Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

GOP madness Unbound...


mr6666
 Share

Recommended Posts

A group of Republicans from the Northwest corner of S.C. (Trump country) have introduced legislation in S.C. House requiring that the state not recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman.

This is the second year of a two year session, so unlikely it will even make it out of the House.  If it does, most likely will never make it to floor in the Senate.  If not approved this year, it dies entirely.  However, it does pander to the Trump/GOP base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheCid said:

A group of Republicans from the Northwest corner of S.C. (Trump country) have introduced legislation in S.C. House requiring that the state not recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman.

This is the second year of a two year session, so unlikely it will even make it out of the House.  If it does, most likely will never make it to floor in the Senate.  If not approved this year, it dies entirely.  However, it does pander to the Trump/GOP base.

I assume these politicians know that such a bill is unconstitutional and are doing this just to pander to the base.   We see this a lot in CA with pandering to the left fringe instead of the right.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I assume these politicians know that such a bill is unconstitutional and are doing this just to pander to the base.   We see this a lot in CA with pandering to the left fringe instead of the right.    

I would assume you are correct.  Not sure if same ones, but from same area of state where the legislators voted to NOT take down the Confederate flag.  There are many such bills introduced in all legislatures and even Congress that are meant solely to pander to a group or gin up contributions or votes.  Most never even get reported in the newspapers or on media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I would assume you are correct.  Not sure if same ones, but from same area of state where the legislators voted to NOT take down the Confederate flag.  There are many such bills introduced in all legislatures and even Congress that are meant solely to pander to a group or gin up contributions or votes.  Most never even get reported in the newspapers or on media.

Related back to that proposed law on SSM in SC:    Is the business community objecting to such a stance?   I know that in North Carolina ,  it was the business community that helped to 'kill' such bills due to boycotts from the NCAA and NBA etc....   

OR is the business community in SC 'weak' as it relates to their power to influence conservative SC politicians?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Related back to that proposed law on SSM in SC:    Is the business community objecting to such a stance?   I know that in North Carolina ,  it was the business community that helped to 'kill' such bills due to boycotts from the NCAA and NBA etc....   

OR is the business community in SC 'weak' as it relates to their power to influence conservative SC politicians?  

Business community in S.C. is probably not as strong as one in NC.  Of course, you have to define "business community."  Local home town merchants vs. BMW vs. tourism on the coast.  They have more influence (and interest) in economic issues as they directly relate to them.  They were very supportive of raising the fuel tax though.

I don't think at this point that anyone is interested other than the "base" and LGBT groups.  Will probably not go anywhere, whereas NC bathroom bill was a passed law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Business community in S.C. is probably not as strong as one in NC.  Of course, you have to define "business community."  Local home town merchants vs. BMW vs. tourism on the coast.  They have more influence (and interest) in economic issues as they directly relate to them.  They were very supportive of raising the fuel tax though.

I don't think at this point that anyone is interested other than the "base" and LGBT groups.  Will probably not go anywhere, whereas NC bathroom bill was a passed law.

I was referring to SC businesses that would be impacted from a boycott like hotels and restaurants (or say the SC Restaurant association) in high traffic tourist areas like the coast.   Also,  if there are any corporate headquarters in the state (e.g. like Coke in Atlanta Georgia,  that put a lot of pressure on GA politicians to not support such anti-gay laws) that would speak out (even if they are NOT in that Northwest corner of the state).  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I was referring to SC businesses that would be impacted from a boycott like hotels and restaurants (or say the SC Restaurant association) in high traffic tourist areas like the coast.   Also,  if there are any corporate headquarters in the state (e.g. like Coke in Atlanta Georgia,  that put a lot of pressure on GA politicians to not support such anti-gay laws) that would speak out (even if they are NOT in that Northwest corner of the state).  

 

 

Largest corporate HQ I know of is Michellin.  BMW's only US factory is in SC, but national HQ is still somewhere else.  However, most of the corporations in S.C. maintain a pretty low profile when it comes to politics.  They know the politicians who keep providing their "incentives" are the same ones who keep pushing these type bills.

For reference, up until a few years ago, S.C was under a boycott for many years by NAACP and other African-American organizations over the Confederate flag.  Had zero impact economically on the state.  Think a couple of ball game tournaments may have not been played here, but nobody really cared.

The issue probably will die a natural death as the politicians from the rest of the state are highly unlikely to support it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheCid said:

The issue probably will die a natural death as the politicians from the rest of the state are highly unlikely to support it. 

Sorry to ask so many questions,  but I wonder why 'the rest of the state are highly unlikely to support it'.   

In other southern states,  my guess is that most politicians still supported 'sticking it to gays' because their religion calls for it but did NOT because it was going to hurt the state too much economically.    This was clearly the case with Brewer in Arizona,  a western state,  especially once the NFL said NO Super Bowls or even threaten to force the team to relocate.   

Therefore I wonder why a majority of SC politicians now don't support anti-gay laws;  did they really have a change of heart,   they believe the voters in their district had a change of heart,  or they are still basically anti-gay but just don't wish to take the risk of pushing for anti-gay laws due to the overall national sentiments.    Of course I don't expect you to answer my questions since one would have to be a mind reader.   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Sorry to ask so many questions,  but I wonder why 'the rest of the state are highly unlikely to support it'.   

In other southern states,  my guess is that most politicians still supported 'sticking it to gays' because their religion calls for it but did NOT because it was going to hurt the state too much economically.    This was clearly the case with Brewer in Arizona,  a western state,  especially once the NFL said NO Super Bowls or even threaten to force the team to relocate.   

Therefore I wonder why a majority of SC politicians now don't support anti-gay laws;  did they really have a change of heart,   they believe the voters in their district had a change of heart,  or they are still basically anti-gay but just don't wish to take the risk of pushing for anti-gay laws due to the overall national sentiments.    Of course I don't expect you to answer my questions since one would have to be a mind reader.   :D

The rest are unlikely to support it as it would serve no real purpose.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled and state would have to go to court and hope to get new court to reverse previous decision.  They are still anti-gay, black, Hispanic, Muslim and probably female.  Just not worth trying to do it.  Much less the negative publicity for them.

Sort of like, voting to restore the Confederate flag.  When it came down, the legislature promised 2+ million dollars for a suitable memorial place for the one that came down.  Now they have authorized $38,000 to renovate the museum it is stored in for a suitable "memorial."  Nobody in legislature is raising a fuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheCid said:

The rest are unlikely to support it as it would serve no real purpose.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled and state would have to go to court and hope to get new court to reverse previous decision.  They are still anti-gay, black, Hispanic, Muslim and probably female.  Just not worth trying to do it.  Much less the negative publicity for them.

Sort of like, voting to restore the Confederate flag.  When it came down, the legislature promised 2+ million dollars for a suitable memorial place for the one that came down.  Now they have authorized $38,000 to renovate the museum it is stored in for a suitable "memorial."  Nobody in legislature is raising a fuss.

What I hear you saying is that they are practical and to me that is always a welcome trait in a politician.   Thanks for the info.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The S.C. Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to the entire Senate.  Passed on party line vote with GOPers in majority.  It states that life begins at conception; so called personhood doctrine.  Would not prohibit contraception or in-vitro fertilization.  However, no exclusion for rape or incest.  Ironically, the bill has been floating around for a couple of years and still does not mention any penalties for violating it.

Similar to KS and MO laws, except those state theirs are subject to US Constitution and decisions of US Supreme Court.

Oh, the purpose of the laws is to outlaw abortion - period.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2018 at 2:06 PM, Princess of Tap said:

GOP--Gutted Out Party

 

 
The Republican Governors Association bragged about the leadership of Missouri Governor Eric Greitens ON THE SAME DAY he got indicted on felony charges.
Could the GOP possibly get any more out of touch at this point?
 
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher IngrahamVerified account @_cingraham 22h22 hours ago

 
 

Rubio says the 1994 assault weapons ban "failed."

Absolutely untrue. "Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.ff838297d2e8 

DWmw7V_VAAAOKoH.jpg
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christina WilkieVerified account @christinawilkie 1h1 hour ago

 
 

New: When the RNC stopped paying Trump's family legal bills, it quietly began paying Trump $37,500 a month in rent, plus $12,000 a month in salary to Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/rnc-paid-trump-campaign-trump-tower-rent-after-paying-legal-bills.html

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2018 at 8:44 AM, TheCid said:

The S.C. Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to the entire Senate.  Passed on party line vote with GOPers in majority.  It states that life begins at conception; so called personhood doctrine.  Would not prohibit contraception or in-vitro fertilization.  However, no exclusion for rape or incest.  Ironically, the bill has been floating around for a couple of years and still does not mention any penalties for violating it.

Similar to KS and MO laws, except those state theirs are subject to US Constitution and decisions of US Supreme Court.

Oh, the purpose of the laws is to outlaw abortion - period.

would you want to be aborted if you were a fetus?:huh::P:D

legs dismembered and the little head snapped off by an instrument manipulated by a 'healer'.

destruction of unborn human life in the womb pure and simple.

"if there is a God!...he did not mean this to be so." -charlton heston, the ten commandments

Related image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Steele \ CPAC riff is interesting.    First I don't see where the CPAC communications director Ian Walters said Steele was ONLY elected because he was black;  Here is what was said.   

"We elected Mike Steele as chairman because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do,” Walters said in a comment reportedly met with gasps".

Clearly Steele was well qualified for the job.   By adding 'only' The Hill is implying many in the RNC believed Steele wasn't qualified but got the job anyway because he was black.    

Steele implying the color of his skin had nothing to do with his selection is hard to believe.   What is likely is that the RNC wanted a non-white-man for the job (to show the GOP is all about diversity since any picture of GOP members of Congress overwhelmingly feature white-males) and Steele was considered to be the best choice from available non-white-male candidates.     

I also wonder why Walters said 'that was the wrong thing to do';   Was it 'wrong' because he believed Steele wasn't qualified (and therefore the Hill's assumption is spot-on),   or because it was 'wrong' because the most qualified candidate wasn't selected or because Walters just doesn't support the 'lets pretend the RNC is for diversity' strategy?    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

This Steele \ CPAC riff is interesting.    First I don't see where the CPAC communications director Ian Walters said Steele was ONLY elected because he was black;  Here is what was said.   

"We elected Mike Steele as chairman because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do,” Walters said in a comment reportedly met with gasps".

Clearly Steele was well qualified for the job.   By adding 'only' The Hill is implying many in the RNC believed Steele wasn't qualified but got the job anyway because he was black.    

Steele implying the color of his skin had nothing to do with his selection is hard to believe.   What is likely is that the RNC wanted a non-white-man for the job (to show the GOP is all about diversity since any picture of GOP members of Congress overwhelmingly feature white-males) and Steele was considered to be the best choice from available non-white-male candidates.     

I also wonder why Walters said 'that was the wrong thing to do';   Was it 'wrong' because he believed Steele wasn't qualified (and therefore the Hill's assumption is spot-on),   or because it was 'wrong' because the most qualified candidate wasn't selected or because Walters just doesn't support the 'lets pretend the RNC is for diversity' strategy?    

 

The "only" is definitely implied in Walters' statement that you quoted.  I think he is saying that Steele was not conservative enough when the party was shifting even more to the right.  If you have listened to Steele's commentary on CNN and/or MSNBC over last few years, that definitely comes out.

Steele was selected because he was the most qualified non-white.  Maybe even the most qualified African-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheCid said:

The "only" is definitely implied in Walters' statement that you quoted.  I think he is saying that Steele was not conservative enough when the party was shifting even more to the right.  If you have listened to Steele's commentary on CNN and/or MSNBC over last few years, that definitely comes out.

Steele was selected because he was the most qualified non-white.  Maybe even the most qualified African-American.

Yes,  Steele is a moderate Republican and therefore that could be another reason why he was selected, since one of the main duties of a RNC leader is too attract non-Republicans to join the party. I.e. to widen the net. 

 A RHIO type is better able to do that than an 'appeal to the base' type.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jakeem said:

Wow, this is part of the exchange @michaelsteele had with @mschlapp this morning after @ACUConservative communications director Ian Walters said Steele was made RNC chair in 2009 "because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do."

DW0Js-UVAAAU1ja.jpg

On YouTube:

See Radio Show Sirius XM or

aDD moreJuice:  Watch Michael Steele Unleash Hell on CPAC executive for 'Black Guy' slur (Videos)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ex-RNC head Michael Steele unleashes on CPAC exec over ‘black guy’ slur

“It was stupid, not unfortunate! Call it what it is,” Streele exclaimed. “It is stupid to sit there and say we elected a black man a chairman of the party and that was a mistake. Do you know how that sounds to the black community?”

Steele wasn’t done.

“I’ve taken crap you have no idea about, and I’ve carried this baggage,” Steele said in regard to his race in a predominately white GOP. “And for him to stand on that stage and denigrate my service to this party, and for you as a friend to sit there and go, ‘Well, you’ve been critical of this party.’ There’s only one word I can say, and I can’t say it on this air.”

“Say it,” Schlapp prompted.

“I can’t, because the FCC won’t allow it,” Steele replied.....

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/watch-ex-rnc-head-michael-steele-unleash-holy-hell-cpac-exec-black-guy-slur/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jakeem said:

James Morrison Retweeted The Hill

Senator @OrrinHatch just referred to millions of cancer survivors, pediatric cancer patients and people with pre-existing conditions who will end up benefitting from Obamacare as "the stupidest, **** people I've ever met."

I guess it's stupid to want government help with your health care.

Oh I forgot, the American people pay entirely Orrin Hatch's Healthcare.

 

What Orrin Hatch really meant was :

the American people are stupid to pay for my health care,

when most of them don't have the quality of healthcare that I've got. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...