Election Day

[TheLeviathan]

Pretty happy with just about everyting in-state. I'm always a bit nervous when any party completely controls the executive and legislative branches however.

[biggentleben]

Pretty happy with just about everyting in-state. I'm always a bit nervous when any party completely controls the executive and legislative branches however.

 

Even Klobuchar?

[TheLeviathan]

Even Klobuchar?

 

She's pretty liberal, but she's also a genuinely good person, pretty respectable. Leaves a lot to be desired for me personally, but not opposed to her being re-elected.

[Shane Wahl]

By the way, sabermetrics FTW.

 

Nate Silver has to be laughing his ass off right now.

 

Haha, exactly. Trust mathematics, Dick Morris and Karl Rove . . . and Terry Ryan.

 

Can the Twins please pay Silver twice as much as he makes now to come help right this ship.

[biggentleben]

Even Klobuchar?

 

She's pretty liberal, but she's also a genuinely good person, pretty respectable. Leaves a lot to be desired for me personally, but not opposed to her being re-elected.

 

Had personal interaction with her that would never, ever have me labeling her "good" or "respectable". That's all.

[TheLeviathan]

Had personal interaction with her that would never, ever have me labeling her "good" or "respectable". That's all.

 

Oh?

[biggentleben]

Had personal interaction with her that would never, ever have me labeling her "good" or "respectable". That's all.

 

Oh?

 

Just ahead of her first election, she used wrongly prosecuting someone I know as a sign of her fight against violence against females. Problem was that the girlfriend was the abuser and a borderline personality disorder. She filed three felony charges on the guy and forced him to plea down to a charge that ended his career. She knew her client was a liability and didn't want to put her on the stand. She later laughed with the guy's lawyer about how she would have been screwed if the guy had the money to see it through.

[TheLeviathan]

Well all politicians are lawyers and the field is saturated with scumbags for sure.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

 

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

[TheLeviathan]

Well said diehard, I couldn't agree more.

[flpmagikat]

I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

 

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

 

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

 

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

 

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

 

Paul jumped the shark when he said that evolution is a theory and dismissed it because of that "fact". The dude was a medical doctor. He knows better.

[Badsmerf]

I'd like to hope that Republicans learn a bit from this debacle. In the name of electability they chose an empty bag of wind who really couldn't distinguish himself from Obama in any meaningful way. In the mean time the Libertarian party set a record with nearly 1.2M votes and the majority of the Ron Paul people (probably about 3 times that number) stayed home.

 

Unfortunately, I am not sure they are smart enough to figure it out.

 

Ron paul people annoy me. They run around foaming at the mouth about how brain washed and ignorant everyone else must be, but then when it comes time to vote, do the one thing that is basically wasting a vote and write in Ron paul. If they used half that energy to organize and rally around whoever the libertarian candidate is, they as t least have a chance at making some progress for their movement. Instead they are just as if not more guilty of the same idol worship in candidates they decry.

 

I voted for Gary Johnson. Why is writing someone in a waste of a vote? You are essentially voting for who you believe in. If more people had the balls to vote third party or write people in the 2 party system we live in wouldn't be as predominant. I think the GOP will find more success when they adjust their views on a few topics that have been going the other way.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The electoral college essentially forces a two party system on us. It takes far too much effort to ever get a footing when the 2-3% of the votes you're receiving count for absolutely nothing. Combine that with the fact that the GOP and Democrats have a vested interest in never allowing a third party to gain traction and you're looking at a situation where third parties will present an occasional blip on the radar and nothing more (Ross Perot, George Wallace).

 

Still, there's nothing wrong with a statement vote, especially when we live in a political climate where the GOP seemingly runs further off the rails with every passing day.

[TheLeviathan]

Still, there's nothing wrong with a statement vote, especially when we live in a political climate where the GOP seemingly runs further off the rails with every passing day.

 

Well....unless you vote for Kang.

[ThePuck]

I agree with you that the ACLU should not be considered a special interest, but suspect that many of my Republican friends might disagree.

 

I think the ACLU certainly walks a fine line. They do a great job fighting for rights even when they are unpopular, but I think it's hard not to argue that many members of the ACLU slant towards the left. They also have become a bit more active in rights than defensive of those that exist. At least it seems that way to me.

 

Current positions of the ACLU include: opposing the death penalty; supporting gay marriage and the right of gays to adopt; supporting birth control and abortion rights; eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and gays; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing any government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.

 

Not sure how much of that falls under protecting our rights found in The Constitution...

[TheLeviathan]

I fail to see how this disagrees.

[ThePuck]

I fail to see how this disagrees.

 

I wasn't arguing with you...I was adding to your argument...or attempting to :-)

[TheLeviathan]

I fail to see how this disagrees.

 

I wasn't arguing with you...I was adding to your argument...or attempting to :-)

 

Ah, yeah I generally appreciate the ACLU but am very bothered by their member politics. I worry about the sustainability of the organization's commendable traits of objectivity.

[flpmagikat]

I agree more folks should vote third party. That was my sorta point, that rather than voting for a person, Ron paul in this case, youd be better served voting for someone who is running and at least has a chance at garnering enough support to potentially help that cause or party out in the future. If I only voted for nader or kusinich as a write in rather than supporting say a green party candidate id think its just as foolish. And id say the libertarian party has an actual chance at gaining 5% or more if all their supporters got on the same page.

[gunnarthor]

Current positions of the ACLU include: opposing the death penalty; supporting gay marriage and the right of gays to adopt; supporting birth control and abortion rights; eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and gays; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing any government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.

 

Not sure how much of that falls under protecting our rights found in The Constitution...

 

Most of those things - ending discrimination, respecting the rights of same sex couples - fall under equal protection in our Constitution. Opposition to death penalty and prisoner rights are generally based on the 8th amendment, same with opposition to torture. Religious rights are in the first amendment. Abortion rights, like privacy and travel, are also found in the Constitution.

 

The ACLU protects both civil liberties and civil rights. Civil liberties tend to be thought of as things listed in the bill of rights while civil rights tend to be thought of more as natural law and formulated in statutes.

[glunn]

Current positions of the ACLU include: opposing the death penalty; supporting gay marriage and the right of gays to adopt; supporting birth control and abortion rights; eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and gays; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing any government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.

 

Not sure how much of that falls under protecting our rights found in The Constitution...

 

Most of those things - ending discrimination, respecting the rights of same sex couples - fall under equal protection in our Constitution. Opposition to death penalty and prisoner rights are generally based on the 8th amendment, same with opposition to torture. Religious rights are in the first amendment. Abortion rights, like privacy and travel, are also found in the Constitution.

 

The ACLU protects both civil liberties and civil rights. Civil liberties tend to be thought of as things listed in the bill of rights while civil rights tend to be thought of more as natural law and formulated in statutes.

 

Amen to that. The common theme here is respecting the rights of others.

 

I would add the First Amendment to what you have listed. Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, and I abhor laws that effectively impose religious ideas on others. If not for religious notions, I think that gay marriage and other gay rights would have been recognized long ago.

 

I think that a lot of Christians fail to appreciate that the First Amendment was intended to keep religion out of government. If someone believes that life begins at conception, then that is their right to believe that and to never have an abortion. But it is wrong to impose their view on some 17 year old woman who gets pregnant and does not want to have the baby. The same for gay rights.

[TheLeviathan]

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, and I abhor laws that effectively impose religious ideas on others. If not for religious notions, I think that gay marriage and other gay rights would have been recognized long ago.

 

See this is where you lose me. Right off the bat let me make this clear - morally and intellectually I can make a strong case for gay marriage and fully support it (frankly, I think my case is a better one to get gay marriage cemented than what you typically hear), but we do live in a democracy. We can't just identify some laws and ideas and ban them from the public conscience or the law book simply because we think their source is in religion. That's taking the concept too far. It's making the same mistake the religious people are making by legislating their ideas.

 

To me, free speech exists to give everyone a voice - including voices that dissent or disagree with us. That would include the ability to profess one's faith and the need for the country's laws to reflect that. Religion is always going to infiltrate government at some level because the law is often built on moral ideas and moral ideas often comes from religion. Where the ACLU and others need to draw the line is where the freedom to express one's religion infringes on the rights of another - which is very different than what you said.

 

The two issues you cite are complicated because abortion is an incredibly messy exchange of morals even for people who are "pro-life" and the idea of "rights" in this scenario has always bothered me. Likewise, marriage is a privilege not a right. I think you'd find if you analyze more of the religious ideas you want gone from discourse you'd realize that they too get caught in difficult moral dilemmas. That isn't for the ACLU to decide and when I hear their members say similar things I am very worried.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The strange thing about abortion is that Protestant religions either ignored it or openly supported it in the wake of Roe v Wade. This wasn't an issue until the mid 80s outside of the Catholic Church.

 

And I find that kind of hypocrisy maddening. The pro life movement was largely born out of the desire to create a wedge issue, not out of any real concern for life.

[TheLeviathan]

And I find that kind of hypocrisy maddening. The pro life movement was largely born out of the desire to create a wedge issue, not out of any real concern for life.

 

Well said. I find this issue maddening. Both sides have little concern for bringing this complicated, difficult moral issue to a resolve. They seem for more intent on being divisive. One day I'd actually like to hear us talk about really unique ways to make abortions unnecessary - whether that be with technology, male contraception, or whatever.

[gunnarthor]

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, and I abhor laws that effectively impose religious ideas on others. If not for religious notions, I think that gay marriage and other gay rights would have been recognized long ago.

 

See this is where you lose me. Right off the bat let me make this clear - morally and intellectually I can make a strong case for gay marriage and fully support it (frankly, I think my case is a better one to get gay marriage cemented than what you typically hear), but we do live in a democracy. We can't just identify some laws and ideas and ban them from the public conscience or the law book simply because we think their source is in religion. That's taking the concept too far. It's making the same mistake the religious people are making by legislating their ideas.

 

To me, free speech exists to give everyone a voice - including voices that dissent or disagree with us. That would include the ability to profess one's faith and the need for the country's laws to reflect that. Religion is always going to infiltrate government at some level because the law is often built on moral ideas and moral ideas often comes from religion. Where the ACLU and others need to draw the line is where the freedom to express one's religion infringes on the rights of another - which is very different than what you said.

 

The two issues you cite are complicated because abortion is an incredibly messy exchange of morals even for people who are "pro-life" and the idea of "rights" in this scenario has always bothered me. Likewise, marriage is a privilege not a right. I think you'd find if you analyze more of the religious ideas you want gone from discourse you'd realize that they too get caught in difficult moral dilemmas. That isn't for the ACLU to decide and when I hear their members say similar things I am very worried.

 

Morals do have place in our society and laws. Most law schools actually had you take a class on it (I didn't but most did). Certain laws - such as laws against prostitution and drug use are illegal b/c of how society views those actions and not necessarily b/c those actions are - per se - evil. As opposed to murder or theft, for example. At the end of the day, you can trace pretty much any law we have to some sort of moral under pinning, either from religion or cultural practices.

 

That said, morals can't be the end all. A majority of Americans have, at certain times in our history, supported lesser rights for women, homosexuals and other minorities. A lot of this discrimination was based on religious and moral teachings. This is a link of southern pastor Phil Snider supporting same sex relationships by comparing the discussions now and of racial segregation made 50 years earlier.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/phil-snider-missouri-pastor-anti-gay-rights-speech-surprise_n_1997036.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And I find that kind of hypocrisy maddening. The pro life movement was largely born out of the desire to create a wedge issue, not out of any real concern for life.

 

Well said. I find this issue maddening. Both sides have little concern for bringing this complicated, difficult moral issue to a resolve. They seem for more intent on being divisive. One day I'd actually like to hear us talk about really unique ways to make abortions unnecessary - whether that be with technology, male contraception, or whatever.

 

The problem is that the most vehement pro-lifers are also the ones who strongly resist any type of progressive movement toward limiting abortions that doesn't involve attaching a car battery to peoples' genitals every time they think about sex.

[TheLeviathan]

The problem is that the most vehement pro-lifers are also the ones who strongly resist any type of progressive movement toward limiting abortions that doesn't involve attaching a car battery to peoples' genitals every time they think about sex.

 

Totally agree. But just because your opposition is insanely stupid doesn't mean you have to jump in with them. I'm waiting for the pro-choice movement to one day realize: "Hey...you know....wouldn't it be even better for women if we found a way for them not to be forced to make that kind of difficult choice?" That, to me, is when a really important and progressive dialogue can occur.

[TheLeviathan]

The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

 

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

[glunn]

The ACLU has done a great job of supporting people's right to express their religious views. They represented the idiot Baptists that protested military funerals, for instance. The ACLU gets a bad rap b/c it'll step in and stop a city from supporting certain religious views and people forget about the ACLU supporting individuals religious rights.

 

Totally agree and times like that I tip my cap to the ACLU. If you want an example of when I have a problem: Boy Scouts. Now I deplore what the Boy Scouts do to homosexual boys as far as discrimination, but part of a free society is being able (to various degrees) to discriminate. As a private club, they have the right to make the guidelines of membership whatever they want. No matter how much we don't like that, it's an important line I don't want the government or anyone else crossing.

 

Leviathan, I have great respect for your intelligence and reasoning, but I respectfully disagree. So long as the Boy Scouts are receiving tax-deductible contributions, it seems to me that they should not be allowed to discriminate against gays.

 

When donors to the Boy Scouts take tax deductions, it effectively increases what other taxpayers must pay. In this way, the Boy Scouts are different from a private club, such as a country club. Members of country clubs don't get charitable deductions for supporting such clubs. But donors to the Boy Scouts are subsidized by other taxpayers.

 

If the Boy Scouts want to stop sucking on the taxpayer teat by receiving tax deductible contributions, then I will not mind them discriminating. In the meantime, I resent indirectly subsidizing their discrimination.