US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4110

On June 23 2016 07:30 amazingxkcd wrote:


that would require knowing Cthulhu mythology

On June 23 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:

As I said, I thought I knew my audience.

A poll released Wednesday from Morning Consult found that many Americans are in favor of banning immigration from certain parts of the world - even from countries bordering the US.

Donald Trump injected a strong anti-immigration sentiment into the political conversation. More recently, he's reintroduced his proposal for an indefinite ban on Muslim immigration into the country - a suggestion widely condemned by elected Republicans.

However, despite being fiercely rejected by elected Republican leaders, nearly half of Republicans polled by Morning Consult said they "strongly" support such a ban, while 48% of all Americans said they support a ban on Muslim immigration.

Morning Consult asked respondents whether they support an overall ban on immigration from 11 countries: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Mexico, Egypt, Belgium, France, and Canada.

Syria had the greatest support among respondents in favor of an immigration ban with 56% saying they supported it. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan all followed close behind, each breaking 51% support.

Nearly half of respondents, 46%, favored a ban on all immigration from Mexico, a country Trump has zeroed in on throughout his campaign.

Belgium, France, and even Canada all received significant support for a total immigration ban. Roughly 30% of respondents were in favor of a ban on all immigration from Belgium and France, the sites of two of the worst terror attacks in the past year, while almost one-quarter of respondents were for banning Canadian immigration into America.

The Morning Consult poll surveyed 2,001 voters and had a margin of error of 2%

Marco Rubio missed a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Wednesday morning — at the same time he was announcing plans to run for reelection.

The first-term Republican senator, who was pilloried during his presidential run for his record of missed votes and hearings, skipped a closed hearing on security for sales of military equipment to other nations, according to attendees from both parties.

While it's not unusual for a senator to miss hearings, Rubio's timing played directly into the Democratic narrative that he has neglected his job. In a series of interviews and statements Wednesday morning, Rubio announced his plans to seek a second term, after insisting for months he would retire from the Senate.

Sadie Weiner, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement that it's "unbelievable" that Rubio had "the audacity to skip a Foreign Relations Committee hearing while simultaneously announcing he would go back on his word and run for reelection."

Rubio's office had no comment.

Democrats immediately circulated opposition research on Wednesday showing Rubio has missed the bulk of his committee hearings in addition to the votes he missed while running for president. That's likely to be a theme of the Senate campaign against him: Rep. Patrick Murphy of Florida, who is favored by establishment Democrats, said Wednesday that Rubio had "abandoned Florida.

On June 23 2016 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Amazing.



Source

On June 23 2016 10:35 zlefin wrote:
It's too bad the republicans couldn't put up someone more reliable; it's annoying when people miss out on lots of their work.
i'd also say that phrasing is a very disingenuous and deceptive way to put the action by the Democratic representatives.

On June 23 2016 10:35 zlefin wrote:
It's too bad the republicans couldn't put up someone more reliable; it's annoying when people miss out on lots of their work.
i'd also say that phrasing is a very disingenuous and deceptive way to put the action by the Democratic representatives.

On June 23 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:
please don't respond to something by editing in an answer in a prior statement; that's possible to miss, and disruptive to the flow of conversation. please keep conversation in order by using replies.
and it's quite obviously disingenuous phrasing on that other issue.

On June 23 2016 10:44 Wegandi wrote:




This seems about right, especially after that idiot Manchen remarked how due process is "killing us". Tell me some more how the (D)'s are the party of civil liberties lmao. Don't people get tired of the idiocy on the Potomac? So much time, effort, money, and hatred spewed because of some hundreds of idiots and the desire to wield the One Ring to bash their neighbors over the head with.

On June 23 2016 10:47 Introvert wrote:


Their own phrasing is disingenuous, I'm just getting to the heart of the matter. They believe, at a fundamental level, that a citizen's 2nd amendment rights are not worthy of due process. They even voted down the two compromise bills the GOP put up that contained some sort of check on the ability to prevent gun sales. I don't have to tow their line and adopt their language.

How would you describe what they are doing?

On June 23 2016 10:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:


Reminder which party pushed through the secret list the Democrats want to use.

I'm not sure how I'd describe it without doing a more in-depth analysis;
but I think you could have said something like they were "making foolish mistakes in an attempt to save lives"
or at any rate something less obviously bad than to imply their goal is to simply remove rights; something that recognizes they do have a reasonable and understandable motive.

On June 23 2016 10:54 zlefin wrote:

I'm not sure how I'd describe it without doing a more in-depth analysis;
but I think you could have said something like they were "making foolish mistakes in an attempt to save lives"
or at any rate something less obviously bad than to imply their goal is to simply remove rights; something that recognizes they do have a reasonable and understandable motive.

On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:
It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did.
Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter.

and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position.

On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:
It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did.
Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter.

and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position.

On June 23 2016 11:08 Wegandi wrote:


Good, good. First, hit the emotional note, then attack your opponents intelligence, while sitting atop the Moral Hill. Obviously, the issue is binary - you're either for saving lives, or you're for death! Nice Bushian tactics. The amount of hand-wringing this topic has had is amazing considering that there were only ~10,000 homicides via gun last year and the majority of those were gang on gang instigated by our inane "War on Drugs". Clearly, 20 year lows for violent crimes and gun-related crimes incite us to revoke 2 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights and use secret lists to determine our rights at the behest of our betters in the Government, because....the Children, or lives, or something else that no sane person could ever be against. Yeah, you're really pushing for less divisive rhetoric zlefin.