relax

Author Topic: Thoughts on last night's primaries in Kentucky, Arkansas, Pennsylvania?  (Read 4509 times)

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Any thoughts on the political action last night?  CNN has a good wrap-up (link below).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/19/preston.primaries.analysis/

Offline Debbie

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1151
I'm glad Specter is out.

Offline Sweeper

  • Mayor
  • ******
  • Posts: 875
Debbie and I agree Woo Hoo :wink:

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
Overall, I think every incumbent should be nervous.

In PA, I'm glad Spector lost too. I also think the Democrat voters are pushing back against the Party Establishment and the lose of a populist message by Obama which excited so many people. Who would have thought a year ago that A candidate supported both by Gov Rendell and Pres Obama would have lost.

In Arkansas, I'm going to watch the next three weeks with great relish. Especially after the screwed up attempt to vote because she had already asked for/sent back an absentee ballot and was turned away at the voting place.....BTW, evidently is was sent to her VA address.......and here's a link to her 2 million dollar home. If I was a campaign advertiser, I would have that picture of her home and being turned away in ever voters mind for the runoff election.

"I'm sorry Mrs Lincoln, you can't vote here because you already voted from Virginia."

http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p=2313

In Kentucky, I find another interesting race. But, if I was a Kentucky voter, I would be turned off by the fact that Rand Paul is more interested in representing the Tea Party as opposed to representing the state of Kentucky. He mentioned the Tea Party nine times and the state only once. Is he trying to turn off every moderate and swing voter in the state. Again, if I was a campaign Advertiser, I would use that fact against him and lump him with Palin over and over again.

BTW, Rand Paul will be on the Maddow show tonight. His father already has been on. A few times I think.

Here's a current link to party numbers.
http://thecrossroads.typepad.com/crossroads/2010/04/kentucky-republican-independent-voter-registration-increase.html


The surprise for me was the Special Election to replace Murtha in PA-12. I honestly thought it would turn Republican because McCain won it in 2008.

BTW, this means that the GOP has not won one Congressional special election. And when it comes to Scott Brown, I still say it was a fluke and it was more because Coakley was outclassed by him and considered her election a shoo-in. Didn't she go to DC for a fundraiser? While I don't know baseball, I do know the one thing you don't do is screw up on a baseball question. How many candidates have stumbled on the "are you a Mets or Yankees fan"?

« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 08:40:31 PM by kempsternyc »
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.


Is This Really 1994 ? ??

I remember being a strong GOPer that year. They had a strong message that I could get behind. That and the House Democrats was corrupt beyond imagination (remember the house post office scandal) and I felt it was time for them to go.

This time around, it doesn't seem like there is the same strong on message discipline in the GOP. the RNC is a mess and major donors are building a second, outside the establishment, campaign financing system. And Boenher is no Newt Gingrich.
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org

Sounds right to me. I felt the 94 class burned a good deal of goodwill and good faith. I think the GOP would like one, but has not found any real working message. I wondered if the GOP could take the House and Senate this year, and it remains to be seen if either takes place.

However, there is still a question whether Reid will again be the leader of the Senate.

I find it interesting that Obama got his nomination through the primary/caucus process. They should welcome the process continuing. A page was turned in 2008, and I will be glad to see another page turn.


Nothing so far changes or affects how I might vote this Nov. Here in NY, I see only maybe one incumbent that I might vote for. Not that they worry about such things. The Supreme Court already will have 2 new nominees so that changes things greatly. I dont care which party controls Congress. I certainly dont want one party to have the White House and nearly 60% of the votes.
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
If Reid can get the Financial Reform bill, he may be in a better place back home. Reid is doing badly because he pissed off the Unions, which are strong in Las Vegas. The left loathes him for his pandering to the GOP senators and feel that he has wasted his filibuster proof majority. Not that it really existed because of Moderate Democrats.
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
I wondered if the GOP could take the House and Senate this year, and it remains to be seen if either takes place.

My (optimistic) prediction is that the GOP will recover the House but the Dems will hold the senate.  There aren't enough Democratic seats in play for the GOP to gain enough ground to take control.

If Reid can get the Financial Reform bill, he may be in a better place back home. Reid is doing badly because he pissed off the Unions, which are strong in Las Vegas. The left loathes him for his pandering to the GOP senators and feel that he has wasted his filibuster proof majority. Not that it really existed because of Moderate Democrats.

Plus, a "filibuster proof" majority is antithetical to our system of governance.  Nevada is not a solidly left state.  There is still a "wild west" spirit out there and many of the Dems are Dems because they are unionists.  So what the left outside of Nevada thinks doesn't matter much, if at all.  I would be shocked if Reid keeps his seat.

Offline Debbie

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1151
Okay, it was one thing for some Tea Party folks to compare President Obama to Hitler and Stalin, but it is another when the former House Speaker does so:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/18/gingrich-hitler-stalin/

Also, I think Raul Paul's remarks are questionable.  Is he Libertarian to the point of condoning that businesses allow segregation?  He should clarify what he meant in his recent comments.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
I dont think that is the worst question about a TEA supporter.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/rand_paul_may_not_be_a_racist.html

On other matters, I am not sure that I could vote for Rand(al), but if I had no other choice, he was the better of the candidates.
As a libertarian, I would ask him if he would support a business that practiced segregation. I would not. And for me, that means not supporting some businesses in Astoria.

We could not legislate the end of apartheid from afar, but I believe world efforts helped to bring SA to a better place.

Govt has tried to welcome integration in many areas. But I find too many govt efforts are still de facto segregated.

It will be interesting to see where the majority of voters of KY are. If they dont want federal govt interference, they have a clear choice. I also wonder where they will be regarding earmarks or funding for KY.

**
The question of mainstream and civility is an interesting one. I dont think actually having balanced smaller budgets is a mainstream position. And for the most part, folks as partisan as father Paul and Bernie Sanders are very civil. But can they actually produce legislation that gets passed without compromising integrity and principles?
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org


Will be passing on this, but if you want to celebrate ---

"August, Rand Paul came to New York and hosted a fundraiser at Webster Hall. Fast forward 10 months and he just had a "RANDSLIDE" victory to beat the establishment candidate with the help of Campaign For Liberty for the Republican nomination.

Now we're going back to where it all began to celebrate this victory along with an after party event for the Mises Circle here in Manhattan at Webster Hall. Join Lew Rockwell, Joseph Salerno and fellow patriots to celebrate the Free Market economics and Rand Paul's victory!

RSVP on FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=124286060923918

Sat May 22

Webster Hall - 8pm-2am
125 East 11th Street
New York, NY 10003
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
I dont think that is the worst question about a TEA supporter.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/05/rand_paul_may_not_be_a_racist.html

On other matters, I am not sure that I could vote for Rand(al), but if I had no other choice, he was the better of the candidates.
As a libertarian, I would ask him if he would support a business that practiced segregation. I would not. And for me, that means not supporting some businesses in Astoria.

We could not legislate the end of apartheid from afar, but I believe world efforts helped to bring SA to a better place.

Govt has tried to welcome integration in many areas. But I find too many govt efforts are still de facto segregated.

It will be interesting to see where the majority of voters of KY are. If they dont want federal govt interference, they have a clear choice. I also wonder where they will be regarding earmarks or funding for KY.

**
The question of mainstream and civility is an interesting one. I dont think actually having balanced smaller budgets is a mainstream position. And for the most part, folks as partisan as father Paul and Bernie Sanders are very civil. But can they actually produce legislation that gets passed without compromising integrity and principles?

Drat, you beat me to the punch on posting the Klein piece.  I think the most cogent part is his citation of Dave Weigel:
Over at Right Now, Dave Weigel offers  up the generous and, I think, correct interpretation of Paul's opposition to the parts of the Civil Rights Act that desegregated private businesses. "Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses." And Weigel is right that this is not an unknown belief among conservatives: I've had this argument with some of my libertarian friends, and libertarians occasionally have this argument among one another.

Klein goes on to conclude that Paul is not necessarily a racist, but an ideological extremist.  Interesting way of looking at it.

TRX, just out of curiosity (and you can PM me if you'd rather not say out loud) which businesses in Astoria do you think practice segregation?  Oh geez, I've gotten three thumbs down so far just for asking what people thought of the primaries without even interjecting my own opinion.  Either I am that much of a polarizing figure on Astorians, or the helmets are strapped on extra tight today.

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
I've been trying to wrap my mind around the Rand Paul "controversy".

When it comes to discrimination by a business, I can see where Rand Paul comes from in this way.

At Barnes and Noble we discriminate in favor of those that purchase for 25 dollars a members card. They get 20% off of adult hardcover and get email coupons for 15% on a single item among other perks. Those that do not pay the 25 dollars do not get the same perks. The emails nonmembers get are for just 10%. And the company does that to build loyalty. And studies have proved that owners of the Members Card spends more money on the average. And we are obviously discriminating.

And Paul Rand would say that the government should not be able to order Barnes and Noble to give the same discount to every customer.

I think the problem for Paul Rand is he stumbled into an area that is clearly settled law and also involves a very painful period of our history. And I'm really puzzled as to why.

 
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
Just one further thought on controlling business.

I know that NYC is trying to control the amount of salt a restaurant adds to dishes.....to me that is stupid and silly....but than again, a part of me supports controlling/taxing high fructose corn syrup sodas.

I'm not sure where to divide the line and am curious what others think.

ps....bill, I'm not sure why you were neg nodded....but I love this thread. We are having a great conversation!
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline daisy

  • President
  • **************
  • Posts: 5714
  • Gender: Female
You know, I had no idea who Rand Paul was until this controversy.  But in every interview I watch with the guy, he has evaded every question asked of him and will not address the questions directly.  It's a huge turn-off.  He is very much a traditional politician in this respect.  I don't trust him because he won't articulate what he really feels.  He answers questions with questions.  If Barnes and Noble were denying the perks based on race, I would think that is wrong.  If a restaurant denies someone service because of race, that is wrong.  If a home owner denies to sell or rent you space because of your race, it's wrong.  He says the federal government should not regulate that.  Well if not, then do you mean the state should?  He has not said that in the interviews either.  He has not said what recourse someone should have regarding racial discrimination.  To say that one should not patronize an establishment that engages in these practices is not an answer.  It's a cop out that does not deal with a real problem.  And there are plenty of people in the world still full of prejudice unfortunately.

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
  To say that one should not patronize an establishment that engages in these practices is not an answer.  It's a cop out that does not deal with a real problem.  And there are plenty of people in the world still full of prejudice unfortunately.
:evil:


Prejudice is shockingly current, and that exists even with govt employees.
A Queens African-American woman, 2010 not 1910, was told by a resident
'You do not belong here, you should move.' I want to believe the younger generation is better than this.


I think that if you come to the question that govt involvement is a net plus, then of course you want intervention. (You may not be able to understand contrary views.) I guess the worry is that there is so much private prejudice that community standards need to intervene. If it is that prevalent, we have bigger worries. If it is not, there is choice among private businesses.
[Do you think golf memberships must accept all races and both genders? You may very well. Racists are likely to congregate in any case.]
I think though that I am with you that govt was right to be sure public schools in any state accepted students regardless of race.
What should be enforced in a Catholic school?

K noted settled law and history, I would like to hear him touch on that. Because this is KY, the south, it makes a stronger impression.
I think the folks of KY will weigh the risks and rewards of the candidates. [Consider too that Senators ratify Court nominees.] As I have heard from other candidates, he should say that if you discriminate on basis of race, vote for another candidate. He should reject those votes.
The primary was just a step. What is the meaning if in the end KY ends with a Democrat Senator and PA ends with a Republican?

In NY, folks may not even be aware of their lens. When a Dem is on FoxNews, they are often evasive. Maybe not Ed Rendell or Weiner, bless it.
I did not find this link so helpful but listen to these questions on Washington Journal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mrHlfOMFlE&feature=related


Whoever the Senator, at least they would be only 1 vote of 100. Maybe they can persuade 2-50+ votes in the Senate. But thanks to a system of check and balances, a law needs the signature and enforcement of the President. And the laws need to pass Constitutional concerns under the Supreme Court.
While I would not want Randal to represent me or NY, I would like to see Senators like him as a check on the current government.

Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Daisy, I mean this as lovingly as possible but I doubt there would be much chance you'd support a guy like Rand Paul in any event.  I don't see you as having much of a Republican streak anytime in the future.  I am not too jazzed about Paul myself.  Yes, I hope he wins as his overall views are much closer to mine and I'd like to see some checks on Democratic Party power.  But his strong associations with the Tea Party are troubling, because they can be very easily spun as a negative.  The old tactic of ignorant people casting another group as ignorant because they don't march in lockstep to the "correct" political ideology.  Silencing dissent, if you will.

Interesting example Kempster gives with Barnes and Noble's customer loyalty program.  I'm not sure if that's discrimination, per se.  The way I see it, that is a perfectly legal business arrangement, and there shouldn't even be a question as to whether the government has the right to intervene (they don't).  As Daisy said, if Barnes were denying people member perks on the basis of race, THAT would be a problem.  One interesting and troubling trend is that minority groups on our college campuses are self segregating.  But that's a tangent and best reserved for another thread.

By the way, Paul has categorically denied that he will join any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand-paul-i-will-not-support-any-efforts-to-repeal-the-civil-rights-act-1.php
Two thoughts on that: when you have to deny something of that nature, you're in big trouble.  AND, is there such an effort underway that I wasn't aware of?  It seems like a silly statement to issue.

Offline daisy

  • President
  • **************
  • Posts: 5714
  • Gender: Female
Oh that's ok, Billz!  I get what you are saying and you are right, I probably wouldn't.  But I was surprised and vaguely amused by his evasiveness in the Rachel Maddow interview and the ABC one I saw today.  He kept answering questions with more questions and I started playing a game to see how many times I could count him saying "Now what I find interesting yadda yadda yadda" instead of directly answering the question.  And who in the world mentioned repealing the Civil Rights Act to him?  Is there even a movement to do so?  It's settled law.  The whole thing is so weird.  Why would he have to deny supporting such a thing?  I'm just not sure why this is even an issue, and why he won't just answer a question on if he thinks it's a problem if someone is denied housing over their race.  Even if it's a privately owned house.

I realize race is a particularly thorny issue and there are many layers, but if you're going to say private businesses are able to do whatever they want to people, then you should at least say what legal recourse you would like someone to have, who is denied housing, who is denied service at a restaurant, denied entrance to the golf course, etc. etc.  These are real problems that do happen and to allow them to flourish like it's just ok to have it happen just doesn't sit well with me. 

I'm not happy with a lot of politicians and it's commonplace for them to evade questions.  But if you're going to make a statement, at least back it up with what you think should happen if said discrimination is taking place.

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
I agree that that the more open and direct a candidate is, the better. I have seen candidates boldly answer a question with the 'wrong answer'. I did not like the answer but I welcomed the frankness. (Why I think wider spectrums will listen to frank candidates of different parties.)

[I want to see how candid court nominee Kagan will be.

http://capitaltonight.com/2010/05/now-raises-questions-about-kagans-stance-on-abortion/
 ]
The candidate debates in KY, PA and elsewhere may be fascinating. Not so sure if the ones in NY will be worth watching.

Not everything has a legal remedy. In some cases, a restaurant or property may not be granted permits if they discriminate on the basis of race.
But I think the focus of many in KY is more on the harm of govt intervention than on this issue.

It is biased but interesting that Rand finds TEA party events to be 10 x larger than the GOP ones he attends.
However, it is a mistake to me if TEA tries to 'wall itself off' from dialogue with other viewpoints.
Collegiality, discussion, and perhaps even compromise is a large part of work in the US Senate.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:26:26 PM by TRX »
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Debbie

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1151
Using the example cited above, most companies discriminate - there are so many out there that reward regular customers.  This is so different however, to a shop keeper putting up a sign that says 'No Irish / Italians / Jews etc.'

Allowing that to happen is taking the Libertarian viewpoint a bit too far, don't you think?

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Re: Thoughts on bigotry and intervention
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2010, 12:44:34 PM »
I think there may be some confusion. It would be terrible to see a racist or bigoted sign.
I dont think any party would welcome that.

I would say that some would accept such a sign, just as some would allow 'All races welcomed', or 'Smoking allowed', or 'Straight and Gay friendly'.

Unless it changes soon, this is the official LP platform.

Quote
3.5    Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.


You are correct, it does not speak to private business or church affairs.

http://www.sfweekly.com/bestof/2010/award/best-political-activist-bisexual-escort-1983701/

= The winner of SF Weekly's Best Political Activist/Bisexual Escort designation described a recent day when he went looking for somewhere to settle down to enjoy a takeout meal, and ended up sitting on Polk Street. "I could be arrested for no more than wanting to enjoy the beautiful city and I live in--and eat my lunch."

(As jokey as it sounds, the dude(chick?) is actually quite eloquent. But in his works, that pays.)
PS you got my curiosity. Libertarians in KY have not nominated a candidate for Senate. I imagine most would vote for the Republican.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:58:57 PM by TRX »
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
I didn't mean to use my example to imply discrimination as defined legally. It may not have been the best example.
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org

Not surprising, lots of voting dollars.

Quote
Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak and Republican former Rep. Pat Toomey, both ran as anti-establishment candidates to secure primary victories in Pennsylvania's Senate race, but they aren't shunning the Beltway completely, especially when it comes to fundraising.


http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003668290

Anti-D.C. Candidates Still Want K St. Cash
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Allowing that to happen is taking the Libertarian viewpoint a bit too far, don't you think?

True.  But the odd thing is that no one is proposing such a thing (though I am sure his opponents will try to suggest otherwise).  So why the need to put his foot in his mouth on what is a settled issue?  Kempster and Daisy have both raised that question, and I agree, it's totally bizarre and bad strategy to boot.  My best guess is that he's expressing his philosophy out loud in a theoretical context.  I take it as a matter of course that he's not in favor of allowing racial discrimination to happen, he just has thoughts on whose role it is to prevent it.  Another interesting example from a theoretical standpoint is gay marriage.  Most libertarians would probably be against gay marriage, but only because they believe government shouldn't be involved in anyone's marriage, at all.  But of course, we already have heterosexual marriage, so you come across as a bigoted blowhard if you aren't extremely careful about what you say.

The problem, though, is that he's a candidate running for major office.  It's best to avoid saying things that will hurt your campaign, and race is a political third rail!

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
equality and beyond Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2010, 04:11:31 PM »

Congrats Billz, would be happy to hear about your wedding blessings.

I am starting to wonder if I am unclear about the GOP and Dems.

http://www.outrightusa.org/issues.html

Quote
In contrast to other parties, the Libertarian Party has included sexual rights, including equal marriage and adoption, equal military service, and the end of sodomy laws, ever since its 1976 platform.


Yes, some libertarians would rather not have state sponsored marriage. But the majority that I know in NY support marriage equality and have been engaged here on the issue for nearly 10 years. The questions about marriage equality is not just a wedding day.

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

A lot to digest.
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Re: equality and beyond Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2010, 04:26:14 PM »
Congrats Billz, would be happy to hear about your wedding blessings.

I am starting to wonder if I am unclear about the GOP and Dems.

http://www.outrightusa.org/issues.html


Yes, some libertarians would rather not have state sponsored marriage. But the majority that I know in NY support marriage equality and have been engaged here on the issue for nearly 10 years. The questions about marriage equality is not just a wedding day.

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons

A lot to digest.

I was joking with Debbie in a thread on the main page that I have ruined my mystique by mentioning that I'm married.  You guys must think my wife has nerves of steel to put up with my usual rhetorical shtick.   :-)

Marriage is such a complex issue.  The outright USA page you linked to makes the point that libertarians believe that the government should only be involved as a keeper of records, which is a good point.  But let's face it, purely theoretical and abstract.  It's like the old joke about the economist stranded on an island with cans of food but no way to open them who says "first, let us assume a can opener."  The government already recognizes hetero marriages.  The toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in.  So now what?

I myself am not a pure Libertarian by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I am uncomfortable with the increasing scope of government involvement in our lives.  To me, marriage (or whatever you want to call it) should ideally be between you and your spouse and whatever institution you choose to seal the deal, such as your preferred religious institution.  But again, this is just theoretical and ideal.  The government has already conferred rights and privileges upon straight married people.  To do so for whole new classes of people makes me cringe, not because I don't think that gay people deserve the right to express their love and commitment in the same way as straight people, but because I don't necessarily believe the government should have gotten involved in the first place.  With anyone's marriage, gay, straight, martian, or earthling.

So while it's a philosophical quandary, the best solution is probably just to confer the same rights on everyone and try to gradually scale back on the public cost in dollars and in the scope of governmental intrusion into our lives.

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Re: equality and beyond Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2010, 04:36:57 PM »
I was joking with Debbie in a thread on the main page that I have ruined my mystique by mentioning that I'm married.  You guys must think my wife has nerves of steel to put up with my usual rhetorical shtick.   :-)

Marriage is such a complex issue.  The outright USA page you linked to makes the point that libertarians believe that the government should only be involved as a keeper of records, which is a good point.  But let's face it, purely theoretical and abstract.  It's like the old joke about the economist stranded on an island with cans of food but no way to open them who says "first, let us assume a can opener."  The government already recognizes hetero marriages.  The toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back in.  So now what?

 seal the deal


I think many libertarians in NY would prefer your views than mine.

So did your wife get as good a deal as you?
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
Hey TRX,

I'm curious as to what you mean by state sponsored marriage.

For me, it's more a matter of being able to address the issues that my partner and I are facing when it comes to things like taxes.

I'm not even really pushing for marriage in a religious sense. I view it more as being able to enter into a contract with my partner that will simplify many issues we are facing. For instance, we have a joint investment with a private equity firm that I have no idea how to report on our taxes since they have to be separate.

Straight couples are forced to worry about this if they are married.
'
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"

Offline TRX

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3837
  • Gender: Male
  • It only makes me laugh
    • http://www.lp.org
Re: Thoughts on last night's primaries
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2010, 12:38:28 PM »
A few random items,
there already is a tax on salaries, so why not salt itself (or soda).


State sponsored marriages. To me that means being dependent on the state to have a marriage recognized.
I find the idea of a Quaker marriage to be beautiful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_wedding

Could go further on this.

I thought it was provocative, courageous, and justified back when the mayor of New Paltz tried to move marriage forward.
Only recently read the challenges through the NY Courts. (interesting)


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127845693

NPR Poll Shows Tough Road Ahead For Democrats

Selected poll opinions in swing districts, Dem and GOP.

Said pollster Stan Greenberg:
Quote
"In a year where voters want change and which Democrats are seen to be in power this is a tough poll, about as tough as you get."

** Found a bit about Greenberg's clients, hopefully that does not color their research **
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 12:50:35 PM by TRX »
Life, Liberty, Happiness (pursuit of) and pasta


 

Visit our sister site Jackson Heights Life