US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2371

On October 05 2015 21:55 kwizach wrote:

I love how the guy who wasn't concerned at all about voter id laws resulting in hundreds of thousands of people not being able to vote is suddenly extremely concerned about a net difference of four electoral votes due to the presence of illegal immigrants in blue and red states. Could it be because in this case the impact does not favor Republicans?!

Hillary Clinton has unveiled a series of proposals aimed at reducing US gun violence, including universal background checks, rolling back legal immunity for the gun industry, and legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers.

Clinton’s announcement follows yet another deadly mass shooting – the 44th this year at a school – at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on Thursday.

The Democratic presidential candidate vowed to take on the National Rifle Association and gun lobby in the wake of the massacre, in which a gunman killed nine people and then himself.

At a town hall in New Hampshire on Monday morning, Clinton said that she would work with Congress but she would also “look for ways as president to tighten some of these checks, particularly to get more of the background checks get done at gun shows and online than we currently have”.

Clinton’s firearm proposals arrived as gun control moved to the forefront of the conversation in the Democratic race for the White House. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley issued his own broad platform for reform on Sunday, while Vermont senator Bernie Sanders sought to position himself as a consistent supporter of gun safety measures despite having a mixed record on the issue.

Under Clinton’s plan, background checks would be expanded to close loopholes for private sales at gun shows and online.

Congress failed to act on legislation with similar aims after the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Clinton, if elected president, would use executive action to deem any individual selling a significant number of firearms “in the business”, in order to hold private sellers to the same rules as gun retailers.

She also proposed closing a so-called “Charleston loophole” – a reference to the shooting in June at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in which the gunman was able to purchase a gun despite having a criminal record because if a background check takes longer than 72 hours a gun dealer can sell the weapon without the completed check.

On October 06 2015 00:16 Introvert wrote:


Lol, because that's totally what I said. Nor am I "extremely concerned." please

On October 06 2015 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


The cis-hetero white "Christian" male is losing their place on a pedestal in America

On October 06 2015 01:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:


As an Independent (with liberal leanings), cis-hetero, white [Atheistic] male, reading this just makes me roll my eyes. There is no faster way for you to make me care less about what you're about to say next. I realize you're all about tearing down the establishment, but it's a sure-fire way to alienate any allies you might have in that group of people.

On October 06 2015 01:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:


As an Independent (with liberal leanings), cis-hetero, white [Atheistic] male, reading this just makes me roll my eyes. There is no faster way for you to make me care less about what you're about to say next. I realize you're all about tearing down the establishment, but it's a sure-fire way to alienate any allies you might have in that group of people.

On October 06 2015 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah not "extremely concerned" just silly enough to think it was an article worth posting. The cis-hetero white "Christian" male is losing their place on a pedestal in America and the Republican portion of them is collectively losing their shit over it.

An ultra clickbait/incensing title like "Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary", and it's appeal to members of those groups, is transparent as all hell.

On October 06 2015 02:05 Introvert wrote:


That's quite the extrapolation. Title was clickbait-y, but accurate. The article was much more muted. I suppose if I had left the title out of the link it would have been better, if unnecessary. Considering some of the regular TPM and Co. posts, this was hardly out of line. But that appeals to you, so it doesn't strike you.

On October 06 2015 01:53 Jormundr wrote:

Not really. Have you not heard about the "War against christianity"? According to all of conservative media it's been going on for like 7 years now. They even got some casualties the other day!!!

On October 06 2015 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


If that alienates someone, they weren't really an ally to start with. We may share some common interests, but an ally wouldn't be alienated by it.

Frankly, I'm not sure what about it would be alienating in the first place?

On October 06 2015 01:53 Jormundr wrote:

Not really. Have you not heard about the "War against christianity"? According to all of conservative media it's been going on for like 7 years now. They even got some casualties the other day!!!

On October 06 2015 02:31 jcarlsoniv wrote:


So, we can ignore religious beliefs and political affiliations because those are both personal choice. But if we look at the other three things - race, sexual identity, and gender - these are all things beyond my control. Being a white, cis male is a part of my identity, just as much as your race/sexual identity/gender are to you, whatever they may be.

By making that statement, you've thrown me (and others matching parts of that description) in a bucket and demonized traits that are personally inherent. It make you no better in that regard than those who do the same to other minority groups.

I'm not saying there aren't problems that still need to be addressed - there absolutely are. But I find it counter productive when you make statements like that. It's entirely possible that you don't see me as part of the problem, but you instantly make me feel like your adversary with that sweeping generalization.



As said above, I agree that there are concerning issues, especially coming most often from the religious fundamentalists. But I know far more people, religious and non-religious alike, who find it as ridiculous as most people here do.

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman leading the fight to defund Planned Parenthood paid his chief of staff for nearly six months after at least three female staffers complained that the top aide was sexually harassing subordinates, according to four sources close to the situation.

The women told North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows about chief of staff Kenny West's behavior in March, sources said. At first, Meadows barred West from his D.C. office, but reassigned him to the district office and continued paying him. Meadows eventually sent West off with a sizable severance.

Any compensation that came after West was no longer working in his role as chief of staff may have violated House ethics rules. The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, following a Politico report of the severance payment, asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate the severance payment for possible referral to the House Ethics Committee.

West officially departed Meadows’ office on May 21, but was paid his full rate of $38,750 for the period covering April 1 through June 30, and then received further pay taking him through Aug. 15. The House Ethics Manual says, “Compensation may be received only for duties performed within the preceding month.” Ethics rules state that members of Congress “may not retain an employee who does not perform duties for the offices of the employing authority commensurate with the compensation he receives.”

A person close to Meadows said he personally observed West's behavior around women before he was offered the job, and warned Meadows about West. "There were a number of us who talked to him and basically said, 'You have a problem here,' before he ever got sworn into office," he said. His behavior apparently didn't change in the congressional office. "I've heard that basically since day one," the source said.

On October 06 2015 02:46 Plansix wrote:

We can either talk about those people straight up, or we can use very apoplectic, couched language to make sure we don't hurt someones feelings.

On October 06 2015 02:59 jcarlsoniv wrote:


It's interesting, cuz that seems to be the same position your political opponents take in regards to the emergence of "PC culture". Not that I necessarily agree with them, because it's often used in defense of bigoted opinions.

I'm not saying I was offended by what GH said. It's more that I immediately feel that I cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who immediately sticks those "SJW buzzwords" (for lack of a better term) in the ground. And that's all I really want - reasonable discourse from all parties involved.

And yes, in contradiction to my idea of not generalizing people, I will acknowledge that American society, as a whole, is struggling to move forward because we're trying to drag a group of conservative, close-minded people forward with us. But it is very clear that planting flags in the ground and shouting at each other across the barriers has not been working for us lately either.

On October 06 2015 02:59 jcarlsoniv wrote:


It's interesting, cuz that seems to be the same position your political opponents take in regards to the emergence of "PC culture".

I'm not saying I was offended by what GH said. It's more that I immediately feel that I cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who immediately sticks those "SJW buzzwords" (for lack of a better term) in the ground. And that's all I really want - reasonable discourse from all parties involved.

And yes, in contradiction to my idea of not generalizing people, I will acknowledge that American society, as a whole, is struggling to move forward because we're trying to drag a group of conservative, close-minded people forward with us. But it is very clear that planting flags in the ground and shouting at each other across the barriers has not been working for us lately either.

On October 06 2015 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:


The place of privilege that cis-hetero white males have enjoyed in America is real (not a compilation of buzzwords). It's really starting to get overcome, and some of the people who have enjoyed that privilege are freaking out.

People shouldn't have a general feeling of "white-guilt" because they enjoyed that privilege, but people who refuse to acknowledge that privilege or the role it plays today should be overwhelmed with shame until they pull their head out.

On October 06 2015 03:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:


I don't disagree at all.



This is enough for me to understand and appreciate your perspective. I suppose part of my initial reaction is that I have occasionally felt my opinions dismissed simply because of my race/gender/sexual identity, and my strong belief that no one should feel that way. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that that was your intention.

The U.S. airstrike this weekend that hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 22 civilians, was requested by Afghan forces, according to the top U.S. general in Afghanistan.

Gen. John Campbell, addressing reporters Monday at the Pentagon, said Afghan forces advised they were taking fire from Taliban insurgents and asked for U.S. air support. Campbell said he wanted to correct initial reports suggesting U.S forces were under threat and that the strike was carried out on their behalf.

"We have now learned that on Oct. 3 Afghan forces advise they were taking fire from enemy positions and asked for air support from U.S. forces. An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck," Campbell said. He added later, "Unfortunately, the Taliban have decided to remain in the city and fight from within, knowingly putting civilians at significant risk of harm."

Campbell offered condolences and vowed to take "all necessary steps to avoid future casualties." He also told reporters that the protocols for training and support that the U.S. provides for Afghan forces have not changed.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will become the fifth state in the nation to allow terminally ill patients to legally end their lives using doctor-prescribed drugs after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday he signed one of the most emotionally charged bills of the year.

Brown, a lifelong Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian, announced that he signed the legislation approved by state lawmakers after an emotional and deeply personal debate. Until now, he had refused to comment on the issue.

The bill passed Sept. 11 after a previous version failed this year despite the highly publicized case of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard, a California woman with brain cancer moved to Oregon to end her life.

Opponents said the bill legalizes premature suicide, but supporters call that comparison inappropriate because it applies to mentally sound, terminally ill people and not those who are depressed or impaired.

Religious groups and advocates for people with disabilities opposed the bill and nearly identical legislation that had stalled in the Legislature weeks earlier, saying it goes against the will of God and put terminally ill patients at risk for coerced death.

The measure was brought back as part of a special session intended to address funding shortfalls for Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for the poor. The governor had criticized the move to bypass the usual process.

The bill he received includes requirements that the patient be physically capable of taking the medication themselves, that two doctors approve it, that the patient submit several written requests, and that there be two witnesses, one of whom is not a family member.

California's measure came after at least two dozen states introduced aid-in-dying legislation this year, though the measures stalled elsewhere. Doctors in Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana already can prescribe life-ending drugs.