Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Grimes rips into McConnell and he's there to watch it all.

No mention of healthcare. I'm sure Greg Sargent is somewhere writing an article about how Obamacare isn't hurting red state democrats but the reality remains that it's a liability. It has cut Kentucky's uninsured rate in half yet Grimes is still running away from it. And there is no guarantee that the poor who benefit will even vote.

 

[WayneMorse]

So how likely is impeachment after the immigration exec. orders?

 

[Joe Molotov]

So how likely is impeachment after the immigration exec. orders?

As likely as Republicans getting control of the Senate.

 

[RustyNails]

Report: Israel eavesdropped on Kerry's phone calls

With the help of the eavesdropping, Der Spiegel reports, Israeli leaders were better able to understand Kerry's plans for his efforts during the negotiations and prepare for them. At times, the material collected even served to help Israel attack the US diplomat.



The author of the profile is Holger Stark, one of the magazine's senior writers and Germany's "Journalist of the Year" in 2013. Stark exposed the American eavesdropping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone – which led to a severe crisis in the relations between the two allies.


Stark is the current Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Der Spiegel.


According to the profile which will be published in Monday's paper, at the height of US-led nine-month period of negotiations Kerry was making daily phone calls to his colleagues in the Middle East.


When he was in the United States, most of the calls were placed from his office or – as would happen often due to the time difference – from his home in Georgetown. Both locations have secure phone lines.


But during Kerry's numerous flights his plane was not equipped with an encrypted phone line and the US diplomat made calls using a regular satellite phone which Israeli intelligence – according to Der Spiegel – managed to intercept.


According to the report, Israel was one of two countries which eavesdropped on the phone calls but the profile of Kerry does not name the second country.


Since Kerry was running the US State Department during these flights – and not only the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians – many of the recorded calls involved other international officials, including Russian and Chinese leaders.


Der Spiegel notes that the transcripts of the conversations were not kept within the Israeli intelligence community and were passed on to the political establishment, which employed them for its own purposes. Israel and the US refused to respond to Der Spiegel on the matter.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Report: Israel eavesdropped on Kerry's phone calls

cross post

OK?

I expect a country to spy on negotiations which are about its future (we spy on negotiations about free trade). I also expect my country to try and prevent that from happening. I also expect us to be spying on Israeli communications during conflicts like the ongoing war in Gaza and expansions in the West Bank.

These aren't shocking revelations or showing that we aren't allies but that we sometimes have vastly different interests. Which Rick Perry and the Right should learn before going off on calling for 'not an inch of difference' between the two countries.

I mean I'm pissed we can't keep our communications secure but otherwise I completely understand why the Israeli's or others do this. I said so during the NSA threads

 

[RustyNails]

cross post

OK?

I expect a country to spy on negotiations which are about its future (we spy on negotiations about free trade). I also expect my country to try and prevent that from happening. I also expect us to be spying on Israeli communications during conflicts like the ongoing war in Gaza and expansions in the West Bank.

These aren't shocking revelations or showing that we aren't allies but that we sometimes have vastly different interests. Which Rick Perry and the Right should learn before going off on calling for 'not an inch of difference' between the two countries.

I mean I'm pissed we can't keep our communications secure but otherwise I completely understand why the Israeli's or others do this. I said so during the NSA threads

So pathetic to see you become nothing but unapologetic defender of Israel and brush aside any major criticism as "concern trolling" or "every country does it lol". Are you not outraged that your country's state department was eavesdropped by an ally we give $3.5b every year? What will it take to get you upset at Israel?

 

[Coriolanus]

This bit is particularly interesting, though

Der Spiegel notes that the transcripts of the conversations were not kept within the Israeli intelligence community and were passed on to the political establishment, which employed them for its own purposes. Israel and the US refused to respond to Der Spiegel on the matter.

A foreign actor basically did something far worse than what you've complained about Greenwald doing.

 

[speculawyer]

I am obssessed with this Lenar Whitney

GOP Candidate Disproves Climate Change With Simple Scientific Device
The Bayou State’s answer to Sarah Palin thinks global warming is a ‘hoax’, because thermometers.

A Republican candidate for Congress in Louisiana has released a campaign video, subtlety titled "GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX" that is, unexpectedly, about her belief that global warming is a hoax.

Lenar Whitney, who did not respond to an interview request from The Daily Beast, is a state representative from the Bayou State and the Republican National Committee's "committee woman from Louisiana," according to her website. She counts Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin among her idols and believes climate change can be credibly disproved with a thermometer. She is running in the Nov. 4 nonpartisan jungle primary, to fill the seat vacated by Rep. Bill Cassidy, who is running for Senate.
Whitney, 55, sports long blonde hair and heavy eye makeup. In the glossy, black and white video, she speaks in a gleeful, infantilized tone about "liberals in the lamestream media" becoming "unglued" over her statements about climate change.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/03/gop-candidate-s-fake-science.html

The campaign video is amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzItCPk5j4


The climate change denial stuff has become pretty much the party line on the right. However, after the climate change denial stuff, she launches into a bunch of delusional nonsense about the USA becoming the world's massive energy export powerhouse that can save Europe by providing them energy such that they won't have to rely upon Vladimir Putin. Well . . . despite the shale boom, the USA stills imports nearly half the oil we run through our refineries.

This woman is completely detached from reality.

 

[Wilsongt]

I was talking to my dad about Ronald Reagan, and he sent this reply:



And this about Obama:

This is a case of pot calling the kettle black in terms of being in a bubble.

 

[alstein]

So pathetic to see you become nothing but unapologetic defender of Israel and brush aside any major criticism as "concern trolling" or "every country does it lol". Are you not outraged that your country's state department was eavesdropped by an ally we give $3.5b every year? What will it take to get you upset at Israel?

This isn't the first time Israel has done this, but the US has no right to complain, given how much our hands have been caught in the cookie jar.

Then again it's not shocking Israel finds it so easy, they pretty much have their hooks into our military apparatus and at least one of our political parties if not both.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So pathetic to see you become nothing but unapologetic defender of Israel and brush aside any major criticism as "concern trolling" or "every country does it lol". Are you not outraged that your country's state department was eavesdropped by an ally we give $3.5b every year? What will it take to get you upset at Israel?

I'm not a unapologetic defender of Israel. Jeez, you don't read my posts. My opposition to releasing Pollard, my opposition to the ground assault in Gaza and general unease at the use of too much force, my support for the general outline of 67. My opposition to bibi, the anger at his negotiations, etc etc. Not condemning them on everything and understanding context and their motives for acting along being pragmatic doesn't equal unapologetic defender.

I'm also not brushing aside concerns, I said "I'm pissed" and "I expect us not to let them do this". Youre ignoring that completely. I'm not 'outraged' because they've done this before and will continue to do this, its in their interest and doesn't really harm us in any real way. Israel has much more interest in knowing everything about the negotiations about the future of their state. Its literally an existential question for them, Israel doesn't view the relationship the same way its characterized here in the US (the people at state and the IC understand this, less so in more political spheres). Israel doesn't have an 'special relationships' or no spying pacts. Understanding that prevents outrage but like I said I'm mad at the State department, not Israel. They hold no obligation, neither does any other nation.

I've made my views on spying pretty clear many times on issues such as this. I've responded to people saying 'what if they were spying on your government' and my response here is the same as that answer way back then with an unnamed country (It might have been China or Russia). I expect them to try and I expect the US to try to stop them.

I focus on concern trolling because that's what this is. Every intelligence community wants to spy on the US communications, Iran does, Russia does, Germany does, France does, India does, China does, Brazil does, Cuba does, Venezeula does. Its the nature of IR. But we tend to get leaks from people pushing and wanting a certain reaction, the very one your giving. The outrage at Israel, for taking our money and still spying on us. That's the purpose of these leaks, to create a rift and to change policy, not because of outrage about spying.

People might very validly want a change of relationship with Israel (I do in many regards diplomatically) but to ignore the reality what these stories are. Part of a PR campaign. One can very validly agree with said campaign but the outrage at someone who points out that this is what it is, is misdirected.

Most ironically the people like greenwald, the guardian and speigel who so vigorously show outrage at these stories, are very capable of understanding, pointing out and criticizing selective leaks when they come from and benefit the government can't own up the the fact they benefit from the same thing

 

[speculawyer]

Hasn't Cruz made enough enemies with int the parties establishment that would prevent him from running? The Peter Kings would make it their life mission to him.

Not to mention I can't see him getting any Hispanic vote with his stance on immigration and with that goes Florida.

Louie Gohmert, Steve King & Michele Bachmann wouldn't poll high so why shouldn't Cruz be lumped in with them?

Not to mention can Cruz point to legislation in the Senate that he has passed or worked on?

He don't need no stinkin' establishment. That is the great thing about Cruz. He'll just raise money from the true believer faithful. I really really hope he runs. He will divide things up so badly and burn up tons of money that won't be available for the general.

The GOP is destroying itself because their hard right stuff seems to work somewhat during mid-terms . . . but in presidential election years, they'll be slammed.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I was talking to my dad about Ronald Reagan, and he sent this reply:

And this about Obama:

I always think it's bizarre talking politics somewhat seriously with my parents. Like I could never imagine either of them sending out an email or whatever like this. Maybe I just consider both of them as being above politics (my mom is fairly liberal, my dad is somewhat conservative but usually votes Democratic).

Anyway it's been a month so i'm gonna post this monthly Senate prediction

I went from giving Louisiana and Georgia to the Republicans to giving them to the Democrats. I predict I will change my mind on this endlessly throughout the next couple of months. I think Nunn and Landrieu will finish first on election night but it'll be meaningless if they don't get past 50%. I just hope they will.

 

[Wilsongt]

I am obssessed with this Lenar Whitney


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/03/gop-candidate-s-fake-science.html

The campaign video is amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzItCPk5j4



The climate change denial stuff has become pretty much the party line on the right. However, after the climate change denial stuff, she launches into a bunch of delusional nonsense about the USA becoming the world's massive energy export powerhouse that can save Europe by providing them energy such that they won't have to rely upon Vladimir Putin. Well . . . despite the shale boom, the USA stills imports nearly half the oil we run through our refineries.

This woman is completely detached from reality.

I hat the term global warming. It's a misnomer that the right has latched onto and run away with.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I am obssessed with this Lenar Whitney

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/03/gop-candidate-s-fake-science.html

The campaign video is amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzItCPk5j4

The climate change denial stuff has become pretty much the party line on the right. However, after the climate change denial stuff, she launches into a bunch of delusional nonsense about the USA becoming the world's massive energy export powerhouse that can save Europe by providing them energy such that they won't have to rely upon Vladimir Putin. Well . . . despite the shale boom, the USA stills imports nearly half the oil we run through our refineries.

This woman is completely detached from reality.

I hope she goes up against Edwin Edwards in the run-off. He would destroy her.

 

[RustyNails]

This isn't the first time Israel has done this, but the US has no right to complain, given how much our hands have been caught in the cookie jar.
.

The situation is not completely similar to US spying on Brazil or Germany, and both cases are wrong. NSA was piling up so much information that it was completely unwieldy, whereas Israel did not even keep the phonetap information with the intelligence community, and sent it straight to the political leadership of Israel. Israel used this information and torpedoed Kerry efforts because they had intel on what he was going to propose before he proposed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The situation is not completely similar to US spying on Brazil or Germany, and both cases are wrong. NSA was piling up so much information that it was completely unwieldy, whereas Israel did not even keep the phonetap information with the intelligence community, and sent it straight to the political leadership of Israel. Israel used this information and torpedoed Kerry efforts because they had intel on what he was going to propose before he proposed.

This is not specifically to you, but this is the same reason why the US spies on Germany, the UN and 'allies' , its funny the incredulity about the US using that reasoning but certainty in Israel use.

 

[PhoenixDark]

69 percent – that’s seven in ten people in a new Public Religion Research Institute poll say those kids should be treated as refugees and allowed to stay in this country if authorities determine it isn’t safe for them to return home.

Only a quarter – 27 percent – said those children should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/poll-...oss-us-here?cid=sm_m_main_1_20140803_28918506

I really don't believe this, will need some more polling. The methodology doesn't explain the demographics or anything, although it does note half the respondents were on cell phones which suggests a large group of younger people.

 

[Chumly]

This is not specifically to you, but this is the same reason why the US spies on Germany, the UN and 'allies' , its funny the incredulity about the US using that reasoning but certainty in Israel use.

So you can show us where the US used information from spying on allies to torpedo peace efforts or anything else?

 

[Oblivion]

FRB: Press Release


They mention the impact of the Obama/Congress tax hikes and spending cuts often.

When they talk about fiscal policy, are they talking about the tax hikes or spending cuts?

I was talking to my dad about Ronald Reagan, and he sent this reply:

Oh this should be fun.

I see what you are saying about the NUMBER of tax increases under the Reagan administration. What you don't seem to realize is that the rate of taxes at the end of his term was still 50% lower than the end of Carter's presidency. So if I cut your rent from $1000.00 to $250.00, then raise it 11-times, ending at $500.00, I did raise the rent, but it is still half of what you paid before.

That's true, but remind him that Republicans believe that once a tax cut has been enacted, that changes the fabric of the entire job creation continuum for ever. So any tax hikes after that, no matter how small in relation to the original tax cut, would theoretically wipe out any positive economic impact of the original tax cut. Ask him if it was okay for Clinton to raise taxes to 39.6% even though it was lower than Reagan's 50% for most of his presidency.

Reagan also cut inflation (you haven't experienced that yet),

Doesn't the Fed do that? And we had inflation cut under Obama too, so...

cut unemployment

So did Obama.

reduce the number of people below the poverty level, & got the economy booming.

Remind him that unlike Obama, Reagan never had to worry about spending getting cut and actually increased it substantially.

If you think Obama is better for this country, you have that right. However, you may want to go outside your work-home bubble & see how many people his administration has hurt. I talk with customers every day that can no longer pay their mortgage because of his taxes.

Which taxes is he referring to? And also remind him of that whole financial crash thing in 2008.

Obama lost the gun ban so he has been going after ammunition ( go to the store & try to buy .22cal for you rifle).

Remind him Obama won't be succeeding in that either.

Reagan lowered taxes from Carter (who also thought as Obama does), which is how the economy took off after is was near death under Carter.

Tell him that Carter presided over 10 million jobs in 4 years, compared to Reagan's 16 million in 8 years. Carter had two years of jobs growth that were higher than ANY of Reagan's. And furthermore, the recession that happened under his watch wasn't caused by his policies and was out of his control.

Also, Carter cut the military so badly that we had to cannibalize aircraft to get parts for others to keep them flying. That is where the term Hollow Air Force came from. Reagan had to rebuild the military to get our strength back.

In 1979, President Carter committed the United States to fighting and winning limited and protracted nuclear wars when he signed Presidential Directive 59, known as PD 59. So it was, in fact, President Carter who began the massive arms build-up we associate with President Reagan and the 1980s. But Reagan ran for President charging that President Carter was soft on communism and had presided over the decline of American military power.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/nuclear.htm

Concentration camp? [Referring to claims about Obama going to put conservative Christians in concentration camps a la Hitler) Have you read about what is going on at the border?

So...Obama's trying to put the illegals into concentrations camps and that's proof that he's gonna start doing that with conservative Christians?

I bet you read about conservatives hating Mexicans, but you don't read how conservatives have gone to the border with clothes, food, & toys for the illegal alien children.

Tell him that the kids will no doubt appreciate all those things if they're still alive after being sent back to their countries with the gangs who will in no way kill them.

So Obama being a socialist is laughable? So his socialist upbringing from his father, his mother, his grandparents, his mentor Frank Marshall Davis,

Obama never met his father, his mother and grandparents were never socialist, and unless I'm mistaken, Frank Marshall Davis wasn't his "mentor". He was a friend of his grandfather.

Obama's socialist actions (social healthcare,

Ask him if he's against medicare, and tri-care.

redistribution of wealth

Remind him that this is a meaningless fucking statement. Any tax and spend policy by definition is "redistribution of wealth".

giant government,

His hero Reagan tripled the national debt and had more government workers when he left than when he began. Obama will probably double the debt by the time he leaves office (and the deficit is going down rapidly) and has had massive cuts in federal employees (even though it's not really what he might want, but still).

bypassing congress in violation of the Constitution, acting like he is king & not an employee of We The People

That's not true, but assuming it was, acting alone to carry out a policy is socialist?

(when the left passed Obamacare, 62% of Americans were against it). I could go on, but you both sound like you have made up you minds.

A good percentage of that is because some people who were against it didn't think it went far ENOUGH.


Whoo. Was not how I thought I'd start off my Sunday.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/poll-...oss-us-here?cid=sm_m_main_1_20140803_28918506

I really don't believe this, will need some more polling. The methodology doesn't explain the demographics or anything, although it does note half the respondents were on cell phones which suggests a large group of younger people.

I need polling from unbiased sources like Rasmussen

 

[RustyNails]

I'm not a unapologetic defender of Israel. Jeez, you don't read my posts. My opposition to releasing Pollard, my opposition to the ground assault in Gaza and general unease at the use of too much force, my support for the general outline of 67. My opposition to bibi, the anger at his negotiations, etc etc. Not condemning them on everything and understanding context and their motives for acting along being pragmatic doesn't equal unapologetic defender.

I'm also not brushing aside concerns, I said "I'm pissed" and "I expect us not to let them do this". Youre ignoring that completely. I'm not 'outraged' because they've done this before and will continue to do this, its in their interest and doesn't really harm us in any real way.

You contradict yourself. You said you are not brushing aside concerns, yet you just did with the bolded. And I completely and utterly disagree with you with regards to that. It DOES harm us. It already did. Achieving peace in the Israeli-Palestine conflict is in our security's best interest, whether Israel, Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Iran etc like it or not. Every day we do not solve the conflict, a new terrorist is born brainwashed on the great Satan's new world order. Netanyahu torpedoed our peace efforts. That harms us in so many ways to list. Sorry, I still don't see a single finger lifted from you against Israel with regards to this scandal, and you brushed it aside as something that was in Israel's concern. Again, where is your outrage over OUR secretary of state fucked over by Israel? Don't try to muddy the report by saying the investigator had ulterior motives or whatever. But we all know you hate Glenn Greenwald and think of him as an opportunist rascal. You know I used to think in those similar terms as well, like he wanted publicity and magazine covers. But you know what, I realized that all that publicity, hidden motives, agenda, etc. is secondary to the content of the facts he revealed. I don't care if Greenwald or Snowden wanted to land a movie deal. What I care is what my government is doing. You should think the same way.

Yeah Kerry should not have talked to foreign leaders on his private jet and it was dumb of him to do it on unsecured line. But that's not even the issue here. The issue here is Israel fucked us in this peace process. By the way, weren't you complaining a few pages ago about "Lol Kerry's failed leadership in middle east"? Would you like to reassess in light of the new developments?

Israel has much more interest in knowing everything about the negotiations about the future of their state. Its literally an existential question for them, Israel doesn't view the relationship the same way its characterized here in the US (the people at state and the IC understand this, less so in more political spheres). Israel doesn't have an 'special relationships' or no spying pacts.

Next time when you try to justify Israel spying on us with alarmist bullshit like "existential question", it's time to re-examine your allegiances. Israel is not in danger of becoming wiped out. Not when the Quartet wipes it's ass every time it takes a shit. If there's any existential danger, it's towards the Palestinians (Gazans in particular). Would we have seen more outrage from you if we found out Hamas tapped Kerry's phone?

Understanding that prevents outrage but like I said I'm mad at the State department, not Israel. They hold no obligation, neither does any other nation.

So...was it the Brazilians fault for getting spied by us? Was it Angela Merkel's fault for getting spied by us? Was it the DNC's fault for getting spied by Nixon? This is so much victim blaming. "Well, if they didn't want to be spied, they'd be wearing more secure clothes!"

I focus on concern trolling because that's what this is. Every intelligence community wants to spy on the US communications, Iran does, Russia does, Germany does, France does, India does, China does, Brazil does, Cuba does, Venezeula does. Its the nature of IR. But we tend to get leaks from people pushing and wanting a certain reaction, the very one your giving. The outrage at Israel, for taking our money and still spying on us. That's the purpose of these leaks, to create a rift and to change policy, not because of outrage about spying.

Well it sure as shit better change something and change it for the better! Because what we have is not working, hence we got the report. The alternative is not knowing anything and keeping a status quo while getting fucked in the behind by both allies and enemies. NSA scandal probably resulted in some changes to data collection (however small and cosmetic), and pushed us slightly towards the right side. I hope this scandal also makes us more aware of the situation and makes us care more about our security. It's sad that it is taking us so much drastic turn of events to realize how stupid we have become.

People might very validly want a change of relationship with Israel (I do in many regards diplomatically) but to ignore the reality what these stories are. Part of a PR campaign. One can very validly agree with said campaign but the outrage at someone who points out that this is what it is, is misdirected.

Most ironically the people like greenwald, the guardian and speigel who so vigorously show outrage at these stories, are very capable of understanding, pointing out and criticizing selective leaks when they come from and benefit the government can't own up the the fact they benefit from the same thing

Again, I don't really care if Greenwald becomes the next Hollywood action hero. I don't care if he is working for the Kremlin. What I want to know is whether what he is saying factually checks out. And it did. Focus on the story, not the messenger. You are doing the exact opposite. You completely absolved Israel of any blame ("Israel is going to get wiped out, they must spy on us!"), blamed the whole thing on the state department, and shot the messenger.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not going on a back and forth.

I'm not outraged and I'm not a blind Israel supporter.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm not going on a back and forth.

I'm not outraged and I'm not a blind Israel supporter.

Israel has hit UN designated safe zones (schools) three times now killing children and UN workers. I'm pretty outraged.

 

[benjipwns]

I've noticed Greenwald gets attacked personally just for being the messenger quite a lot over the years.

Meanwhile over in this episode of Charles Krauthammer: Foreign Policy Expert...

“The rest of the world's reaction to what's happening in Gaza is Orwellian,” Krauthammer said. “It is shocking, especially in Europe. It is a resurgence of anti-Semitism not seen since the `30s, this is a recurrence, it's all over the world, and don't tell me its anti-Zionism. You listen to the slogan, you see the sign, Hitler was right in Germany, a sign in Germany saying that this is a veneer that is a front for anti-Semitism and it is back. It's all over the world. And that's what we're now beginning to face."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r3K2unWkps

 

[RustyNails]

I've noticed Greenwald gets attacked personally just for being the messenger quite a lot over the years.

Meanwhile over in this episode of Charles Krauthammer: Foreign Policy Expert...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r3K2unWkps

Didn't Greenwald get lot of flack from the conservatives for his report on Jose Padhilla torture stuff? Could be confusing him for someone else.

Anyway, let's ask Krauthammer more about stuff that he will be proven wrong.

 

[benjipwns]

Didn't Greenwald get lot of flack from the conservatives for his report on Jose Padhilla torture stuff? Could be confusing him for someone else.

Conservatives/Republicans went after Greenwald forever until he started knocking on Obama then they liked him for a bit until he started teaming up with terrorists like Edward Snowden. WHO IS HE TO DECIDE WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW?!?

I've seen a lot of conservative lamenting about anti-Obama things coming from Greenwald in a "why does it have to be him and not someone upstanding like Charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol" kind of way. I remember this article causing a hell of a lot of cognitive dissonance: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list

Him being gay and living in a foreign country doesn't help him much either lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Israel has hit UN designated safe zones (schools) three times now killing children and UN workers. I'm pretty outraged.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the spying.

I condemn that kind of stuff.

 

[Oblivion]

So remember that muslim girl who was mocked at the Heritage Foundation panel a few weeks ago? She did an interesting interview with Sam Seder the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTwEGfG3tLs

Now, this girl is not only a muslim, but a Republican muslim. Naturally, Sam (as well as many others, I'd imagine) had to ask why. So she says that despite the fact that Republicans clearly hate her and her kind, she still identifies more closely with them due to religion, and being against the gays and such.

I'll admit, before going in, I thought you'd have to be kinda crazy to support a party that actively dislikes you. I know that everybody has their priorities, but still, you'd think that it would be hard to ignore the blatant animosity towards you. But now I'm kind of conflicted. Granted, it's easy for me because in addition to Dems being okay with my race and (former) religion, I also identify with them on nearly every other topic as well. But say I agreed with them on everything else, but they were less than tolerant of my race, like Republicans. Would I be able to look the other way? That would be a little more difficult to answer for sure.

Thoughts?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So remember that muslim girl who was mocked at the Heritage Foundation panel a few weeks ago? She did an interesting interview with Sam Seder the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTwEGfG3tLs

Now, this girl is not only a muslim, but a Republican muslim. Naturally, Sam (as well as many others, I'd imagine) had to ask why. So she says that despite the fact that Republicans clearly hate her and her kind, she still identifies more closely with them due to religion, and being against the gays and such.

I'll admit, before going in, I thought you'd have to be kinda crazy to support a party that actively dislikes you. I know that everybody has their priorities, but still, you'd think that it would be hard to ignore the blatant animosity towards you. But now I'm kind of conflicted. Granted, it's easy for me because in addition to Dems being okay with my race and (former) religion, I also identify with them on nearly every other topic as well. But say I agreed with them on everything else, but they were less than tolerant of my race, like Republicans. Would I be able to look the other way? That would be a little more difficult to answer for sure.

Thoughts?

I think people are more than one thing. Whatever they want to subscribe to politically let them.

I've never been a big fan of the condescension when people say what someone should be.

 

[benjipwns]

GOProud and the Log Cabins belief is essentially "we agree on everything but these few points, we can and will convince them on that as time goes on." The libertarians who think they're "infiltrating" the GOP make similar arguments. "They understand that trusting the state to run the economy is bad so eventually they'll have to agree we shouldn't trust it regarding war/civil liberties/etc."

I forget his name, but there was a Hispanic primary candidate (for the House) in 2012 asked something similar and he said something along the lines of "I agree with them on everything else, they will see that my position [on immigration] is the Christian and conservative position when I explain it."

I think personally it depends on how you see yourself. Am I a homosexual who is also a Republican, or am I a conservative who happens to be black. The latter tends to provide more faith that others will see you the same way and thus focus on what's important in the relationship. (conservatism, not skin color)

 

[Partial Gamification]

Anyone watching the race in Kentucky between Grimes and McConnell?

Speaker of the House Senate minority Leader might not get re-elected and -maybe- a democrat would take the seat in this red state?

[...]
At the Fancy Farm picnic this past weekend, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) clearly bested McConnell in the most elemental of political confrontations: back-to-back speeches in front of a thousand cheering and jeering partisan spectators.

She essentially called McConnell too old to serve, saying she was in Fancy Farm for his “retirement party." She also painted him as a hard-hearted cynic, a selfish man who had enriched himself at public expense, and the symbol and cause of all that's wrong with politics in the country and in Washington, D.C.

And she did it by pointing in his direction and occasionally turning to gaze at him directly. She seemed confident and in control in what was the most important public performance of her career so far.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/03/alison-grimes-mitch-mcconnell_n_5646163.html

Yes, the Fancy Farm. There is a short video of her speech at the link.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Anyone watching the race in Kentucky between Grimes and McConnell?

Speaker of the House might not get re-elected and -maybe- a democrat would take the seat in this red state?

Yes, the Fancy Farm. There is a short video of her speech at the link.

A Democrat with some balls? $10 on the party distancing themselves because she's too abrassive.

 

[Diablos]

No mention of healthcare. I'm sure Greg Sargent is somewhere writing an article about how Obamacare isn't hurting red state democrats but the reality remains that it's a liability. It has cut Kentucky's uninsured rate in half yet Grimes is still running away from it. And there is no guarantee that the poor who benefit will even vote.

Oh look at you, Debby Downer. She tore him to shreds. She made it more about Mitch and less about policy.

Grimes is so pretty hot, btw. Which combined with being intelligent and well-spoken is just... unf.

 

[Partial Gamification]

A Democrat with some balls? $10 on the party distancing themselves because she's too abrassive.

I don't know, will be interesting. Jeepers, I called turtleman the speaker of the house...

 

[Link]

ll admit, before going in, I thought you'd have to be kinda crazy to support a party that actively dislikes you. I know that everybody has their priorities, but still, you'd think that it would be hard to ignore the blatant animosity towards you.

Pretty par for the course in regards to the GOP. Just look at all the poor people that vote Republican.

 

[HylianTom]

I've heard enough GOP members saying nasty, horrible, violent things about "my type" while growing-up, and it's kinda hard to just set that aside when weighing my political options, even if I were to agree with them on some issues.

"We'd like to string you up from a tree. Now that we've established this, let's talk about the budget, eminent domain, etc.."

That was one good thing about being able to fly under their radar before coming out: when people think that "it's just us white hetero Christians in the room," they let their guard down and you get chances to hear what folks really think.

So yes, I hold a heavy amount of contempt for queer folks who vote for and enable that crowd. No dollar amount of tax cuts is worth my humanity, and I hope to see their party extinct in my lifetime.

 

[RustyNails]

So remember that muslim girl who was mocked at the Heritage Foundation panel a few weeks ago? She did an interesting interview with Sam Seder the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTwEGfG3tLs

Now, this girl is not only a muslim, but a Republican muslim. Naturally, Sam (as well as many others, I'd imagine) had to ask why. So she says that despite the fact that Republicans clearly hate her and her kind, she still identifies more closely with them due to religion, and being against the gays and such.

I'll admit, before going in, I thought you'd have to be kinda crazy to support a party that actively dislikes you. I know that everybody has their priorities, but still, you'd think that it would be hard to ignore the blatant animosity towards you. But now I'm kind of conflicted. Granted, it's easy for me because in addition to Dems being okay with my race and (former) religion, I also identify with them on nearly every other topic as well. But say I agreed with them on everything else, but they were less than tolerant of my race, like Republicans. Would I be able to look the other way? That would be a little more difficult to answer for sure.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Muslims are the largest demographic that support Obama out of all groups (IIRC). She is one of the minority that doesn't, like Hispanic Republican or Ben Carson. You should see that clip from Newsroom where Harry Dunn keeps pummeling a black dude on why he is a Republican.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama is killing quite a few Muslims, I see no reason to argue one party is much better than the other on "Muslim/Arab issues." The difference is that Obama will make a speech about fairness and then turn around and extend policies of oppression and/or civil rights violations. And obviously Muslim views on social issues fit right in with the republican party. Same applies to black people actually, religious wise, yet they stick with democrats for economic/historical/racial reasons.

Conservatism is largely about ones philosophy on economic matters and the government's role in them; anyone can have those views, it's not regulated to one race.

 

[RustyNails]

Obama is killing quite a few Muslims, I see no reason to argue one party is much better than the other on "Muslim/Arab issues." The difference is that Obama will make a speech about fairness and then turn around and extend policies of oppression and/or civil rights violations. And obviously Muslim views on social issues fit right in with the republican party. Same applies to black people actually, religious wise, yet they stick with democrats for economic/historical/racial reasons.

Conservatism is largely about ones philosophy on economic matters and the government's role in them; anyone can have those views, it's not regulated to one race.

Muslims were reliably Republican actually, until Bush invaded Iraq and ruined it.

 

[Vahagn]

Conservatism is largely about maintaining white/hetero/christian supremacy;

Fixed that for you.

Mormons received the highest negative ratings from Democrats, with 35 percent saying they viewed them unfavorably, and 45 percent responding favorably. Overall, Democrats gave net positive responses to all religions. Republicans delivered net negatives to Muslims, Muslim-Americans, Arabs and Arab-Americans, while also showing a tendency to give followers of other non-Western religions, such as Buddhists and Hindus, high unfavorable responses.

Muslims were reliably Republican actually, until Bush invaded Iraq and ruined it.

Saying Muslims are reliably Republican is like saying White People are reliably Democrats. ~40% of White people have reliably voted Democratic in national elections going back at least 3 decades

 

[GaimeGuy]

Muslims were reliably Republican actually, until Bush invaded Iraq and ruined it.

It wasn't Bush who drove Muslims away from the GOP.

 

[PhoenixDark]

People forget that Bush visited a mosque shortly after 911 and made it clear in his Iraq war speeches that the US was not at war with Islam, most Muslims are peaceful, etc. His party on the other hand...


also:
The House Intelligence Committee completed their Benghazi report. The results:

Among the Intelligence Committee's findings, according to Thompson:

-- Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."

-- "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."

-- "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."

-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

itsnothing.gif

 

[HylianTom]

His party on the other hand...

Bingo.

The party can try to paint a cheerful face on itself to minorities, but its foot soldiers and state-level officials have killed most (if not all) of the progress they would've made.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Nate Silver provides a dose of reality for Aaron Strife.

Republicans Remain Slightly Favored To Take Control Of The Senate

In Arkansas, we have have Republican Rep. Tom Cotton with a 60 percent chance of defeating the Democratic incumbent, Sen. Mark Pryor — up from 55 percent in June. A few other statistical forecasts have the race shifting more in Cotton’s direction, while “subjective” forecasts like that by the Cook Political Report still have the race as a true toss-up.

The reason we’re hedging is because of the low quality of the polling. A number of recent polls have shown Cotton ahead — but almost all of them use non-traditional methodologies, are partisan polls, or both. The last “gold standard” poll in the state came way back in May, from Marist College, and had Pryor with an 11-point lead.

Pryor almost certainly isn’t that far ahead. His campaign’s internal poll, released last week, put him six points in front. But the polls a campaign releases to the media are usually badly biased in favor of its candidate; on average, campaigns exaggerate their candidate’s standing by about six percentage points. That would imply that Pryor’s poll sees the race as a toss-up once “unskewed.”

There are also a couple of races where other forecasters have shown a change in favor of Democrats but where we don’t think there’s enough information to merit a shift and have the races at 50-50 instead. In North Carolina, the majority of recent polling has shown Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan slightly ahead of Republican Thom Tillis. But the polls are of dubious quality — and some are of registered voters, a big deal in North Carolina, where midterm-year turnout looks a lot different from turnout in presidential years. Some polls also give a fair amount of the vote to the Libertarian candidate, Sean Haugh — with most of those votes presumably taken from Tillis — but third-party candidates often see their polling fade down the stretch.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-gop-senate-forecast/

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nate Silver provides a dose of reality for Aaron Strife.

Republicans Remain Slightly Favored To Take Control Of The Senate

He literally uses the word "unskewed" are you fucking kidding me

Also I guess you like Nate Silver now that he's predicting doom for the Democrats, what a twist.

 

[PhoenixDark]

He literally uses the word "unskewed" are you fucking kidding me

He uses it ironically, in quotations, after noting that traditionally internal polls over inflate their candidate's performance by 6 points; Pryor is up 6 in his internal polling, hence the comment.

 

[Aaron Strife]

He uses it ironically, in quotations, after noting that traditionally internal polls over inflate their candidate's performance by 6 points; Pryor is up 6 in his internal polling, hence the comment.

Dem internal polling as of late has been much closer to the actual result (and in the case of Arkansas, nonpartisan polling) than GOP internal polling. I think Nate is conflating both sides here.

There will be a new PPP poll of Arkansas and Alaska sometime this week, which Nate will disregard because he's still being a little shit about them, but that's my gold standard. I think both races will appear close but with small leads for both Pryor and Begich.

Everyone's favorite phrase returns in Wisconsin - it's a dead heat!

 

[speculawyer]

So remember that muslim girl who was mocked at the Heritage Foundation panel a few weeks ago? She did an interesting interview with Sam Seder the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTwEGfG3tLs

Now, this girl is not only a muslim, but a Republican muslim. Naturally, Sam (as well as many others, I'd imagine) had to ask why. So she says that despite the fact that Republicans clearly hate her and her kind, she still identifies more closely with them due to religion, and being against the gays and such.

I'll admit, before going in, I thought you'd have to be kinda crazy to support a party that actively dislikes you. I know that everybody has their priorities, but still, you'd think that it would be hard to ignore the blatant animosity towards you. But now I'm kind of conflicted. Granted, it's easy for me because in addition to Dems being okay with my race and (former) religion, I also identify with them on nearly every other topic as well. But say I agreed with them on everything else, but they were less than tolerant of my race, like Republicans. Would I be able to look the other way? That would be a little more difficult to answer for sure.

Thoughts?

I think it is pretty disgusting. Yeah, they crap on me because of my religion but at least they hate those fucking gays like we all should. (No, she didn't say that but that is how I read it.)

It is too bad she can't seem to learn the obvious lesson . . . drop the tribalism bullshit and treat everyone else the way you want to be treated.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Does any body have info on that marine in mexico. I've only heard about it in conservative circles but was wonder what the deal was