The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

This made me laugh (may be NSFW, not sure).

http://wonkette.com/521723/good-conservative-colorado-republican-only-wrote-erotica-to-help-support-her-family-duh

[Max]

I'm really impressed with Anthony Weiner's campaign. One poll showed him leading, and I think the odds favor him becoming the next mayor of NYC. I obviously don't agree with a lot of his views, but I think it's a great thing that there is another prominent moderate Democrat in the Koch/Lieberman mold.

[Max]

I'd like to address some of the political comments made in another thread.

DRW wrote:

I think that Santorum should be judged in his totality, even if there are some issues that I don't agree with him on. He has lived a pious life, and done so much to advance Christian conservative causes.

Discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace is not to be tolerated, but some people have opposed ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) on solid ground because it goes too far to the left concerning bathroom privileges for the transgendered. I can't speak for the specific case of Santorum, but a lot more Republicans (including myself) would be supportive of ENDA (which has many positive provisions) if certain amendments (proposed by Senator Alexander) were added to the bill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310111-enda-passes-help-committee-15-7

DaytimeFan wrote:

I don't blindly follow what the Holy Bible tells me, but its word heavily weighs on my conscience. What is considered morally acceptable does change over time, but many who are deeply Christian still believe that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman. Like I stated earlier, when we as a society say that marriage between three or more people is wrong, we are also looking to moral and religious guidance upon making that judgment. So if one isn't entitled to use theology to define marriage a certain way, then it is unfair and hypocritical to say that we can redefine marriage to accommodate one group of people but can't also redefine it to accommodate another group.

(Please note that I was not calling you a hypocrite. The hypocrites I was referring to are the large portion of those in American society who support gay marriage but oppose polygamy. Since the standard of marriage has been redefined to allow any two people who are deeply in love with one another to marry, then what right do those individuals have to impose their moral judgments on three or more people who are deeply in love with each other and want to marry? In general, if one has the libertarian attitude--which is one I respect--then all adults should be free to marry whichever partner(s) they please.)

ReddFoxx wrote:

While there are some conservative Christian leaders who have become wealthy, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that this is an exclusive phenomenon to that community. We can take Al Sharpton--who is revered by many liberal African-Americans--as just one counterexample. He has done several despicable things on his way up, including supporting the vicious lies told by Tawana Brawley and making disparaging remarks about Jews. But regardless of my own personal feelings towards him (which likely mirror your thoughts about Santorum), I will acknowledge that he--like Santorum--deserves credit for being authentic when it comes to the causes that concern his community.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Max

[ReddFoxx]

Al Sharpton has nothing to do with this at all, I'm talking about how conservatives have a big racket going on to make money. There was a guy selling website subscriptions who claimed all through the election that every poll was biased against Romney and he turned to be wrong. Glenn Beck was spokesperson for gold companies with sketchy practices and let's not forget Christine O'Donnell using campaign funds to pay her rent. The list goes on and on, but there is plenty to suggest that conservatives run games to make money by playing off conservative views.

[marceline]

Oh yes, I remember that guy: UnskewedPolls.com. Nothing makes me happier than reminding neocons on the internet how they fell for the Romney LANDSLIDE!11! talk. He fleeced those idiots good. That sad thing is that those are the people who when faced with evidence that refutes their beliefs, simply choose to believe harder so no matter how many times they let themselves get screwed, they just keep coming back for more. Trickle down economics, austerity, abstinence only education, etc.... all examples of ideology that has failed over and over yet the simpletons keep insisting that we just need to do it more.

[Max]

If you weren't attacking Rick Santorum directly--when all of the other politically related comments in that thread dealt with Santorum--then I don't understand why you didn't originally post your thoughts in this thread. I never argued with your premise that there are some phony conservatives out there who are in it to enrich themselves, but you seemed to imply that Santorum was taking that job solely for that reason. I'm sure monetary concerns are part of it, but so is the ability to spread his message. I'm sure that both of those factors were reasons why Sharpton took his MSNBC gig. Al Sharpton has a lot to do with this issue, because when you gleefully brought up the topic of politicians looking to cash in, you threw stones without pointing out the rotten apples on your own side. Hypocrisy and corruption exist on all sides of the political spectrum, but since you have started this game of "can you top this," here is a list of just some African-American liberal politicians with ethical issues: Marion Barry Roland Burris John Conyers Alcee Hastings Jesse Jackson, Jr. Sharpe James William Jefferson Kwame Kilpatrick Carol Mosley-Braun Charlie Rangel Harold Washington Maxine Waters

[DRW50]

I'm not sure what Christian conservative causes means, and if it is a good thing. Doesn't he believe women should stay at home? Not only is that unrealistic in today's economy, it's also something that as a man, I do not believe he has any right to speak about.

I see him as an opportunist. He endorsed Arlen Specter, who was pro-choice and pro-stem cell research, in 2004. That's not very family values.

[Max]

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I think that conservative Christian causes are good things. These causes/beliefs include opposition to abortion, opposition to premarital sex and adultery, permitting school prayer (provided that the prayer is voluntary on the student's part), and believing that pornography has a harmful effect on our nation's culture. I know that Rick Santorum's wife stays at home, but I believe it's so she can homeschool her children. If he has said something along the lines of "women should stay at home," I would be curious as to the context of the entire comment. While there is, of course, a gender gap between the ideologies, many women comprise the Christian conservative movement (so they obviously don't feel it is sexist). The Specter endorsement no doubt hurt Santorum in the GOP primary. It was opportunist, but in the same type of way as it was opportunist for liberals to endorse Democratic candidates who opposed gay marriage or gun control. There still is no excuse, however, for not endorsing Toomey (even though he probably would have lost) and for that he should be criticized. Though I disagree with them politically, I would like to see the progressives become much more emboldened when it comes to holding Obama's feet to the fire (because, if not, it looks like their votes are just being taken for granted). While I am now getting off-topic, I think that the Democratic rush to nominate Hillary is opportunistic (as she is perceived as the most electable, even though progressives raised major doubts about her during her first run). In 2016, both of the bases--the Christian conservatives and the progressives--need to "follow their hearts" when selecting their nominees, instead of succumbing to the desires of the worthless establishments.

[EricMontreal22]

I like you, Max, so we'll have to agree to disagree--but when I read this I just shake my head. There are far, far more pressing things for politicans to deal with than anything listed there--in fact mostly, I think, those are things politicans have no business being involved in. Although, sure, if some kids wanna pray in school--fine, let them.

[ReddFoxx]

You quoted me in this thread, so I responded here. Most of the people you list are broke as a joke and I wasn't really talking about political ethics issues. I was referring to how a whole lot of conservatives look to make money off sometimes gullible hardline conservatives. Santorum's goal has more to do with money than it does principle.

[ReddFoxx]

The saying "a fool and his money are soon parted" applies to some conservatives well. And the only things they want to hear are things that they like, everything else is considered biased or false.

[Paul Raven]

I can never follow the argument that says if you support gay marriage then you must support polygamy. They are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

It's like people who say that bestiality will be legalized next if gay marriage is allowed.

They try to muddy the issue with distracting elements.

[Juliajms]

Bestiality is animal abuse and has nothing to do with marriage rights.

Polygamy is a marriage rights issue. Lots of people feel that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want. If that happens to be more than one person, why is it the government's business to tell them they can't? One of the rallying points of gay marriage has been the idea that government should stay out of the marriage business, why shouldn't the polygamists take up that idea? It seems to me a no brainer that they would and I do think they have a legitimate point.

Personally, I can't imagine being married to more than one person. Then again, I can't imagine being married to another woman. In neither case, do I think it's my business to push my thoughts on the matter on other people. Everyone should have the right to run their personal lives as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone else.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Juliajms

[marceline]

Honestly I have no problem with the concept of polygamy. I find the practice is often abusive to women but IMO that has more to do with the religious doctrine that leads to polygamy. If a group of people of any make up want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, fine. It sounds like a paperwork nightmare (wills, power of attorney, etc...) but if they can make it work, more power to them. That said, if polygamists want their practice to become law they will have to fight for it just like gay people and interracial couples did. Granted I'm not going to stand up for polygamy the way I did for same sex marriage but I wouldn't stand in their way either.

[Juliajms]

Yeah, that's how I feel. I'm not going to be attending any protests in favor of polygamy, but I think people should be able to live that lifestyle if everyone involved is of legal age and consents. I very much doubt legalizing it would lead to a run on polygamy. What it might do is make if harder for the Warren Jeffs of the world to isolate women on those insane compounds. I can only see that as a good thing.