2014 Midterm Election Catch-All

Seth wrote:

I will share this anecdote. Three years ago, Contractors were begging for any job in the world. Now, in 2015, they're posting the best years they've ever had, and are *turning down* jobs because they're too busy.

This is in the West Michigan market.

Same here in Austin, though that's partly due to the dangerous bubble-like real estate market surge here.

Why the mother f'n f of an f am I seeing rumors that Romney is now considering running AGAIN?

JC wrote:

Why the mother f'n f of an f am I seeing rumors that Romney is now considering running AGAIN?

Makes total sense, if you think of it. Name any other likely contender, and in comparison to Romney, he'll be either not white, or rich, or old, or conservative enough.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
JC wrote:

Why the mother f'n f of an f am I seeing rumors that Romney is now considering running AGAIN?

Makes total sense, if you think of it. Name any other likely contender, and in comparison to Romney, he'll be either not white, or rich, or old, or conservative enough.

Yup. Unless one of the Koch brothers decides to run, you're pretty much stuck with Romney.

Paleocon wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
JC wrote:

Why the mother f'n f of an f am I seeing rumors that Romney is now considering running AGAIN?

Makes total sense, if you think of it. Name any other likely contender, and in comparison to Romney, he'll be either not white, or rich, or old, or conservative enough.

Yup. Unless one of the Koch brothers decides to run, you're pretty much stuck with Romney.

How about 5 reasons from 538?

Man, I *really* hope they go with the rich, out of touch white guy from the weird religion... Maybe Huckabee would stand less of a chance against a female Democrat, but I'm unsure... Pre-Enlightenment fanaticism versus Gatsby levels of isolated privilege... Which one is more vulnerable is a question for Hispanics and women to decide.

Paleocon wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
JC wrote:

Why the mother f'n f of an f am I seeing rumors that Romney is now considering running AGAIN?

Makes total sense, if you think of it. Name any other likely contender, and in comparison to Romney, he'll be either not white, or rich, or old, or conservative enough.

Yup. Unless one of the Koch brothers decides to run, you're pretty much stuck with Romney.

Is their base ready to vote for a someone who might be a seekrit Jew?

They're ready to vote for anyone with an R next to his name.

What are some of the great things the Republicans are doing now that they control congress?

Link

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.
The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

Link

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday to redefine full-time employment under the healthcare reform law as 40 hours a week, but Republicans failed to win enough support to override a promised presidential veto...The legislation would alter the definition of full-time work under the ACA from 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week for the purpose of calculating whether an employer is required under the law to provide health coverage. Supporters of the change, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that the current standard deviates from the widely accepted definition of full-time work. They also argue that it provides an incentive for employers to reduce hours, particularly for low-wage workers, to avoid offering healthcare coverage.

Link

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to prevent President Obama from protecting immigrants from deportation, insisting that he accept the measure as the price of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Essentially what it says is the president cannot fund an activity that is unconstitutional and illegal,” GOP Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who chairs the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

Don't forget new abortion restrictions for women and undoing banking regulations put in place after a few places tried to tank the economy by betting the really long odds too, karma.

All about the economy and jobs, my hairy, lily white posterior.

We really need a 114th Congress Cavalcade of Whimsy thread.

LBJ wrote:

Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a good carpenter to build one.

LeapingGnome wrote:

They're ready to vote for anyone with an R next to his name.

I see what you did there!

karmajay wrote:

Link

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to prevent President Obama from protecting immigrants from deportation, insisting that he accept the measure as the price of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Essentially what it says is the president cannot fund an activity that is unconstitutional and illegal,” GOP Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who chairs the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

It's too bad Obama isn't more of a progressive. I'd love to see him call their bluff and get rid of DHS.

billt721 wrote:
karmajay wrote:

Link

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to prevent President Obama from protecting immigrants from deportation, insisting that he accept the measure as the price of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Essentially what it says is the president cannot fund an activity that is unconstitutional and illegal,” GOP Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who chairs the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

It's too bad Obama isn't more of a progressive. I'd love to see him call their bluff and get rid of DHS.

Lesson learned, treating refugees of a drug war and/or dictatorship we created like human beings is unconstitutional. Learning is fun.

Demosthenes wrote:
billt721 wrote:
karmajay wrote:

Link

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to prevent President Obama from protecting immigrants from deportation, insisting that he accept the measure as the price of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Essentially what it says is the president cannot fund an activity that is unconstitutional and illegal,” GOP Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who chairs the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

It's too bad Obama isn't more of a progressive. I'd love to see him call their bluff and get rid of DHS.

Lesson learned, treating refugees of a drug war and/or dictatorship we created like human beings is unconstitutional. Learning is fun.

Speaking of this... maybe I misunderstood the executive order, but I thought it was just instructing whatever agency does that enforcement to focus on certain type of illegal immigrants before being concerned about certain other groups of them. Is that not correct? Because if that is what the executive order said (and assuming DHS funding ties into enforcement somehow), wouldn't refusing to fund DHS force them to stop finding and deporting anyone?

billt721 wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
billt721 wrote:
karmajay wrote:

Link

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to prevent President Obama from protecting immigrants from deportation, insisting that he accept the measure as the price of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Essentially what it says is the president cannot fund an activity that is unconstitutional and illegal,” GOP Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who chairs the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

It's too bad Obama isn't more of a progressive. I'd love to see him call their bluff and get rid of DHS.

Lesson learned, treating refugees of a drug war and/or dictatorship we created like human beings is unconstitutional. Learning is fun.

Speaking of this... maybe I misunderstood the executive order, but I thought it was just instructing whatever agency does that enforcement to focus on certain type of illegal immigrants before being concerned about certain other groups of them. Is that not correct? Because if that is what the executive order said (and assuming DHS funding ties into enforcement somehow), wouldn't refusing to fund DHS force them to stop finding and deporting anyone?

Details.

I'm pretty sure you are correct though... which makes it hilarious in that Republicans would rather have an immigration quagmire with drug cartel members and violent criminals lost in the crowd of deportees than focusing on them first.

Then again, watching an angry mob of self righteous white blowhards picketing a bus of children has pretty much stripped this of the last vestiges of sanity for me and proven it's really about racism.

Demosthenes wrote:
billt721 wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
billt721 wrote:
karmajay wrote:

Link

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to prevent President Obama from protecting immigrants from deportation, insisting that he accept the measure as the price of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Essentially what it says is the president cannot fund an activity that is unconstitutional and illegal,” GOP Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who chairs the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

It's too bad Obama isn't more of a progressive. I'd love to see him call their bluff and get rid of DHS.

Lesson learned, treating refugees of a drug war and/or dictatorship we created like human beings is unconstitutional. Learning is fun.

Speaking of this... maybe I misunderstood the executive order, but I thought it was just instructing whatever agency does that enforcement to focus on certain type of illegal immigrants before being concerned about certain other groups of them. Is that not correct? Because if that is what the executive order said (and assuming DHS funding ties into enforcement somehow), wouldn't refusing to fund DHS force them to stop finding and deporting anyone?

Details.

I'm pretty sure you are correct though... which makes it hilarious in that Republicans would rather have an immigration quagmire with drug cartel members and violent criminals lost in the crowd of deportees than focusing on them first.

Then again, watching an angry mob of self righteous white blowhards picketing a bus of children has pretty much stripped this of the last vestiges of sanity for me and proven it's really about racism.

Yup. The right's anger is that Obama isn't enforcing all of the existing immigration law. The problem, however, is that Congress has refused to actually fund the DHS at the levels it would need to be funded to literally track down and deport every undocumented immigrant in the country.

So Obama's executive order simply acknowledged that the agency can't enforce every immigration law so it's using common sense to target drug dealers and violent criminals before going after the mother who works two or three sh*t jobs that most immigration protesters would think were beneath them.

Yeah, I did a fairly in depth analysis of the Executive Order awhile back, and cutting or stopping funding isn't the solution. Tripling, or quadrupling, or more the funding is. (Well, one of the solutions, another solution would be to demonstrate that the existing funding is actually enough to find and deport every illegal immigrant in the country (or at least that the executive order de-prioritizes way more than it needs to). The last solution would be to make a small legislative update to the bill clarifying the priority. If their problem with the Executive Order is that it de-prioritizes the WRONG illegal immigrants, they could fix that with an update specifically saying something like "Congress welcomes the economic productivity of drug dealers in America, so if there aren't enough resources to deport everybody we should save the drug dealers for last.")

Sen. Jim Inhofe, incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee[/url]]
Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.

Did he at least preface that with "I'm not a scientist, but"?

OG_slinger wrote:

Sen. Jim Inhofe, incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee[/url]]
Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.

See, I can't help but wonder if people say this... don't realize how many people there are on the planet. Like, yeah, if it was JUST America, that might be hard. There are billions of people on this planet. The idea that we can't shape our environment should be really hard for someone to not grokk when they drive on roads to get home past massive buildings and very little to no natural space and then live in a place that is a completely different environment from outside or their neighbors or whatever.

This pisses me of more than almost anything else in American politics. Who the f*ck thinks it's a good idea to have someone so stupidly scientifically illiterate in charge of the environment? At least they didn't put a climate change denier like Lamarr Smith in charge of the House Committee on Science and Technology... Oh wait.

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

LeapingGnome wrote:

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

That one is at least interesting given that he represents Texas and politicians are almost always complete hypocrites when it comes to taking money for their state even if that money is going to something they would normally refer to as a waste of money.

billt721 wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

That one is at least interesting given that he represents Texas and politicians are almost always complete hypocrites when it comes to taking money for their state even if that money is going to something they would normally refer to as a waste of money.

A cause that Texas Bill and Florida Man will happily team up for.

billt721 wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

That one is at least interesting given that he represents Texas and politicians are almost always complete hypocrites when it comes to taking money for their state even if that money is going to something they would normally refer to as a waste of money.

You're forgetting that NASA spends about 10% of its budget on earth sciences. Most of that goes to launching and maintaining a network of satellites that monitor everything from pollution levels to the size of the polar ice caps. Cruz doesn't believe that climate change is real so all those missions are in jeopardy.

OG_slinger wrote:
billt721 wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

That one is at least interesting given that he represents Texas and politicians are almost always complete hypocrites when it comes to taking money for their state even if that money is going to something they would normally refer to as a waste of money.

You're forgetting that NASA spends about 10% of its budget on earth sciences. Most of that goes to launching and maintaining a network of satellites that monitor everything from pollution levels to the size of the polar ice caps. Cruz doesn't believe that climate change is real so all those missions are in jeopardy.

I guess we'll see. I mean, sure, I'd rather he never be put in that position to begin with, but it's not automatically the end of NASA funding (or even the end of that 10% of their funding). We have plenty of examples of politicians saying one thing and then doing another. I was at a major defense contractor when Obama was elected and there was plenty of planning and speculation about defense cuts resulting in program disbandment and mass layoffs, none of which happened.

awwwwwwww..... no Mitt Romney... At least until he reconsiders again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...

JC wrote:

awwwwwwww..... no Mitt Romney... At least until he reconsiders again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...

Aw, darn I might have even voted for him, too!

Demosthenes wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Sen. Jim Inhofe, incoming chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee[/url]]
Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.

See, I can't help but wonder if people say this... don't realize how many people there are on the planet. Like, yeah, if it was JUST America, that might be hard. There are billions of people on this planet. The idea that we can't shape our environment should be really hard for someone to not grokk when they drive on roads to get home past massive buildings and very little to no natural space and then live in a place that is a completely different environment from outside or their neighbors or whatever.

Another way to explain this that you may have more luck with is pointing out that human activities aren't super energy intensive, the biggest thing that governs Earth's heat is--obviously--the sun. HOWEVER the impact that the sun has on the Earth is in turn strongly regulated by something that we obviously can affect a lot, CO2 levels.

It's the difference between creating a river from scratch, and slightly diverting it. That metaphor has been moderately helpful to me.

(In some other thread we did some Math and found out that humans actually aren't that far away from making the river from scratch, I think that we found that our current energy generation was 1/10th of the annual "global warming" surplus, but that's a digression that is probably not necessary/desirable in a conversation with a global warming denier.)

OG_slinger wrote:
billt721 wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

The same people that put Ted Cruz in charge of NASA.

That one is at least interesting given that he represents Texas and politicians are almost always complete hypocrites when it comes to taking money for their state even if that money is going to something they would normally refer to as a waste of money.

You're forgetting that NASA spends about 10% of its budget on earth sciences. Most of that goes to launching and maintaining a network of satellites that monitor everything from pollution levels to the size of the polar ice caps. Cruz doesn't believe that climate change is real so all those missions are in jeopardy.

Yeah, one of the big (untrue) claims that climate change deniers have in their belt is "All of those readings come from a small number of ground stations that aren't enough for a statistically useful sample size. We don't have anything set up that can measure very large sections of the globe."

A climate denier in charge of NASA founding can do a lot to make that untrue claim more true.