Politics Thread: Silicon Valley Edition

[Elerond]

 

There needs to be a section on that graph that shows totals for overall, but otherwise, no surprise there's a partisan split.

 

As far as the government shut down, that is always the Republicans. They just blame the Dems for making them do it.

Exactly, they control both chambers of Congress and the WH (though the WH isn't being all that helpful, thanks to Trump), it's up to them to reach a bipartisan compromise, but they don't want to.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats understandably are trying to work hard the leverage that they have by stonewalling over DACA.

That is funny. It's the republicans fault for not getting an agreement and then saying Democrats are working hard by "stonewalling".

Let's be honest, neither party plays with the other and hasn't for a long time hence one of our biggest problems we have ongoing politically.

 

 

It is how system is made to work

 

Majority is only one that has power to make propositions and minority's power lies on their ability to refuse those propositions if majority does not accept some of their demands. And if compromise can't be found then it goes to game of chicken to see which one will blink first.

 

Usually majority feels pressure to find compromise because they would face majority of the backslash from the voters and media, but these days it seems people are so politically divided that both majority and minority are more likely to face backslash if they give in without getting everything that they want.

[ShadySands]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/19/us/politics/live-senate-vote-government-shutdown.html

 

Live vote update

 

and it failed

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by ShadySands

[smjjames]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/19/us/politics/live-senate-vote-government-shutdown.html

 

Live vote update

 

They went past the threshold of having enough yes votes shortly after I checked the link.

[Volourn]

Dem,ocrats vote to shut down gov't.. it is repubs who won  the mandate by voters for the shutdown..

 

 

lmao

 

 

The voting above is clear. Repubs don't want to shut the gov't down. The demos do.

 

But, people in this very thread blaming Repubs be/c they won't give th Demos they want but alsoa dmnit that the Dems are doing this 'intentionally'.

 

L0LZ

 

The LOGIKZ.

[smjjames]

 

L0LZ

 

The LOGIKZ.

 

Welcome to politics where the logic doesn't always make sense.

 

The Senate is trying to work out something because nobody had a plan B bill available, so, unlike the filibuster-a-thon that was 2013 (remember Ted Cruz?) or the nearly month long one in the 1990's, it shouldn't last more than 48 hours maybe.

Edited January 20, 2018 by smjjames

[Elerond]

Neither republicans or democrats have enough votes to have mandate to decide budget alone, which is why they need bipartisan bill

 

So shutting government down was bipartisan decision 

[smjjames]

For the Senate, yes, but the Republicans had enough to get through the House with only Republican votes.

[Volourn]

Except the vast majority of repubs who voted voted to keep the gov't opened. The vast majority of Demos who voted chose to vote for a gov't shutdown. This clearly means Demos are responsible for the gov't shutdown. You may agree or disagree with their votes  and why they voted the way they did but it is clear this gov't shutdown was  chosen by the Demos. Just like the last one in 2013 (as one of the articles lijnked above pointed out) was chosen by the Repubs. *shrug* let's call a spade a spade.

[Elerond]

Except the vast majority of repubs who voted voted to keep the gov't opened. The vast majority of Demos who voted chose to vote for a gov't shutdown. This clearly means Demos are responsible for the gov't shutdown. You may agree or disagree with their votes  and why they voted the way they did but it is clear this gov't shutdown was  chosen by the Demos. Just like the last one in 2013 (as one of the articles lijnked above pointed out) was chosen by the Repubs. *shrug* let's call a spade a spade.

 

They voted for partisan bill and hoped that they could force democrats to vote for it with threat of closing government, but most democrats decided not to yield such heavy handed maneuver forcing republicans in situation where they most likely need to negotiate bipartisan bill.  

[Volourn]

Why are you trying to make stupid spins and political gooblygook double speak. Dems voted to shut the gov't down. That is simply a fact. Their reasons  why - whether one agress with them or not -  does not change that.

[smjjames]

In a literal non-political way, yes, you're correct since they wouldn't have been able to pass it without Democrat votes.

 

Politically speaking is another thing entirely since it depends on which side is talking.

 

 

 

Except the vast majority of repubs who voted voted to keep the gov't opened. The vast majority of Demos who voted chose to vote for a gov't shutdown. This clearly means Demos are responsible for the gov't shutdown. You may agree or disagree with their votes  and why they voted the way they did but it is clear this gov't shutdown was  chosen by the Demos. Just like the last one in 2013 (as one of the articles lijnked above pointed out) was chosen by the Repubs. *shrug* let's call a spade a spade.

 

They voted for partisan bill and hoped that they could force democrats to vote for it with threat of closing government, but most democrats decided not to yield such heavy handed maneuver forcing republicans in situation where they most likely need to negotiate bipartisan bill.  

 

 

To be more precise, the Democrats wanted it to include a DACA fix and were trying to use what leverage they had. If you don't want them to use that for leverage, then maybe we should give the minority more levers.

[smjjames]

Why are you trying to make stupid spins and political gooblygook double speak. Dems voted to shut the gov't down. That is simply a fact. Their reasons  why - whether one agress with them or not -  does not change that.

 

Because politics. We can disagree all day on who is to blame for the shutdown.

 

At least they're trying to work on something to end the shutdown instead of trying to filibuster all over the place, which is better than the Republicans were in 2013.

Edited January 20, 2018 by smjjames

[injurai]

Shutting down the govt is a Republican strategy because they don't want to fund a variety of public services that the Dems would gladly sign a check for. I'm only surprised when Republicans or Conservatives double down on this whole the Dems wanted to shut down the govt. Yeah, it was a bipartisan impasse that brought it to a head, that much is true. But you would think the small govt folks would feel less shame about a govt shut down as a tactic, instead of trying to appease the Dems that find it shameful by trying to then turn the shame back around on them. You don't care what the dems think of anyways, just admit that this is what your party finds necessary when your party isn't getting it's policy in play. The Republicans don't need their dirty tricks defended when all of politics is just a series of dirty tricks, at least find some backbone in playing dirty. As awful as I found the Dems to become over the last decade, at least they have a spine when it comes to being sleezeballs.

[Elerond]

Why are you trying to make stupid spins and political gooblygook double speak. Dems voted to shut the gov't down. That is simply a fact. Their reasons  why - whether one agress with them or not -  does not change that.

 

They voted against republicans budget bill, which will lead to shut down of government because government will run out of money, without bill that gives them right use more money.

 

Republicans introduced budget bill that was made to support only their agenda, with full knowledge that they don't have enough votes to pass it, and they tried to force democrats support it with threat of closure of government, but it seems that democrats decided to see if republicans actually have balls to close government or will they yield and add things that democrats want on the bill. Which was probably quite easy decision for them because majority of their voters seem to support their decision.

[Valsuelm]

It would be great if it never opened back up.

 

Alas, the threats are just smoke and mirror bull****.

[Valsuelm]

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/01/18/new-hhs-civil-rights-division-charged-with-protecting-health-workers-with-moral-objections/?utm_term=.10f039d2a2b0

While federal officials did not immediately offer details about the new enforcement office, a Conscience and Religious Freedom section appearing Thursday on the HHS site — showing a female health-care worker in a Muslim headscarf — provides some hints. The description of the division's mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures that would be covered. But the language is broad, and health experts said it appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

HHS said the protections will apply to discrimination or coercion of “providers who refuse to perform, accommodate or assist with certain health-care services on religious or moral grounds.” They would also apply to training and research activities, according to the department.

That is great news. Every business have the right to refuse service to anyone. Why would medical profesions be excluded?

 

 

Unfortunately, not really true.

 

Up until the abominable Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the even more abonimable SCOTUS cases which held that it could be applied to private businesses, the bolded was largely the case in our formerly relatively free nation. Since then, the bolded is increasingly less true.

[smjjames]

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/01/18/new-hhs-civil-rights-division-charged-with-protecting-health-workers-with-moral-objections/?utm_term=.10f039d2a2b0

While federal officials did not immediately offer details about the new enforcement office, a Conscience and Religious Freedom section appearing Thursday on the HHS site — showing a female health-care worker in a Muslim headscarf — provides some hints. The description of the division's mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures that would be covered. But the language is broad, and health experts said it appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

HHS said the protections will apply to discrimination or coercion of “providers who refuse to perform, accommodate or assist with certain health-care services on religious or moral grounds.” They would also apply to training and research activities, according to the department.

That is great news. Every business have the right to refuse service to anyone. Why would medical profesions be excluded?

 

 

Unfortunately, not really true.

 

Up until the abominable Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the even more abonimable SCOTUS cases which held that it could be applied to private businesses, the bolded was largely the case in our formerly relatively free nation. Since then, the bolded is increasingly less true.

 

 

Does that mean you're okay with people denying service to people based by the color of their skin? Because that's what it sounds like you're okay with.

 

If not, then how come you think the civil rights act is abomnable?

 

edit: Making my question sound a bit less hostile, which wasn't intended to be hostile.

Edited January 20, 2018 by smjjames

[Valsuelm]

 

 

The first step down the road to disappointment?

 

At least those Carrier plant workers who were nonetheless laid off have caught wise to Trump. And with the Kelly news of late their ranks will be joined by those hoping for a wall.

 

That article you link is an excellent example of dishonest journalism or an absolutely retarded journalist.

 

The very article it links to disputes many of the Politico article's claims and headline.

 

Carrier didn't lay off anyone despite Trump, or renege on it's deal. The layoffs mentioned in your article were part of the deal and expected. Initially United Technologies (who owns Carrier, and has been shipping jobs to other nations for quite awhile now) was going to lay off 100% of the workers at the Indiana plant, however a deal was struck in which only some of the workers would be laid off. Trump and Pence are credited with brokering this deal.

 

Note that UTC, like many many other corporations, have been shipping jobs from high tax states (like New York, which once had Carrier's headquarters) to lower tax states, and to other nations for a very long time now. The rust belt is a thing, and it's primary cause was and is high taxes.

 

 

High taxes where though? You just said low tax states are the ones attracting companies and the rust belt/appalachia states aren't generally thought of as being high tax.

 

Sure, you could be talking about the corporate tax thing, but even under that, companies were going to low tax states from high tax states.

 

That bolded part seems contradictory because the rust belt isn't a high tax zone, that I'm aware of.

 

 

Um... are you unaware of where the high tax states are? It's not hard to find out where they are, at least in regards to taxes on people, which is indicative of, yet not the same as taxes on businesses, which are taxed higher than individuals in pretty much every State. Where higher taxes are one also generally finds more regulation.

 

Hint: New York is the highest taxed state and arguably the rustiest spot on the belt. A fact that is often overlooked due many if not most thinking of New York State as New York City and nothing else (Like a large percentage of the populace doesn't realize there's a California north of San Francisco). The only other state that's about as rusty is Michigan, which is also one of the highest taxed and regulated states in the U.S.. Michigan, Detroit in particular, has some particularly insane and oppressive labor laws which makes doing business there quite a bit less profitable than near everywhere else. Companies didn't flee the rust belt just because. Detroit didn't go to poop just because. Greedy and corrupt politicians passed laws that drove many out and killed many of those that didn't escape.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

So you think that people who don't want to kill babies are a-holes? Or is it just religious people who are a-holes?

Bwahahaha, what a wide ridiculous net you throw. People "who don't want to kill babies" or are incapable of executing the duties of their positions need to be run out of that position. Go do something else that your "moral or religious compass" will allow. Easy peasy. Yes, I support abortion. But like all things there are limits, such as the current developmental stage of the fetus. I do not support "late term abortion" unless the life of the mother is at risk. Also, imo, most bible thumpers are a-holes. If that much of a persons mentality is determined by religion then your nothing more than a weak minded automaton. Again, imo.

 

 

No net was thrown. I asked for clarification, you provided it. Thank you for that. However...

 

What an incredibly shallow, arbitrary, capricious, and myopic viewpoint.

 

I pity you.

[Bartimaeus]

Trump says "President Responsible for Shutdown": https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/01/19/trump-government-shutdown-blame-sot-2013-fox-lead.cnn

[smjjames]

Oh, I associated rust belt with appalachia mostly and didn't consider New York, so, you have a point. Still, not all of the rust belt is high tax I don't think. There's like Kentucky and Tennesee and West Virginia, that's part of the rust belt too (also coal country), so, high taxes doesn't neccesarily explain ALL of the rust belt.

 

 

 

 

So you think that people who don't want to kill babies are a-holes? Or is it just religious people who are a-holes?

Bwahahaha, what a wide ridiculous net you throw. People "who don't want to kill babies" or are incapable of executing the duties of their positions need to be run out of that position. Go do something else that your "moral or religious compass" will allow. Easy peasy. Yes, I support abortion. But like all things there are limits, such as the current developmental stage of the fetus. I do not support "late term abortion" unless the life of the mother is at risk. Also, imo, most bible thumpers are a-holes. If that much of a persons mentality is determined by religion then your nothing more than a weak minded automaton. Again, imo.

 

 

No net was thrown. I asked for clarification, you provided it. Thank you for that. However...

 

What an incredibly shallow, arbitrary, capricious, and myopic viewpoint.

 

I pity you.

 

 

Just gfted1 being gfted1 really.

Edited January 20, 2018 by smjjames

[Valsuelm]

Trump says "President Responsible for Shutdown": https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/01/19/trump-government-shutdown-blame-sot-2013-fox-lead.cnn

 

WTB the unedited interview.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/01/18/new-hhs-civil-rights-division-charged-with-protecting-health-workers-with-moral-objections/?utm_term=.10f039d2a2b0

While federal officials did not immediately offer details about the new enforcement office, a Conscience and Religious Freedom section appearing Thursday on the HHS site — showing a female health-care worker in a Muslim headscarf — provides some hints. The description of the division's mandate cites abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide as examples of the types of procedures that would be covered. But the language is broad, and health experts said it appears likely to also cover a host of other scenarios, such as treating transgender patients or those seeking to transition to the opposite sex.

HHS said the protections will apply to discrimination or coercion of “providers who refuse to perform, accommodate or assist with certain health-care services on religious or moral grounds.” They would also apply to training and research activities, according to the department.

That is great news. Every business have the right to refuse service to anyone. Why would medical profesions be excluded?

 

 

Unfortunately, not really true.

 

Up until the abominable Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the even more abonimable SCOTUS cases which held that it could be applied to private businesses, the bolded was largely the case in our formerly relatively free nation. Since then, the bolded is increasingly less true.

 

 

Does that mean you're okay with people denying service to people based by the color of their skin? Because that's what it sounds like you're okay with.

 

If not, then how come you think the civil rights act is abomnable?

 

edit: Making my question sound a bit less hostile, which wasn't intended to be hostile.

 

 

On a legal level, yes.The freedom to associate with or not associate with whomever you wish or don't wish is one of the most fundamental freedoms that exists. Government infringing on that freedom in any way, is an abomination. Any government that would do so, is not governing over a free people.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be a largely commendable thing, if it only pertained to the Federal Government. The aspects of it that were levied on the populace at large is anything but commendable. It's a giant pile of stinking **** like every other Federal overreach that the commerce clause has been twisted to justify.

 

I personally think that anyone who denied service to someone based on the color of their skin is an idiot. However I fully support said idiot's right to be such an idiot. Telling someone at the point of a gun who they can, can't, must, or mustn't associate with in their personal life or business is evil.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Valsuelm

[smjjames]

Oh, you were attacking the Federal overreach part of it. Sometimes though, those idiots really do have to be told at the point of a gun to stop being idiots.

[Ben No.3]

Would someone explain to me in what way the civil rights act was abominable? In detail, i mean

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ben No.3