THE OFFICIAL POLITICS THREAD

[cardsfan04]

Also, speaking of Kim and her not upholding the law. What about Obama as well as whole cities ignoring immigration law? Should we jail him for not enforcing the law when he wishes? What about the cities who have 'sanctuary' laws for illegal immigrants? Should all these mayors be jailed until the law is upheld?

Why is there always a double standard that sways in the favor of liberal behavior.

I'm not defending sanctuary cities, etc. But, it's not an apples to apples comparison. She was jailed for being in contempt of court. That doesn't apply in the other situations.

[The Flake]

Also, speaking of Kim and her not upholding the law. What about Obama as well as whole cities ignoring immigration law? Should we jail him for not enforcing the law when he wishes? What about the cities who have 'sanctuary' laws for illegal immigrants? Should all these mayors be jailed until the law is upheld?

Why is there always a double standard that sways in the favor of liberal behavior.

I'm not defending sanctuary cities, etc. But, it's not an apples to apples comparison. She was jailed for being in contempt of court. That doesn't apply in the other situations.

No its not apples to apples but the intent is still the same. Refusing to uphold the law of the land as a representative because of personal beliefs. Why aren't these others thrown in jail for contempt of the law?

[The Flake]

I still don't get it either and I won't accept it until I understand it so if someone can help me understand it... please...I am in no way a scholar of law by any stretch of the imagination.

Legislative Branch - creates laws

Executive Branch - enforces laws

Judicial Branch - judges laws

If SCOTUS judged that a law was unconstitutional, then that law is not upheld and not enforced by the executive branch. SCOTUS cannot create law in and of themselves, they just judge law that is created...correct? Creating law is the function of the Legislative Branch with an oversight of the Executive Branch for checks and balances. In no way is the judiciary a creator of the law....right?

So, tell me again what law created by the legislative branch of government mandates local magistrates to allow same sex marriages?

[cardsfan04]

A lawyer would be able to answer this better, but think of it this way. Everything is legal until there is a law against it. To stay on point, gay marriage was legal until there was a law disallowing it. SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right making any law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional. So, the Kentucky law that barred gay marriage became invalid as soon as SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v Hodges.

So, after that ruling, Kim Davis refused to issue any marriage licenses at all, to gay couples and straight couples alike. She was then sued for violation of civil liberties and a judge ruled that she must issue marriage licenses to all applicants.

Contempt of court is a law passed by a legislature. There are various types of contempt of court, but it basically says that if a judge orders you to do something, you have to comply. This is an oversimplification, but that's the gist. There's an appeals process, but her appeal failed.

After she was ordered to issue marriage licenses to all applicants, she continued to refuse to issue them. At this point, the matter was brought back to court, and the judge found her in contempt of court. This is the law that she broke.

[glen a richter]

I don't get the big deal, I really don't. I can't begin to wrap my head around how two consenting adult gay males or females who want to have a marriage that doesn't have to be rooted in Christianity because not all marriages have to be conducted by a church, can possibly be threatening to anyone individually. As far as ones personal beliefs, fine... you think the homosexual lifestyle is bad, sinful, whatever, that's your right as a person of faith. But it's not your right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. That's the message of Jesus, is it not? Love thy neighbor? If what they're doing is so bad, God will sort it out if he or she exists and cares to sort it out. Kim Davis was elected to a position which required her to issue marriage licenses. The SCOTUS clearly ruled that gay marriage was to be recognized nationally. If Kim Davis is so concerned with her own eternity, she shouldn't be. It's not her job to judge, it's her job to issue marriage licenses in conjunction with the law of the land. Frankly if I were God and Kim Davis died and stood before me, I'd ask her why she had the audacity to do my job instead of trusting me to be capable of doing it myself in due time.

[The Flake]

I don't get the big deal, I really don't. I can't begin to wrap my head around how two consenting adult gay males or females who want to have a marriage that doesn't have to be rooted in Christianity because not all marriages have to be conducted by a church, can possibly be threatening to anyone individually. As far as ones personal beliefs, fine... you think the homosexual lifestyle is bad, sinful, whatever, that's your right as a person of faith. But it's not your right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. That's the message of Jesus, is it not? Love thy neighbor? If what they're doing is so bad, God will sort it out if he or she exists and cares to sort it out. Kim Davis was elected to a position which required her to issue marriage licenses. The SCOTUS clearly ruled that gay marriage was to be recognized nationally. If Kim Davis is so concerned with her own eternity, she shouldn't be. It's not her job to judge, it's her job to issue marriage licenses in conjunction with the law of the land. Frankly if I were God and Kim Davis died and stood before me, I'd ask her why she had the audacity to do my job instead of trusting me to be capable of doing it myself in due time.

That's exactly right. The sin of homosexuality is to be shunned and not allowed while still loving the sinner with the hope of future repentance. We all commit sins and no one sin is greater than another according to the Bible. Only through the blood of Jesus Christ can we atone for those sins. its not the person its the act of willing defiance that is so wrong.

I know, not everyone believes in God. Doesn't mean we aren't playing in his backyard and don't have to abide by his rules.

That said, as a Christian, I want laws passed that ban, punish and protect against theft, murder, homosexuality, adultery, battery...and the list goes on so that my family can live in a wholesome place that honors God with its virtue and law. In many ways, Gods law is very much apart of and intertwined with the law established in our country because those men honored God. More ways than you may think. I guess the main issue is that people don't honor God anymore, they worship false gods, don't even think that God exists at all, or could care less about God so that they are their own God and anything goes. I guess this really isn't a Christian nation anymore as president Obama said.

[The Flake]

A lawyer would be able to answer this better, but think of it this way. Everything is legal until there is a law against it. To stay on point, gay marriage was legal until there was a law disallowing it. SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right making any law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional. So, the Kentucky law that barred gay marriage became invalid as soon as SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v Hodges.

So, after that ruling, Kim Davis refused to issue any marriage licenses at all, to gay couples and straight couples alike. She was then sued for violation of civil liberties and a judge ruled that she must issue marriage licenses to all applicants.

Contempt of court is a law passed by a legislature. There are various types of contempt of court, but it basically says that if a judge orders you to do something, you have to comply. This is an oversimplification, but that's the gist. There's an appeals process, but her appeal failed.

After she was ordered to issue marriage licenses to all applicants, she continued to refuse to issue them. At this point, the matter was brought back to court, and the judge found her in contempt of court. This is the law that she broke.

Thanks. I may not like it but that does explain it quite well.

[cprice12]

I don't get the big deal, I really don't. I can't begin to wrap my head around how two consenting adult gay males or females who want to have a marriage that doesn't have to be rooted in Christianity because not all marriages have to be conducted by a church, can possibly be threatening to anyone individually. As far as ones personal beliefs, fine... you think the homosexual lifestyle is bad, sinful, whatever, that's your right as a person of faith. But it's not your right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. That's the message of Jesus, is it not? Love thy neighbor? If what they're doing is so bad, God will sort it out if he or she exists and cares to sort it out. Kim Davis was elected to a position which required her to issue marriage licenses. The SCOTUS clearly ruled that gay marriage was to be recognized nationally. If Kim Davis is so concerned with her own eternity, she shouldn't be. It's not her job to judge, it's her job to issue marriage licenses in conjunction with the law of the land. Frankly if I were God and Kim Davis died and stood before me, I'd ask her why she had the audacity to do my job instead of trusting me to be capable of doing it myself in due time.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is spot on.
If her religious beliefs are that important to her, then she needs to resign her position because her beliefs prohibit her from actually doing the job that she is being paid to do.

At this point, she is being far less Christian than she thinks. Her actions are accomplishing the opposite of what her religion preaches. Her interpretation of her religion is messed up...which is a general overall problem with certain individuals of organized religion if you ask me.

Misinterpretation of a faith based system that you allow to strictly define the way you live your life (and apparently how you do your job) when you are a person that is in a position of power can be a very, very dangerous thing.

I can't help but feel utter disgust for this woman and how she is abusing the system and allowing her personal beliefs to prohibit others from living their lives the way they see fit within the law.

There is nothing "Christian" about what she is doing. Far from it actually.

[theohall]

I don't get the big deal, I really don't. I can't begin to wrap my head around how two consenting adult gay males or females who want to have a marriage that doesn't have to be rooted in Christianity because not all marriages have to be conducted by a church, can possibly be threatening to anyone individually. As far as ones personal beliefs, fine... you think the homosexual lifestyle is bad, sinful, whatever, that's your right as a person of faith. But it's not your right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. That's the message of Jesus, is it not? Love thy neighbor? If what they're doing is so bad, God will sort it out if he or she exists and cares to sort it out. Kim Davis was elected to a position which required her to issue marriage licenses. The SCOTUS clearly ruled that gay marriage was to be recognized nationally. If Kim Davis is so concerned with her own eternity, she shouldn't be. It's not her job to judge, it's her job to issue marriage licenses in conjunction with the law of the land. Frankly if I were God and Kim Davis died and stood before me, I'd ask her why she had the audacity to do my job instead of trusting me to be capable of doing it myself in due time.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is spot on.
If her religious beliefs are that important to her, then she needs to resign her position because her beliefs prohibit her from actually doing the job that she is being paid to do.

At this point, she is being far less Christian than she thinks. Her actions are accomplishing the opposite of what her religion preaches. Her interpretation of her religion is messed up...which is a general overall problem with certain individuals of organized religion if you ask me.

Misinterpretation of a faith based system that you allow to strictly define the way you live your life (and apparently how you do your job) when you are a person that is in a position of power can be a very, very dangerous thing.

I can't help but feel utter disgust for this woman and how she is abusing the system and allowing her personal beliefs to prohibit others from living their lives the way they see fit within the law.

There is nothing "Christian" about what she is doing. Far from it actually.

By the logic above, no Muslim could ever be President of the United States, because supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States is contradictory to the tenets of Islam as described in the Koran. Makes Ben Carson spot on in his statement which has so many people offended.

As to the "she should resign" thing. It's against the law to discriminate hiring someone based upon their religion, not to mention she was hired before the law was changed. Now she should just quit her job because of her religion???Discriminating against her choices at work based on religion is a violation of EEO and the 1st Amendment. Nice tolerance being voiced here.

Should all of the privately owned bakers who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes just shut their doors, too???

Why is their such intolerance towards Christianity?

Muslim terrorists in prison get better treatment than the opinions voiced about this lady. Yes, prisoners are allowed to completely follow and support their religion, no matter how much it inconveniences the jailers, but this lady at work is not allowed to act according to the tenets of her religion????

If you want to play the "law of the land" card, when is this Executive Branch ever going to actually enforce immigration laws. Picking and choosing which laws matter and which ones don't while not actually considering the Constitution is a slippery slope. Gay rights laws don't supersede individual 1st Amendment rights.

[cardsfan04]

Why is there so much intolerance of intolerance?

[glen a richter]

She wasn't hired, she was elected. Typically elected officials who fail to follow their responsibilities are impeached. Can you impeach a clerk?

[cprice12]

By the logic above, no Muslim could ever be President of the United States, because supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States is contradictory to the tenets of Islam as described in the Koran.

That's not my point. That is her's.
My point is that if you want to hold an elected position, but your religious beliefs prohibit you from fulfilling the duties that you are obligated to perform (and you swore to perform when you were sworn in), then you should step down. It IS that simple.

Personally, I believe if your religious beliefs are so strong that they dictate how you perform you job, then you absolutely should not be running for any type of office. If you hold an elected office, at that point it isn't your responsibility at work to obey the law of your religion, it is your responsibility to obey the law of the land and the will of the people that elected you. Period.

Makes Ben Carson spot on in his statement which has so many people offended.

Ben Carson's comment wasn't smart and will rightly cost him any chance of going further in the race for the nomination.

As to the "she should resign" thing. It's against the law to discriminate hiring someone based upon their religion, not to mention she was hired before the law was changed. Now she should just quit her job because of her religion???

Yes. She is letting her religious beliefs get in the way of due process and she can not perform her duties as assigned.
In the private sector, she would have been fired long ago.
And nobody is saying she can't hold the position. But if she does, then she needs to perform her duties.
I don't care at all what religion she worships, but the moment it interferes with her being able to do her job, then it becomes a problem and she should resign.
Actually, she shouldn't want the position if her religion is against what she is supposed to be doing.

Discriminating against her choices at work based on religion is a violation of EEO and the 1st Amendment. Nice tolerance being voiced here.

I disagree.
Her freedom of speech ends when it prohibits someone else from getting a marriage license.
Besides...you can most certainly be fired for exercising your freedom of speech.

Should all of the privately owned bakers who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes just shut their doors, too???

No. They should bake cakes for their customers.

Should a coffee shop be allowed to put up a sign that says "No blacks"?

Why is their such intolerance towards Christianity?

There isn't. Not at all.
Why do some Christians feel the need to force their religion on others? If you believe that gay marriage is wrong...that's your right...so don't marry a member of the same sex. But trying to deny someone else that right because it's against what YOU personally believe in? That's a very dangerous path to go down.

Muslim terrorists in prison get better treatment than the opinions voiced about this lady.

I doubt that.
But the opinions voiced about his lady are just everyone excercising their freedom of speech, are they not?
Nobody is saying she can't practice her religion. But you just can't let her force her beliefs on others to where other people can't obtain a marriage license they have every right to obtain.
Religion is not above the law. It can't be...that would be a horrible, horrible thing.

If you want to play the "law of the land" card, when is this Executive Branch ever going to actually enforce immigration laws. Picking and choosing which laws matter and which ones don't while not actually considering the Constitution is a slippery slope. Gay rights laws don't supersede individual 1st Amendment rights.

Replace the word "gay rights" with black rights and see if what you said still holds water.

I'm all for people practicing whatever religion they want. That is their personal choice and good for them. But you just can't allow those personal beliefs to interfere with the law of the land and deny couples a marriage license...that sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. It may very well be within her freedom of speech rights to do that, but then she should also then be fired for doing so. Freedom of speech will protect her to where she doesn't have to go to jail over it, however, she should most certainly be fired or impeached or removed from her position somehow.

like I said...she would have been fired in the private sector long ago.

And now she has ordered that the forms people fill out be altered by removing her name from them? And now these forms are possibly not even valid?
I fail to see how anyone could really defend this lady. I'm sorry, this kind of thing just can't be allowed.

[The Flake]

So who wins the Iowa caucus for each party? Place your bets:

Republican - Cruz

Democrat - Clinton

[glen a richter]

Republicans: The Canadian

Democrats: The carpetbagger

Everyday America: No one

[cardsfan04]

Republicans: Trump (somehow)
Democrats: Hillary (but it will be close)

As an aside, I can't believe Trump is still around. I didn't give much credence to his polling a few months ago and thought the mid-late January polls would be much more accurate. But, he somehow has held on. I have no idea how, but he has. What's really ironic (if I'm right) is that I think he's polling well because "he's real," but I'm not convinced he believes half the idiotic things he says. I think he's just saying assholish things and people are interpreting that as being authentic.

I still don't think he has a chance at the White House, but I'm curious what kind of lasting impact his campaign will have on politics, or if it will have one.

[glen a richter]

The interesting thing about this election year is that there are basically two different philosophies out there but it's not conservative vs liberal, it's mainstream vs "out there". Depending on the outcome of the primaries and caucuses, we could just as well see a 4 horse race. Bernie supporters like myself are rabidly anti-Hillary (so is every conservative in America, it's something we actually share in common.). The mainstreamish GOP doesn't like Trump, but he's also rabidly popular, guys like Cruz and Rubio are horribly out of touch with moderates, Hillary is out of touch with Main Street, Trump isn't really a republican and Bernie isn't really a democrat. There are just so many variables in '16 so far, I could easily see Cruz, Clinton, Trump and Sanders all running against each other and an ensuing fiasco when none of them get the requisite number of EV's to claim the White House.

I'll put this out there though, you folks know my political leanings and if Hillary gets nominated I will NOT vote for her. She's in this race to fulfill completion of her personal legacy. With her it's not about America, it's about her.

[glen a richter]

Here's an interesting thought exercise... who would you pick for a running mate and why, for each candidate? I've only considered Sanders and Clinton so far, still thinking about the GOP side.

For Sanders, I picked Brian Schweitzer, very moderate dem from Montana, he would balance out what would be considered by a lot of voters as a too-radical presidental candidate. People who were leery about Sanders would be able to hear the message that Schweitzer will keep Sanders down to Earth about what can be pursued and what should be scaled back. Advantage: Schweitzer could help win some folksy states like Iowa or maybe Montana. Disadvantage: He's not a very well known name, nationally, though that could be an advantage too.

For Clinton it was a tougher decision. She WOULD pick O'Malley, but she SHOULD pick Warren. Simple enough, Sanders supporters such as myself are not Hillary fans by any stretch of the imagination. The reason is that Hillary isn't progressive, Sanders is. Sanders supporters would have supported Elizabeth Warren but support Sanders because Warren isn't running. If she wants to get some Sanders supporters, she should pick Warren. Advantage: She'll get some votes back that she probably wouldn't have gotten because she's so universally hated. Disadvantage: a lot of people may think, fairly or unfairly, that a two-woman ticket is too much.

[The Flake]

Running Mates:

Donald Trump: Mike Huckabee would be his perfect choice. Trump already has the anti-government/establishment crowd and a lot of moderates and democrats on his side. What he needs is a true Christian to bring the Evangelical vote.

Ted Cruz: I've been thinking about this for a while now and although Cruz is though to be too conservative in most opinions, I don't think he will pick a moderate or progressive as his running mate for any reason. My running mate pick for him would be Rand Paul. Both Washington guys who have come to the forefront bucking the Washington establishment and I think Cruz will pick a constitutionalist.

Marco Rubio: Marco needs an older, more experienced VP much like Biden did for Obama. This could be any number of people already in Washington/politics and even though they have kind of gone after each other a little bit, I think Jeb Bush would be a nice stabilizer for Rubio. If not Bush, then whoever the establishment tells him to pick...lol.

The other guys don't stand a chance of being voted to be the nominee. Kasich is the best bet out of the rest to get momentum in the Midwest.

[The Flake]

Running Mates:

Donald Trump: Mike Huckabee would be his perfect choice. Trump already has the anti-government/establishment crowd and a lot of moderates and democrats on his side. What he needs is a true Christian to bring the Evangelical vote.

Ted Cruz: I've been thinking about this for a while now and although Cruz is though to be too conservative in most opinions, I don't think he will pick a moderate or progressive as his running mate for any reason. My running mate pick for him would be Rand Paul. Both Washington guys who have come to the forefront bucking the Washington establishment and I think Cruz will pick a constitutionalist.

Marco Rubio: Marco needs an older, more experienced VP much like Biden did for Obama. This could be any number of people already in Washington/politics and even though they have kind of gone after each other a little bit, I think Jeb Bush would be a nice stabilizer for Rubio. If not Bush, then whoever the establishment tells him to pick...lol.

The other guys don't stand a chance of being voted to be the nominee. Kasich is the best bet out of the rest to get momentum in the Midwest.

[glen a richter]

I would say Trump needs to pick a Hispanic to counter his blatant anti-Hispanic stance else he'll get destroyed with that bloc. Rubio or Cruz. His best bet really is to appease any group he's offended. The problem I see for him is a lot of people might reject his offer.