Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

So how is the Senate looking these days? I don't think the House ever truly in play for 2014, but can the Democrats hold on to even a slim Senate majority? A Tea Party run House with a Ted Cruz Senate would be pretty bad, even with Obama vetoing everything.

Still a decent chance at keeping the Senate.

And vetoes wouldn't be needed that much with the filibuster still in place.

 

[Wilsongt]

So how is the Senate looking these days? I don't think the House ever truly in play for 2014, but can the Democrats hold on to even a slim Senate majority? A Tea Party run House with a Ted Cruz Senate would be pretty bad, even with Obama vetoing everything.

The senate is gone. All Democrats will lose against the Republicans. Hilary will commit seppuku and Obama will be overthrown leading to a Cruz/Rubio presidency for the rest of time.

/PD

 

[thepotatoman]

Cantor was of those fake allies that is only friends with you until they have enough power to overthrow you. He was smart enough to know that he didn't have to the sway to overthrow him YET but was constantly biting on his heals and causing problems.

I'd rather have a fake ally than a full out opposition like I expect Boehner might get this fall. All that discontent Cantor sowed is still there, and this time Cantor can't be around to control it and say the time isn't right.

 

[alstein]

I think there a ton of reasons for the left to fear a Hillary presidency. You don't have to have a schtick to see it.

I'm anyone but Hillary in 2016. Give me the real liberal, even if they're unelectable.

 

[B-Dubs]

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/476764445868183552

Oh man, we might be in real trouble if the GOP keeps the House...

When's the debt ceiling run out?

 

[thepotatoman]

Eric Cantor to step down as majority leader at end of July

I guess we will get to have the civil war take place before the election.

 

[Wilsongt]

Eric Cantor to step down as majority leader at end of July

I guess we will get to have the civil war take place before the election.

The faster that the GOP eats themselves alive from the inside, the better.

 

[The Librarian]

Oh man, we might be in real trouble if the GOP keeps the House...

When's the debt ceiling run out?

2015?

 

[thepotatoman]

March 15, 2015, to be precise.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Okay, I'm finally on board with the 538 hate/disappointment.

I went over there to see some nice analysis about how the polling was off, and I get some stuff about Earthquakes.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

March 15, 2015, to be precise.

They'll pass something in the lame duck. or at least one can hope

 

[Aaron Strife]

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/476764445868183552

Let them do it before the November election. The media would finally bury the tea party.

 

[B-Dubs]

March 15, 2015, to be precise.

Welp, unless they get rid of it or make sure the bucket is kicked far enough down the road, we might just be fucked.

They'll pass something in the lame duck. or at least one can hope

I don't see any other way if the Tea Party takes control, unless Obama mints that coin or something.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Welp, unless they get rid of it or make sure the bucket is kicked far enough down the road, we might just be fucked.

I don't see any other way if the Tea Party takes control, unless Obama mints that coin or something.

Still not buying that. We wouldn't default immediately, but the uncertainty would rock the markets enough to make the reality of the situation known to all. More importantly I think people forget just how much control Wall Street and K Street have. If a vote is held, it will pass. And I simply don't believe whoever the next Speak is would refuse to vote on it. He would wait until the last minute as Boehner has done.

And in some scenario where he did refuse, it wouldn't be hard to get a discharge vote. Granted republicans could force a recess to block it, but now we're getting into fantasy territory. Not going to happen.

 

[speculawyer]

Oh man, we might be in real trouble if the GOP keeps the House...

When's the debt ceiling run out?

Excellent. Let's have another government shut down! It worked so well for them last time. If they had just let it go on a little longer, I'm sure the public would have lined up behind them.

 

[KingK]

America, why you so crazy.

Because the crazies are the ones who regularly vote. A lot of the sane folks don't bother voting because "BOTH SIDES SUCK!" and they don't want to take the time to think about anything in politics and we don't have a media that properly informs the public.

As fun as it is to laugh at Cantor, this will only give more ammo to traitor liberals to defend Hilary and other corporate dems as the best/only alternative. If the left doesn't mobilize an actual leftist program that's big and unified fast, we're pretty fucked for a while.

Hey, the sooner the Republican party self destructs, the sooner the Democratic party can split into the center-right party they mostly are today and an actual left wing party

Spoiler

I hope...

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/lgbt-rights-religious-freedom_n_5482898.html

WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee held a Tuesday hearing on religious freedom and, among other witnesses, Liberty University dean and professor of law Mathew Staver was there to explain why it's not fair that mental health professionals are barred in some states from trying to convert gay people into straight people.

In his testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Staver called it "religious discrimination" that two states, California and New Jersey, have passed laws prohibiting counselors from practicing gay conversion therapy on minors, a widely discredited approach to trying to change someone's sexual orientation. New York is also mulling a similar ban.

"Homosexual activists have attempted to enact laws throughout the country that would silence mental health professionals from expressing the truth that an individual can successfully reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors or identity and live consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs concerning human sexuality," Staver wrote in his prepared remarks. "Those efforts are nothing more than an attempt to censor any viewpoint concerning scriptural teaching on human sexuality, and they represent one of the greatest assaults on children and families that has arisen in recent times."

Every major medical association has rejected the therapy as invalid and even harmful, including the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American School Counselor Association, the World Health Organization and the National Association of Social Workers.

Still, Staver insisted that any law banning conversion therapy "cuts to the very core" of a counselor's job, which is to provide clients with the information they want.

"That goes against the individual client's right to self-autonomy," he said. "It's unprecedented because there's no other area of counseling that falls anywhere in that [kind of] restrictive mandate."

The hearing, titled "The State of Religious Liberty In the United States," was called by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, called Staver's defense of conversion therapy "vitriolic and factually inaccurate."

His tirade "should serve as a reminder that, even as equality makes progress around the country, there are still many, many people fighting tooth and nail to keep LGBT people as second-class citizens," Warbelow said. "Mr. Staver's testimony is more than just wrong. It's actively harmful to LGBT people who have suffered through discrimination and medically baseless efforts to change their sexual orientation or gender identity."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a member of the subcommittee, said Staver was blurring the line between religious freedom and blatant discrimination against someone for being gay. He noted that he was himself a sponsor of the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the author of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

"We always conceived of these as shields for religious freedom, not as swords to impose religious beliefs on other people," Nadler said.

Staver is no stranger to controversy. Earlier this year, he called Michelle Obama "an evil human being" and compared her to Adolf Hitler. In February, he said President Barack Obama should be impeached because governors and attorneys general were refusing to defend their states' constitutional bans on gay marriage.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't see any other way if the Tea Party takes control, unless Obama mints that coin or something.

They can get votes for a McConnell type solution (giving president the authority but voting 'against it'). Not all Republicans are at risk for Tea Party type challenges (lots of CA, NY, PA types) and the McConnell type solution gives them cover.

If Boehner is speaker we'll see it passed. if not it will be a circus but I think boehner will do something in lame duck if he A) resigns or B) has a real challenge.

 

[benjipwns]

A lot of the sane folks don't bother voting because "BOTH SIDES SUCK!" and they don't want to take the time to think about anything in politics and we don't have a media that properly informs the public.

If they're sane then they have taken the time to think about politics and realized both major parties do suck and that voting is meaningless.

 

[KingK]

If they're sane then they have taken the time to think about politics and realized both major parties do suck and that voting is meaningless.

Both major parties do suck to varying degrees, I suppose, but voting is far from meaningless.

 

[rocketknight]

Apparently Brat's campaign manager is 23 years old.

 

[PantherLotus]

Apparently Brat's campaign manager is 23 years old.

Not for long, I'm betting.

 

[Zona]

I'm anyone but Hillary in 2016. Give me the real liberal, even if they're unelectable.

As much as I'd like an actual leftist in office I'll always take the Center-Right over Crazytown if those are the options.

 

[benjipwns]

Both major parties do suck to varying degrees, I suppose, but voting is far from meaningless.

What if I voted for Eric Cantor to represent me in the House?

 

[Coriolanus]

As much as I'd like an actual leftist in office I'll always take the Center-Right over Crazytown if those are the options.

Which is why people keep trying to get Warren to run, even if it seems certain that she'd never get the nomination. Just pushing Hillary to commit to more "proper left" economic ideas during the primaries would be great.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Apparently Brat's campaign manager is 23 years old.

Yoho's Chief of staff I think was 22 or 23

 

[thepotatoman]

Still not buying that. We wouldn't default immediately, but the uncertainty would rock the markets enough to make the reality of the situation known to all. More importantly I think people forget just how much control Wall Street and K Street have. If a vote is held, it will pass. And I simply don't believe whoever the next Speak is would refuse to vote on it. He would wait until the last minute as Boehner has done.

And in some scenario where he did refuse, it wouldn't be hard to get a discharge vote. Granted republicans could force a recess to block it, but now we're getting into fantasy territory. Not going to happen.

Maybe, but I do bet they'll take it even further than ever before, which would be to hit the ceiling and start forcing the government to make decisions on what obligations to not uphold.

They aren't going to run out of money all at once, and they're not going to default on any debt until they have no other choice. So the first thing to go would be social security payments, something that's never happened before even in government shutdowns.

That might buy a couple of weeks, and would probably get a deal to be reached before it gets close to being unable to pay interest on bonds.

I have no doubts that this is what will happen. Republicans need to show their constituents that they're "serious" even if they don't get anything out of it, and they'll have to keep pushing further and further and further to prove it. It'll further ruin republican's standing with moderates and the future of their party, but their gerrymandered constituents will be satisfied that they tried to do something and had to capitulate to save social security from that meany Obama, ensuring at least one more safe election for themselves individually.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The thing to fear isn't going to be a default (there won't be)

but a shut down if the Rs control the senate. It will be Obama vs. Congress. No Reid to take the heat.

 

[The Technomancer]

Hillary as a candidate I'm fine with, if not particularly excited. But I am seriously bothered by how dynastic our last couple of decades of the presidency looks if she gets elected. And then if Jeb runs after her?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Hillary as a candidate I'm fine with, if not particularly excited. But I am seriously bothered by how dynastic our last couple of decades of the presidency looks if she gets elected. And then if Jeb runs after her?

It'll be a couple decades against the grand scheme of our 239 years of existence as a country.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hillary as a candidate I'm fine with, if not particularly excited. But I am seriously bothered by how dynastic our last couple of decades of the presidency looks if she gets elected. And then if Jeb runs after her?

Husband and Wife is vastly different than father son IMO

 

[The Librarian]

Hillary as a candidate I'm fine with, if not particularly excited. But I am seriously bothered by how dynastic our last couple of decades of the presidency looks if she gets elected. And then if Jeb runs after her?

I'm not bothered by it. For the first couple decades of the country we had several men who were in various positions of power.

 

[Crisco]

It's not really that bad considering 8 years of Bush were due to fraudulent election results and it's been 16 years since the last Clinton. There will be people voting in 2016 who weren't born when Bill was first elected.

 

[The Librarian]

It's not really that bad considering 8 years of Bush were due to fraudulent election results and it's been 16 years since the last Clinton. There will be people voting in 2016 who weren't born when Bill was first elected.

Hell, I was only able to vote in the last election.

 

[benjipwns]

It's just a quirk of people living longer plus fate. The Rockefellers never gained the Presidency for example, all the Kennedys (going back to Joe) managed it only once. If John Connally doesn't insist on H.W. getting a job from Nixon there's no Bush Presidency or Dynasty probably since it dies with Prescott. If Clinton doesn't win his rematch I doubt he ever even runs, let alone Hillary getting a Senate seat and her own bid.

 

[Angry Fork]

Hillary as a candidate I'm fine with, if not particularly excited. But I am seriously bothered by how dynastic our last couple of decades of the presidency looks if she gets elected. And then if Jeb runs after her?

Can you explain why you're okay with someone who's farther right than Bush 2?

Honestly, i get the lesser of two evils shit, but that's one thing. I want to know why you or anyone else is genuinely "fine" with her.

The only thing coming out of liberals mouths should be Hilary is a scumbag shithead determined to sell everyone out but I prefer her over the republican alternative. That's as far as you can go. There is no like or respect or appreciate if you're someone at center-left.

 

[alstein]

The thing to fear isn't going to be a default (there won't be)

but a shut down if the Rs control the senate. It will be Obama vs. Congress. No Reid to take the heat.

Obama wins this. He's not running for re-election, he can wait out the clock. He can be stubborn.

One of the few times being a lame duck would be an advantage.

 

[Amir0x]

I was arguing this briefly in the other thread, but I don't see how things get more gridlocked. What things that plausibly would have passed otherwise will not be passed now? Immigration reform has been dead for about a year. The time for that was in early 2013 when support for it among the establishment was strong and conservatives were disillusioned. Republicans know they're going to gain ground in the upcoming elections, so why try to hash out an immigration deal now and risk depressing the base? And if they do well in the upcoming elections, then America has come to its senses and it'd be dumb to compromise when they're so close to total victory. Anyway, any prolonged discussion of immigration is going to lead to a conservative revolt that negates much of the benefit of being seen to care about brown people.

It's not like meaningful VA reform was going to happen, much less increased funding to match increased demand for care. We stopped talking about that before all this POW stuff. And, for his part, Obama's pretty much said "fuck it" already. He's going to regulate carbon through the EPA, bypassing Congress. Establishment and Tea Party alike will hate that more than Obamacare, and it makes their excuse that they can't do X because they don't trust Obama to apply the law non-tyrannically more convincing. Maybe we'll have some more fighting over the debt ceiling, but Cantor wasn't on the side of sanity in that and probably we do better there if Boehner isn't worried about Cantor leading a revolt.

At this point, less-disguised Republican craziness only serves to drive non-crazies away from the party faster and insulates Democrats from random factors in 2016 and beyond.

I mean, it's hard to define the gradients in gridlock. But, politics is all about movement. You have to factor in a sort of base for which people may be persuaded, or people who signaled they're willing to discuss it, and then go from there to build support.

Before this event, there were Republicans at least willing to discuss it. How sincere they were, who knows. But there were major Republicans who said Immigration reform must be done, or else they'll lose the future vote. Demographics were changing too much to ignore.

Now, though. The Democrats won't even have that base. They will have no one to even pretend to discuss the subject with, for fear of igniting yet another tea party challenger willing to obstruct legislation to the most extreme point possible. Modern neo conservatism is bad enough, sure. But the extremists in the tea party are even further to the right, and by definition have now destroyed any even remote semblance of being able to even discuss compromise.

So, in the sense that there was a conversation before - however sincere or insincere - and there will be no conversation now, I'd say it's a real movement backwards.

 

[alstein]

I mean, it's hard to define the gradients in gridlock. But, politics is all about movement. You have to factor in a sort of base for which people may be persuaded, or people who signaled they're willing to discuss it, and then go from there to build support.

Before this event, there were Republicans at least willing to discuss it. How sincere they were, who knows. But there were major Republicans who said Immigration reform must be done, or else they'll lose the future vote. Demographics were changing too much to ignore.

Now, though. The Democrats won't even have that base. They will have no one to even pretend to discuss the subject with, for fear of igniting yet another tea party challenger willing to obstruct legislation to the most extreme point possible. Modern neo conservatism is bad enough, sure. But the extremists in the tea party are even further to the right, and by definition have now destroyed any even remote semblance of being able to even discuss compromise.

So, in the sense that there was a conversation before - however sincere or insincere - and there will be no conversation now, I'd say it's a real movement backwards.

If you're willing to play the long game, you can use that lack of discussion to try and get minorities even more on your side, and make it where the Republicans have to win 80-90% of the white vote to win. With folks under 40 suffering so much economically due to Republican policies, if you can get enough of those folks to vote with their heads, you win easily- then you don't need to compromise that much. Just shove it down their throats.

 

[Wilsongt]

...I... uh... Hm. I literally have nothing to say about this.

Creation Today speaker Derek Isaacs recently read some books by “purveyors of evolutionary thought” and came out of the experience in a “very, very dark place.” And one of the questions he found himself asking is that if evolution is real, why can’t it be also said that rape is wrong? After all, he argued, evolution is about propagation of the species by any means possible, and therefore dominant males continuing the species by grabbing whatever female he can get his hands on and impregnating them.

Isaacs reached this rather outlandish conclusion after asking himself how humanity could possibly sustain itself morally if evolution were true. He explained, “You have to start asking questions. Well, if evolution is true and it’s just all about the male propagating their DNA, well, we have to ask hard questions like, well, is rape wrong?”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/creationist-asks-if-evolution-is-true-then-is-rape-actually-wrong/

 

[Amir0x]

...I... uh... Hm. I literally have nothing to say about this.



http://www.mediaite.com/online/creationist-asks-if-evolution-is-true-then-is-rape-actually-wrong/

this is really a thing among the anti-evolutionist crowd

they believe morality is totally derived from the creator and his divine word and without it we're all amoral assholes willing to kill and rape indiscriminately; and what's more they believe evolution would support that view.

the sad thing is his view isn't even an aberration among this crowd

 

[KingK]

I mean, it's hard to define the gradients in gridlock. But, politics is all about movement. You have to factor in a sort of base for which people may be persuaded, or people who signaled they're willing to discuss it, and then go from there to build support.

Before this event, there were Republicans at least willing to discuss it. How sincere they were, who knows. But there were major Republicans who said Immigration reform must be done, or else they'll lose the future vote. Demographics were changing too much to ignore.

Now, though. The Democrats won't even have that base. They will have no one to even pretend to discuss the subject with, for fear of igniting yet another tea party challenger willing to obstruct legislation to the most extreme point possible. Modern neo conservatism is bad enough, sure. But the extremists in the tea party are even further to the right, and by definition have now destroyed any even remote semblance of being able to even discuss compromise.

So, in the sense that there was a conversation before - however sincere or insincere - and there will be no conversation now, I'd say it's a real movement backwards.

Republicans have/had/will have absolutely zero interest in allowing any legislation to pass that would be credited as a plus to Democrats. They've been doing this for the last 6 years. If anything, Republicans being unwilling to even talk about it is a good thing, because then they can't falsely paint the Democrats as being "against bipartisanship" when not a single Republican votes for the legislation in the end after Dems bending over backwards and dragging it to the right. There is no policy difference between the Tea Party and the establishment. Only strategic differences (Tea Party is less deceitful about their unwillingness to work with Democrats on anything).

Immigration reform was not going to happen with Republican majorities. Period. It's fantasy to think otherwise. At least now Republicans will have a harder time arguing that it's the Democrats' fault for not negotiating with them.

 

[speculawyer]

Can you explain why you're okay with someone who's farther right than Bush 2?

Honestly, i get the lesser of two evils shit, but that's one thing. I want to know why you or anyone else is genuinely "fine" with her.

The only thing coming out of liberals mouths should be Hilary is a scumbag shithead determined to sell everyone out but I prefer her over the republican alternative. That's as far as you can go. There is no like or respect or appreciate if you're someone at center-left.

I have my various complaints with Hillary but that kind of charge is just ridiculous.

 

[speculawyer]

...I... uh... Hm. I literally have nothing to say about this.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/creationist-asks-if-evolution-is-true-then-is-rape-actually-wrong/

I can never be sure if they are being disingenuous with such arguments . . . or if they are really that stupid. I guess the latter.


Who thinks evolution is a source of morality? Ask Richard Dawkins and he'll tell you that evolution is horribly brutal and we should design our society to be very much the opposite of it.

And ironically, it is the right that constantly wants evolution (in a different form) to be what guides our society . . . what do you think free markets are exception a copy of evolution?

 

[HyperionX]

Can you explain why you're okay with someone who's farther right than Bush 2?

Honestly, i get the lesser of two evils shit, but that's one thing. I want to know why you or anyone else is genuinely "fine" with her.

The only thing coming out of liberals mouths should be Hilary is a scumbag shithead determined to sell everyone out but I prefer her over the republican alternative. That's as far as you can go. There is no like or respect or appreciate if you're someone at center-left.

Wasn't there a joke that if she didn't marry Bill, she still would have ended up first lady?

Point being she's a person destined to be in the White House one way or another.

 

[zero shift]

Apparently Brat's campaign manager is 23 years old.

This reminds me of that Bill Maher episode where he and Al Franken talk about how so many successful politicians are campaigned managed by "23 year olds".

Can you explain why you're okay with someone who's farther right than Bush 2?

Honestly, i get the lesser of two evils shit, but that's one thing. I want to know why you or anyone else is genuinely "fine" with her.

The only thing coming out of liberals mouths should be Hilary is a scumbag shithead determined to sell everyone out but I prefer her over the republican alternative. That's as far as you can go. There is no like or respect or appreciate if you're someone at center-left.

Hillary is farther right than W.?

 

[Angry Fork]

I have my various complaints with Hillary but that kind of charge is just ridiculous.

Well she's farther right than Obama, and Obama is farther right than Bush 2 on at least half of the issues.

There's literally only 1 thing ideologically speaking the left has won since the 80s and that's LGBT rights (which is still not a victory). And now there's a somewhat moderate push for a higher minimum wage and decriminalization of marijuana, both of which the result of constant protests, no thanks to democrats who are terrified of using their power for good or making enemies.

I have no idea how such a pathetic, regressive track record can continue to convince people that lesser of two evils strategy works at ALL. It is only delaying the inevitable. (Not talking about you btw, just Hilary supporters in here.)

Point being she's a person destined to be in the White House one way or another.

As a dish washer, post-revolution.

 

[Tamanon]

I bet he was one of Brat's students a few years ago and he changed his life against the Marxists in the government.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well she's farther right than Obama, and Obama is farther right than Bush 2 on at least half of the issues.

There's literally only 1 thing ideologically speaking the left has won since the 80s and that's LGBT rights (which is still not a victory). And now there's a somewhat moderate push for a higher minimum wage and decriminalization of marijuana, both of which the result of constant protests, no thanks to democrats who are terrified of using their power for good or making enemies.

I have no idea how such a track record can continue to convince people that lesser of two evils strategy works at ALL. It is only delaying the inevitable. (Not talking about you btw, just Hilary supporters in here.)
.

How anybody can say these things with a straight face is hilarious.

No the glorious socialist revolution hasn't come.

Thank god.

This reminds me of that Bill Maher episode where he and Al Franken talk about how so many successful politicians are campaigned managed by "23 year olds".

Capitol hill is run by 20 somethings.

 

[HyperionX]

Well she's farther right than Obama, and Obama is farther right than Bush 2 on at least half of the issues.

There's literally only 1 thing ideologically speaking the left has won since the 80s and that's LGBT rights (which is still not a victory). And now there's a somewhat moderate push for a higher minimum wage and decriminalization of marijuana, both of which the result of constant protests, no thanks to democrats who are terrified of using their power for good or making enemies.

I have no idea how such a pathetic, regressive track record can continue to convince people that lesser of two evils strategy works at ALL. It is only delaying the inevitable. (Not talking about you btw, just Hilary supporters in here.)



As a dish washer, post-revolution.

You sound very confused.