|
eviltastic posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/presidential-candidates-indiana-law_n_6973280.html Glad to see this full-throated defense of gay marriage from Bush: "This is really an important value in our country, where you can respect and be tolerant of people’s lifestyles but allow for people of faith to exercise theirs," and Ben Carson: “absolutely vital that we do all we can to allow Americans to practice their religious ways.”
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Here we go! quote:As a reason why such laws are necessary, Bush pointed to the case of a Washington state florist who was fined for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Oh, so it is all about allowing businesses to discriminate against gay folks, then. Thanks for clearing that up, Jeb!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Oh, so it is all about allowing businesses to discriminate against gay folks, then. Thanks for clearing that up, Jeb! Indiana Governor Insists New Law Has Nothing To Do With Thing It Explicitly Intended To Do
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
The Indiana bill questions are a total choice of damnation for Republicans because you have to at least tacitly support it to appeal to the large part of your base that are bigots, but at the same time, you don't want to say anything memorable enough that someone could bring it up in the general. So either a nod to "states' rights" or well "let's see how this goes down, the media is whipping up this story, but Indiana law makers say that the law's intent is not to discriminate, blah, blah, blah..." There isn't much political gain here. If you come out hard in favor, you're shooting yourself in the foot down the road. You might as well give some forgettable dodge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
I've said it before: these sorts of bills are supposed to pass committee, maybe a house of a legislature, and then quietly die. This gets you all the Conservative Cred without actually risking anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Elvira tweeted this One of them was, interestingly enough, a pretty cool guy. Ran for a highly prominent position against incredible odds for a freedom-loving, conscientious political party, and was quoted as saying winning it would be like climbing Everest single-handedly, without gear. It was the guy on the right. Al Lewis, best known as Grandpa Munster, ran for governor of New York as the Green party candidate back in 1998.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
I still haven't seen a reasonable argument that selling flowers to gay people violates the seller's freedom of worship. If I hired a Christian roofer, are his rights somehow being violated by my Atheism? Like the atheism is permeating through the house and blocking his prayer ducts? There is no logical connection between any of the commercial activities I've seen used as examples, and the free exercise of religion. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:I'm not picky. Maybe Health & Human Services. I'd also be down for Drug Czar. No, no 'Secretary of Keeping it Real'. I saw a documentary about that once, it looded like an good job. Just remember you do have to provide your own shovel if you want to look for Lincoln's Gold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Yooge, if true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
So why are we, according to Rubio, against discrimination in hotels and restaurants but perfectly fine with it everywhere else? Is there a passage in the bible that I'm forgetting that commands that those two businesses alone provide service to all no matter their sin? The lord commands that Waffle House serve anyone who sits down, but he didst also tell Moses that the Florist is a sacred job that must comply with all his commandments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
SnakePlissken posted:One of them was, interestingly enough, a pretty cool guy. Ran for a highly prominent position against incredible odds for a freedom-loving, conscientious political party, and was quoted as saying winning it would be like climbing Everest single-handedly, without gear. Lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
I don't get the GOP. The country as a whole is moving very much in the direction of acceptance and tolerance of gay people, and appears to be doing so pretty rapidly, and the GOP is going to make these Indiana type laws their hill to die on? Is it a last gasp of resistance to cultural change? Are they trying to prove a point? What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't get the GOP. The country as a whole is moving very much in the direction of acceptance and tolerance of gay people, and appears to be doing so pretty rapidly, and the GOP is going to make these Indiana type laws their hill to die on? the ultra-right elements that are becoming increasingly irrelevent or detrimental in the general elections are still influential in primaries, where turnout is very low except among those most fanatical elements. You can bet whoever wins the nomination will back away from this poo poo so fast that they redshift PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So why are we, according to Rubio, against discrimination in hotels and restaurants but perfectly fine with it everywhere else? Is there a passage in the bible that I'm forgetting that commands that those two businesses alone provide service to all no matter their sin? The lord commands that Waffle House serve anyone who sits down, but he didst also tell Moses that the Florist is a sacred job that must comply with all his commandments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
I think they are banking on mobilizing their hardcore base and assuming that most people that vote Republican but aren't really against gay rights will still vote for them since they care a lot more about taxes once the buzz dies down.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't get the GOP. The country as a whole is moving very much in the direction of acceptance and tolerance of gay people, and appears to be doing so pretty rapidly, and the GOP is going to make these Indiana type laws their hill to die on? They would lose 50%+ of their political funding from local levels upto primary levels overnight. Thar's gold in them thar religious nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't get the GOP. The country as a whole is moving very much in the direction of acceptance and tolerance of gay people, and appears to be doing so pretty rapidly, and the GOP is going to make these Indiana type laws their hill to die on? There's a big difference between state level GOP and national GOP. National GOP is quite a bit further down the road on all of the social issues due to their unholy alliance with the US Chamber of Commerce. It's a lot easier to have plausible deniability for lack of action on the national level. They can go back to their R+18 districts and tell them, "Oh I wanted to do something about those gays, but that wily Boehner wouldn't let me! Those evil Dems wouldn't let me!" There's a lot more polarization at the state level. They don't have to do deal with opposition the same way politicians on the national level do. The GOP holds very significant super majorities in both houses of the Indiana General Assembly. They can pass stuff without Democrats. They can pass stuff without any moderate Republicans. So the far right Republicans have fewer good excuses for lack of action on far right wing issues when campaigning for re-election. I can understand why the Indiana General Assembly thought this was a good idea because it's probably helpful for most of them in their individual election fights. Indiana is R+5 as a whole, and that margin probably doubles or triples when you exclude Gary and Indianapolis. Outside of those two places, the entire state leans red to some degree. I understand Pence's strategy to spearhead the movement for it less understandable, but he appears to be a bit of a culture warrior who is willing to stab his more moderate and more apathetic wealthy donors in the back over it. ErIog fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think they are banking on mobilizing their hardcore base and assuming that most people that vote Republican but aren't really against gay rights will still vote for them since they care a lot more about taxes once the buzz dies down. Yeah, that's my take on it, too. All of the centrist, Independent, "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" types still willing to consider voting Republican are most likely to err on the side of FYGM. "We can worry about gay rights after we've lowered taxes and fixed the deficit! My gay brother in San Francisco won't be any better off when the Chinese call in their debts and repo the west coast!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
ErIog posted:
It's not like these donors have anywhere else to go. They are as stuck as the more leftist democrat voters. They will back him as long as they have their interests satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren, putting an end to months of speculation: "No, I am not running and I am not going to run."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Skeevy Mcgee posted:Yeah, that's my take on it, too. All of the centrist, Independent, "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" types still willing to consider voting Republican are most likely to err on the side of FYGM. "We can worry about gay rights after we've lowered taxes and fixed the deficit! My gay brother in San Francisco won't be any better off when the Chinese call in their debts and repo the west coast!" My greatest fear is that the Republican Party as a whole begins to court these kinds of indecisive folks and abandon their whole gay bashing/bible thumping demographic (who will vote for them anyways)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Elizabeth Warren, putting an end to months of speculation: "No, I am not running and I am not going to run." I really wonder if she'll run
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:My greatest fear is that the Republican Party as a whole begins to court these kinds of indecisive folks and abandon their whole gay bashing/bible thumping demographic (who will vote for them anyways) Honestly I think the "socially liberal" Republicans are more likely to ignore civil rights injustices as long as they get tax breaks and vote GOP than the hard core extremists are if gays, women, black people, and other minorities aren't harassed. The Tea Party is never going to vote Democratic but I could totally see them staying home if their social issues aren't addressed in favor of giving some tax breaks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So why are we, according to Rubio, against discrimination in hotels and restaurants but perfectly fine with it everywhere else? Is there a passage in the bible that I'm forgetting that commands that those two businesses alone provide service to all no matter their sin? The lord commands that Waffle House serve anyone who sits down, but he didst also tell Moses that the Florist is a sacred job that must comply with all his commandments. Because Joseph and Mary weren't turned away from a flower shop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I really wonder if she'll run
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I wish she would. I don't even like her that much, but any alternative to a loving Clinton would be nice. I hope she never does. I don't know if you have seen Warren campaign/schmooze/speechify, but she's only average in all of the aspects that would be amplified in a national fishbowl. Obviously she's great in the sense that she believes lots of correct things and generally has the right motivations, and there are certain contexts where she would do well (like a town hall, maybe), but she wouldn't be a great presidential candidate overall and I think she probably knows it. Staying put as a liberal lion in the Senate will have a long-term impact that dwarfs anything she could achieve by being a stalking horse for better contenders in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I hope she never does. I don't know if you have seen Warren campaign/schmooze/speechify, but she's only average in all of the aspects that would be amplified in a national fishbowl. I just want to feel like I can vote for someone in a primary that will give Hillary a fire under her rear end to at least pay lip service to the leftists like me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I just want to feel like I can vote for someone in a primary that will give Hillary a fire under her rear end to at least pay lip service to the leftists like me. I mean, you could go Bernie if he actually runs, but his percentages aren't going to move Hillary's needle at all. I feel your pain but I don't think there is anything that can alleviate it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I just want to feel like I can vote for someone in a primary that will give Hillary a fire under her rear end to at least pay lip service to the leftists like me. O'Malley seems to heading in that direction, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Brian Schweitzer 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
270 Strategies, the consultant group that formed from the Obama 2012 field operation, is putting out job postings for a mysterious 2016 race. There are a few variations floating around but this one was on a public jobs list:quote:270 Strategies is seeking to gauge interest from candidates with organizing experience who would be interested in potential opportunities for the upcoming campaign cycle. Individuals should have a minimum of 2 campaign cycles of experience, have access to a car, and be flexible about location. It's almost definitely a presidential race (who else is staffing field in April of 2015 for a 2016 race?), and it's definitely not Hillary (even though they won the contract for Ready for Hillary). Could be O'Malley, but I wouldn't be surprised if we started to see Biden gear up for a potential run. 270 is exactly the place he would go. Concerned Citizen fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:O'Malley seems to heading in that direction, for what it's worth. Yeah, I'm likely to be voting O'Malley myself for what little it does to do pretty much the same thing, since he's the only mainstream candidate that's campaigning on an outwardly progressive platform. If it's all marketing nowadays, might as well vote with my... oh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I hope she never does. I don't know if you have seen Warren campaign/schmooze/speechify, but she's only average in all of the aspects that would be amplified in a national fishbowl.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Elizabeth Warren, putting an end to months of speculation: "No, I am not running and I am not going to run." Breaking: Did Sen. Warren already start her campaign??
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't get the GOP. The country as a whole is moving very much in the direction of acceptance and tolerance of gay people, and appears to be doing so pretty rapidly, and the GOP is going to make these Indiana type laws their hill to die on? The rubes will go back to being apolitical if they're not catered to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Here we go! I really want to see some Saudi owned car dealership refuse to sell to women because of his religious beliefs that disallow women drivers, just so we can watch cirque du soleil levels of mental gymnastics from Indiana Republicans
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:the first time I found myself in Lynchburg (don't even remember why I was ever there), I stood agape staring at that thing, wondering what city planner/land manager/whoever decided it would be ok for them to build that. Yeah, that's a common thing, I know tons of people who had to choose between either Liberty to have there parents help or the Community College so they could afford it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Breaking: Did Sen. Warren already start her campaign?? She's not running because she has already won.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren confirming that the people you want in leadership are the people who don't want it. Time for mandatory appointment to the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Wheeee posted:
edwin edwards is still alive!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:48
|
|