Dems hope for Cruz, fear Bush

[MACVSOG68]

It is a fascinating discussion, and I thought both you and Luis made really great points.  Thank you both for the thoughtful analysis.

 

[MACVSOG68]

Back to the original topic at hand, I would be very wary of what the Democrats say on this topic.

Remember what happened in Missouri when they said many of the same things about Todd Akin that they said about Jeb. That lasted about as long as the primary, and then a week later, boom.

The Democrats know Jeb is a weak candidate who can easily be defeated the moment a primary is finished and they can't change the nomination.

I'm still curious how you arrived at that conclusion.  You know that Bush can cut into the women's and Hispanic vote, and you know that Cruz cannot.  So how does that scare the Democrats?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sort of like my mentioning of Obamacare.

Sigh... There you go again.

Had Obamacare been enacted by the government riding on the back of a wave of increasing demand for socialized medicine, that would fit this discussion, Obamacare was the polar opposite of that, and the polar opposite of the acceptance, in both the Courts and the people, of homosexuality and SSM.

I think it expands even beyond simply same-sex marriage, to all of the LGBT issues of today, and of the wider acceptance of sexual predilection in everyday social activity.  The heroes of today are the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings, not because of their history, but because of their "new" genders.  Is it right to wince at such things?  I do, and I know a lot of others do also.

And most conservatives believe that.

They're wrong, and I can prove that to you.

Is Bruce Jenner your hero?

In fact, is Bruce Jenner anyone's hero in this forum?

So then, how can he be that "hero of today", when he's no hero to all, or maybe a hero to a limited number of people?

I am a huge fan of cool jazz, have been one for a long time. Miles, Paul Desmond, Chet Baker... Loved their music. Then, as I listened to more and more of their music I transitioned to Avant Garde Jazz, because the players were cool, Avant Garde was smoky, mysterious and cool, and I wanted to be smoky, mysterious and cool.

Then I got to Coltrane at that point when he took the movement atonal and unstructured, with modal scales and rhythms that existed mostly in the drummers' head, so I went there... for a little while. Right up until I realized that it was stupid and just noise, so I ( along with the rest of the world) took a step or two back to cool jazz music with tonality and a beat.

That's where we are right now with the whole LGBT crap. A lot of people are pushing the boundaries, but soon the boundaries will push back. We will never go back to Stan Kenton and Woody Zherman, but to some place that makes sense.

You see I don't have any problem with your belief on same-sex marriage, nor do I have an issue with those who do.  Perhaps it's the libertarian part of my conservative nature.  And until three or four years ago, most Americans felt that a state that wanted SSM could have it; those that did not should not have it.  It would seem that freedom of choice apparently must be decided only by liberals, not conservatives.

Blame the XIV Amendment, and while you're at it, bless the XIV Amendment.

Prior to the clause in the Amendment that mandated that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and the doctrine of incorporation, the SCOTUS was finding (correctly I might add) that the limitations imposed by the First and Second Amendments applied only to the Federal government and not to the States (United States v. Cruikshank).  Thanks to the XIV Amendment, that's no longer the case and as a result, people in DC can now buy guns and Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for abortifacients for their employees.

It's a wonder to me that you would use "choice" as the base meaning of something that removes the freedom and the choice to do something from a segment of the population by another segment of the population via a vote.

A wonder.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It is a fascinating discussion, and I thought both you and Luis made really great points.  Thank you both for the thoughtful analysis.

 

[MACVSOG68]

 They're wrong, and I can prove that to you.

Is Bruce Jenner your hero?

In fact, is Bruce Jenner anyone's hero in this forum?

So then, how can he be that "hero of today", when he's no hero to all, or maybe a hero to a limited number of people?

You're missing the point.  I said that gay marriage wasn't the only issue for the social conservatives.  I said that conservatives in general have many more concerns springing out of that change to marriage laws.  And yes, the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings are now in the forefront as the new heroes of today.  Children are being taught at a very early age today that they might want to consider another gender choice.  The US military is actually making plans for an integration of LGBT into the ranks. 

A recent poll shows that people believe the gay and lesbian population is about 25%, while in fact only about 3.8% self identify as such.  I'm not surprised.  It seems to be the issue of the century for many.  Movies, television shows, constantly attempt to make heroes out of this group, small though it really is.

And as I've pointed out earlier, the increasing sex, violence and drugs in the media, movies, tv and games sold to children should be a major concern.  Can we stop this cultural paradigm shift?  Probably not.  Conservatives would like to curb it; liberals want to see it increase, because to a liberal, the only way to get to their version of heaven on earth where everyone is equal, the old culture with its traditions must be destroyed.

I am a huge fan of cool jazz, have been one for a long time. Miles, Paul Desmond, Chet Baker... Loved their music. Then, as I listened to more and more of their music I transitioned to Avant Garde Jazz, because the players were cool, Avant Garde was smoky, mysterious and cool, and I wanted to be smoky, mysterious and cool.

Then I got to Coltrane at that point when he took the movement atonal and unstructured, with modal scales and rhythms that existed mostly in the drummers' head, so I went there... for a little while. Right up until I realized that it was stupid and just noise, so I ( along with the rest of the world) took a step or two back to cool jazz music with tonality and a beat.

That's where we are right now with the whole LGBT crap. A lot of people are pushing the boundaries, but soon the boundaries will push back. We will never go back to Stan Kenton and Woody Zherman, but to some place that makes sense.

Blame the XIV Amendment, and while you're at it, bless the XIV Amendment.

Prior to the clause in the Amendment that mandated that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and the doctrine of incorporation, the SCOTUS was finding (correctly I might add) that the limitations imposed by the First and Second Amendments applied only to the Federal government and not to the States (United States v. Cruikshank).  Thanks to the XIV Amendment, that's no longer the case and as a result, people in DC can now buy guns and Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for abortifacients for their employees.

It's a wonder to me that you would use "choice" as the base meaning of something that removes the freedom and the choice to do something from a segment of the population by another segment of the population via a vote.

A wonder.

Choice is the underpinning of a republican form of government.  Some states execute people; some don't.  You mentioned gun laws.  Yes you may be able to buy a gun in DC, but the gun laws vary widely from state to state, something called choice.  Some states have much greater child protection laws than do others.  Most conservatives had little problem with Massachusetts going forward with gay marriage as long it didn't force their state into changing the basic definition of a centuries old system.

Now if you read that 8th Circuit decision I mentioned a couple of times, you would understand how the court distinguished interracial marriage from intra-gender marriage.  And you would have seen read the slippery slope argument, which only makes sense.  Will it be legal for a brother and sister to marry?  How about a father and daughter?  Will the age barrier be subject to the 14th Amendment?  If the parents agree, can two twelve year old boys marry each other?  If two are good, why not three or four marrying?  After all if they all love each other, who are we to judge?  And shouldn't the whole group get the tax bennies?  Polygamy can now be expanded to multiple spouses of the same sex or opposite sex, so that bi-sexuals can get the benefits of the 14th Amendment. 

Who says liberals don't like tradition.  They can now legally return to the communes of the 1960s, and get the tax benefits to boot.  And of course, divorces will be much more complicated in such groups, a whole new career for lawyers! 

And God forbid the conservative who says, "I'm not too sure I like all of that". 

[Bigun]

Don't be like that Bigun.  I've got no animosity towards you.  I've got an opinion, and a strong opinion.  I think the '64 Goldwater campaign tanked the GOP.  You've corrected me before, and I have thanked you for it. 

Please. 

Show me how the Powers-That-Be tanked the conservative campaign of Goldwater.  Give me something except amazement at my gullibility and a veiled invective.  I am ready to be enlightened.

OK! I apologize but it REALLY ticks me off for people to attempt to put words in my mouth that I NEVER said!

What I actually said was that there was no one who was going to beat Johnson so soon after Kennedy's death and the establishment has taken  FULL advantage of that fact by attempting to attribute Goldwater's loss to his conservatism rather than the circumstances.

[Bigun]

And as I've pointed out earlier, the increasing sex, violence and drugs in the media, movies, tv and games sold to children should be a major concern.  Can we stop this cultural paradigm shift?  Probably not.  Conservatives would like to curb it; liberals want to see it increase, because to a liberal, the only way to get to their version of heaven on earth where everyone is equal, the old culture with its traditions must be destroyed.

And the fact that when you and I were growing up EVERYONE knew who Audie Murpy was and looked up to him!

Today everyone knows who Kim Kardasian is and no one has a clue as to who Ed Freeman is or what he did!

[MACVSOG68]

And the fact that when you and I were growing up EVERYONE knew who Audie Murpy was and looked up to him!

Today everyone knows who Kim Kardasian is and no one has a clue as to who Ed Freeman is or what he did!

Very true.

[Bigun]

Very true.

At the risk of taking this thread off subject I would like to return to another subject with you for a moment.

Article II, Section 1 wording in the Constitution remains the same today as originally adopted/ratified.

Do you believe that to be a true statement or not?

[MACVSOG68]

At the risk of taking this thread off subject I would like to return to another subject with you for a moment.

Article II, Section 1 wording in the Constitution remains the same today as originally adopted/ratified.

Do you believe that to be a true statement or not?

No, there have been changes.  Where are you heading with this though?

[MACVSOG68]

I'm heading to the subject of who is qualified under the Constitution to be President of the United States.

What are those changes you think have modified that wording?

For example when I look at any modern copy of the Constitution there will be a notation of some kind inserted after the phrase or clause which has latter been modified by Constitutional amendment. There aren't any such notations in Article II, Section 1 with regard to the qualifications for office of president or vice president.

No that particular clause in Article II Section 1 hasn't changed.

[Bigun]

No that particular clause in Article II Section 1 hasn't changed.

That's right! So the qualifications for the office of president have not been altered by any amendment to date and remain the same today as they were originally.

That being the case, you should know that The Library of Congress contains Farrand's records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a "citizen of one of the several states." Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be "natural-born citizen." The founders/framers understood the distinction.

The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which the court cited the definition of natural-born citizen from The Law of Nations pretty much verbatim. It requires birth in the country to parents who were citizens (plural) at the time of birth.

The debates around the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record) are full of statements that confirm the definition from The Law of Nations.

Current day legislators obviously also understand the distinction between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen" as they attempted eight times in a twenty-two month period through February, 2008 to either change the requirement to "citizen" or remove it.

That is where I'm coming from when I say that Cruz is not eligible and neither are Rubio and Jindal.

(Sorry! I inadvertently removed the post that you replied to above and to which this post replies in trying to make myself more clear. but no harm done as you had already quoted it.)

[MACVSOG68]

That's right! So the qualifications for the office of president have not been altered by any amendment to date and remain the same today as they were originally.

That being the case, you should know that The Library of Congress contains Farrand's records (Robert Farrand was a Constitutional Convention scribe) of the debate around Article II. Original proposed wording was that the office of President required a "citizen of one of the several states." Also in the Library of Congress is a letter written by John Jay (who eventually became first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) to George Washington (who was a delegate to the Convention) proposing the requirement be "natural-born citizen." The founders/framers understood the distinction.

The US Supreme Court cited The Law of Nations at least four times from its inception through 1875 when it issued the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, in which the court cited the definition of natural-born citizen from The Law of Nations pretty much verbatim. It requires birth in the country to parents who were citizens (plural) at the time of birth.

The debates around the 14th Amendment (Congressional Record) are full of statements that confirm the definition from The Law of Nations.

Current day legislators obviously also understand the distinction between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen" as they attempted eight times in a twenty-two month period through February, 2008 to either change the requirement to "citizen" or remove it.

That is where I'm coming from when I say that Cruz is not eligible and neither are Rubio and Jindal.

(Sorry! I inadvertently removed the post that you replied to above and to which this post replies in trying to make myself more clear. but no harm done as you had already quoted it.)

Nothing has changed Bigun.  We spent many threads discussing this.  I disagree with you completely for all of the reasons given earlier.  Having said that, you can believe none of them is eligible, but most of America doesn't agree with you, and just as with the Obama eligibility lawsuits, no court is going to give you the time of day.  IOW it is simply an academic exercise.  You've told me that you believe Cruz to be ineligible for the office, but at the same time you said you would vote for him because he is a constitutional conservative.

So why debate this issue?

[Bigun]

Nothing has changed Bigun.  We spent many threads discussing this.  I disagree with you completely for all of the reasons given earlier.  Having said that, you can believe none of them is eligible, but most of America doesn't agree with you, and just as with the Obama eligibility lawsuits, no court is going to give you the time of day.  IOW it is simply an academic exercise.  You've told me that you believe Cruz to be ineligible for the office, but at the same time you said you would vote for him because he is a constitutional conservative.

So why debate this issue?

I agree with your point that it is, at this point in time, simply an academic exercise even if it shouldn't be. That is exactly why it would not prevent me from voting for Cruz.  I only brought it up because you referenced it recently.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're missing the point.  I said that gay marriage wasn't the only issue for the social conservatives.  I said that conservatives in general have many more concerns springing out of that change to marriage laws.  And yes, the Bruce Jenners and Bradley Mannings are now in the forefront as the new heroes of today. Children are being taught at a very early age today that they might want to consider another gender choice.  The US military is actually making plans for an integration of LGBT into the ranks. 

A recent poll shows that people believe the gay and lesbian population is about 25%, while in fact only about 3.8% self identify as such.  I'm not surprised.  It seems to be the issue of the century for many.  Movies, television shows, constantly attempt to make heroes out of this group, small though it really is.

And as I've pointed out earlier, the increasing sex, violence and drugs in the media, movies, tv and games sold to children should be a major concern.  Can we stop this cultural paradigm shift?  Probably not.  Conservatives would like to curb it; liberals want to see it increase, because to a liberal, the only way to get to their version of heaven on earth where everyone is equal, the old culture with its traditions must be destroyed.

Choice is the underpinning of a republican form of government.  Some states execute people; some don't.  You mentioned gun laws.  Yes you may be able to buy a gun in DC, but the gun laws vary widely from state to state, something called choice.  Some states have much greater child protection laws than do others.  Most conservatives had little problem with Massachusetts going forward with gay marriage as long it didn't force their state into changing the basic definition of a centuries old system.

Now if you read that 8th Circuit decision I mentioned a couple of times, you would understand how the court distinguished interracial marriage from intra-gender marriage.  And you would have seen read the slippery slope argument, which only makes sense.  Will it be legal for a brother and sister to marry?  How about a father and daughter?  Will the age barrier be subject to the 14th Amendment?  If the parents agree, can two twelve year old boys marry each other?  If two are good, why not three or four marrying?  After all if they all love each other, who are we to judge?  And shouldn't the whole group get the tax bennies?  Polygamy can now be expanded to multiple spouses of the same sex or opposite sex, so that bi-sexuals can get the benefits of the 14th Amendment. 

Who says liberals don't like tradition.  They can now legally return to the communes of the 1960s, and get the tax benefits to boot.  And of course, divorces will be much more complicated in such groups, a whole new career for lawyers! 

And God forbid the conservative who says, "I'm not too sure I like all of that".

I only have time to respond to the highlighted sentence. You and Bigun have "heroes" confused with "notorious" and "celebrity". The notion that Jenner today is a hero because of his sex change is pure and unadulterated hyperbole.

Jenner and the Kardashians are notorious and celebrities.

Chris Kyle is a hero. And the success of America Sniper proves that Americans still know what a hero is beyond the shade of a doubt.

[MACVSOG68]

I agree with your point that it is, at this point in time, simply an academic exercise even if it shouldn't be. That is exactly why it would not prevent me from voting for Cruz.  I only brought it up because you referenced it recently.

I referenced the qualifications for president here recently?  Might have, but don't recall.  But again, if you believe Cruz to be constitutionally ineligible, and you do claim to be a constitutional conservative, I'm not sure how you could vote for him.  Then you would be like most of the rest of us saying, it really doesn't matter. 

How could someone argue for years to have Obama disqualified and yet give Ted Cruz a pass?

[Bigun]

I referenced the qualifications for president here recently?  Might have, but don't recall.  But again, if you believe Cruz to be constitutionally ineligible, and you do claim to be a constitutional conservative, I'm not sure how you could vote for him.  Then you would be like most of the rest of us saying, it really doesn't matter. 

How could someone argue for years to have Obama disqualified and yet give Ted Cruz a pass?

Believe me it isn't easy! I HATE seeing our Constitution eroded away!

[MACVSOG68]

I only have time to respond to the highlighted sentence. You and Bigun have "heroes" confused with "notorious" and "celebrity". The notion that Jenner today is a hero because of his sex change is pure and unadulterated hyperbole.

Jenner and the Kardashians are notorious and celebrities.

Chris Kyle is a hero. And the success of America Sniper proves that Americans still know what a hero is beyond the shade of a doubt.

They are not my heroes, but they are the heroes of the left, which is dramatically changing our culture and societal norms.  My point is and has been that the very sudden shift in gay marriage approval by society is part of a much larger cultural paradigm change.  That is what conservatives are pushing back on.

[MACVSOG68]

Believe me it isn't easy! I HATE seeing our Constitution eroded away!

Let me ask you this.  Do you believe Cruz's birthplace will in any way impact how he would serve as president?

[Bigun]

Let me ask you this.  Do you believe Cruz's birthplace will in any way impact how he would serve as president?

No! I do not! But that does not change anything with regard to the Constitution and WHY the founders chose to make it as they did.

I should add that I only answered as I did because I personally know and respect Ted Cruz. Otherwise I would have had to answer 'I don't know!"

[Luis Gonzalez]

They are not my heroes, but they are the heroes of the left, which is dramatically changing our culture and societal norms.  My point is and has been that the very sudden shift in gay marriage approval by society is part of a much larger cultural paradigm change.  That is what conservatives are pushing back on.

Your statement was, on more than one occasion, that they were "the heroes of today", not "the heroes of the left". That's a vast sea of difference between what you said before and what you're sting now and what makes your previous statements hyperbole.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They are not my heroes, but they are the heroes of the left, which is dramatically changing our culture and societal norms.  My point is and has been that the very sudden shift in gay marriage approval by society is part of a much larger cultural paradigm change.  That is what conservatives are pushing back on.

So, then, organic societal changes, according to SOCIAL conservatives, is something to be fought against. That's what I'm understanding your statement to be.

If government is truly by the people, for the people, and of the people, then where do SOCIAL conservatives derive the power to engage the government to try and stop organic societal changes from?

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW, I don't see acceptance of SSM after millennia of non-acceptance as constituting a "sudden shift".

It's more a factor of the people who opposed it dying off and being replaced by people who are more likely to accept change than not. And after all, all organic societal change is liberal in nature.

[MACVSOG68]

Your statement was, on more than one occasion, that they were "the heroes of today", not "the heroes of the left". That's a vast sea of difference between what you said before and what you're sting now and what makes your previous statements hyperbole.

You can try splitting hairs, but I've made my point.  We frequently tend to use the term "hyperbole" to counter something we disagree with.

[MACVSOG68]

So, then, organic societal changes, according to SOCIAL conservatives, is something to be fought against. That's what I'm understanding your statement to be.

If government is truly by the people, for the people, and of the people, then where do SOCIAL conservatives derive the power to engage the government to try and stop organic societal changes from?

As long as conservatives don't break the laws to push back against this massive cultural shift, I've no problem with it, and in fact encourage it.  As I've pointed out several times, without conservatism, the liberal changes in every aspect of our government, our economy and society would me moving at warp speed.

You speak of the people, yet you decried the passing of Prop 8, a second attempt to prevent the government from enacting a change most Californians didn't want.  Aren't you trying to have it both ways?