Political Atmosphere in Maine (rated, teacher, businesses)

[teachertype]

Originally Posted by Maineah

If Maine is so liberal and progressive you would have thought the gay marriage initiative would have passed by 3to2.... instead it lost! Explain that one.

Gay marriage isn't as issue I follow closely but my understanding is 53% of Maine voters voted against gay marriage, 47% in favor. In other words, half for keeping the status quo, and half in favor of the most radical social change movement of the time. Hardly an endorsement of conservative values.

Some in Maine are trying to muster up support for extreme right wing issues or candidates and not getting over, like this:
TABOR FAILS MAINE so sad | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/113246 - broken link)

[teachertype]

Originally Posted by chaosX5

........and by the way, being more conservative doesn't mean someone is racist or homophobic.

You mean like Rand Paul who says he would not have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and who believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin? I'm so glad the liberal and lesbian Rachel Maddow ended his political viability.

[IrishMom76]

Originally Posted by teachertype

You mean like Rand Paul who says he would not have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and who believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin? I'm so glad the liberal and lesbian Rachel Maddow ended his political viability.

No...he means someone like me who is in her 30s and more conservative, but yet loves different opinions and people, learns from everything she can and is not racist and homophobic

[Maineah]

Originally Posted by teachertype

Gay marriage isn't as issue I follow closely but my understanding is 53% of Maine voters voted against gay marriage, 47% in favor. In other words, half for keeping the status quo, and half in favor of the most radical social change movement of the time. Hardly an endorsement of conservative values.

Some in Maine are trying to muster up support for extreme right wing issues or candidates and not getting over, like this:
TABOR FAILS MAINE so sad | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/113246 - broken link)

I know you're a teacher though where I went to school half was 50% not 47%. 6% is 6%... Majority rules. In this, a VERY LIBERAL state, the fact there was a 53% majority is very telling. There is NO WAY the conservatives alone could have repealed this law. A good many fence sitters sided with those who wanted to preserve traditional marriage.
AND I firmly believe gay marriage would have passed if the Legislature had not acted to pass it without a reasonable debate and with disregard for the will of the people . The vote to repeal gay marriage was more of a check to the Governor and the Legislature for acting in a politically correct manner without consent of the populace, than it was a referendum on the topic of gay marriage itself. It will no doubt pass eventually in Maine unless the revolution starts first.

[chaosX5]

Originally Posted by IrishMom76

No...he means someone like me who is in her 30s and more conservative, but yet loves different opinions and people, learns from everything she can and is not racist and homophobic

ChaosX5 is a she........... and yes, your mostly correct but I'll not see my 30s again

[cebdark]

Originally Posted by Maineah

Not even all of the gays in Maine support gay marriage. I have a gay family member who thinks marriage should be between men and women. My wife has some very close gay friends who think the idea of gay marriage is unnecessary. That doesn't mean gays should be discriminated against it just means for procreation of the species in general men marrrying women is still a pretty good idea.
If Maine is so liberal and progressive you would have thought the gay marriage initiative would have passed by 3to2.... instead it lost! Explain that one.

I dunno, the bottom line to me on that topic is that it's nobody's business (other than the couple involved) period, and if more people didn't interject their personal/moral/and holier-than-thou opinions on it, it would be a non-issue. Leave the judging up to ones spiritual deity of choice as far as I'm concerned.

I think it lost mainly because of resentment of the fact that the people weren't allowed to vote on it, and it was viewed as a sort-of middle finger to the people who clearly feel that the legislature is getting too big for its britches.

Also, another thing to consider with that topic is the fact that laws need to be strengthened to prevent bitter family members from exacting their legal rights as next-of-kin and kicking the partner out bag and baggage (despite what investment the partner has made in the home for however many years for example).


That also happens frequently when family members fail to accept that their relative may be other than their definition of "normal." Yes, there are domestic partnership laws, but if one wanted to be a real stinker in a dispute, they could tie it up in court for a very long time.

Despite all the hooplah about whether it is "right" or "moral" or ______fill in the blank, it really is no one else's business - period IMHO.

As far as the political atmosphere in general in Maine, IMO, as near as I can tell (based on "water-cooler" discussions - obviously not scientific by any means ) I believe this election might tip Maine on its proverbial head.

I think that people (having been walloped in the wallet with this latest recession) are paying much more attention now than historically. We'll see I guess.

[OutDoorNut]

Originally Posted by teachertype

You mean like Rand Paul who says he would not have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and who believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin? I'm so glad the liberal and lesbian Rachel Maddow ended his political viability.

I would hire the best employee I could find no matter anything else--because if I don't, my competition will.

And if my competition were free to be dumb enough to hire someone based on prejudice instead of ability . . .

. . . then my competition would be rewarded for their prejudice by going out of business. Which means more business for people like me, who hire the best employees no matter what.

And that's the way it should work.

So why does government have to get involved?

Of course if you believe some people aren't among the best employees, then I guess you'd be in favor of the government getting involved.

[Zymer]

I suppose that some might label me "conservative", but that term and "liberal" seem to me to be very wide brushes as far as painting people's attitudes. I'm registered as republican but I tend to feel more in line with the libertarians. I dislike (intensely) the "two party" system. It seems as though other candidates stand little chance of succeeding, and I tend to vote repub because the lack of equality with other candidates would make my vote for one of them would count for little, and would be a slight edge for a dem party, which as a whole is not quite to my liking.

I support the legalization of marijuana, I feel that if some one wants to grow a plant and smoke it, that's their business. "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." I'm also severely PO'd about the major taxes on tobacco (there's a "T" party I'd like to see), I don't think the gov't has any business trying to stop people from smoking their weed of choice.

[kevin5098]

Originally Posted by teachertype

You mean like Rand Paul who says he would not have signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and who believes businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin? I'm so glad the liberal and lesbian Rachel Maddow ended his political viability.

Rand Paul is a libertarian not conservative. His political viability was terminated by a liberal press that distorted his answers to Maddow's "gotcha" questions. What the liberal press failed to report was that Paul also stated that he was personally opposed to discrimination of any type and that he would refuse to belong to an organization that discriminated based on race. Paul also believes that it is a property owner's right to refuse service to whomever he or she chooses. This would include those carrying firearms openly or concealed. Perhaps the federal government should support their constitutional rights and mandate that they not be barred from entering privately owned establishments.

[OutDoorNut]

Originally Posted by kevin5098

Rand Paul is a libertarian not conservative. His political viability was terminated by a liberal press that distorted his answers to Maddow's "gotcha" questions. What the liberal press failed to report was that Paul also stated that he was personally opposed to discrimination of any type and that he would refuse to belong to an organization that discriminated based on race. Paul also believes that it is a property owner's right to refuse service to whomever he or she chooses. This would include those carrying firearms openly or concealed. Perhaps the federal government should support their constitutional rights and mandate that they not be barred from entering privately owned establishments.

Good points.