2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

"port" land innit

right. but you might also think they would listen to the unions opposed to this thing

just angers me so much that Feinstein's "liberal" credentials are on two issues (abortion and gun control) on which she's been largely ineffectual or irrelevant - and on p much every other issue she might as well be a party-line Republican.

she likes gays too

it's illegal not to in San Francisco, right?

I just feel like she rode Harvey Milk's corpse all the way to the bank

remind me which awesome pro-LGBT legislation passed the Senate I'm kinda blanking on anything

thanks for the image

Cruz surrogate Chumley (!) weighs in:

Another of Cruz's campaign co-chairs in the Palmetto State, state Rep. Bill Chumley (R), voted against opening debate on the flag. Chumley also told CNN on Tuesday night that he believed it more urgent to debate the fact that no one present at the massacre of nine black Charleston churchgoers was armed.

"We need to be focusing on the nine families that are left and see that this doesn’t happen again," Chumley said in the CNN interview. "These people sat in there, and waited their turn to be shot. That’s sad. But somebody in there with the means of self defense could have stopped this. And we’d have had less funerals than we’re having."

oops wrong thread

x-post to

right. but you might also think they would listen to the unions opposed to this thing

― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Nike is in Oregon and they don't care about unions

but i thought CA and WA were big union states, esp. in re. ports

there's def huge unions in the ports of Oakland and LA

WA also has Boeing for unions but I imagine the tech bros outspend them for influence now.

Nike is in Oregon and they don't care about unions

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, June 24, 2015 6:25 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Obama gave his big TPP pitch **at a Nike factory**, just to really hit us over the head with the symbolism

I've voted wyden for senate three times since I was 20, iirc. He's lost my vote and I'll volunteer for whoever primaries him. I hope it's Steve Novick.

guys its called the trans pacific partnership. california is on the pacific coast. do u see.

im sure theres a shitton of kickbacks and goodies in there for west coast corps that their senators would love to deliver

Supreme Court thread has discussion of 6 to 3 decision saving exchanges on health care/Obamacare.

Roberts and Kennedy's motives for voting with liberal justices might have been different, but I will take it

I wonder if any red states refusing Medicaid expansion were waiting for King and will now capitulate.

no they are making a flag to symbolize grievance for the next 150 yrs.

Who's surprised?

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/texas-gov-greg-abbott-picks-homeschooler-to-chair-state-board-of-education/

A Texas watchdog group expressed concerned this week after Gov. Greg Abbott named a new chairperson to the State Board of Education who has never sent her own children to a public school. Last week, Abbott announced that he was appointing Houston Republican Donna Bahorich, a former communications director for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, to chair the Board of Education.

So is she going to do all her work at home or what

i see from FB liberals are back in unconditional love with Obama.

I see you're out of Bellevue.

What I hated this week was packaging fast track approval as a victory because it got done.

The White House still has to release the final trade texts for 60 days before Congress votes to ratify the agreements. I am guessing despite how ugly the thing will look, the votes won't change, and the mainstream media take on it won't either.

Yeah, listing fast-track as amongst the victories for Obama this week kinda mars what was otherwise close to historic combination of achievements. Not for Obama, per se, not due to him, but still.

does anyone remember that O didn't come out for marriage til when, '13?

iirc it was 2012, election year
a few days earlier biden publicly stated he was comfortable with gay marriage
which made things kinda awkward for obama
also some wealthy gay donors threatened to withhold support
nevertheless imo better to judge politicians on their actions rather than purity of their motives
the latter is utterly futile standard in politics

if you judge them only on the purity of the motives on this subject, you have to rate Gavin Newsom really high, but I wouldn't rank him high on anything else.

his hair

does anyone remember that O didn't come out for marriage til when, '13?

― the increasing costive borborygmi (Dr Morbius),

he fully supported it as a state senator

Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

not bad at it now

“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,”

i disagree

anyway, i’m critical of obama re many things but give him some credit for (belatedly) stating pro-ssm position as potus; even though actually the credit may be due to biden

it must be remembered that our elected leaders almost never lead us, but follow public opinion and keep their private opinions out of sight. it is up to activists to change public opinions and this is a full time job that is difficult to do in elective office. there are exceptions, of course, but this is the rule.

I think it's more of a push-pull relationship. If a political leader wants to work toward some potentially controversial goal, they need sufficient political push from below -- which means that they'll never be far enough in front from the activist POV -- but then once pushed they can amplify the grassroots effort significantly, helping to sway people on the fence (or people who just aren't paying attention). And in the amplification, the core message often gets diluted a bit, the goals compromised to some degree, which frustrates activists even more. And the political leaders, who are in a tougher position than the activists appreciate, get frustrated by the activists in turn. But they both need each other.

^ I think you've described the relationship to a tee, especially given the opening "if a political leader wants to work toward some potentially controversial goal". Pols who aren't time servers usually do want to accomplish some potentially controversial goal, but it isn't universal.

pretty sweet to see NYC's towers lit up neon rainbow the same week the SCOTUS slapped down the health care typo challenge and the confederate flag came down in some places. there was a line around the stonewall blocks long. barry's "amazing grace" was a little tremulous and pitchy though

and although I kind of dismissed newsom above, this is a pretty good interview of his motivations on this in 2004 and the fall out: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/san-francisco-mayor-gavin-newsom-supreme-court-ruling-same-sex-marriage

Newsom helped hand the election to bush for his own political gain so fuck him

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

- FDR

^a snopesy never-said-it, right?

pols are the enemy, especially the ones you vote for.

It's apocryphal because it's true -- that was his attitude. He would maneuver people into forcing him into doing what he always wanted, lament to the press what Congress was forcing him to, and eagerly signing the legislation.

*sign

"it's apocryphal because its true" is pretty good

CNN and other tv news seem more interested in the capture of those 2 escaped prisoners in NY than in Supreme Court rulings,killings in Tunisia, Kuwait, Somalia and France; or funerals and pole climbing in Charleston. Nothing new about this approach but still annoying

geez, how about TPP while we're at it? Or the Greek financial crisis?

what the hammer? what the chain?