• 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 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TumblingHippo

Member
Jeels said:
I think they care but they care about jobs and security a lot more. In NC it mattered because it was effecting the economy of the state and the perception of the state.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this affect the perception of the USA, the worse it gets? Could there be concerns there?
 
S

skullmuffins

Banned
Orrin Hatch:
DFrOaXcXgAIcbvc.jpg:large



I don't think this is a winning wedge issue. If it's a political tactic, it's Trump double- and tripling-down on the basest of the base in an attempt to survive the scandals plaguing the WH. Like, it's not going to win elections, but it might keep his 30% support.
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
skullmuffins said:
Orrin Hatch:
DFrOaXcXgAIcbvc.jpg:large



I don't think this is a winning wedge issue. If it's a political tactic, it's Trump double- and tripling-down on the basest of the base in an attempt to survive the scandals plaguing the WH.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised how fast and furious Republicans have come out to condemn the ban. I think once the dust is settled, after ensuring healthcare as a right; the advancement of LGBT rights, and the normalization of LGBT in culture will be Obama's second biggest legacy to history.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Jeels said:
I think they care but they care about jobs and security a lot more. In NC it mattered because it was effecting the economy of the state and the perception of the state.
Click to expand...

I really doubt security is something urban liberals care about more than trans issues. The terrorism fear always just seems to be a rural thing, which is ironic since no terrorist is going to hit in the middle of cow town.

I'm not even sure jobs is something they care about either, considering cities have a ton of jobs.

Social issues are generally the biggest issues for cities. And stuff like education.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Nazgul_Hunter said:
I'm surprised how fast and furious Republicans have come out to condemn the ban. I think once the dust is settled, after ensuring healthcare as a right; the advancement of LGBT rights, and the normalization of LGBT in culture will be Obama's second biggest legacy to history.
Click to expand...

Just being real here, I don't think it's appropriate to assign this to Obama. GLBT people did this mostly on their own and without much prominent political support until the gay ship had mostly sailed.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
I'm actually not too surprised by Hatch's statement. He voted for the ENDA, if I recall correctly.

Cue Louise Mensch: "See, he's gearing up to be PRESIDENT. The sources in my walls were right."
 
K

kirblar

Member
pigeon said:
Just being real here, I don't think it's appropriate to assign this to Obama. GLBT people did this mostly on their own and without much prominent political support until the gay ship had mostly sailed.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and saying this isn't a knock on Obama, being behind the curve here was the right political play.
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
whyamihere said:
and the last one then back to healthcare.
Click to expand...

From my experiences, suburban middle-income white people are much more religious than rural lower-income white people. While a fisherman from Pensacola is probably just as socially conservative as my 60-year-old aunt in Leawood, Kansas, he is substantially less likely to go to church or consider himself very religious. There's a real class element to piety.

Rural lower-income white people were the only demographic who were more likely to turn out in 2016 than they had been in prior elections. When we consider that these voters are less likely to be religious than suburban middle-income people, Trump's success with no-college, less-religious whites makes perfect sense.
 
L

Loxley

Member
Has Paul Ryan made his obligatory spineless "Well the President has the authority to do as he wishes regarding our armed forces so sdhjfgsdghjsdfyucf..." statement yet?
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
Loxley said:
Has Paul Ryan made his obligatory spineless "Well the President has the authority to do as he wishes regarding our armed forces so sdhjfgsdghjsdfyucf..." statement yet?
Click to expand...

He's saving it for the Foxcon plant thing tonight. Plus, it takes time to shove that pole up his ass to hold him upright.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
Long but great read on The Atlantic about redistricting, gerrymandering and the folks behind it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-league-of/309084/

But Hofeller's helpful tips give way to the sinister warnings of a gimlet-eyed, semi-­clandestine political operative: ”Make sure your security is real." ”Make sure your computer is in a PRIVATE location." ” ‘Emails are the tool of the devil.' Use personal contact or a safe phone!" ”Don't reveal more than necessary." ”BEWARE of non­-partisan, or bi­-partisan, staff bearing gifts. They probably are not your friends."

Be discreet. Plan ahead. Follow the law. Don't overreach. Tom Hofeller relishes the blood sport of redistricting, but there is a responsible way—as Hofeller himself demonstrated this past cycle in the artful (if baldly partisan) redrawing of North Carolina's maps—and also a reckless way. So that his message will penetrate, he tells audiences horror stories about states that ignored his warnings and went with maps that either were tossed out by the federal courts or created more political problems than they solved.

Already Hofeller has picked out which cautionary tale he will relay during the next decennial tour. The new horror story, he's decided, will be Texas, which stood, this past cycle, as a powerful example of how reckless a redistricting process can become. That mangled effort also provides a stark contrast to the maps Hofeller helped create in North Carolina—­drawings that demonstrate how in the blood sport of redistricting, the most cravenly political results are won with calculating prudence.
Click to expand...

Much more at the link.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Valhelm said:
From my experiences, suburban middle-income white people are much more religious than rural lower-income white people. While a fisherman from Pensacola is probably just as socially conservative as my 60-year-old aunt in Leawood, Kansas, he is substantially less likely to go to church or consider himself very religious. There's a real class element to piety.

Rural lower-income white people were the only demographic who were more likely to turn out in 2016 than they had been in prior elections. When we consider that these voters are less likely to be religious than suburban middle-income people, Trump's success with no-college, less-religious whites makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong, as per usual. The poor are generally more religious than the middle and upper classes.
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
kirblar said:
Agreed, and saying this isn't a knock on Obama, being behind the curve here was the right political play.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree! Wasn't trying to take anything away from the hard working LGBT activists. As a gay man I've benefited a ton from their work.

However, I do think Obama played it well, politically. A number of reforms he enacted like ending DADT and not putting up a fight on the DOMA case were well balanced political calls. I don't think a Republican president would've presided over this big step forward on LGBT rights as well as Obama did.
 
R

royalan

Member
What we have seen today is exactly why I will rage against Democrats sidelining social justice issues to focus on jobs.

Minorities are under attack in this country.

And Democrats want to yell 'Jobs Jobs Jobs!' to the very people who will be lining up to cast their votes in favor of a party who want us brought to heel.
 
K

kess

Member
royalan said:
What we have seen today is exactly why I will rage against Democrats sidelining social justice issues to focus on jobs.

Minorities are under attack in this country.

And Democrats want to yell 'Jobs Jobs Jobs!' to the very people who will be lining up to cast their votes in favor of a party who want us brought to heel.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's what's to be expected when the party leadership's formative years was in the 80s when Reagan was beating them over the head with JOBS

also why does Orrin Hatch have his own logo
 
S

studyguy

Member
Like I said earlier, I'd assume Heller knows he's dead in the water. Might as well fall in line, get a nice payout at the end for being a piece of shit.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
The White House doesn't understand politics, part 923829873128

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

After a week sparring with his attorney general and steaming over the Russia investigation consuming his agenda, President Donald Trump had one thing to look forward to this week.

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex-change operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trump’s sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

The president had always planned to scale back President Barack Obama-era policies welcoming such individuals in combat and greenlighting the military to pay for their medical treatment plans. But a behind-the-scenes GOP brawl threatening to tank a Pentagon funding increase and wall construction hastened Trump’s decision.

Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money. But GOP leaders were caught in a pinch between those demands and moderate Republicans who felt the proposal was blatantly discriminatory.

“There are several members of the conference who feel this really needs to be addressed,” said senior House Appropriations Committee member Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) on Tuesday. “This isn’t about the transgender issue; it’s about the taxpayer dollars going to pay for the surgery out of the defense budget."

That’s why House lawmakers took the matter to the Trump administration. And when Defense Secretary James Mattis refused to immediately upend the policy, they went straight to the White House. Trump — never one for political correctness — was all too happy to oblige.

“[P]lease be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.

"This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,” said one senior House Republican aide. The source said that while GOP leaders asked the White House for help, they weren't expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump's far-reaching directive.

While Democrats and centrist Republicans are already blasting the move, one White House official said the decision would be "seen as common-sense" by millions — though likely vociferously protested by others.

"It's not the worst thing in the world to have this fight," the administration official said.

The announcement, multiple sources said, did not sit well with Mattis, who appeared to be trying to avoid the matter in recent weeks. Congressional sources say Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), the original author of the House’s transgender proposal, tried numerous times to phone Mattis to discuss the transgender issue.

It is unclear what Mattis told Hartzler at that time. But insiders say he felt there was no need to rush upending the policy, arguing the Pentagon needed time to study the issue. Their decision would affect at least 2,450 transgender active-military personnel, according to a Rand report — though military LGBT activist groups as many as as 15,000 soldiers fall into that category.

After lawmakers went around Mattis to engage the White House, Mattis was consulted before the announcement and knew the ban was being considered, according to several White House officials. But the decision ultimately came down from Trump and was "White House-driven," Trump aides said.

The president was also annoyed by the Pentagon delay, one person said. A different official said the White House had gotten positive reaction from conservatives, an important factor amid their displeasure with Trump's recent bashing of Jeff Sessions.

The transgender fight first surfaced in the House a few weeks ago. With the backing of almost the entire GOP conference, Hartzler offered an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would ban funding for gender reassignment surgeries and treatments for transgender active-duty personnel.

Republican supporters were shocked when a group of 24 mostly moderate Republicans teamed up with 190 Democrats to kill the effort in a 209-214 vote.

Republicans spent much of a closed-door GOP conference meeting the next morning steaming about what happened.

“It’s not so much the transgender surgery issue as much as we continue to let the defense bill be the mule for all of these social experiments that the left wants to try to hoist on government,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a conservative supporter of the Hartzler proposal, said last week.

He added: “It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that.”

Supporters of Hartzler's proposal were determined to try again. Last week, they began pushing GOP leadership to use a procedural trick to automatically include the controversial proposal in a Pentagon spending package set for a floor vote this week. The idea was to tuck the provision into a rules package governing the legislation, sidestepping a second potentially unsuccessful amendment vote and adding it to the bill without a floor fight.

Under intense pressure from moderates in the Tuesday Group to reject the idea, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his team shied away from the strategy, worried that it would make them look hypocritical for circumventing regular order.

“Leadership should respect the will of the House — and that’s already been expressed,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a centrist who opposed the amendment. “These transgender service-people are serving our country and have signed up and agreed to risk their lives for this country, so we want to honor that commitment as well.”

That’s when lawmakers turned to the White House for help. They figured the administration could speed up a decision and settle the dispute once and for all.

“Conservatives were telling [the] White House they didn't want money in a spending bill to go to transgender health services,” said one senior administration official, noting that it accelerated Trump’s decision.

Their argument fell on sympathetic ears, White House sources said. Chief strategist Steve Bannon encouraged Trump to deal with the matter now.

Hartzler and her supporters were elated.

“I'm glad the president will be changing this costly and damaging policy,” Hartzler said after the Trump's announcement. “Military service is a privilege, not a right. We must ensure all our precious defense dollars are used to strengthen our national defense.”
Click to expand...

He literally did this to get the border wall money and DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE FUCKING SENATE YOU IDIOT.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
kirblar said:
Her lack of history in elected politics prior to the House run makes it a little more farfetched relative to Obama.
Click to expand...
If Reid has all his eggs in Rosen's basket, that means she's not the one to fuck around with. There's very few politicos I put weight to other than Reid.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
I really doubt security is something urban liberals care about more than trans issues. The terrorism fear always just seems to be a rural thing, which is ironic since no terrorist is going to hit in the middle of cow town.

I'm not even sure jobs is something they care about either, considering cities have a ton of jobs.

Social issues are generally the biggest issues for cities. And stuff like education.
Click to expand...

Wealth and inequality are important for cities, issues of gentrification and out-of-control property prices, and the contrast of fabulous wealth and grasping poverty.

Urbanites aren't wanting on the jobs front, not nearly the issue it is in small-town USA or suburbia.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex-change operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

The ban is for the wall.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Trans Ban seems like a transparent attempt to distract the media and pump Trump's base.

And look, less Russia news today.

Bannon is good at this, although he doesnt have a lot to work with in Trump.
Click to expand...


It less Russian news because there isn't much besides old information.

Russia news drops when it drops.
 
M

Mac_Lane

Member
Sahil Kapur‏
@sahilkapur

.@RepMarkMeadows just said there’s “zero” chance the House would pass a skinny repeal of ACA. Then he made a hand-signal that read zero.
Click to expand...

Let's hope it's true in case the Senate passes it.
 
B

Blader

Member
”It's not so much the transgender surgery issue as much as we continue to let the defense bill be the mule for all of these social experiments that the left wants to try to hoist on government," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a conservative supporter of the Hartzler proposal, said last week.

He added: ”It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they're a man or woman before they do that."
Click to expand...

What an absolute piece of fucking shit. Go fuck yourself off a cliff.

”I'm glad the president will be changing this costly and damaging policy," Hartzler said after the Trump's announcement. ”Military service is a privilege, not a right. We must ensure all our precious defense dollars are used to strengthen our national defense."
Click to expand...

IT'S A SERVICE TO PROTECT YOUR WORTHLESS LIFE YOU FUCK
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
His pandering to the evangelicals today made me remember something from the campaign. Liz Mair and Rick Wilson, both Never Trumpers and fairly reliable sources, basically confirmed that they had evidence of Trump paying for a mistress's abortion (or multiple mistresses' abortions), but they never released the information because (1) the women had signed NDAs and (2) they couldn't find any rich Democrats or anti-Trump Republicans to pay the legal fees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

your favorite racing games by year (2002-2022)
2
72
4K
marcincz replied
[GfK data] In the UK, Xbox Series S and X has now overtaken sales of the original Xbox. PS5 is now closing in on 3DS/2DS sales.
Sales-Age 2
51
5K
Thirty7ven replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom