Sanders/Clinton Data Breech battle

[RoyleRedlegs]

(12-20-2015, 10:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Wasn't he one of the ones who was against lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?  That cuts both ways

And on marriage.   He was for it to be set at the state level .  While I don't think we should have any government marriage.   This is the best of bad scenarios.  

Where did he restrict 1st amendment?  I would like to find more on this.  

foreign involvement .  He has been falling back to more of a rand position as he has gained ground.   This is better than rubio and Christie's position of fighting everyone.  

Cruz isn't my ideal candidate.  But labeling him a progressive is interesting.

which is just the elected official way of saying "See! It isn't my fault gay marriage is happening! Keep electing me!" 

He was also for a very similar type of legalization as Rubio was. 

[*bfine32*]

This thread is just like the Democratic debate. It has turned into bashing the Republican Candidates.

[CageTheBengal]

(12-20-2015, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This thread is just like the Democratic debate. It has turned into bashing the Republican Candidates.

What was the Republican debate then? A think tank of brilliant minds hashing out the nations issues?

[Benton]

(12-20-2015, 02:36 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: which is just the elected official way of saying "See! It isn't my fault gay marriage is happening! Keep electing me!" 

He was also for a very similar type of legalization as Rubio was. 

pretty much. With federal benefits/penalties for marriage, and interstate complications, you can't leave it up to states. Just like the growing legalization of pot, the fed will eventually have to address it on some level.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-20-2015, 07:50 PM)Benton Wrote: pretty much. With federal benefits/penalties for marriage, and interstate complications, you can't leave it up to states. Just like the growing legalization of pot, the fed will eventually have to address it on some level.

They should address it by removing benefits and getting the government out of deciding who can marry or who can't. Let people marry as long as they have someone who will do the ceremony.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-20-2015, 02:36 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: which is just the elected official way of saying "See! It isn't my fault gay marriage is happening! Keep electing me!" 

He was also for a very similar type of legalization as Rubio was. 

Gay marriage is a pointless issue used as a distraction on the real problems.

[Benton]

(12-20-2015, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They should address it by removing benefits and getting the government out of deciding who can marry or who can't.    Let people marry as long as they have someone who will do the ceremony.

I agree with that, but the problem you run into is with insurance. If your spouse can't be covered or considered a beneficiary then you're back to having to have a uniform definition.