EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 12
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 27 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote: meh, ya'll are making a big deal out of nothing. they haven't come out and explicitly said that they are against the anti-tax pledge, most of them keep talking about getting more revenue by broadening the base. I'm 50/50 on it. they (GOP) will either force the Dems to craft a bill and vote on it, or they will just stand firm until the fiscal cliff comes. either way, I don't see it working out well for anyone. my personal opinion is we should just let Barack drive us right over the cliff. him holding the country hostage every ten months is getting a little tiresome, and the American public blaming it on Republicans is getting boring. if he's gonna put his gun to the head of the American economy every time he wants something then we should just let him pull the trigger and see where shit lands. WTF? Obama is holding the country hostage every 10 months? Did you forget about the debt ceiling debacle? In case you didn't know, Obama didn't create the fiscal cliff, Congress did when the supercommittee failed to agree on deficit reduction. To claim that Obama is pointing the gun is to claim that Obama can put down the gun. But he can do no such thing, because the fiscal cliff is current law. He can give up and agree to everything the other side offers. But then, so can Republicans. So your statement about Obama holding the economy hostage is complete bullshit. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On November 26 2012 08:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: does it not bother you, even a little, that she completely lied, and is continuing to lie, about the murders of four Americans? does that even make you stop for a second and ask yourself, "wait, is my agenda worth it?" this is why this whole Benghazi thing is ridiculous: because you and I and everyone else on earth knew on 9/12 that it was a terrorist attack, probably by Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda affiliate, and that it had nothing to do with the video. the intelligence community knew it, and Susan Rice, if she's got the mental faculties of an earthworm, should have known it. we all know that she lied, but we have to pretend that we don't because of...... I don't know why. it's not even innocent until proven guilty because she's been proven to be guilty. it just seems very sad to me that in the wake of a intelligence/diplomatic disaster that led to the completely avoidable murder of four Americans, everyone's biggest concerns have been: 1) did Mitt Romney jump the gun 2) did Obama call it a terrorist attack at the Rose Garden 3) who was Patreaus fucking 4) are Republicans playing politics. and no one is asking the very important question (that Obama never answered during the second debate) which is: "Who pulled security and why?" The intelligence community having strong suspicions something is a terrorist attack and being willing to publicly declare something a terrorist attack are not the same thing. I would rather have the White House be cautious than to run out and have Susan Rice stand up in front of the UN with shells from a terrorist's gun and call for a war then never find any of the guns (or WMDs, in the case of Iraq). Plus there were riots over that video so its a reasonable assumption: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/rioters-besiege-western-embassies-khartoum On embassy security: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/joe-biden/joe-biden-says-paul-ryan-cut-embassy-security-300-/ That's why security was pulled, both parties agreed to cut embassy security, the Republicans wanted it cut more but Democrats wanted it cut too, and so we had to remove some security, no revenue increases means cuts have to go someplace, and this time they went to security. Yes they wanted more but ya know, hindsight and all that, I bet a lot of government agencies don't get all the money and people they think they need, starve that beast! Right? Surprisingly embassy security is one of those "non-defense discretionary spending" items everyone's always clamoring to cut down and so they did and our embassies became less secure. . This Benghazi thing is just not the horrible cover up you are making it out to be and calling them terrorists the day after the attack or a waiting until a week later when you have better intelligence doesn't change who died or what happened. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 26 2012 08:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: does it not bother you, even a little, that she completely lied, and is continuing to lie, about the murders of four Americans? does that even make you stop for a second and ask yourself, "wait, is my agenda worth it?" this is why this whole Benghazi thing is ridiculous: because you and I and everyone else on earth knew on 9/12 that it was a terrorist attack, probably by Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda affiliate, and that it had nothing to do with the video. the intelligence community knew it, and Susan Rice, if she's got the mental faculties of an earthworm, should have known it. we all know that she lied, but we have to pretend that we don't because of...... I don't know why. it's not even innocent until proven guilty because she's been proven to be guilty. it just seems very sad to me that in the wake of a intelligence/diplomatic disaster that led to the completely avoidable murder of four Americans, everyone's biggest concerns have been: 1) did Mitt Romney jump the gun 2) did Obama call it a terrorist attack at the Rose Garden 3) who was Patreaus fucking 4) are Republicans playing politics. and no one is asking the very important question (that Obama never answered during the second debate) which is: "Who pulled security and why?" The reason that question isnt be asked is because they probably know the answer and they dont want to have to talk about the reason because then that shifts the focus of the scandal away from where they want it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Name one war/armed conflict in the world that McCain has NOT advocated for... He was for arming Gaddafi, then for arming the rebels an is now pissed that militants have access to military grade weapons, amazing. He has been for attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, Libya, North Korea, China, and yes even Russia. The man is a deranged, bitter, old warmonger. It's a shame he didn't have such concerns about Rice and Iraq but then again I guess four dead americans have more political points than 3000 because when it gets that high is becomes a statistic. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Dallas Cowboys fans are calling on a higher power to erase Jerry Jones from the equation in Big D. The Dallas Morning News reported Monday that a man from Ft. Benning, Ga. has petitioned President Barack Obama to remove Jones from power over the Cowboys organization. The petition, housed on the White House website and filed under the category of "Human Rights," includes the following call to arms: "We, the Citizens of the Great State of Texas, and Dallas Cowboys fans worldwide, have been oppressed by an over controlling, delusional, oppressive dictator for way too long. Request the Executive Branch's immediate assistance in removal of owner and GM, Jerry Jones. His incompetence and ego have not only been an extreme disappointment for way too long, but moreover, it has caused extreme mental and emotional duress." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000101646/article/cowboys-fans-petition-obama-to-oust-jerry-jones I think the "Human Rights" hit me the most lol. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
Enjoy! + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 28 2012 10:28 Souma wrote: HAHAHA oh my god. An even better petition came out of Texas, surpassing that of the secession petition in terms of hilarity. I think the "Human Rights" hit me the most lol. As a Texan, this is a petition I can get behind. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On November 28 2012 10:41 aksfjh wrote: As a Texan, this is a petition I can get behind. I want an official recognition from the White House that everything is, in fact, bigger. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced who will chair all of the major House committees in the next Congress. And it turns out they all have something in common besides party affiliation: they're all white men. There isn't a single woman or minority included in the mix of 19 House committee chairs announced Tuesday -- a stark reality for a party desperate to appeal to women and minorities after both groups overwhelmingly rejected Republicans just weeks ago in the presidential election. The one female committee chair that House Republicans currently have, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), is stepping down because her term is up. While there are still two lower-tier House committees awaiting a chair assignment -- the Ethics Committee and House Administration -- neither committee has any women or minority members. At least one Senate Democrat was quick to point out that something is missing from the Republican lineup. "Disappointed to see House committee chairmanships in the 113th Congress will not include a single woman. -PM," tweeted Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who included a link to Boehner's press release announcing the chair posts. A House Republican leadership aide declined to comment on the lack of diversity in the party's committee leadership. The aide noted, though, that GOP leaders just put four women in party leadership. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash) is the new House Republican Conference Chair, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) is conference vice chair, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) is conference secretary, and Rep.-elect Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) will represent freshman members in party leadership. Source | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 28 2012 13:52 farvacola wrote: I can't for the life of me understand how the Republicans, Boehner especially, didn't see how this sort of thing is going to look; after losing an election based partly on the turnout of women voters, to not even make a gesture of equal representation in the House seems like a politically stupid move. And the positions they did give to women? Like pouring salt on the wound. Honest question.... is there any republican women who are qualified for any of those posts? I'm not trying to be accusatory, but I can't imagine someone didn't point this out sometime during the process. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
But really there's only two answers that I can think of: Yes, there are, but *shrugs* or No, there are no qualified Republican women for any of those posts, and there will be none until they stop being relegated to inferior positions that stunt their growth and potential. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but hispanic pandering was missed! the tragedy | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On November 28 2012 14:20 BluePanther wrote: Honest question.... is there any republican women who are qualified for any of those posts? I'm not trying to be accusatory, but I can't imagine someone didn't point this out sometime during the process. Well, as of this moment, there are 23 Republican Women continuing to serve in the House, and although I am admittedly not fond of pretty much any of them, I am still astounded that not a single one is qualified for any of the 19 positions, not even enough for the token single appointment. For example, I dislike Ann Marie Buerkle out of New York, but she has a lot of experience with the TSA and transportation security. Kay Granger, out of Texas, has shown a great record with appropriations and matters of security/defense. I mean, there's gotta be at least one woman qualified enough, and therein lies the problem, at least from the public perspective. Edit: And yeah, oneofthem is more or less right. Another missed opportunity amongst hispanics, though I'm unsure of how much this truly effects anything. I've been more or less talking about token gestures anyhow. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
But seriously, I've been reading quite a few right-leaning sites (initially curious to see how they would react to the fact that their media pretty much screwed them), and for the last two weeks we all heard the GOP saying they needed to reach out more to women and Latinos. Fair enough. There's room for a lot of nuanced discussion and disagreement on how to do that, and how to address valid concerns. And yet the next Congress comes around, and when it really comes to putting people in positions of power, and not mere lip service, they are not putting *any* women or minorities on *any* committee chairs. I think at this point it's safe to say that they still aren't serious about reaching out beyond their current demographic... | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote: I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform? Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. | ||
| ||
