fate

I don't consider him anti-homosexual marriage

Manchin is opposed to gay marriage. But that's not anti-homosexual?

Doctor Fate wrote:

Pro-traditional marriage?

You mean, "anti-gay-marriage", surely? Anyway, Senator Joe Manchin. He's also in the NRA.

I don't consider him anti-homosexual marriage:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) today released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

“America is a nation of laws, and we must respect and abide by the Supreme Court’s decision.”

That's about as vanilla as it gets and certainly not "anti" anything.

It is "anti" breaking the law. Who usually issues statements saying that they "respect" a decision - people who don't agree with it...

Please, please, please show me where he has voted for gay marriage. Or spoken for it. Not wanting to promote disobedience with the law is not the same thing.

On the other hand there is a record of him speaking and voting against same sex marriage.

Anyway, you are doing what you accuse the Democrats of - making an opponent of someone who actually is close to agreeing with you but is over a thin line away and so must be rejected. [slow hand clap]

I was watching this interview of a Republican congressman who supported Ryan for Speaker...he was saying Ryan would bring the party together..that Republicans should not be over promising to their constituents about getting rid of Obamacare and the ACA....that there was a constitutional framework and that a minority party could not dictate things...that Republicans could not just oppose Obama that they had to compromise so that they could further their goals, citing Reagan and O'Neill, and Clinton and Gingrich...and I thought who are you and how did you sneak into the Republican Party...

In truth, it was refreshing to see a rational Republican--the above points are simply common-sense, but are like radical ideas in the Republican Party right now.

danivon wrote:Anyway, you are doing what you accuse the Democrats of - making an opponent of someone who actually is close to agreeing with you but is over a thin line away and so must be rejected. [slow hand clap]

Wrong, Mr. Slow-clap.

Look at the "evolution" of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and others) on homosexual marriage. Why was that?

Because if they didn't play it the way they did they would be made opponents by those "who actually [are] close to agreeing with you but [are] over a thin line away and so must be rejected."

rickyp wrote:fate

I don't consider him anti-homosexual marriage

Manchin is opposed to gay marriage. But that's not anti-homosexual?

So, you're a native French speaker?

freeman3 wrote:In truth, it was refreshing to see a rational Republican--the above points are simply common-sense, but are like radical ideas in the Republican Party right now.

Yes, the "radical" Republican party . . . as opposed to the "moderate" Democratic party that did away with much of the filibuster power in the Senate, rammed the ACA through via reconciliation, and will shut down the government so that Planned Parenthood can continue to receive funding.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

Believing that money in politics is benign is different than believing that Citizens United is unconstitutional, or that monetary contributions should not be restricted because it represents government interference with political expression

Well, I suppose you can twist into a pretzel .
Your saying, if I'm not misinterpreting that is possible for some to believe that unlimited political contributions creates a poisonous undemocratic, environment that leads to corruption ... but to also believe that this is constitutionally protected ...and therefore must be tolerated ...
Its an interesting way of interpreting the constitution.
Bizarre really.

It's difficult to separate "speech" from "ability to support a political candidate or point of view." That's not "bizarre."

I would remind you that Obama did more damage to the situation than anyone. He broke the system. He brought unlimited money into politics.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

Believing that money in politics is benign is different than believing that Citizens United is unconstitutional, or that monetary contributions should not be restricted because it represents government interference with political expression

Well, I suppose you can twist into a pretzel .
Your saying, if I'm not misinterpreting that is possible for some to believe that unlimited political contributions creates a poisonous undemocratic, environment that leads to corruption ... but to also believe that this is constitutionally protected ...and therefore must be tolerated ...
Its an interesting way of interpreting the constitution.
Bizarre really.

After you finish explaining to Putin how he is not operating in Russia's best interest, perhaps you will take a call from the Supreme Court to answer their questions on the legalities of Citizen's United. I can't respond to every false dichotomy that you bring up. Again, here's is what you originally stated:

Trump has been good for one thing, he attacks Republican orthodoxies. Among which are some that are contradictory and illogical. (Bush kept us safe. Money in politics is benign. etc)

Here's more evidence against your position that "Money in politics is benign." is Republican orthodoxy. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/02/ ... nited.html

– 80% of Republicans believe that money has too much influence in our politics.

– 54% believed that most of the time candidates directly help those who gave money to them.

– 81% of Republicans felt that the campaign finance system needed fundamental changes (45%) or a complete rebuild (36%).

– 73% felt that super PAC spending should be limited by law.

– 76% thought that superPACs should be required to disclose their donors.

All of these positions are held by Bernie Sanders, and the opinion of the majority on each question is the exact opposite of the reasoning used by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.

Where Republicans differ from the rest of the country is that a substantial number (48%) believe that money is free speech, ...

Instead of doubling down by insulting me (and many Republicans) by twisting their position, why don't you just say you made a mistake?

fate

Here's more evidence against your position that "Money in politics is benign." is Republican orthodoxy

Which republican candidates for president have spoken out about the need to limit money in the political process?
Your noting that ordinary members of the party recognize the corrupting influence of unlimited money. But, excepting for Trump pointing out the situation, its ignored by the candidates.
Why? Because they cannot, as Mr. Trump points out, betray the billionaires that fund their super pacs.

Fate

It's difficult to separate "speech" from "ability to support a political candidate or point of view."

No its not.
Speech is speech.
Financial contributions are financial contributions.
I suppose when one thinks corporations are people too, that's easier to confuse.
Ray's point is that the apparent constitutionality of the inability to limit the amount of money in politics makes it something that must be tolerated, unless I'm misinterpreting. And I suppose he's right, although the Constitution can be changed... and Scotus can review its decisions.

fate

I would remind you that Obama did more damage to the situation than anyone. He broke the system. He brought unlimited money into politics

He played by the rules of the game established by Citizens United . You can't complain that the rules ended up not really helping Republicans.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Anyway, you are doing what you accuse the Democrats of - making an opponent of someone who actually is close to agreeing with you but is over a thin line away and so must be rejected. [slow hand clap]

Wrong, Mr. Slow-clap.

Look at the "evolution" of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and others) on homosexual marriage. Why was that?

Because if they didn't play it the way they did they would be made opponents by those "who actually [are] close to agreeing with you but [are] over a thin line away and so must be rejected."

Again, other than respecting law, explain how Manchin has changed position. I hesitate to ask this, but perhaps you could supply us with evidence?

That's a laughable argument, DF that the Democrats are shutting down the government to fund Planned Parenthood,DF. You're starting to sound 1984-like. It would be the Republicans shutting down the government to defund planned parenthood. If you want to argue that it's Obama fault for using the veto, probably need to show that Americans support a shut-down to defund planned parenthood... they don't.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/p ... ood-214133


If Republicans want to pass their agenda they need to win elections. Until then threatening a default to get their agenda passed is appalling. If we don't get what we want we're going to drive the country off a cliff. What a...party.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:In truth, it was refreshing to see a rational Republican--the above points are simply common-sense, but are like radical ideas in the Republican Party right now.

Yes, the "radical" Republican party . . . as opposed to the "moderate" Democratic party that did away with much of the filibuster power in the Senate,

So how come a Republican Senate majority is so unable to do get things moving? Did they put the filibuster back to block themselves?

rammed the ACA through via reconciliation,

Yawn...

and will shut down the government so that Planned Parenthood can continue to receive funding.

Well, that is yet to happen, but at least they have not actually shut down the government. Under that "RINO" Boehner...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Anyway, you are doing what you accuse the Democrats of - making an opponent of someone who actually is close to agreeing with you but is over a thin line away and so must be rejected. [slow hand clap]

Wrong, Mr. Slow-clap.

Look at the "evolution" of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and others) on homosexual marriage. Why was that?

Because if they didn't play it the way they did they would be made opponents by those "who actually [are] close to agreeing with you but [are] over a thin line away and so must be rejected."

Again, other than respecting law, explain how Manchin has changed position. I hesitate to ask this, but perhaps you could supply us with evidence?

I have found something Manchin has changed position on. In 2011 he voted against defunding PP. In 2015 he was saying he would support defunding PP.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democratic-s ... parenthood

rickyp wrote:fate

Here's more evidence against your position that "Money in politics is benign." is Republican orthodoxy

Which republican candidates for president have spoken out about the need to limit money in the political process?

Ooh, you got me! I'm totally stumped!

Hey, ever heard of McCain-Feingold? I think that McCain fella is a Republican. He ran for President.

Next.

Your noting that ordinary members of the party recognize the corrupting influence of unlimited money. But, excepting for Trump pointing out the situation, its ignored by the candidates.
Why? Because they cannot, as Mr. Trump points out, betray the billionaires that fund their super pacs.

Hey, who was it who broke the system? Think real hard.

Fate

It's difficult to separate "speech" from "ability to support a political candidate or point of view."

No its not.
Speech is speech.
Financial contributions are financial contributions.

What about taking out advertisements on political issues and/or candidates? Is that not speech? Does it not require money?

I suppose when one thinks corporations are people too, that's easier to confuse.

I suppose when one thinks corporations are evil it taints your entire world-view. One good non-sequitur demands another.

Ray's point is that the apparent constitutionality of the inability to limit the amount of money in politics makes it something that must be tolerated, unless I'm misinterpreting. And I suppose he's right, although the Constitution can be changed... and Scotus can review its decisions.

No, SCOTUS cannot! It's "settled law" just like homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.

/sarcasm

fate

I would remind you that Obama did more damage to the situation than anyone. He broke the system. He brought unlimited money into politics

He played by the rules of the game established by Citizens United . You can't complain that the rules ended up not really helping Republicans.

He broke the system. Justify it however you like. He broke it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Anyway, you are doing what you accuse the Democrats of - making an opponent of someone who actually is close to agreeing with you but is over a thin line away and so must be rejected. [slow hand clap]

Wrong, Mr. Slow-clap.

Look at the "evolution" of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and others) on homosexual marriage. Why was that?

Because if they didn't play it the way they did they would be made opponents by those "who actually [are] close to agreeing with you but [are] over a thin line away and so must be rejected."

Again, other than respecting law, explain how Manchin has changed position. I hesitate to ask this, but perhaps you could supply us with evidence?

Manchin went from being pro-traditional marriage to being ambivalent. I can say homosexual marriage is legal, but I would never leave it there because it's against my personal belief system. As I said, his statement was vanilla.

If he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage, I doubt he'd get re-elected.

All one has to do to understand the mindless lockstep nature of the DNC is to review the 2012 convention. It was a salute to abortion.