U.S. Politics - Rand Paul is our Savior

[SkynJay]

*shakes head*

This is why basic public free education with a decent science curriculum is important, people.

Any way.

Georgia is now on the bandwagon of the latest round of anti-gay laws, following Tennessee and Arizona and Kansas. I feel like I left out a state there. But who's counting.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/feb/24/georgia-may-follow-arizonas-anti-gay-lead/

Yay!

Idaho flirted with it for a bit I believe.

[MerenthaClone]

*shakes head*

This is why basic public free education with a decent science curriculum is important, people.

Better than Arizona rejecting Common Core in part because it featured "fuzzy math" where "letters replaced numbers."

[DanteGabriel]

Hrm, lookee here... looks like some prominent right wing websites, like Breitbart, RedState, and Pajamas Media, were doing some low-rent shilling for former Ukrainian President Yanukovych and his party:

The Ukrainian campaign began in the run-up to high-stakes Ukrainian parliamentary elections last year, and sought to convince skeptical American conservatives that the pro-Russian Party of Regions, led by President Viktor Yanukovych, deserved American support. During that period, articles echoing Ukrainian government talking points appeared on leading conservative online outlets, including RedState, Breitbart, and Pajamas Media.

The emails and documents, which include prepackaged quotes from election officials and talking points that some writers copied nearly word-for-word, offer a glimpse into how foreign governments dodge tight Justice Department regulations on foreign propaganda to covertly lobby in the United States: The payments were routed through a front group in Belgium to an American consultant, who has urged writers not to cooperate with a reporter investigating the campaign.

The model resembles a recent stealth campaign in which bloggers were paid by the Malaysian government to write favorable stories, though the Ukraine campaign appears to have involved smaller sums of money.

One of the writers who participated in the campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity and because of lingering qualms about the arrangement, they said, described being offered $500 for a blog post praising Ukraine’s ruling Party of Regions. The payment was arranged by George Scoville, a libertarian media strategist, and Scoville’s name was on the check, the source said.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/exclusive-how-ukraine-wooed-conservative-websites

(I know it's a Buzzfeed article but the reporting seems solid)

Wait, a dead smear merchant's website was actually taking money to publish propaganda on behalf of an authoritarian extremist government that was murdering its own citizens for dissent? Why, that's... actually perfectly in keeping with the dishonest shit-stained legacy of Breitbart.

[slim da reaper]

*shakes head*

This is why basic public free education with a decent science curriculum is important, people.

In practical terms rather than simplistic ones when a chemistry teacher I once had claimed physics isn't science...., I had one sociopath chem teacher claim it, he did so because he was on a rant and rave on his righteousness after being fired ending his chemical biology career, he must have been a hoot in the lab, ended up making the stupiest claims like he doesn't need science fiction because he has science, he was a complete and utter pain in the arse.

[TrackerNeil]

Georgia is now on the bandwagon of the latest round of anti-gay laws, following Tennessee and Arizona and Kansas. I feel like I left out a state there. But who's counting.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/feb/24/georgia-may-follow-arizonas-anti-gay-lead/

Yay!

I'm sure something similar is percolating in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. We may be a Northeastern state, but when it comes to bigotry, we can compete with the best the South has to offer!

[TerraPrime]

I'm sure something similar is percolating in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. We may be a Northeastern state, but when it comes to bigotry, we can compete with the best the South has to offer!

Well, as Dan Savage would say, the Santorum doesn't just make itself, you know.

[davos]

Scott Walker, come on down! You're the next contestant on Your Presidential Aspirations Are Going Down in Flames Before Your Very Eyes!

Aww, couldn't happen to a nicer douchebag.

Also, I know this headline is kind of mean but also HILARIOUS

Unfrozen Caveman Pundit Debates Climate Change

While I would immolation of Walker's political career, and I don't think he would hold up well in a general national election, I don't think anything that's been revealed so far more than a speed-bump. Yes, there is evidence to support what most observers already assumed, that he was explicately involved, and likely orchestrated, the use of the county executive's office and resources as an active part of his campaign for govenor. Yes, this is a huge violation of numerous laws. Yes, there is plenty of reason to believe that his corruption goes much, much deeper, and if anything has expanded since moving to the govenor's mansion. There's still not enough to skuttle him though.

What is currently known is going to be disregarded by most conservatives as an attempt to use to the courts to smear SW, while the issue is going to seem far to esoteric to independents and swing voters. Unless charges are leveled against Walker himself, or proof of something that will be more readily comprehendable to the general public, this is not going to seriuosly hamper his political fortunates. Meanwhile his survival of the 2012 recall and his anti-union crusade, as well as how strongly he is disliked by what most Republicans in the state would dismiss as "Madison Liberals", have made him a folk hero to the far right. If anything this raises his stature within the party and strengthes his chances in the Republican primaries. He's one of those politicians who seem to be able to shrug off circumstances that would sink others. Until something more on the scale of Chris Christie's abuses of power is revealed Walker is still is far from finished. I've been part of the fight against him and his policies and seen him succeed despite the strongest opposition, to delude myself otherwise.

[TrackerNeil]

While I would immolation of Walker's political career, and I don't think he would hold up well in a general national election, I don't think anything that's been revealed so far more than a speed-bump. Yes, there is evidence to support what most observers already assumed, that he was explicately involved, and likely orchestrated, the use of the county executive's office and resources as an active part of his campaign for govenor. Yes, this is a huge violation of numerous laws. Yes, there is plenty of reason to believe that his corruption goes much, much deeper, and if anything has expanded since moving to the govenor's mansion. There's still not enough to skuttle him though.

What is currently known is going to be disregarded by most conservatives as an attempt to use to the courts to smear SW, while the issue is going to seem far to esoteric to independents and swing voters. Unless charges are leveled against Walker himself, or proof of something that will be more readily comprehendable to the general public, this is not going to seriuosly hamper his political fortunates. Meanwhile his survival of the 2012 recall and his anti-union crusade, as well as how strongly he is disliked by what most Republicans in the state would dismiss as "Madison Liberals", have made him a folk hero to the far right. If anything this raises his stature within the party and strengthes his chances in the Republican primaries. He's one of those politicians who seem to be able to shrug off circumstances that would sink others. Until something more on the scale of Chris Christie's abuses of power is revealed Walker is still is far from finished. I've been part of the fight against him and his policies and seen him succeed despite the strongest opposition, to delude myself otherwise.

I think he's more plausible a presidential candidate than Chris Christie, who is a folk hero to pretty much nobody in the party. Sure, Bobby Jindal speaks well of him, but that doesn't mean he'd support the guy over Rand Paul or John Kasich.

[Fez]

Referred without comment:

Virginia state Sen. Steve Martin ® believes that pregnant women looking to have abortions are just the baby's "host."

"You can count on me to never get in the way of you 'preventing' an unintentional pregnancy," he wrote in a Facebook post last week. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it."

Left unsaid: And I hope your child is a masculine child, because otherwise once its born its just another worthless host waiting to grow up.

[TrackerNeil]

Referred without comment:

Left unsaid: And I hope your child is a masculine child, because otherwise once its born its just another worthless host waiting to grow up.

You'd think that, after 2012, there would be a page in the Republican Handbook that reads: STOP TALKING ABOUT ABORTION.

[TerraPrime]

You'd think that, after 2012, there would be a page in the Republican Handbook that reads: STOP TALKING ABOUT ABORTION.

Why?

I'm guessing it's still one of the top 3 sellers for fund-raising for them.

[karaddin]

Wow that Georgia bill is just amazing, it doesn't even have to be a core part of your faith, you can just decide your faith vaguely encourages you to break this law and bam your faith shields you. That one has an awful lot of unintended consequences in the aim of doing something unnecessary.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Some good news:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0224/Pentagon-plan-to-downsize-Army-a-sign-of-US-reluctance-to-nation-build

The new budget, if it were to be approved by Congress, will take the Army down to pre-World War II levels – a good idea given that the US military is not likely to be waging troop-intensive nation-building operations for some time to come, Secretary Hagel said during a briefing with reporters.

The cuts aren't as massive as they should be, but it's Washington so that's to be expected. I'm hoping Congress doesn't block this (they've been known to force "defense" spending projects that even the brass doesn't want, just for the sake of "jobs"). The liberal dems and the tea party should generally support less military spending - it will be the neocons pushing hard against it

[TrackerNeil]

Why?

I'm guessing it's still one of the top 3 sellers for fund-raising for them.

Well, if they want to trade Senate seats for fundraising dollars, I'm OK with that.

[lokisnow]

I wish Hagel luck with that budget, it'll never happen, but it's some beautiful wishful thinking. It was very kind of him to hand such a lovely cudgel to Republicans to pound Obama/Democrats with in the midterms, don't know why Obama felt the need to appoint a Republican, but he's doing his partisan duty.

;)

Update on the reason we nuked the filibuster, true to form, democrats have done almost nothing after taking the insanely radical action. Apparently they nuked the filibuster because they didn't want to behave differently but thought it would be nice if in the future republicans were able to wage all manner of treacherous evil on the country unchecked.

Yup, we democrats are gleefully handing republicans unlimited power in the future just so we could get a paltry nine judges confirmed. Way to drag your feet, fucktards.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I wish Hagel luck with that budget, it'll never happen, but it's some beautiful wishful thinking. It was very kind of him to hand such a lovely cudgel to Republicans to pound Obama/Democrats with in the midterms, don't know why Obama felt the need to appoint a Republican, but he's doing his partisan duty.

Most voters are in an anti-militarist mood, so I don't see this hurting Hagel/Obama/the Dems in the midterms

And I wouldn't be surprised if many Tea Party Congressmen support it. They are not hyper-interventionists, and Rand Paul (boo! boo!) will likely rally at least some of them who would be inclined just to vote against Obama/Hagel. I

t's the Establishment Neocon types who are either ideologically committed to militarism or cozy with defense contractors who will push hard against it, not the average joe or the Tea Party

[Commodore]

Update on the reason we nuked the filibuster, true to form, democrats have done almost nothing after taking the insanely radical action. Apparently they nuked the filibuster because they didn't want to behave differently but thought it would be nice if in the future republicans were able to wage all manner of treacherous evil on the country unchecked.

Yup, we democrats are gleefully handing republicans unlimited power in the future just so we could get a paltry nine judges confirmed. Way to drag your feet, fucktards.

The Senate as constituted today serves no unique purpose. It's just the House with fewer members representing more people.

It's original intent was to represent the state legislatures in DC. Now it just concentrates more power in fewer people.

[Lightysnake88]

I wish Hagel luck with that budget, it'll never happen, but it's some beautiful wishful thinking. It was very kind of him to hand such a lovely cudgel to Republicans to pound Obama/Democrats with in the midterms, don't know why Obama felt the need to appoint a Republican, but he's doing his partisan duty.

;)

Update on the reason we nuked the filibuster, true to form, democrats have done almost nothing after taking the insanely radical action. Apparently they nuked the filibuster because they didn't want to behave differently but thought it would be nice if in the future republicans were able to wage all manner of treacherous evil on the country unchecked.

Yup, we democrats are gleefully handing republicans unlimited power in the future just so we could get a paltry nine judges confirmed. Way to drag your feet, fucktards.

It wasn't nuked for legislation, only appointments. And even if they had, there's the House

[davos]

The Senate as constituted today serves no unique purpose. It's just the House with fewer members representing more people.

It's original intent was to represent the state legislatures in DC. Now it just concentrates more power in fewer people.

The purpose of the Senate, or a similar "upper house" made up of representatives with longer terms is to to serve as a balance and a check to the "lower" house. The House, like many analogous institutions in bicameral legislatures, faces election quite frequently and can sweeping turnover with an accompanying sudden shift in political outlook. The intent is for it to be much more responsive to public mood, to the "will of the people". The Senate, made up of representatives with longer terms and, at least for the US Federal Senate, with staggered elections so rapid change is at least somewhat muted, is designed to be somewhat insulated from the popular mood. Thus rapid shifts occurring in the house may be checked by a senate that experiences change much slower. Consider 2010, where a radical conservative wave dramatically shifted power in the House. The Senate, due to staggered, statewide elections experiences some shift, but remained in Democratic hands. This, and the fact that the President was also a democrat, blocked much that the newly Republican-Teaparty house could actually do.

Of course, going back how it was original envisioned, the senate was not just suppose to be the more stable chamber, but also to represent the propertied interests. For more than half the life of this Senators were appointed by state legislatures, meaning they effectively were the representatives of those who wielded effective political power. Even with the change to directly elected Senators, which was one of the great innovations of the progressive era, the Senate still serves this moderating function to the more turbulent house. These are concepts basic to US history.

[Paladin of Ice]

Some good news:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0224/Pentagon-plan-to-downsize-Army-a-sign-of-US-reluctance-to-nation-build

The cuts aren't as massive as they should be, but it's Washington so that's to be expected. I'm hoping Congress doesn't block this (they've been known to force "defense" spending projects that even the brass doesn't want, just for the sake of "jobs"). The liberal dems and the tea party should generally support less military spending - it will be the neocons pushing hard against it

Logically, one would think the tea party would be against military spending, given how much it costs while they talk about national debt and how much tax revenue has to go to support it, but I feel a very predictable backlash coming from that sector, who will soon be talking about how Obama wants to weaken the country and let our enemies win or something along those lines.