There Goes America
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Obama’s 'best week' leaves Republicans feeling grumpy, wary - CSMonitor.comm.csmonitor.com
Politicians and pundits talk a lot about “bipartisanship” and the need for “compromise.” But in many ways it’s a zero-sum business.
You win an election or you lose it. Your bill advances or it falters, perhaps ground up unrecognizably in the legislative sausage-maker. The Supreme Court agrees with your position or it doesn’t.
President Obama had a very good week last week. The Supreme Court (most of whose members had been appointed by Republican presidents) sided with him in two highly important cases: the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. And as consoler-in-chief following the massacre of nine black men and women at a church in South Carolina, he gave what is likely to be seen as the best speech of his presidency, widely lauded and endless replayed on YouTube.
Republicans still control the US House and Senate, and their growing list of 2016 presidential candidates surely includes credible, strong, accomplished individuals. But in some ways they’re scrambling to accommodate – if not keep up with – important trends and changes in the country. And it’s not just gay marriage, which most younger Republicans have no problem with despite what their party elders say.
“Many standard-issue Republican positions, though they remain regional political assets in the South and parts of the Midwest, are underwater,” write Glenn Thrush and Kyle Cheney at Politico. “The GOP’s blanket opposition to minimum-wage hikes, a more open immigration policy, and background checks on guns and lockstep support for tough anti-abortion laws and tax breaks for the wealthy all poll relatively poorly.”
But there’s another line of thinking that sees opportunity here for Republicans – for example, that the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, in all its apparent finality, allows them to get beyond a very divisive issue.
“As important as some of these issues may be to the most conservative elements of the party’s base and in the primaries ahead, few Republican leaders want to contest the 2016 elections on social or cultural grounds, where polls suggest that they are sharply out of step with the American public,” writes Jonathan Martin in The New York Times.
“Every once in a while, we bring down the curtain on the politics of a prior era,” conservative writer David Frum told The Times. “The stage is now cleared for the next generation of issues. And Republicans can say, ‘Whether you’re gay, black or a recent migrant to our country, we are going to welcome you as a fully cherished member of our coalition.’ ”
Is that an accurate prediction, or perhaps just wishful thinking?
Responding to the high court’s gay-marriage decision, the most mainstream among GOP presidential candidates – former Florida governor Jeb Bush – said, “Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage.” (Mr. Bush is Roman Catholic.)
But he also said: “I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.”
Not all Republicans running for president are taking such a live-and-let-live position, and at least one predicts an intraparty fight.
Speaking to supporters in Iowa Saturday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas charged that his own party’s leaders want to divide conservative candidates (like himself) so that a centrist (like Bush) gets nominated – which, he went on, would only mean defeat at the hands of Hillary Clinton.
"The last thing the Republican leaders in Washington want to see is millions of Americans across the country mobilizing and coalescing around one strong conservative candidate," Sen. Cruz said.
Cruz also proposes that Supreme Court justices, who are appointed for life, should have to face “periodic judicial-retention elections,” which would require an amendment to the United States Constitution.
He accuses the court of “a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great.”
“During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product [health care insurance], and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court [marriage],” he wrote in the National Review.
Among fellow conservatives in Iowa, perhaps, such fighting words may play well. But among most Republican and Independent voters in the general election, that’s likely to be a nonstarter. So too is another proposal being voiced: that the US Constitution be amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a declared candidate in the 2016 presidential election, said there is no chance that such a constitutional amendment could get the required two-thirds votes in the House and Senate and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Leaving that in the GOP platform, he said, “will hurt us in 2016 because it’s a process that’s not going to bear fruit.”
Obama’s 'best week' leaves Republicans feeling grumpy, wary - CSMonitor.com
Politicians and pundits talk a lot about “bipartisanship” and the need for “compromise.” But in many ways it’s a zero-sum business.
You win an election or you lose it. Your bill advances or it falters, perhaps ground up unrecognizably in the legislative sausage-maker. The Supreme Court agrees with your position or it doesn’t.
President Obama had a very good week last week. The Supreme Court (most of whose members had been appointed by Republican presidents) sided with him in two highly important cases: the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. And as consoler-in-chief following the massacre of nine black men and women at a church in South Carolina, he gave what is likely to be seen as the best speech of his presidency, widely lauded and endless replayed on YouTube.
Republicans still control the US House and Senate, and their growing list of 2016 presidential candidates surely includes credible, strong, accomplished individuals. But in some ways they’re scrambling to accommodate – if not keep up with – important trends and changes in the country. And it’s not just gay marriage, which most younger Republicans have no problem with despite what their party elders say.
“Many standard-issue Republican positions, though they remain regional political assets in the South and parts of the Midwest, are underwater,” write Glenn Thrush and Kyle Cheney at Politico. “The GOP’s blanket opposition to minimum-wage hikes, a more open immigration policy, and background checks on guns and lockstep support for tough anti-abortion laws and tax breaks for the wealthy all poll relatively poorly.”
But there’s another line of thinking that sees opportunity here for Republicans – for example, that the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, in all its apparent finality, allows them to get beyond a very divisive issue.
“As important as some of these issues may be to the most conservative elements of the party’s base and in the primaries ahead, few Republican leaders want to contest the 2016 elections on social or cultural grounds, where polls suggest that they are sharply out of step with the American public,” writes Jonathan Martin in The New York Times.
“Every once in a while, we bring down the curtain on the politics of a prior era,” conservative writer David Frum told The Times. “The stage is now cleared for the next generation of issues. And Republicans can say, ‘Whether you’re gay, black or a recent migrant to our country, we are going to welcome you as a fully cherished member of our coalition.’ ”
Is that an accurate prediction, or perhaps just wishful thinking?
Responding to the high court’s gay-marriage decision, the most mainstream among GOP presidential candidates – former Florida governor Jeb Bush – said, “Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage.” (Mr. Bush is Roman Catholic.)
But he also said: “I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.”
Not all Republicans running for president are taking such a live-and-let-live position, and at least one predicts an intraparty fight.
Speaking to supporters in Iowa Saturday, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas charged that his own party’s leaders want to divide conservative candidates (like himself) so that a centrist (like Bush) gets nominated – which, he went on, would only mean defeat at the hands of Hillary Clinton.
"The last thing the Republican leaders in Washington want to see is millions of Americans across the country mobilizing and coalescing around one strong conservative candidate," Sen. Cruz said.
Cruz also proposes that Supreme Court justices, who are appointed for life, should have to face “periodic judicial-retention elections,” which would require an amendment to the United States Constitution.
He accuses the court of “a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great.”
“During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product [health care insurance], and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court [marriage],” he wrote in the National Review.
Among fellow conservatives in Iowa, perhaps, such fighting words may play well. But among most Republican and Independent voters in the general election, that’s likely to be a nonstarter. So too is another proposal being voiced: that the US Constitution be amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a declared candidate in the 2016 presidential election, said there is no chance that such a constitutional amendment could get the required two-thirds votes in the House and Senate and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Leaving that in the GOP platform, he said, “will hurt us in 2016 because it’s a process that’s not going to bear fruit.”
Obama’s 'best week' leaves Republicans feeling grumpy, wary - CSMonitor.com
At this point all I know is, he's salty as hell for some reason.
In fact he's gotten so salty he can't even write posts any more. Just cut-n-paste, memes, smashing out blurbs of grunts and clicks on his keyboard.
No idea what's got his panties in a bunch.
Just enjoying the celebration.
You guys are the ones that keep poopooing the thread.
[VIDEO] Watch NYC Gay Pride Parade Online 2015 — Live Stream The March - Hollywood Life
You guys are the ones that keep poopooing the thread.
[VIDEO] Watch NYC Gay Pride Parade Online 2015 — Live Stream The March - Hollywood Life
That doesn't bolster your claims. But it does show your saltiness.
Why are you so salty?
Lindsey Graham: GOP Should Change Its Position on Gay Marriage
jezebel.com
Lindsey Graham: GOP Should Change Its Position on Gay Marriage
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said this morning that he believes that the Republican Party should change its official position on gay marriage. The current GOP platform affirms the party’s support for a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” But Graham is a compassionate guy, and he realizes that that position might “hurt” the Republican party—optics are clearly what’s most important here.
Graham said on Meet the Press:
“What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith. So no I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court’s ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American.”
Graham’s commitment to nebulous “religious liberties” echoes Jeb Bush’s statements on SCOTUS’s recent decision, a talking point that seems to have quickly cohered as the serious GOP position. How exactly the court’s decision infringes on religious liberty isn’t quite clear, but conspiratorial stories of Christian persecution wrought by gay marriage are sure to unfold throughout the Republican primary.
Advertisement
Image via Getty.
Lindsey Graham: GOP Should Change Its Position on Gay Marriage
jezebel.com
Lindsey Graham: GOP Should Change Its Position on Gay Marriage
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said this morning that he believes that the Republican Party should change its official position on gay marriage. The current GOP platform affirms the party’s support for a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” But Graham is a compassionate guy, and he realizes that that position might “hurt” the Republican party—optics are clearly what’s most important here.
Graham said on Meet the Press:
“What I want to do is protect the religious liberties of those who believe that opposing same sex marriage as part of their faith. So no I would not engage in the Constitutional amendment process as a party going into 2016. Accept the Court’s ruling. Fight for the religious liberties of every American.”
Graham’s commitment to nebulous “religious liberties” echoes Jeb Bush’s statements on SCOTUS’s recent decision, a talking point that seems to have quickly cohered as the serious GOP position. How exactly the court’s decision infringes on religious liberty isn’t quite clear, but conspiratorial stories of Christian persecution wrought by gay marriage are sure to unfold throughout the Republican primary.
Advertisement
Image via Getty.
Lindsey Graham: GOP Should Change Its Position on Gay Marriage
May the saltiness be with you!!!
AnalFloss if you're going to spam this thread with your gayness.. and least stand behind your convictions and change your avatar to something, I dunno, maybe pro-Gay??
May the saltiness be with you!!!
Well, no, for the first time it actually isn't saltiness from a Republican.
He actually recognizes that socially-backward conservatives are on the decline.
Yes they are.. human rights over religious rights.. what a breakthrough.. and I'm happy that humanity is moving forward on this issue.. to bad Russia, Iran and Islamic countries don't see it the same way.
Maybe you should move to Iran and protest.. you can lead the march like Selma.
But please quit spamming news articles, that are friggin twenty pages long and you cram it into your post. One after another..
Last edited:
This Photographer Had The Best Response After Losing A Client For His Support Of Gay Marriage - BuzzFeed News
www.buzzfeed.com
Wow, I’m not really sure what to say here. I would say this disappoints me, but I actually find this to be a good thing because our company now would now not like to work with you as well.
It’s not that because you have a different view from us, but it’s because, since you don’t like an support gay marriage, no one else should be able to have it. That’s like me not liking broccoli, and demanding that everyone else in the world should not have broccoli either! If you’re not in favor of gay marriage that’s fine, don’t marry a woman.
Personally, I was taught not to judge others and to love everyone else. So I will try not to judge you here and say anything more as to my opinion of you.
At Brentwood Photography we see love in all forms. Now as far as your retainer goes, I hope you’ll read the first article in the contract you signed stating that this retainer is nonrefundable.
But don’t you worry, I’m not going to keep it!
Because of this conversation, I have decided to donate your $1500 to GLAD [sic] [the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation], a group created to help and support gay rights.
So let me be the first to say [redacted], thank you very much for your donation and support for this great cause!
I couldn’t have done it without your money.
Sincerely and with Love,
Brentwood Photography
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemc...est-response-after-losing-a-clien#.qkGjD9XM61
www.buzzfeed.com
Wow, I’m not really sure what to say here. I would say this disappoints me, but I actually find this to be a good thing because our company now would now not like to work with you as well.
It’s not that because you have a different view from us, but it’s because, since you don’t like an support gay marriage, no one else should be able to have it. That’s like me not liking broccoli, and demanding that everyone else in the world should not have broccoli either! If you’re not in favor of gay marriage that’s fine, don’t marry a woman.
Personally, I was taught not to judge others and to love everyone else. So I will try not to judge you here and say anything more as to my opinion of you.
At Brentwood Photography we see love in all forms. Now as far as your retainer goes, I hope you’ll read the first article in the contract you signed stating that this retainer is nonrefundable.
But don’t you worry, I’m not going to keep it!
Because of this conversation, I have decided to donate your $1500 to GLAD [sic] [the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation], a group created to help and support gay rights.
So let me be the first to say [redacted], thank you very much for your donation and support for this great cause!
I couldn’t have done it without your money.
Sincerely and with Love,
Brentwood Photography
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemc...est-response-after-losing-a-clien#.qkGjD9XM61
BOOMer, I don't think he's gay, nor do I believe he actually really likes gay people.
As recently as about a week ago, he was weaponizing homosexuality to attack other members.
You just don't do that if you actually respect homosexuals and believe there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
As recently as about a week ago, he was weaponizing homosexuality to attack other members.
You just don't do that if you actually respect homosexuals and believe there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Huckabee, as governor of Arkansas, has a model to follow for disobeying the Supreme Court, Orville Faubus. And Obama has a model for his response, Eisenhower.