The Official US President Election Thread

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I have heard that from many people - all of whom believe it for religious reasons. Outside of religion, human rights is what we usually base morality on. Two men or two women marrying is not a human rights violation.

We don't, but maybe we should. If there was a polygamy/polyandry movement, I wouldn't oppose it. What we did is change the definition of marriage to say "two people" instead of "a man and a woman". Who's to say that it shouldn't just say "committed people"? I don't have a problem with either a man or a woman having more than one spouse, as long as all spouses are treated with respect, and treated equally. This applies to two person marriages too, in my mind. (Polyandry is not widely practiced, but it's where a woman has multiple husbands.)

See - again there is far more to marriages than declaring each others love. There are tax issues, inheritance , benefits, insurance issues and everything.

Now if you allow polygamy - and it's practice is based on "being treated with respect and equality" who is to enforce this?

That being said - this is getting way off course on the discussion. I haven't really even heard the gay rights issue being brought up in the debates too much.

I agree. And the sooner the better. Good relations with the US are really important to our economy, and in general.

It is - we don't have the longest undefended border in the world for no reason.

I acknowledge I'm living a pipe dream for the UN, but I think human rights violators should be kicked out of the UN. They can re-enter once they stop abusing human rights, and make reparations. This action alone would garner a lot more respect for the UN. They took important action, and now none of their members aren't hypocrites when calling for peace.

I agree with you - if the UN kicked out countries who did not have freedom for ALL their citizens - I would have a lot more respect. Many of the Middle Eastern countries live under the protection of the UN - yet support terrorism and commit aweful human rights abuses. Look at what happened right before the US invaded Iraq - Iraq was elected to Chair the Disarmament Committee. Libys was elected to Chair the Human Rights Committee. - Those are the things that bring absolutely no respect for the UN from the US and the general American public. How can you believe an organization really espouses peace - when they vote countries like that into those positions?

I sort of remember that. Hard to believe it was four years ago now. I think that's where everything started going downhill.

That was the issue that put Canada and US relations on the deep slide they have been on up to the point Chretian stepped down. Now it is time to look to the future and see if we can reverse the damage he caused in our relations.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That being said - this is getting way off course on the discussion. I haven't really even heard the gay rights issue being brought up in the debates too much.

Maybe I'll start a polygamy/polyandry thread sometime...

It is - we don't have the longest undefended border in the world for no reason.

Hey. Undefended? None of the 9/11 terrorists entered through Canada. (I read or heard that somewhere.) We do protect ourselves and therefore the border that we share.

How can you believe an organization really espouses peace - when they vote countries like that into those positions?

That's where my issue with the UN lies. I think a credible UN would have more support, and it would actually be able to get stuff done. Does Bush have any ideas where he'd like to see the UN go? I don't think Martin does, at least I haven't heard any. I don't think we should give up on the UN. It's a good idea, and it could be put into practice.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Maybe I'll start a polygamy/polyandry thread sometime...

I see you found the polygamy thread that already exists.

Hey. Undefended? None of the 9/11 terrorists entered through Canada. (I read or heard that somewhere.) We do protect ourselves and therefore the border that we share.

Well actually they did enter in from Canada, but that isn't what undefende refers to. It means we do not have border guards - except major enrances, we do have military hardware on the border, or anything like that. It is the longest undefended border because you are able to come and go across the border without any problems.

That's where my issue with the UN lies. I think a credible UN would have more support, and it would actually be able to get stuff done. Does Bush have any ideas where he'd like to see the UN go?

yeah - straight to hell.

I don't think Martin does, at least I haven't heard any. I don't think we should give up on the UN. It's a good idea, and it could be put into practice.

I find it rather ironic that the US was at the heart of founding the UN. It has drifted away from it's purpose though and has just been a mouth peace and hideout for the countries who rutinely violate human rights and break the UN charter - which basically has no meaning anymore. This has been made very clear over the last couple of years. When the Iraqi people needed the UN the most after the war - the UN headquarters was bombed ONCE and they left. Instead of taking precautions and stuff - they just left. The people need them - but it is quite clear that they don't want to see the US succeed in Iraq and this is from an organization that supposedly cares about people and peace.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well actually they did enter in from Canada, but that isn't what undefende refers to. It means we do not have border guards - except major enrances, we do not have military hardware on the border, or anything like that. It is the longest undefended border because you are able to come and go across the border without any problems.

Oh. Well a long undefended border sounds like a good idea.

I find it rather ironic that the US was at the heart of founding the UN. It has drifted away from it's purpose though and has just been a mouth peace and hideout for the countries who rutinely violate human rights and break the UN charter - which basically has no meaning anymore.

The US is probably the most powerful member of the UN, even if they don't like it anymore. You could exert that power to try to bring it back on track.
Before that, I think it would be a good idea for Bush and Martin to repair strained US-Canada relations. Then we could be great allies again, and along with Britain, call for all the human rights violating countries to get kicked out of the UN. Or we could do both things simultaneously.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Oh. Well a long undefended border sounds like a good idea.

By the way when I read the quote from me you posted - that should say "we do NOT have military hardware" on the border.

The US is probably the most powerful member of the UN, even if they don't like it anymore. You could exert that power to try to bring it back on track.
Before that, I think it would be a good idea for Bush and Martin to repair strained US-Canada relations. Then we could be great allies again, and along with Britain, call for all the human rights violating countries to get kicked out of the UN. Or we could do both things simultaneously.

Except for the patching up of relationships between Canada and the US - I think the UN is a lost cause. We'll need a lot more countries then the three of us involved. I have a feeling that Russia and France won't go along with it at any rate and they're on the security council.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way when I read the quote from me you posted - that should say "we do NOT have military hardware" on the border.

That's how I read it, because I knew what you meant. I edited it in my post anyway.

Except for the patching up of relationships between Canada and the US - I think the UN is a lost cause. We'll need a lot more countries then the three of us involved. I have a feeling that Russia and France won't go along with it at any rate and they're on the security council.

The three of us would lead the other countries to forming the UN into something great. Who wouldn't want to be a part of that? As for France and Russia, that's where we come in. We have good relations with them as far as I know. Maybe fixing the UN (or trying to anyway) will help patch up relations between you and Russia and France. Same with Britain. IOW, patch up between the two "sides" of the war on Iraq - those that supported it and those that didn't.

This is a bit off topic though. I'm going to see if someone has started a UN thread yet.

[jerseydevil]

The US and France - aren't on the best of terms. Although I have heard rumors that we are allowing them to bid in the Iraq contracts because of their terrorist help during the holidays. As I said before "You scratch our back - we scratch yours".

[Nurvingiel]

Hm. We're still not on topic, but I did start a UN thread.

Would I be right to say that
- you'll vote for Bush in the next election (is it this year or next year)
- you think he will win.

If true, how much do you think his father and other connections have to do with his initial success?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Hm. We're still not on topic, but I did start a UN thread.

So I saw and posted.

Would I be right to say that
- you'll vote for Bush in the next election (is it this year or next year)

yes - chances are 99% that I will vote for him. New Jersey is a large uncommitted state - so NJ may vote either way, but my vote will be going to him.

- you think he will win.

Barring any unforeseen things occuring - such as a major terrorist attack - I see him being reelected.

If true, how much do you think his father and other connections have to do with his initial success?

I don't think his father has anything really to do with it. I voted for Bush because he had Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell on his cabinet in the 200 election. The advisors of the president are just as important in some respects as the president himself. So in 2000 - I was voting more for them than I was for him.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That still does not mean that thy are bad

oh I don’t think that makes em bad. I think that makes them normal but stupid. If their father was a dentist or a butcher I would say geez cut em some slack let em have fun when they are young. But when your father is the president YES it does happen to make a difference. If I was president I would make it quite clear to my kids that if you do illegal crap you reflect on ME and on the COUNTRY and the WHOLE WORLD sees it. So don’t or ill lock you in the Lincoln room until yer 28. Just part of the cost of bein the boss. On top of that my whole point is that its just plain disingenuous for the republicans to praddle on and on about family values and slimy democrats when its an across the board phenomenon.

But you can't always blame the parents for everything a child does

yeah I agree. Which is why I already said that.

Also - they weren't arrested "all over the place".

they were arrested in texas and they were arrested in florida and they’ve gone to bars in Washington and Connecticut too. I guess that doesn’t qualify as all over the place but im pretty impressed.

Bush being anti-gay marriage - is NOT the same as being anti-Gay.

so if the president was against you getting married you wouldn’t feel as if he had a problem with YOU in particular? I don’t see why this is such a difficult concept. If someone is against allowing a certain segment of the population to do something that the rest of the population can do that IS the definition of discrimination. So youll have to explain to me how you can discriminate against someone and still be FOR them.

Many people feel that interacial marriages are wrong - some of these people are anti-minority. Others just don't want the races "mixing".

um excuse me but if someone is against whites marrying with nonwhites then they are racist AND discriminatory. Theres no difference between someone who is anti-minority and someone who doesn’t want blacks mixing with whites. Either way they are discriminating (ignorantly) and they are, therefore, against a certain sub set of the population. You cant make the argument im not against you I just don’t want you to have the same rights as me.

So looks like its a 4 way dead head in Iowa. Pretty interesting stuff. Guess Dean has really lost ground with his grumpyness and knee jerk comments.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so if the president was against you getting married you wouldn’t feel as if he had a problem with YOU in particular? I don’t see why this is such a difficult concept. If someone is against allowing a certain segment of the population to do something that the rest of the population can do that IS the definition of discrimination. So youll have to explain to me how you can discriminate against someone and still be FOR them.

It's not descrimination if marriage is the concept of a man and woman in "holy matrimony". The rest of the population can marry the opposite sex. As i said - I support gay unions - it's just that I don't think someone is anti-gay - just because they are anti-gay marriage.

Under your arguments - anyone who isn't allowed to do what they want is discriminated against. Not everyone gets to do everything they want.

You seem to see things as black and white - "if you are against gay marriages - then you are anti-gay". I see things in shades of gray and not all the same - "if you are against gay-marriage, you are not necessarily anti-gay". I would like to hear people's views on WHY they are against gay marriage before LABELING them as anti-gay.

um excuse me but if someone is against whites marrying with nonwhites then they are racist AND discriminatory. Theres no difference between someone who is anti-minority and someone who doesn’t want blacks mixing with whites. Either way they are discriminating (ignorantly) and they are, therefore, against a certain sub set of the population. You cant make the argument im not against you I just don’t want you to have the same rights as me.

No real sense in discussing this - because I went off on my grandmother's boyfriend when he got upset by my friend who was black and was in my prom picture with a girl who was white. My father said I should accept constructive criticism and I screamed at him that bigotry was not constructive criticism. I still feel this way. But that guy was truly bigoted.

However, I would like to point out that I did not say whites or blacks. I said minority and interracial. That can go for any race mixing with another. I'm sorry - but A LOT of races, not just white - do not like to mix. In Japan - they do not like to mix with other races. You automatically brought it to mean black versus white.

So looks like its a 4 way dead head in Iowa. Pretty interesting stuff. Guess Dean has really lost ground with his grumpyness and knee jerk comments.

yes - but the caususes don't necessarily give a good indication of the true picture.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not descrimination if marriage is the concept of a man and woman in "holy matrimony". The rest of the population can marry the opposite sex. As i said - I support gay unions - it's just that I don't think someone is anti-gay - just because they are anti-gay marriage.

Does Bush support gay civil unions? If he does not, I would consider that anti-gay.

I agree with you that not agreeing with gay marriage as in "Holy matrimony" isn't anti-gay. Since it is religious, churches should be allowed to decide which marriages they would like to bless - not just gay, but all marriages. Some churches do want to bless same-sex marriages, which I think is fine too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Does Bush support gay civil unions? If he does not, I would consider that anti-gay.

I have already said that Bush does not support gay unions. That is not anti-gay. It's being against gay civil unions.

It's a state issue anyway - where it should be. The federal government should not be getting involved until the states start working things out.

[Insidious Rex]

Under your arguments - anyone who isn't allowed to do what they want is discriminated against. Not everyone gets to do everything they want.

that’s right! If you want to kill someone you will be discriminated against. If you want to rape someone you will be discriminated against. Even if you want to speed in your car you will be discriminated against. This is proper and necessary discrimination in my opinion. So are we saying then that if you want to be married you should be discriminated against as well? That’s the basic question to deal with here. Can we decide that’s its ok to actively discriminate against certain people? And the argument that well its not discrimination because a gay man can still marry a woman just like a straight man can is reinforcing the inequality of the situation since a gay man has no DESIRE to marry a straight female (and Im guessing a straight female wouldn’t be interested either).

You seem to see things as black and white - "if you are against gay marriages - then you are anti-gay".

I see it as simple logic. If you want to keep a certain subset of the population from doing something they want to do but you want to have the right to do that yourself then there is SIMPLY no getting around it, you are unfairly restraining them while excepting yourself. I still cant imagine why you don’t see this as discrimination? Replace “gay” with ANY other label (jewish, white, deaf, Italian, short, hindu, lower class, etc., etc., etc.) and Im sure you would be indignant and rightly so. But when its gay people doing this suddenly well that’s different. Well it isn’t!

No real sense in discussing this - because I went off on my grandmother's boyfriend when he got upset by my friend who was black and was in my prom picture with a girl who was white. My father said I should accept constructive criticism and I screamed at him that bigotry was not constructive criticism. I still feel this way. But that guy was truly bigoted.

yes I remember you talking about this before and I remember feeling the same way you did about it. So im glad you made your feelings known. Its very important NOT to remain silent when bigotry and discrimination rears its head. Otherwise it becomes accepted and people become more and more blind to the simple inequality involved in the situation. They can say hey most of America thinks such and such ignorant thing is true so I guess that makes it ok. When we actually question it or outright oppose it with our words and actions then people can be made aware that it truly is discrimination and that its wrong.

However, I would like to point out that I did not say whites or blacks. I said minority and interracial. That can go for any race mixing with another. I'm sorry - but A LOT of races, not just white - do not like to mix. In Japan - they do not like to mix with other races. You automatically brought it to mean black versus white.

no I just used that as the most obvious example. I think ANY person who thinks one race/culture/nationality shouldn’t mix or breed with any other race/culture/nationality is bigoted. I think blacks who are against mixing with whites are bigoted.

yes - but the caususes don't necessarily give a good indication of the true picture.

what do you mean by that? That it doesn’t reflect the popularity of the democratic candidates? What does it reflect then?

[Lizra]

Ignoring (not rudely, just thinking of the Democratic candidates... ) all the posts above me..... I just read the front page section breakdown of the Democratic candidates, in the Sunday, Indianapolis Star. I believe I'd vote for Edwards as it stands now. His veiws seemd somewhat similar with mine, and they also seemed real, in the sense of going in and trying to improve what's already done, not trying to rewrite the book. I've just read everything once through though, and I do tend to go with a intuitive feeling as I read "facts". Ok...I like what I've read and I get good vibes from Edwards!
I've always voted democrat in the presidential elections (when I voted, sometimes I didn't vote because I didn't care for any of the candidates) I now have my ears pricked up. Sorry for the interuption, I'll try to go back and see what you all are posting about now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
that’s right! If you want to kill someone you will be discriminated against. If you want to rape someone you will be discriminated against. Even if you want to speed in your car you will be discriminated against. This is proper and necessary discrimination in my opinion. So are we saying then that if you want to be married you should be discriminated against as well? That’s the basic question to deal with here. Can we decide that’s its ok to actively discriminate against certain people? And the argument that well its not discrimination because a gay man can still marry a woman just like a straight man can is reinforcing the inequality of the situation since a gay man has no DESIRE to marry a straight female (and Im guessing a straight female wouldn’t be interested either).

We don't allow polygamy. You use extremes. You use examples where another person is hurt in the process. We don't allow children to get married - does that mean we are "anti-children"?

I see it as simple logic. If you want to keep a certain subset of the population from doing something they want to do but you want to have the right to do that yourself then there is SIMPLY no getting around it, you are unfairly restraining them while excepting yourself. I still cant imagine why you don’t see this as discrimination? Replace “gay” with ANY other label (jewish, white, deaf, Italian, short, hindu, lower class, etc., etc., etc.) and Im sure you would be indignant and rightly so. But when its gay people doing this suddenly well that’s different. Well it isn’t!

It is different - sorry you have blinders on - but it is. Those people are marrying for procriation purposes. And is the traditional reason for marriage. They are marrying the opposite sex - Which is the right for everyone.

no I just used that as the most obvious example. I think ANY person who thinks one race/culture/nationality shouldn’t mix or breed with any other race/culture/nationality is bigoted. I think blacks who are against mixing with whites are bigoted.

They are - i just don't see where they are automatically anti-whatever. jewish mothers stereotype is "I want you to marry a nice jewish girl." It doesn't mean they are anti-christian or anything.

what do you mean by that? That it doesn’t reflect the popularity of the democratic candidates? What does it reflect then?

It's not a reliable indicator of the ultimate outcome of the primary. The people who go to the caucus are a small group 100,000 out of the 3 million people who live in Iowa and that they are usually very much into politics. On the news they said that the caucus results very rarely reflect the ultimate outcome of the primary.

[dawningoftime]

They also say that the party tends to bring in party members from different states to get the results they want. But I have to laugh at what one woman who was interviewed said. "I'll vote for whatever candidate the caucus chooses".

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We don't allow polygamy.

we should for the same reasons. I cant think of a reason why that should be illegal either.

We don't allow children to get married - does that mean we are "anti-children"?

that’s a clear apples and oranges comparison. Are you saying developmentally and intellectually two gay adults are the equivalent of two 6 year olds?

Those people are marrying for procriation purposes. And is the traditional reason for marriage.

ah! So we shouldn’t allow the elderly to marry? Or really any female past menapause. And we need to ban sterile people too then. sorry. Cant breed? well then you cant marry. And everyone must sign a contract that states they WILL produce children once they get married or else sorry NO marriage license for you!

jewish mothers stereotype is "I want you to marry a nice jewish girl." It doesn't mean they are anti-christian or anything.

so do you see ANY difference at all in a jewish mother saying “I want you to marry a nice jewish girl” and a white mother saying “I want you to marry a nice white girl”. I do. I think theres a difference between religion and race. Even the jewish mother comment rubs me the wrong way but im willing to accept it because there can be a religious foundation to it. They are worried that their children could lose their jewish heritage by marrying a non-jew which is a genuine fear for a jew (for any religious person really). Whereas if a white person marries a black person they have no chance of becoming black.

On the news they said that the caucus results very rarely reflect the ultimate outcome of the primary.

but don’t the results of the caucus’s (especially Iowa and New Hampshire) make or break candidates and therefore dictate the outcome of the primary? If Gephart doesn’t win In Iowa he probably wont be able to financially sustain campaigning elsewhere.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
we should for the same reasons. I cant think of a reason why that should be illegal either.

Well I do. Sorry - if you want to screw around - then just don't get married. That's basically what it is.

that’s a clear apples and oranges comparison. Are you saying developmentally and intellectually two gay adults are the equivalent of two 6 year olds?

No more apple and oranges than you comparison to having laws against raping and killing.

ah! So we shouldn’t allow the elderly to marry? Or really any female past menapause. And we need to ban sterile people too then. sorry. Cant breed? well then you cant marry. And everyone must sign a contract that states they WILL produce children once they get married or else sorry NO marriage license for you!

Sorry - if you want to deny the history of marriage - but it is. A same sex marriage just isn't the same traditionally. And it will take people to break this feeling of tradition. That does not mean they are anti-gay which is what you claim.

so do you see ANY difference at all in a jewish mother saying “I want you to marry a nice jewish girl” and a white mother saying “I want you to marry a nice white girl”. I do. I think theres a difference between religion and race. Even the jewish mother comment rubs me the wrong way but im willing to accept it because there can be a religious foundation to it. They are worried that their children could lose their jewish heritage by marrying a non-jew which is a genuine fear for a jew (for any religious person really). Whereas if a white person marries a black person they have no chance of becoming black.

There isn't a difference. many black people don't want their sons and daughters to marry white people because they are afraid of their grandchildren losing their "heritage". Same goes for japanese and koreans, etc. I don't see a difference.

but don’t the results of the caucus’s (especially Iowa and New Hampshire) make or break candidates and therefore dictate the outcome of the primary? If Gephart doesn’t win In Iowa he probably wont be able to financially sustain campaigning elsewhere.

It doesn't make or break them. It does help in the primary - but it doesn't usually reflect the ultimate outcome.

[evil jedi hobbit]

I just wanted to say that if you think there's nothing wrong with polygamy you should read a book called "Under the Banner of Heaven." I actually do live in Utah, though I'm not Mormon, and Polygamy is a real issue here. Most of the instances with Polygamy, the GIRLS are married at ages younger than 15. If their husbands die, and if they live in a polygamous community, such as Colorado City, they are veiwed as property and just passed along to the next husband. I think you should consider the girls who are being raped, prejudiced against because of their gender, and brainwashed that their families are going to go to Hell if they don't get married before you say you think this should be legal.