Support NeoGAF

[Farmboy]

Great post, dramatis.

You're right in one respect. Obama became president, but the issues of race did not disappear; they rose into the light and made the rest of us realize how far we had to go. If Hillary becomes president, the injustices against women certainly won't disappear, but I don't doubt for a second hidden sexism will surface everywhere, and men will deny wrongdoing. Ironically, because Bernie Sanders is not a woman, he will never be able to make as much progress as Hillary does if she breaks the final glass ceiling.

I agree. The Republican spin - "we have a black president know, so black people can quit whining about racism!" - must of course be refuted at every step, but the fact remains that immense progress has been made. We'll never know how much of this is because of Obama being president or is simply "an idea whose time has come", but having a black president certainly has been illuminating. I expect Hillary will do the same for sexism. There's already a lot of progress being made there as well, but it's another instance where we still have a long way to go.

 

[Bowdz]

Will any of the democratic candidates actually want to increase NASA funding and help build a private space funding program? It's difficult finding a solid stance on this topic from anyone besides Bernie who probably wouldn't actually do much anyway due to other issues getting more of his attention.

Hillary seems to only want to support it due to what her husband accomplished.

I haven't been able to find many statements from O'Malley (my close second after Sanders) about it but some of the bigger issues he supports I agree with.

Republicans will probably be the only ones who might actually do something for NASA if they take office. fingers crossed for any help because NASA should never be drained of funds, they never try to bite the hand that feeds.

Hilldawg was actually asked about NASA a few days ago.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...urity-threat-meteorites-asteroids-120244.html

Hillary Clinton on Thursday called attention to a dire security threat: meteorites.

Speaking before a town hall in New Hampshire, the Democratic front-runner said experts should be mapping meteorites and asteroids “on a security basis,” noting the importance of scientific research and development in stimulating the U.S. economy.

“You know, back in the early ’90s, our country invested in mapping the human genome, and my husband was president when it finally was revealed. Money had been put in by both Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses because we wanted to know more about what this meant. And in the years since, hundreds and thousands of jobs have been created and many millions of dollars have been generated for our economy,” Clinton said.

“I think we’re just at the beginning of trying to understand what is a black hole? Why is it there? What is in it? What does it mean for us? We should, on a security basis, be mapping the meteorites and the meteors and all the other things that people — asteroids — that people worry about,” she added.

“There’s just a lot for us to keep learning,” Clinton said. “I think it’s a good investment.”

Responding to the man who asked the question about the future of space exploration and government funding for it, Clinton told him that he was “talking to someone who wanted to be an astronaut.”

“When I was a little girl, I guess I was a teenager by then … 14, I think, and the space program was getting started, and I wanted to be an astronaut, and I wrote to NASA,” she recounted.

“And I said, ‘What do I have to do to be prepared to be an astronaut?’ And they wrote back and said, ‘Thank you very much, but we’re not taking girls,’” she remembered. “That, thankfully changed with Sally Ride and a lot of the other great women astronauts,” she said.

But “to be fair,” she added, “I never could have qualified anyway, so you know, not something I spent a lot of time losing sleep over, but I really, really do support the space program.”

I think that she will be fairly similar to Obama on NASA. Pushing for much higher Commercial Crew funding (which ironically the "pro business" GOP has consistently underfunded which forces us to buy Soyuz seats from the Russians), solid funding for SLS/Orion, and a continuation on funding the major science missions.

Sadly, NASA is just a topic that is not at the top of the heap in Presidential election years.

I think that regardless of which party assumes control of the White House, not a whole lot will change with NASA funding. It has remained pretty consistent for the past 20 years or so hovering between $14 - $20 billion annually and I don't see that changing significantly in one direction or another regardless.

 

[Ecotic]

Forecasters expect strong economy for 2016 election

To answer that question, The Times asked leading forecasters from economic consultancies, financial firms and universities for their predictions on where key economic variables will stand on Nov. 8, 2016 — Election Day. The 17 who participated replied with a relatively strong consensus.

They said they believed that unemployment would be the lowest it has been during an election since George W. Bush and Al Gore faced off in 2000, when it stood at 3.9 percent. The median forecast for the unemployment rate when voters go to the polls in November 2016 was 4.8 percent (which would be down from 5.3 percent last month). They saw only a 15 percent chance of a recession starting by next Election Day. Interest rates, inflation and gasoline prices should all be a bit higher than they are now, they said, while staying quite low by historical standards.
...
The forecasters saw only a 25 percent chance of an economic boom — defined as G.D.P. growth greater than 3 percent maintained for a year — happening between now and Election Day. This slow-moving expansion generally hasn’t resulted in the kind of explosive growth that was seen in the late Reagan or late Clinton administrations, and there’s a slim chance of that changing soon.
...
“Odds are good that by Election Day the economy will be at full employment, growing strongly,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “The economic winds will be at the back of incumbents.”

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sure, tell me how economics affect the philosophical aspects of abortion and a proper justice system, and how it will change attitudes towards immigrants.

In the "I saw Bernie Sanders in Madison" thread, disastermouse spoke about how the difference between Hillary and a Republican candidate is just the brand of lubricant, I pointed out that Hillary is likely to be very different on women's issues. disastermouse brushed off the issues as "progressive social issues" and implied that it's more important to get an "economically enfranchised working class". Nobody ever responds to posts outlining that Hillary speaks about race, immigration, and women's rights. That her policies are fairly detailed for a candidate. It's always a litany of "Hillary doesn't have a policy" or "Hillary sounds insincere" or "I can't trust Hillary". That's nice, but how about some hard facts about how she is supposedly the same as Republicans on all of these issues?

But you guys are too busy selling your narrative about how Hillary is a Republican. So those issues, they don't really count.

Look at you.







Look at you. Hillary has had 10 abortions? Hillary has 50 landmines waiting to explode on her? Benghazi? For all your disdain for politicians, are you not employing the same dirty smear tactics? Do you think just because you're for equality that you don't sound sexist at all? Vote for the white guy, because the Republicans will be sexist! What sort of argument is that? Oh right. One made by someone who doesn't really care about women's issues at all.

Ten abortions? Where do you get your statistics from? Fox News?

I worked as a volunteer for Obama's campaign back in 2012, and one of the first things impressed upon me is that we may be volunteers, but we represented Obama on the field, so we had to be gracious and level headed to everyone. Bernie supporters impart a sense of desperation to prove how legitimate their candidate is over Hillary, and the result is posts like yours that carry the stench of all your prejudices and poorly sourced beliefs. It's a bad image.

The problem (as I can see it) is that in the end, Bernie's and Hillary's positions don't differ that much at all, so instead of being able to promote Bernie's different ideas, one has to resort to attacking Hillary.

You're right in one respect. Obama became president, but the issues of race did not disappear; they rose into the light and made the rest of us realize how far we had to go. If Hillary becomes president, the injustices against women certainly won't disappear, but I don't doubt for a second hidden sexism will surface everywhere, and men will deny wrongdoing. Ironically, because Bernie Sanders is not a woman, he will never be able to make as much progress as Hillary does if she breaks the final glass ceiling.

Excellent post. The best response I have seen out of all the back and forth between the two sides. You slayed it.

Thanks. If that's the case, then it's quite amusing that for all of the castigation upon Hillary for receiving donations from the banks and corporations, majority of those donations come from individuals rather than from the institutions themselves. Whereas Bernie's funding presumably comes from individuals who donate to the PAC which then funds Bernie? (I would think?)


I think that is disingenuous. You know that Obama wasn't going to be able to bridge party lines purely because of his skin color. The last seven years did not show how a centrist failed to bridge party lines; instead, the last seven years showed the depth of the hate and fear of racist hyper conservatives. That sort of high emotion is far outside the control of one man even if he is the POTUS.

I also think that while it's noble to have high ideals for what the heart of the democratic process is, the value of people who can 'politick' is poorly judged. The public may dislike how politicians game and deal each other, but in the end the governance of a country doesn't run on principles, it runs on pragmatism and compromise. The 300 million other people in this country isn't going to agree with you opinion for opinion. In the end there are also people (your fellow citizens) who desperately want the opposite of what you do. And there will be representatives who represent those people. Ultimately you want the representatives overall to get along, because when they don't you get a dysfunctional Congress.

Just recently I visited Hillary's wikipedia page for the first time (it is intensely sourced lol). There's a particular line from her college years: "In contrast to the 1960s current that advocated radical actions against the political system, she sought to work for change within it." I think it's still quite an accurate description of Hillary today. The approach Bernie has, and the approach Hillary has, both are legitimate. People will call Hillary a chameleon or a liar or someone who goes with the flow of the times, but that's a merit in a different way. After all, there are people who break under changes as opposed to adapting to them.


This is overly hopeful. Republicans ran over Clinton and he wasn't even black or female. In the end he had to govern in the center too. Resting your hopes on one man to make all the difference in changing Washington is unrealistic. Those young people who might be enchanted by Bernie now, they won't remember to vote in midterms. Four years later they'll be disenchanted by the lack of dramatic change in Washington.

This one was excellent too from a while back.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There are no unexploded bombs in Hilary's closet. People have been trying to get the dirt on her *for decades* and nothing of substance has stuck.

The best they can do is Benghazi and were it to come to the mainstream again rather than being a GOP-base chant, I'd wager that there's nothing that anyone can articulate that makes it any kind of scandal.

 

[RastaMentality]

Hillary was smart not to go to Netroots. They would've roasted her bad.

Also, lol @ that random 10 abortions mention. Unless it was a joke, I've never heard anyone ever mentioning her even having one.

 

[Wilsongt]

Hillary/Dramatis 2016

 

[ivysaur12]

I want to know more about the ten abortions.

Like, what?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Forecasters expect strong economy for 2016 election

Gore lost despite a good economy. WH scandals and incumbent fatigue could capsize Hillary regardless of the economy. The other danger: some type of foreign policy fuck up.

Barring that Obama should be in good shape in 2016. He's still under water in polls right now which highlights how weak this economic recovery is to ordinary folks. Lower gas prices in a few months due to the Iran deal+continued job growth should improve that by this time next year.

At the least, the president will appear at the party convention unlike 2008. I wonder if he'll get this type of treatment.

 

[Wilsongt]

Gore lost despite a good economy. WH scandals and incumbent fatigue could capsize Hillary regardless of the economy. The other danger: some type of foreign policy fuck up.

Barring that Obama should be in good shape in 2016. He's still under water in polls right now which highlights how weak this economic recovery is to ordinary folks. Lower gas prices in a few months due to the Iran deal+continued job growth should improve that by this time next year.

At the least, the president will appear at the party convention unlike 2008. I wonder if he'll get this type of treatment.

Gore lost for a stupid reason. Not because the economy.

 

[Plinko]

Gore lost despite a good economy. WH scandals and incumbent fatigue could capsize Hillary regardless of the economy. The other danger: some type of foreign policy fuck up.

Barring that Obama should be in good shape in 2016. He's still under water in polls right now which highlights how weak this economic recovery is to ordinary folks. Lower gas prices in a few months due to the Iran deal+continued job growth should improve that by this time next year.

At the least, the president will appear at the party convention unlike 2008. I wonder if he'll get this type of treatment.

Gore also lost because he refused any help from Bill "The Man" Clinton.

It was a terrible campaign, really.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Gore lost despite a good economy. WH scandals and incumbent fatigue could capsize Hillary regardless of the economy. The other danger: some type of foreign policy fuck up.

Barring that Obama should be in good shape in 2016. He's still under water in polls right now which highlights how weak this economic recovery is to ordinary folks. Lower gas prices in a few months due to the Iran deal+continued job growth should improve that by this time next year.

At the least, the president will appear at the party convention unlike 2008. I wonder if he'll get this type of treatment.

over the top but snazzy. I am sure Obama will get a nice send off. He won't be going away after his term ends. He will be at future DNC conventions like Bill is.

Unlike Gore Hillary won't be making the same mistake. She needs the Obama Coalition to win. Snubbing the president will do more damage to her prospects no matter how bad the environment gets next year.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Gore lost despite a good economy. WH scandals and incumbent fatigue could capsize Hillary regardless of the economy. The other danger: some type of foreign policy fuck up.

I've said this before but people were worried about the economy by November 2000. The NASDAQ peaked in March of 00 and it was becoming obvious that the Internet buildup had been a bubble. By the time of the election growth was very slow. The Bush campaign played of people's fear of a recession to justify their tax cuts. If something happens like that next year it would definitely hurt HRC's campaign

 

[BertramCooper]

It's amusing how Bernie supporters like Erasure repeatedly claim that Hillary has tons of skeletons in her closet that could potentially derail her campaign (which, to be fair, could still be the case), but assume that Sanders doesn't have any skeletons of his own.

 

[thefro]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/charlie-crist-congress-seat-tampa-13-district-120362.html

Charlie Crist likely running for Congress in one of the redrawn Florida districts. Seems like a likely House pickup.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/charlie-crist-congress-seat-tampa-13-district-120362.html

Charlie Crist likely running for Congress in one of the redrawn Florida districts. Seems like a likely House pickup.

No.

 

[NeoXChaos]

No.

Yes. why no?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Damn this Maine governor stuff sounds insane.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes. why no?

Because it's Charlie Crist?

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/charlie-crist-congress-seat-tampa-13-district-120362.html

Charlie Crist likely running for Congress in one of the redrawn Florida districts. Seems like a likely House pickup.

At some point Florida democrats are going to need to build up a stable of good democrats, not just picking up the discarded scraps the republicans throw away.

If it's an actually contested district, maybe you'd go for the name recognition, otherwise they should really be promoting state legislators into that position instead.

 

[watershed]

Walker is probably gonna win Iowa isn't he? That sucks. I want Trump to win Iowa and Walker to just go away.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Because it's Charlie Crist?

Better than nothing.

 

[HylianTom]

Walker is probably gonna win Iowa isn't he? That sucks. I want Trump to win Iowa and Walker to just go away.

Yup. I'm wondering if he'll get any sort of bump from a big Iowa win. The race might come down to Walker vs anti-Walker (which I'm guessing would be Bush).

 

[Metaphoreus]

This is surprising, though a couple days old: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage

According to the poll, 42 percent support same-sex marriage and 40 percent oppose it. The percentage saying they favor legal same-sex marriage in their state was down slightly from the 48 percent who said so in an April poll. In January, 44 percent were in favor.

Asked specifically about the Supreme Court ruling, 39 percent said they approve and 41 percent said they disapprove.

(Aside: a decrease of greater than 10% is "slight"?)

Also:

The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.

...

Boehm was among 59 percent of the poll respondents who said wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples. That compares with 52 percent in April.

Also, 46 percent said businesses more generally should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples, while 51 percent said that should not be allowed.

This all isn't quite as one-sided as I've been led to believe.

 

[ivysaur12]

Better than nothing.

Because there are no viable Democrats in the St. Petersburg area who wish to run for office who might be better than Charlie Crist?

 

[thepotatoman]

Better than nothing.

It'd be completely uncontested if not for him?

 

[Plinko]

Walker is probably gonna win Iowa isn't he? That sucks. I want Trump to win Iowa and Walker to just go away.

Probably, but Iowa is nowhere near as important today as it was 20 years ago.

This is surprising, though a couple days old: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage



(Aside: a decrease of greater than 10% is "slight"?)

Also:



This all isn't quite as one-sided as I've been led to believe.

I guess I don't get the objection.

Does your business take tax breaks from the federal government? Then you should have to perform the services. Want to opt out of the tax breaks? Then you can refuse.

Also, if you're a government official, shouldn't you HAVE to perform your duties?

 

[Plinko]

Edit: DP. Sorry.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Also Gore "lost". Still won the popular vote and would have won overall if he had swung Florida or New Hampshire.

Plus the map has basically frozen compared to 2000 where every state was a swing state.

 

[ivysaur12]

This is surprising, though a couple days old: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage



(Aside: a decrease of greater than 10% is "slight"?)

Also:



This all isn't quite as one-sided as I've been led to believe.

That decrease is of 6 percent and an increase of 4 percent for opposition, unless I'm reading this incorrectly.

That's also not particularly surprising. First, if you were going to aggregate major polls, the AP polls have generally been on the lower end of support for marriage equality. Second, this has literally been seen before 12 years ago:

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/supreme-court-tk-60537

 

[NeoXChaos]

It'd be completely uncontested if not for him?

Because there are no viable Democrats in the St. Petersburg area who wish to run for office who might be better than Charlie Crist?

1. See Strickland vs Sittenfield.
2. Yes but it looks like Crist has the backing of the party making state reps or state senator bids unnecessary.
3. Fire Debbie Wassermann Schultz if you don't like her leadership

 

[watershed]

Yup. I'm wondering if he'll get any sort of bump from a big Iowa win. The race might come down to Walker vs anti-Walker (which I'm guessing would be Bush).

Probably, but Iowa is nowhere near as important today as it was 20 years ago.



I guess I don't get the objection.

Does your business take tax breaks from the federal government? Then you should have to perform the services. Want to opt out of the tax breaks? Then you can refuse.

Also, if you're a government official, shouldn't you HAVE to perform your duties?

I really don't like Walker. I dislike most that he has actually been successful in putting into practice a number of conservative policies that have seriously hurt the people of Wisconsin and is now running on that record of "success." I fear he might breakout somehow and become a serious candidate. I get Bush vs. Kerry/Gore vibes when I think of the possibility of him vs Hillary in a general election scenario.

 

[Plinko]

I really don't like Walker. I dislike most that he has actually been successful in putting into practice a number of conservative policies that have seriously hurt the people of Wisconsin and is now running on that record of "success." I fear he might breakout somehow and become a serious candidate. I get Bush vs. Kerry/Gore vibes when I think of the possibility of him vs Hillary in a general election scenario.

His conservative policies motivate the far right. They don't motivate independents.

Remember, he still has yet to answer a major question. He can't get through the primaries that way.

I mean, the guy is a warhawk. The American public is sick of it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...on-could-begin-on-his-inauguration?cmpid=yhoo

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker said in Iowa appearance Saturday that next president might possibly need to begin military strikes against Iran on inauguration day, Weekly Standard reports.

“It’s very possible” that “the next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including military action, on the first day in office,” Walker said at Family Leadership Summit
Walker promised in July 13 speech to “terminate” Iran deal on first day of presidency

 

[HylianTom]

I really don't like Walker. I dislike most that he has actually been successful in putting into practice a number of conservative policies that have seriously hurt the people of Wisconsin and is now running on that record of "success." I fear he might breakout somehow and become a serious candidate. I get Bush vs. Kerry/Gore vibes when I think of the possibility of him vs Hillary in a general election scenario.

I'd like to hope that he has no chance of winning Ohio, given know boastfully proud he is of his anti-labor record. It could be this cycle's equivalent of Romney commenting that he would've not done the auto bailout. But that could require Hillary to light a fire under the unions.

 

[adamsappel]

I don't understand this cartoon. Who is that man? What kind of animal is that? Does it represent something? This needs a lot more labels.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'd like to hope that he has no chance of winning Ohio, given know boastfully proud he is of his anti-labor record. It could be this cycle's equivalent of Romney commenting that he would've not done the auto bailout. But that could require Hillary to light a fire under the unions.

I can virtually guarantee that Walker won't win Ohio if he gets the nomination.

Ohio's unions (and remember, our unions are still relatively strong) will flip the fuck out SB5-style if Walker is the nominee.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is surprising, though a couple days old: Sharp divisions after high court backs gay marriage



(Aside: a decrease of greater than 10% is "slight"?)

Also:



This all isn't quite as one-sided as I've been led to believe.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184217/support-gay-marriage-stable-high-court-ruling.aspx

There are a lot more polls showing similar numbers to Gallup than the AP poll you've linked to.

But I guess cherry picking examples that conveniently support your position is par for the course of conservative argument.

And I don't buy that you ever were "led to believe" this is one-sided. Stop concern trolling civil rights.

 

[Retromelon]

I don't understand this cartoon. Who is that man? What kind of animal is that? Does it represent something? This needs a lot more labels.

Read the quote in the op

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184217/support-gay-marriage-stable-high-court-ruling.aspx

There are a lot more polls showing similar numbers to Gallup than the AP poll you've linked to.

But I guess cherry picking examples that conveniently support your position is par for the course of conservative argument.

And I don't buy that you ever were "led to believe" this is one-sided. Stop concern trolling civil rights.

FWIW, Meta is supportive of marriage equality, but I also agree that in the aggregate, it's not really that surprising that there was a small dip in support and that almost all other polls have shown a much higher level of support than the AP has in the past.

 

[watershed]

His conservative policies motivate the far right. They don't motivate independents.

Remember, he still has yet to answer a major question. He can't get through the primaries that way.

I mean, the guy is a warhawk. The American public is sick of it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...on-could-begin-on-his-inauguration?cmpid=yhoo

That's true and I would love for his hardcore conservative politics to sink his campaign but he does worry me. He reminds me of an archetypal conservative revivalist like Jindal and Perry try so hard to be.

 

[BertramCooper]

Vox has a really thorough recap of John Kasich's Medicaid expansion battle up today.

I would never ever support him in an election, but the lengths he went to to implement Medicaid expansion are still quite astonishing. (And also another reason why his presidential campaign is doomed.)

 

[HylianTom]

Vox has a really thorough recap of John Kasich's Medicaid expansion battle up today.

I would never ever support him in an election, but the lengths he went to to implement Medicaid expansion are still quite astonishing. (And also another reason why his presidential campaign is doomed.)

Do you think his support for this expansion would take him off many VP short lists?

If Jeb is the nominee, there's a slice of the base that'd already be very sore about him. To add the guy who made such effort to expand Medicare in his state? I could see a biiiig conniption made.

 

[Retromelon]

From that same article:

Again and again, the Ohioan made an argument rarely heard from a Republican politician — that Medicaid had to be expanded to help the poor. Not only was it the smart and right thing to do, Kasich said, it was the Christian thing to do. And then he went further, suggesting that supporters of limited government had to do more to help the less fortunate

So as Kasich spoke on a panel during the Palm Springs conference, a donor — Randy Kendrick, wife of the wealthy owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks — pushed back. "A lady was yelling at me, saying, 'You're using God against your people,'" Kasich later recounted.

Wow

 

[BertramCooper]

Do you think his support for this expansion would take him off many VP short lists?

If Jeb is the nominee, there's a slice of the base that'd already be very sore about him. To add the guy who made such effort to expand Medicare in his state? I could see a biiiig conniption made.

If Jeb! gets the nom, he'll be on the VP shortlist. I think he appeals to Jeb!'s desires not to cave into to the GOP base's worst tendencies.

If Walker or some other crazy gets it, he definitely won't be.

 

[HylianTom]

If Jeb gets the nom, he'll be on the VP shortlist.

If Walker or some other crazy gets it, he definitely won't be.

Man, if Jeb had a different last name.. it'd be a whole different ball game.

 

[dabig2]

From that same article:


Wow

If the Christian Bible is true, then all of those rich assholes will be burning in hell. And the dog whistling on that quote is ear piercing. I don't know how Kasich, if he really does feel strongly about this single issue and apparently he does since he invokes his religion, can stay in the party and accept support from these people.

 

[Retromelon]

If jeb had a different name he wouldnt have front runner status bestowed unto him by the establishment
Unless thats what you meant, tom

 

[Metaphoreus]

Does your business take tax breaks from the federal government? Then you should have to perform the services. Want to opt out of the tax breaks? Then you can refuse.

Also, if you're a government official, shouldn't you HAVE to perform your duties?

Your first paragraph is just another example of the "because roads" argument that I've criticized before (see the response to FryeWulff). There's no logical connection between the benefits you've identified and the requirement you would impose.

As for the second, so long as the refusal of a government employee doesn't operate to the detriment of the person to be served, I don't have a problem with it. (Being forced to come back another day would go too far, but having to wait for a moment until another employee can provide the requested service seems to me to be a fair accommodation for the personal beliefs of the employee.)

That's also not particularly surprising. First, if you were going to aggregate major polls, the AP polls have generally been on the lower end of support for marriage equality. Second, this has literally been seen before 12 years ago:

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/supreme-court-tk-60537

That Lawrence chart is interesting. Thanks for the link.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184217/support-gay-marriage-stable-high-court-ruling.aspx

There are a lot more polls showing similar numbers to Gallup than the AP poll you've linked to.

But I guess cherry picking examples that conveniently support your position is par for the course of conservative argument.

And I don't buy that you ever were "led to believe" this is one-sided. Stop concern trolling civil rights.

"Cherry-picking" implies that I selected among multiple polls to find one suited to my preconceptions. Yet, as I explained in the post to which you respond (in the very "led to believe" language you highlighted), my preconception was that support for same-sex marriage was higher than reflected in the AP poll. And I didn't have the other polls--showing that it was--in front of me to choose among.

Next time, try providing information without the par-for-the-liberal-course partisan personal attacks. Then I'll say things like, "That's interesting. Thanks for the link!"

 

[NeoXChaos]

If the Christian Bible is true, then all of those rich assholes will be burning in hell. And the dog whistling on that quote is ear piercing. I don't know how Kasich, if he really does feel strongly about this single issue and apparently he does since he invokes his religion, can stay in the party and accept support from these people.

Kasich served in the House from 1983-2001. He predates the Republican Party's rapid turn to the right starting in the 90's and culminating today. He is of the old moderate Republican mold. Don't forget in that same event Haley and Jindal disagreed with him

 

[hydragonwarrior]

If Jeb! gets the nom, he'll be on the VP shortlist. I think he appeals to Jeb!'s desires not to cave into to the GOP base's worst tendencies.

If Walker or some other crazy gets it, he definitely won't be.

I can't see him getting far with his opposition to the nuclear treaty that Obama just OK'd. Especially since his solution is ultimately carving away the deal and proposing harsher sanctions like they were doing earlier.

Also hope thisthing posted above buries Walker:

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker said in Iowa appearance Saturday that next president might possibly need to begin military strikes against Iran on inauguration day, Weekly Standard reports.

“It’s very possible” that “the next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including military action, on the first day in office,” Walker said at Family Leadership Summit
Walker promised in July 13 speech to “terminate” Iran deal on first day of presidency