Politics by bogus question.

[detbuch]

Republicans running for President in 2016 are being asked by various media if they would go to a gay wedding. The presumption being, I suppose, that the answer would be a significant factor in their "qualification" to be President. If it really, and truly, were a qualification, then, I would think, it would be as much so if they were to go to any and all other weddings. "Straight" weddings, Muslim weddings, bestiality weddings, polygamous weddings, Communist weddings, death row weddings, your wedding, my wedding, and all other weddings that might or might not take place. After all, the President is so of and for ALL the people.

Somehow, whether the candidate would or would not go to any of those weddings is supposed to have an important bearing on his or her performance as President. That anyone, in this day and age, believes that either the question or the answer to it are important, relevant, in respect to a candidate for President . . . reveals how much that office has been "transformed."

I understand the old-fashioned shake-your-hand, kiss-your-baby, popularity brand of politicking. I understand the baby kissing and hand shaking and event attending photo-ops. But why not wait for them to happen and then take the photos? Why ask beforehand if they would kiss babies, etc.--in effect, taking the photo before the event happens?

The answer, I believe, is that the "photographer," the media, doesn't want the candidate to dictate the photo. Unless, of course, the media favors the candidate. The candidates the media doesn't favor, must not be allowed to set up the photo, but the photo must be a set-up of the candidate strictly by the media.

That's fine. Media, corporations, interest groups, collectives, as well as individuals, all have a right to "define" their opponents in negative lights. Time magazine is well known for filling their cover with a full facial portrait that is well and flatteringly lit when it wants to promote or commend someone, but portraying the face of someone they don't "like" with harsh and scary lighting.

So, on the one hand, its just typical shallow journalism meant to influence more than to inform--highlight somebody's "negative" characteristics if he is to be defeated, or her "positive" characteristics if it is desired that she win. Otherwise, if every personal characteristic of your preferred candidate was revealed, you might not like her. On the other hand, there is more than that going on here. After all, it is not everyone's taste, not even, necessarily, the majorities taste, that not attending a gay wedding is a negative characteristic. In any event, there are no "perfect" candidates to suit everyone's taste. I believe that "on the other hand" has to do with how far our national government has been remodeled.

What is relevant in terms of character, to run for POTUS? As it stands today, it is commonly believed that you must be all things for all people. That you must somehow bring about justice and equality for all, that you must provide for all those in need, that you must eliminate all forms of "discrimination," that you will root out all injustice, corruption and predatory practices in our country and protect us from all of that which threatens us outside of our country as well.

That it is not possible for one person to do all that, unless he is a dictator with a bureaucratic mechanism and police force/military under his control, does not seem to blunt the perception of what a President must be and do. And if the prevailing perception that the President is all things to all people were true, there would be no need for the other government structures now in place, such as Congress with its Senate and House, the SCOTUS, States with their governing structures and constitutions, separate policing structures--municipal, state, and federal--sheriff departments, and so on. Somehow, the President is supposed to rise above all that, and those other structures and institutions are merely bumps, annoying obstacles, which he should be allowed to overcome and to bend to his will. He should be the final arbiter.

But if, upon honest reflection, we don't want a dictatorial form of government, and if we still do want government power to be diffused into a wider and more limited sphere, then we might look to the structure which is now being abused and insist that it be refurbished. Such a change would not concern the President with matters such as gay weddings. It would restrict her to specific duties to be faithfully executed whether she would go to gay weddings or not.

And if she were asked if she would go to a gay wedding, she might ask the interviewer to stay on point. She is running for President, not wedding counselor. That she would faithfully execute those duties for which and to which she is assigned by the prescribed structure of United States government and to the supreme law of the land to which she has sworn to uphold, to protect, and to defend. And whether she attended a wedding or not has nothing to do with the responsibilities granted to the office of President. And that, as ALL Presidents must do, she would not let her personal preferences or biases or various weddings interfere with her duty.

[Nebe]

This is a result of the dumbification of America.

Let's focus on idiotic media based talking points that all of the sheeple have been spoonfed over the winter. Forget the massive tax hand outs to the rich. Forget the defunding of food stamps. Forget the shrinking middle class. Let's focus on fags and Muslims because they are what's ruining this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Nebe

This is a result of the dumbification of America.

Let's focus on idiotic media based talking points that all of the sheeple have been spoonfed over the winter. Forget the massive tax hand outs to the rich. Forget the defunding of food stamps. Forget the shrinking middle class. Let's focus on fags and Muslims because they are what's ruining this country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd rather focus on the Role of the US President .
Chief of State , setting an inspiring role for the American people.
Chief Executive
Chief Administrator
Chief Diplomat
Commander in Chief
Chief Legislator
Party Chief
Citizen Chief
Chief Citizen
All of these roles to be fulfilled under the Constitution with honesty and integrity.
Where do you find such a person? That's what we should be looking for in a President.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I'd rather focus on the Role of the US President .
Chief of State , setting an inspiring role for the American people.
Chief Executive
Chief Administrator
Chief Diplomat
Commander in Chief
Chief Legislator
Party Chief
Citizen Chief
Chief Citizen
All of these roles to be fulfilled under the Constitution with honesty and integrity.
Where do you find such a person? That's what we should be looking for in a President.

Sounds good . . . except I would prefer that the Pres not be the Chief Legislator. That's one of the "chief" problems we have currently . . . POTUS being a legislator rather than the executor of congressional legislation.

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds good . . . except I would prefer that the Pres not be the Chief Legislator. That's one of the "chief" problems we have currently . . . POTUS being a legislator rather than the executor of congressional legislation.

What about sticking to Article 2 and Amendment 10?

back to the original post.. Is everyone answering the same questions or do we ask selective questions to only a few?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

What about sticking to Article 2 and Amendment 10?

back to the original post.. Is everyone answering the same questions or do we ask selective questions to only a few?

We most certainly do not ask the same questions of all candidates.

If a GOP candidate happens to be wealthy, and most are nowadays, that's considered suspicious, if not outright sinister. When the Democratic candidate is uber-wealthy, no one questions it. Worse, it doesn't stop that wealthy Democratic candidate from telling voters that they need to be afraid of wealthy people (Republicans) who are out to rob them, and NO ONE will say to Hilary, "aren't you also wealthy? Why is OK for you to be wealthy, but it's not OK for a Republican to be wealthy".

Thy hypocrisy is staggering. What's more mind-boggling, is that it works.

Hilary gave a speech recently, saying that the deck is unfairly stacked in favor of those at the top, and that it's her mission to re-stack the deck. What she doesn't say, is that when she re-shuffles the deck, she'll make sure she gets a royal flush, everyone else gets a pair of 4's, and none of her base will ask a question. And when conservatives point that out, we get labeled as sexist hatemongers, waging war on women.

It's never about the issues, it's always about intelllectually bankrupt fear-mongering.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's never about the issues, it's always about intelllectually bankrupt fear-mongering.

You mean like convincing a big % of your voters that the other candidate is a Kenyon born, Muslim, socialist?

[Nebe]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You mean like convincing a big % of your voters that the other candidate is a Kenyon born, Muslim, socialist?

Paul, here is the difference...in 2008, John McCain was the GOP candidate. In 2012, Mitt Romney was the GOP candidate. I never, not once, heard either of those guys claim that Obama was a Muslim or not born here. We have Republicans who make kooky statements like that, but they don't get the nomination for President.

On the Democratic side, that kind of outlandish behavior is much more mainstream. Hilary is the presumptive candidate, and she is irrefutably saying these things.

If we nominate Glenn Beck, Donald Trump, or Michael Savage (someone who believes these outlandish things you mentioned), then you have a point. Until then, you don't really have a point.

Have fun trying to make that wrong.

You might agree with Hilary on the issues, but she and her husband, are as revolting as it gets.

[PaulS]

There is always a difference in your mind.

More vitriol.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

There is always a difference in your mind.

More vitriol.

There you go. You have no logical rebuttal to what I posted, so instead of admiting I have a point when I say you can't compare Hilary Clinton with some obscure right-wing nut, you dismiss it as vitriol.

Hilary Clinton denied that her husband was unfaithful, instead saying they were the victims of a "vast right wing conspiracy"

Hilary made a fortune in the cattle futures market (she increased her investment by a multiple of 100). It's OK when she uses fishy derivitives to make a personal fortune, but it's immoral when anyone else does it.

She claims they were broke when they left the white house.

She recently spoke about the damage being done by greedy hedge fund managers. Her daughter is married to one, but that's OK?

She claims that "businesses don't create jobs".

She claims to have come under a sniper attack on an overseas trip.

Those last two alone, should disqualify ANYONE from being President.

Paul, do you admit Hilary made those 2 statements (that businesses don't create jobs, and that she came under sniper fire)? If you concede she made those statements, then how in God's name is she fit to be President?

About businesses not creating jobs - that statement means that she is absolutely clueless about the basic fundamentals of how our economy works. No one who makes that statement could hope to get a 'D' in any Economics 101 course.

as to the sniper attack, there are only 2 possible explanations - she's either a liar, or she's unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality. If there's a third pissibility, do me a favor and let me know.

Dismiss that as vitriol, but you are backed into a corner from which there is zero escape.

I didn't even mention Whitewater, Travelgate, the FBI file scandal, Benghazi, the recent email controversy, or any truth that might be in the upcominng right-wing book about her selling influence as secstate to the highest bidder.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

All of these roles to be fulfilled under the Constitution with honesty and integrity.
Where do you find such a person?

Probably sitting on a Pot 'O Gold on the other side of some magical rainbow.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds good . . . except I would prefer that the Pres not be the Chief Legislator. That's one of the "chief" problems we have currently . . . POTUS being a legislator rather than the executor of congressional legislation.

Agree 100%. It's OK if the President votes along the lines of what's best for the American People, that's his job, but when he votes down or up for his own political agenda that is just wrong.
That's where the Honor, Integrity and Transparency need to be the main attributes of his or her character. Not seeing that.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Probably sitting on a Pot 'O Gold on the other side of some magical rainbow.

I'm a realist when it comes to this generation and human nature, but I believe there are still men out there capable of being true servants who have our country's best at heart.
How many of our veterans have given their service and life's for the good of our country unselfishly ?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I'm a realist when it comes to this generation and human nature, but I believe there are still men out there capable of being true servants who have our country's best at heart.
How many of our veterans have given their service and life's for the good of our country unselfishly ?

Unfortunately anybody with any integrity and common sense isn't going to put themselves, their families, and their friends through all the Bull #^&#^&#^&#^& that running for that office entails.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Unfortunately anybody with any integrity and common sense isn't going to put themselves, their families, and their friends through all the Bull #^&#^&#^&#^& that running for that office entails.

Great point. And not many decent people have the connectoins or $$ to pull off a presidential election, plus, you'd have to be insane to want that job.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Unfortunately anybody with any integrity and common sense isn't going to put themselves, their families, and their friends through all the Bull #^&#^&#^&#^& that running for that office entails.

Agree 100%, but we need to build people who are willing to serve for the sake of serving. Having worked with kids for 22 years I have seen a lot of potential and hope. I am sure your serving as a troop leader have seen the same. But, if our generation doesn't encourage honesty, integrity and character, and have sports and political leaders who they can look up to and aspire to be like, it's never going to happen.
We could go on forever talking about the bad influences they put up with, but it's everybody's job to build morality and character, if not us ,who?

[Fly Rod]

your president was aganist GAY WEDDINGS because of his religion....he quickly changed his mind while running for president....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

What about sticking to Article 2 and Amendment 10?

Exactly. That was the point I was hinting at by saying that I believe that "on the other hand" has to do with how far our national government has been remodeled. And by reciting what is expected now, after the progressive transformation, of the President (as well as the federal government in general). Neither is any longer restricted to the limitations that bound them in the Constitution. And the President has been recast as more of an elected monarch instead of sticking to the duties prescribed in Article two; and the federal government as a totality has, as well, broken its chains and usurped the vast residuum of rights which Amendment 10 guaranteed to the people and the states, and it as well has severely encroached on the people's Bill of Rights.

We now look to the federal government, and specifically the President, to somehow make better every aspect of our lives . . . that is, many and a growing number, do. And the federal government apparatus is not only all too willing to accommodate that desire, but encourages and promotes it. We are being transformed from a democratic republic to an elected (for the time being) benevolent dictatorship. And though it has been incremental, it has not been by accident. It has been an evolving progressive design which has relentlessly chipped away, with every real, or fabricated "crisis" the structure of our foundation and turned that Constitution into the opposite of what was actually created and intended.


back to the original post.. Is everyone answering the same questions or do we ask selective questions to only a few?

It may not be a cause to wonder at all why today's journalists would ask if a candidate would go to a gay wedding. The central government has been made over time into our caretaker and so must be involved with the most intimate portions of our lives. It is presumed that, in our progressive system, the President being the head of our Nanny State, and the one to redress all of our grievances, attending gay weddings would be of utmost importance to her/him.

But In a constitutional system, the question of whether she/he would go to one is wholly irrelevant to the "qualifications" of a President, and would have nothing to do with his constitutional duties. That's why I call it a bogus question. It has no relevant connection to the enumerated presidential duties.

And, of course, your implication is correct. Everyone is not asked the same bogus gotcha questions. And if questions of marriage were relevant to this new, progressive, concept of President and presidential responsibility, the media could probe even further, with more relevance to performance of duties, by asking if the candidate approved of marital infidelity. If she/he would protect the infidelity of her/his partner in order to get and maintain power. Wouldn't that be more of an indication if the candidate had the character to faithfully perform the presidential duties than would be if he would go to a gay wedding? To perform them correctly for the benefit of the people rather than to protect her/his turf?

Wasn't the marriage question not supposed to be relevant to how Bill Clinton performed his job as President? Wasn't that his personal business, even if he had some form of sexual relations with someone other than his wife . . . even in the Whitehouse itself?

No, it ultimately reverts to politics. And the media has its biases. The media asks bogus gotcha questions of those it doesn't like, and bogus fluff questions of those it does.

And the questions are, ultimately, bogus because they are not connected to any foundational system of government, nor any constant relation of the citizen to the government. Progressive government is in a constant state of flux. It has no coherent philosophical or moral reason for being. It is a massive mix of contradiction which leads it to destroy that which it claims to make whole. While claiming egalitarianism, it thrives on inequality. Inequality becomes a mantra which it constantly purports to eliminate. It rails against the rich and champions the "middle class" while under its policies "income inequality" grows and the "middle class" shrinks. It vows to eliminate discrimination in race and gender while it grows reverse discrimination and promotes class and gender warfare.

Progressivism feeds its rulers' hunger for power, so must centralize power and destroy the founding document which limited and separated power. So it creates an intractable President who takes power unto himself; who changes and amends laws such as the ACA and welfare even though there is no constitutional power to do so; he makes recess appointment even when Congress is not in recess; he legislates outside of his enumerated powers through unlawful executive orders and through regulatory agencies when it is the duty of Congress to legislate not his; he attempts to make treaties without Senate approval; He unlawfully picks winners and losers both in the business and personal sectors; he bullies for continuing resolutions and submits budgets beyond economic means; he gives opinions in state and local matters which inflames racial or class animosity; he badmouths the Constitution when it makes his desires difficult and twists it to suit his needs.

In short, he abrogates his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He and his party agree to all this. His willing accomplices in Congress and the Courts all agree to suspend the opposition those branches are supposed to enforce against a President who usurps the power they should supposedly, jealously, guard. They willingly dissolve the separation of powers which were emplaced to prevent tyranny, and purposely create a unitary government which holds the legislative, executive, and judiciary power in, essentially one progressive hand. That is the definition of tyranny.

And all of that can be dismissed, overlooked, by asking candidates, not if they will govern lawfully, maintain separation of powers, uphold their oath to PRESERVE, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is all irrelevant. Worries about despotism which the Constitution prevented, individual freedom which the Constitution protected, piling on of federal debt which the Constitution would limit the government to do, maintaining a military that is equal to the dangers of the time which the Constitution requires . . . those are all non-sequiturs.

In this "modern" (actually as old as tyranny) system of government, into which every aspect of our lives is intruded, the relevant question is "would you go to a gay wedding?"

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You mean like convincing a big % of your voters that the other candidate is a Kenyon born, Muslim, socialist?

Actually we are talking about the media here .
I recall "being a Mormon " was quite controversial . In a bad way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Considering you have to wear special underpants to be a good Morman, I don't blame them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

your president was aganist GAY WEDDINGS because of his religion....he quickly changed his mind while running for president....

Quite true. But when Obama is opposed to gay marriage, that was OK. When a Christian is opposed to gay marriage (yet happy to provide free medical care, food, shelter to gays), but doesn't want to attend a gay wedding, well, THAT'S bigotry.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Actually we are talking about the media here .
I recall "being a Mormon " was quite controversial . In a bad way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, I know we were talking about the media (as compared to discussing the Clintons???). The questions about Obama's religion, birth, etc where all over Fox news 2 election cycles ago (I thought Bill O'Reilly even said he covered Obama's birth in Kenya)

I do think the question has merit currently where an ever increasing majority of the public believes that gays should be allowed to get married and more and more states are allowing gays to get married. It might not have had relevance before the states started to allow them to get married (as a hypothetical question). One candidate (can't remember which one) has said something like "I'd love and support them but not go to their wedding" - I don't think love and supporting them but not going to their wedding is the same thing.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Quite true. But when Obama is opposed to gay marriage, that was OK. When a Christian is opposed to gay marriage (yet happy to provide free medical care, food, shelter to gays), but doesn't want to attend a gay wedding, well, THAT'S bigotry.

I don't think they are bigots for not wanting to attend a gay wedding or for even not being in favor of allowing 2 gays to get married. I think they are bigots for wanting to discriminate, for not wanting to supply pizza for the wedding or a wedding cake or (as I said the Ind. law would allow) not fix a gay person's car as the Mich. auto mechanic just came out and said (maybe he can find an old "Blacks not served here" sign and change it to "Gays not served here").

But we're off topic here.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

yes, I know we were talking about the media (as compared to discussing the Clintons???).

If it was relevant to ask a candidate if he would go to a gay wedding, therefore assuming that it would effect how he would govern, that views on marriage would be an important qualification for being President, then it seems to me that asking Hillary about her views of protecting her husband's marital infidelity in order to protect his presidency (and clear any obstruction to her's) would be as relevant and even more so than asking if a candidate would go to a gay wedding. And if it was nobody's business about their marital relationship, and if it's not relevant what Hillary's opinion is about it, then why is it anybody's business whether a candidate would go to a gay marriage or even his opinion about it? So, yes, we are talking about the media (and much more than that in this thread), and when they start asking her about her marriage relationship, and about her approval of playing it down so as not to disturb her run for the presidency, then I will see a bit of "fairness" or "equality" in media coverage.

But, then, as I say, my thread is much more about something else which makes the question irrelevant. It is about the Presidents constitutional duties, and the irrelevance of attending a gay wedding in relation to those constitutional duties.

The questions about Obama's religion, birth, etc where all over Fox news 2 election cycles ago (I thought Bill O'Reilly even said he covered Obama's birth in Kenya)

As erroneous as the assumption about Obama's birth seems to have been, it was a relevant constitutional question.

I do think the question has merit currently where an ever increasing majority of the public believes that gays should be allowed to get married and more and more states are allowing gays to get married. It might not have had relevance before the states started to allow them to get married (as a hypothetical question). One candidate (can't remember which one) has said something like "I'd love and support them but not go to their wedding" - I don't think love and supporting them but not going to their wedding is the same thing.

It doesn't have merit in terms of what and how the President operates his/her term of office. And, constitutionally, it is a state question, not a federal one. That is, in the original, pre-transformed one. So you might as a state governor have an interest in the question, but even in that situation it should have no bearing on your role as governor.

Whether or not numbers of people believe in gay marriage is still not relevant to how a President should govern. His/her constitutional duties do not pertain to marriage, nor how the people feel about it.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Agree 100%, but we need to build people who are willing to serve for the sake of serving. Having worked with kids for 22 years I have seen a lot of potential and hope. I am sure your serving as a troop leader have seen the same.

I come across good kids all the time....always have hope. My current SPL is such a stand up kid. I'd vote for him right now.

Father was a 20 year man that served in Iraq and Afghanistan, he went to El Salvador last summer to help under privileged youth. He oozes confidence and leadership qualities......15 years old.

I hope the world don't wreck him.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device