affirming that the wedding occurred at a certain date and submitted it. Nobody checked to see who that clergyman was or if he even was qualified to do so. The paperwork just gets filed away and would never be looked at again if no legal battle came up where one of the parties claimed that they were never officially married.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I don't know personally, but a few posters here already posted its happened to them. Difference is they didn't file a lawsuit about it. They moved on and found someone who would perform the function.

Yes, posters (and others) have experienced churches denying them marriage services. But the "it" I'm referring to is instances where a church or clergyperson was sued for not performing a marriage. Nevermind that those suits would be thrown out at the pleading stage for failure to state a legally cognizable injury.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I'm not aware that state or counties give clergy licences to perform weddings. At least they didn't a generation ago. Maybe they do now. I haven't checked. The clergy (or whomever) just signed the paper work affirming that the wedding occurred at a certain date. Nobody checked to see who that clergyman was or if he even was qualified to do so.

Sir, with all respect, BC "guar-damn-tee[d]" it; no further inquiry necessary.

 

[wkycatfan]

No god created me. Two humans had unplanned sex and I came sliding out on a bed of after birth 10 months later.

Where did a system where your dad had a penis and your mom had a vagina and a uterus, enabling them to exchange bodily fluids containing their DNA, forming a child come from? Fall from the sky? Rise up from some puddle of ooze?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Yes, posters (and others) have experienced churches denying them marriage services. But the "it" I'm referring to is instances where a church or clergyperson was sued for not performing a marriage. Nevermind that those suits would be thrown out at the pleading stage for failure to state a legally cognizable injury.

I don't know of any lawsuits. Mainly because no one cared enough to push the issue and understood why someone wouldn't want to officiate.

Only recently have people begun to think we're all supposed to think and act the same; rather than respect each others differences.

 

[-LEK-]

It is. Especially considering they swore under oath it was impossible. And we know theyd never lie! Good thing they made sure to let us know their method would only work for this ONE single iphone. Whew. Otherwise Id be concerned the government was monitoring our every move.

Thats the strange thing, everyone in the tech world was like wtf? Of course they know how to hack it. It didnt make sense.

 

[Willy4UK]

Where did a system where your dad had a penis and your mom had a vagina and a uterus, enabling them to exchange bodily fluids containing their DNA, forming a child come from? Fall from the sky? Rise up from some puddle of ooze?

Ha ha

I was thinking about Evolution, but having someone in the sky dropping penises and vaginas, does sound appealing.

Wonder what it's like to catch your sexual organ falling at 200 mph

 

[From-the-stands]

So if Trump were leading the delegate count but trailing in the popular vote, would that be Will Of The People? How about winning the popular vote but trailing in the delegate count? How about if his plurality were 28% vs 27% for Cruz?

noone in the GOP has the imagination or vision to deny the nomination to the candidate who goes through the primaries & amasses the most delegates. for damn sure they ain't gonna nominate someone who didn't even compete in the primaries.

the die is cast, Trump will be the nominee

Trump is likely fall just short of the 1237 Delegates needed for winning outright, but it sure looks like he will have the more than second place Ted Cruz. He also has amassed a near unbeatable 2 million vote lead in the popular vote over Cruz - and 5 million more votes than Kasich. If the Republican elite wrest the nomination away from Trump there will be hell to pay.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Where did a system where your dad had a penis and your mom had a vagina and a uterus, enabling them to exchange bodily fluids containing their DNA, forming a child come from? Fall from the sky? Rise up from some puddle of ooze?

Both as plausible as the God of the bible. The truth is we don't know and probably never will know where we came from. But you can believe in equality and not believe in a God. You can also believe in a creator and not belong to a specific religion.

 

[-LEK-]

Where did a system where your dad had a penis and your mom had a vagina and a uterus, enabling them to exchange bodily fluids containing their DNA, forming a child come from? Fall from the sky? Rise up from some puddle of ooze?

You are trying to describe intelligent design by using logic. Unfortunately, like your incorrect historical biblical analysis, this is also incorrect:

The IDers logic is summed up in the Latin phrasePost Hoc Ergo Propter HocThat translates to: This happened after that therefore that caused this.

When IDers say that the universe is so complex it must have been intelligently designed, they are using Post Hoc logic.

That same line of logic proves that frogs are the offspring of mud. That is, the frogs showed up after the mud so the mud caused the frogs. Sorry, boys and girls, that just isn't scientific.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a conclusion based on invalid logic. That's what happens when you try to do science based on conclusions that must be taken on faith.

For Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory it must follow proven scientific method:

1. The ID conclusion must be approached as a Hypothesis.
2. The Hypothesis must be proven using proofs that hold up to real-world facts, processes and events. The Hypothesis will then have become a Theory.
3. The Theory must be published along with the proofs, evidence and methods used.
4. The Theory must be reviewed by the scientific community for accuracy of facts, evidence, and validity of methods.
5. If the proof is accepted by the scientific community (in general),only then can ID be accepted as science.

 

[starchief5]

Starchief endowed by their creator? You mean the man and woman who had to conceive my sorry ass?

No god created me. Two humans had unplanned sex and I came sliding out on a bed of after birth 10 months later. Why 10 months? Cause I didn't wanna come out, it was as if I knew how shitty this place was gonna be.

You'll have to take that up with Thomas Jefferson.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

You'll have to take that up with Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was a deist. So he believed in a creator.

 

[starchief5]

Jefferson was a deist. So he believed in a creator.

Just pointing out that he wrote the words.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I don't know of any lawsuits. Mainly because no one cared enough to push the issue and understood why someone wouldn't want to officiate.

Only recently have people begun to think we're all supposed to think and act the same; rather than respect each others differences.

No. Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. You would think, after 49 years, that there would be lawsuits filed against clergy that refused to perform interracial marriages, and, if there was some threat that Georgia needed to address, courts forcing clergy to officiate interracial marriages. After all, before Loving there were 16 states with laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and a substantial portion of the population disapproved of such unions (Bob Jones University, for one example). Suddenly, IN 1967, you had SCOTUS telling everyone that a state cannot make interracial marriage illegal, but that ruling does not apply to whether individual churches or clergy must perform interracial weddings. Same with gay marriage and Ogberfell (sp). In 2015, ~ 15% of marriages are interracial, and there are still clergy and churches that refuse such weddings, as is their right. No lawsuits to force clergy to perform interracial marriages of which I am aware, but maybe someone knows about them.

 

[starchief5]

You are trying to describe intelligent design by using logic. Unfortunately, like your incorrect historical biblical analysis, this is also incorrect:

The IDers logic is summed up in the Latin phrasePost Hoc Ergo Propter HocThat translates to: This happened after that therefore that caused this.

When IDers say that the universe is so complex it must have been intelligently designed, they are using Post Hoc logic.

That same line of logic proves that frogs are the offspring of mud. That is, the frogs showed up after the mud so the mud caused the frogs. Sorry, boys and girls, that just isn't scientific.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a conclusion based on invalid logic. That's what happens when you try to do science based on conclusions that must be taken on faith.

For Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory it must follow proven scientific method:

1. The ID conclusion must be approached as a Hypothesis.
2. The Hypothesis must be proven using proofs that hold up to real-world facts, processes and events. The Hypothesis will then have become a Theory.
3. The Theory must be published along with the proofs, evidence and methods used.
4. The Theory must be reviewed by the scientific community for accuracy of facts, evidence, and validity of methods.
5. If the proof is accepted by the scientific community (in general),only then can ID be accepted as science.

Ha ha. Can anyone else read one of LEK's posts without thinking Loud Egghead Know-It-All?.

 

[JHB4UK]

Trump is likely fall just short of the 1237 Delegates needed for winning outright, but it sure looks like he will have the more than second place Ted Cruz. He also has amassed a near unbeatable 2 million vote lead in the popular vote over Cruz - and 5 million more votes than Kasich. If the Republican elite wrest the nomination away from Trump there will be hell to pay.

as I said no one in GOP power has the creativity or imagination to NOT nominate the person who got the most votes/states/delegates. To do something against the norm for almost all of them would be like ceasing to breath, it would be inconceivable.

So despite every poll showing Trump losing handily to Hillary, showing him dreadfully unpopular among every segment of the population, as it stands now he will be easily nominated without a fight. Because to not do so would be like spitting in the face of god to those people. doing something smart like the delegates as they have every right to do voting to nominate a candidate who is popular, well liked, and can beat Hillary might as well be putting a gun in their mouths & blowing their brains out. Gotta follow the script! Gotta nominate the 'winner' even if it results in a November tidal wave defeat costing the senate & house as well!

 

[jamo0001]

as I said no one in GOP power has the creativity or imagination to NOT nominate the person who got the most votes/states/delegates. To do something against the norm for almost all of them would be like ceasing to breath, it would be inconceivable.

So despite every poll showing Trump losing handily to Hillary, showing him dreadfully unpopular among every segment of the population, as it stands now he will be easily nominated without a fight. Because to not do so would be like spitting in the face of god to those people. doing something smart like the delegates as they have every right to do voting to nominate a candidate who is popular, well liked, and can beat Hillary might as well be putting a gun in their mouths & blowing their brains out. Gotta follow the script! Gotta nominate the 'winner' even if it results in a November tidal wave defeat costing the senate & house as well!

Yep. The party is in the biggest dilemma it's faced in decades.

 

[jamo0001]

I was discussing which candidate was currently the most popular. Jamo argued it was not Trump based on polling results. I pointed out the actual polls, the election, show its currently Trump.

(1) I believe the phrase that drew derision from the crowd (qwesley and myself at the least, can't remember how many others) was something along the lines of "denying Trump the nomination would be denying the will of the people". It was never something as simple as "most popular", even thought Trump isn't that, either.

(2) "Most popular" =/= most votes, hence pointing out his favorable/unfavorable ratings. You can still come in 3rd, 4th, 5th place despite being everyone's second choice. Coming in 1st in this race just means that you're REALLY popular with a select subset of people and might be the very last choice of the other 60-70% of voters.

 

[wkycatfan]

Both as plausible as the God of the bible. The truth is we don't know and probably never will know where we came from. But you can believe in equality and not believe in a God. You can also believe in a creator and not belong to a specific religion.

Very true, which many natives have historically done.

 

[Willy4UK]

You'll have to take that up with Thomas Jefferson.

Well If Jefferson was a Deist and he helped with writing the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11, one may interpret Jefferson's "Creator" word from the Declaration of Independence to mean man and woman who gave birth to you.

No where does Jefferson in the Dec of Ind state any specific definition of what he meant by creator.

 

[qwesley]

Guess who said this:

“A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone. It is to probe and to question, and to dig deeper, and to demand more. The electorate would be better served if that happened. It would be better served if billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability.”

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Thats the strange thing, everyone in the tech world was like wtf? Of course they know how to hack it. It didnt make sense.

Exactly. Everyone knew they were lying. Yet they pushed on anyway. Now they've switched their lie to "well we can only hack THIS phone"; which is also just a lie.

No. Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. You would think, after 49 years, that there would be lawsuits filed against clergy that refused to perform interracial marriages, and, if there was some threat that Georgia needed to address, courts forcing clergy to officiate interracial marriages. After all, before Loving there were 16 states with laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and a substantial portion of the population disapproved of such unions (Bob Jones University, for one example). Suddenly, IN 1967, you had SCOTUS telling everyone that a state cannot make interracial marriage illegal, but that ruling does not apply to whether individual churches or clergy must perform interracial weddings. Same with gay marriage and Ogberfell (sp). In 2015, ~ 15% of marriages are interracial, and there are still clergy and churches that refuse such weddings, as is their right. No lawsuits to force clergy to perform interracial marriages of which I am aware, but maybe someone knows about them.

Congratulations on the recitation of case law. But youre not really making a point in relation to the discussion.

The point youre missing is Loving and Obergefell both dealt with forcing states to do something; not people. As an interesting aside, states in both cases used very similar defenses/rationales, despite being nearly 50 years apart. Both were losing positions, and rightfully so.

(2) "Most popular" =/= most votes, hence pointing out his favorable/unfavorable ratings. You can still come in 3rd, 4th, 5th place despite being everyone's second choice. Coming in 1st in this race just means that you're REALLY popular with a select subset of people and might be the very last choice of the other 60-70% of voters.

You realize, right, that if youre not ahead in the election that youre not the most popular? I cant believe Im continuing to have to point it out. If someone else was actually more popular, theyd be winning.

I mean youd have a decent point if it were delegates only. But hes leading the popular vote. I just don't get why you cant accept/admit this.

 

[Willy4UK]

Guess who said this:

“A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone. It is to probe and to question, and to dig deeper, and to demand more. The electorate would be better served if that happened. It would be better served if billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability.”

I'm guessing a hypocritical Hillary Clinton.

 

[qwesley]

I'm guessing a hypocritical Hillary Clinton.

close, via Fortune

As investigative reporter John Russell pointed out in a response to the President’s criticisms on Twitter, the Obama administration holds the record for denying or withholding the largest amount of Freedom of Information requests. How is that helping the news media to “dig deeper” or “demand more” accountability? Former New York Times executive editor Jill Armstrong has said the Obama government is “the most secretive White House I have ever been involved in covering.”

 

[qwesley]

The Hill ‏@thehill 18h18 hours ago
Clinton camp warns: No more Dem debates unless Sanders changes his "tone" http://hill.cm/WqcCOmu

 

[Willy4UK]

close, via Fortune

As investigative reporter John Russell pointed out in a response to the President’s criticisms on Twitter, the Obama administration holds the record for denying or withholding the largest amount of Freedom of Information requests. How is that helping the news media to “dig deeper” or “demand more” accountability? Former New York Times executive editor Jill Armstrong has said the Obama government is “the most secretive White House I have ever been involved in covering.”

HA! At least I was right on the hypocrisy

 

[warrior-cat]

'

That is because it was not funny.

Adults believing in the great flood is funny to me. Maybe it's not to you though.[/QUOTE]'


It has been obvious to some on here (me too) that you have no sense of humor, only hate for those you disagree with.

 

[JHB4UK]

The Hill ‏@thehill 18h18 hours ago
Clinton camp warns: No more Dem debates unless Sanders changes his "tone" http://hill.cm/WqcCOmu

what tone is that, kicking her flabby walker-pushing ass in all the recent contests?

 

[warrior-cat]

Yes, posters (and others) have experienced churches denying them marriage services. But the "it" I'm referring to is instances where a church or clergyperson was sued for not performing a marriage. Nevermind that those suits would be thrown out at the pleading stage for failure to state a legally cognizable injury.

Since you agree that marriage is a state/government contract if you will, why then should clergy have to perform it since the separation of church and state is what we have here. Apologies if you have already touched on this.

 

[starchief5]

Well If Jefferson was a Deist and he helped with writing the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11, one may interpret Jefferson's "Creator" word from the Declaration of Independence to mean man and woman who gave birth to you.

No where does Jefferson in the Dec of Ind state any specific definition of what he meant by creator.

But he did capitalize the "C", indicating a reference to deity, not mom and dad. I think Jefferson, like many do, believed in a "god" whom he fabricated to his own specifications - like his Jesus in the gospels in the Jefferson Bible. He simply scissored out any references to the supernatural.

 

[WettCat]

Wonder if that "tone" changing strategy will work with ISIS. Or Putin. Or the Chinese. Or Iran. Or Castro. Or...anybody.

If I was Bernie, (which I'm not...just for those keeping score at home), I'd turn up the tone even louder. F' her and the cheatin' philanderer she rode in on.

 

[Mashburned]

close, via Fortune

As investigative reporter John Russell pointed out in a response to the President’s criticisms on Twitter, the Obama administration holds the record for denying or withholding the largest amount of Freedom of Information requests. How is that helping the news media to “dig deeper” or “demand more” accountability? Former New York Times executive editor Jill Armstrong has said the Obama government is “the most secretive White House I have ever been involved in covering.”

I'm shocked this has never been covered by the media...

*rolleyes*

Been the story since day 1 yet the narrative written is the exact opposite. Transparent!!!! Change!!!!! That's all Obama ran on. Give the sheep a buzzword and they'll fall in line.