Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/03 19:30:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Man, that Kennedy speech almost sounds like he accusing Ted Cruz of something from beyond the grave as opposed to defending himself. @Whembly, watch the Cruz Iowa victory speech after that Kennedy speech to see where people are coming from here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:32:41
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/03 19:31:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ok problem 1 right out the gate. Rubio equates atheism and non-theism with "believing in nothing.". Wrong. He later says we are a tiny minority. Wrong again.
As for his discussion of his faith.."If there is no creator, where did our rights come from?"
A: Human beings, dummy.
Everything else sounded like typical vampiric wislisting. "I want to live forever". "I want to meet my creator."
Probably a bit better than what I'd expect as an answer from a Republiclan politician.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 19:41:37
2016/02/03 19:43:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
JFK's speech really did feel good and I did really feel like, "yes, an American President should believe that."
On the other hand, Rubio's speech there... Like I said, I don't know. I certainly can't exactly disagree with anything he said there (how many would?). And if you're going to have the leader of the USA be very motivated by religious founded beliefs, then the beliefs stated there are not exactly a bad set of beliefs to adhere to.
On the other hand, that "Pastor-In-Chief" comment does seem to be a bit on the nose.
As for me? To give a bit of context on my own beliefs with Religion.
Relationship Status: It's complicated.
2016/02/03 19:49:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I said ambivalent... in those cases, that would be the same. I wished we would say "American" first, rather than Religion or race first.
You say that now and there is no way that it's the truth, especially if a Democrat said it. Furthermore, your attempt to bring up something some Marines say as if that equivalent proves you either agree with Cruz or you don't understand why what he said is wrong.
K... that's fair enough. I'll welcome such debate.
There's nothing to debate and frankly, debating with you is rather pointless as we can clearly see.
I'm not forgetting anything... and yet, you seem to believe that Cruz would be incapable of doing what JFK did.
You are forgetting because you brought up JFK as if he made a claim like Cruz did, which he never did. And no, Cruz would never say that because he's already said the exact opposite and always has; he wants a theocracy based on his version of Christianity.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/03 19:51:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Listen to him talk or you know, look at the picture with the quote I provided earlier. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. I'm not playing that game with you.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Insulting and moronic and everything wrong with the Republican Party.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/03 19:57:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Not gonna watch it, but I can tell you that I don't care.
I'm an atheist. I'd prefer that the president not be a staunch theocrat, but honestly, it's really, really low on my list. Separation of church and state is one of the more established principles of the Constitution, and the court's done a decent job of policing it. Even when it's fethed up, who cares if a reference to God winds up on the currency or in the pledge? I'm in business development, I say gak I don't personally believe all the time.
2016/02/03 20:04:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Not gonna watch it, but I can tell you that I don't care.
I'm an atheist. I'd prefer that the president not be a staunch theocrat, but honestly, it's really, really low on my list. Separation of church and state is one of the more established principles of the Constitution, and the court's done a decent job of policing it. Even when it's fethed up, who cares if a reference to God winds up on the currency or in the pledge? I'm in business development, I say gak I don't personally believe all the time.
You should watch it, you are throwing your vote at him. I find it alarming that you do not think we should hold our President to a higher standard. If he doesn't understand the constitution and how how the separation of church and state works, he is not qualified.
2016/02/03 20:12:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Listen to him talk or you know, look at the picture with the quote I provided earlier. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. I'm not playing that game with you.
So it's just your opinion... nothing fact based?
Got it.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Insulting and moronic and everything wrong with the Republican Party.
K. I disagree.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 20:19:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Listen to him talk or you know, look at the picture with the quote I provided earlier. If you want to play dumb, go ahead. I'm not playing that game with you.
So it's just your opinion... nothing fact based?
Got it.
whembly wrote: How do ya'll fee about Rubio's response to an atheist question?
Insulting and moronic and everything wrong with the Republican Party.
K. I disagree.
No Whembly, actually listen to him talk. Watch his Iowa accemptence speech. As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/03 20:25:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well, Trump is back to trumping and is now accusing Cruz of illegally stealing the election and wants new elections to be held or to have the Iowa results nullified.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Guys, just imagine the outrage if any of these candidates launched their political careers in the living rooms of known pastors or the congregations of actual churches!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:28:02
2016/02/03 20:31:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No Whembly, actually listen to him talk. Watch his Iowa accemptence speech.
I have... it was a rambling standard acceptance speech.
As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
So?
Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 20:34:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:35:27
2016/02/03 20:42:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
I feel like this is a mirror to whether or not Sanders would impose Socialism.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 20:42:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
n 1936 Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, wins the election as President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year. Portraying himself as a champion of traditional American values, Windrip easily defeats his opponents, Senator Walt Trowbridge and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Though having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures in order to reorganize the United States government, Windrip rapidly outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the Minute Men, who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of Windrip and his "corporatist" regime. One of his first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of the United States Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests against Windrip's decisions harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the "Corpo" government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by "Corpo" authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers. Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by "military judges". Despite these dictatorial (and "quasi-draconian") measures, a majority of Americans approve of them, seeing them as necessary but painful steps to restore American power. Others, those less enthusiastic about the prospect of corporatism, reassure themselves that fascism cannot "happen here", hence the novel's title.
Open opponents of Windrip, led by Senator Trowbridge, form an organization called the New Underground, helping dissidents escape to Canada in manners reminiscent of the Underground Railroad and distributing anti-Windrip propaganda. One recruit to the New Underground is Doremus Jessup, the novel's protagonist, a traditional liberal and an opponent of both Corpoism and communist theories, which Windrip's administration suppresses. Jessup's participation in the organization results in the publication of a periodical called The Vermont Vigilance, in which he writes editorials decrying Windrip's abuses of power. Shad Ledue, the local district commissioner and Jessup's former hired man, resents his old employer and eventually discovers his actions, having him sent to a concentration camp. Ledue subsequently terrorizes Jessup's family and particularly his daughter Sissy, whom he unsuccessfully attempts to seduce. Sissy does, however, discover evidence of corrupt dealings on the part of Ledue, which she exposes to Francis Tasbrough, a one-time friend of Jessup and Ledue's superior in the administrative hierarchy. Tasbrough has Ledue imprisoned in the same camp as Jessup, where inmates he had sent there organize his murder. Jessup escapes, after a relatively brief incarceration, when his friends bribe one of the camp guards. He flees to Canada, where he rejoins the New Underground. He later serves the organization as a spy in the Northeastern United States, passing along information and urging locals to resist Windrip.
In time, Windrip's hold on power weakens as the economic prosperity he promised does not materialize and increased numbers of disillusioned Americans, including Vice President Perley Beecroft, fleeing to both Canada and Mexico. He also angers his Secretary of State, Lee Sarason, who had served earlier as his chief political operative and adviser. Sarason and Windrip's other lieutenants, including General Dewey Haik, seize power and exile the president to France. Sarason succeeds Windrip, but his extravagant and relatively weak rule creates a power vacuum in which Haik and others vie for power. In a bloody putsch, Haik leads a party of military supporters into the White House, kills Sarason and his associates, and proclaims himself president. The two coups cause a slow erosion of Corpo power, and Haik's government desperately tries to arouse patriotism by launching an unjustified invasion of Mexico. After slandering Mexico in state-run newspapers, Haik orders a mass conscription of young American men for the invasion of that country, infuriating many who had until then been staunch Corpo loyalists. Riots and rebellions break out across the country, with many realizing that the Corpos have misled them.
General Emmanuel [see forum posting rules], among Haik's senior officers, defects to the opposition with a large portion of his army, giving strength to the resistance movement. Though Haik remains in control of much of the country, civil war soon breaks out as the resistance tries to consolidate its grasp on the Midwest. The novel ends after the beginning of the conflict, with Jessup working as an agent for the New Underground in Corpo-occupied portions of southern Minnesota.
And my work here is done!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:44:02
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/02/03 20:44:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:47:10
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/03 20:46:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
I feel like this is a mirror to whether or not Sanders would impose Socialism.
Can you impose socialism on a socialist state? In any case, rest assured if Sanders gets elected, he will will vigorously attempt to expand our socialist institutions, and he says so in no unclear terms. Sanders is a known commodity here, it's not like he's trying to muddy up his positions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 20:50:05
2016/02/03 20:49:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: So it's just your opinion... nothing fact based?
Got it.
I see you have chosen to play dumb. Glad we got that settled.
K. I disagree.
Of course you don't and that is not at all surprising. He's your favorite candidate (now), he could spoon feed you bs all day and you happily sit and take it as long as he's a Republican. You're the target audience for these people.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/03 20:53:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
Sure... fair enough.
I think it boils down to what characteristics are "disqualifying" characteristics in your perferred candidate.
:shrugs:
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/03 21:00:06
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
Sure... fair enough.
I think it boils down to what characteristics are "disqualifying" characteristics in your perferred candidate.
:shrugs:
Which for you is whether or not they have an (R) next to their name on the ballot, which is why any debate about it is inherently worthless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 21:00:38
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/03 21:08:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I would be deeply, deeply concerned with such a stance in light of at least presidential candidate (Huckabee) believing that an elected official has the right to deny a citizen their equal protection rights because that elected official's religious beliefs trumps them. I don't think the idea that such a candidate (if elected) might issue executive orders in that direction to be outlandish.
I'd be especially concerned if the current GOP frontrunner, sort of, was also supporting that public official.
Sure... fair enough.
I think it boils down to what characteristics are "disqualifying" characteristics in your perferred candidate.
:shrugs:
You, being somebody who is so for the U.S. Constitution, should find a religious platform as a "disqualifying" characteristic. You are all over the place with your beliefs.
2016/02/03 21:09:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No Whembly, actually listen to him talk. Watch his Iowa accemptence speech.
I have... it was a rambling standard acceptance speech.
As far as the Rubio quote: if God gave us these rights, what about the people who live in countries who don't have these rights? God hates or disregards them? Nope. The constitution gives these rights, even if it says "God given". Read some of the debate that went into that phrase. The pols weren't above pandering at the time either (see above). It was always self aware politics. The problem I have is some pols today miss the self awareness.
So?
Does your rights as defined by our laws mean any less if someone believed they came from God?
I'll bite. Yes, they do. God, can do what ever he/she/it wants with no repercussions or input in what humans want. If God wants to turn us into salt because God is having a bad day, God turns us into salt. Humans have to live by the rules and laws of their environment. Ever read any of the Old Testament? Trump or Cryz on a good day. Rubio is more of a New Testament guy. Fine. He still believes God can do what he wants (it's God). The real world doesn't quite work lik that. Sadly, presidents have to live in the real world and use real world techniques to accomplish their goals. They cannot rely on God for their salt. The reason we are not destroying Isis quickly isn't because a few Iowans aren't praying hard enough.
Basically, I would trust a human more to do an expected behavior more than I would trust a God to. And since we live with humans who rule us, let's pick the right ones (thank "God" we get a choice).
My problem with Rubio in that clip is he has no sense of history or any sense of reality. Both qualities I sort of look for In a leader.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/03 21:11:49
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/03 21:39:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Can you impose socialism on a socialist state? In any case, rest assured if Sanders gets elected, he will will vigorously attempt to expand our socialist institutions, and he says so in no unclear terms. Sanders is a known commodity here, it's not like he's trying to muddy up his positions.
Furthermore, there is not a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from promoting socialism.
CptJake wrote: Looks like Rand Paul is out of the race. I suspect Cruz will pick up his 7 followers.
I thought libertarians didn't like evangelicals.
I'm going over to Rubio.
You know, I bet a good chunk of the Ron/Rand Paul "Liberty voters" types may stay home from this point forward. They really don't have a candidate to vote for. Everyone left is a hawk of one degree or another, and its not like there's a big civil liberties voice left. I also think alot of these voters are turned off by religiosity in politics.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/03 23:03:30
2016/02/03 23:12:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Whembley, do you think there was anything particular in Rubio's answer that should make atheists view him as an attractive candidate?
That these candidates aren't going to push religion nor devices a "theocratic" administration.
Perhaps if you ignore their Senate records, their campaign speeches, their debate performances, and their websites, and looked at this clip in a vacuum, you might be led to believe that they will not try and politically impose Christianity on the populous.
I feel like this is a mirror to whether or not Sanders would impose Socialism.
Can you impose socialism on a socialist state?
As President? Not really... as you'd need Congress to pass laws/budgets to achieve that.
In any case, rest assured if Sanders gets elected, he will will vigorously attempt to expand our socialist institutions, and he says so in no unclear terms. Sanders is a known commodity here, it's not like he's trying to muddy up his positions.
You're right about that... as Bernie's brand of socialism is more of an egalitarian political economy that will take care of these social problems by itself... It's a viewpoint that I disagree with and it's surprising to me that Bernie is that popular amongst the Democratic constituents.