US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1660

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office offered to change her position on medical marijuana if a major Florida donor recanted his withering criticism of her, according to emails obtained by POLITICO.

The proposal to Orlando trial lawyer John Morgan was straightforward: retract critical statements he made to a reporter in return for Wasserman Schultz publicly backing his cannabis initiative that she had trashed just months earlier. Morgan declined the offer with a sharp email reply sent to a go-between, who described the congresswoman as being in a “tizzy.”

“No,” Morgan responded. “She is a bully. I beat bullies up for a living.”

Morgan said he forwarded the email chain to POLITICO on Thursday to show how “thin-skinned” and transactional Wasserman Schultz’s political team is, he said in a brief phone conversation.

The bad blood between Morgan and Wasserman Schultz — which stems from her critical comments over the medical-marijuana initiative he bankrolled last year, and which failed narrowly — boiled over again this week when Democrats started buzzing about her interest in running for Senate if Republican Marco Rubio decides to leave the seat for a presidential bid.

On February 20 2015 15:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Umm....

On February 20 2015 21:17 oneofthem wrote:

hahaha oh wow. i guess the 6 year old is tissue.

On February 20 2015 21:50 coverpunch wrote:

My god, the reading around here is atrocious. You literally just made the exact same mistake as him in the opposite direction...

On February 20 2015 15:30 Slaughter wrote:


How exactly does the Christian faith implore its followers to discriminate against people? Its pretty much the opposite of what Christ preached. They act like being homosexual is one of the worst sins ever, so much so that they can't have them as patrons for whatever business or service they provide, when Christ himself would slap them in the face for presuming such arrogance. Christ spent his time among those undesirable to society and taught his followers that no one has the right to judge anyone else because that is Gods job. People are all sinners and should embrace their fellow sinners and both seek out redemption through Christ. The doctor is doing the opposite by shunning them with her shallow justifications. She isn't exercising her religious beliefs, she is using poor interpretation of those beliefs to justify her bigotry.

On February 20 2015 21:17 oneofthem wrote:

hahaha oh wow. i guess the 6 year old is tissue.

WASHINGTON -- Prominent LGBT members of Congress assailed the Obama administration on Wednesday for including Brunei and Malaysia -- two nations deeply hostile to gay communities -- in major trade talks.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, five co-chairs of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus -- Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) -- posed sharp questions about why countries that promote the execution or imprisonment of gay people should be granted trade perks from the United States. Brunei recently imposed a Sharia penal system punishing gay sex with execution, and Malaysian law allows LGBT people to be caned and imprisoned for up to 20 years.

"Brunei continues to move forward with full implementation of a strict penal code mandating the stoning to death of LGBT citizens; similarly, Malaysia has not taken action to end its persecution of LGBT individuals," the letter reads. "Despite these abuses, the Administration continues to include them in negotiations around the TPP and lists them as intended signatories to the trade agreement."

In his State of the Union address in January, Obama said the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the administration is negotiating would present an opportunity for the U.S. to isolate the economic power of China and raise labor and human rights standards abroad. But the administration has brushed off explicit objections from Congress over human rights in Brunei for more than 18 months. Last year, 129 lawmakers signed a letter to the president raising concerns about that nation's inclusion in the TPP -- a major free trade pact with 11 other Pacific nations. No progress has been made with Brunei on its Sharia penal code since.

"The Administration shares the serious concerns about the new Sharia penal code, which is in the process of being implemented. We have been working closely with the State Department in communicating the strong concerns of both the Administration and Congress to the Bruneian government," the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative told HuffPost in an email. "In meetings with senior Bruneian government officials, we have made clear that protecting human rights -– including the rights of LGBT individuals, women, and religious minorities -– is a core U.S. value and a foreign policy priority."

Nevertheless, Brunei remains part of the negotiations, and USTR declined to say whether gay rights issues had been raised in TPP talks.

"We are dealing with countries that are challenging in TPP," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said in a January hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, emphasizing, "Brunei, where the LGBT community has legitimate human rights concerns."

Human rights concerns over TPP are not limited to LGBT issues. Vietnam, another country included in the talks, is riddled with forced labor, child labor and other worker abuses, according to U.S. government reports.

On February 21 2015 00:30 Danglars wrote:

Sadly, this is not the place to mount a reasoned theological debates as to what is the true interpretation of scripture. Suffice it to say that individuals may feel they're giving approval to the sinful act by keeping silent or going on like there's nothing wrong. Broadly put, you may disagree with another's practice, but it's a wild leap to criminalize alleged hypocrisy. She responded in love (yeah, go fume at that one) at a matter she could not justify to her God. She knew others could offer the same care at the same place. She ought to also know only one party would be portrayed sympathetically no matter her professions of conflict and inward focus not animus. Today only homosexuals have consciences; all others are suspect.

Socially, anybody change their mind about pressuring Christians to resign from CEO positions for their beliefs? Coming out of the closet on the correct side nets you accolades and articles on bravery.

On February 21 2015 03:45 ZasZ. wrote:


I believe that, legally, she should absolutely be able to refuse non-emergency care to any patient she likes, for any reason she likes. There is more than one pediatrician in that office, let alone in the Detroit area. But people also have the right to make her look, and feel, like shit for doing it. The day you allow your faith to get in the way of your responsibility to help people is the day you become a terrible doctor.

Why does she have to justify the actions of others to her God? That is supposedly between God and these lesbians, and is none of her business. And no, it isn't only homosexuals that have consciences, but people still putting forth bigotry indeed do not have them. An understandable confusion.

On February 21 2015 03:49 hannahbelle wrote:

The only bigotry in this thread is that being displayed towards the doctor for exercising her constitutional and religious rights. You guys seem to be bigoted towards her freedom to do so. Liberal double-think at its finest. It's only bigotry if it is directed towards your "victimized class of the day" right?

On February 21 2015 03:49 hannahbelle wrote:

The only bigotry in this thread is that being displayed towards the doctor for exercising her constitutional and religious rights. You guys seem to be bigoted towards her freedom to do so. Liberal double-think at its finest. It's only bigotry if it is directed towards your "victimized class of the day" right?

MIAMI — Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Friday denied claims that her staff offered a deal to reverse her opposition to medical marijuana in order to silence a Florida donor’s criticisms — attributing the controversy to a misunderstanding.

But text messages and emails obtained by POLITICO indicate her top political adviser was aware of some type of offer to donor John Morgan, who is accusing the South Florida congresswoman of after-the-fact spin.

The dispute between donor John Morgan and Wasserman Schultz, which began last year when she opposed his medical-marijuana initiative, flared anew this week amid reports that she might seek a U.S. Senate seat.

Morgan and other medical-marijuana advocates then told POLITICO that they would oppose her candidacy and criticized her votes and positions on the issue.

That’s when the proposal was made by Wasserman Schultz’s staff, Morgan said: If he stopped the criticisms, she would be willing to back his new medical-marijuana proposal.

Wasserman Schultz told her hometown newspaper Friday morning that the allegation was “outrageous” and the story was “false.”

“Wasserman Schultz said there were no emails,” the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.

But Morgan released an email chain and related text messages that he said showed the medical-marijuana initiative’s political consultant, Ben Pollara, was in contact with Wasserman Schultz’s political adviser, Jason O’Malley, who received an email concerning the alleged deal.

On February 21 2015 03:49 hannahbelle wrote:

The only bigotry in this thread is that being displayed towards the doctor for exercising her constitutional and religious rights. You guys seem to be bigoted towards her freedom to do so. Liberal double-think at its finest. It's only bigotry if it is directed towards your "victimized class of the day" right?

On February 21 2015 03:49 hannahbelle wrote:

The only bigotry in this thread is that being displayed towards the doctor for exercising her constitutional and religious rights. You guys seem to be bigoted towards her freedom to do so. Liberal double-think at its finest. It's only bigotry if it is directed towards your "victimized class of the day" right?

On February 21 2015 07:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:


As a healthcare provider myself, I find it hard to justify denying anyone healthcare for pretty much any reason. It's a large ethical part of being a healthcare provider (particularly a doctor).

But to talk about this issue more generally (for instance in the issue of someone owning a store and refusing to sell goods to someone), I don't really buy it for a different example either. Sure, you can say, "There are plenty of X in the area, and there's no way they'll ALL deny a gay person service", but this is exactly the kind of thing that CAN happen, and is actually pretty likely to happen in parts of the Deep South.



Yea...this is a load of crap.

Tolerance does not require that you tolerate the intolerant. Not only is that completely illogical, but it also completely defeats the purpose of attempting to promote tolerance in the first place.

Saying, "Ah hah! You're not tolerant because you aren't tolerating the intolerant!" is, at best, intellectually lazy, and, at worst, fucking stupid.

you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.

On February 21 2015 08:27 hannahbelle wrote:

Do you even read what you write? Are you capable of critical thinking? What you are saying, is you are only tolerant to those that believe in your particular ideology. Everyone else is bigoted if they don't conform to your own narrow-mindedness.

This isn't 1984. You don't get to redefine tolerance to suit your agenda. You're either tolerant of other peoples views or not. Don't hide behind the word. Just come out and say who you really are. A left-wing bigot that seeks to stamp out any opposing belief systems.