1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#202 Oct 08 2015 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Imperial Speakership! Boehner's regime!

I assume he'll want to get the fuck out of town before, oh, say... December 11th? By Nov 30th, he'll be giving his gavel and tiara to the House janitor.


Amusing factoid about this that I wasn't aware of until just the last few days. Apparently, anyone can be Speaker of the House. It does not have to be an elected representative in the House itself. Just have to have a majority in the House agree on the choice. So yeah, could be the janitor. Or Donald Trump. Kill two birds with one stone on that one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#203 Oct 08 2015 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.
gbaji wrote:
That's the point so many people don't seem to get.
Yes, context is easy to ignore if you think no one is paying attention. But nice try.
gbaji wrote:
Are going to constantly get their facts wrong, like you've done?
See, you're wrong a dozen times over again and repeated yourself. Thanks for proving me right, again.

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 5:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#204 Oct 08 2015 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Well. If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives.?
Well. If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that lots of Democrats (ie the Southern ones) were the conservatives then. But you've decided again and again on this forum to ignore the truth when you don't like it. Echo chamber and all that.


Dammit, lolgaxe!Smiley: mad

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 3:57pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#205 Oct 08 2015 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
You are assuming that because a group is small, and thus statistically insignificant it should not be incentivised to make decisions that positively impact the collective. If so, why stop at same sxe couples? Why not also say, well Asians are a minority, so they aren't a group that needs to be subsidized? Why not also left handed people?


Because I'm not creating a criteria for marriage status qualification based on whether it would make it easier for that couple to adopt. You are. I have repeatedly rejected that as a good reason to expand the marriage status.

By your argument, why not expand marriage to siblings then? Why not parents and adult children? Heck. Why not whole families? Why not groups of people? If two people is a more stable condition for raising children than one, wouldn't three be better? Or 5? Or 10? We could argue that any number of people greater than one should be allowed to marry by your argument, because all of those have the same result with regard to potential for that larger number of people adopting children.

It's a really weak argument for expanding marriage.

Quote:
The point is to offer the same deal to everyone: Take on the burden of having children and we will lend a helping hand. It won't cover everything, and it won't come close to the cost we would be forced to collectively pay otherwise, but we will help.


Again though, then why not argue for offering the same deal to everyone? You're offering it just to SS couples. Why the restriction? I get the whole slippery slope fallacy thing, but when your argument literally is a slippery slope, and you've provided no reason it shouldn't slide further, then it's a perfectly valid response. Clearly, unless you are arguing for further expansion, there must be some other criteria for marriage that is stronger than just "if we let them marry, they might adopt". Can you tell me what that criteria is now? Prior to SSM, that criteria was simple: "Grant marriage status to the set of all couples who might procreate". Now? What is it? What purpose does it serve? And where is the boundary for that status within the context of that purpose?

Edited, Oct 8th 2015 11:56am by gbaji


Your argument is quite literally, retarded.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#206 Oct 09 2015 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Dammit, lolgaxe! Smiley: mad
You can have the next part where he says it doesn't count because semantics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#207 Oct 09 2015 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So has Ryan been strong armed into "running" for Speaker yet? He's got to be pissed about the leaks of Boehner making personal pleas to him: If he runs, he gets stuck with a shit job he absolutely doesn't want. If he doesn't, he's an asshole who wouldn't take one for the team to preserve the GOP leadership.

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 9:21am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#208 Oct 09 2015 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
On one hand, he's been pretty adamant about not wanting to be the House Speaker. On the other hand, so have a handful of the candidates for the presidency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#209 Oct 09 2015 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but if he did want to be Speaker, the time to speak up would have been early on before McCarthy was made the assumed shoo-in. Given the current state of the GOP, being Speaker now will be a thankless task where you get to explain to a bunch of people out for your blood that, no, we can't just let the US default or refuse to raise the debt limit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#210 Oct 09 2015 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I can't imagine anyone wants to be Speaker any more than anyone wants to leave the Olympics with a bronze. Just throwing out the possibility that he's holding out for a better deal and leaving that in his pocket to fall back on.

Carly Fiorina seems to believe that a degree in Medieval History is what's missing in our fight against ISIS. Which I don't necessarily disagree with, because no one ever expects a Spanish Inquisition. Also "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" would be great bit of foreign policy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#211 Oct 09 2015 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, I'm sure plenty of people want to be Speaker under better circumstances. Pelosi seemed to enjoy the job but then she wasn't leading a party rotting out from the inside.

Ryan potentially has higher aspirations than Congress. Maybe Secretary of the Treasury (rumors say), maybe president some day. Leading the House while it's hellbent on sabotaging government out of pique will probably hurt his chances rather than advance them. There's also a major fundraising aspect to it which Ryan is reportedly very adverse to. He's probably the best candidate the GOP has on paper but, from a personal standpoint, he's going to hate it.

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 10:46am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212 Oct 09 2015 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, to give credit to Gbaji, there is a rumor of McCarthy having an affair with Rep Renee Ellmers although both (naturally) deny it and it doesn't seem to have much mainstream traction. But a major GOP donor reportedly sent McCarthy an email the other day saying that he needed to quietly drop out before said donor was forced to make it into a big story.

Here's a photo of the two in order to facilitate your imagining them grunting under some scratchy hotel comforter and sweatily trying to justify the argument for government heterosexual marriage benefits. The other guy would holding the camera or something, I guess.

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 10:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#213 Oct 09 2015 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Is that Bill Nye the Science guy?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#214 Oct 09 2015 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
The USA did so well against the Taliban, it can be truly confident of a strategic victory against ISIS.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#215 Oct 09 2015 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mitt Romney called Paul Ryan to push him to take the Speakership. 'Cause there's a guy Paul Ryan should be taking career advice from.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#216 Oct 09 2015 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also endorsing Ryan is Democratic Rep Luis Gutierrez who says that Ryan would great for taking up and passing a comprehensive ("Amnesty!!") immigration reform bill Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#217 Oct 09 2015 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Next up, Huckabee will give him spiritual and historical advice.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#218 Oct 09 2015 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.


Um... No. The government wasn't handing out or receiving dowries. You're being ridiculous.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.


You're reverse defining conservative and liberal in order to fit your current narrative (yes, Semantics!). I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

The larger point you're missing in your grand labeling scheme is the ideas behind the positions. Why does one hold a position on an issue? And in the case of marriage, the argument in Loving was that since mixed race couples fulfilled the procreative aspect of marriage, and were producing children in their relationships, then not granting them marriage statuses was a violation of their rights. Key point being that it was the fact that they procreated that required them to be allowed to marry.

That same procreative argument is today being used by one "side" of the SSM issue to argue that gay couples should not be granted that status, since they don't meet the same criteria. Regardless of what labels we use, the argument for granting marriage licenses to mixed race couples also applies as an argument against granting those licenses to SS couples. You're free to spin your head around trying to figure out which side was which then, who shifted parties for what reasons in-between, etc. But that doesn't really address the issue at hand right now.

One "side" has been consistent in how it applies the concept of marriage status and benefits. The other "side" plays fast and loose with it and seems primarily to want to use the status (among many other government benefits) as a bargaining chip to get various identity groups to support them politically. Guess which side you are on?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Oct 09 2015 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I'm curious, Gbaji.

Assuming conservatives largely oppose SSM now and liberals largely favor it, do you believe in 30 years that conservatives will still claim to have opposed SSM and while liberals favored it?

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 7:56pm by Allegory
#220 Oct 09 2015 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

I assume you've never actually looked at historical electoral maps, particularly those around the 1950s and 1960s. It's no doubt just a wacky coincidence that the same band of states who were the only ones to vote for Stevenson in 1952 & 1956 were, in 1964, the only ones to vote for Goldwater. All the Democrats in those states just suddenly had an epiphany about how awesome Goldwater was, completely unrelated to the Civil Rights Act, and changed their party affiliation on a lark.

Honestly, you don't even have to answer this and embarrass yourself further.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Oct 09 2015 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Must be hard for gbaji to be in a party so chock full of hateful, bigoted racist because he's totally not any of those things.Smiley: frown

I'll pray for you immortal soul, lil' buddy!

Edited, Oct 9th 2015 8:16pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#222 Oct 09 2015 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.


Um... No. The government wasn't handing out or receiving dowries. You're being ridiculous.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.


You're reverse defining conservative and liberal in order to fit your current narrative (yes, Semantics!). I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.

The larger point you're missing in your grand labeling scheme is the ideas behind the positions. Why does one hold a position on an issue? And in the case of marriage, the argument in Loving was that since mixed race couples fulfilled the procreative aspect of marriage, and were producing children in their relationships, then not granting them marriage statuses was a violation of their rights. Key point being that it was the fact that they procreated that required them to be allowed to marry.

That same procreative argument is today being used by one "side" of the SSM issue to argue that *** couples should not be granted that status, since they don't meet the same criteria. Regardless of what labels we use, the argument for granting marriage licenses to mixed race couples also applies as an argument against granting those licenses to SS couples. You're free to spin your head around trying to figure out which side was which then, who shifted parties for what reasons in-between, etc. But that doesn't really address the issue at hand right now.

One "side" has been consistent in how it applies the concept of marriage status and benefits. The other "side" plays fast and loose with it and seems primarily to want to use the status (among many other government benefits) as a bargaining chip to get various identity groups to support them politically. Guess which side you are on?


Are you being serious? GOP mastered framing and redefining reality as seen fit to match current needs. Guess why liberuls have become a pejorative, and why entitlements have become such an emotionally laden word. Hint, it did not happen by accident.

Credit where credit is due, Rs have had much better understanding of theatrics and marketing. Ds are only now trying to catch up ( though by and large with lame efforts along the lines of 'hurr durr, he is pro-life, but doesn't mind death from guns' ).

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#223 Oct 10 2015 at 5:31 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also endorsing Ryan is Democratic Rep Luis Gutierrez who says that Ryan would great for taking up and passing a comprehensive ("Amnesty!!") immigration reform bill
I'm not familiar with all 700 congressmen, but Ryan seems a million times better than Mccarthy or that other guy trying to run.
#224 Oct 10 2015 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
I'm pretty excited about the potential outcome of the speakership race. It was great to see the House pull out the Discharge Petition for the Export-Import Bank, yesterday. I don't even really care whether I support it or not. I'm just glad there might be some slight sign of actual willingness for bipartisan work in America, rather than the typical "B-Rock 'The Islamic Shock' Hussein Superallah Obama can't keep getting away with this" mentality in DC. Also, the bit Stephen Colbert ran the other night about Kevin McCarthy was pretty fucking funny.

There is apparently both a Republican and Democratic debate coming to Wisconsin during the primaries. The Republican debate is next month and I'm going to try to go to both.

Oh, and since this is the first time I've posted on ZAM in over two years, I thought you might all find it nifty that I went to DC and sat in line, beginning on Friday April 24, 2015 to sit in for the Obergefell v. Hodges oral arguments at SCOTUS. It was pretty amazing and I loved witnessing SCOTUS live in person. I also wore my cheesehead and made a bunch of media stories, including Face the Nation, right before they introduced that Douchey McDoucherton, Tony Perkins. Here's a pic with my SCOTUS entry pass as #39.



Edited, Oct 10th 2015 8:05pm by Paskil
#225 Oct 10 2015 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Pretty awesome that you got to witness that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#226 Oct 10 2015 at 11:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Paskil wrote:
I'm pretty excited about the potential outcome of the speakership race. It was great to see the House pull out the Discharge Petition for the Export-Import Bank, yesterday. I don't even really care whether I support it or not. I'm just glad there might be some slight sign of actual willingness for bipartisan work in America, rather than the typical "B-Rock 'The Islamic Shock' Hussein Superallah Obama can't keep getting away with this" mentality in DC. Also, the bit Stephen Colbert ran the other night about Kevin McCarthy was pretty fucking funny.

There is apparently both a Republican and Democratic debate coming to Wisconsin during the primaries. The Republican debate is next month and I'm going to try to go to both.

Oh, and since this is the first time I've posted on ZAM in over two years, I thought you might all find it nifty that I went to DC and sat in line, beginning on Friday April 24, 2015 to sit in for the Obergefell v. Hodges oral arguments at SCOTUS. It was pretty amazing and I loved witnessing SCOTUS live in person. I also wore my cheesehead and made a bunch of media stories, including Face the Nation, right before they introduced that Douchey McDoucherton, Tony Perkins. Here's a pic with my SCOTUS entry pass as #39.



Edited, Oct 10th 2015 8:05pm by Paskil


I am jelly. That said, I am not sure whether bipartisan work is so good for the little guy ( like me ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 244 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (244)