The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Duke Of Dystopia]

My whole point was that states should still be free to set their own civil union/marriage policies provided that they recognize those granted in other jurisdictions. If a state enacts a law that expressly does not recognize a marriage or civil union granted by another jurisdiction, strike that particular part of the law down - but don't usurp more state authority over such issues by either making it a federal issue, which is a constitutional argument that can be solved easily and still retain states' rights.

That's just silly.

Not to mention the instant lawsuit. "If you can recognize them why not us."

...This is really two things IMO: States Rights vs. Federal Govt. and the question of moral equality (is it really equal if gay marriage is not called marriage but a civil union?). ....

The judges ruling covers this quite well. His ruling was for California, but it will end up covering the US. Civil unions/domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage in the eyes of the law.

The Prop 8 case is a federal issue based on the language of the Prop, as I mentioned earlier (negative, exclusionary, etc), not because of the nature of gay marriage itself. If Prop 8 does go to the SCOTUS and is struck down, it will not not have a legal bearing on most other state marriage statutes because of this exclusionary differentiation in its actual language. The moral arguments and rationale, even within the arguments constructed by Judge Walker in his ruling (I'm about halfway through his 136-page decision), seem to support this (as a state-specific issue) so far. If the language of the Prop had not been exclusionary, many of the findings of fact (or at least in the first 2 of the 3 which I have read) become moot points.

Your right in that the ruling is a states case because that is where it has to start. What will make it federal, will be that they can only focus on the legitimacy of the state to set the standards. That ability will remain, but states will not be able to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Similar in nature to the prohibition states have to sodomy laws, you can't outlaw or criminalize same sex sexual behavior. So yeah, you can set your own laws for indecency, but you can't single out a gender or sexual orientation. See? Its simple.

I also am about half way through the decision. The defense is made up of bungling idiots. That is why the SCOTUS will be in a hard position to overturn the judges ruling.

The talking heads pointed out last night that many of the issues will drop out and be moot. The most important points will stick. Those that say a state may not discriminate based on private morality.

[TexanOkie]

Not to mention the instant lawsuit. "If you can recognize them why not us."...

...a state may not discriminate based on private morality.

There is a large difference in the issuance/granting of a license and the recognition of one.

As to the second excerpt, there are many who will counter by saying that, due to the nature of the public election, it is no longer private morality but public morality. If you use the same reasoning in considering Prop 8 as private morality, I wonder how many other state, even federal, laws will be ripe for invalidation.

P.S. I have finished reading the decision. It was ruled correctly based on the produced arguments. I will repeat that the defendants' legal counsel was pitifully terrible. I am somewhat nervous about a few of the findings of fact regarding religion, since I think the findings focuses too much on that, to the point where it serves almost as an unofficial indictment of certain religious views. I will still echo my sentiment that the eventual outcome of this case in the appeals processes will still have limited applicability to many other states based on the nature of how the conclusion was reached. It will impact them, to be sure, but in a less affronting manner. It also would seem to support many Cyburbians' views expressed earlier about the state recognizing unions and leaving "marriage" out of the state equation and in the hands of individuals and their religious/etc. associations.

P.P.S. - While I don't believe the decision would have been different, I think California Attorney General Jerry Brown should receive heavy criticism for withdrawing the state from the defense of the Proposition. It was still a legally adopted (procedurally) constitutional amendment, and it should have been his duty to at least make a defense of the measure as a public servant in his position. I understand he, and a majority of the California state government, opposed the law. That's fine. The thing about being a lawyer is to make sure cases are decided fairly whether you agree with them or not, and as Attorney General, you are the state's lawyer. Shame on AG Brown. But like I said, I doubt the judges ruling would have been different, nor should it have been - just the finding of facts and the rationale behind it would have been much more thorough and objective (I fault the defense's poor counsel, and subsequently, the AG's refusal to defend it).

[mgk920]

In case anyone is wondering, that judge (Vaughn Walker) is a staunch libertarian (NOT a lefty) who was appointed by GHWB.

Mike

[btrage]

I'm still convinced that those who oppose same-sex marriage and/or same-sex civil unions are homophobic to some degree, and hide behind the state's rights/moral reasoning/marriage vs. civil union stances.

Sorry if this offends some very nice people on this forum. But I can't understand why anyone would want to put any type of roadblocks up against two individuals who love one another. As as civilized country, we should be encouraging same-sex marriage.

This should not be about state vs. federal rights. This is about people and love.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.......This is about people and love.

ANGRY love?

[CJC]

It seems like the cultural conservatives in CA are even crazier than those in TX.

Definitely. Everything's crazier out here!

P.P.S. - While I don't believe the decision would have been different, I think California Attorney General Jerry Brown should receive heavy criticism for withdrawing the state from the defense of the Proposition. It was still a legally adopted (procedurally) constitutional amendment, and it should have been his duty to at least make a defense of the measure as a public servant in his position. I understand he, and a majority of the California state government, opposed the law. That's fine. The thing about being a lawyer is to make sure cases are decided fairly whether you agree with them or not, and as Attorney General, you are the state's lawyer. Shame on AG Brown. But like I said, I doubt the judges ruling would have been different, nor should it have been - just the finding of facts and the rationale behind it would have been much more thorough and objective (I fault the defense's poor counsel, and subsequently, the AG's refusal to defend it).

One of the inherent problems of having the Attorney General being an elected, partisan position, unfortunately.

[imaplanner]

I have to be honest here. After the republicans got together to defeat the 911 first responders bill, I have decided that the republicans are the most shameful, disgusting group of individuals in this Country. Anyone who supports these clowns after this vote should be ashamed of themselves. And if you aren't ashamed and you think this is a good thing that his bill was defeated then go F yourself.

[btrage]

ANGRY love?

Sometimes the best kind!

I have to be honest here. After the republicans got together to defeat the 911 first responders bill, I have decided that the republicans are the most shameful, disgusting group of individuals in this Country. Anyone who supports these clowns after this vote should be ashamed of themselves. And if you aren't ashamed and you think this is a good thing that his bill was defeated then go F yourself.

Pathetic. It's my understanding that funding was even identified by closing some tax loophole on foreign companies.

[Hink]

It would have closed a loop hole for foreign companies based in tax haven countries but doing business in the U.S. I just don't know how THAT is a talking point. They were paying for a good thing with a tax increase on cheaters...Come on congress, you know everyone hates you with your 11% approval rating, but at least try....


On a lighter note - The Tennessee primary happened last night, and my candidate Basil Marceaux dot com lost. I guess I somewhat wanted him to win just to show how pointless politics has become, but at least I can get joy out of the fact that the candidate Mama Bear supported lost.

If you have never heard of Basil Marceaux... honestly look him up. Not sure how else to explain it.

[Hink]

I am somewhat confused at all this talk about the "Ground Zero Mosque". Noting that it isn't a mosque, and it isn't at ground zero. Isn't this just the most political topic that exists?

Other than the fact that I think there is nothing to be discussing, I think Fox News has made it a point to try and make this HUGE. Even many of those who lost loved ones, or knew people who were close, don't care that they want to build a community center at this location. I think Bloomberg has done nothing but genuine in his response to the hub-bub.

The part that has been getting me lately, is how they are demonizing the entire religion. Our country has so politicized religion, that we can't even deal with minority religions in our country anymore. It has to be about some Imam who said this, or "really" believes that. This isn't a political point. It is someones religion. I don't understand how you can justify this politically?

The Daily Show had a great piece on the whole thing... how Fox News is partially owned by the same guy who is financing this Community Center. How they never mention his name. How they continue to push this ridiculous belief that he supports Al-Qaeda. This is weak political pandering. And I think that those that are making this a big deal will pay politically.

==============

On another political topic - I look forward to the R's new Contract with America. I want to understand what they really are planning on doing, if they get any power. I think that they are being extremely optimistic at this point, as too many Tea Partiers have won GOP primaries, and most are too radical to win the general. I think they will take the house, but not the senate. Which is a good thing. We need a balanced government. Then everyone can take some blame, and maybe we can try and get some things done.

[Planit]

Ya think G. Beck will be throwing out the "Ground Zero Mosque" redderick at his rally in DC? You bet he will. Ya think he will mention pertinent details as hinky points out? You bet he won't!

First of all, it's not a mosque, it's a community center - something like a YMCA.
Second, there has been a real mosque nearby which predates the WTC.
Third, how far is an appropriate distance from the WTC? 2 blocks, 4 blocks, 6 blocks? 42 (blocks, miles, counties, states)?

For some reason I thought one of the principles this country was founded on had something to do with Freedom of Religion, but I guess that just gets in the way. I must have dreamed that when I fell asleep in American History class.

[Hink]

I have stated my affinity for Mayor Bloomberg before, but I really think he has something going for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/ny...2&ref=politics

The major things that caught my attention in the NYT article from yesterday were:

“Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems.”

“Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”

“I think these boomlets come along when the public is dissatisfied,” he said. “There was a Ross Perot boomlet, there was a John McCain boomlet, there’s the Tea Party boomlet.”

“I feel very strongly we should not be — success should not be frowned on, and I have lots of friends, wealthy people, made a lot of money, were big Obama supporters, gave him money, raised money for him, who are not happy now,” he said.

“They all say the same thing: ‘I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. Somebody’s got to do it, and I’ve got the money,’ ” he said. “ ‘But I didn’t expect to be vilified.’ ”

Can someone give me some reasons to not like Bloomberg? He is socially fairly liberal, a successful private businessman, has executive experience, is willing to work with both D's and R's, and is a rational billionaire. I see no downside... but I am sure there is. So can anyone help fill in the blanks?

[TexanOkie]

I have stated my affinity for Mayor Bloomberg before, but I really think he has something going for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/ny...2&ref=politics

The major things that caught my attention in the NYT article from yesterday were:







Can someone give me some reasons to not like Bloomberg? He is socially fairly liberal, a successful private businessman, has executive experience, is willing to work with both D's and R's, and is a rational billionaire. I see no downside... but I am sure there is. So can anyone help fill in the blanks?

I can't really think of a reason except that he won't sell east of the Appalachians or south of the Mason-Dixon line - for whatever reason, legitimate or not (most likely not, but it doesn't really matter). If he had come out of Midwest or one of the western states, he'd have an excellent shot.

[Hink]

I can't really think of a reason except that he won't sell east of the Appalachians or south of the Mason-Dixon line - for whatever reason, legitimate or not (most likely not, but it doesn't really matter). If he had come out of Midwest or one of the western states, he'd have an excellent shot.

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side? I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

[btrage]

I can't really think of a reason except that he won't sell east of the Appalachians or south of the Mason-Dixon line - for whatever reason, legitimate or not (most likely not, but it doesn't really matter). If he had come out of Midwest or one of the western states, he'd have an excellent shot.

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side? I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

Interesting question running through my head...

If Bloomberg runs as an Independent in 2012 (like Perot) against Obama and "fill in the blank Republican", which party does he hurt/help?

Most people think Perot handed the '92 election to Clinton by drawing votes from the right.

What would a Bloomberg candidacy cause? Would it depend who ends up on the Republican ticket?

[TexanOkie]

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side? I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

Both. South of the Mason-Dixon, it'd be because of the religious right. West of the Appalachians, it'd be the populist/anti-elitist sentiment. He's not religious or moral enough for the south, he's got too much of an East Coast mentality for the Midwest, and he's too wealthy for the West Coast (and an odd mix of all three for the Mountain West).

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side?

BOTH!

I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

I will be willing to bet that fiscal issues will be minor compared to the social issues. With what is about to happen in a few weeks here, if you thought the GOP was blocking things from happening now, just wait. The teabaggers are forcing ALL of the GOP to the right and social issues are popping out all over.

As has been noted, teabaggers are vocally for the government forcing women to bear children of rapists, including incest victims, and when her life is in danger. No exceptions, no way, no how. Not to mention the rampant racism, homophobia, and all around draconian social behavior.

I don't even blame GOP voters. They are what they have always ben. The voters I blame will be the 2/3 of people that won't bother to vote.

In 2012, the November 2010 wave will reverse again. Only larger. Time and demographics are against the GOP.

Gridlock isn't always a bad thing.

[Hink]

What would a Bloomberg candidacy cause? Would it depend who ends up on the Republican ticket?

I think that if it is Palin, it will hurt the R's. I think he will hurt Obama no matter what. Obama doesn't really have much of anyone "on his side" right now because he is pandering to the left and the middle.

Both. South of the Mason-Dixon, it'd be because of the religious right. West of the Appalachians, it'd be the populist/anti-elitist sentiment. He's not religious or moral enough for the south, he's got too much of an East Coast mentality for the Midwest, and he's too wealthy for the West Coast (and an odd mix of all three for the Mountain West).

I think he would do well in the midwest and the west coast. I agree about the south and the religious right. He is enough of a RINO that he will appeal to many conservatives in the midwest and those who aren't staunchly socially conservative.

[btrage]

I think a potential third-party run by someone like Bloomberg would hurt Obama more than the Republican nominee, unless it was a Tea Party affiliated person like Palin.

Obama won the centrists/independents - the exact same voters who would like Bloomberg.

[TexanOkie]

Republicans have (or are about to) release their "Pledge to America" for the upcoming election and subsequent next Congressional term. It's officially being released tomorrow, but the GOP sent a draft copy to CBS. Link's below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...35-503544.html

[Mastiff]

Other than getting R's elected, this "pledge" is the same crap pulled in 1994 with the "Contract with America." Did they try and implement it? Sure... So what? It's just another ploy by politicians to achieve their goal of getting elected.

Here's a question to the GOP folks. Why on earth would you even consider voting for politicians who, at present, would hold a gun to your head to keep tax cuts for people making over $250,000? If you are making that much, I understand. The lefties, who will cave on the issue because raising all taxes would get them tossed in November, disgust me too. If you try and argue trickle down speak, don't bother. Check out how the economy fared from the end of WWII to the early 60's. That period had the highest tax percentage, over 90% for any earnings over $200,000, of any time in the U.S.

What ever happened to doing what's right, not doing what gets you a seat in Congress?

[imaplanner]

Here's a question to the GOP folks. Why on earth would you even consider voting for politicians who, at present, would hold a gun to your head to keep tax cuts for people making over $250,000? If you are making that much, I understand. The lefties, who will cave on the issue because raising all taxes would get them tossed in November, disgust me too. If you try and argue trickle down speak, don't bother. Check out how the economy fared from the end of WWII to the early 60's. That period had the highest tax percentage, over 90% for any earnings over $200,000, of any time in the U.S.

This is not what Fox News tells me. So you must be a liar.

[TexanOkie]

Mastiff, so what if it's the same crap the GOP pulled in '94. It got them elected. Also, while they didn't accomplish near all of the Contract, many of the things they did get accomplished were remarkable, and many things eventually even drew the support of Bill Clinton. It's just as much a ploy as "hope and change" and "transformation" was for Obama, only in this case the GOP is actually spelling out it's legislative agenda.

Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head. They're flashing a sheet of paper to the electorate with a promise that it will be debated. In fact, the text of the document actually furthers promise, if you read it.

Don't argue trickle down? Why not? It's a legitimate tax/economic theory, and has just as good/relevant a track record as Keynesian theories. The post-war economy of the 1950's and 1960's had much more to it than tax policy, and not everything was rosy with the New Deal and Great Society policies, either. There was just such a specific set of circumstances that led to that period of US economic history and dominance that it most likely would have blasted off in a similar fashion with any policy in place. When these factors started to dissipate, you got the malaise of the 1970's and recession of the early 1980's.

Your last question is incredibly loaded, and can be, and should be, levied against the entire political class, not just the GOP.

This is not what Fox News tells me. So you must be a liar.

Supply-side economic theory and the Laffer curve were thought up long before Fox News ever came around.

[mgk920]

Other than getting R's elected, this "pledge" is the same crap pulled in 1994 with the "Contract with America." Did they try and implement it? Sure... So what? It's just another ploy by politicians to achieve their goal of getting elected.

Here's a question to the GOP folks. Why on earth would you even consider voting for politicians who, at present, would hold a gun to your head to keep tax cuts for people making over $250,000? If you are making that much, I understand. The lefties, who will cave on the issue because raising all taxes would get them tossed in November, disgust me too. If you try and argue trickle down speak, don't bother. Check out how the economy fared from the end of WWII to the early 60's. That period had the highest tax percentage, over 90% for any earnings over $200,000, of any time in the U.S.

What ever happened to doing what's right, not doing what gets you a seat in Congress?

I keep wondering why the left keeps having this death wish for the fortunes of the job-creating class. Every dollar that is seized from the job-creators through taxation is a dollar that cannot be used to research and create new and improved things and to pay the people who will be making and distributing them. Even seeing a job-creator using that dollar to improve his or her own living space means that someone is being paid for the labor and/or materials. It's all basic Econ 101.



Mike

[Hink]

I keep wondering why the left keeps having this death wish for the fortunes of the job-creating class. Every dollar that is seized from the job-creators through taxation is a dollar that cannot be used to research and create new and improved things and to pay the people who will be making and distributing them. Even seeing a job-creator using that dollar to improve his or her own living space means that someone is being paid for the labor and/or materials. It's all basic Econ 101.



Mike

I disagree with those tax breaks because of our deficit. If you think that by not taxing those who make over $250k we are going to create jobs and all the sudden cover the deficit, I don't think you are fully looking at the situation we are in. I would support the cut if we didn't have a HUGE deficit. But as it is, the money that people make over $250k should be taxed more. They are still getting a break for all the money under $250k...

--------------

As for the pledge. The Contract with America in 1994 at least had some specifics. This Pledge is just a bunch of talking points that have no substance. " We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty..." That is just a bunch of B.S. Why not actually put down on paper what you plan on doing to create a solution. We plan on cutting the budget by 10% in year one. We plan on cutting taxes by 5% across the board on year 2. We will make government more transparent by allowing CSPAN in all committee meetings, etc.

The Contract with America worked because people were foolish enough to believe that it might be kept. I don't think this junk document has even done anything near what the Contract with America attempted.

Also the traditional marriage, families, and religion part is just the icing on the cake. You can say you support Christians, Straight people, and married couples in a lot of different ways. It is still closed minded and bigoted.

I like that they wanted to put something down on paper... I just don't think this is doing anyone any favors. Be honest. You have no clue what you can or can't get done. Your own party can't agree on what is the best route forward. Ugh.