Politics by bogus question.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.