2016 Election
+1Quote: AZDuffmanHow can you say that when you do not support the right of someone to marry the person they want to marry?
My GAWD. I can't believe I'm saying this, but that's actually a valid argument. Bizarre? Yes. But it's valid, nonetheless. I also agree that terapined is being hypocritical on this one.Quote: rxwineAs long as it's consenting ADULTS. Kids still can't consent as adults, and I think someone needs to prove animals can reason well enough to understand marriage before you can claim consent for them, so those two are still out. But the polygamists, I'm not sure why not as long as they don't marry children. They probably bring no more collective harm than many other people unfit to do much but breathe.
I think the majority of this country is against polygamy.
I don't see a single conservative candidate demanding that polygamy be legalized.
Are there any demo or repub candidates or reps or senators that have come out in favor of polygamy?
I believe the majority in this country are moving towards acceptance of gay marriage.
If half the country is moving towards acceptance of gay marriage but most against polygamy , well, that's reality.
I am simply taking a position that is not unusual, many feel the same way I do.
If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it, I have tons of company. woohoo. party time.
Too me gay marriage and polygamy are 2 separate issues.
I support Mr Brown marrying a guy. I don't support Mr Brown marrying a bunch of guys :-)
Are you saying that your sense of right and wrong is dictated by taking a poll of everyone else who happens to live in the same country that you do?
Quote: terapinedI simply stand with the majority in this country, against polygamy.
Two wives, three wives. Some men are born
masochists.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat does it matter what everyone else thinks?
Are you saying that your sense of right and wrong is dictated by taking a poll of everyone else who happens to live in the same country that you do?
No. I simply take a position regardless of what others think.
But if many stand by me on the position I take, it makes me feel more comfortable.
Do you support polygamy?
Quote: rxwineI think terapined should reconsider. You have trailer trash getting married, serial murderers, the Kardashiians, welfare moms who may never hold a job, the Kardashians, (did I mention them). They all have questionable effects on the sanctity of marriage and possibly even harm to society.
I know zero about this entire Kardashian thing, I mean zero, But something tells me all the males here on the board should send the men in their life a Christmas Card as a kind of thank-you for taking them off the market.
Quote: AZDuffmanI know zero about this entire Kardashian thing, I mean zero, But something tells me all the males here on the board should send the men in their life a Christmas Card as a kind of thank-you for taking them off the market.
Curious AZ and B9, Do you support polygamy?
Quote: terapinedNo. I simply take a position regardless of what others think.
But if many stand by me on the position I take, it makes me feel more comfortable.
Do you support polygamy?
Yup. Gay marriage too. People have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
I have to agree with some others on this thread -- I see absolutely zero difference between the two.
Actually, I think that the state should stay out of marriage all together, which would solve this problem. People still could and would get married, if they wished, in ceremonies of their choice, to anyone (or any group) that they chose, but the state wouldn't keep records of it and wouldn't discriminate against those who chose to (or chose not to) get married. Everything about hospital visitation rights, community property, estates, etc, etc could be handled by standardized contracts.
Quote: terapinedCurious AZ and B9, Do you support polygamy?
I am against "gay marriage" as well as polygamy but if you argue that two people of the same sex can marry then legally you must also allow polygamy.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYup. Gay marriage too. People have the right to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
I have to agree with some others on this thread -- I see absolutely zero difference between the two.
Actually, I think that the state should stay out of marriage all together, which would solve this problem. People still could and would get married, if they wished, in ceremonies of their choice, to anyone (or any group) that they chose, but the state wouldn't keep records of it and wouldn't discriminate against those who chose to (or chose not to) get married. Everything about hospital visitation rights, community property, estates, etc, etc could be handled by standardized contracts.
I really don't have much of an issue with a polygamy family.
Its the polygamy communities that I find disturbing. In these communities, when children become teenagers, the girls stay, most male teenagers are actually kicked out of the community. There are many sad stories on the "Lost boys." Multitude of male teenagers kicked out of their family and community simply because the community needs an uneven gender distribution to survive. Lots of females, few men.
Quote: AZDuffmanI am against "gay marriage" as well as polygamy but if you argue that two people of the same sex can marry then legally you must also allow polygamy.
Thanks for replying. Thanks for your honesty.
Nice thing about you and B9, you guys always reply. I may not agree with a reply but I certainly appreciate it.
:-)
Quote: terapinedI really don't have much of an issue with a polygamy family.
Its the polygamy communities that I find disturbing. In these communities, when children become teenagers, the girls stay, most male teenagers are actually kicked out of the community. There are many sad stories on the "Lost boys." Multitude of male teenagers kicked out of their family and community simply because the community needs an uneven gender distribution to survive. Lots of females, few men.
And the teenage girls are groomed by the community for polygamy without being taught that there is an alternative.
+1Quote: AZDuffmanI am against "gay marriage" as well as polygamy but if you argue that two people of the same sex can marry then legally you must also allow polygamy.
Once again, AZ hits the nail on the head.
You don't stand with the 30+ states that have banned gay marriage. You only like the majority when you AGREE with it.Quote: terapinedI simply stand with the majority in this country
30+ states have banned gay marriage. That's reality.Quote: terapinedI believe the majority in this country are moving towards acceptance of gay marriage.
If half the country is moving towards acceptance of gay marriage but most against polygamy , well, that's reality.
To me, regular marriage and gay marriage are 2 separate issues. But according to you, consenting adults who are deeply in love should be able to marry. That's why I can't understand why you want to deny the Brown family equal rights.Quote: terapinedToo me gay marriage and polygamy are 2 separate issues.
I support regular, normal marriage that's been around for centuries. (You should know that by now)Quote: terapinedCurious AZ and B9, Do you support polygamy?
Quote: mickeycrimmAnd the teenage girls are groomed by the community.
Do you have photos of that?
Christie 19%
Cruz 14%
Huckabee 13%
Paul 11%
Ryan 10%
Bush 10%
Rubio 7%
Walker 4%
Jindal 3%
Someone else/Not Sure 10%
Full poll results: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_National_1218.pdf
Quote: Beethoven9thChristie 19%
I can smell a Democratic win already.
Doubt they get groomed until they escape. 70s bush everywhere at those compounds.Quote: mickeycrimmAnd the teenage girls are groomed by the community for polygamy without being taught that there is an alternative.
Quote: onenickelmiracleElizabeth Warren would be my pick, but Im not stupid enough to bet on it.
Mine would be Mia Love.
Quote: onenickelmiracleElizabeth Warren would be my pick, but Im not stupid enough to bet on it.
I guess you think this country is ready for a Native American president.
Quote: onenickelmiracleElizabeth Warren would be my pick, but Im not stupid enough to bet on it.
I don't think she's quite at the "Presidential nominee" level yet (Garry Trudeau notwithstanding.)
However, I wouldn't be surprised if she gives the keynote speech at the 2016 national convention; that was the stepping stone for Clinton and Obama to become President.
Then again, what "national" credentials did Carter - or Reagan, for that matter - have in 1974, and look where they were two years later.
Quote: WizardI can smell a Democratic win already.
Hopefully, Christie will be the nominee. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thHopefully, Christie will be the nominee. ;)
If he is, and I think he will be, I need just say one word -- Revel.
Quote: ThatDonGuyThen again, what "national" credentials did Carter - or Reagan, for that matter - have in 1974, and look where they were two years later.
Or Obama? (ducks)
If Christie's the great Republican hope, the Republican's are hosed.
Quote: thecesspitOr Obama? (ducks)
If Christie's the great Republican hope, the Republican's are hosed.
Or Hillary. Even the Left is sick of the ugly old
windbag. She was cackling away in some
interview the other day and I felt the skin on
my arms crawl, she disgusted me so much.
I'm certainly not alone in that. She's like
every mother/aunt/step mother you couldn't
stand all rolled into one wrinkled mass of
cellulite.
Quote: EvenBobOr Hillary. Even the Left is sick of the ugly old
windbag. She was cackling away in some
interview the other day and I felt the skin on
my arms crawl, she disgusted me so much.
I'm certainly not alone in that. She's like
every mother/aunt/step mother you couldn't
stand all rolled into one wrinkled mass of
cellulite.
Non sequitirs. I was talking about those with little presence two-four years before an election. Hilary is hardly a dark horse or unknown.
But you have to get your shot in on her. Probably some sort of creepy obsession you have.
Quote: thecesspitNon sequitirs. I was talking about those with little presence two-four years before an election. Hilary is hardly a dark horse or unknown.
But you have to get your shot in on her. Probably some sort of creepy obsession you have.
Seriously talking about lack of national experience or exposure and he brings up Hillary. She was first lady, a senator, and then Secretary of State hardly an unknown lacking experience.
But honestly don't think she is as likely to win as others think. I think her age and health will play a negative effect for her. I mean she has a decent changes but I would want more than 2 to 1 to make the bet.
Christie 48%
Clinton 46%
Christie leads in Republican primary
Christie 16%
Cruz 12%
Ryan 12%
Bush 12%
Paul 11%
Rubio 8%
Walker 6%
Santorum 3%
Perry 3%
Quote: thecesspit
But you have to get your shot in on her. Probably some sort of creepy obsession you have.
The hag will be 70 if she wins. You think she
looks bad now, just wait. If you think looks
don't matter in a candidate, you aren't thinking.
Quote: EvenBobThe hag will be 70 if she wins. You think she
looks bad now, just wait. If you think looks
don't matter in a candidate, you aren't thinking.
If you think looks matter to how well the candidate will perform in office, YOU aren't thinking.
But you keep obsessing about old ladies, Bob. Keeps you off the streets at least.
Quote: EvenBobThe hag will be 70 if she wins. You think she
looks bad now, just wait. If you think looks
don't matter in a candidate, you aren't thinking.
Makeup.
As long as she doesn't get an extreme facelift, she'll be okay.
Quote: EvenBobThe hag will be 70 if she wins. You think she
looks bad now, just wait. If you think looks
don't matter in a candidate, you aren't thinking.
Actually, EvenBob is quite right. Looks do matter. This is strictly in my own opinion.
Obama > = Romney
Obama > McCain, by a landslide
Bush > Kerry
Bush > Kerry
Clinton > Dole
Clinton > HW Bush
Quote: beerseasonActually, EvenBob is quite right. Looks do matter. This is strictly in my own opinion.
Obama > = Romney
Obama > McCain, by a landslide
Bush > Kerry
Bush > Kerry
Clinton > Dole
Clinton > HW Bush
Could still be a toss up depending on the Republican nominee.
Quote: WizardI can smell a Democratic win already.
I believe if the Democrats put up Hilary, or Elizabeth Warren. Their ship will have sank before it leaves the dock.
Full list: http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/1887861/US-Election-2016---Presidential-Election.html
_______________
2-1
Hillary Clinton
6/1
Marco Rubio
8/1
Chris Christie
9/1
Jeb Bush
12/1
Andrew Cuomo
16/1
Paul Ryan
20/1
Condoleeza Rice
20/1
Elizabeth Warren
20/1
Rand Paul
33/1
Joe Biden
40/1
Scott Walker
50/1
Bobby Jindal
50/1
David Petraeus
50/1
Mike Huckabee
50/1
Rick Santorum
100/1
Kathleen Sebelius
100/1
Newt Gingrich
100/1
Rick Perry
Hillary Clinton 68%
Joe Biden 12%
Elizabeth Warren 7%
Andrew Cuomo 4%
Martin O'Malley 1%
Deval Patrick 1%
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/12/26/fox-news-poll-clinton-christie-on-top-in-2016-preference-test
Quote: beerseasonActually, EvenBob is quite right. Looks do matter.
Voters are very shallow, better looking people
get more votes. And Dems are worried Hillary
will be a very weak candidate because she has
nothing new to bring to the table. She will have
been on the public stage for 25 years in 2016,
and people are bored to death with her. She
was a shoe in for the nomination in 2008 and
a young good looking Obama shooed her away
like fly buzzing around his head. Looks matter.
Face it, even with makeup in a good light, Hillary
looks like the lunch lady from a HS who retired
5 years ago. And the election is 3 years away.
If the US was lucky enough to have Ted Cruz as president, he'd undo all the damage Obama has done.
OBAMA, CLINTON CONTINUE REIGN AS MOST ADMIRED: 6th year in a row for Obama, 12th straight year for Clinton
So the mainstream media has ignored the fact that the ship which was stuck in ice was filled with a bunch of WARMERS?
Big surprise. Yet liberals still claim that the media is "unbiased". *facepalm*
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Then again, what "national" credentials did Carter - or Reagan, for that matter - have in 1974, and look where they were two years later.
They were both Governors. State executives. In charge. Get it?
Quote: Beethoven9th98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission
So the mainstream media has ignored the fact that the ship which was stuck in ice was filled with a bunch of WARMERS?
Big surprise. Yet liberals still claim that the media is "unbiased". *facepalm*
The only story I read made it clear it was full of Climate Change scientists. Shrug.
What the hell is going on in California?!?!?!?!
Quote: Beethoven9th98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission
So the mainstream media has ignored the fact that the ship which was stuck in ice was filled with a bunch of WARMERS?
Big surprise. Yet liberals still claim that the media is "unbiased". *facepalm*
A ship stuck in the ice.
Hmm , a ship stuck in the ice with passengers B9 does not like. Shrug.
Its still a ship stuck in the ice.
*facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thCalifornia grants law license to illegal immigrant
What the hell is going on in California?!?!?!?!
Illegal Immigrants obviously means something different in the US. Just like the word 'liberal' does, eh? :D
Quote: terapinedA ship stuck in the ice.
Hmm , a ship stuck in the ice with passengers B9 does not like. Shrug.
Its still a ship stuck in the ice.
*facepalm*
That's my point. The media loves to insert "Tea Party" into whatever (usually bad) story they can, but they never do that when it comes to liberal causes.
