2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[HillbillyCletus]

Has it been confirmed how Tim Kaine "identifies"?

[JohnRyno]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

Read what you said back to back
You compared the man's beliefs to a group that is just out and out hateful
There is absolutely nothing out there that gives your statement validity







“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” - Rick Warren

Yup it's in my sig but figured I'd put it up here too.

Do we do a good job of always being compassionate? Nope.
The world in general lacks that.

But this narrative that disagreeing with something equals 'vehement hate' or some kind of '-ism' is just off

Under the same umbrella, all of your posts would suggest that you hate Christians. I don't think that's true. I think you disagree with us. It's quite different, Addison.

I agree with your post, but including the disapproval of another's sexuality as a personal "conviction" seems entirely antithetical to the broader teachings of Christianity.

[Dielon]

[QUOTE=mfisher27;11472895]Who in here knew that Tim Kaine was Glen from The Ringer? I just found out the other day.



My names Glen, guess how many fingers I have

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

You know I love your posts right? I have told you this before. You are always level headed and even keel. That being said I have noticed a trend. You never, and i mean never, pick a side. The middle ground is boring. Be wild and pick something for once.

I've commented on who I am probably voting for before (hint, it's probably Gary Johnson). I dislike both big candidates. I dislike both of their vice president picks. I think both sides are full of extremists who can not, will not, listen to the other side. I believe that if you cannot even, for a second, heed that a different opinion than yours might be the way to go, you are not worth talking to or debating with.

I tried to have people point out five things about the other side that they agree with or like. I only got a few responses. People are addicted to arguing with one another I think. Any middle ground post is dismissed and never brought into a conversation. People are seeing things in only black and white. People only provide support that backs up their own position. They don't bother to look into the details of facts. Just take a stat and that's all you need. No context or anything needed. As long as it backs you up, then run with it!

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by RelicCollector

Pence keeps laughing at these facts and shaking his head. Are they wrong??

Kaine stretched the truth in some of them, but on the whole I noticed a lot of facts/claims by Kaine going unanswered by Pence.

Originally Posted by longisland

As a liberal, Pence scares the crap out of me.

He shares the values of the Westboro Baptist Church, however his polished salesmanship creates quite a compelling argument.

Why isn't this dude the head of the Republican ticket?

I wouldn't go to this extreme, but Pence does scare the #@#@#@#@ out of me from his recent record in Indiana.

He did look very polished though. I suspect he was brought on to give the ticket that polish.

Originally Posted by trixstar

Only took Kaine 68 minutes to point out Pence hasn't defended Trump once

it was obvious that the strategy for Kaine in this debate was to keep wrenching Donald Trump. I think the strategy fell flat for the battle, but i think it might have helped the war. Also, i think Pence not defending Trump in most places definitely positioned him for bigger things down the road. He doesn't have any particular loyalty to Trump.

Originally Posted by mikestrick

He also responded that Pence said Putin was a stronger leader than Obama and Pence has said numerous time he didn't. Well turns out he did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...er-than-obama/

yeah, the fact checkers aren't going to be kind to Pence in quite a few of his responses. Kaine stretched some yarns too though.

Originally Posted by 37Jetson

Pence stepped into it by bringing up the Clinton Foundation.

Yeah, i think he only had the surface attack line and wasn't ready for what Kaine obviously prepared to defend. Plus, they had to know bringing up the Clinton Foundation was only going to open the door for the Trump charities to be openly assaulted. I think it was a mistake for Pence to bring it up.

Originally Posted by trixstar

I love when people talk about Russia and the USA like it's a wrestling match.

this was my biggest gripe with Pence. He almost made it sound like it would be a good thing to go to war with Russia. Maybe not directly, but indirectly. I believe most Americans are utterly war weary, and people talking about throwing our weight around (like we don't already) scares me. I am glad we have fewer troops abroad. We need to stop being the world police, especially when we aren't wanted.

I felt that Kaine missed a massive opportunity here. Pence kept talking about how the gains were lost because Obama/Hillary. He should have mentioned that the step-down plan was put in place by Bush, and Obama just followed the timeline.

Originally Posted by ssbledsoe

Plenty of Hoosiers know who he is. We were quite happy he got the nod. It means he'll no longer be our Governor...

since he's our neighbor, we hear quite a bit about his ridiculous antics. He definitely legislates through his religion and not the law precedent in most cases.

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Well, sounds like Kaine won the debate. According to the CNN focus group watching the debate, 90% of them thought Kaine was the clear winner.

Then Jake Tapper says "Just a reminder to those watching, this focus group is in Richmond Virginia, Tim Kaine's home town".

I LOVE CNN!

the CBS focus group said the opposite.




Kaine came off looking like a jackass. It's almost like they told him to bring the fire. He repeated the same attack-lines a few times too many. I know he was trying to get Pence to defend Trump, but Pence didn't take the bait and Kaine should have left it off in a few places. He also brought up stuff that didn't fit in the discussions at the time, which is a big reason he lost points with the public I think.

When he was on-topic, I thought he was better than Pence, but that wasn't very often. It was refreshing to see when each candidate agreed on something that they said so.

also, i found it hilarious that Pence kept saying "we'll work with you in the Senate" repeatedly. I know it's a psychological trick, but it was funny.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by Addison

Which is all fine and dandy but once you take the step and make legislation based on your religious beliefs and bias, that's the problem.

Help me understand how a religious belief is a bias, but a belief based on anything else (your choice) is not.
You throw in the word religious to create a negative connotation to how I come to many of my beliefs versus how you do.

Is a politician attempting to pass legislation based on their belief any different than businesses boycotting cities and legislators monetarily in order to pass legislation that they believe in (see the issues in North Carolina)?

Originally Posted by JohnRyno

I agree with your post, but including the disapproval of another's sexuality as a personal "conviction" seems entirely antithetical to the broader teachings of Christianity.

It's not a personal conviction. It's straightforward from the Bible that marriage is between a woman and a man.
I can still love them, befriend them, hang out with them, support them as people and not agree with the action.
It's no different if my best friend was having an affair.
Insert whichever sin you'd like. One isn't above another. They may have different consequences legally (murder versus gossip) and some may be harder to accept (we're human and because of that we aren't perfect - meaning we judge, condemn, etc.), but sin is sin and we all do it.

Some are just more visible than others

[Clarka3]

NPR fact check reminded me that Pence thanked the wrong university for hosting the debate.


Fact Check And Analysis Of Vice Presidential Debate With Tim Kaine And Mike Pence : NPR


i also disliked how Pence dodged the question about what he would say to the black congressman that has been stopped by the police often. I wanted to hear that. It felt disingenuous when he wouldn't respond directly.

Kaine also hit a home run by mentioning that the immigration plan he and Hillary were supporting was the same type of plan Reagan made. Reagan is republican jesus.


Pence's dodge on the deportation question was poor. I think he would have scored more points if they just owned it and said "yeah, we'll remove those people with force" because that's the only way they'll be able to do it. Just own it.



Pence did have his pants on fire about claiming the attacks in Paris were syrian refugees. They were EU citizens.


the small navy comment was stupid too. WHen it's already the most powerful navy in the world, why do you need more ships when hardly any battles are fought on the water anymore?


did anybody else notice the "weak and feckless" line was used a few times by Pence? I think that was definitely an RNC talking point, because Chris Christie used it before, and I think some others did as well.


Kaine/Hillary need to stop claiming they were a part of the Iran deal negotiations, because that happened under John Kerry. Likewise, Trump/Pence need to stop attacking her for it.

[Addison]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

Help me understand how a religious belief is a bias, but a belief based on anything else (your choice) is not.
You throw in the word religious to create a negative connotation to how I come to many of my beliefs versus how you do.

Is a politician attempting to pass legislation based on their belief any different than businesses boycotting cities and legislators monetarily in order to pass legislation that they believe in (see the issues in North Carolina)?



It's not a personal conviction. It's straightforward from the Bible that marriage is between a woman and a man.
I can still love them, befriend them, hang out with them, support them as people and not agree with the action.
It's no different if my best friend was having an affair.
Insert whichever sin you'd like. One isn't above another. They may have different consequences legally (murder versus gossip) and some may be harder to accept (we're human and because of that we aren't perfect - meaning we judge, condemn, etc.), but sin is sin and we all do it.

Some are just more visible than others

If I as governor really liked the Harry Potter books and I decided they would be my guiding philosophy in life, would it be alright to attempt to pass legislation stating marriage is between one wizard and one warlock (I've never read the books).

I mean, I like the books and feel that's the only marriage that is acceptable. Would the Harry Potter governor not be viewed as ridiculous trying to impose his worldview derived from a book he likes on the citizens he represents who might not be members of his book club?

A politician should pass laws he/she feels would benefit all citizens and not discriminate against those he/she doesn't like. You can have moral convictions derived from religion, but this is as the Constitution demonstrates a secular nation.

Passing faith-based legislation is completely different than businesses withdrawing from states. One is public whose job is to the serve the people. The other is private, whose job is to serve the interests of stockholders.

[ssbledsoe]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

since he's our neighbor, we hear quite a bit about his ridiculous antics. He definitely legislates through his religion and not the law precedent in most cases.

His legislation is all focused on the special interest groups that got him into office. He has no regard for his electoral base. He just does whatever his puppet masters tell him to do. It's pretty pathetic really. RFRA and the abortion bills were both ridiculously failed piles of garbage. Instead of actually growing the economy, he cuts sweetheart deals for mega corps so that he can say he "made jobs." BS. He took money to let people in on tax breaks so that they can root out the local small businesses. Guy is a pox.

[pingbling23]

Originally Posted by Addison

If I as governor really liked the Harry Potter books and I decided they would be my guiding philosophy in life, would it be alright to attempt to pass legislation stating marriage is between one wizard and one warlock (I've never read the books).

I mean, I like the books and feel that's the only marriage that is acceptable. Would the Harry Potter governor not be viewed as ridiculous trying to impose his worldview derived from a book he likes on the citizens he represents who might not be members of his book club?

A politician should pass laws he/she feels would benefit all citizens and not discriminate against those he/she doesn't like. You can have moral convictions derived from religion, but this is as the Constitution demonstrates a secular nation.

Passing faith-based legislation is completely different than businesses withdrawing from states. One is public whose job is to the serve the people. The other is private, whose job is to serve the interests of stockholders.

You can't benefit all citizens. Politicians should cater to the majority and the majority of this country fall under Christianity wether you like it or not. This country was originated due to religious freedom, but it has been built on Christian views.

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by pingbling23

You can't benefit all citizens. Politicians should cater to the majority and the majority of this country fall under Christianity wether you like it or not. This country was originated due to religious freedom, but it has been built on Christian views.

There's so many things wrong with such few words....

Politicians need to do what's right and what benefits EVERYONE. To say otherwise would ignore the fact that politicians with backbone and will have enabled women to vote, slavery to end, and segregation to be illegal.

The Constitution specifically states that there must be a separation of Church and State. Even if 99.9999% of this country were Christian you cannot make laws based on Christianity. For example, you cannot make a law that allows the stoning of adulterers simply because it says that's allowed in the Bible.

By your own words you would be ok with laws that ban the worship of any other deity or the following of any other religion because that's part of the 10 commandants. You could make it a crime to not remember the Sabbath. etc. etc.

I believe, extremely naively I know, that politicians are elected by the majority but must represent everyone when constitutionally protected items are being kept from the minority.

[trixstar]

Cool nerdy chart from last nights debate

[ssbledsoe]

Originally Posted by irfuji

There's so many things wrong with such few words....

Politicians need to do what's right and what benefits EVERYONE. To say otherwise would ignore the fact that politicians with backbone and will have enabled women to vote, slavery to end, and segregation to be illegal.

The Constitution specifically states that there must be a separation of Church and State. Even if 99.9999% of this country were Christian you cannot make laws based on Christianity. For example, you cannot make a law that allows the stoning of adulterers simply because it says that's allowed in the Bible.

By your own words you would be ok with laws that ban the worship of any other deity or the following of any other religion because that's part of the 10 commandants. You could make it a crime to not remember the Sabbath. etc. etc.

I believe, extremely naively I know, that politicians are elected by the majority but must represent everyone when constitutionally protected items are being kept from the minority.

Stopped at the bolded as this is completely impossible.

Government should make it possible so that the citizens may pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The freedom of church from state is paramount to accomplish this.

[pingbling23]

Originally Posted by irfuji

There's so many things wrong with such few words....

Politicians need to do what's right and what benefits EVERYONE. To say otherwise would ignore the fact that politicians with backbone and will have enabled women to vote, slavery to end, and segregation to be illegal.

The Constitution specifically states that there must be a separation of Church and State. Even if 99.9999% of this country were Christian you cannot make laws based on Christianity. For example, you cannot make a law that allows the stoning of adulterers simply because it says that's allowed in the Bible.

By your own words you would be ok with laws that ban the worship of any other deity or the following of any other religion because that's part of the 10 commandants. You could make it a crime to not remember the Sabbath. etc. etc.

I believe, extremely naively I know, that politicians are elected by the majority but must represent everyone when constitutionally protected items are being kept from the minority.

You're reading way to far into it.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by Addison

If I as governor really liked the Harry Potter books and I decided they would be my guiding philosophy in life, would it be alright to attempt to pass legislation stating marriage is between one wizard and one warlock (I've never read the books).

I mean, I like the books and feel that's the only marriage that is acceptable. Would the Harry Potter governor not be viewed as ridiculous trying to impose his worldview derived from a book he likes on the citizens he represents who might not be members of his book club?

A politician should pass laws he/she feels would benefit all citizens and not discriminate against those he/she doesn't like. You can have moral convictions derived from religion, but this is as the Constitution demonstrates a secular nation.

Passing faith-based legislation is completely different than businesses withdrawing from states. One is public whose job is to the serve the people. The other is private, whose job is to serve the interests of stockholders.

'Discriminate against those He/She doesn't like' - man, you just can't get off that kick. Everything is so personal

Ok, back to the theme of your post

Everyone gets their sense of right/wrong/moral convictions from some where, right? It's developed over time from life experiences, knowledge gained, etc.
Where do you get yours from? Genuinely interested. Based on your posts and my understanding that you're in college, I'm guessing from books (ironic) and philosophers and discussions with peers, etc.

If you wanted to run on your Harry Potter platform, go for it! You won't get elected, but you have that freedom in this country.

These people who are in office and attempting to keep the definition of marriage in their state between a man and woman were elected there. By a majority.
And these officials will push for things based on their moral compass and platform that the people understood when voting for them.

Benefiting all people, as you requested above, is not feasible. So the officials are acting to benefit the citizens that elected him/her.

It just may not be what you, or the other 49% that didn't get their guy/girl elected, want.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by irfuji

There's so many things wrong with such few words....

The Constitution specifically states that there must be a separation of Church and State.

The bolded is wrong.
The Constitution states that government cannot dictate or legislate a specific religion to be followed. It's not freedom from religion, but freedom of religion which includes all faiths including atheism..

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

These people who are in office and attempting to keep the definition of marriage in their state between a man and woman were elected there. By a majority.

And these officials will push for things based on their moral compass and platform that the people understood when voting for .

You are aware that Mike Pence wanted to divert all national HIV funding into "conversion therapy" for the LGBT community right? Are you aware of what goes on in conversion therapy?

[zachtruitt]

Originally Posted by trixstar

You are aware that Mike Pence wanted to divert all national HIV funding into "conversion therapy" for the LGBT community right? Are you aware of what goes on in conversion therapy?

That's officially insane.

[Davesportscards]

Originally Posted by corndog

The bolded is wrong.
The Constitution states that government cannot dictate or legislate a specific religion to be followed. It's not freedom from religion, but freedom of religion which includes all faiths including atheism..

Sounds like you are calling Atheism a faith. If that is the case you would be wrong.

[jarrodsalas]

Funny how in the late 90s Hillary was against same sex marriage and everyone here says opinions can change as hers did. Pence "advocated for diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy."...............in 2000 and we stick with it and run today. 16 years ago for the mathematically challenged.

[Davesportscards]

Originally Posted by trixstar

You are aware that Mike Pence wanted to divert all national HIV funding into "conversion therapy" for the LGBT community right? Are you aware of what goes on in conversion therapy?

I see no mention of "diverting all national HIV funding" to conversion therapy via Politifact.

According to Politifact:

"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

Funny how in the late 90s Hillary was against same sex marriage and everyone here says opinions can change as hers did. Pence "advocated for diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy."...............in 2000 and we stick with it and run today. 16 years ago for the mathematically challenged.

There's no evidence at all Pence has changed his stance on public funding for conversion therapy. You would think something that psychotic he'd want to make clear he was against now, if he actually feels different. I have no idea if he does.

Not saying Clinton was or is any better but at least her opinion has changed as the public opinion has changed.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-sex-marriage/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/re...-marriage.aspx

[37Jetson]

I just can't shake the mental picture of Tim Kaine's creepy grin from last night.

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by 37Jetson

I just can't shake the mental picture of Tim Kaine's creepy grin from last night.

I thought his eyebrow was much more memorable lol

[JohnRyno]

Kaine looks like The Grinch.