|
Joementum posted:Joe Biden picked up his first endorsement from the Governor of Delaware. Not very surprising. It's pretty much a rule in Delaware that you are required to love Joe Biden.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Joe Biden picked up his first endorsement from the Governor of Delaware. The real question is will he also be endorsed by former Amtrak administers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Well before then their position was abject capitulation, it's the specific reason why they broke off from the Log Cabin Republicans. Is the stance of "we should maybe be acknowledged to exist" a hilarious improvement over "pray the gay away"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The real question is will he also be endorsed by former Amtrak administers? I wonder how the Hillsboro, OH chapter of the Shadowmen MC will vote. Their prez Troll didn't seem too enthused. And nobody's ever gotten the White House without securing the one percenter vote, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
watt par posted:I wonder how the Hillsboro, OH chapter of the Shadowmen MC will vote. Their prez Troll didn't seem too enthused. And nobody's ever gotten the White House without securing the one percenter vote, if you know what I mean. Please let one percenters be Biden's Acorn. The Onion would implode. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Because a group viewing you as a sub human is no reason not to agree with them about loving over poor people! You can't really change a movement all that much from the outside. Furthermore the GOP being laughingly known as the Gay Old Party didn't come about for lack of a reason, Republicans on the Hill are gayer than the Castro District. Lastly if you're gay and say in New York, what's wrong with being conservative? It's conservative and Randian billionaires who push gay marriage the hardest, run the most gay friendly firms, and donate the most to the cause! Plus it's not like you're going to deal with a Southern Bible thumper there. Even if it's a Faustian type of bargain, if I had a chance where "you can deal with empowering people who hate you but we will give you $$$$ and your friends $$$$$$$$$$ so they can donate money to charities to make your life better and take you to their cocktail parties" I'd take that deal in a second and laugh my rear end off all the way to the bank. Who gives a gently caress what they think? They can eat spam and I'll go buy a new suit! Making social progress also involves screwing the poors and enabling the cosmopolitan rich to run things how they want. So gently caress yeah GOP!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Making social progress also involves screwing the poors and enabling the cosmopolitan rich to run things how they want. What the hell is this supposed to mean? The rest of your post is basically a Straight White Man's Perspective on How Bigotry Works digest, so I'll just kind of leave it over there by its loathsome self.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Even if it's a Faustian type of bargain, if I had a chance where "you can deal with empowering people who hate you but we will give you $$$$ and your friends $$$$$$$$$$ so they can donate money to charities to make your life better and take you to their cocktail parties" I'd take that deal in a second and laugh my rear end off all the way to the bank. Who gives a gently caress what they think? They can eat spam and I'll go buy a new suit! Why am I not surprised this post about how awesome the GOP is for social progress seems to be written from the top 1% that benefit from GOP economic policies. Also in what world would the GOP intentionally try to get money to pro-LGBT fundraisers? Sure there are GOP governors of blue states that do support marriage equality but this thread is about the presidential primaries so you're not talking about governor Romney, you're talking about general elections Romney (well whoever is going to follow up Romney as the GOP's nominee, but you get my point).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
SilentD you are an American Psycho character. e: rather, you desperately wish you were an American Psycho character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Why am I not surprised this post about how awesome the GOP is for social progress seems to be written from the top 1% that benefit from GOP economic policies. Also in what world would the GOP intentionally try to get money to pro-LGBT fundraisers? Sure there are GOP governors of blue states that do support marriage equality but this thread is about the presidential primaries so you're not talking about governor Romney, you're talking about general elections Romney (well whoever is going to follow up Romney as the GOP's nominee, but you get my point). Most of the massive donors to the cause and the ones who pushed it through NY were conservative/libertarian hedge fund managers. The rich and upper classes are egalitarian, the middle class and poor are the bigots. And I didn't say "GOP", the GOP sucks on social issues because that's what it's lower income mob wants. The rich people who run it are amazingly progressive and do great work for the cause. It's just the natural order of things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Making social progress also involves screwing the poors and enabling the cosmopolitan rich to run things how they want. So gently caress yeah GOP! Uh, social progress is typically defined by a society's transition towards 'a floor beneath which we do not let people fall' in the hazily remembered words of Michael Higgins. That's quite the opposite of loving over the poor. And when you remedy the societal problems from which the working poor are created as a class, you are almost invariably distributing wealth (and through that, power) from the top (your cosmopolitan rich) to the bottom. That idea of the floor - it applies to more than wealth and power. It's a sort of maximum distance below egalitarianism that society will tolerate. The higher that floor is, the less society tolerates the treatment of certain people as unequal, the greater value you could assign to that society's social progress. So no, social progress does not mean loving over the poor, and yes it means equal treatment of women, LGBTQ people, the mentally ill, etc. Power is almost invariably tied to wealth regardless of economic doctrine. Even the CPC has wealth cloistered at the Party's top. Wealth is power, the more a society transfers the wealth/power from the hoarders to the disenfranchised laborers the more progress it can objectively be said to have accomplished. If you want to read your own interpretation of government action in there be my guest but just make sure you point out that you're making that assumption on your own and it wasn't me saying it was only possible by government action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
SilentD posted:The rich and upper classes are egalitarian, the middle class and poor are the bigots. There is a correlation between income level and support for marriage equality but it splits much more dramatically along party lines, age, or education level. The main reason why most super rich republicans and CEOs of huge corporations don't hate gays is because they've been forced to talk to them and in the process find out they're not horrible monsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There is a correlation between income level and support for marriage equality but it splits much more dramatically along party lines, age, or education level. The main reason why most super rich republicans and CEOs of huge corporations don't hate gays is because they've been forced to talk to them and in the process find out they're not horrible monsters. It also helps that the "face" of gay America is an upper-middle class white man. SilentD posted:Most of the massive donors to the cause and the ones who pushed it through NY were conservative/libertarian hedge fund managers. The rich and upper classes are egalitarian, the middle class and poor are the bigots. And I didn't say "GOP", the GOP sucks on social issues because that's what it's lower income mob wants. The rich people who run it are amazingly progressive and do great work for the cause. So, what's distressing here is that you seem to have conflated "social issues" with "gay marriage," when social issues encompass multiple axes of gender, racial, and class equality and equity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
SilentD posted:And I didn't say "GOP", the GOP sucks on social issues because that's what it's lower income mob wants SilentD posted:Making social progress also involves screwing the poors and enabling the cosmopolitan rich to run things how they want. So gently caress yeah GOP! So, is that a disapproving "gently caress yeah GOP", or short for "so hosed, yeah the GOP"? SilentD posted:The rich people who run it are amazingly progressive and do great work for the cause. So is Mitt Romney, who personally donated $10,000 to supporting Prop 8 one of the poor or middle class people you say are why the GOP is anti-marriage equality? Yeah, some rich people can be pro-marriage equality. Some can be anti. It just seems the GOP nationally has more anti considering only one of the two major parties has marriage equality in its platform, and it's not the GOP. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
SilentD, your routine about how coke-snorting liberals are actually pretty great people in person is wearing thin. It doesn't apply to literally every rich person ever. This is coming from a coke-snorting liberal great person, btw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It also helps that the "face" of gay America is an upper-middle class white man. Who is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Most of the massive donors to the cause and the ones who pushed it through NY were conservative/libertarian hedge fund managers. The rich and upper classes are egalitarian, the middle class and poor are the bigots. And I didn't say "GOP", the GOP sucks on social issues because that's what it's lower income mob wants. The rich people who run it are amazingly progressive and do great work for the cause. Sure, the very rich in both parties are pretty good on social issues, even the Koch brothers are for Gay Marriage and they are also vile individuals who use the hatred and bigotry you're talking about in order to push through their agenda of enriching themselves by destroying the environment, exploiting workers and favorable tax treatment for whatever scam they happen to be running at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:Who is that? Should I be worried about the electoral college shenanigans in Michigan and Pennsylvania? These are very blue states so there's minimal chance of flipping in 2016 and only getting a 60% instead of 100% victory like there was in Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Sure, the very rich in both parties are pretty good on social issues, even the Koch brothers are for Gay Marriage and they are also vile individuals who use the hatred and bigotry you're talking about in order to push through their agenda of enriching themselves by destroying the environment, exploiting workers and favorable tax treatment for whatever scam they happen to be running at the moment. That being said the gay community aint too great on racial issues 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It also helps that the "face" of gay America is an upper-middle class white man. How is the son of a Vanderbilt who is worth hundreds of millions middle-class at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
I don't believe he means literally one person. The "face" of a movement just refers to the majority of the figures you see from that movement. I think his idea of the face being the upper middle class white man is out of date however. That would be true in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s, but recently the face has grown a lot. When people think of an example of a gay person there's a big chance the first person to come to mind will be Ellen, or Rachel Maddow, or George Takei. The face of the movement is a ton more diverse than it used to be, coinciding with its meteoric rise. (it still needs work, obviously) The atheist movement right now has the exact same problem the gay movement used to have, which is the face of the movement being priveleged white males, despite there being stunning atheist speakers and activists like Greta Christina or Neil deGrasse Tyson. And I certainly believe it's problem growing is related.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Anderson Cooper, obviously. I'm worried about it. In a close, Kerry/Bush Gore/Bush type race it would easily determine the outcome. The electoral votes poached off the blue states would easily be worth a medium sized state or a small state or two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
greatn posted:I don't believe he means literally one person. The "face" of a movement just refers to the majority of the figures you see from that movement. I think his idea of the face being the upper middle class white man is out of date however. That would be true in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s, but recently the face has grown a lot. When people think of an example of a gay person there's a big chance the first person to come to mind will be Ellen, or Rachel Maddow, or George Takei. The face of the movement is a ton more diverse than it used to be, coinciding with its meteoric rise. (it still needs work, obviously) This is pretty much (though not exactly) what I mean - I'm not really thinking of specific figures and breakdowns, but of the general image of "gay person" in public discourse. People identify gay rights and gay people with gay white men of means. I would argue that this contributes to the acceptance of gay rights among SilentD's coked-up ubermenschen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I'm worried about it. In a close, Kerry/Bush Gore/Bush type race it would easily determine the outcome. The electoral votes poached off the blue states would easily be worth a medium sized state or a small state or two. If all states had allocated EC votes based on congressional districts, Romney would've won the EC vote in the past election. It's a pretty brazen attempt to gain as much power from House gerrymandering as possible and I'm glad it's getting lots of negative attention now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:If all states had allocated EC votes based on congressional districts, Romney would've won the EC vote in the past election. It's a pretty brazen attempt to gain as much power from House gerrymandering as possible and I'm glad it's getting lots of negative attention now. Actually, that article talks about if only 6 swing states had gone to by congressional district. Having all states do it would likely have ended up in an Obama win, due to things like breaking up Texas and other solidly red states that nevertheless have a lot of democrat voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Obama would have won because the campaign would have adapted to the different system of allocation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
If every state switched to awarding electoral votes by congressional district, Mitt Romney would have won 277 - 261.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If every state switched to awarding electoral votes by congressional district, Mitt Romney would have won 277 - 261. Assuming the vote totals were exactly the same, with no reallocation of resources and GOTV to reflect the new reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
watt par posted:Hopefully Carson's self-aware enough to savor his 15 minutes before he's relegated to the Black Tea Party Hero Graveyard alongside Allen West, Alan Keyes, Mia Love, and the Herminator. http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/26/dr-ben-carson -Sorry about the quotation marks all over, this dude's ridiculous and shilling books about how much of a superhero he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Actually, that article talks about if only 6 swing states had gone to by congressional district. Having all states do it would likely have ended up in an Obama win, due to things like breaking up Texas and other solidly red states that nevertheless have a lot of democrat voters. Whoops, thankfully, Joementum has my back. greatn posted:Assuming the vote totals were exactly the same, with no reallocation of resources and GOTV to reflect the new reality. While true, that's delving into a lot of hypotheticals, and those articles do a good job of illustrating the intent of the laws if not the outcome of an election run under them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If every state switched to awarding electoral votes by congressional district, Mitt Romney would have won 277 - 261. Ah, all the articles about this subject from just after it happened said the opposite, guess there's more accurate vote totals now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
While I hope that my state isn't stupid enough to pass the law, and I hope that Corbett knows we'd loving murder him in the election if he actually passed it... I can't actually see it coming out well for the Republicans. There are a lot of 60% republican districts here that, with an even marginal ground game, could go for a suitable Democratic president, and that could mean a lot of pick-ups in the House of Representatives. The 50 State Strategy is very effective, the problem is that a lot of short-term incentives push against it. Remake it into the 17 District Strategy, have the potential to win +5 EC votes, and have an organization that's half as talented as OFA? It wouldn't take much to flip most PA districts, if you've got the time, money, and manpower.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Warren presses Bernanke on 'Too Big To Fail': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYP4NVdWVPI I'm still not sure how I feel about her actions in these Senate hearings. Is it bark with no bite? Is it alienating her from getting involved in any worthwhile committees? Pythagoras a trois fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Feb 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Warren presses Bernanke on 'Too Big To Fail': I think she's effectively mobilising public oppinion against banks, while at the same time antagonizing entrenched interests that will hurt her personal prospects. Someone must really have moved heaven and earth to get her on the committee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Warren presses Bernanke on 'Too Big To Fail':
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I think she's effectively mobilising public oppinion against banks, while at the same time antagonizing entrenched interests that will hurt her personal prospects. Someone must really have moved heaven and earth to get her on the committee. Wasn't that Reid though? I mean as much poo poo as we all give him here (and really he deserves every pit of it) isn't he the one that assigns comity membership to democratic freshman senators since he's the highest ranking on in the senate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Wasn't that Reid though? I mean as much poo poo as we all give him here (and really he deserves every pit of it) isn't he the one that assigns comity membership to democratic freshman senators since he's the highest ranking on in the senate? I think Reid (and by extension the Democratic leadership) is willing to acknowledge that having a political superstar as a freshman senator is a rare thing, and you don't want to get in her way and hurt her chances of winning future elections. Warren is definitely a political superstar; at this point I'd say her meteoric rise to popularity is really only comparable to that of Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:I think Reid (and by extension the Democratic leadership) is willing to acknowledge that having a political superstar as a freshman senator is a rare thing, and you don't want to get in her way and hurt her chances of winning future elections. Warren is definitely a political superstar; at this point I'd say her meteoric rise to popularity is really only comparable to that of Obama. I really hope you don't mean this, because even as someone who support the poo poo out of her and what she stands for she is by no means a superstar politician like Obama is. For one thing, she actually kid of sucks when it comes to giving speeches (outside of the DNC one she gave they have all been flat and forced) and isn't a solid debater like Obama and most other politicians are which is why she had to run in one of the bluest states in the nation to become a senator. I mean yes she is one of only 100 senators and her being there is a huge win for progressives, but she got there by beating Scott "I only won the special election in the first place because my opponent insulted the Red Sox in MA" Brown. Honestly it probably has much, much more to do with the fact that Wall St. after the 08 election turned on Obama and the democrats big time by backing the poo poo out of the tea party in 2010 & 2012 to try and dismantle Dodd Frank and her being on the banking comity now is a giant middle finger from the democrats for that. I have no doubt in my mind that if they switch their support back to team D (and they are all starting to) she will be marginalized just enough to be the one that talks a lot of poo poo on the financial industry but won't be able to pass anything so they can feed at the sweet, sweet trough of Wall St. and it's money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Wasn't that Reid though? I mean as much poo poo as we all give him here (and really he deserves every pit of it) isn't he the one that assigns comity membership to democratic freshman senators since he's the highest ranking on in the senate? Committee membership is set by the Steering and Outreach Committee (Begich, Reid, shaheen, Durbin, menendez, Coons, Leahy, Harkin, Baucus, Levin, Boxer, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Gillibrand) and voted on by the caucus as a whole. There are rules as to assignments limiting the number of committees in each class a Senator can be assigned to, as well as some longstanding practices (e.g. avoiding two senators from the same state being on the same committee if possible). CRS has a report with some further details, google CRS senate committee assignment process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
On the other hand, I'm pretty certain the Speaker of the House has much more control over committee assignments and committee chairmanship in the US House. I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Senate started drifting more toward that model within the next 10-20 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 22:16
|
|
