us 2016 elections thread (america ftw)

[CumSavorer4385]

To briefly recap, the retired right-wing neurosurgeon argued last week that he doesn’t want to shut down the federal Department of Education; he’d prefer to turn it into an investigatory body in which it would “monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias.” If a Carson administration decided it disapproved of the “extreme” political speech on a university campus, the school would lose its federal funding.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd tried to pin Carson down on this bizarre plan. The GOP candidate – currently, a top tier contender – insisted, “This is not just spouting off; I’ve thought about this.” What a relief.

CARSON: The way that works is you invite students at the universities to send in their complaints, and then you investigate. For instance, there was a university – I’m sure you’ve heard of the situation – where, you know, the professor told everybody, “Take out a piece of paper and write the name ‘Jesus’ on it. Put in on the floor and stomp on it.” And one student refused to do that and was disciplined severely. You know, he subsequently was able to be reinstated–

[Certified MENSA Genius Brain (smart)]

It's so hilarious that Republicans like Carson.

[Certified MENSA Genius Brain (smart)]

In March 2013, Carson described his views about same-sex marriage on Hannity, saying: "Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

Ironically he's the one trying to change the definition. Marriage was never solely for a man and woman - same sex unions existed since ancient times.

[CumSavorer4385]

Ironically he's the one trying to change the definition. Marriage was never solely for a man and woman - same sex unions existed since ancient times.

I think this is somewhat over simplified and disingenuous, to say the least.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

...those type of comments are useless without backing them up with anything. i mean wtf.

[CumSavorer4385]

...those type of comments are useless without backing them up with anything. i mean wtf.

It's not factually incorrect to say that, generally, "marriage" historically has been a social relationship between men and women. Same sex relationships and unions have obviously existed in all human societies, but they have generally not been codified as "marriages."

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

...because it was historically between men and women doesn't mean that's what marriage's literal definition is. the fact is, it has only been dominantly between women and men because of discrimination against gays, not a definition. there is no universal accepted definition of marriage anyways as it can vary by cultures.

[CumSavorer4385]

...because it was historically between men and women doesn't mean that's what marriage's literal definition is. the fact is, it has only been dominantly between women and men because of discrimination against gays, not a definition. there is no universal accepted definition of marriage anyways as it can vary by cultures.

Your original statement was "marriage was never solely between a man and a woman, same sex unions existed since ancient times," which I called an over simplification and explained why it was an over simplification. Now you're saying something different and pretending it was what you were saying all along.

[CumSavorer4385]

the fact is, it has only been dominantly between women and men because of discrimination against gays,

And this is really retarded and betrays a lack of understanding of the historical material basis of marriage, which is the patriarchal control of women's bodies and patriarchal control of reproduction and the social relationships and systems that spring from it (inheritance). "Gays," which did not even exist in the sense you are talking about for most of history, are completely irrelevant to this. The concept of "marriage" representing the ideal relationship status between two romantic partners rather than an economic relationship based on reproduction and inheritance is a very modern invention.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

Your original statement was "marriage was never solely between a man and a woman, same sex unions existed since ancient times," which I called an over simplification and explained why it was an over simplification. Now you're saying something different and pretending it was what you were saying all along.

I'm not saying anything different nor pretending something else lol. Marriage was not always a male/female relationship - same-sex marriage did happen in ancient rome, they were in fact "codified".

And this is really retarded and betrays a lack of understanding of the historical material basis of marriage, which is the patriarchal control of women's bodies and patriarchal control of reproduction and the social relationships and systems that spring from it (inheritance).

It's true opposite-sex marriages was and may still be largely discriminatory against women, mostly in western culture.

"Gays," which did not even exist in the sense you are talking about for most of history, are completely irrelevant to this.

Ironically you use the word irrelevant in the same sentence of a totally irrelevant comment. This was just a reply to you saying marriage was predominantly between men and women, and I was saying yea because of discriminatory laws against homosexuals - this includes, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The centuries where we're talking of the more modern understanding of homosexuality

[CumSavorer4385]

Marriage was not always a male/female relationship - same-sex marriage did happen in ancient rome, they were in fact "codified".

I don't believe this is true, and request a citation backing this statement up.

It's true opposite-sex marriages was and may still be largely discriminatory against women, mostly in western culture.

That's not what I said. I said that marriage for most of history has largely been an economic arrangement concerning patriarchal control of reproduction, and as such same sex relationships are irrelevant to the concept of marriage. Since same sex couples cannot reproduce, there has never been a need to work same sex couplings into the framework of marriage (until recently as the nature of marriage has changed, obviously).

Ironically you use the word irrelevant in the same sentence of a totally irrelevant comment. This was just a reply to you saying marriage was predominantly between men and women, and I was saying yea because of discriminatory laws against homosexuals - this includes, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The centuries where we're talking of the more modern understanding of homosexuality

I'm talking about "history" generally, not the modern era specifically, and even in the modern era the evolution of marriage from an economic institution protecting patriarchal control of the family unit, inheritance, and related social systems to a romantic interpersonal relationship recognized by the state is a very recent innovation and was not very evident in the 18th and 19th centuries. In much of the world the older form of marriage still persists.

Basically your stated views on this are contrary to the actual history of marriage.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

that fat goofy-looking baby is justin trudeau

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

In a March 2015 interview with Chris Cuomo, Carson stated that homosexuality was "absolutely" a choice, claiming that "a lot of people go into prison straight, and when they come out, they're gay"


On the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado, Carson said "I don't think this is something that we really want for our society. You know, we’re gradually just removing all the barriers to hedonistic activity and you know, it’s just, we’re changing so rapidly to a different type of society and nobody is getting a chance to discuss it because, you know, it’s taboo".[91][92][93] Carson would "intensify" the War on Drugs.[94]


A man who believes Reefer Madness was accurate is running for president.



On the AP U.S. History curriculum, Carson said it overemphasizes wrongdoing by the United States: "I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS."[



In a 2006 debate, Carson stated: "I don't believe in evolution... I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared."

[CumSavorer4385]

On the AP U.S. History curriculum, Carson said it overemphasizes wrongdoing by the United States: "I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS."[

epic