Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

As a supporter of gay rights and marriage, folks are a bit over the top on joe. Maybe wrong, but I don't think he's come out saying the gay lifestyle is super bad. I think he's saying live and let live. Yet if someone doesn't think the exact execution of formal marriage for LGBT is not appropriate, while I don't agree...I'm also not sure how that's homophobic. Its blanket statements of negativity towards an entire group or lifestyle that really becomes wrong.

Jesus was about the Golden Rule as he was 'he without sin may cast the first stone'.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

The gay marriage question is decided. Our side won. What good does it do laying waste to the side that lost now, when a good portion of them could end up being allies eventually?

We're not "wasting time," we're reiterating that people are deserving of equal respect, dignity, and rights. Whenever somebody says, "except x" we should respond thusly. An ounce of prevention is worth another generation of people babbling about "natural law."

Also, you keep saying "the decision was only a few months ago." The decision, while welcome, isn't the same as the fact of equal protection, which is fundamental. It's sad that it took the country 230 years to catch up to the spirit of the law.

Like I said below, I'm all for not labeling a whole person an X, instead prefering to say "that idea is an instance of x." And with the issue now settled legally I'm content to hold my peace until these end run rationalizations are voiced. But when they are we should address them immediately, so we don't wind up with 100 years of Plessy nullifying the substance of the 14th. That's how that crap starts.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

As a supporter of gay rights and marriage, folks are a bit over the top on joe. Maybe wrong, but I don't think he's come out saying the gay lifestyle is super bad. I think he's saying live and let live. Yet if someone doesn't think the exact execution of formal marriage for LGBT is not appropriate, while I don't agree...I'm also not sure how that's homophobic.

This is all correct until you get to the "but I want to deny them their rights" part. That effectively undercuts the rhetoric of saying live and let live. You can't say "live and let live as long as you stay in this box I've made for you."

 

[unofan]

As a supporter of Black rights and marriage, folks are a bit over the top on joe. Maybe wrong, but I don't think he's come out saying the Black lifestyle is super bad. I think he's saying live and let live. Yet if someone doesn't think the exact execution of formal marriage for interracial couples is not appropriate, while I don't agree...I'm also not sure how that's racist. Its blanket statements of negativity towards an entire group or lifestyle that really becomes wrong.

Jesus was about the Golden Rule as he was 'he without sin may cast the first stone'.

Again, change references from sexual orientation to race in a given statement and see how it sounds. If the new statement sounds racist, the original was also probably homophobic.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

My angle is that people may come around to having the same stance as you or I but it might take them a little longer than you or I to get there. Slandering them during that time they're sorting it all out isn't helping the cause any.

Makes me think of an event when I was a teenager. My step father ran for a local political office and after a nasty campaign won the race. Reading the write-up in the paper the next day, he's talking about how hard is opponent worked and how he'd welcome his help during the transition. Talking to him the next day, I said " you hate the guy. what's up with this stuff in the paper." He said to me "the election's over. I won. What good does it do blasting the guy in the paper afterwards?"

The gay marriage question is decided. Our side won. What good does it do laying waste to the side that lost now, when a good portion of them could end up being allies eventually?

I agree.

Case in point

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

The dead horse doesn't seem to be getting up despite all of our beating so back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Good article (for a righty)...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/bush-and-trump/402184/

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/bush-and-trump/402184/

Wow. That is a fantastic article. It's the first piece of great political writing in about 30 years.

unreliable purveyor of vitriol

What it takes other people 4 pages to explain Frum does in 4 words.

Every campaign runs on money, but Jeb Bush’s more than most. He’s hoping through sheer staying power to impose his nomination on a recalcitrant party. The money buys the staying power. If the money dwindles, his fortunes fall hostage to the Republicans of the early states:

Again, precise and pointed.

Bush’s most immediate problem is not that the base doesn’t trust him—it didn’t trust John McCain either, yet he nevertheless won the nomination—but that his donors enjoy too many plausible alternative choices.

Just so.

Four months ago, the clever thing to say about Walker was that he was the one candidate who could win both the base and the big donors. That unique strength has proved instead a unique vulnerability, as Walker has been whipsawed by the internal party argument over immigration.

Again, right on point.

Show Trump a line, and he’ll cross it. He has crossed it. And Jeb Bush is a candidate who needs lines respected almost more than any other.

Best line in the piece, and a perfect encapsulation of the erstwhile indefinable Jeb!

Golf clap for Mr. Frum.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

This is all correct until you get to the "but I want to deny them their rights" part. That effectively undercuts the rhetoric of saying live and let live. You can't say "live and let live as long as you stay in this box I've made for you."

I may have missed this part over the past few pages... but where do those of us who believe SSM is a sin but also love those friends of ours who are gay? Are we bigots because we hold strong Christian beliefs? However, it's those same strong Christian beliefs that bring us to the point of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

I think that is where a lot of Christians will end up. Unfortunately, there will always be those people who hate just to hate. I didn't get to that point overnight, it took me having a good friend who was gay.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I may have missed this part over the past few pages... but where do those of us who believe SSM is a sin but also love those friends of ours who are gay? Are we bigots because we hold strong Christian beliefs? However, it's those same strong Christian beliefs that bring us to the point of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

I think that is where a lot of Christians will end up. Unfortunately, there will always be those people who hate just to hate. I didn't get to that point overnight, it took me having a good friend who was gay.

If you love somebody but would deny them a basic right and dignity... you're still denying them a basic right and dignity.

Nobody's hating you "just to hate," whatever that means, so don't play that martyr card. They're hating hate. Obviously you don't understand your belief is hateful because as a good person you wouldn't consciously hold a hateful belief, but regardless of whether it comes from Bentham, the Bible or the Brady Bunch the consequences of your belief are destructive to the happiness of otherwise innocent people, and that is A Bad Thing by any standard of ethics.

You can use the Man in the Sky to justify any behavior and then claim "but it's my sincere belief." That in itself has no meaning ethically -- what matters is whether the enshrinement of your belief in practical ways like the legal code would hurt people. It would.

tl; dr: Ethics > Scripture.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I may have missed this part over the past few pages... but where do those of us who believe SSM is a sin but also love those friends of ours who are gay? Are we bigots because we hold strong Christian beliefs? However, it's those same strong Christian beliefs that bring us to the point of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

I think that is where a lot of Christians will end up. Unfortunately, there will always be those people who hate just to hate. I didn't get to that point overnight, it took me having a good friend who was gay.

You're right. Haters are gonna hate. And they'll keep hating until we think and act as they wish us to.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

This is all correct until you get to the "but I want to deny them their rights" part. That effectively undercuts the rhetoric of saying live and let live. You can't say "live and let live as long as you stay in this box I've made for you."

We all have all sorts of boxes we have to live in as part of an organized society. I'll leave it at that, though there is so much more that could be said.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Guys I'm sorry but that ruling got handed down a couple of months ago. Lets give people a small amount of time to get used to it before we start throwing around labels like "bigot". People who think we should pass a Constitutional amendment are idiots. People who want to refuse to do their jobs under the guise of their religious beliefs are idiots. But, if someone needs a little bit to embrace the new legal status here I think we can give them a little bit.

Recall I live in the state that legalized gay marriage first. When it happened it was a completely new thing. I wasn't out celebrating in the street nor was I protesting the Mass Supreme Judicial Court. But in a little while (weeks? a month? I don't remember exactly) I knew the state had done a great thing.

This is not about the ruling you keep missing the point. No one is asking joe and his ilk to like SSM or even accept it he can hate it all he wants to. He asked if you can be gay friendly and oppose SSM...no you cannot.

As for calling them bigots, until such time as they stop wanting to deny gay people rights they will be branded as such that is just the way it is. If their stance changes so will said designation. Dont get all self righteous on us, you label people more than anyone else on this board with way less evidence.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

The Frum article. Yes spot on with both Walker and Bush. I'm of the opinion that if Bush can't win NH he's screwed. Yes he'll still have money and yes he can make a play for other states, but with Florida pushed back after the SEC primary IIRC he can't wait that long to make positive headlines. Put another way, if he can't appeal enough to the home base to win the 30% of the vote it'll take to win the primary, how the hell does he win that state in the general election? And if he can't put away the Northeast states where his brand is strongest, where is he going to win?

Walker has a similar problem in that if he can't win Iowa, I'm not sure where he goes from there. Aside from a possible Ted Cruz bid, that looked like a layup for him as he'd consolidate the social conservative vote. Once you get past Iowa, its NH-NV-SC in some order, then the SEC primary and where does he make a play at that point?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

You're right. Haters are gonna hate. And they'll keep hating until we think and act as they wish us to.

Whoooooooooooosh

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Whoooooooooooosh

Well he is being persecuted cause he is a Christian. He probably doesnt get the irony of him saying he is persecuted because people dont like that he wants others persecuted

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

We all have all sorts of boxes we have to live in as part of an organized society. I'll leave it at that, though there is so much more that could be said.

I wish you'd elaborate, because that is a true statement. I take back the blanketness (blanket-ness?) of my original statement.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

You're right. Haters are gonna hate. And they'll keep hating until we think and act as they wish us to.

Not think. Anybody can think anything. The space between our ears is ours forever.

Actions are different. We don't get to act on our every certainty unless we live alone on a desert island.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

As if on cue, a great example of what Rover et al. were discussing earlier about Trump's ability to wound GOP candidates. The call is coming from inside the house.

If the Donald were a deliberate saboteur he could not be more damaging to Republicans either individually or as a group.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Again, change references from sexual orientation to race in a given statement and see how it sounds. If the new statement sounds racist, the original was also probably homophobic.

Marriage is a relationship based agreement and its between two people. Homosexuality is also relational...but is a total game changer in its relational nature. That is why it doesn't make sense for some. Ethnicity is totally relationally independent...but has more challenges based on visual bias. Its why for some homosexuality is a bigger deal in marriage, but is not in police profiling or picking gays out in a police line up. Race on the other hand is a bigger deal in police profiling and bias in police line ups. So while race can be a decent analogy to determine tolerance...I don't think its a great analogy here due to marriage and homosexuality both being based on very personal relationships. And again I don't agree, but I accept others don't feel comfortable with gay marriage.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

This is not about the ruling you keep missing the point. No one is asking joe and his ilk to like SSM or even accept it he can hate it all he wants to. He asked if you can be gay friendly and oppose SSM...no you cannot.

As for calling them bigots, until such time as they stop wanting to deny gay people rights they will be branded as such that is just the way it is. If their stance changes so will said designation. Dont get all self righteous on us, you label people more than anyone else on this board with way less evidence.

I don't recall joe saying he wanted to deny them rights. I'm not sure if he supports calling SSM something else (civil unions) with the same rights or not but I'll let him answer for himself. What I'm saying is that we can give people some time to get on board with where we are right now. I'm as arrogant as the day is long and I'm proud of it. However, even I realize not everybody is going to get to the same place as I am at the same time. But, if these people are going to get there in short order, I'm not sure public shaming is the best way to go in the meantime.