2014 US Politics Thread

[Feoric]

This thread is an experiment of sorts. I'm sure you've all noticed a drop in activity in this forum (which was never really busy to begin with) as well as the recycling of some topics repeatedly covered extensively in the past. This is because there aren't a lot of big stories that are relevant to most users here occuring right now; we're in a dry spell. There's no big scandal, no election, no big event, etc. It's not hard to see why there isn't that much to talk about.

So, in an attempt to remedy this (and with the gracious approval of aviewaskewed) I've created this thread. Generally, this topic is a laid back catch-all for all things relating to US political topics that otherwise don't warrant their own specific thread. Did you read an editorial you agree/disagree with and want to discuss it? Post it here. See a headline about a politician doing/saying something stupid? Post it here. Did you hear any interesting rumors about the upcoming midterms? Post it here. Questions/comments about specific current party policies? Post them here. Etc.

Obviously not everything should go in here, nor should there not be any new topics made. Once we get closer to the midterms there should be a separate thread for that, as well as any other huge news item that deserves its own topic. Again, this is generally a thread for miscellaneous news items and other tidbits related to the US to carry us over to the midterm craziness so that we all don't go insane from boredom.

I'll start things off. A Tea Party challenger (Chris McDaniel) to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) has a friend who allegedly broke into a nursing home and snagged some pictures of Cochran's, wife who suffers from dementia, to use in an attack ad. The guy in question was arrested, but it isn't known if McDaniel is involved. (he probably is)

The NYT has published a (very early) projection as to who will win the Senate. They currently estimate that the Democrats have a slight edge, with a 55% chance of retaining.

Here's Jebus beginning his early pander to the Evangelical to his run in 2016. Jeb Bush is going to run for president. Just FYI.

"Dropping a possible hint about his thinking regarding a White House bid, Bush said “if you feel inspired to serve your fellow citizens, don’t let the ugliness of politics keep you from pursuing public office. There is always room for informed, engaged, passionate leaders at every level of government.”

People close to Bush have said his major concern about running is navigating today’s messy spectacle of Twitter wars and super PAC attacks. In January, Bush said, “The decision will be based on, ‘Can I do it joyfully?’ because I think we need to have a candidate to lift our spirits.”

But in a speech delivered to an audience full of evangelical Christians, it was the passages on faith that deviated most from Bush’s frequent talks to Republican and corporate audiences on education and immigration. The speech also comes as other potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) are visiting with pastors in key early primary states and planning speeches to religious groups."

Yada yada yada.

Fannie and Freddie are still fucking awful, as ever:

"When the GSEs were nationalized, shares of their stock plummeted precipitously in value for the very sensible reason that the shares no longer paid any dividends or conferred any control over the companies. As the stock became nearly worthless, it was delisted from stock exchanges. Nonetheless, it continued to trade "over the counter" as a penny stock. Buying a share of Fannie or Freddie was essentially taking a flier on the proposition that the government would, in the future and for no particular reason, start paying out dividends to whoever bought the worthless stock.

Eventually the situation attracted the attention of a handful of hedge funds who decided they might have the political muscle to make that dream a reality.

They scooped up a bunch of shares and now they — along with an assortment of mostly smaller banks that also held GSE shares — are trying to get the courts or Congress to give them the money. The idea is that rather than the profits flowing to the Treasury until Fannie and Freddie can eventually be replaced with a new system, the profits should stack up in Fannie and Freddie's accounts and then the GSEs should be "reprivatized" in the hands of the vulture investors who bought the shares."

Fuck these guys.

[Feoric]

At 5/19/14 07:34 AM, Light wrote: Ted Cruz seems to be outmaneuvering Rand Paul in getting the support he needs prior to officially declaring his presidential candidacy, if he will do that. Paul is trying to appeal to the more libertarian elements of the GOP, but the efficacy of this strategy seems limited, as marijuana legalization and limiting drone warfare aren't strongly supported in the Republican Party. Ted Cruz, ever the demagogue, is doing an excellent job appealing to the lowest common denominator in the Republican Party.

The dynamics that would be at play if these two men officially run for president would be fascinating—and hilarious—to watch. Ted Cruz has said some outlandish things and is an outlandish person, while Rand Paul foolishly expressed his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on some BS libertarian grounds—a position he changed on after realizing how politically toxic that would be to a prospective presidential candidate. I eagerly look forward to watching the 2016 Republican presidential debates. It'll make the circus that was the 2012 debates look tame by comparison.

Cruz has burnt so many bridges in Congress there's just no way he'll ever have establishment support, and that goes a long way as far as fundraising is concerned. He's a gigantic fucking asshole and also one of my favorite current politicians to watch. He's made a career out of being a troll, and he's damn good at it, too. Rand definitely has more crossover appeal than his insane father but you're right, gold and weed are only going to get you so far. 2012 was just a plain bizarre election cycle -- Cain, Paul, Gingrich (!!!), Perry....I dunno, I literally cannot comprehend a more ridiculous primary.

Speaking of professional trolling, America's favorite group of assholes have something to say:

"Ms. Psaki's and Mrs. Obama's naiveté--thinking that Vladimir Putin or Boko Haram terrorists will change their ways because of tweets--would provide ample fodder for their ridicule, were we so inclined," the NRA said. "But while we appreciate the value of maintaining a sense of humor in the face of things that are disagreeable, we do so only within reasonable limits. There is nothing funny in this instance."

The NRA said it would not "stake our personal safety on '#PleaseDontHurtMe' tweets."

"Instead, we will exercise our right to arms, by acquiring the best arms for defensive purposes and becoming proficient in their use," the NRA said. "And we will do everything possible in 2016 to help elect a president who understands the importance of maintaining strength, whether dealing with common criminals here at home, or with international criminals on the world stage."

That's odd, the last time the NRA saw blacks armed with rifles they supported gun control legislation. Moving on...

Another potential 2016 candidate is signaling a run:

'Former Virginia Sen. James H. Webb Jr. refused Monday to rule out a run for president, saying he is weighing his options.
“My wife and I are just thinking about what to do next. I care a lot about where the country is, and we will be sorting that out,” Mr. Webb, a Democrat, said during an appearance on the the Diane Rehm Show, on which he was promoting his new book “I Heard My Country Calling.” “It takes me a while to decide things. I am not going to say one way or the other.”

[...]

“When I left the Senate, I decided that I would stop all interviews, editorials, political events, everything for a year — just to kind of clear the air and get my independence back quite frankly,” Mr. Webb said. “I am very happy to now begin arguing, debating, more publicly some of my concerns on a lot of our issues.”'

I dunno. A one term senator with no accomplishments? Like that'll ever happen.

Oregon is the next state to have same-sex marriage bans rules as unconstitutional::

"As was widely expected, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane struck down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage on Monday, freeing up LGBT couples in the state to wed. The decision, issued without a stay, will go into effect today. Because Oregon's Attorney General has decided against defending the state's ban in court at all, the state will not appeal the decision. According to the AP, Oregon's largest county will begin issuing licenses immediately."

Welp, just more evidence that "traditional values" is no longer a winning platform. The Evangelical base will still probably double down on it, though.

[orangebomb]

At 5/19/14 04:39 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/19/14 07:34 AM, Light wrote: Ted Cruz seems to be outmaneuvering Rand Paul in getting the support he needs prior to officially declaring his presidential candidacy, if he will do that. Paul is trying to appeal to the more libertarian elements of the GOP, but the efficacy of this strategy seems limited, as marijuana legalization and limiting drone warfare aren't strongly supported in the Republican Party. Ted Cruz, ever the demagogue, is doing an excellent job appealing to the lowest common denominator in the Republican Party.

Something tells me that the Republican Party is in serious trouble when most of the candidates range from religious Neo-conservatives to deluded libertarians who are insane and are only supported by fringe groups. Of course, the Democrats are not much better, if worse even, but at the very least, their support base is much better than the Republicans have now. Get out the popcorn out folks, this is going to be a doozy in 2016, and as usual, Ohio will get the front row seat into that political shitstorm.

Oregon is the next state to have same-sex marriage bans rules as unconstitutional::

"As was widely expected, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane struck down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage on Monday, freeing up LGBT couples in the state to wed. The decision, issued without a stay, will go into effect today. Because Oregon's Attorney General has decided against defending the state's ban in court at all, the state will not appeal the decision. According to the AP, Oregon's largest county will begin issuing licenses immediately."

Huh, I'm honestly a bit surprised that one of the most liberal states had a gay marriage ban all this time, I would've thought that they would've reversed this ban a long time ago. It's great that they overturned and all, but a little surprising nonetheless considering where it's coming from.

Welp, just more evidence that "traditional values" is no longer a winning platform. The Evangelical base will still probably double down on it, though.

Expect them to be pretty isolated soon enough, as if they haven't scared off a lot of the moderates and liberals already. That doesn't mean that they won't have something to say when all is said and done with the elections, but I got to imagine that they are growing more and more isolated as a voting bloc, especially what happened with Dubya.

[Feoric]

At 5/19/14 08:38 PM, orangebomb wrote: Huh, I'm honestly a bit surprised that one of the most liberal states had a gay marriage ban all this time, I would've thought that they would've reversed this ban a long time ago. It's great that they overturned and all, but a little surprising nonetheless considering where it's coming from.

Eh, Oregon has a huge rural population which is generally conservative which voted overwhelmingly in favor of Ballot Measure 36 (same thing with California). It's worth mentioning that the Oregon GOP is much more progressive than, say, Tennessee's GOP, because it's politically viable due to Oregon's constituents. To see so many states have their same-sex marriage bans turned over by federal courts is the death throes of that sort of platform, which is a good thing -- Oregon and California are proof that liberal-leaning states are not immune to conservative initiatives.

Expect them to be pretty isolated soon enough, as if they haven't scared off a lot of the moderates and liberals already. That doesn't mean that they won't have something to say when all is said and done with the elections, but I got to imagine that they are growing more and more isolated as a voting bloc, especially what happened with Dubya.

They already are isolated, pretty much. Now that it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult to defend opposition to same sex marriage as more and more of the country make it legal, they don't have anywhere to turn to other than Evangelical candidates like Santorum and Huckabee since there really aren't any more policy goals to put on the ballot, who will become increasingly irrelevant as their base gradually dies off. Expect to see more "war on christmas" and/or "put christ back in the classroom" airplay since "homosex is gay and bad" isn't going to cut it anymore, which will definitely anger a lot of people.

[Feoric]

Here's a really good article on how the GOP are actively shitting on workers' rights while aggressively encouraging wage theft:

"In 2010, the Republicans won control of the executive and legislative branches in 11 states (there are now more than 20 such states). Inspired by business groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, they proceeded to rewrite the rules of work, passing legislation designed to enhance the position of employers at the expense of employees.

The University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer, who wrote an eye-opening report on this topic last October for the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, looked at dozens of bills affecting workers. The legislation involved unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, child labor, collective bargaining, sick days, even meal breaks. Despite frequent Republican claims to be defending local customs and individual liberty, Mr. Lafer found a “cookie-cutter” pattern to their legislation. Not only did it consistently favor employers over workers, it also tilted toward big government over local government. And it often abridged the economic rights of individuals.

Take the case of tipped workers and the minimum wage. In most states, tipped workers earn an hourly wage that is less than the federal minimum — the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers is $2.13 per hour — because they’re supposed to make up the rest in tips. (They often don’t; the poverty rate among waiters and waitresses is 250 percent higher than it is among the general work force.) But non-serving staff who don’t get tips must be paid the minimum wage.

Republican state legislators have devised a way around that. In 2011, lawmakers in Wyoming introduced a bill that would have allowed restaurants and other employers to force their serving staff to pool their tips; tips would be redistributed among the nonserving staff, who could then be paid the subminimum wage. That same year, Maine legislators passed a bill declaring that “service charges” were not tips at all. Because they aren’t tips, they don’t belong to the serving staff. Employers can pocket them — without informing customers — whether they redistribute them among the staff or keep them.

In both cases, conservative Republicans supported the right of employers to take money that workers had earned. This disregard for the earnings of workers is only an extreme manifestation of a more common phenomenon among Republican legislators: their indifference to the problem of wage theft.

Wage theft refers to the practice among employers of taking money from their employees by illegally paying them less than the minimum wage or not paying them overtime. According to one multicity study, in a single week, nearly two-thirds of low-wage workers had, on average, 15 percent of their pay stolen by their employers.

One of the causes of this epidemic of wage theft — which, according to Mr. Lafer’s E.P.I. report, involves sums “far greater than the combined total stolen in all the bank robberies, gas station robberies, and convenience store robberies in the country” — is lax enforcement of the country’s wage and hour laws. In 1941, there was one federal inspector for every 11,000 workers. As of 2008, there was one for every 141,000 workers. “The average employer has just a 0.001 percent chance of being investigated in a given year,” Mr. Lafer estimates. Because there is so little risk of getting caught, one-third of all employers who have been found guilty of violating wage and hour laws continue to do it.

In 2010, liberal legislators in Miami-Dade County decided to take matters into their own hands. They passed an anti-wage-theft ordinance, resulting in more than 600 prosecutions and $1.7 million recovered in stolen pay in the first year alone. Miami-Dade’s success inspired Broward and Palm Beach Counties to propose similar measures.

In response, Republican legislators in Tallahassee tried to pass a bill that would prohibit any “county, municipality, or political subdivision of the state” from enacting laws, rules, ordinances or regulations “for the purpose of addressing wage theft.” They failed, so they tried again. This time, the bill passed the Florida House, but failed in the Senate.

Where conservatives often style themselves as the champions of local control — Ronald Reagan called for a government with “as much law and decision-making authority as possible kept at the local level” — the Florida example suggests that they have no compunction about sacrificing that principle when it threatens business interests.

Over the last four decades, for example, low-wage workers have been hit hard by the declining value of the federal minimum wage. In the absence of federal action, states, cities and counties have increased the minimum wage or indexed it to inflation (or both) to ensure that it keep pace with rising costs.

Republican politicians in state capitals have tried to check them at every point. Florida, Indiana and Mississippi have banned local governments from increasing the minimum wage. In Nevada, Missouri and Arizona, state legislators tried to overturn constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives. In 2011, New Hampshire’s Republican legislature simply abolished the state’s minimum wage.

State legislators have also overridden local efforts to grant employees a right to paid sick days. Nearly 40 percent of private-sector workers have no such right. So Milwaukee and Orange County in Florida tried to establish one within their jurisdictions (as New York City did recently). In Wisconsin, state legislators overturned Milwaukee’s ordinance. In Florida, they simply prohibited any city or county from passing such an ordinance. Other states, including Louisiana and Mississippi, have done the same.

[...]

What might Adam Smith, often claimed as the intellectual godfather of the American right, have said about these legislative efforts? “Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen,” wrote Smith in “The Wealth of Nations,” “its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.”"

On top of that:

"Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group supported by the Koch brothers, has launched an effort to torpedo a proposed settlement in the Detroit bankruptcy case, potentially complicating
chances for completing the deal just as its prospects seemed to be improving.

The organization, formed to fight big government and spending, is contacting 90,000 conservatives in Michigan and encouraging them to rally against a plan to provide $195 million in state money to help settle Detroit pension holders' claims in the case, a key element of the deal.

[...]

Snyder, who took the lead in resolving Detroit's fiscal crisis by appointing an emergency manager for the city's operations, proposed the $195 million to match commitments from private foundations. The money would limit pension cuts for the approximately 30,000 retirees and city workers to no more than 4.5 percent and avert the need to liquidate the Detroit Institute of Art's collection to raise money. Snyder and city leaders say the museum is important to rebuilding Detroit as a world-class city."

The Koch brothers are the go-to boogymen for activist liberals but jesus, they really are comic book villians.

Also, there goes Pennsylvania.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/19/14 10:59 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/19/14 08:38 PM, orangebomb wrote: Huh, I'm honestly a bit surprised that one of the most liberal states had a gay marriage ban all this time, I would've thought that they would've reversed this ban a long time ago. It's great that they overturned and all, but a little surprising nonetheless considering where it's coming from.

Well, back in 2004 when the law was passed, it passed with the lowest margin of victory of any such law up to that date. Where other states were passing their bans by well over 60% of the vote, Oregon passed it by a little over 50%.

There was also some back story that affected the vote as well. There are three major portions of Oregon: Rural Oregon, The small cities and burbs, and Portland city proper. Needless to say, the first two do not like the last that much. It is not uncommon for the fairly liberal leaning suburbs to go conservative just to spite Portland. This was largely one of those cases. Just before the vote went up, Portland unilaterally declared gay marriages legal within the city. Many peopl ein the suburbs who were otherewise ambivalent on the issue took offense to Portland dicating their law and turned against gay marriage.

The reason Oregon took so long to overturn the ban is a bit more elusive. Many have said that Oregon jumped out so quickly in things such as domestic partnerships that it got a bit complacent and let the issue slip. Personally, I believe that Oregon was waiting for the moment where they could put it on the initiative and resoundingly vote the ban away. The initiative process had been completed and the measure would have been on an upcoming ballot had the decision not gone the way it did. Chances are it would have passed with flying colors.

Eh, Oregon has a huge rural population which is generally conservative which voted overwhelmingly in favor of Ballot Measure 36 (same thing with California).

Rural Oregon is quite conservative, but in terms of voting population, Multnomah County (Portland city, and a couple close suburbs) pretty much negates it. The real swing is the suburbs which are a dark bluish purple. Far more often than not they vote liberal, but occasionally they will vote conservative, especilly if they believe the Portland tail is waging the Oregon dog.

Furthermore, the density of liberalism in Portland leads to a great deal of oblivious group think. Those in the city often do not realize that those who would be allies in the suburbs are not as vehement as the city dwellers are on a multitude of issues. This is why Oregon didn't legalize pot with WA and CO. The measure was like a city dweller's pipe dream and the suburbanites, who are open to legalization but much less so than the city dwellers, said "woah, that's too much. I'm voting this down. Come back with a rational request." This such reaction is another reason I believe the gay marriage ban took so long to overturn. The movement would suffer a massive blow had they state voted and turned down a measure to undo the ban, so the supporters waited until the fickle suburban middle as on board enough to near guarantee a victory.

[Feoric]

At 5/20/14 04:55 AM, Light wrote: I suppose you'll still have those Rick Santorum types who won't give a shit and will boast of their bigotry anyway, but the more establishment-type Republicans will probably want to minimize attention to their opposition of gay marriage.

Santorum actually endorsed the federal judge that overturned Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban. Go figure.

Rand paul is also in the news - he's going to filibuster a Court of Appeals nominee in order to give a big boring speech about drones tomorrow:

"On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, will filibuster President Barack Obama's nomination of David Barron to fill a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Paul first threatened to filibuster Barron last week.
According to his office, Paul will take to the Senate floor Wednesday morning to begin an old-fashioned, talking filibuster of Barron's nomination. Paul opposes Barron because of his concerns about legal opinions Barron wrote in support of the use of drones against U.S. citizens.

[...]

The efforts will serve as a sequel to the historic, 13-hour filibuster Paul staged last March over the Obama administration's drone policy. In his earlier anti-drone filibuster, Paul opposed the nomination of John Brennan to become the director of the CIA.

This time, however, Paul's lengthy speech will almost assuredly just be for show. The Senate changed its rules on filibusters last year and nominees can now advance with a simple majority vote instead of crossing the previous 60-vote threshold. This means Democrats can move along Barron's nomination by themselves.

"Sen. Paul isn’t relevant here," a Senate Democratic leadership aide told Business Insider Friday. "Barron’s nomination will survive or fall based on whether the Senate Democrats support him or not.""

[Feoric]

The current big news item is about the VA:

"President Obama is “madder than hell” (!!!) about reports that some medical facilities run by the Department of Veterans Affairs have falsified data to hide substantial delays for veterans to see doctors, and he has demanded that the department’s leaders “fix these things,” the White House chief of staff said in an interview aired Sunday.

“The president is madder than hell, (oh no!) and I’ve got the scars to prove it, given the briefings that I’ve given the president” on the subject, the chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

He said that the White House had “deployed additional staff over to the Veterans administration to dig into this, to find out if this is a series of isolated cases or whether this is a systemic issue that we need to address with wholesale reform.” He also called attention to what he said had been substantial increases in resources devoted to veterans care under Mr. Obama.

Veterans groups have expressed mounting anger over reports that workers at some medical centers kept secret waiting lists to disguise what could be waits of months by veterans to see doctors. The department’s inspector general is working with federal prosecutors to ascertain whether criminal violations have occurred."

In all seriousness this is pretty shitty, so expect some heads to roll. Also expect noted shithead Darrel Issa to start a witch hunt, which may or may not involve the next president of the United States Hillary Clinton. (i'm joking about the last bit, but only half)

Oklahoma lost to radical Islamists, but fought bravely:

"The state of Oklahoma has been ordered to pay more than $300,000 to the plaintiffs who sued after the “Save Our State Amendment” banning Sharia law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010.

Defenders of the amendment claimed that it was intended to prevent Islamic Sharia law from being used in Oklahoma courtrooms. Muneer Awad, the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), claimed that a law specifically banning Sharia law would violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another.

He argued that the “Save Our State Amendment” would prevent his will from being probated because it contained references to Islam and Islamic law, and the courts agreed with him."

I feel incredibly sorry for everyone in Oklahoma, and the impending Sharia Law that will turn their kids into homosexual terrorists.

Speaking of turning innocent children into homosexuals:

"A Florida lawmaker who garnered controversy this week after ThinkProgress reported his claim that new educational standards are a secret plot to turn children gay is standing by his comments.

During an anti-Common Core conference in March, State Rep. Charles Van Zant argued that the group implementing Florida’s new education program are sectrely trying to “attract every one of your children to become as homosexual as they possibly can.” He told the crowd that he was “sorry to report that” information “but you need to know.”"

I apologize for linking ThinkProgress but you need to know. The country is doomed.

In national news, the House GOP crafted a budget for agriculture and food safety programs. It's great as long as you don't live in a community with more than a few thousand people:

"House Republicans proposed a $20.9 billion budget for agriculture and food safety programs Monday, an 82-page bill that challenges the White House on nutrition rules and denies major new funding sought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to better regulate the rich derivatives market.

[...]

And in a surprising twist, the bill language specifies that only rural areas are to benefit in the future from funding requested by the administration this year to continue a modest summer demonstration program to help children from low-income households — both urban and rural — during those months when school meals are not available.

Since 2010, the program has operated from an initial appropriation of $85 million, and the goal has been to test alternative approaches to distribute aid when schools are not in session. The White House asked for an additional $30 million to continue the effort, but the House bill provides $27 million for what’s described as an entirely new pilot program focused on rural areas only."

Hmmm...let's just move on. I'm getting really uncomfortable.

I'm extremely uncomfortable now:

"The earliest polling on the Donald Sterling incident reveals a large partisan divide in public support of the NBA’s forcing him to sell the team—the league’s harshest possible punishment. According to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, 68 percent of Democrats support a forced sale of the Los Angeles Clippers compared to just 26 percent of Republicans.

That wide partisan divide is not too surprising in light of other polls conducted this past year, which also suggested that Democrats and Republican have increasingly separate realities about race. The first figure below shows similarly sizable partisan differences in Americans’ reactions to Sterling’s punishment, the George Zimmerman verdict, and the Academy Award for ”12 Years a Slave” (hat tip to Jonathan Chait for the latter).

[...]

Party identification is not the only political attitude that has become more polarized by racial attitudes in the Obama era. Policy preferences, voting in congressional elections, and even impressions of Portuguese water dogs (the breed of the Obamas’ dogs) have all become more influenced by race-related considerations. The growing racialization of American politics means that Democrats and Republicans will increasingly view race-infused controversies like the Zimmerman trial, the Sterling incident, and the Cliven Bundy stand-off through very different lenses."

In economic news, the Fed is being dumb as expected:

""Participants generally agreed that starting to consider the options for normalization at this meeting was prudent, as it would help the committee to make decisions about approaches to policy normalization and to communicate its plans to the public well before the first steps in normalizing policy become appropriate," the minutes said."

It's time to start having serious discussions about rate hike procedures to combat the virtually non-existent inflation. Okay then. Well this is probably as good as it's going to get -- the fed would rather fight inflation before it appears despite the fact that we are still in a liquidity trap on top of having stagnant/falling wages for most Americans. For those who aren't versed in econ: if inflation were to be an actual concern, we would see rising wages -- the complete opposite of what we have today.

To end, what were you doing when you were 17?

"Saira Blair has been busy this week. She's president of the Key Club at Hedgesville High School in West Virginia, and she's been participating in a variety of activities as her class prepares to graduate next week.

Oh - and on Tuesday, she won a primary election for the state House."

[wildfire4461]

Nice to see a POW back home, but doing it just might have ended Obama's career:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/taliban-prisoner-swap-result-obamas-impeachment/

[Feoric]

At 6/3/14 07:32 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Nice to see a POW back home, but doing it just might have ended Obama's career:

I hope so. I'd love to have Joe Biden as my president. Apparently that's what the GOP wants as well.

[MOSFET]

At 6/3/14 07:32 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: Nice to see a POW back home, but doing it just might have ended Obama's career:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/taliban-prisoner-swap-result-obamas-impeachment/

Andrew McCarthy making noise again. I doubt House GOP have the balls to impeach the president. All it will do is bring attention to their asshattery and cause Obama's favorability rating to shoot up.

[Warforger]

At 6/3/14 10:57 AM, MOSFET wrote: Andrew McCarthy making noise again. I doubt House GOP have the balls to impeach the president. All it will do is bring attention to their asshattery and cause Obama's favorability rating to shoot up.

Nah they've been going at it for awhile. I mean it's not like they know what they're doing, they shutdown the government for nothing.

[Feoric]

At 6/3/14 02:38 PM, Warforger wrote: Nah they've been going at it for awhile. I mean it's not like they know what they're doing, they shutdown the government for nothing.

It's not that they shut it down for nothing, it's just that they just lost their gamble. Which, incidentally, is also what happened with Clinton back in '98. I expect a similar outcome if they grow enough balls to try it out with Obama. They'd have to have a supermajority to have the bare minimum required for a conviction, assuming they wouldn't be filing the impeachment proceedings just for show.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/3/14 02:48 PM, Feoric wrote: They'd have to have a supermajority to have the bare minimum required for a conviction, assuming they wouldn't be filing the impeachment proceedings just for show.

I see this as more something that will be used during the primaries to try and swipe seats on the grounds that Obama is soft on terror, and therefore so is his party. Possible they may even try to run on the idea of America needing to give them that supermajority so they can then file and get the conviction. That scenario seems unlikely to me though since you're making a promise that may be impossible to keep since you're not only promising to initiate proceedings, but you're also promising an outcome. You don't get either of those things going your way, you can be very very damaged the next time the mid terms come around.

[Feoric]

At 6/3/14 08:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I see this as more something that will be used during the primaries to try and swipe seats on the grounds that Obama is soft on terror, and therefore so is his party. Possible they may even try to run on the idea of America needing to give them that supermajority so they can then file and get the conviction. That scenario seems unlikely to me though since you're making a promise that may be impossible to keep since you're not only promising to initiate proceedings, but you're also promising an outcome. You don't get either of those things going your way, you can be very very damaged the next time the mid terms come around.

Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed during the impeachment proceedings, while the GOP's support plummeted. Now, I'm not saying the Republican establishment are all rational actors, but I'd like to think they're not stupid enough to do this before the midterm elections are over. If they capture the Senate, which is very possible at the moment, then I'd take talk of impeachment more seriously. I think the "i-word" is just red meat to throw at the rabid base, but I probably would have said the same thing in 1998, so who knows. Obviously the circumstances and details are different but the larger point remains: anything is possible when people in power have their heads up their own asses for too long.

[Ranger2]

At 6/3/14 09:36 PM, Feoric wrote: Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed during the impeachment proceedings, while the GOP's support plummeted. Now, I'm not saying the Republican establishment are all rational actors, but I'd like to think they're not stupid enough to do this before the midterm elections are over. If they capture the Senate, which is very possible at the moment, then I'd take talk of impeachment more seriously.

I'd like to think that the GOP is slowly learning from its mistakes. I think the last government shutdown finally made more rational, establishment GOP turn against the Tea Party and now there's fighting between the two. Plus with the last two shutdowns that the public blamed the Republicans for, I think they're not so crazy as to talk about impeachment. I really think in the next few years we will see a GOP that is learning from its mistakes, otherwise by 2020 there will be barely anything left of the party.

[wildfire4461]

Oh that's nice. There's a chance now the "POW" actually declared himself a mujahid while he was being held.
If that's the case Obama pretty much aided the enemy.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/5/14 07:27 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Oh that's nice. There's a chance now the "POW" actually declared himself a mujahid while he was being held.
If that's the case Obama pretty much aided the enemy.

5 years. F-I-V-E FIVE. Even the hardest of personalities would be facing some Stockholm by that point. Maybe he thought he never would be rescued and did his best to fit in in order to survive.

Don't be so quick to judge.

[Feoric]

Even if he shot 10 soldiers in the head execution style I would still think it would be a non controversial opinion to hold that he should be brought back to the US to face his crimes.

But Obama did A Thing, so pee pee doo doo.

[wildfire4461]

Imagine that.
Liberals want this term banned, saying it's similar to the N word:
http://universalfreepress.com/liberals-calling-for-an-end-to-this-term-saying-its-the-same-as-ngger/

The PC police must die.

[Warforger]

At 7/7/14 06:46 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Imagine that.
Liberals want this term banned, saying it's similar to the N word:
http://universalfreepress.com/liberals-calling-for-an-end-to-this-term-saying-its-the-same-as-ngger/

Yes one woman represents all Liberals. I for on don't agree with her, the word "aliens" though is derogatory in my opinion but it hasn't been used that much.

The PC police must die.

Yes, continue with death threats, it makes Conservatism look so good.

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/7/14 06:46 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Imagine that.
Liberals want this term banned, saying it's similar to the N word:
http://universalfreepress.com/liberals-calling-for-an-end-to-this-term-saying-its-the-same-as-ngger/

I think it's fair to say using "illegal(s)" is a derogatory term. The same as the n-bomb or faggot? No, no, I will not go that far. But just saying "illegal(s)" with no other qualifier should be more frowned on and politicians should stop. If they're saying "illegal immigrants" however, I don't see the offense in that, that is a perfectly acceptable wording for what these folks are. They have immigrated into the country, they have not been naturalized, they do not have work visas, they have no standing, thus their immigration is illegal.