Would a moderate Republican be better than a conservative to beat Hillary?

[Beaudreaux]

So did Ronald Reagan. The idea that interventionism = leftism is utterly asinine.

Then history is asinine. I'm not referring to just US politics, Kobie. World history and world politics. Leftists are more apt to be interventionists across global history.

 

[skq]

A moderate republican can't collect enough votes from the conservatives.

 

[skq]

So did Ronald Reagan. The idea that interventionism = leftism is utterly asinine.

Ronald Reagan was very conservative.

 

[roguenuke]

Correct. The constitution did not change (since 1868) and marriage is still a state defined and issued privilege. The assertion that marriage is a right is still being claimed by many. I understand that the concept of equal protection was applied but there are countless laws that violate equal protection including, affirmative action, may issue 2A permits, male only draft registration, gender separation in military/public college housing and publicly funded sports teams. If some laws can have man/woman distinctions and not person then marriage (a state issued privilege) is certainly one of them.

Those other laws you mentioned have been challenged and the state was able to state a reasonable state interest in maintaining those laws, which is what is necessary to maintain unequal protection of the law. States could not do this in relation to laws pertaining to marriage and unequally applying to the sexes.

 

[upsideguy]

Have you ever studied history? Further back than the GW Bush era, that is. Your communist buddies around the world and throughout history have and are still pretty interventionist in their dealings with other countries.

Until recently, foreign policy was pretty much bi-partisan. There was a consistent approach to the Cold War from 1945 until 1988. President's tweaked the policy, but it was pretty consistent.

BTW... what are "communist buddies?" Isn't "comrade" the usual term. Please be more specific as to who you are referring.

 

[tres borrachos]

Moderate Republican like Christie, or conservative like Cruz?

I chose maybe.

But at this point I think the only Republican who can beat Hillary is Rubio.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Until recently, foreign policy was pretty much bi-partisan. There was a consistent approach to the Cold War from 1945 until 1988. President's tweaked the policy, but it was pretty consistent.

Pretty much true for the Cold War here is the US, but not prior to that era, and as you eluded, not after. Also, it was the expansionist and interventionist actions of the Soviet Union, a far leftist government, that caused the Cold War and gave both left and right in the US a boogie man to focus on rather then each other. Once that boogie man no longer existed, the bi-partisan truce ended.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Those other laws you mentioned have been challenged and the state was able to state a reasonable state interest in maintaining those laws, which is what is necessary to maintain unequal protection of the law. States could not do this in relation to laws pertaining to marriage and unequally applying to the sexes.

That would seem to require that each such state law be challenged individually. What state interest prevents 3 marriage partners?

 

[roguenuke]

That would seem to require that each such state law be challenged individually. What state interest prevents 3 marriage partners?

The state interest in not overburdening the government in that legal marriage is designed around 2 people. It can be changed, but that would have to happen (and I have no issue with it happening) first, before any laws are changed to accommodate more than 2 people. We have limits on how many people others can claim as their closest legal relative in many provisions of law and legal spouses are automatically considered as "closest legal relative" to a person unless and until that person legally changes that position. I in fact completely support setting up as much of the legal privileges, rights, benefits of marriage as we are able to do for multiple spouses, without burdening the rest of society for those things.

 

[upsideguy]

Pretty much true for the Cold War here is the US, but not prior to that era, and as you eluded, not after. Also, it was the expansionist and interventionist actions of the Soviet Union, a far leftist government, that caused the Cold War and gave both left and right in the US a boogie man to focus on rather then each other. Once that boogie man no longer existed, the bi-partisan truce ended.

Well, you made a general statement and I helped you clarify by finding the fault within that statement. Thank you for clarifying.

BTW.... we have another boogey-man, which is Radical Islam. We just haven't developed a common voice on how to deal with it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The state interest in not overburdening the government in that legal marriage is designed around 2 people. It can be changed, but that would have to happen (and I have no issue with it happening) first, before any laws are changed to accommodate more than 2 people. We have limits on how many people others can claim as their closest legal relative in many provisions of law and legal spouses are automatically considered as "closest legal relative" to a person unless and until that person legally changes that position. I in fact completely support setting up as much of the legal privileges, rights, benefits of marriage as we are able to do for multiple spouses, without burdening the rest of society for those things.

That minor detail could be solved by using the names in the order that they are listed on the form. The state has no problem allowing multiple business partners. The design also included the terms husband and wife, so simple legal language difficulty burdening the government has little if any bearing as a legitimate state interest.

 

[roguenuke]

That minor detail could be solved by using the names in the order that they are listed on the form. The state has no problem allowing multiple business partners. The design also included the terms husband and wife, so simple legal language difficulty burdening the government has little if any bearing as a legitimate state interest.

There is no burden for government to change the wording of a legal form. There is a ton of burden for government to determine if everyone could potentially be married legally to everyone else in the US, which spouse has precedent over another in which cases, how much public assistance each "family" qualifies for (with two spouses as a limit, that limits practically how many people could be in a family, while having no limits on legal spouses means the potential for exponentially more people and potentially more public assistance), military/government employee benefits, who work insurance companies must cover, and so many more.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is no burden for government to change the wording of a legal form. There is a ton of burden for government to determine if everyone could potentially be married legally to everyone else in the US, which spouse has precedent over another in which cases, how much public assistance each "family" qualifies for (with two spouses as a limit, that limits practically how many people could be in a family, while having no limits on legal spouses means the potential for exponentially more people and potentially more public assistance), military/government employee benefits, who work insurance companies must cover, and so many more.

No more of a problem than having multiple children (or those added by adopted or from prior marriages) in a family does. As far as whether one can be in more than one marriage at a time, that is a separate issue all together.

 

[Kobie]

Ronald Reagan was very conservative.

I don't know how "very" conservative he was, but he certainly wasn't a "leftist." He was also pretty interventionist.

 

[Kobie]

Then history is asinine. I'm not referring to just US politics, Kobie. World history and world politics. Leftists are more apt to be interventionists across global history.

Prove THAT one.

Hitler was no leftist, and he was about as interventionist as it gets. Genghis Khan was no leftist, and he was pretty interventionist too. You're simply wrong.

 

[soot]

Donald Trump is going to be the next president.

Any conversation to the contrary is just stupid.

 

[The Mark]

So did Ronald Reagan. The idea that interventionism = leftism is utterly asinine.

Interventionism seems unrelated to party, to me...

 

[The Mark]

Donald Trump is going to be the next president.

Any conversation to the contrary is just stupid.

If that's true, I hope damn near everything he's said up til now was a lie.

 

[Kobie]

Interventionism seems unrelated to party, to me...

To me as well, as I pointed out earlier. Beaudreaux is the one making the utterly asinine claim that interventionism is a "leftist" thing, which doesn't surprise me -- if it exists and is viewed as negative, someone will make the claim that one ideology owns it.

 

[Kobie]

Donald Trump is going to be the next president.

Any conversation to the contrary is just stupid.

:lamo

Donald Trump will never be president. Ever. Period. Discussion over.

 

[roguenuke]

No more of a problem than having multiple children (or those added by adopted or from prior marriages) in a family does. As far as whether one can be in more than one marriage at a time, that is a separate issue all together.

Much more of a problem because you can only adopt so many kids that would be considered "dependents" within a given time due to how adoption works. You could potentially marry 20, 50, 100 or more people, who could also marry each other or more people as well. The law right now grants you legal right to claim all of those people and their children as your dependents (so long as no one else does). 100 wives and husbands (lets say 75 wives, even 100 wives) you can easily get them all pregnant 16/17 times prior to the children becoming old enough to no longer be dependents (odds are against that much, but then again, without legal limits on spouses you could simply take on more spouses, more families). That is exponentially more children than you could adopt with our adoption laws the way they are, as well as more than you could have naturally, or even with the two combined.

There are other issues as well as privacy rights of spouses and whether they have a right to take on additional spouses without the permission of previous spouses.

 

[pphhrogg]

Can't answer poll....since imo, Hillary can beat ANYONE that the Teapublicons nominate.

 

[SocialD]

The wild card is not the independent white vote but the independent Hispanic vote. If Trump is nominated, then at least 80% of Hispanic voters will go Democratic. Maybe even 90%.

Contrast that with the Hispanics' voting of the Bushes.

Actually per a poll about a week ago, among republican candidates Trump polls the best with Hispanics which is surprising but two separate polls have rated hi the best with Hispanics even over Cruz and Rubio.

 

[Phys251]

Actually per a poll about a week ago, among republican candidates Trump polls the best with Hispanics which is surprising but two separate polls have rated hi the best with Hispanics even over Cruz and Rubio.

In the primary or general election?

 

[SocialD]

In the primary or general election?

As I said 'among republican candidates' meaning that Hispanics support Trump in a greater percentage than any of the other Republican candidates.