Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,425
Deadline to step down has passed, if I understand correctly only a court order could replace him on the ballot. He was still leading in the last polls too.
Todd Akin refusing to step down!
- Thread starter AlpsStranger
- Start date
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK, so you do agree with the nuance, but disagree with my premise that they deserve different names? Fair enough. I just think it, especially statuitory rape, cheapens the meaning of "Rape." I mean, when I think "Rape" I think "Horrible crime that deserves life in prison or death." When I think "Statuitory rape" I think "Eh, possibly a minor offense, but not a huge deal (Usually)" and sometimes not even worthy of being illegal at all, depending on ages.
'
I just don't think two offenses, one that will make me think "Death" and another that will make me think "Slap on the wrist" should both get the word "Rape" used, it just cheapens the meaning of rape. Its like giving slapping someone on the face and chopping someone's arm off both the word "Assault", it cheapens the meaining of "Assault" (Slapping someone on the face actually ISN'T assault in NYS unless somehow the injury is significant, its harassment) while cutting off someone's arm is straight out, flat out first degree assault.
Or calling the death of someone due to drunk driving "Murder" although this is slightly less bad as drunk driving and killing someone with it is pretty bad, just not quite "Murder."
Basically, I just don't think its fair to call a 18 year old guy who consensually sleeps with a 15 year old girl a "Rapist" its unfair both to the 18 year old and anyone who's actually been raped. Its just not right.
Dead heat between 2 candidates, one of whom is well financed, the other broke? Sounds like a fun race.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Just wait until the Republican Party decides that no matter how foolish and caustic one of their anointed spokesmen might be that they are still worth financially backing. After all, this is a "war" where principles and ethics hardly matter.
Presidency is worth more.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,425
Given the fact that this race could determine the majority of the Senate, yeah, I'd suspect that there will be an attempt to repackage him and fund his campaign. Politics is a dirty business.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Which is why they are now supporting an elitist Mormon from Massachusetts. All is fair in war and war.
Well the thing is I don't think the GOP can choose both. Individual campaign contributors might donate to Akin, but he'll get no party support and no big name support. Most Super PACs will probably be afraid to touch him as well -- imagine the commercial Obama could put out where Evil Right Wing Super PAC runs Akin and Romney commercials.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Do you know, for a fact, that consensual intercourse between two parties where one is below the age of consent is treated the same way by the courts as non-consensual sex? You seem to be assuming that the courts will treat these offenses in the same way, but I'm uncertain if your assumption is justified. DAs, Courts, and juries, have a lot of discretion in what they charge individuals with and to what degree they could be punished.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Can I then use that thread as an example of how the right uses the term "leftist agenda" as a partisan tool, and is in effect a display of hypocrisy?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I missed this the first time by due to my quote tag not properly appearing.
Being supported by two homophobic hate groups and even appearing on their broadcasts is what is homophobic. I think it is clear he supports their views or he would never appear on their show or get their endorsement.
I certainly think you can argue that being opposed to SSM is not in itself being homophobic. But it is clearly opposed by anybody who is homophobic. And trying to ban a chaplain from performing the ceremony in the military even when it is legal in a particular state is beyond simply opposing SSM. I think it is misusing his power as a congressman by directly violating the First Amendment.
I really don't understand the logic behind why "these statements" is any possible reason why you would "never support SSM". Would you care to explain that?
No it isn't.
1) I don't think a majority of Americans believe that the FRC is a hate group. Even if they do, I certainly don't think a majority of voters from Missouri (a conservative state) think so.
2) A majority of voters in Missouri are against gay marriage. Up to a popular vote, I wouldn't be surprised if voters in Missouri would shoot down the idea of gay chaplains.
It is not controversial to be against gay rights in a socially conservative state. Hell, bringing back DADT might end up being part of the official GOP platform in Tampa. Opposing gay marriage certainly is.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Only the first one is actually important in the current context because there is no doubt that these two groups are hate groups. And if it is true that the majority of Americans think that way, it is an indictment of our entire society instead of merely those who are clearly homophobic or support and defend them.
But I do agree that most Missourians apparently don't seem to think so. At least that is true for those who have voted this bigot into office for 12 years now, and those who now wish to make him a Senator. We can only hope it falls short of being a majority on election day.
But I do agree that most Missourians apparently don't seem to think so. At least that is true for those who have voted this bigot into office for 12 years now, and those who now wish to make him a Senator. We can only hope it falls short of being a majority on election day.
Yeah, I think this is true, especially with how easy it would be to tie Akin to Ryan on abortion. Republicans are already having big problems with women voters this cycle, more ads on Akin would only make that problem worse.
Here is how the Senate races are shaking out...
Last week, the GOP had 6 races where could take a Dem seat. In order of likelihood, those were Nebraska, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin and Virgina. Winning 4 of those 6 without losing a state means they get a majority.
The Republicans are also defending a few seats: Nevada, Indiana, Massachusetts and Maine.
It is looking like Democrats (or technically, Indie Angus King who is wildly expected to caucus with Democrats) are going to win in Maine, and Republicans are going to win in Nebraska. Without Missouri, the GOP has to win 4 out of 5, as well as Nevada (becoming more likely thank to Dem candidate issues), Massachusetts (slight edge to GOP) and Indiana (which is a total dogfight). That's not impossible, but it will be very tough.
That 5 million that was going to MO may end up in Indiana OR Wisconsin though, so it isn't a total loss.
I think some people are missing the larger point here (at least, the larger point for me).
Idiots get elected to office all the time - whatever. So this guy may be an idiot based on the content of his comments, his judgement in how he's responding to the issue, and - especially - his political acumen.
But for me the large issue is that, unlike one of us - who may be honestly mistaken about something like this - THIS GUY IS ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE.
His presence there tell the rest of the world all they need to know about the things the US values.
It's truly disgraceful.
Murky
Deity
It'd be a great step forward for our nation of there was a Democratic wave out of this. Akin really isn't out of step with his party. Ryan voted much the same way as did several others.
Yep, that PPP poll rigged to give him enough false hope to hang in there.
Murky
Deity
Yep, that PPP poll rigged to give him enough false hope to hang in there.
There's no conspiracy. This is Missouri we're talking about here.
Spoiler :
GhostWriter16
Deity
Its not always, but I've heard that it has been.
Obviously we all know an 18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old is basically just consensual sex with no "Iffiness" to it. I deliberately made it 18 and 15 so that it might be a little iffy. Even still, its "Iffy." Its not "Rape." Rape isn't "Gray" its flat out nonconsensual. That's the way I feel about legal terminology. When "Rape" can actually be "non-forcible" I think it almost cheapens the word to where we have to use words like "Legitimate rape" when we shouldn't have too.
Oh, and yes, "Forcible" can be more than just physically holding someone down. Purposely drugging someone, for instance, would apply the same way. As would sleeping with a child. I'd shoot anyone on the spot who was practicing either of the two in the process of the act in order to stop it if needed.
But drunkenness? I'd just call the cops. Yeah, its wrong, but consent is sometimes murky in that type of area.
That's probably true at least for the most part.
How does that violate the first amendment? Its a military regulation. Don't they have all sorts of those? If you disagree with SSM, wouldn't you want to prevent as many of them as possible from being performed?
Sure.
I'm not comfortable with the idea anyway, but I'm not really the type of person that's going to say "We're going to get the judgment of Sodom if we allow this!!!!
" I do have concern that everyone who has a moral problem with homosexuality is going to get branded with "Homophobe" and "Bigot" soon after its legalized everywhere (And yeah, I know it will probably happen someday, even though I don't like it). I don't like it because, even though I know some people disagree with me, I think its actually expanding the power of the government when they get to redefine marriage for us. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that's what I believe. I honestly don't even care if the state recognizes this, but I don't want them to outright REJECT it like they do when they legalize gay marriage. I'm fine with civil unions. I'd even be fine if ALL "partnerships" were legally called civil unions, although I think that's a state decision and probably won't happen. But if the state is going to define marriage, I want them to do it in a way I perceive as correct.I've heard the "Equal rights" thing a million times, which actually makes me more callous to it. Same with comparing it to race like many people do. Its not a choice to be black, but its a choice to identify as gay. I'm not saying just because its a choice means we should discriminate as much and often as we want, but it IS a choice, and to compare it to religious belief also annoys me because freedom of religion is in the 1st amendment and "Freedom to be gay" isn't really in the constitution anywhere.
I'm fairly moderate on the topic, but when people say "This is about equal rights and everyone who disagrees are bigots!" It really makes me callous towards even really considering it. Same when conservatives say "This is going to bring the judgment of Sodom" (Which had more to it than homosexuality by the way) I tend to shut them out as well, since its a topic I don't exceptionally care about but dislike being called a bigot for my positions over.
I may have misinterpreted your comments however, since I believed you were saying opposing gay marriage=homophobic, and I thought you implied this, but then you actually said you weren't drawing that conclusion, and so I can believe that I misinterpreted you.
The all-caps point is fair.
Statutory rape is sex with a child. If you'd _shoot_ anyone who committed statutory rape, why are you saying it isn't as bad as forcible rape?
What about having sex with a person who was drugged by someone else?
