• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

The Clerk in KY situation is interesting. Let me first state that I think that what she is doing is wrong. She is welcome to her religious view point, however if this is part of her job description, then her religious belief is in opposition to her job and she should resign the post. As an example, I could never work at Planned Parenthood. She can't be fired because it is an elected position, however impeachment can't happen until sometime next year.

On the flip side, is there a reason that the gay couples can't go and get a marriage licence from a different county while they continue to pursue legal challenges against this clerk. Or are they doing this out of spite?

Either way, I do feel there is a legal injustice here and I think she should resign her post if she is unwilling to do the job. Her husband also give Second Amendment supporters a very bad name.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that there should be another way for the couples to get their marriage licence? Do you think that she should resign?
 
michaelskis said:
She can't be fired because it is an elected position, however impeachment can't happen until sometime next year.
Click to expand...

I have never quite understood why the clerk or register of deeds position is an elected position anyways. They have no room for any particular agenda because every single thing they do is bound by state and federal law. A sheriff can have some leeway in personnel decisions or focusing on specific enforcement targets, so I completely understand that being an elected position.
 
michaelskis said:
On the flip side, is there a reason that the gay couples can't go and get a marriage licence from a different county while they continue to pursue legal challenges against this clerk. Or are they doing this out of spite?
Click to expand...

I think "spite" is the wrong word. They're probably doing it on principle. If I'm honest when I think about it, and a clerk in my home county were doing this to me I'd pursue it even though I could go to an adjacent county. The opposite of courage is not cowardice. It is conformity without question. The Earl Nightingale self-help tape in my FIL's truck taught me that this morning on the way to work. :)
 
michaelskis said:
What are your thoughts? Do you think that there should be another way for the couples to get their marriage licence? Do you think that she should resign?
Click to expand...

I wonder if she's against divorce too, and doesn't file that paperwork, y'know, on religious principles.
 
Well.....

Doohickie said:
I wonder if she's against divorce too, and doesn't file that paperwork, y'know, on religious principles.
Click to expand...

They are saying she is on her 4th husband?? WOW! What a selfish hag. Needs to be removed from office and made to wear a scarlet letter.
 
The One said:
They are saying she is on her 4th husband?? WOW! What a selfish hag. Needs to be removed from office and made to wear a scarlet letter.
Click to expand...

See, she believes firmly in the institution of marriage and after the 4th try she's got it right, we hope.

I kept thinking she just needed to be fired, but if it's elected than someone needs to step in and provide this basic government service (notice the key word government, not church).
 
Well the KY Clerk is in jail. However it sounds like nothing will change. However it got me thinking about something, why isn't there a mechanism in place to allow another clerk to step in and issue these if she is unable to do so.
 
michaelskis said:
Well the KY Clerk is in jail. However it sounds like nothing will change. However it got me thinking about something, why isn't there a mechanism in place to allow another clerk to step in and issue these if she is [STRIKEOUT]unable[/STRIKEOUT] unwilling to do so.
Click to expand...

FTFY. ;)


The answer is probably because the voters in County X elected Clerk X, not Clerk Y from County Y. Of course, this begs the question (which has already been asked here) of why clerk is an elected position anyway?
 
WSU MUP Student said:
FTFY. ;)


The answer is probably because the voters in County X elected Clerk X, not Clerk Y from County Y. Of course, this begs the question (which has already been asked here) of why clerk is an elected position anyway?
Click to expand...

In her mind, she is unable to. I also wanted it in the broader context, namely if she goes on vacation, is on medical leave, or let's say... jail.
 
michaelskis said:
In her mind, she is unable to. I also wanted it in the broader context, namely if she goes on vacation, is on medical leave, or let's say... jail.
Click to expand...

In Kentucky, if she is truly unable to because she is on vacation or in jail, the county's Executive Judge (basically the same thing as a County Executive in Michigan) can issue the marriage licenses.

Unable or unwilling is an important distinction, because by my reading if she is unwilling to perform the duties she was elected to perform, as is (was) the case, I believe the system in Kentucky prohibits the county Executive Judge from overstepping the Clerk to actually get the licenses issued.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
In Kentucky, if she is truly unable to because she is on vacation or in jail, the county's Executive Judge (basically the same thing as a County Executive in Michigan) can issue the marriage licenses.

Unable or unwilling is an important distinction, because by my reading if she is unwilling to perform the duties she was elected to perform, as is (was) the case, I believe the system in Kentucky prohibits the county Executive Judge from overstepping the Clerk to actually get the licenses issued.
Click to expand...

Regardless, if part of that job violates her religious beliefs, she should not be in that job.

As for unable, it is similar to Muslim women wearing a burka for their driver's licence photo or someone who is Jewish eating something that is not kosher. I have never seen a Muslim woman wearing a burka working at Victoria Secret and I don't think that I have ever had a devout Jew working at the Saucy Pig. The biggest difference she believes that her signature on the licence is a profession of support and it denies others a legal right.
 
Maybe after serving a few days in a cell with Big Bertha, that Kentucky clerk might change her stance of same sex unions. ;) :D:D
 
otterpop said:
Maybe after serving a few days in a cell with Big Bertha, that Kentucky clerk might change her stance of same sex unions. ;) :D:D
Click to expand...

I don't think that she will. I think that the state will have to step in and replace her (some how) with an interim clerk, and she will be released as she will no longer have that job. The couples that she is denying even asked that she not be put in jail because they realized that will bot change her mind. Instead they requested financial fines.
 
Wouldn't this essentially be the same as if I refused to issue a permit for a Mormon church because I don't believe in Mormonism? People across the world need to understand the simple concept that not every one shares your religious beliefs. (Perhaps if I explain that to ISIS nicely they will understand.)
 
Seabishop said:
Wouldn't this essentially be the same as if I refused to issue a permit for a Mormon church because I don't believe in Mormonism? People across the world need to understand the simple concept that not every one shares your religious beliefs. (Perhaps if I explain that to ISIS nicely they will understand.)
Click to expand...

No... this is a bit more of a unique situation because the church is just where the religious activities take place. It would be the same as if I approved a site plan for Planned Parenthood. I am pro-life but my signature does not intricate that I am support of the abortions that take place there.

In her situation, the marriage is not legal unless it has her signature on it.
 
Hmmm.....

So.....Kentucky and Stephen King DO have something in common after all:

Tp9tYT7.jpg



TZCa8ML.jpg
 
[QUOTE

As for unable, it is similar to Muslim women wearing a burka for their driver's licence photo [/QUOTE]

Point of order...I don't think Muslim women wearing burkas are allowed to drive, but I get what you're saying.



Nowadays moderation & tolerance is either fully accepted or fully rejected. Being an extermist is detrimental in all occasions - religion, philosophy, gun owners, transgenders, chefs, pro-lifers & pro-choices, et cetera really just fill in the blank. You don't need to be over the top in anything to make your point.
 
Planit said:
As for unable, it is similar to Muslim women wearing a burka for their driver's licence photo
Click to expand...

Point of order...I don't think Muslim women wearing burkas are allowed to drive, but I get what you're saying.



Nowadays moderation & tolerance is either fully accepted or fully rejected. Being an extermist is detrimental in all occasions - religion, philosophy, gun owners, transgenders, chefs, pro-lifers & pro-choices, et cetera really just fill in the blank. You don't need to be over the top in anything to make your point.
Click to expand...

I was thinking back to the controversy over a Muslum woman in FL who refused to take her burka off for her license photo. In the end the judge said that it was a freedom of religion thing.
 
More than anything, I love hypocrisy when it comes to politicians. Especially when they are standing up for someone's "rights." Only, most of the time, the "rights" they will stand up for only come into play when they align with theirs. Case in point: Will Huckabee and Cruz be championing for the Muslim airline employee who won't serve alcohol just the same as they are for Kim Davis?

Me thinks not.
 
MD Planner said:
More than anything, I love hypocrisy when it comes to politicians. Especially when they are standing up for someone's "rights." Only, most of the time, the "rights" they will stand up for only come into play when they align with theirs. Case in point: Will Huckabee and Cruz be championing for the Muslim airline employee who won't serve alcohol just the same as they are for Kim Davis?

Me thinks not.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear what people think about the Muslim airline employee. As I have said before, I don't think that a person should be in a job were part of it is in position with their personal or religious beliefs.

Edit, I went to several websites to look up info on the story above, and noticed the Breaking News on CNN that the judge who ordered Kim Davis to Jail has now ordered her release and ordered her to not interfere with legal marriage licences.

I am not sure what that means being that according to some lawyers, the clerks signature is required for them to be valid. By not signing them, she is interfering and she has stated that she won't sign.
 
No one is less tolerant and less reasonable than a reformed "sinner." Kim Davis was probably a much more interesting person before she decided to based her life decisions and the life decisions of other people on being "born again" to a doctrine based on fairy tales.

Yeah, I said it. Fairy tales! Not even well-written or particularly believable fairy tales. Institutional symbolic cannibalism, three manifestations of one god, walking on water, turning water into wine, other acts of legermain, a zombie Jesus, etc. Bunkum!

Believe whatever you want. But keep it to yourself and don't expect other people to bend to your particular brand of bunkum.

*Drops the mike and walks away.*
 
michaelskis said:
I find it interesting that the Clerk in KY was elected to her position as a democrat.
Click to expand...

Why is that interesting? She is crazy. Religious intolerance isn't just an R thing. It is a Religious thing. In KY it isn't like the D or the R matter anyways. Rand Paul is pretty close to being Bernie Sanders. Just saying.
 
Hink said:
Why is that interesting? She is crazy. Religious intolerance isn't just an R thing. It is a Religious thing. In KY it isn't like the D or the R matter anyways. Rand Paul is pretty close to being Bernie Sanders. Just saying.
Click to expand...

It is interesting because the two candidates that have come out in support are both Republicans and her husband is a strong second amendment supporter (fringe lunatic level though).
 
michaelskis said:
It is interesting because the two candidates that have come out in support are both Republicans and her husband is a strong second amendment supporter (fringe lunatic level though).
Click to expand...

My point exactly. The D doesn't matter in this story. She is nuts. Her husband is nuts. Those that support her (Huckabee and Cruz) are nuts. Sane minds all see how she just made a mockery of the court system and our governments rule of law. Who cares if she has a D. That is trying to politicize her crazy.

She is just nuts. She is an Almond Joy.
 
Hink said:
My point exactly. The D doesn't matter in this story. She is nuts. Her husband is nuts. Those that support her (Huckabee and Cruz) are nuts. Sane minds all see how she just made a mockery of the court system and our governments rule of law. Who cares if she has a D. That is trying to politicize her crazy.

She is just nuts. She is an Almond Joy.
Click to expand...

I guess I see it differently being that the concept that the support of gay marriage has been a democrat view were as the republicans have been anti-gay marriage. For some (Huckabee and Cruz) this is part of their position. Although she is crazy and she should resign if she believes that part of her legal job violates her religious positions.

I guess I don't know enough about Bernie Sanders because the impression I got was he was anti-gun, pro big government, pro-obamacare, increase taxes on everyone but the lower incomes candidate.
 
michaelskis said:
I guess I see it differently being that the concept that the support of gay marriage has been a democrat view were as the republicans have been anti-gay marriage. For some (Huckabee and Cruz) this is part of their position. Although she is crazy and she should resign if she believes that part of her legal job violates her religious positions.

I guess I don't know enough about Bernie Sanders because the impression I got was he was anti-gun, pro big government, pro-obamacare, increase taxes on everyone but the lower incomes candidate.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, gay marriage is supported by D's and not R's. No where does it say that has to be the case. Just because most R's are still stuck trying to get voters and they have to go after the evangelical vote to get elected, doesn't mean that all R's are this archaic. Just ask Rob Portman from Ohio. He supports gay marriage (or at least civil unions). There are a slew of other R's that support this cause. I would imagine there are still D's who for political (or in some cases religious) reasons don't support gay marriage.

The great part about our country is that we are not really in two piles. The political process just likes to pretend we are. The media reinforces this, and then we accept the per-determined assumptions.

Personally, I don't think crazy has a political party. When scandals happen the only reason I laugh when it is an R is usually because it is more hypocritical than when it is a D.

Bernie is a socialist. Isolationist. And general super leftist. Rand is a libertarian. Isolationist. And general super rightist. Our political system is circular. They are A LOT closer than you think.
 
Hink said:
Generally speaking, gay marriage is supported by D's and not R's. No where does it say that has to be the case. Just because most R's are still stuck trying to get voters and they have to go after the evangelical vote to get elected, doesn't mean that all R's are this archaic. Just ask Rob Portman from Ohio. He supports gay marriage (or at least civil unions). There are a slew of other R's that support this cause. I would imagine there are still D's who for political (or in some cases religious) reasons don't support gay marriage.

The great part about our country is that we are not really in two piles. The political process just likes to pretend we are. The media reinforces this, and then we accept the per-determined assumptions.

Personally, I don't think crazy has a political party. When scandals happen the only reason I laugh when it is an R is usually because it is more hypocritical than when it is a D.

Bernie is a socialist. Isolationist. And general super leftist. Rand is a libertarian. Isolationist. And general super rightist. Our political system is circular. They are A LOT closer than you think.
Click to expand...

Our political system is not circular.... it is a multi-dimensional spherical concept that is effected by space and time. :D

Beyond that, I agree with most of everything you said.
 
Cruz & Huckabee saw a platform to jump on in support of the KYClerk. They were in it for them and didn't care about anything else.
 
michaelskis said:
I think the door swings both ways though. Hillary Clinton and the home server with classified information on it for example. Not saying that R's are not hypocritical, but I am saying that D's are just as bad.
Click to expand...

Hilary isn't hypocritical though, she is just a liar. These two are "faithful Christians" and were active in their judgment of others who weren't living their life up to the standards of how they view the Bible. Yet obviously they were doing things that maybe weren't agreeable with the teachings of the Bible.

I would agree that D's generally are bad too, but the hypocritical stuff is usually the R's. Primarily because most of the nut job R's are just so religiously affiliated, they leave no room for mistakes.

Matthew 7:1 - Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
 
Outstanding Description of our Political Condition

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...he-party-of-dumb-white-people-20150904?page=3

"And all that money the Republican kingmakers funneled into Fox and Clear Channel over the years, making sure that their voters stayed focused on ACORN and immigrant-transmitted measles and the New Black Panthers (has anyone ever actually seen a New Black Panther? Ever?) instead of, say, the complete disappearance of the manufacturing sector or the mass theft of their retirement income, all of that's now backing up on them."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...y-of-dumb-white-people-20150904#ixzz3lSSPZsyS
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
 
The One said:
...

"And all that money the Republican kingmakers funneled into Fox and Clear Channel over the years, making sure that their voters stayed focused on ACORN and immigrant-transmitted measles and the New Black Panthers (has anyone ever actually seen a New Black Panther? Ever?) instead of, say, the complete disappearance of the manufacturing sector or the mass theft of their retirement income, all of that's now backing up on them."
...
Click to expand...

Good one, thank you.

Krugman has a good rant today on his blog about Jeb!s completely bonkers tax plan that's worth a read too.

...But what really gets me is that Bush imagines that these are the endorsements he needs. Do Republican base voters care what Stephen Moore says? Do they even know who he is? Endorsements from the supply-siders may matter for big-money donations, but Jeb! already has plenty of those, and his hundred million is doing him no good at all.

Truly, this is pathetic.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can’t vote for Bernie Standards because of this views on the following:

Income Inequality: Raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour is just treating a symptom with a drug. Much like most drugs, this too will have other negative consequences as we are seeing in places that have already implemented this. I do support his concept of having the wealthy pay their fair share, however I think that it is a bigger problem than the progressive tax that he is presenting. A better option would be to tax all income with a graduated rate where those making a percentage within the poverty rate pay nothing. However, also eliminate any and ALL deductions, loop holes, and other tax shelters for everyone. He also talks nothing about elimination of the bank cartel we call the Federal Reserve and the restablization of the American Dollar that is based by a tangible good like gold, instead of a fiat currency that is on the verge of hyperinflation due to the stimulus packages started by Bush and continued by Obama. I do support his breaking up of huge financial institutions… only if it starts with the elimination the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

Pro-Choice: Personally, I am pro-choice until the point of conception. I would be all for increasing the funding to Planned Parenthood if they stopped doing Abortions. It is like supporting Charlie Manson because he helped an old lady cross the street, and overlooking the fact that he just murdered that lady’s family.

Weak Environmental Policy: He is anti-oil and not real strong on anything else. It would be better to support and all of the above approach while encouraging alternative energy sources.

Position on Guns and Cops: He wants police forces that are “reflective of the community they serve” instead of made up of the most qualified candidates. Furthermore, this idea that Black Lives Matter is only recognizing half of the issue. ALL lives matter, including those of police. He also wants to put restrictions on weapons some weapons because of cosmetic modifications more than anything else.

Other:
Have Election Day a national holiday. Great in theory except for those low wage jobs that don’t close on federal holidays including some grocery stores, many fast food restaurants, movie theaters, and the like. Additionally, it will not help police officers, doctors, nurses, fireman, or any other emergency service providers.

Free Public Universities: Yea… why not since there is such amazing equality with the public school systems in dense urban cities. Furthermore, it is becoming apparent that graduating college is not fully preparing young adults to be competitive in today’s society. But this problem more along the realization that we have an assembly line, pass the test, public education system that does not actually teach students critical thinking skills, problem solving, and understanding financial responsibility.
 
So CNN keeps trying to get the candidates to turn on each other, and in 50% of the time, they succeed. Overall, I think it is time to reduce it to the top 5. This big group is just becoming a goat rodeo.

If Trump still is the top of the polls after this, it will send a further message to the Republican establishment that the people are a must of their BS.


Wow, Trump is a serious idiot. I can not vote for him because he is so wrong on so many things it makes me wonder if he realizes how freaking dangerous he really is.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me or does Trump have an earpiece. When you watch and he's not speaking he cocks his head like a dog listening to something - not the other candidate - and he nods like he's agreeing with the earpiece.
 
After having more time to process the comments from last night, I have the following thoughts.


First and most importantly, CNN should never be permitted to host another debate. They were not interested in the candidates getting more into depth of their policies, but they were more interested in being an instigator to great fights between candidates. I think in most of the cases, the candidates did not respond how CNN wanted them to and took the higher road. Trump on the other hand was still an ass.

I think that if Ben Carson stands a chance, he needs to give better details about his policies. I think people like him because of what he isn't vs what he is. He is not a politician, he is not trump, and he hasn't gone negative on the other candidates. He was clear about securing the boarders and immigration, but many of the other comments were less than definitive.

I think that Carly Fiorina proved that she has what it takes to be a top level candidate, but I think that her time at HP will hurt her in the long run. I think that Bush did an OK job, he showed he had a personality and there were a few (but limited moments) that his ideas sounded reasonable. I think that Chris Christie showed a moment of leadership when he told CNN that we need to stop the bickering and start talking about the issues... and then showed that he can get too emotional and irrational when talking about 9/11. I was waiting for him to say "People want revenge" but he never quite crossed the threshold of crazy.

Paul, Cruze, Walker, Kasich, and Huckabee should just drop out now. I think that Rubio had moments, but I question if they can be sustained.

And then there is Trump. No there Donald, vaccinations don't cause autism. Trust me, my son was diagnosed before he was vaccinated. People won't respect us if you are President because you make stupid comments, personal attacks, and while you might be a millionaire, you don't understand government finance. Although I am sure people will appreciate your willingness to forgo your social security payments.


In the end, I think it will make a heck of a SNL skit this weekend.
 
I'd have to agree that CNN was trying to pick fights.

Yes, the majority just need to step down. They aren't true candidates and are just playing to the ultra conservatives. If we all stop paying attention, maybe they'll just go away.

Trump was an ass. He had no substance, just a promise to get the best team out ever to advise him. I did like the exchange about the Florida gambling stuff. He gave donations to try to buy Jeb and Jeb helped vote that crap down. I liked the quote, "if I wanted it I would have gotten it." No, you didn't. That was the point, you failed to buy a politician and failed in one of your ideas.

Jeb seems to be trying to take the moderate ground. I hope that works for him.

I actually like Carly, she had plans. They might not have been completely viable plans, but she proposed some form of action instead of just ranting about political evils.

I'd say narrow the field to Jeb, Ben, Carly, and Trump. Trump only because America is enjoying the show and he makes the others look good.
 
Carly, Jeb & Ben appear to be the only grown-ups. Maybe Kasich as well, though it looks like he is marching toward irrelevance. I agree that Ben needs to define himself better--he is allowing others to define him based on what he is not. He needs to correct that before someone decides to define him in a more negative light. Carly was downright impressive.

Jake Tapper stunk it up as a moderator. Debate moderation has been a significant issue for about a decade now across all networks. I think the problem is that we are plopping "journalists" in the moderator chair. I think debates would improve if you had a debate moderation 3-person panel of professors that specialize in debate moderation. I think they would have the skills necessary to force answers out of candidates. If you didn't notice, very rarely did any of the candidates actually answer the question. Well, except for that bozo question about secret service code names. Also, you can't call it a debate when you have an entire football team on the stage. These large format "debates" are laughable.
 
Caught a little bit of the CNN debate last night.

It was a joke of a debate, the moderators, as stated, had no control and it pretty much was the Trump show as he chimed in on almost every question.

I think people like Trump because he doesn't follow the rules of engagement for in politics. I actually like him for this, I disagree with MANY other things but I think our political system has gotten too pussy-footed and no one actually wants to say what they think about the issues or each other.

Ben Carson is a nice guy, I like some of his ideas but last night he didn't make the most of his sound bites and is just not quite aggressive enough. I think Carly is a nice balance of eloquence and punch, compared to the other woman in the race right now I find her way more likable.

I tend to like almost everything Kasich says, but he's just not quite in the forefront enough, and maybe that's where he wants to be.

Christie needs to step down and hope he's the next AG, I think he would make a great AG - not president.

Jeb is quickly becoming irrelevant to me. He is another Bush and for the same reason I don't want another Clinton I don't want another Bush. He's too soft where it counts and probably too intellectual for the average voter. Ya did good in Florida from what I hear (from you) now go talk on the speaker circuit and retire.

Rubio is the wild card I feel. Young and with it enough compared to almost every other candidate up there, brings the Hispanic mindset to the forefront of this election, and he's tough on foreign policy.


Immediate predictions before next debate (TBD):
Overall, Trump stays for now and it's only a matter of weeks before he says something SO stupid people HAVE to turn their backs on him, but he has changed the landscape of the 2015-2016 political process
Carly needs to do something now, she's back in the top 10 and if she's serious needs to make a move. She might be the first one to announce a VP -OR- she gets picked up as the eventual favorite's VP.
Jeb, I guess needs to keep doing what he's doing, laying fairly low and fending off Trump attacks
Rubio, another one that needs to make some noise
Ben, Needs to get a little more passionate. I know he's super smart and has a good heart but he's just a little too laid back for me now.
Christie, done in a few months
Kasich, if he does't surge quickly he's done soon
Walker has potential but doesn't stand out from the rest for some reason to me, didn't get a lot of air time last night.
Huckabee, Cruz - done fairly soon as well, you can only ride the right wind religious so far
Paul, hangs in there because he's really a Libertarian. Not the viable candidate, but uses it to get the GOP more moderate.
 
Last edited:
:-c

8-!


:-o


WTH?


Thus far, we all agree on something in the political thread.


Maybe it's a sign that we are all sick of the establishment of both parties and looking for something better than what DC has offered us in the past.
 
Back
Top