US Politics: The Day After The Political Earthquake

[Tywin Manderly]

Please continue. :)

[1918me]

Republicans could have said the same of Bush in 2006, I'd hold off on claims about the economy until it is 2016.

Okay, I guess that's fair. Still though, Obama would have to make himself busy to sink the Bush's level within the next two years, barring any unforeseen disasters (*knocks on wood*).

[Shryke]

Okay, I guess that's fair. Still though, Obama would have to make himself busy to sink the Bush's level within the next two years, barring any unforeseen disasters (*knocks on wood*).

Government shutdown baby.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

It absolutely is not. It's an opinion about her stances based on a perfectly accurate representation of her stances. It's characterizing her actual positions as anti-women, because her positions attack women's rights and freedom to control their own reproductive choices.

Your whole complaint appears to be reduced now to, "don't call Republicans out emphatically for positions they hold that you emphatically disagree with." Which is an utterly hollow complaint.

While those positions do tend to restrict the rights of women, that doesn't necessarily make them anti-women. We have laws in this country restricting the rights of free speech, privacy, religion, educations. There's a law that somehow restricts every right we have. That doesn't mean those laws are "anti" something, malign, discrimintory, or anything else. If a 'personhood' amendment would save the life of a child and mitigate the harmful effects that an abortion has on the woman's physical and mental health, then it could be characterized as "pro-woman".

The reality though is that it is neither. It is not a black and white, zero sum game where it has to be for or against something.

[karaddin]

^^Yeah, I wouldn't rule out some legislative sabotage in the next 2 years that changes the landscape, or a shutdown or some other sequence of events as a result of the GOP holding house and senate.

Not going to repost all of my post from the last page, but the SCOTUS question -

On another note - what happens in the unlikely event that a SCOTUS justice retires/dies in the next 2 years? The nomination has to come from the executive right? So no conservative justices are going to be put up, any chance of another Kennedy style getting through? Does the seat stay empty till after 2016? *Can* it even stay empty or does SCOTUS have to be filled faster? Can't be done through recess appointments right?

[Ormond]

To give some evidence on a topic from the last thread:

The national Republican platform may not mention climate change, but the Texas state Republican party platform includes the following statement:

Climate Change- While we all strive to be good stewards of the earth, “climate change” is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives. We urge government at all levels to ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or “climate justice” initiatives.

http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-Platform-Final.pdf

P.S. And the Minnesota GOP platform includes the following statement, showing that such ideas are not limited to Republicans in oil producing states:

We oppose policies, legislation and mandates that are based on

the theory that humans are responsible for global climate change including the Theory of Man-Made

Global Warming, as well as any energy policies that raise the cost of energy to consumers and do

nothing to protect the environment.

http://mngop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-Platform_UpdatedLeadership.pdf

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

Okay, I guess that's fair. Still though, Obama would have to make himself busy to sink the Bush's level within the next two years, barring any unforeseen disasters (*knocks on wood*).

Heck, Obama was still running against Bush four years after he left office, so there's no reason why the Republicans couldn't run against Obama the year he leaves.

[Wee baby Shamus]

Heck, Obama was still running against Bush four years after he left office, so there's no reason why the Republicans couldn't run against Obama the year he leaves.

No no no. Obama was still blaming Bush four years after he left office.

[The Mance]

If a 'personhood' amendment would save the life of a child and mitigate the harmful effects that an abortion has on the woman's physical and mental health, then it could be characterized as "pro-woman".

Sure, because theres nothing like forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy to brighten her day.

[karaddin]

No no no. Obama was still blaming Bush four years after he left office.

What the hell are you arguing against? This guy is on the same side as you making the same argument as you?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

While those positions do tend to restrict the rights of women, that doesn't necessarily make them anti-women. We have laws in this country restricting the rights of free speech, privacy, religion, educations. There's a law that somehow restricts every right we have. That doesn't mean those laws are "anti" something, malign, discrimintory, or anything else. If a 'personhood' amendment would save the life of a child and mitigate the harmful effects that an abortion has on the woman's physical and mental health, then it could be characterized as "pro-woman".

The reality though is that it is neither. It is not a black and white, zero sum game where it has to be for or against something.

And if you believe that you're free to characterize it that way! And I would vehemently disagree with you, because if you believed that I'd think you were absolutely incorrect. But so long as you're correct about the actually stated positions of the politician you would like to so-label, I'm not going to accuse you of willingness to believe whatever caricature some media source has sold to you. Instead, I'll recognize that you have a made a judgement with accurate understanding of the candidate's position.

[Commodore]

the shutdown game theory dynamics will be different

1) Obama will have to veto bills passed by Congress and won't have Reid to shield him from that.

2) There won't be all-or-nothing spending bills. They will be broken up into a dozen different bills. So Obama would have to veto a stand alone military funding bill for example.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

the shutdown game theory dynamics will be different

1) Obama will have to veto bills passed by Congress and won't have Reid to shield him from that.

2) There won't be all-or-nothing spending bills. They will be broken up into a dozen different bills. So Obama would have to veto a stand alone military funding bill for example.

You're forgetting the filibuster. I can only imagine the Republicans recent fondness for it will soon come back to bite them. And then we'll get to hear the hypocrites scream about it.

[TrueMetis]

You're forgetting the filibuster. I can only imagine the Republicans recent fondness for it will soon come back to bite them. And then we'll get to hear the hypocrites scream about it.

Or they'll go "the democrats complained about the filibuster but now they're using it."

[Mr Fixit]

Or they'll go "the democrats complained about the filibuster but now they're using it."

You reap what you sow. It's only fair, right?

[TrueMetis]

You reap what you sow. It's only fair, right?

Yeah, we'll have to wait and see how the public sees it I guess.

[Kalbear]

Another good Texas Republican platform:

Controversial Theories- We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of

scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be

taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers

and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and

without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

[Commodore]

You're forgetting the filibuster. I can only imagine the Republicans recent fondness for it will soon come back to bite them. And then we'll get to hear the hypocrites scream about it.

can't filibuster spending bills

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

And if you believe that you're free to characterize it that way! And I would vehemently disagree with you, because if you believed that I'd think you were absolutely incorrect. But so long as you're correct about the actually stated positions of the politician you would like to so-label, I'm not going to accuse you of willingness to believe whatever caricature some media source has sold to you. Instead, I'll recognize that you have a made a judgement with accurate understanding of the candidate's position.

Well, if you don't think me labeling someone who is pro-choice as being 'anti-child' is a caricature, then we must have a different definition or application of the word. Fair enough, I suppose.

Posted 6 minutes ago

Bold Barry Whitebeard, on 05 Nov 2014 - 5:53 PM, said:

http://thinkprogress...climate-change/

Bold Barry Whitebeard, on 05 Nov 2014 - 5:53 PM, said:

And here, for the 3rd time, is actual evidence instaed of anecdotal stereotype driven bullshit:

http://www.motherjon...ce-gmo-vaccines

Bold Barry Whitebeard, on 05 Nov 2014 - 5:53 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....uthern_strategy

Educated yourself.

There is a God. Now stop enjoying your

Third point, you're using a 44 year old strategy is a little out of date, don't you think? I might just as well say the democrats are racist for supporting slavery and Jim Crow.

Second point, as to vaccines, it basically shows that both sides are wrong, the democrats a little more so. The actual meat and potatos of the study cited did find limited evidence that liberals were more likely to be anti-vaccine. Either way, it shows equivalency.

For an opposing viewpoint, see http://www.science20.com/science_20/science_left_behind_2014_the_antivaccination_update-146746

First point, official Republican opposition to climate change, as shown in the Texas platform, is against using money or otherwise reshaping society to combat it. Given how nearly every climate study that has made a prediction has been shown to be wrong, this isn't an unrational viewpoint.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

I apologize for the slow responses, but I like to dig into the root source of studies and not trust the conclusions of the media organizations that report on them. Alas, this is all the time I have to discuss these issues for now. Good night everyone!

[awesome possum]

While those positions do tend to restrict the rights of women, that doesn't necessarily make them anti-women.

Wow. The mental gymnastics required to write this sentence are impressive.

No no no. Obama was still blaming Bush four years after he left office.

That really offers like little