American Presidency Campaign

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

Sorry for entering the conversation late but you do realize that Paul's version of libertarianism means that if you are gay or pro-choice or believe in separation of church and state and happen to live in a state or county or province that allows gay rights and abortion then everything's cool BUT that the flipside is that if you live in a state or county where they don't then .. you're fucked?

And of course this includes people who are too young to vote. Under this guy's rule I'd feel very sorry for a gay person or a woman of any age with an unwanted pregnancy (especially underage pregnant women) who happen to live in a pro-life, anti-gay state. That is, most of them.

And it costs a lot to move cross country.
I can't vote for that kind of leadership.

Id vote Paul if I was gay. Your chance of having legal gay marriage is best with him. He doesn't think the government should even be involved in marriage. The rest of the candidates are set on the idea that marriage is a "sacred relationship between man and woman". Santorum and Romney and Gingrich think there should be a constitutional amendment that says marriage should be strictly between man and woman. It's laughable that candidates who claim to advocate "small government" and "less regulation" want to intrude on the private lives of American citizens and regulate whom they can and can't marry.

Interesting thing to note: Norma McCorvey, better known as "Jane Roe", actually supports Ron Paul.

Engine · 01-11-2012, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Well it's very ignorant to be racist. If you're racist and you don't verbally or physically harm anyone who you are prejudiced against, then I don't think it is a big deal. In a way it is, but you're entitled to believe what you want. And as long as you don't exercise those beliefs in a harmful manner, then Its not that big of a deal, in my opinion. You're only harming yourself with your own ignorance. Unfortunately most racist people usually will exercise that racism in a harmful way.

I don't think so.
I think the vast majority of racists will never outwardly do anything but that they'll only stew in their own hateful juices.
Otherwise I agree with you that people are allowed to feel however they want to feel about anything as long as it stays in their own possibly twisted minds. But that's okay because we all should be allowed to hate (and love) whoever for whatever personal reasons as long as nobody is harmed.
Let's punish crimes, not thoughts.
No thought police.

Engine · 01-11-2012, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Your chance of having legal gay marriage is best with him.

True but only in states that have legalized it. How many is that?

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

I don't think so.
I think the vast majority of racists will never outwardly do anything but that they'll only stew in their own hateful juices.
Otherwise I agree with you that people are allowed to feel however they want to feel about anything as long as it stays in their own possibly twisted minds. But that's okay because we all should be allowed to hate (and love) whoever for whatever personal reasons as long as nobody is harmed.
Let's punish crimes, not thoughts.
No thought police.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the Nazis and the KKK. I guess the racists who exercise their beliefs in a harmful way are the ones who really stand out.

ThePhanastasio · 01-11-2012, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

Sorry for entering the conversation late but you do realize that Paul's version of libertarianism means that if you are gay or pro-choice or believe in separation of church and state and happen to live in a state or county or province that allows gay rights and abortion then everything's cool BUT that the flipside is that if you live in a state or county where they don't then .. you're fucked?

And of course this includes people who are too young to vote. Under this guy's rule I'd feel very sorry for a gay person or a woman of any age with an unwanted pregnancy (especially underage pregnant women) who happen to live in a pro-life, anti-gay state. That is, most of them.

And it costs a lot to move cross country.
I can't vote for that kind of leadership.

To be fair, it's already like that. I'm personally gay, and gay marriage is not legal in my state. I believe that was voted on in 2000 or 2004 - can't remember. The point being, it was before I was allowed to vote anyway.

Gay marriage also isn't legal across either of the state lines within twenty minutes of me (Ohio and West Virginia), and I really doubt that in my state, it's going to change anytime soon. Ohio, though - I remain optimistic. It's a better shot than West Virginia and Kentucky, anyway.

With that said, which of these candidates would be better viewed in my eyes, in terms of what they're offering to the LGBT populace? Mitt Romney, who awkwardly stammered through a claim that he supports gay rights, but not gay marriage because marriage is between a man and woman...but he thinks they should have any rights but those? Or Newt Gingrich, Mr. Mashed-Potatoes-in-a-Suit himself, who has himself been married three times, yet opposes gay marriage - and even gay couples' rights to adopt?

Even the current President is leaving it up to the states, although he at least repealed that heinous DADT policy, and did something for the gay community.

I don't believe that there's anyone offering the gay community anything better, so I'd say that candidates who are willing to just leave things as they are seem infinitely more appealing than candidates who want to strip rights away.

I really don't think that gay rights are as important in this election because, again, it's either taking them away, or leaving them as is. Not much to gain.

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

True but only in states that have legalized it. How many is that?

6? You're right but he gives more of a chance than the others and that's my main point.

Engine · 01-11-2012, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the Nazis and the KKK. I guess the racists who exercise their beliefs in a harmful way are the ones who really stand out.

Yes, but those are probably the minority of racists. My point is that I don't care about racism except for that of lawbreaking ones. I believe that the KKK and 'Nazis' should be put out of business when they actually break laws and/or hurt someone. I don't give a fuck what those people, or any other racists, think in private.

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

Yes, but those are probably the minority of racists. My point is that I don't care about racism except for that of lawbreaking ones. I believe that the KKK and 'Nazis' should be put out of business when they actually break laws and/or hurt someone. I don't give a fuck what those people, or any other racists, think in private.

Exactly how I feel about it.

Engine · 01-11-2012, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio

To be fair, it's already like that. I'm personally gay, and gay marriage is not legal in my state. I believe that was voted on in 2000 or 2004 - can't remember. The point being, it was before I was allowed to vote anyway.

Gay marriage also isn't legal across either of the state lines within twenty minutes of me (Ohio and West Virginia), and I really doubt that in my state, it's going to change anytime soon. Ohio, though - I remain optimistic. It's a better shot than West Virginia and Kentucky, anyway.

With that said, which of these candidates would be better viewed in my eyes, in terms of what they're offering to the LGBT populace? Mitt Romney, who awkwardly stammered through a claim that he supports gay rights, but not gay marriage because marriage is between a man and woman...but he thinks they should have any rights but those? Or Newt Gingrich, Mr. Mashed-Potatoes-in-a-Suit himself, who has himself been married three times, yet opposes gay marriage - and even gay couples' rights to adopt?

Even the current President is leaving it up to the states, although he at least repealed that heinous DADT policy, and did something for the gay community.

I don't believe that there's anyone offering the gay community anything better, so I'd say that candidates who are willing to just leave things as they are seem infinitely more appealing than candidates who want to strip rights away.

I really don't think that gay rights are as important in this election because, again, it's either taking them away, or leaving them as is. Not much to gain.

To be fair, it's not. Obama upholds federal rule over that of states (or tries to) as dictated by the Constitution. That is to say that he does not want a gay or pregnant kid in Bumfuck, Wherever to be beholden to the laws of that particular bumfuck town. I mean try to have an abortion in a major city like Salt Lake City under Paul and see what happens. A non-libertarian administration would at least have a chance of allowing it. Paul would say "go ahead and prohibit it, it's your right as a state/local government." Bring that down to the city or county level and it's even worse. The ACLU and those like them would have zero power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

6? You're right but he gives more of a chance than the others and that's my main point.

Again, not as long as the ass-backwards local governments have more power than the US Constitution which is upheld by the federal gov't when they feel like upholding it. Paul's Fed would give up all rights of all people to the trust of their local governments. And if you know America then you know how dangerous small town government can be.

**Janszoon** · 01-11-2012, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

To be fair, it's not. Obama upholds federal rule over that of states (or tries to) as dictated by the Constitution. That is to say that he does not want a gay or pregnant kid in Bumfuck, Wherever to be beholden to the laws of that particular bumfuck town. I mean try to have an abortion in a major city like Salt Lake City under Paul and see what happens. A non-libertarian administration would at least have a chance of allowing it. Paul would say "go ahead and prohibit it, it's your right as a state/local government." Bring that down to the city or county level and it's even worse. The ACLU and those like them would have zero power.

Again, not as long as the ass-backwards local governments have more power than the US Constitution which is upheld by the federal gov't when they feel like upholding it. Paul's Fed would give up all rights of all people to the trust of their local governments. And if you know America then you know how dangerous small town government can be.

Exactly. All of this is what drives me nuts about libertarians. They talk big about personal freedom, something which I'd be inclined to agree with them on, except in practice it's not what they stand for at all. Taking power away from the federal government and handing it to local governments (and corporations) doesn't do a blessed thing for individual liberties. In fact, as this country's past and present civil rights struggles clearly demonstrate, it's often detrimental to them.