• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
But is that due to the lack of a father figure or due to reduced income? Also how do children raised by same-sex households compare?

When he talks about intact families, he aint dissing just single mothers, after all.

If I remember correctly (and am currently too lazy to look for the studies) its mostly just the extra set of hands that's easier to accomplish with 2 parents. I don't recall it making much difference if the households were hetero or same-sex. Just that division of tasks, and the effort to take part in the child's education and caretaking.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Correlation v. causation?

But is that due to the lack of a father figure or due to reduced income? Also how do children raised by same-sex households compare?

When he talks about intact families, he aint dissing just single mothers, after all.

As stated above, much of the research points toward causation due to two responsible adults being involved.

His facts are actually right. I wouldn't have said it the same way he did, that's for certain. It is clear he was taking a shot at numerous groups there.
 
As stated above, much of the research points toward causation due to two responsible adults being involved.

His facts are actually right. I wouldn't have said it the same way he did, that's for certain. It is clear he was taking a shot at numerous groups there.
He could have said the family lifestyle does not matter as long as a parent figure is involved with the kid's education activities instead of bitching off about nonsense like he always does.
 
CQznf93WcAAN-wJ.png


Fucking Jindal. He wants to raise taxes on the bottom 40% and cut taxes on the top 1% by 25%!
 
It goes without saying that being a single parent - specifically a low income single mother - reduces your children's potential. Being a parent is a hard job, and it's even harder when you have less help and less money. And yes, bad lifestyle choices (like having sex without a condom) often lead to this burden for many men and women in inner cities (and rural areas btw). Carson is arguing they shouldn't be rewarded with government money basically. IE if we allowed these women to suffer, they wouldn't have as many children.

There's no question that many people take advantage of the system, welfare, etc. I have family members who do it, and I saw it first hand while doing volunteer work with section 8 families. But I think it's wrong to simply suggest most people on welfare act this way, or have babies simply because they know the state will take care of it. The bigger issue is poverty, and the hopelessness that goes along with it. Very few people on welfare are running around thinking they hit the jackpot. Yea plenty of people take advantage of the system, but that's true of people in general across the board. I'm at work right now, posting on GAF. Taking advantage of the system.

I'm not opposed to holding people on welfare "accountable" - but we already do this in many ways. They can't buy drugs/alcohol with government money. They usually have to be looking for a job. Social workers are involved. I'd rather make the current system more efficient than kick children onto the street because their parents fucked up.
 
There is no doubt a candidate's charisma is a factor and Obama is undoubtedly a natural, but, if your stated policies or actions (TPP (classified, by order of The White House), Obama, really???) are at odds with ones core principles, that will only take you so far.

I think this is nicely demonstrated by the around twenty six thousand people, who took the time to go and hear Bernie speak, at his recent Boston rally, despite Bernie not possessing a movie star persona, and if you are still are under the illusion that this will be a significant factor, check out his and the crowds reaction to his "Enough is Enough" slogan, at his recent Spingfield rally - simply wonderful :). The other presidential candidates can likely only dream of illiciting that level of enthusiasm.
 
I can't believe fucking Chaffetz is going to get this.

Fucking loser asshole, I hope Obama and Hillary humiliate him when he's Speaker.
Wait, Chaffetz is not a sure shot. He has the backing of just the freedom caucus. There will be a scramble and I honestly dont think all the GOPers will line up behind a lunatic.
 

Bowdz

Member
Wait, Chaffetz is not a sure shot. He has the backing of just the freedom caucus. There will be a scramble and I honestly dont think all the GOPers will line up behind a lunatic.

I thought Webster had the backing of the Freedom Caucus.

This is crazy. I don't think anyone has any idea who will eventually end up as Speaker at this point. I wonder what Boehner is thinking right now...
 
Since the deadline has been moved up to Nov 5th, is there a chance Boehner does something before he leaves?

I'm wondering if Boehner, now free of shackles, is going to just bring bills up to punt everything until after the Presidential election. That would go a long way to saving the party from itself.

But if not...uhhhh, I'd be worried.
 
I'm wondering if Boehner, now free of shackles, is going to just bring bills up to punt everything until after the Presidential election. That would go a long way to saving the party from itself.

But if not...uhhhh, I'd be worried.

He didn't punt the CR down he road far enough ...
 
I thought Webster had the backing of the Freedom Caucus.

This is crazy. I don't think anyone has any idea who will eventually end up as Speaker at this point. I wonder what Boehner is thinking right now...
"Sure is a nice day outside for golf..."
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
What an incredible moment in politics.

1. Yes I do think there's a scandal getting buried here. No conspiracies.

2. Yes I think it's legit to wonder about the party. Chris Matthews makes a good point -- "if they can't unite, they're not a party."

3. LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLO

4. Preeeeeeetty sure next December conservative thinktanks will be openly wondering/speculating if McCarthy's Benghazi flub sealed Hillary's election. Which is obviously stupid since they're running either Trump or Rubio.
 

pigeon

Banned
McCarthy really pissed off the GOP with his gaffe, eh?

I guess this must be it. Like, this is crazy. From hero to zero, just like that.

I honestly have no idea what happens from here. Cage match?

edit: Vox seems to think it was purely about the Freedom Caucus. I'm not sure about that. I mean, does that mean the next speaker has to be Webster? That does not seem like a great plan.
 
Who was in line after McCarthy?

Aside from McCarthy the only other person who could unite the two Republican branches is Paul Ryan and he doesn't want the job. So either:

1. Ryan sees the House is falling apart and steps up.
2. The 'mainstream' Reps cave and select some one like Chaffetz (not happening).
3. Some Dems cross over and get a new Speaker in. Charlie Dent, one of Boehner's people is already floating this idea.
 
Aside from McCarthy the only other person who could unite the two Republican branches is Paul Ryan and he doesn't want the job. So either:

1. Ryan sees the House is falling apart and steps up.
2. The 'mainstream' Reps cave and select some one like Chaffetz (not happening).
3. Some Dems cross over and get a new Speaker in. Charlie Dent, one of Boehner's people is already floating this idea.

Wouldn't option 3 effectively neuter the future speaker and guarantee he gets pushback from the far right on just about everything?
 
I guess this must be it. Like, this is crazy. From hero to zero, just like that.

I honestly have no idea what happens from here. Cage match?

edit: Vox seems to think it was purely about the Freedom Caucus. I'm not sure about that. I mean, does that mean the next speaker has to be Webster? That does not seem like a great plan.

The GOP has to pick someone, eventually. In order for McCarthy to lose, he had to have little support.

If the Freedom Caucus or whomever wants to simply overrule the majority, it's going to be a mess. Then there would have to be a coalition with the Dems and I don't see how that works out.

I think the only obvious guy they'd rally behind is Paul Ryan and he, smartly, wants nothing to do with the job. Head of House & Means, in general, is a better position. Moreso right now.

There has to be somebody that will win the vast majority of GOPers and eventually the nomination, right? RIGHT!?
 

Bowdz

Member
Wouldn't option 3 effectively neuter the future speaker and guarantee he gets pushback from the far right on just about everything?

The only way I could see Democrats voting for a Republican speaker and save the GOP's ass is if they got some serious concessions, but that would still be pointless unless McConnell agreed to the same concessions from the Senate (which I cannot see happening). I'd be loving every minute of this if I weren't terrified that the GOP will allow us to default on our debt and shutter the government. I'm still blown away by this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom