2016 NJ Congressional Election
Do you know who represents you in the House of Representatives?
Hackettstown is included in New Jersey's 5th congressional district. We are lumped in this district with all of Warren, Sussex, Passaic, and Bergen counties.
Our current congressman is Scott Garrett. He is an extreme tea party conservative, who has strong anti LGBT views.
His opponent this election is Josh Gottheimer. He seems like a real good guy, and has a real chance of winning.
I hope everyone will take a few minutes and google both candidates. Every vote counts with local elections, as there is no electoral college like the presidential election. So please don't stay home in November, because of Trump and Hillary. We all need to show up and vote for the person we want to represent us in the 5th district!
Please discuss, thanks
Htown 4 Human Rights Debate info:
The 5th Congressional District's Republican incumbent Scott Garrett and Democratic challenger Josh Gottheimer have both accepted a debate invitation from Hackettstown-based radio station WRNJ, to be held 11 a.m. Oct 31.
Garrett needs to be defeated. He has been an obstacle to getting any federal monies into NJ let alone Warren County. I am a republican who most likely will vote for Trump and give him an opportunity. Garrett has been around for years and done nothing.
Jono 
ianimal I'm voting for Garrett just because of commercials like the one at the top of the page. If all his opponent can relentlessly focus on is Garrett LGBT views from a a private comment he made, then his priorities for representing NJ in congress are out of order. There are other issues!
Denis http://www.northjersey.com/news/jackson-a-new-democrat-alternative-in-5th-congressional-district-1.1527238
"On guns, Gottheimer said he did not own a firearm, but that he had hunted and he supported the right of people to own weapons to hunt and protect their homes, provided they undergo background checks. He wants the criteria for failing a background test to include being on a “no fly” list for suspected links to terrorism, and supports New Jersey’s tough rules for carrying weapons outside the home, which essentially grant permits only to current and former law enforcement officers.
Gottheimer also said he opposed giving gun permit reciprocity to other states, a process that would allow someone licensed to carry a gun in Texas, for example, to carry it in New Jersey as well."
No fly list... No reciprocity... NJ's gun laws are good... no support for concealed carry (except LEO - some people are "more equal than others...)
Just lost Warren County right there...
Mark Mc. Garrett all the way.
As to the comment above about federal money. Sometimes taking the fed's money is not worth all the stipends that come attached to it.
BatmanBatman - it's Republican's money, not "the fed's". And he never said he wasn't going to take their money, he said he wasn't going to give them money. And no one else should give them money either. And not just because they support LGBT candidates, anyone else that supports same sex marriage as well. He didn't say that behind closed doors, he said that in an interview.
Denis - Just to get back at some commercial??
Garrett definitely has to go. He's on the House Financial Services Committee. So he takes in millions from banks and big securities investment companies. Follow the money. And all the pro-Wall Street votes.
GC 
LVres If you're an "LVres" then you can't vote for Garrett. Long Valley is 7th District, not 3rd. Your rep is Leonard Lance instead.
GC, no but if that'ts your only message that you want to continually ram home as a reason to vote for you, it's certainly going to make me want to lean the other way. Priorities.
Thanks, I'll be sure to vote for Scott Garrett. Josh Gottheimer seems like a pretentious douchebag, which makes him a perfect fit for the Democratic Party. Luckily, this is Northwest New Jersey, and he has no chance.
1988LJ 
iJay "Garrett takes in millions from banks and big investment companies". Gee, based on that criteria then I guess you won't be voting for Hilary.
kb2755 
I mean, look at this guy and tell me you don't want to punch him in the face. You can't.
Calico696 
Garrett is a Sussex county farmer who only acknowledges Warren County when the Delaware overflows . I wouldn't call him a Tea party extremist like the OP did , but when I called his office about the power going out a lot in my area (over 10 years ago) his office promised to respond and never did . Lo and behold 6 months later a meeting among the people of White Township and J.C.P and L about the power going out often was held . Garrett's office had nothing to do with it since his name wasn't mentioned and a pol who won't take credit for something like that does not exist . The candidates running against him are usually total losers like the current one , but IMO Garrett is a good example for term limits .
When you know you will be re-elected because of the political makeup of your district and adapt a do nothing attitude towards a large part of it - it's time for you to go ! Maybe a republican who actually acknowledges that Warren County exists can challenge him in the primaries some day , but he'll probably stay there until he retires with the party money backing him . Republicans used to save the county money , but with the new library building in Green Township costing 1.6 million and with renovation costs inflating that number to 6.1 million (with a 100% republican board of freeloaders) that is no longer the case .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRdNOQcfp-8
Zombo Whenever there is an election we should focus on all the issues not just one or two. On balance voters should look at what Garrett did for our congressional district. Look at Garrett's overall record and you will see that many national and NJ republicans do not like him. I cannot think of anything Garrett has done for Warren or Sussex counties during his multiple terms. Other than being a republican in Warren county that is no reason to vote for him. Why can't the republicans put up another candidate. As someone has already said Garrett is a great example for term limits.
Give the alternative a chance.
"I mean, look at this guy and tell me you don't want to punch him in the face. You can't."
LOL, 1988LJ, I got $50 that says that guy would wipe the floor with you.
JeffersonRepub "Give the alternative a chance."
Oh, so you'll be voting for Trump then? Since Hillary is NO "alternative" to what we have currently
"Whenever there is an election we should focus on all the issues not just one or two."
The one or two issues I focus on are like the "canary in the coal mine". If they don't absolutely respect (or conversely - actively object to) clearly enumerated rights, I don't give a hoot what their views are on budgets, honorary highway names, or what the landscaping at a library costs.
"I cannot think of anything Garrett has done for Warren or Sussex counties during his multiple terms."
Garrett is one of NJ's Federal representatives... I'd say his job description should be to represent Warren County voters on national issues and assist residents with navigating federal bureaucracies, not fixing the bumpy road to the local farm (that's the job for local/state representatives).
Jono..I can't think of anything he has done for Warren County or Sussex County..I would like to know what his accomplishments are as well?...I graduated with him from High School not a bad guy always liked his debates in Mr. Mull's class.
Pampurr Gottheimer must shop at Dollar General.
kb - The comment was more about taking money from those you are supposed to be legislating. It wasn't the particular industry itself since anyone on a Congressional Energy committee would be particularly vulnerable to influence by Oil/Gas PAC's or nuclear plant operators, etc. But it's certainly true Clinton of late has taken big dollars from a couple of big banking PAC's. Garret's money is half PAC, half individuals.
From NJ.Com
Congressman Scott Garrett (R-5th) has developed a curious habit of taking bows for his failures in judgment, which is an opponent's dream come true.
His campaign has formed a nine-member veterans group that debuted by listing Garrett's achievements on a press release, the last one being, "On behalf of the first responders suffering from medical conditions related to the September 11th terrorist attacks, Scott Garrett is a proud co-sponsor of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act."
Not so much. Roughly 75,000 people – 5,000 from New Jersey – are getting the health care and family comfort they deserve, but Garrett didn't exactly approve of it.
The Act expired in 2015, and Garrett was one of the few to vote against extending it, calling it "bloated" legislation. He and Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist.) were the only members of the New Jersey delegation to side against the rescue workers and their families.
In the first fight for this bill in 2010, Garrett voted against it twice, before caving to political pressure and voting yes on the final version. But why did he vote twice against it even then? Why was he the only New Jersey member of Congress who failed to see the need for this, after we knew that tens of thousands of our neighbors inhaled asbestos, benzene, and mercury and more than a thousand other toxins?
So right on cue, Garrett opponent Josh Gottheimer rolled out an ad Thursday that featured the father of the late James Zadroga - the NYPD homicide detective from New Jersey – who accuses Garrett for "turning his back on 9/11 responders."
Fair game. Votes should have consequences, and Garrett has cast too many bad ones.
In fact, it's curious that this new veterans group overlooked Garrett's vote against a veterans' healthcare fund in 2008 that passed by a 370-58 landslide.
But it's worse to give Garrett credit for something he didn't do – an insult to surviving parents like Joe Zadroga, the former North Arlington police chief, and the 960 enrollees from the congressman's district.
And Garrett didn't correct the record – probably out of habit.
yankeefan And more...
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/07/these_nj_companies_still_fund_homophobe_scott_garr.html
ianimal, this guy's like 4 feet tall. I'm not a wrestler but I can beat a liberal midget who's 20 years older than me.
Anyways, I think Congressman Garrett has a great record. I don't believe he's corrupt at all and his votes have been very pro-Jersey. I'm voting for him as a choice, not as a lesser evil.
Voting for Garrett here. I agree with most of his positions.
Maybe he hasn't been as "Pro-Jersey" as some here want, but there are important issues facing the country right now at the Federal level, not just here in Warren County.
Regardless of my party affiliations and beliefs, I believe in voting the clowns out often, and 13 years is long past expiration date.
alpha1beta @Jono & Zombo - great points. He's done absolutely nothing for Warren County but he doesn't really need to since he's not held accountable.
Bonv I'm sick and tired of getting that mailer twice a year, from CONGRESSMAN Scott Garrett asking me what important for me when it comes to taxes.....
Garrett get elected because he knows that people in Sussex/ Warren Counties are so ignorants and just vote Republican no matter what.
Ask yourself for a second what did he do to make things better for you in NJ or the country , voting no to every single bill is not the right thing to do,
Liana Not to get racist folks (LOL), but Jews are already overrepresented based upon their population. Let's keep Garrett or if we really want someone different then let us get an Indian or Chinese to represent the great Northwest NJ...
iJay - looking to bring back quotas? not to get racist...how about the person who is best qualified and represents your interests the most...
4catmom In a perfect world you are spot on 4catmom and even in an imperfect world. I know of a town run by an asian who is fair to all and doing a great job.
From what I have read, Josh is a Zionist. In itself I have no issues.
My issue is when these Zionists hijack our nation, both via direct money and indirectly supporting a regime generally hated by the rest of the world. These two facts:
1) Send billions of hard-earned taxpayer monies to a foreign land
2) Bring the results of hatred from around the world to us, i.e. 911
In this article, it is proven that the average citizen believes we are giving too much:
http://www.newsweek.com/america-giving-too-much-aid-israel-key-poll-findings-498956
People like Josh will try to keep this perversion of this great nation a reality for as long as they can get away with it. Because of this, I could never support a Zionist, and I would argue true US citizens should feel the same...
iJay, please keep your bigotry off this website and out of this town. It's disgusting.
What you're saying is no different than if someone said they didn't want to vote for Obama because he is black or they didn't want to vote fo Trump because he's a Christian.
Trump, a Christian? LOL. I would more readily believe that Obama is a Muslim. There's only room for one God in Trump's world and He lives in his bathroom mirror. Don't kid yourself...
Wrong, read my post. I voted for Obama, would not do it again for performance reasons but the other choice at the time was piss poor.
Check this out, summarizes my stand:
https://youtu.be/sZbzs5BwBLA
From what I see on this forum, 1988LJ you are pathetic...
Troll GC? You are intelligent but a bit naive on international affairs, or is it that you are too nice. If you live long enough, you will see this country disintegrate as our leaders are all "loaded". They don't serve the interest of people, but rather special interest groups...
iJay, I wonder if you've ever even met a Jewish person. Why are you so hateful? A YouTube video can't be the explanation.
Jews in my extended family. None are Zionists thank god. I am hateful towards exploitation. This is what the Zionists have done, exploited others. You don't see this?
Garret needs to be replaced but I can't vote for Josh Gottheimer. He is a party voter and I am sure he will be after your guns too once in.
I wonder what kind of Fat was added to the bills for Garret to vote no twice. You know the fat they don't tell you about.
CJ. 
Zionism is just the 20th and 21st century equivalent of manifest destiny or imperialism. It's an advanced people, the israelis, replacing uneducated savages, the Palestinians. It's no different than white and black Americans replacing the Indians. What's the big deal?
"It's an advanced people, the israelis, replacing uneducated savages, the Palestinians"
Was listening, but now not so much. Wow.
Perhaps iJay is correct about the *actions* he bases his criticism on?
justintime "It's an advanced people, the israelis, replacing uneducated savages, the Palestinians"
Yep. That's a person who has been hung unfairly with the "bigoted" label.
Aquarius IJerk rolling out the lie about Jewish family members again. Trolls are embarassed by him.
Suze You can say it's bigoted but all one needs to do is compare Gaza to Tel Aviv to find out it's true. Sorry.
Wow when you have a bigot calling someone else a bigot that's pretty bad...
iJay you really have some major hang-ups about Jews and teachers..think therapy is needed ASAP. As for you 1988LJ, perhaps a lobotomy will do...
+10000000 ianimal
positive "Gottheimer graduated from West Essex High School, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard Law School. While he attended the University of Pennsylvania, he served on the rapid response team for Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign."
Slick Willy's Rapid Response Team - what is that?
Getting the hookers out of the Oval Office before Hillary gets home....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Gottheimer
RU 
JrzyGirl88 I agree JrzyGirl88 -- I think I'm reading from the roadside trash thread........because some of it seems to be here.
There's a big difference between being anti-Zionist and being anti-Semitic... just as there's a big difference between being anti-ISIS and being an Islamophobe. There are plenty of Jewish people who are anti-Zionist.
I'm personally not a fan of Zionism on a global level, but it's really not my concern. I AM however extremely concerned about Zionism within our government. If you have any doubts, look at the Iraq invasion and everything that has resulted from it. That is the direct result of the Zionist neo-cons co-opting Bush the Dimwitted into implementing their geopolitical aspirations in the Middle East. They have a word for people who put the concerns of another nation above their own, especially when in direct conflict with their own nation's best interests.... they call it "treason".
Have to agree with Ian here. Very well put. Geopolitical history gets very eye-opening if you dig deep enough, and don't stop at the current "America is bad" dogma. And in some ways, America is ALSO "bad" geopolitically- but we hardly hold the patent on it. There's a hell of alot more going on than "America policing the world" and "jews vs Palestinians", and it's been going on for a very long time.
For example, you can't just go back to 1948 (the creation of Israel) to find the "beginning" of today's troubles in the middle east.
"Slick Willy's Rapid Response Team - what is that? " What it is RU is twenty years ago. Let it go man, let it go..... Let's talk about all that Bush the Republican's pumped and dumped into the White House instead :>)
Iman, maybe it was just a severe case of Mommy, Daddy issues with jr trying to show them he's da man.
Garrett is just another right-wing do nothing gender-conflicted hack lawyer that has stayed 14 years too long at the fair. Don't come more establishment that this guy. Don't come harder right. Retire him for some fresh talent. At least for someone who believes in science a little bit. He doesn't believe in evolution, global-warming, oil spills bad, fracking bad, nope --- whatever science says, he's against it. He fights for Bergen first, Sussex second and never Warren, so can't do worse. With redistricting Bergen into the race shaving 8 points off the Republican majority, he has an actual fight this time and can lose.
His claim to fame was pushing Boehner out of office. Out with the old establishment and in with the new bought n paid for Wall Street Establishment. He's like a little Hillary with less balls. Sitting on the House Finance committee, Garrett is loaded with Wall Street Bucks buttressed by hard right super conservative superpac money. Sounds like unbeatable money-charged establishment cronyism.
He has lost some pocket change coming out of the closet against gay marriage and probably gays --- although he denies the later charge as not understanding his words and actions. IMO his stand is: "You see, you can be against gay marriage but all for being gay. You know, equal but separate. I like the gays."
I will say this. Scott Garrett calls me every once in awhile for his "town halls" or whatever. Each time I ask a question. Each time it goes unanswered. Still waiting Scott..... What a wimp.
He misses some votes, less than most. He voted to expand NJ off-shore drilling, against making oil company price gouging a crime, extended unemployment benefits during The Great Recession, additional Katrina aid in the wake of the flood and wouldn't sign a get prompt aid for Sandy letter because he had signed others. Wants to force intelligent design into the classroom, voted against the voting rights acts because it had a Spanish translation. Sweet guy.
Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Freedom Caucus, and the House Constitution Caucus. No wonder he has no time to get some work done.
strangerdanger "There's a big difference between being anti-Zionist and being anti-Semitic..."
C'mon man... you're harshing people's buzz for the opportunity to pull out the racism/bigot card.
Lot of comments, and it seems that some understand the difference between being anti-zionist and anti-semitic.
Zionism is a dream to return to the holy land.
Do not do it on US money and lives. This is my main point .
Do not hijack this nation which very selfish people like Netanyahu has done.
1988LJ said "You can say it's bigoted but all one needs to do is compare Gaza to Tel Aviv to find out it's true."
You have no brain 1988LJ. And I do not believe you attended college in the UK. You just are not worldly based upon your comments. You are a phony of low intelligence. Take a break and get educated and then return. It would be for the best, especially for your growth.
Suze, so one cannot criticize Zionism or more accurately how supporting Zionism affects our nation? Surely this cannot be?
That's not what I've said, but I've seen you trash Jewish people regardless of Zionism so please spare me your bull. You are a full fledged antisemite and I don't buy for one minute you care about how it affects our government. One only needs to read your disgusting comments on this forum about Jewish people, Israeli's, etc.
Just an FYI Josh is at the street fair now and Scott is suppose to be here around 1-1:30.
Jim L You are 100% wrong. It starts with manipulation of this great nation. Of course I do not like people that manipulate it.
Do you have the balls to answer this question Suze, are you are Zionist?
When you have the balls to admit you are a Jew hater, I'll consider your question worth my time. Of course you are a proven liar so I'll take any answer from you for what it's worth. Absolutely nothing.
I guess all Libertarians are Jew haters too (my party BTW)? Gary Johnson wants to cut all foreign aid like to Israel, is he a Jew hater? Please, stop using the anti-semitism crutch.
I don't hate Jews. I do heavily dislike Zionists as they have stolen money from this country and caused soldiers and civilians their lives. I will admit that don't like the Orthodox Jews leaving early on Friday and not be bothered until sunset Saturday (based upon religion) as EVERYONE should get such a break to be with their family without regard to religion (or lack of).
Life is too short to hate, but I do dislike various "groups" when I see bullshi!. Is this not my right? Sorry, but the world is not all roses...
Getting back to the original purpose of this thread. At least two other posters would be against a Zionist for this position, Josh. Let's leave it at that...
"Sorry, but the world is not all roses"
Agree, but your life seems to be all about weeds.
"Life is too short to hate"
OK than why are you so full of hate? Perhaps heed your own advice...
Like 4catmom said take a hike. I'd suggest a very long one...
Last post on this thread.
I stand by my disqualification of Josh based upon him being a Zionist.
I'm a bit surprised at your response positive. You had agreed with an excellent post by pmnsk in the Colin Kaepernick thread, the one about having the freedom to agree to disagree.
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/759631#t761132
In this case I'm not looking at iJay's comments the same as you, rather I think I understand *why* he's making the statement he is. I suspect that if he simply didn't use the grouping of "Zionist" and instead referred to the long and well documented history he is talking about then maybe the reaction might have been different? But we as humans love to lump things into groups, don't we? Certainly, so why is using the description for this group any different? Is it because there's a religious context (which I don't think iJay had addressed) that IMO is unrelated to the actions he's complaining about?
I have no skin in this "game", but I certainly don't fault iJay for sharing his opinions. I do disagree with targeting "groups" though, as we are all part of the same overall group. In this case, I would ask why the continual support for a religious occupation of land by a US government that is supposed to be all-inclusive? The reasons for the support are worthy of discussion, are they not?
Well JIT, apparently I am guilty of disagreeing, labeling and allowing my emotions to get the better of me.
Concerning iJay, well I think his posts could've been articulated much differently, perhaps getting a different response..not so much anger.
Words are just words, however when put into context for everyone to perceive, especially when it's concerning a whole group of people it becomes much more than just words and the writer should take responsibility and of course will get varied responses.
Unfortunately my perception of iJay's posts are different from yours, doesn't mean I'm wrong nor are you.
Just a matter of one's own perception..a right like pmnsk talked about,
I'm voting for Josh Gottheimer. As the OP states, Garrett has openly spoke against human rights for all. He also votes against my values. Vote Garrett out, please.
Scott Garrett:
-Voted against Equal Pay & against the Violence Against Woman Act.
-Star-Ledger described him as a Tea Party extremist and a "shameless bigot"
-Voted against Family Leave
-Voted 13 times to allow FBI watch list's suspected terrorists to buy assault rifles
-Anti-choice, even in cases of incest and/or rape
-Protested against LGBT running for office
-Only member of NJ delegation to vote against renewing the Voting Rights Act
BE We should vote Garrett out because he votes against YOUR values??? LOL What planet are you on?
"Voted 13 times to allow FBI watch list's suspected terrorists to buy assault rifles"
You mean he voted AGAINST bills that would have suspended Constitutional rights for those not accused of any crime... the horror.
If the government wants to stop such a purchase all they need is an active arrest warrant.
Josh is about diverting US funds and sacrificing US lives for a foreign nation. How can he be good for any political position in the US?
GC, at this rate, the quick brown fox and the lazy dog will soon be on the unemployment line (-;
jeffersonrepub, yes I hope the majority of people in my district have the same values as myself. I think Garretts protest against LGBT candidates is unforgivable. I am also annoyed that my congressman is voting against the right to choose, especially in cases of rape. I think it is ridiculous that Tea Party extremist can't find enough common ground to keep suspected terrorists from buying assault rifles. Come on, it seems like no brainier to support a specific law to keep mass shootings like Orlando from happening. I want my representative to work with both sides for the benefit of the majority, not just vote the Tea Party extremist line.
"I think Garretts protest against LGBT candidates is unforgivable."
...and alot of us think other candidate's stands against the 2nd Amendment are unforgivable.
So there you go. The one with the most people agreeing with their "values" will win, as always. (and, if you can't figure it out, when you;re talking about "values", regardless of what one may think, "right" and "wrong" are highly subjective, and "more popular" and "less popular" should be used instead. Because that is reality.)
For example, if it ever becomes popular enough to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they will. Until then, many of us (a majority, actually) will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way.
(I'm not trying to "zero-in" on 2A, just using it as one example, as you did LGBT)
As for "Tea Party extremist line", I counter with "democrat extremist line". And again- REALITY is what most people agree with AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. So "extremism" is not only defined differently by different people, but I put forward that NEITHER side is necessarily "right" or "wrong", with regards to elections anyway: It's not about right & wrong. It's about popularity. Hitler was VERY popular, for awhile.
Yes, I brought Hitler into the discussion. Deal with it. (can't wait for all the pointers yelling "Godwin's Law!!" LOL)
Jeffersonrepub, Your post only bolsters my argument. The difference in my examples and yours are very simple. Mine were based on specific things Garrett has done, said, and votes he has made. He is anti LGBT, anti women, anti human rights. Your argument is based on a "repealing the 2nd amendment", which no one has tried to do. Nor will they.
Extremists have no middle ground, they don't even consider working with the other side. I support the 2nd amendment, but I also support keeping assault rifles out of the hand of suspected terrorists. Do you? You will fight tooth and nail to keep the guns flowing, even if they end up in the hand of terrorists?
You are also right that neither side is right or wrong. However I'll vote for the candidate that is willing to make decisions on their own, and not take the extremist approach.
Josh Gottheimer is a moderate. He is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. This is far from a left wing extremist. Garrett is what ever the Tea Party says he will be, but possibly more bigoted. He is an extremist.
" I support the 2nd amendment, but I also support keeping assault rifles out of the hand of suspected terrorists."
So do you have a problem with me, or JR, or Darrin, or Brother Dog owning an "assault rifle" (although I'm sure you are using that term incorrectly, anyway)?
I assume you'll be standing by "our" side when we petition against blanket AR15 bans (that several states have and others are attempting), etc. since you support the 2nd Amendment and all
Mark, I don't believe in blanket bans, just like I don't believe in blanket availability. I don't have an issue with the guns, I have an issue with the lack of specific regulation. You should be able to buy what ever you want if you are law abiding, not on a terrorist watch list, and don't have a history of mental health.
BE,
Like most liberals around here lately, you are hyper-focused on a small issue and missing the BIG PICTURE. I'm not talking specifically about YOUR "values" regarding LGBT or MY "values" regarding 2A: those are merely examples of the big picture: VALUES, period. You think your values are the values EVERYONE should have, you think YOU are RIGHT. So what happened to the liberal mantra of "live and let live", "let people do whatever they want?" JIT has pointed out MANY times in the recent political threads how both sides want to FORCE their "values" on others BY FORCE. Because those people think everyone should think like they do. NEWSFLASH: alot of people don't think like you, and they are not wrong for it. In fact, YOU are wrong for thinking everyone should think like you.
Now, that being said, of course we all think the way we do because it's "right". We consider our OPINIONS to be "right". It would be foolish to hold an opinion we think "wrong", of course. But we are still talking about OPINIONS, and that = popularity. Right or wrong has become mostly irrelevant (just ask the democrats/liberals... "I'm ok, you're ok", "how dare you stifle me!"), except in extreme cases such as murder and child molestation, etc. Whatever the zeitgeist of the time is is considered to be "right". It was considered right to elect an unexperienced senator as president, so he was elected as president. Hell, at one time it was considered right to change the constitution to outlaw alcohol consumption! Because it was the popular sentiment at the moment. Didn't make it "right".
Hitler WAS the zeitgeist.
zeitgeist - the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs OF THE TIME (emphasis mine)
THIS time around, Trump may very well be the zeitgeist. And I guess that makes it "right"... for now. But if Trump wins, I certainly don't except YOU to "get on board the Trump train", and YOU shouldn't expect ME to "get on board" whatever train you happen to be on, bit LGBT, Hillary, or anything else.
Only TIME can be the judge of what was truly "right" or "wrong" at a given time. Sucks, that. Everyone thinks they KNOW everything, when in fact, we're all just guessing & hoping for the best. A tough game to play with pathological liars (politicians), corrupt scumbags (politicians), and career leaches (politicians).
-apologies for NEARLY going into an SD-length post; I know most of us have lives to lead, and don't have time to read novellas on town forums.
Can anyone summarize Garrett's anti LGBT stance for me? Seriously, I'm not sure what the ruckus is about.
Just like the whole gay marriage debacle (it simply boiled down to a government benefits issue), I suspect his objections revolve around not giving government handouts rather than personal orientations. IOW, it's not the lgbt community that is his issue, it's a question of the proper role of government. Is that right?
Remember that not everyone believes the role of government is to redistribute wealth. Legalized theft will always have its detractors after all...
"You should be able to buy what ever you want if you are law abiding, not on a terrorist watch list, and don't have a history of mental health."
What happens when they create a "Suspected Mental Health" list?
The names (that's all they are, just names - sometimes even partial names and aliases) on the suspected terrorists list don't have a history of any crime either, otherwise it wouldn't be called "suspected" and the names would have unique ID'S associated with them (such as addresses, descriptions, SSN'S, etc) or even better - arrest warrants.
JIT - I think it's funny that people call us "extremists" for opposing government infringement of actual enumerated rights (off limits to the government) but they get all bent out of shape because some candidate didn't vote on a budget line item or set qualifications for government entitlement programs (within government powers) the way they preferred.
+1 Mark.
...or get all bent out of shape over cake baking (discrimination, which isn't even in the Bill of Rights) or free speech (the 1st Amendment), but have no problems with infringing the 2nd Amendment.
JIT - Before you start with what you "suspect" and make an explanation for the suspicion, how about finding out what he really says first? This Bergen Record article goes into the initial denial, and then an official statement saying the reason is religious beliefs. That's an official release saying all the government roles and fund are a bunch of nonsense. In fact it wasn't even about laws in this case, it was about funding candidates. No matter who here might have a specific one issue litmus test, Garrett is the one who made LGBT the single litmus test for not giving Republican support.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/rep-garrett-denounces-criticism-of-his-refusal-to-give-to-gop-fund-that-supports-gay-candidates-1.1493172
Personally I don't have a litmus test, and there are more important reasons to vote than LGBT (where he's wrong) or the terror watch list (where Gottheimer is wrong). Gottheimer's original commercial was all about bigotry, but the second one that seems to be what they've rolled with is about a lot more. Yet to me the biggest issue to vote against him is the economy, the clear Wall Street corruption, and the damage that's doing to the whole country. Got to go.
"JIT - Before you start with what you "suspect" and make an explanation for the suspicion, how about finding out what he really says first? "
I did ask a direct question, stating that I didn't know. Asking a question isn't the same as finding out on my own, I know, but seeing that all I have time for anymore these days is "drive by's" I thought I'd get the perspective of the complainant. My bad I guess.
But after I posted I did google for a few minutes and saw what you saw. But if you read the article (or one of the linked articles, I don't recall) you'd also see where it said his views boiled down to his stance on gay marriage, and the entire gay marriage issue is all about benefits (as we've discussed before). I think he's wrong for using his religious beliefs as a stated reason, but the bottom line is anger that gays don't have the ability to partake in the same benefits as heterosexual married people. That's being conflated with a broad statement about his bias, and that's just wrong too. IMO the government should not be in the marriage business to begin with, and if we simply got rid of the "Married filing..." status on tax returns the whole issue would be moot. So why not propose that as a solution? I have my suspicions ;-)
"Like most liberals around here lately, you are hyper-focused on a small issue and missing the BIG PICTURE." Thanks. Now I know what your problem is. jrenerialization.
"You think your values are the values EVERYONE should have, you think YOU are RIGHT." Yup. I had been sitting around all my opinions are wrong, others should not have my values, but that just didn't work out for me. Thank God after all this bashing you have written that you are not like that.
Actually, it's not that we're missing the big picture as your values that you know are right and want to force on us lead you to believe.
It's just simply and honestly the fact that WE are the zeitgeist. "And I guess that makes it "right"... for now."
I think it's grand that folks fully support selling guns to suspected terrorists without any information being passed to the folks keeping the list. Bully for you.
That's why ISIS loves America so much. Unlike other countries like France where at least they have to go to the trouble of issuing special instructions on where to get the guns, how to smuggle them in and so forth, in Amerika, they need no special instructions or training. Think about it. They have to specially recruit trained people who are able to follow said instructions and work in the world of smugglers. Not necessarily your everday Joe six pack.
As ISIS says: "in Americka it is so simple, any idiot can buy all the guns and bombs they want. It's easy. We don't need to send people, we don't need all that training, all we need to do is use the Internet to inspire and any idiot can figure out the rest."
Only in America could an idiot like Omar Mateen pull off what he did.
A problem with nationalistic zeitgeist is that it rarely turns out good in the long run.
" (it simply boiled down to a government benefits issue)" I don't think it was just that simple. At least to the people affected.
JeffersonRepub, I understand what you mean, but I disagree I have said anything that your argument relates to. None of my posts said anyone is "wrong". My posts all refer to "my values", and that I HOPE others agree. I state what I disagree with, and I hope others that agree will read my post and vote against Garrett. You just disagree and feel like I'm preaching to you. I'm not, I'm spreading the facts about our congressman. Unlike a lot of the arguments on this thread, nothing I have said is hypothetical or untrue.
I am focused on the issues, as you are. But my big picture is the fact that Garrett is not willing to even consider common sense compromise. As I said before, this is my definition of extremist.
A "Suspected Terrorist" list was also hypothetical, until it wasn't.
Why do you think it lacks any semblance of due process? It's ripe for abuse...
I think Mark and his NRA's bro's might be working this all backwards. They assume the list is wrong and therefore it's good to protect the innocent to buy guns even though that means leaving them on the list curtailing their freedoms. And they grant guilty terrorist the freedom to buy guns without even telling the list holders. Sounds like a backwards way to get to a less than perfect conclusion.
Instead perhaps they should err with the assumption the list is right curtailing terrorist freedoms to freely buy weapons of mass destruction and then protect the innocent by giving them liberty from the list and the freedom to buy their guns.
"It's ripe for abuse..." Yes it is. And every time it is wrong, someone does not get a gun legally. Odds are that they are indeed a suspected terrorist because they are on the list of suspected terrorists. Odds are that is true.
And if it is wrong, it is probably better for the offender to be turned down for the gun. At least then they would know they are on "the list." Then the offended would probably have access to the entire legal breadth and reach of the NRA who undoubtedly would be itching for the fight to make it right which would benefit the NRA is a big way as a positive force for good guns. In the long run, this fight would probably an improvement to any individual wrongly placed on the terrorist watch list since they 1) would know they were on the list, 2) could have powerful allies to help get them off the list, and 3) could be removed from the list.
But hey, it's simpler to let anyone, suspected terrorist or not, just buy guns. And better for business too which, after all, is what the NRA is all about.
For folks driving by who arrive at the conclusion that gay marriage is all about the benefits summed up by " Just like the whole gay marriage debacle (it simply boiled down to a government benefits issue).
Debacle. I got just three words for you: WHAT ABOUT LOVE?
The world over, gay marriage is important for lots of reasons beyond benefits although benefits alone is enough to do it and not get your panties in a debacle twist.
Crikey, Australia sums it up nicely Mate: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters/
I could find you US citations as well that clearly state it's about more than benefits. Benefits though are a good enough reason for equality though; call the rest gravy.
BE - "None of my posts said anyone is "wrong".
What? You said Scott Garrett was wrong on his position regarding LGBT. You specifically said that's why you weren't voting for him.
BE- "I'm voting for Josh Gottheimer. As the OP states, Garrett has openly spoke against human rights for all (opinion). He also votes against my values. Vote Garrett out, please."
If that's not saying that you think Garret is wrong, I don't know what is.
"But hey, it's simpler to let anyone, suspected terrorist or not"
Yep, innocent until *proven* guilty.3
Sorry if that offends you...
I've said it many times. NICS can put a 3 day hold on anyone for any reason. Use that time to get a warrant or make an arrest. If they *choose* not to do even that, they aren't really "watching" anyone - or at least not specific enough to even have a unique suspect.
"Debacle. I got just three words for you: WHAT ABOUT LOVE?"
Sorry, I didn't know that the government legislated "love". As far as I'm aware, any citizen, regardless of race, creed, color, etc, is still *allowed* to fall in love, spend their days any way they wish, share their hopes, dreams and desires uninhibited by the US government. Do you disagree? If yes, please point to the current legislation that dictates otherwise.
The link you provided supports that conclusion. Read through the reasons, and the only ones that require government intervention are related to legal benefits. The rest is about feelings, community, a sense of belonging and the like. Is that what we want to legislate now, making sure everyone feels good? If so, whose definitions do we use, and how are these intangibles forced upon people who have other intentions.
No, you're hopping on the wrong band wagon again, conflating the point of petitioning the government for benefits with the ability for two people to do as they please in their personal life. No one, not even you, could prevent two people from loving each other. What an absurd notion. Even more absurd is the notion that people seeking non-traditional marriage are simply looking for government permission, as if getting approval sets everything right in the world. Hardly - it's the benefits that drive that desire, and anyone stating otherwise is fooling themselves.
Why is it so hard for people to get this? My suggestion noted above, about eliminating the the marriage filing option on IRS tax returns, would shut the entire argument down in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you agree?
"Why is it so hard for people to get this? My suggestion noted above, about eliminating the the marriage filing option on IRS tax returns, would shut the entire argument down in a heartbeat. Wouldn't you agree?"
No. Taxes are the least of it. There are far reaching legal presumptions that marriage confers between two people that gay people are fighting for equality on.
Would you want doctors telling you that you can't make health care decisions for your wife if she should get into an accident or take ill suddenly? Would you want her family telling you that you couldn't visit her in the hospital because you aren't "related" and they don't approve of you? What if you died without a will? Would you want her to get nothing?
Wouldn't a power of attorney agreement solve all of that ianimal?
Two people can enter a contract for whatever terms they want.
I'm sure they could, but many don't... irrespective of sexuality. Why should heterosexual couples get a presumption of legal rights when homosexual couples don't? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of discrimination.
JeffersonRepub, please re-read my posts. This is the first time in this thread that I will say you are wrong.
"No. Taxes are the least of it."
I highly doubt that ianimal, the reason being the anti-anything legislation that's not labeled as marriage. The legal protections are the easy part IMO, and not surprisingly there have been other proposals to deal with them. But because those solutions didn't really address the *whole* problem (all government approved benefits, not just taxes) they were, rightfully IMO, dismissed.
My preference would be to detach all of that from the marriage label and specifically do something like Mark Mc suggests. From an equality standpoint, there's nothing better than that.
Bottom line is you have some folks who don't want to share the perks of marriage and some folks who see no reason why they shouldn't get a piece of the pie. My solution deals with both perfectly: No one gets any perks, and we remove a "favored" group from a system that was never intended (nor should) to play favorites. Again, that's true equality right there.
So everyone needs to pay a lawyer to dictate exactly what their marital contractual benefits and obligations are? What about the poor? Is the government going to provide that legal service to all of them for free?
"JeffersonRepub, please re-read my posts. This is the first time in this thread that I will say you are wrong."
I not only re-read them, I QUOTED THEM. If you are trying to pull a semantics argument because you didn't actually use the word "wrong", you're being ridiculous.
And I'm NOT saying you're playing a silly game, because I DIDN'T actually use the phrase "silly game" in the previous paragraph.
This is not only about gay marriage.
Scott Garrett not only votes against LGBT rights (below), but he also refuses to pay his Republican National Committee dues in protest that they support gay candidates (see link).
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-garrett-hensarling-no-cash-for-campaign-arm-because-it-backs-gays-120201
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 19% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008)
Protect anti-same-sex marriage opinions as free speech. (Sep 2013)
Hey come on, it's all about benefits. NFL. If that's all you saw in that piece, you didn't read it closely.
Like if your daughter and some guy be in love, you are right, they don't need no guberment to legislate it if they don't want the benefits. They be allowed to spend their days any ways they wants to, their nights too, all without no guberment marriage certificate whatsoevers. Just hangin out in the free and easy. Everybody, all your neighbors, your relatives, everyone would say: that's cool, they ain't married, just livin together cuz they be in love and they don't need the benefits. They not be living in sin, just point to any legislation that says they are.
Let's see Scotty beam in on that one when his kids go off that evangelical reservation.
Gay and lesbian lovers desire to be married for the same reasons that straight people want to get married. Legally it's not just benefits, it's also about legal rights. That's Garrett's business but that's not the only thing his actions affect. Not everyone is into marriage just for the legislative aspects. And even those who want to do so for the benefits might, just might, have other reasons too. That's true for all people, not just LGBT.
Marriage can be a sign of love and a proof of commitment to each other. To some it's a rite of passage and the public or private celebration of their love for each other. You are right. This has nothing to do with Scott Garrett because it's all about emotions, customs, tradition, and social mores. Frankly marriage is a bedrock of the foundation of our very civilization. That's more than government benefits. All of this has a lot to do with why people, of all persuasions seek a formal state sanction, and often church sanctioned marriage, the certificate, and everything that comes with it.
I really doubt many married people say "we only did it for the benefits."
Marriage equality as a civil rights issue has everything to do with Scott Garret. But marriage is so much more than just benefits as Iman noted one example above. As a civil rights issue, it's not just benefits, it's legal rights too.
But if the reasons for marriage ended there, it would be a loveless world.
I am sorry to those who think otherwise, but to me marriage is much more than legal benefits and rights. A hell of a lot more.
I mean just take my wife..........please....... ba dum bump.....
BE...
So then, he's... wrong? Or are you saying he's right? Because he's one or the other. And, once again, judging from your litany of "cons" against him, you think he's wrong. You just don't want to get nailed down to admitting you think he's wrong for holding the values /opinions he holds, because that would make you wrong for holding the values/opinions you hold.
Lemme guess... you "just disagree with him" maybe? You disagree with him, but of course don't think he's wrong? Come on... get off the fence (you already have, you just won't own it)
JeffersonRepub, Scott Garrett is a bigot. That is fact. Yes, I disagree with him.
Does that make him wrong? Short answer is no. He is religious, which is why he claims he has anti LGBT views. Who am I to say that his religious beliefs are wrong? I believe in freedom, so he can believe in anything he wants. He can say anything he wants. I will disagree with him if his views are not the same as mine. I will not vote for him. I will also put the facts out there and let others decide how they feel.
Scott Garrett is doing what you claim I am, which is pushing his agenda on others.
Once again you have proven my point. I agree, no one is right or wrong.
Umm, ianimal what do you think a marriage license is? If it's not a legal document then I think you may need to explain your thought process to the many who are divorced and have since realized just how much force is behind that particular no-lawyer-involved contract ;-) Regardless, what you are referring to already exists and is called a civil union. Which is why the government should cease using a historically religious term for a non-religious contract, and just stick with civil union for everyone.
MM, get a life man. Your ability to turn anything and everything into an insult-fest is an amazing skill. Not one a desirable one, but amazing none the less...
BE, I agree with a lot of what you say but would advise you to look more closely at the alternative you say you would vote for.
There is nothing but the threat of force behind any law, so when D's impose their view of the world through legislation, just like the R's, it's through the threat of force. Both are equally evil in this regard, when the typical solution (implementing laws) is to force an outcome at the point of a societal gun. So when you fault Garrett for voting his way there's an equal and opposite amount of shared fault on the other side for voting their way. If that weren't true the duopoly of politics wouldn't be so readily apparent.
JIT, I agree that both sides have fault, however I often agree more with the D's. I am always willing to hear what others have to say regarding other options. So feel free to post some links. I'll check them out.
FullofJIT: if you saw insult in that, that's the amazing thing. But your apparent delusion did give you the premise to call me yet another nasty name. Bravo for the continued bullJIT.
That's the thing MM, you are *always* insulting others. You just happen to call it humor.
BE, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to change your mind. There's plenty of good stuff said by politicians, and certainly the goals of D's are worthwhile. There's a lot to agree with on both sides IMO. My perspective is usually from the view that the goals are nice and all, but at the end of the day there has to be a mutually-agreed on way to accomplish achieving them. Many here, especially the tried-and-true, hard core team players, refuse to look at "the how" and just want results. When it's brought to their attention that there are consequences for getting the things they say they want, and those consequences manifest themselves in often times pretty harsh disagreements, well, then the negativity and name calling starts and unfortunately those folks wind up going along whatever the blue or red talking point of the day is.
IOW, it's all good. Vote for whom you believe will be the best for all of us and don't get dragged into the mud with the hard liners...
JIT - "There is nothing but the threat of force behind any law, so when D's impose their view of the world through legislation, just like the R's, it's through the threat of force. Both are equally evil in this regard, when the typical solution (implementing laws) is to force an outcome at the point of a societal gun. So when you fault Garrett for voting his way there's an equal and opposite amount of shared fault on the other side for voting their way. If that weren't true the duopoly of politics wouldn't be so readily apparent."
Game. Set. Match. The sooner the electorate learns this and gets off the 2-party "system" (more like a shell game), the sooner we can start rebuilding the country. We have to stop supporting republicrats out of hand, through blind party loyalty or the "lesser of 2 evils" scenario.
And I just want to add- that is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular. His supporters (especially the hard-core ones) aren't voting for him because he's on the republican ticket. Hell, he used to be a democrat! They are voting for him because he is the LEAST like the republicrats... he is not a career politician. He's no libertarian either, and certainly has swung republican since winning the primary, in an attempt to pick up all the republican voters to try to win this thing. I'm not saying he IS or WILL BE "different", I'm saying people see him as different (not a republicrat) and THAT is why he is doing so well.
I'm glad he didn't run 3rd party, because the country isn't ready for that yet- they are still too fooled and fear-mongered by the 2-party system. But someday, hopefully soon, enough Americans will wake up to what JIT posted (that I quoted above) and we can make some REAL changes.
Does Garrett even know where Warren county is? Seems like he has forgotten about us. Maybe, if he gets re elected, he can steal more money, from the open preservation funds, for his families farms.
sparksjbc1964 foJIT: Paranoia is seeing persecution wherever they look to the point of obsession. Obsession is "an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind."
"We have to stop supporting republicrats out of hand, through blind party loyalty or the "lesser of 2 evils" scenario." Isn't supporting Scott Garrett full on support for the establishment? How many years?
Confusion is talking Trump on this thread.
Here is the link to register to vote. You have until Oct. 18th to submit this form.
http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/form_pdf/voter-regis-forms/76-voter-registration-english-warren.pdf
Our congressional district is making national news. Apparently we are the only 'swing' district in the state with a similar number of registered voters for each party. Consequently, the left is pouring money in to Gottheimer's campaign to make NJ even bluer.
Since the left and also the Republican establishment (who are not helping) are against him, I'm for Garrett LOL. Here's his stance on major policy points (scroll to the bottom) to see summary http://www.ontheissues.org/NJ/Scott_Garrett.htm
If you feel your vote is meaningless in the general election because of the lopsided nature of NJ, know that your vote absolutely means something is this race - so vote (whichever side you are for) it matters!
Scottso @strangerdanger - voting for Garrett is NOT supporting the Republican establishment, actually it's the opposite.
@Htown 4 Human Rights - exactly how does Josh Gottheimer seem 'like a real good guy'? Is it because he was a speech writer for Bill Clinton? Is it because of the enormous amount of money he got due to his Clinton ties? Or is it because he has admitted to a federal crime?
http://theridgewoodblog.net/breaking-gottheimer-admits-to-federal-crime-of-falsifying-federal-documents/
Snott Garrett is a stuck in the early 50's dumbass who thinks raped women should be forced to carry the rapist's bastard to term , hates gays , doesn't believe in climate change , and doesn't even acknowledge Warren County exists until election time or when the Delaware overflows . Warren County robot republicans should vote against him just to wait two years for a real candidate with a pulse and a functioning brain !
"Snott Garrett" LMAO!! Graduated with him from High Point in Sussex..he has always been one!..
ahh the 'progressives' that want to destroy the country with their 'feel good' ideas that put the rest of us at risk. The means always justify the end, right?
Well I'm proud to be stuck in the 1790's, you know that list of limits on government power?
If you want change and improvements for Warren and Sussex counties vote for Josh. Garrett has been a total failure for 14 years and is one of the poster boys for term limits whether you are republican or democrat.
Put someone new in and give him a chance.
iJay - There seems to be no information anywhere about Belusic. Neither the Libertarian national or state web sites list any information at all. Not even a bio let alone a statement of positions. Its pretty well impossible to run a campaign when you keep it a secret.
Maybe you will find Scott Garrett on his Christmas Tree lot bundling your Christmas Tree this season. Trees are 80 a pop..Check it out yourself.
Garrett boys are out of touch with reality.
iJay - That's exactly what I saw that has absolutely nothing on it. There is no link for Belusic, no bio, no position statement. Nothing.
True, no link but he is not the only LP candidate with no link. He has been projected for at least one month to only get single digits...
voted for Garrett, not looking great for him at the moment. all you guys voting for Josh make me laugh, you just cannot get enough of the Clinton's.
My consolation prize to Garrett losing will be that Trump wins and the house and senate will be Republican.
Suck it lefties!
It is because of people like you Scottso that our country is in trouble. End the criticism and divisness and join the republicans, democrats along with independents who supported a better candidate than Garrett. Lets work to solve the issues facing Warren County.
Commenting is no longer available.