The Serious Side

Yep. Bonkers isn't it?

This is - at least in my opinion - a fact that has to be discussed. Can you really ignore the voter's will?

carolhathaway wrote:This is - at least in my opinion - a fact that has to be discussed. Can you really ignore the voter's will?

Yep.  Happened before with Al Gore.

I know. But was the difference as huge as now? I just remember the 537 votes difference in Florida. I'm sure the Republicans have no interest in changing a system which has favored them at least two times.

Carolhathaway - This has happened four times before now. It may have made sense to have the electoral college 200 years ago, but it doesn't anymore.

As I posted earlier, there is a movement to circumvent the electoral college and guarantee the national popular vote winner will win the election. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far there are 10 states and the District of Columbia signed on (with a total of 195 electoral votes). If you want to see things change, Google the Compact and see if your state is signed on. If not, write your governor and state legislators, as well as your Congressmen. Tell them you want your state to sign the compact. (There are also online petitions you can sign.)

This is something that can be done without waiting for Congress to approve it and without amending the Constitution. It is just a matter of each state deciding how to use its electoral votes. It's important. Check it out.

LizzyNY wrote:Carolhathaway - This has happened four times before now. It may have made sense to have the electoral college 200 years ago, but it doesn't anymore.

As I posted earlier, there is a movement to circumvent the electoral college and guarantee the national popular vote winner will win the election. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far there are 10 states and the District of Columbia signed on (with a total of 195 electoral votes). If you want to see things change, Google the Compact and see if your state is signed on. If not, write your governor and state legislators, as well as your Congressmen. Tell them you want your state to sign the compact. (There are also online petitions you can sign.)

This is something that can be done without waiting for Congress to approve it and without amending the Constitution. It is just a matter of each state deciding how to use its electoral votes. It's important. Check it out.

Will it count for this election or future elections?

It won't count for this election because there aren't enough states signed on yet and this election is over. It will count for future elections if enough states sign on to give the popular vote winner 270 electoral votes (or more). If they can't give over 270 electoral votes they can't guarantee a win.

LizzyNY wrote:It won't count for this election because there aren't enough states signed on yet and this election is over. It will count for future elections if enough states sign on to give the popular vote winner 270 electoral votes (or more). If they can't give over 270 electoral votes they can't guarantee a win.

Thank You

Lizzy,
thanks for your information. That sounds really interesting and would be a step in the right direction, I suppose.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-withdraws-signature-from-icc-founding-statute/ar-AAklX0b?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Russia has taken the stand to not legalize same sex marriage.  Why is that important, because those who operate in the criminal perspective they are the righteous call by god to avenge what they perceive to be unrighteous view same sex marriage as something they have been called to avenge.  Withdrawal from the ICC means Russia may longer follow the rule of law set by the ICC.  

After 33 states decided against same sex marriage; it was the Bush Administration Republican Conservative United States Supreme Court that legalized same sex marriage.  Any country that have legalized same sex marriage is in the cross hairs of those who believe they have the god given right to impose violence to execute judgement.  

In truth, I don't believe any person(s) have the right to redefine the institution that defines human existence as outline in the mandate impose by the U.S. Supreme Court.  We in the United States have a legal constitutional avenue to overturn the decision imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Before all of you jump on me about marriage equality, women did not have to be redefined as men to have equal rights extended to them.  Black people did not have to be redefined as white people to have equal rights extended to them.  Legal rights under the law can be extended to same sex couples without redefining the institution that defines human existence as written in the mandate imposed by the 5-4 republican conservative U. S. Supreme court.
  
Note:  Russia is an oil producing country and it is my understanding they have connections to U. S. Oil corporations.

I must be stupid. If someone else chooses to marry someone of the same sex, why should I care? They're not forcing me to do it, any more than someone climbing Mt. Everest is dragging me along. As long as what they're doing isn't harming anyone else, why should I object? Live and let live.

LizzyNY wrote:I must be stupid. If someone else chooses to marry someone of the same sex, why should I care? They're not forcing me to do it, any more than someone climbing Mt. Everest is dragging me along. As long as what they're doing isn't harming anyone else, why should I object? Live and let live.

I believe what people do is between them and the God they serve.  I do not believe anyone including the republican conservative United State Supreme court has the right to redefine the institution that defines human existence.  If I understand correctly the argument used by the LBGT was equal rights under the law.  If the United States Supreme Court believed that was a constitution right they could have extended to the LBGT that right WITHOUT redefining the INSTITUTION THAT DEFINES HUMAN EXISTENCE.
 
California is a state with a very large LGBT presence. In California people of all races, all religions, men and woman, old and young, gay and straight voted against same sex marriage twice.  As Humans we have the right to preserve the institution the defines our existence.  To date I can not understand why anyone including the LBGT would want to redefine the institution that defines their existence as mandated by the republican conservative US Supreme Court.

Ladybug -What you (and all those other people) define as marriage is really only your opinion. If you believe it is an institution that defines human existence then you should live by that belief. If others do not agree, they should not have to live by your beliefs. Their living differently from you in no way interferes with you. Why do you feel entitled to interfere with them?

As humans we have for thousands of years tried to use the courts and religion to define how other people should live. we are supposed to evolve from backwards thinking, and trying to control other people due to our own religious beliefs. We simply have no right, and its  embarrassing to forbid other people (gay, lesbian, or hetero) from marrying each other due to religious rulings, in a country that's supposedly proud of its freedom of religion.

What and how other people choose to live has nothing to do with me it does not affect me. If they are happy and not hurting anyone good for them.

Trump has stated he will not try to over turn Gay marriage it is a law already, he will however try to get rid of Roe vs Wade.

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug -What you (and all those other people) define as marriage is really only your opinion. If you believe it is an institution that defines human existence then you should live by that belief. If others do not agree, they should not have to live by your beliefs. Their living differently from you in no way interferes with you. Why do you feel entitled to interfere with them?

Lizzy - I like you believe people have the right to live the way they want to live.  In my original statement, the very first sentence clearly states that.

Existing as a woman is not a belief it is clearly biologically defined.  Marriage is not my belief the institution of marriage was already clearly defined.  It was the LGBT that felt the need to redefine the institution of marriage, not I.  

Just like the LGBT community and the Republican Conservative US Supreme Court that felt they had the right to redefine it.  I have a legal constitutional right to take measures to reverse the decision that was mandated by the Republican Conservative US Supreme Court.

Please explain to me why anyone would want to redefine the institution of marriage?

Ladybug - People who don't define marriage the same way you do have the right to live their own truth. The institution of marriage that you seem to accept was "clearly defined" by a group of people who decided what they thought marriage should be. You choose to accept their definition. That's fine, but there are other people who define marriage differently and they are entitled to their opinion as well.

Obviously existing as a woman (or a man) is not as clearly biologically defined as you seem to think. If it were there would be no LGBT community because we would all be happily heterosexual and the issue of gay marriage wouldn't exist.

I still don't understand why you feel you have to deny people the same rights you have just because you don't agree with them. Consider how you would feel if homosexuality was the majority reality and you were the one being denied marriage rights because you were straight. As it is, the Supreme Court just extended the same rights to the LGBT community that you already have.

Not right this one


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20161109-story.html


But I read a translated article that was very interesting about polling methods


First mail
Classic mail

Then ppl they selected gave Internet instruments
If they haven't
To keep the research along months

I guess better learn from mistakes

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - People who don't define marriage the same way you do have the right to live their own truth. The institution of marriage that you seem to accept was "clearly defined" by a group of people who decided what they thought marriage should be. You choose to accept their definition. That's fine, but there are other people who define marriage differently and they are entitled to their opinion as well.

Obviously existing as a woman (or a man) is not as clearly biologically defined as you seem to think. If it were there would be no LGBT community because we would all be happily heterosexual and the issue of gay marriage wouldn't exist.

I still don't understand why you feel you have to deny people the same rights you have just because you don't agree with them. Consider how you would feel if homosexuality was the majority reality and you were the one being denied marriage rights because you were straight. As it is, the Supreme Court just extended the same rights to the LGBT community that you already have.

Interesting...

Being lawfully married gives a couple legally different benefits, than not being legally married.  It's absolutely hypocritical to deny these same legal benefits from peoole just based on religious beliefs.

Fingersandtoes wrote:Being lawfully married gives a couple legally different benefits, than not being legally married.  It's absolutely hypocritical to deny these same legal benefits from peoole just based on religious beliefs.

If I understand correctly the argument used by the LBGT was equal rights under the law.  If the United States Supreme Court believed that was a constitution right they could have extended that right to the LBGT community WITHOUT redefining the legal definition of marriage.
 
In California there was Civil Union legislation for same sex couple or couples defined as domestic partners.  That legislation could have been expanded to ensure marriage and Civil Unions were extended the same protection under the law.  That would have preserved marriage as the foundation that defines human existence, and at the same time extended same sex couples equal protection under the law.
 
I am a bible believer; however my stand here is to preserve the foundation that defines all of us as human.  Under the mandate issued by the Republican conservative US Supreme Court that foundation was redefined.   I don't believe anyone has the right to redefine that foundation.    

ladybug wrote:
I am a bible believer; however my stand here is to preserve the foundation that defines all of us as human.     

So, whether or not you're human depends on who you have sex with? Interesting.

Ladybug,
I understand that you have your own point of view.  That is why there are basically 2 definitions of marriage. Civil and religious.  Your church does not have to agree to marry anyone in a religious ceremony.  

The government (states mostly) definition of marriage is a long standing one--it did not start with gay marriage.  It is why you can't marry your sister or your mother or a 12 year old or 4 people simultaneously. 

Yes, civil union laws could solve the legal issues around gay couples.  However, you are not then extending the same rights to gay people as other people.  You are creating a separate but supposedly equal status for them.  We see how well that worked with Jim Crow laws and apartheid.

fava wrote:Ladybug,
I understand that you have your own point of view.  That is why there are basically 2 definitions of marriage. Civil and religious.  Your church does not have to agree to marry anyone in a religious ceremony.  

The government (states mostly) definition of marriage is a long standing one--it did not start with gay marriage.  It is why you can't marry your sister or your mother or a 12 year old or 4 people simultaneously. 

Yes, civil union laws could solve the legal issues around gay couples.  However, you are not then extending the same rights to gay people as other people.  You are creating a separate but supposedly equal status for them.  We see how well that worked with Jim Crow laws and apartheid.

Fava,
 
Even though one may asses my argument to religious beliefs, my stand here is the preservation of a human right.  One that states we don’t have a right to redefine the foundation that fundamentally defines us as human beings – male/female.  I’m saying no person has the right to redefine that foundation; not even the Republican Conservative United States Supreme Court. 
 
Please explain to me how Civil Union legislation expanded to include the same rights under the law does not extend same sex couples equal legal rights.
 
Lastly, I have no nice words to explain how ignorant it is to compare 200 years of history where men and women were shackled, removed from their native land, constitutionally defined as less than human, raped, bought and sold like cattle, beat and whip worse than any living being, that served as the foundation for Jim Crow laws that were NEVER equal - to same sex marriage.

ladybugcngc wrote:

Fingersandtoes wrote:Being lawfully married gives a couple legally different benefits, than not being legally married.  It's absolutely hypocritical to deny these same legal benefits from peoole just based on religious beliefs.

If I understand correctly the argument used by the LBGT was equal rights under the law.  If the United States Supreme Court believed that was a constitution right they could have extended that right to the LBGT community WITHOUT redefining the legal definition of marriage.
 
In California there was Civil Union legislation for same sex couple or couples defined as domestic partners.  That legislation could have been expanded to ensure marriage and Civil Unions were extended the same protection under the law.  That would have preserved marriage as the foundation that defines human existence, and at the same time extended same sex couples equal protection under the law.
 
I am a bible believer; however my stand here is to preserve the foundation that defines all of us as human.  Under the mandate issued by the Republican conservative US Supreme Court that foundation was redefined.   I don't believe anyone has the right to redefine that foundation.    

Why on earth not just simply give the exact same rights, be it lgbt or straight? Regardless of religion and race?

Fingersandtoes wrote:
Why on earth not just simply give the exact same rights, be it lgbt or straight? Regardless of religion and race?

I have not brought religion or race into this discussion; that's on you and Fava.  Civil Unions would have given same sex couple the the exact same rights without redefining the institution of marriage.

It was the LGBT and the Republican Conservative US Supreme court who chose to redefine the foundation that fundamentally defines us as human beings-male/female.

Ladybug - You define marriage as the foundation of the human race. You say you're not bringing religion into it, but you say you are a bible believer. I assume that's where your belief in marriage as being between a man and a woman comes from. There are obviously many people who don't agree with you. Why should your opinion be the one that prevails? And what effect does it have on you if a gay couple marries?

ladybugcngc wrote:

Fingersandtoes wrote:
Why on earth not just simply give the exact same rights, be it lgbt or straight? Regardless of religion and race?

I have not brought religion or race into this discussion; that's on you and Fava.  Civil Unions would have given same sex couple the the exact same rights without redefining the institution of marriage.

It was the LGBT and the Republican Conservative US Supreme court who chose to redefine the foundation that fundamentally defines us as human beings-male/female.

Why couldn't marriage be redefined? Many other institutions are. Why not simply give the exact same rights, right to marriage to all adults?

Ladybug, I am confused by your stance on this issue and your objection to the Supreme Court redefining the perimeters of marriage.  Where is it officially written that only men and women can enter into marriage? Who originally defined the institution of marriage?  It seems to me you have a strong opinion that doesn't favor the Supreme Court's decision but at the end of the day it is your opinion. 

Civil unions would not be the same as a legal marriage.  According to the Court a civil union doesn't recognize the equal rights of a married heterosexual couple.  According to Justice Kennedy all people should have the individual freedom to marry who they wish and receive "equal dignity in the eyes of the law."

ladybugcngc wrote:

Fingersandtoes wrote:
Why on earth not just simply give the exact same rights, be it lgbt or straight? Regardless of religion and race?

I have not brought religion or race into this discussion; that's on you and Fava.  Civil Unions would have given same sex couple the the exact same rights without redefining the institution of marriage.

It was the LGBT and the Republican Conservative US Supreme court who chose to redefine the foundation that fundamentally defines us as human beings-male/female.

You mentioned God.  To me that is bringing religion into it.

Donna,
you just answered my thought if homosexual couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. That's the same in Germany as well. They don't have the same tax advantages and aren't allowed to adopt children. My husband is a registrar and marries same sex couples quite often, since the day it was first allowed here. 
In my opinion they should get the same rights as any other couple. I haven't written a comment on this issue since for me this discussion is just bizarre. We've come so far, why should we step back?

I am incredibly proud of my Country, we were the first Country to legalise Gay Marriage by popular vote...the whole County voted and the referendum was passed with a huge majority....

I just hope they are not going to make it compulsory.... 

I may have lost my Poster Boy....but not my feeling that marriage is a funny outdated old thingumajig.....

I think they should replace Marriage with a simple contract (if at all) with a Brexit type of exit....sort of article 50....Trigger I'm off....then go.....rip the plaster off QUICKLY....

Cut out the white dress, cake and confetti...and you cut the emotional content, that turns what really is a business contract into an emotional fairytale junket...

I wish 'lil bro George had to talked to me before he dived in...A registry office and nice pair of gloves would still be good enough for a Movie Star....

jmo....

"I wish 'lil bro George had to talked to me before he dived in...A registry office and nice pair of gloves would still be good enough for a Movie Star...."


What was it?

I don't understand

This is truly shocking:

https://twitter.com/Arimurad/status/799379354694414341

party animal - not! wrote:This is truly shocking:

https://twitter.com/Arimurad/status/799379354694414341

Heartbreaking. It feels like the world has regressed 100 years these past two weeks.

In Dubai a British woman was arrested and accused for having had sex without being married - SHE WAS RAPED!

Fingersandtoes wrote:

party animal - not! wrote:This is truly shocking:

https://twitter.com/Arimurad/status/799379354694414341

Heartbreaking. It feels like the world has regressed 100 years these past two weeks.

WTF.  What is wrong with people.  There is no reasonable explanation or excuse for this.  It's sick.

We women still have very steep mountains to climb to reach parity and respect in the world.

Yep, indeed.

And what is worse is that this is in Turkey, a NATO member, who has largely suppressed its free media......

George had the wedding he and Amal wanted a celebration every couple has what they want. It doesn't matter what any one says or thinks their day their way.
The most  important thing is the couple is happy and the guests had a good time and have wonderful memories of the day.

Agree annemarie.  George and Amal had a beautiful wedding.  I'm sure they have wonderful memories.  And it was so romantic for them.  They shouldn't have an ounce of regret for expressing their love for each other the way that they did.  It's not anyone else's business how they chose to celebrate their special day.

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/104124262.html

Pence apparently went to watch Hamilton, the audience booed him, the cast delivered a speech, and now trump is demanding an apology. This can't be serious!?! What about the much talked about freedom of speech?!

Yes, and by doing that he has managed to send the story viral around the world!! It was headline around all of Europe's papers.

Apart from anything else, how does he think he's going to track and get the whole audience there on the evening to do that??

More to come I'm sure..........

For Donald Dumb free speech is something only he can have.

He also wants to shut down parts of the internet so that Issis can't use it to recruit.

Can anyone else see the problem with this?

Donald is not a rational man.  Let's not forget that. And he loves attention.   I'm glad Pence got booed.  No apology Donald.  First you apologize a thousand times for the ugly and hateful things you said before and during the campaign!

People are entitled to voice their opinion on this election.  An election unlike any other in our history.  More than half the voting public did not vote for the Donald.

Trump settles the lawsuit he promised to fight until the bitter end.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/donald-trump-university-settles-president-lawsuit-25-million

Interesting, that Pence's Hamilton appearance got more news coverage than this settlement. Many are speculating, that it's no coincidence. Trump's campaign was filled with these tactics. He'd say something outrageous at the same time there was otger REALLY alarming things happening. And the news covered his outrageous speech, instead of the real alarming facts.

If media don't

Better make socials
Fb Twitter etc
To talk about it

Donnamarie wrote:Agree annemarie.  George and Amal had a beautiful wedding.  I'm sure they have wonderful memories.  And it was so romantic for them.  They shouldn't have an ounce of regret for expressing their love for each other the way that they did.  It's not anyone else's business how they chose to celebrate their special day.

Apologies to both Donnamarie and Annmarie....

Of course they had a very grand wedding....You must be so fed up with me banging on about George NOT being the old George....but the fact is I don't know, I don't know him or his wife.....

The day George left to enter the elevator that took him up to the "wedded bliss of the better people"....I remained down on terra firma....with no will to marry UP or down I am where I am, an everyday fantasist....struggling to find my footing on a fan site, that speaks more and more of George's excellent intelligent attractive wife, and less and less about George....

I still stand 100% behind George, and support his movies and causes....It's just that since he boarded the elevator up there has been a disconnect....I don't feel that old stuff matters much to him anymore....I could be wrong but see little evidence...

On another note....remember I mentioned that I had a gut instinct that some person or company was making waves organising all these celebrity/political talks and speeches at UN and conferences and foundations and fundraising....Well what do you know Leo de Caprio turned up in Scotland this week hosted by the same peeps who hosted George at the sandwich shop last year.....My gut tells me someone is making money out of this....a lot more than the celebs they use as puppets......

Mm, not sure about that, WWHS. This is a regular event in Scotland where the entrepreneur who runs the charity shops is part of the committee of the Scottish Business awards, and they always have a star for the main event. Not so many pix this time of that, and Leo chose to go to Edinburgh Castle as well, but I'm betting this is all part of his philanthropic wing and he has many meetings across the world to do with the global warming push. We'll probably find he's also filming in the UK too so the date worked!! Let's see if he also goes to the Postcode Lottery event in Holland as George did.

Also bear in mind that you get tax breaks in the States for philanthropy..........(cynic speaking)

Mmmm PAN...the cynic in me smells a well oiled machine...

Funny how being on a board like this can open your eyes to a world you did not know existed....Hillary, Donald, Brexit they all have a substantially different meaning for me....Simply because of COH....It makes me think, and not blindly think....

Mm. Was Pence sent to Hamilton to distract from the fraud settlement?

Of course. He only requested the tickets on Friday! 

This is a great (and very worrisome) piece. Flynn sounds like a 'nice' piece of work

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/19/michael-flynn-will-be-a-disaster-as-national-security-adviser