So I'm sure by now youve heard the news that, at the end of October, Speaker of the House John Boehner is resigning....not because of scandal or anything.....but simply because he believes the Republicans are too fractured for him to lead, and they cant get anything done.
So now of course, people are taking about who exactly is going to be the new Speaker.
Alot of the mainstream media says it will be House Majority Leader McCarthy. The Tea Party meanwhile is looking at Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, Justin Amash, Trey Gowdy and others.
But their is one candidate no one is really looking at. Nancy Pelosi.
Now I know what your thinking, "isnt Pelosi a democrat?" Yep she is. Heres the thing, it doesnt matter.
See here's the constitution on who is allowed to be speaker "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Note there is no mention that the Speaker be of the majority party....or even a member of the House.
And House rules say that, to be speaker you need only win a majority of votes cast.....not a majority of the house itself.
Ok so what this means is pretty simple. On paper there are 435 members of Congress (excluding vacancies). A majority of this is 217.5 members, rounded up to 218.
So normally for purposes of a majority 218 is the number needed.
Now, at the moment there are 188 Democrats in the House....and while 1 or 2 may vote for themselves for speaker (as again, happened last time) there really isnt any other candidate on the democratic side (cause being the minority party and all being speaker usually isnt an opinion so no ones been trying for it). And given that, as a rule the Dems would all prefer Pelosi to any Republican, even the 1 or 2 who might otherswise vote for themselves will likely change their vote if it comes to controlling the house.
So Pelosi's 188 seems pretty solid....and with Boehners resignation from congress, lowering the number of members of congress to 434, and therefore the number needed for majority to 217, shes only 29 votes short of winning.
Now I know what your thinking, there is no way 29 Republicans will vote for Pelosi....and you may be right.....but here's the thing, they dont have to. They just have to not vote at all.
See in the case of majority needed to become speaker, the House only considers votes cast. So say, as with the last speaker election, 26 members choose not to vote. Which means for the purpose of this vote, its as if they dont exist.
This means in effect the House would have only 409....and the majority of that is 204.5...or 205 votes.
So anyone who got 205 votes would be speaker, even if though didnt get the majority of the whole house.
In fact, this is actually how Boehner won his speakership last time, as he only had 216 votes....so over the 205 needed to win due to non votes, but not over the 218 to actually have a majority of the entire house.
Now again there are going to be at a minimum 3 candidates for Speaker in the commingling election, Nancy Pelosi (for the democrats), Kevin McCarthy (for the establishment republicans) and a Tea Party backed candidate.
Now there are at least 70 members of the tea Party and its various offshoots in congress right now
Now there are only 247 Republicans in the House to begin with (excluding Boehners seat).
Now 247 Republicans - 70 tea party members (voting for their candidates) leaves 177 establishment republicans to vote for McCarthy.
Which is awkward, cause that would mean McCarthy got fewer votes than Pelosi's 188.....
And although that would also mean NO candidate would win (no ones got majority) it would also mean that the person closest to winning isnt of the majority party in congress.
You want to talk about sending a major, clear, signal that the GOP cant govern and is too fractured to do anything?...............that would be a pretty good one. And its not a signal the GOP wants to send at anytime, especially not in a presidential election cycle....and one in which the democrat message is based on the idea that the GOP cant govern.
Not to mention, even if the GOP won on later votes, this first "pelosi was top choice vote" will pretty much hamstring whoever the new speaker was, making them look like a weak compromise just to stop the Dems right out of the box.
So yea, that would be a situation to be avoided at all costs.
Which would be possible, if the GOP could unite around a single candidate....but the problem is, its likely the Tea Party will basically never vote for Boehners hand picked deputy (McCarthy), as they want nothing to do with Boehner or anything hes ever touched. So the chances of an establishment GOP win arnt as good as they should be.
And although the Tea Party groups are all claiming they will all back a single candidate, that would still leave that candidate with a base of support of only around 70. So that candidate would have to convince at least 119 other republicans to vote for them so that they could top Pelosi. And this assumes there is only other tea party candidate, if there is more than one the competition gets even stiffer to win people over.
In other words the situation is ripe for Establishment republicans, who cant bring themselves to vote for the tea party to sit at home and not show up. (after all its actually very hard to be effectively attacked for not voting on something....those attacks tend not to matter much in elections).
I also believe there are a few republicans who would rather see Pelosi as speaker (with a republican majority to limit her effectiveness on some issues) than a tea party speaker, and could use the "non vote" as cover should they decide McCarthy cant win.
And add to that any of the "losing tea party candidates" those being the ones the party didnt want to support when trying to get its Tea Party alternative to McCarthy, they may well decide not to vote either out of spite (this has also been known to happen, although is highly unlikely they are more likley to cast a vote for themselves anyways)
In short, especially coming off a previous speaker vote in which 26 members sat out...having 29 sit out isnt an unrealistic possibility.
Of course I am in no way actually saying Pelosi WILL be the next Speaker, or that this is what WILL happen, or that its the most probable outcome. I am saying only that, despite getting no coverage in the press so far, it is an actual realistic possibility that she will be. And that, at least at the moment (over a month away,), she is definitely the leading candidate in terms of the likely vote count.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Where we stand after GOP Debate #2. Pt 2
So just like CNN, we took the bottom 4 candidates and gave them their own event back in part 1...and now we hit the top tier in part 2. If you need a review of what the numbers after the name mean, read the intro to part 1. With that out of the way, here we go
#7 Jeb Bush. (3/3)
Early on, Bush got in a fight with Trump over if Trump attempted (and failed) to set up gambling in Florida. While Bush was in fact correct, Trump had tried, and Bush had stopped him, he was unable to win the fight, due to having basically nothing to say when Trump denied it. He didnt mention the amount donated, the year, or even Trumps conversations with the speaker of the House, or comments made as recently as last year by trump about it.
He instead let it turn into a he said, he said.
He then backed down on his position on Kim Davis after being confronted by Huckabee.
Then he went back to Trump, demanding an applogy for comments Trump made about his wife. Which he didnt get....and then immediately dropped the issue.
Course he rebounded well after that, as he did manage to successfully defend his position on Immigration (opposed to the fence) and speaking Spanish, and even how he can claim to be different than his father and brother if all his advisors worked for them (being the 2 most recent republican presidents who else is he going to pick), and his position on Pot, and its only on the successful defenses here that he managed to place above Fiornia and Carson.
Of course I might have placed him slightly higher based on that late improvement if it wasnt for one last exchange with Trump in which he said the following:
"BUSH: You know what? As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe.
I don’t know if you remember … Donald.… you remember the — the rubble?[...]
Yea, I do remember the rubble....it happened on your brothers watch...so yea good job on the keeping us safe bit.
#6 Rand Paul (9/4)
Rand Paul gave pretty much the debate performance you'd expect here, pretty much full of exactly the same comments hes made for years. So under that metric it was a good debate for him, as he did get his message out. He also had the line of the night in my opinion in this exchange.
"I think one of the great problems, and what American people don’t like about politics, is hypocrisy. People have one standard for others and not for them — for themselves.
There is at least one prominent example on the stage of someone who says they smoked pot in high school, and yet the people going to — to jail for this are poor people, often African-Americans and often Hispanics, and yet the rich kids who use drugs aren’t.
[...]
TAPPER: I want to give that — I want to give the person that you called a hypocrite an opportunity to respond. Do you want to identify that person?
PAUL: Well, I think if we left it open, we could see how many people smoked pot in high school.
Turned out Bush admitted it was him, but I got to give credit, that was a funny ass justification for not naming him directly.
Of course, Rand Paul did make 1 piece of news in this debate...and its what stopped him from going any higher. Which is that, like Huckabee and Trump...he has not in fact read the 14th amendment and believes its possible it doesnt say "all persons born" in the united states. And in typical rand paul fashion, he cited something, in this case a SCOTUS case, that actually disproves his point (he claimed that the Supreme Court had only ruled on the amendment covering legal immigration, in fact the ruling said the circumstances of the birth here are irrelevant) as support for his case. Granted Rand knowing not of which he speaks is pretty classic Rand Paul, so I guess I shouldnt be too surprised.
#5 John Kasich (8/2)
Basically got no time to talk, but at least managed to use what little he had to lay out the case for him, including what he sees as his major accomplishment, helping create a balanced budget in the 90's.
he scores here because like Paul he said nothing new, and didnt really have any memorable moments....but also, unlike those below him didnt say anything really bad either. And lastly unlike the other candidates who got almost no time to speak (Walker and Huckabee) Kasich did a much better job of spacing himself out over the 3 hours....so there was never a time it appeared he was just not participating in the debate
#4 Ted Cruz (4/6)
Ok, this one hurts. I really really dont want to put Cruz here I really dont because I think hes a fucking nutjob. However the simple truth of the matter is, on every policy he commented on, he did a great job of clearly laying out what his position is...even if I dont agree with it.
To be fair though I would call it a tie with Kasich expect for Cruz's answer on money. He was the only candidate who thought it was a stupid idea to replace the father of US money (Hamilton) on the 10, and instead embraced the idea (supported by many people, myself included) that we should instead put a woman on the 20...so we can get rid of the raging racist.
Is it a dumb justification for putting him over Kasich, sure....but when both performances are that bland, I did need something.
#3 Chris Christie. (10/10)
In my last analysis I said Christie was barely treading water...and while his placement in this debate bears that out, he damn sure did a lot to improve himself in my opinion.
For starters he came out swinging hard, basically getting Carson to back down on a criticism of him right out the gate. He also managed to wave his record in New Jersey around on all kinds of issues, from taxes to planned parenthood and even drugs (in which he stands opposed to most of the field) and climate, and wouldnt back down when challenged on his opinion on a government shutdown.
And he delivered a pretty epic double bitch smack to both Trump and Fiorina when he effectively ended their pissing contest on who was the worse businessperson
"Jake listen. While I’m as entertained as anyone by this personal back-and-forth about the history of Donald and Carly’s career, for the 55-year-old construction worker out in that audience tonight who doesn’t have a job, who can’t fund his child’s education, I’ve got to tell you the truth. They could care less about your careers, they care about theirs."
Granted he is still lying about his role post 9/11 / his appointment as federal prosecutor as he did in the last debate so as to make it seem like he was picked because of 9/11 and how clearly qualified he was...but exploiting 9/11 is pretty standard in the GOP...it did however keep him from going any higher.
#2 Donald Trump (1/1)
Ok so here's the thing, Donald Trump does not deserve this spot. He said nothing of value and managed to look even fucking crazier than he already did by coming out as an anti vaxer.
However as you may have noticed, there was a long line of candidates, Carson, Fiorina, Jeb, who refused to take a swing at him, and a couple more, Walker, Jeb (again) he basically managed to shout down to the point they shut up and moved on without challenging him.
So its basically impossible not to give him a top spot. Its just he got it less because of anything he did, and more due to everyone elses refusal to attack or challenge him.
#1 Marco Rubio (6/8)
Ladies and gentlemen, your winner.
So much like Cruz and Kasich, Rubio was spot on on clearly laying out and justifying his polices, and he managed to look like the foreign policy expert with his answer on Russia and Syria. Trump even challenged him on Syria and he was able to shut Trump down (only candidate to do it that night, hence why he gets the top spot) and then came back later on a different question, in which Trump was asked about Rubio's criticism of him of not knowing foreign leaders names, and managed to shut him down again. And all this came before successfully deflecting the idea hes a climate change denier (and he is) into he just opposes the lefts policies to combat it. So he actually managed to look more reasonable than he is, while also not looking less hardcore to the conservatives.
Really other than a couple of jokes that fell flat there wasnt much Rubio did wrong...and even one of those jokes, where he brought his own water bottle, showed he is at least aware of the public perception and memory of him and knows he has to work that in his favor.
So there you have it folks, what the ranking SHOULD be for the GOP coming out of Debate 2.
For those curious the candidate show showed the most improvement in my placements would be Marco Rubio, jumping 8 points, and Walker had the worst showing, falling from 5th to 11th.
#7 Jeb Bush. (3/3)
Early on, Bush got in a fight with Trump over if Trump attempted (and failed) to set up gambling in Florida. While Bush was in fact correct, Trump had tried, and Bush had stopped him, he was unable to win the fight, due to having basically nothing to say when Trump denied it. He didnt mention the amount donated, the year, or even Trumps conversations with the speaker of the House, or comments made as recently as last year by trump about it.
He instead let it turn into a he said, he said.
He then backed down on his position on Kim Davis after being confronted by Huckabee.
Then he went back to Trump, demanding an applogy for comments Trump made about his wife. Which he didnt get....and then immediately dropped the issue.
Course he rebounded well after that, as he did manage to successfully defend his position on Immigration (opposed to the fence) and speaking Spanish, and even how he can claim to be different than his father and brother if all his advisors worked for them (being the 2 most recent republican presidents who else is he going to pick), and his position on Pot, and its only on the successful defenses here that he managed to place above Fiornia and Carson.
Of course I might have placed him slightly higher based on that late improvement if it wasnt for one last exchange with Trump in which he said the following:
"BUSH: You know what? As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe.
I don’t know if you remember … Donald.… you remember the — the rubble?[...]
Yea, I do remember the rubble....it happened on your brothers watch...so yea good job on the keeping us safe bit.
#6 Rand Paul (9/4)
Rand Paul gave pretty much the debate performance you'd expect here, pretty much full of exactly the same comments hes made for years. So under that metric it was a good debate for him, as he did get his message out. He also had the line of the night in my opinion in this exchange.
"I think one of the great problems, and what American people don’t like about politics, is hypocrisy. People have one standard for others and not for them — for themselves.
There is at least one prominent example on the stage of someone who says they smoked pot in high school, and yet the people going to — to jail for this are poor people, often African-Americans and often Hispanics, and yet the rich kids who use drugs aren’t.
[...]
TAPPER: I want to give that — I want to give the person that you called a hypocrite an opportunity to respond. Do you want to identify that person?
PAUL: Well, I think if we left it open, we could see how many people smoked pot in high school.
Turned out Bush admitted it was him, but I got to give credit, that was a funny ass justification for not naming him directly.
Of course, Rand Paul did make 1 piece of news in this debate...and its what stopped him from going any higher. Which is that, like Huckabee and Trump...he has not in fact read the 14th amendment and believes its possible it doesnt say "all persons born" in the united states. And in typical rand paul fashion, he cited something, in this case a SCOTUS case, that actually disproves his point (he claimed that the Supreme Court had only ruled on the amendment covering legal immigration, in fact the ruling said the circumstances of the birth here are irrelevant) as support for his case. Granted Rand knowing not of which he speaks is pretty classic Rand Paul, so I guess I shouldnt be too surprised.
#5 John Kasich (8/2)
Basically got no time to talk, but at least managed to use what little he had to lay out the case for him, including what he sees as his major accomplishment, helping create a balanced budget in the 90's.
he scores here because like Paul he said nothing new, and didnt really have any memorable moments....but also, unlike those below him didnt say anything really bad either. And lastly unlike the other candidates who got almost no time to speak (Walker and Huckabee) Kasich did a much better job of spacing himself out over the 3 hours....so there was never a time it appeared he was just not participating in the debate
#4 Ted Cruz (4/6)
Ok, this one hurts. I really really dont want to put Cruz here I really dont because I think hes a fucking nutjob. However the simple truth of the matter is, on every policy he commented on, he did a great job of clearly laying out what his position is...even if I dont agree with it.
To be fair though I would call it a tie with Kasich expect for Cruz's answer on money. He was the only candidate who thought it was a stupid idea to replace the father of US money (Hamilton) on the 10, and instead embraced the idea (supported by many people, myself included) that we should instead put a woman on the 20...so we can get rid of the raging racist.
Is it a dumb justification for putting him over Kasich, sure....but when both performances are that bland, I did need something.
#3 Chris Christie. (10/10)
In my last analysis I said Christie was barely treading water...and while his placement in this debate bears that out, he damn sure did a lot to improve himself in my opinion.
For starters he came out swinging hard, basically getting Carson to back down on a criticism of him right out the gate. He also managed to wave his record in New Jersey around on all kinds of issues, from taxes to planned parenthood and even drugs (in which he stands opposed to most of the field) and climate, and wouldnt back down when challenged on his opinion on a government shutdown.
And he delivered a pretty epic double bitch smack to both Trump and Fiorina when he effectively ended their pissing contest on who was the worse businessperson
"Jake listen. While I’m as entertained as anyone by this personal back-and-forth about the history of Donald and Carly’s career, for the 55-year-old construction worker out in that audience tonight who doesn’t have a job, who can’t fund his child’s education, I’ve got to tell you the truth. They could care less about your careers, they care about theirs."
Granted he is still lying about his role post 9/11 / his appointment as federal prosecutor as he did in the last debate so as to make it seem like he was picked because of 9/11 and how clearly qualified he was...but exploiting 9/11 is pretty standard in the GOP...it did however keep him from going any higher.
#2 Donald Trump (1/1)
Ok so here's the thing, Donald Trump does not deserve this spot. He said nothing of value and managed to look even fucking crazier than he already did by coming out as an anti vaxer.
However as you may have noticed, there was a long line of candidates, Carson, Fiorina, Jeb, who refused to take a swing at him, and a couple more, Walker, Jeb (again) he basically managed to shout down to the point they shut up and moved on without challenging him.
So its basically impossible not to give him a top spot. Its just he got it less because of anything he did, and more due to everyone elses refusal to attack or challenge him.
#1 Marco Rubio (6/8)
Ladies and gentlemen, your winner.
So much like Cruz and Kasich, Rubio was spot on on clearly laying out and justifying his polices, and he managed to look like the foreign policy expert with his answer on Russia and Syria. Trump even challenged him on Syria and he was able to shut Trump down (only candidate to do it that night, hence why he gets the top spot) and then came back later on a different question, in which Trump was asked about Rubio's criticism of him of not knowing foreign leaders names, and managed to shut him down again. And all this came before successfully deflecting the idea hes a climate change denier (and he is) into he just opposes the lefts policies to combat it. So he actually managed to look more reasonable than he is, while also not looking less hardcore to the conservatives.
Really other than a couple of jokes that fell flat there wasnt much Rubio did wrong...and even one of those jokes, where he brought his own water bottle, showed he is at least aware of the public perception and memory of him and knows he has to work that in his favor.
So there you have it folks, what the ranking SHOULD be for the GOP coming out of Debate 2.
For those curious the candidate show showed the most improvement in my placements would be Marco Rubio, jumping 8 points, and Walker had the worst showing, falling from 5th to 11th.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Where we stand after GOP Debate #2. Pt 1
So, despite being almost as long as the superbowl, the 2nd (actually the 5th) republican debate is finally behind us.
Now the most immediate impact was the unexpected death of millions of people who were playing the GOP debate drinking game, and had to take a shot anytime someone mentioned Reagan or Obama.
But as we try to move past that as a nation, how should the GOP field look after the second debate?
Now just like my previous post on debate 1, there is a small explanation required so as to make sense of some of my numbers.
Just like last time:
the way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (10) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.
New this go around will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (10/8) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.
and of course due to the larger field of candidates invited to the debate we will be leading off this time with #11
#11 Scott Walker. (5/5)
Who? No seriously, he was at the debate? As I remember he tried to join the dog pile on Trump at the beginning, got smacked down hard by Trump, then in the second hour lost out on "most talking time" on a question that was actually about his policy. Seriously, when you cant command the most time to anwser a question about your own policy your in trouble.
Actually to be honest, time was Walkers biggest problem . He only spoke for 8 1/2 minutes......the least of any candidate, in a 3+ hour debate.
Which is probably due to Walker basically disappearing from the entire 3 hour of the debate.
When he finally did break his self imposed vow of silence, it was to answer the questions even the moderators said were less serious and more light hearted.
Because, sitting out the hard questions is exactly what america looks for in a president....
On the upside, the 3rd hour of silence did give us a nice preview of what Walker will say in the next Republican Debate....the one he will be watching from home.
#10 Mike Huckabee. (7(tie)/7)
This is actually one most people are going to agree with, given that, no one else has dropped as far in the polls between debates as the Huckster. He entered the first debate in 4th....and this one tied for 7th. Yikes
This time out, Huckabee set a record, lying only 4 sentences in to his opening comments when he said " None of us on this state are under investigation by the FBI because we destroyed government records, or because we leaked secrets."
Now to be fair to Huckabee, HE isnt under investigation for shit...Governor Walker on the other hand is under multiple FBI investigations.
So because its not about him, its possible Huckabee didnt know about it, so didnt mean to lie.
Sadly for Huckabee, things he speaks about without knowing is kinda a reoccurring problem for him...and as always, this takes the form of the 14th amendment.
In fact at the debate he said his Litmus test for appointing a supreme court justice would consist of a few things including:
"Number one, I’d ask do you think that the unborn child is a human being or is it just a blob of tissue? [...][D]o you believe in the Fifth and the 14th Amendment? Do you believe that a person, before they’re deprived of life and liberty, should in fact have due process and equal protection under the law? Because if you do, you’re going to do more than defund Planned Parenthood."
Which is ironic, given that, per the 14th amendment his conclusion in that statement is a non sequitur from him premise.
So Huckabee would likely never be able to appoint a supreme court justice, as they would all promise to uphold the 14th amendment as written....Huckabee meanwhile is unfamiliar to the amendment to the point he thinks Dred Scott (which was reversed by the amendment) is still law.
Now to be fair to Huckabee, he did make 2 very good arguements.
The first was about which woman we should put on the $10 bill. And showing the strong forcefully opinions for which he is known, Huckabee said:
"That’s an easy one. I’d put my wife on there.
I’ve been married to her 41 years. She’s fought cancer and lived through it. She’s raised three kids, five great grandkids, and she’s put up with me. I mean, who else could possibly be on that money other than my wife. "
Now at first glance it looks like he basically dodged the softballest of softball questions....or just couldnt think of any famous women.
But the truth is, he's right. I think anyone who can stand Mike Huckabee for 41 years is worthy of some kind of major award/honor for their plight.
And actually, his second good point is so good I think it should be the campaign slogan.....of anyone running against Huckabee
"we cannot afford another eight years having a person in the [oval] office who doesn’t know what he does not know."
There you are folks, straight from the horses ass....
#9 Ben Carson (2/9)
Profiles in courage is listed in the thesaurus as the antonym to Ben Carsons performance.
For example he was asked about his criticism of donald trumps plan to deport all illegals in which he claimed anyone who wanted to do that had no idea what it entailed. When asked for elaboration on what it would take, his answer was basically "fucked if I know"
Then there was his minimum wage plans....or actually more like his minimum wage plans cause he wants two different wages....one, lower one, for people who arnt able to vote against him.....another higher one for those who are in fact old enough to vote.
Because hey, he wants to fuck over the working class....but not if they can return the favor.
Also, apparently he came out against the war in Afghanistan.....actually, now that I think about it, that one took balls. See Iraq is controversial, but pretty much everyone agrees on Afghanistan (at least the decision to initally go in) we got attacked, the attackers were in Afghanistan, we asked the Afghans to turn them over, they said no, we went in to get them.
But to Carson, it seems the best response would have been to do nothing. Because hey, if you ever get in a real fight....hitting the guys fist with your face as often as possible is the best strategy.
Actually you know what, I take it back about the courage...see after getting verbally bitch smacked on this by Christie, Carson basically backed down and said that well the real problem that caused 9/11 was a weak military so the best response would have been a show of military strength.
Finally there was his faceoff with Trump...over the fact that Trump just came out as an anti-vaxer (being against vaccination due to the totally made up idea it causes autism and other problems).
In other words this was a pompous jackass against a medical doctor on a medical issue....Carson should win this hands down right?
Turned out not so much. First when asked if Trump should stop lying, Carson ducked
"Well, you know, I’ve just explained it to him. He can read about it if he wants to. I think he’s an intelligent man and will make the correct decision after getting the real facts."
Trump of course claimed he had the real facts and moved on spewing bullshit
Then Carson actually agreed with some of Trumps bullshit, specifically the idea that people should spread out vaccinations to avoid medical complications, something that the same tests he had referred to before in his explanation to trump says is not true (and also possibly dangerous).
So yea, Dr Carson engaged in a medical debate with an assclown and lost it so badly he actually agreed with the ass clown.
Well Doc, it was nice knowing ya, sincerely your credibility.
Oh and lastly, just like the Huckster, Carson couldnt (or wouldnt) name a woman who he would put on the $10 bill (he named his mother cause she was his mother). Cause you know, making a real decision, even a meaningless one takes guts.
#8 Carly Fiorina. (7(tie)/Not ranked)
And heres where we take the heat...given that everyone else seems to thinks she won the debate.
Thing is, I'm not sure why people think that.
Lets look as some of her "winning moments"
Like when she "stood up" to Donald trump
"Moderator: [...]In an interview last week in Rolling Stone magazine, Donald Trump said the following about you. Quote, “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Mr. Trump later said he was talking about your persona, not your appearance. Please feel free to respond what you think about his persona.
(LAUGHTER)
FIORINA: You know, it’s interesting to me, Mr. Trump said that he heard Mr. Bush very clearly and what Mr. Bush said. I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I think she’s got a beautiful face, and I think she’s a beautiful woman."
Translation. Moderator asks Fiorina to call trump out on his bullshit...she declines.
On the one hand it might be the high road....on the other the way she dismisses it suggests its not something she feels the need to talk about anymore, like its in the past. Again this isnt a bad thing per say...but also not exactly a "brave attempt at challenging sexism" and the fact that Trump backs down anyways suggests he knows he massively fucked up and is just lucky she didnt want to hammer him on it.
Then we have her answer to the question about women on money which she basically refused to anwser
"I wouldn’t change the $10 bill, or the $20 bill. I think, honestly, it’s a gesture. I don’t think it helps to change our history. What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation. We are half the potential of this nation, and this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to live the life she chooses."
Women are half the nation.....weird that there is no physical representation of this in our symbols...like say on our money. Weirder still that there is no real recognition of famous women in our history....if only we had some way to recognize some of the women that helped change our country.
But I guess we dont really need that, because according to Fiorina it should be enough for women to know that they are the majority....even if we wont act like it at all.
So yea, gonna call that one a massive strikeout for womens rights.
Then we get to her other issues. Like say the very vivid description she gave of the scene in the Planned Parenthood tapes that informed her opinion on the subject....a scene that does not appear to actually exist. Which is much like her positon on drugs....driven by the idea that weed is more dangerous than pot....which isnt true. And kinda like her massively incorrect assessment of the make up of prison population....which is similar to her procedurally wrong explanation of how hard it would be to repeal the 14th amendment.
So yea, turned out every time she opened her mouth....she was wrong on the facts and premises forget any real analysis of her opinions.
So that just leaves her big fight with trump over her tenure as head of HP compared to his running his companies.
And while entertaining, that was basically a pissing contest over who was the smaller failure in business.....not exactly a winning campaign idea "Hey I fuck up big time....but at least its not as big as Trump"
So actually at this point, I have to pull a "CNN" and divide this up into 2 parts after only 4 candidates, as its getting kind of long. Unlike CNN however, the second part should actually be about the same length or shorter, the remaining 7 candidates didn't have as horrible a debate therefore should need less justification for their placements. So yea, with luck part 2 will be up tomorrow or Sunday.
Now the most immediate impact was the unexpected death of millions of people who were playing the GOP debate drinking game, and had to take a shot anytime someone mentioned Reagan or Obama.
But as we try to move past that as a nation, how should the GOP field look after the second debate?
Now just like my previous post on debate 1, there is a small explanation required so as to make sense of some of my numbers.
Just like last time:
the way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (10) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.
New this go around will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (10/8) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.
and of course due to the larger field of candidates invited to the debate we will be leading off this time with #11
#11 Scott Walker. (5/5)
Who? No seriously, he was at the debate? As I remember he tried to join the dog pile on Trump at the beginning, got smacked down hard by Trump, then in the second hour lost out on "most talking time" on a question that was actually about his policy. Seriously, when you cant command the most time to anwser a question about your own policy your in trouble.
Actually to be honest, time was Walkers biggest problem . He only spoke for 8 1/2 minutes......the least of any candidate, in a 3+ hour debate.
Which is probably due to Walker basically disappearing from the entire 3 hour of the debate.
When he finally did break his self imposed vow of silence, it was to answer the questions even the moderators said were less serious and more light hearted.
Because, sitting out the hard questions is exactly what america looks for in a president....
On the upside, the 3rd hour of silence did give us a nice preview of what Walker will say in the next Republican Debate....the one he will be watching from home.
#10 Mike Huckabee. (7(tie)/7)
This is actually one most people are going to agree with, given that, no one else has dropped as far in the polls between debates as the Huckster. He entered the first debate in 4th....and this one tied for 7th. Yikes
This time out, Huckabee set a record, lying only 4 sentences in to his opening comments when he said " None of us on this state are under investigation by the FBI because we destroyed government records, or because we leaked secrets."
Now to be fair to Huckabee, HE isnt under investigation for shit...Governor Walker on the other hand is under multiple FBI investigations.
So because its not about him, its possible Huckabee didnt know about it, so didnt mean to lie.
Sadly for Huckabee, things he speaks about without knowing is kinda a reoccurring problem for him...and as always, this takes the form of the 14th amendment.
In fact at the debate he said his Litmus test for appointing a supreme court justice would consist of a few things including:
"Number one, I’d ask do you think that the unborn child is a human being or is it just a blob of tissue? [...][D]o you believe in the Fifth and the 14th Amendment? Do you believe that a person, before they’re deprived of life and liberty, should in fact have due process and equal protection under the law? Because if you do, you’re going to do more than defund Planned Parenthood."
Which is ironic, given that, per the 14th amendment his conclusion in that statement is a non sequitur from him premise.
So Huckabee would likely never be able to appoint a supreme court justice, as they would all promise to uphold the 14th amendment as written....Huckabee meanwhile is unfamiliar to the amendment to the point he thinks Dred Scott (which was reversed by the amendment) is still law.
Now to be fair to Huckabee, he did make 2 very good arguements.
The first was about which woman we should put on the $10 bill. And showing the strong forcefully opinions for which he is known, Huckabee said:
"That’s an easy one. I’d put my wife on there.
I’ve been married to her 41 years. She’s fought cancer and lived through it. She’s raised three kids, five great grandkids, and she’s put up with me. I mean, who else could possibly be on that money other than my wife. "
Now at first glance it looks like he basically dodged the softballest of softball questions....or just couldnt think of any famous women.
But the truth is, he's right. I think anyone who can stand Mike Huckabee for 41 years is worthy of some kind of major award/honor for their plight.
And actually, his second good point is so good I think it should be the campaign slogan.....of anyone running against Huckabee
"we cannot afford another eight years having a person in the [oval] office who doesn’t know what he does not know."
There you are folks, straight from the horses ass....
#9 Ben Carson (2/9)
Profiles in courage is listed in the thesaurus as the antonym to Ben Carsons performance.
For example he was asked about his criticism of donald trumps plan to deport all illegals in which he claimed anyone who wanted to do that had no idea what it entailed. When asked for elaboration on what it would take, his answer was basically "fucked if I know"
Then there was his minimum wage plans....or actually more like his minimum wage plans cause he wants two different wages....one, lower one, for people who arnt able to vote against him.....another higher one for those who are in fact old enough to vote.
Because hey, he wants to fuck over the working class....but not if they can return the favor.
Also, apparently he came out against the war in Afghanistan.....actually, now that I think about it, that one took balls. See Iraq is controversial, but pretty much everyone agrees on Afghanistan (at least the decision to initally go in) we got attacked, the attackers were in Afghanistan, we asked the Afghans to turn them over, they said no, we went in to get them.
But to Carson, it seems the best response would have been to do nothing. Because hey, if you ever get in a real fight....hitting the guys fist with your face as often as possible is the best strategy.
Actually you know what, I take it back about the courage...see after getting verbally bitch smacked on this by Christie, Carson basically backed down and said that well the real problem that caused 9/11 was a weak military so the best response would have been a show of military strength.
Finally there was his faceoff with Trump...over the fact that Trump just came out as an anti-vaxer (being against vaccination due to the totally made up idea it causes autism and other problems).
In other words this was a pompous jackass against a medical doctor on a medical issue....Carson should win this hands down right?
Turned out not so much. First when asked if Trump should stop lying, Carson ducked
"Well, you know, I’ve just explained it to him. He can read about it if he wants to. I think he’s an intelligent man and will make the correct decision after getting the real facts."
Trump of course claimed he had the real facts and moved on spewing bullshit
Then Carson actually agreed with some of Trumps bullshit, specifically the idea that people should spread out vaccinations to avoid medical complications, something that the same tests he had referred to before in his explanation to trump says is not true (and also possibly dangerous).
So yea, Dr Carson engaged in a medical debate with an assclown and lost it so badly he actually agreed with the ass clown.
Well Doc, it was nice knowing ya, sincerely your credibility.
Oh and lastly, just like the Huckster, Carson couldnt (or wouldnt) name a woman who he would put on the $10 bill (he named his mother cause she was his mother). Cause you know, making a real decision, even a meaningless one takes guts.
#8 Carly Fiorina. (7(tie)/Not ranked)
And heres where we take the heat...given that everyone else seems to thinks she won the debate.
Thing is, I'm not sure why people think that.
Lets look as some of her "winning moments"
Like when she "stood up" to Donald trump
"Moderator: [...]In an interview last week in Rolling Stone magazine, Donald Trump said the following about you. Quote, “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Mr. Trump later said he was talking about your persona, not your appearance. Please feel free to respond what you think about his persona.
(LAUGHTER)
FIORINA: You know, it’s interesting to me, Mr. Trump said that he heard Mr. Bush very clearly and what Mr. Bush said. I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I think she’s got a beautiful face, and I think she’s a beautiful woman."
Translation. Moderator asks Fiorina to call trump out on his bullshit...she declines.
On the one hand it might be the high road....on the other the way she dismisses it suggests its not something she feels the need to talk about anymore, like its in the past. Again this isnt a bad thing per say...but also not exactly a "brave attempt at challenging sexism" and the fact that Trump backs down anyways suggests he knows he massively fucked up and is just lucky she didnt want to hammer him on it.
Then we have her answer to the question about women on money which she basically refused to anwser
"I wouldn’t change the $10 bill, or the $20 bill. I think, honestly, it’s a gesture. I don’t think it helps to change our history. What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation. We are half the potential of this nation, and this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to live the life she chooses."
Women are half the nation.....weird that there is no physical representation of this in our symbols...like say on our money. Weirder still that there is no real recognition of famous women in our history....if only we had some way to recognize some of the women that helped change our country.
But I guess we dont really need that, because according to Fiorina it should be enough for women to know that they are the majority....even if we wont act like it at all.
So yea, gonna call that one a massive strikeout for womens rights.
Then we get to her other issues. Like say the very vivid description she gave of the scene in the Planned Parenthood tapes that informed her opinion on the subject....a scene that does not appear to actually exist. Which is much like her positon on drugs....driven by the idea that weed is more dangerous than pot....which isnt true. And kinda like her massively incorrect assessment of the make up of prison population....which is similar to her procedurally wrong explanation of how hard it would be to repeal the 14th amendment.
So yea, turned out every time she opened her mouth....she was wrong on the facts and premises forget any real analysis of her opinions.
So that just leaves her big fight with trump over her tenure as head of HP compared to his running his companies.
And while entertaining, that was basically a pissing contest over who was the smaller failure in business.....not exactly a winning campaign idea "Hey I fuck up big time....but at least its not as big as Trump"
So actually at this point, I have to pull a "CNN" and divide this up into 2 parts after only 4 candidates, as its getting kind of long. Unlike CNN however, the second part should actually be about the same length or shorter, the remaining 7 candidates didn't have as horrible a debate therefore should need less justification for their placements. So yea, with luck part 2 will be up tomorrow or Sunday.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
'Merica speaks 'Merican and blacks need not apply. (this week in stupid)
Well here we go again....another week, another round of god damn stupid people.
First up this time, Kim Davis' long lost cousin (not really) Hamilton County Tennesee Chancellor (read: Judge) Jeffrey Atherton.
Like Ms. Davis, Mr Atheron is clearly against the idea of gays getting married. However unlike Ms. Davis the Judge isnt actually stopping gay people from marrying....he actually has no legal problem with that it seem.
No see to Judge Atheron, gay marriage isnt a threat to straight marriage....its a threat to straight divorce. Per the judges ruling denying a heterosexual couple a divorce:
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court [in the gay marriage case] to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,"
Specifically the Judge says, what he's confused about is "when a marriage is no longer a marriage" and he needs the supreme court to clarify.
Which is especially odd given that, in the entire history of this country, there has never EVER been a supreme court case about when a marriage ends (or begins for that matter). It ends as it always has....when the government grants recognition of it (and when needed mediates any financial or child care related issues).
Oddly I hear the same Judge has also disallowed burials because the Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross, dealing with the legality of the drugs used to carry out executions has left him confused as to when death begins. (I'm kidding....and the fact that I probably do have to clarify that is just sad)
Next up, the increasingly irrelevant Gov Scott Walker, who is attempting to run for president, but has hit some problems....mostly related to the fact that his usual campaign strategy of illegally stealing the election isnt working this time, mostly because all of his experienced aids are in jail (for having stolen all of his previous elections). Meaning that, this time, Walker was to run on political skill and talent. And as we pointed out last time....he's kinda short of both.
Alright so last time around he took all 4 sides of a 2 sided issue, this time around he has finally come up with a way to avoid that in the future. See Walker was recently asked what the US should do about the current refugee crisis, his reply:
“I’m not president today, and I can’t be president today. Everybody wants to talk about hypotheticals; there is no such thing as a hypothetical.”
Sadly this new position means we cant ask him questions like "Why do you want to be president?" "What are your goals as president?" "what would your policy positions be as president?" because these are all hypothetical's...on the upside we can still ask him when he wants to drop out cause thats not a hypothetical thats inevitable.
BREAKING NEWS INTERRUPTION:
I have just received word, that in typical Walker fashion, Scott Walker has flip flopped on his position on non existence of a hypothetical and has instead deiced they do exist and can be answered, so his new and current (at least as of 1130 am September 13th 2015, it may have changed by the time you read this) position on refugees is "No, we shouldn't be taking on any more Syrian refugees right now"
Still credit where its due, Walker held to his first position for 2 whole days, which I believe is a personal record for him......
WE NOW RETURN TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED WEEK IN STUPID.
Next up presidential candidate, newly arrived from the kids table debates, Carly Fiorina. Who recent said this about fellow candidate Jeb Bush giving some campaign speeches in spanish:
"I admire the fact that Jeb Bush is multilingual, I admire the fact that so many people are multilingual. And I also think that English is the official language of the United States.”
Unfortunately thinking doesnt make it true........I mean I think theres a couple of girls who should sleep with me right now, and oddly my bed is empty at the moment.
But theres an upside, even if by some miracle Fiorina becomes president, we wont have to worry about her attempting to make a national langauge (like many in her party want) cause she'll think its already been done.
All we got to do now is convince her abortion is illegal, iran's been bombed, and gays cant marry and we will have a republican president democrats will love.....
By the way, Mrs. Fiorina isnt the only republican to kinda fuck up the national language. Enter Sarah Palin:
“When you’re here, let’s speak American… I took Spanish in high school, I took French in high school. I got em all mixed up,"
Actually, to be fair, this explains a lot. See I have never really understood about 95% of what Sarah Palin says, and now realizing thats cause I speak English, not American. Presumably the 5% I do understand is due to some cognate words between the two langues.
Speaking of Mrs. Palin by the way, she gets another entry here as well. This time for her desire to have a cabinet level job in Donald Trump's cabinet.
“I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby, oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the earth for mankind's use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations, for us to import their -- their resources, I think a lot about the Department of Energy. And if I were head of that, I'd get rid of it, And I'd let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their states. So, you know, if I were in charge of that, it would be a short-term job, but it would be a -- it would be really great to have someone who knows energy and is pro-responsible development to be in charge."
Except for one small problem. Literally NOTHING Sarah Palin mentioned, importing resources, state control of land, development of land, oil, gas, minerals ect, is under the preview of the Department of Energy.......They are ALL under the department of Interior (specifically the Bureau of Land Management).
Also, a cabinet security doesnt have the authority to disband their department....that would require an act of congress.
All of which suggests that, despite saying twice how much she thinks about the department of energy,shes still not actually thinking.
By the way, speaking of Mrs. Palin, shes actually indirectly involved in our next item as well, however this is a totally different kind of stupid...one I actually approve of.
So I noted in my post on the Mt. Denali (formally McKinley) renaming just how god damn illogical it was to name a mountain after a guy who had nothing to do with the state. Well it seems some people have gotten together to push back against the Republican outrage on the name change (outrage centered in McKinley's home state of Ohio), and well their push back is kinda awesome. They have posted a petition on the White House website for a name change to yet another mountain:
"We the people would like to rename Ohio's highest peak "Mount Sarah Palin."
Located 50 miles from Columbus in Bellefontaine, Ohio and towering over the Buckeye State at 1,550 feet, Campbell Hill is a testament to the men and woman who strived to reach its well manicured, landscaped peak, some never to return
We propose to change the name of Campbell Hill to honor Alaska's most famous governor, Sarah Palin.
If the people of Ohio feel it is their right to name Alaska's highest mountain, then it would only be fitting for Alaska to rename Ohio's highest peak."
This is perfect "revenge" that is equally (and intentionally) as stupid as the thing its protesting. Well done Alaska, well done. (by the way, if you would like to sign the petition go here). This is the kind of stupid we need more of.
Or well done to most Alaskans anyways. We turn now to the 4th and final time this go around to something Palin related. However this time its not Sarah but her equally as moronic daughter Bristol:
This was Bristol Palin's reaction to the renaming of Denali:
"By the way, no one is buying the 'Denali is what the Alaskans have called it for years' line. I’ve never called the mountain Denali .. and neither does anyone I know ... It's Mt. Mckinley [sic] … It always has been and always will be to most of us."
So NO ONE Bristol knows calls it Denali...ok.
Actually, rather than do this myself, I outsource my response and bring in a special guest to reply. So here's our Special Guest in there response to Bristol
" What an absolutely beautiful day it is, and it is my honor to speak to all Alaskans, to our Alaskan family this last time as your governor. And it is always great to be in Fairbanks. The rugged rugged hardy people that live up here and some of the most patriotic people whom you will ever know live here, and one thing that you are known for is your steadfast support of our military community up here and I thank you for that and thank you United States military for protecting the greatest nation on Earth. Together we stand.
And getting up here I say it is the best road trip in America soaring through nature's finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun."
That, for those who dont recognize it, is the opening to the resignation speech given by Bristol's mother Sarah Palin.
Well shit, thats awkward.....Then again, this is coming from a woman who is currently pregnant with her second child from her second baby daddy who is most known for being against pre marital sex, so maybe we shouldnt be surprised the words coming out of her mouth have no relation to reality.....
But we turn now from the Palin Family to our winner for dumbest son of a bitch of the week (at least) Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee is, at the moment well known for being a HUGE supporter of Kim Davis, since he kinda hates everyone (having a long history of racist and homophobic comments).
Now here is his justification that Kim Davis is correct in her assumption she doesnt have to marry gays (or straights apparently) as given to talk show host Michael Medved:
“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?’ Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”
Oh.....my....god, I cant even.......He cant possible be that fucking stupid can he? he mispoke or he was drunk or something right???
Nope. he doubled down a couple days later on ABC's this week
“So, I go back to my question, is slavery the law of the land, should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? “Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it. That’s the fundamental question.”
Actually in Huckabullshit's defense we have already well established he hasnt actually read the 14th amendment given his stand on abortion and his belief that the amendment covers fetuses (which it does not, and in fact explicitly excludes)
Meaning that its actually possible Huckabee really doesnt know that the 14th amendment over turned Dred Scott. Once again, for what is way too many times (however I have to keep doing it, as the GOP hasnt read it yet), the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside[...]
This is directly overturning the Dred Scott decision that some people born here (namely those of African decent) have no rights and are not citizens.
And actually its not just the 14th the Huckster hasnt read....it seems, based on his second set of comment/the ones about lincoln, he may in fact never have never heard of the 13th amendment either.
That being the one that says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
And keep in mind, this guy could be the next president of the United States, and he still thinks slavery is legal, black folks have no rights, and it is only through the benevolence of white folk (presumably) that we allow them to appear to have equal rights and freedom.
Now there is a small silver lining here. Huckabee entered the first republican debate in 4th place. He's going to enter the next one in 7th, and averaging in polls conducted after the deadline for the second debate would drop him even further to 8th. Meaning that, it appears possible we have finally found a candidate that is actually too stupid for even republicans to support him.
Course on the other hand, Trumps numbers are still going up....so its actually possible Huckabee is actually just being out stupided and out racist and thats why his numbers are crashing.....
For the sake of American....lets all hope for the optimistic possibility on this one.
First up this time, Kim Davis' long lost cousin (not really) Hamilton County Tennesee Chancellor (read: Judge) Jeffrey Atherton.
Like Ms. Davis, Mr Atheron is clearly against the idea of gays getting married. However unlike Ms. Davis the Judge isnt actually stopping gay people from marrying....he actually has no legal problem with that it seem.
No see to Judge Atheron, gay marriage isnt a threat to straight marriage....its a threat to straight divorce. Per the judges ruling denying a heterosexual couple a divorce:
"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court [in the gay marriage case] to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,"
Specifically the Judge says, what he's confused about is "when a marriage is no longer a marriage" and he needs the supreme court to clarify.
Which is especially odd given that, in the entire history of this country, there has never EVER been a supreme court case about when a marriage ends (or begins for that matter). It ends as it always has....when the government grants recognition of it (and when needed mediates any financial or child care related issues).
Oddly I hear the same Judge has also disallowed burials because the Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross, dealing with the legality of the drugs used to carry out executions has left him confused as to when death begins. (I'm kidding....and the fact that I probably do have to clarify that is just sad)
Next up, the increasingly irrelevant Gov Scott Walker, who is attempting to run for president, but has hit some problems....mostly related to the fact that his usual campaign strategy of illegally stealing the election isnt working this time, mostly because all of his experienced aids are in jail (for having stolen all of his previous elections). Meaning that, this time, Walker was to run on political skill and talent. And as we pointed out last time....he's kinda short of both.
Alright so last time around he took all 4 sides of a 2 sided issue, this time around he has finally come up with a way to avoid that in the future. See Walker was recently asked what the US should do about the current refugee crisis, his reply:
“I’m not president today, and I can’t be president today. Everybody wants to talk about hypotheticals; there is no such thing as a hypothetical.”
Sadly this new position means we cant ask him questions like "Why do you want to be president?" "What are your goals as president?" "what would your policy positions be as president?" because these are all hypothetical's...on the upside we can still ask him when he wants to drop out cause thats not a hypothetical thats inevitable.
BREAKING NEWS INTERRUPTION:
I have just received word, that in typical Walker fashion, Scott Walker has flip flopped on his position on non existence of a hypothetical and has instead deiced they do exist and can be answered, so his new and current (at least as of 1130 am September 13th 2015, it may have changed by the time you read this) position on refugees is "No, we shouldn't be taking on any more Syrian refugees right now"
Still credit where its due, Walker held to his first position for 2 whole days, which I believe is a personal record for him......
WE NOW RETURN TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED WEEK IN STUPID.
Next up presidential candidate, newly arrived from the kids table debates, Carly Fiorina. Who recent said this about fellow candidate Jeb Bush giving some campaign speeches in spanish:
"I admire the fact that Jeb Bush is multilingual, I admire the fact that so many people are multilingual. And I also think that English is the official language of the United States.”
Unfortunately thinking doesnt make it true........I mean I think theres a couple of girls who should sleep with me right now, and oddly my bed is empty at the moment.
But theres an upside, even if by some miracle Fiorina becomes president, we wont have to worry about her attempting to make a national langauge (like many in her party want) cause she'll think its already been done.
All we got to do now is convince her abortion is illegal, iran's been bombed, and gays cant marry and we will have a republican president democrats will love.....
By the way, Mrs. Fiorina isnt the only republican to kinda fuck up the national language. Enter Sarah Palin:
“When you’re here, let’s speak American… I took Spanish in high school, I took French in high school. I got em all mixed up,"
Actually, to be fair, this explains a lot. See I have never really understood about 95% of what Sarah Palin says, and now realizing thats cause I speak English, not American. Presumably the 5% I do understand is due to some cognate words between the two langues.
Speaking of Mrs. Palin by the way, she gets another entry here as well. This time for her desire to have a cabinet level job in Donald Trump's cabinet.
“I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby, oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the earth for mankind's use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations, for us to import their -- their resources, I think a lot about the Department of Energy. And if I were head of that, I'd get rid of it, And I'd let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their states. So, you know, if I were in charge of that, it would be a short-term job, but it would be a -- it would be really great to have someone who knows energy and is pro-responsible development to be in charge."
Except for one small problem. Literally NOTHING Sarah Palin mentioned, importing resources, state control of land, development of land, oil, gas, minerals ect, is under the preview of the Department of Energy.......They are ALL under the department of Interior (specifically the Bureau of Land Management).
Also, a cabinet security doesnt have the authority to disband their department....that would require an act of congress.
All of which suggests that, despite saying twice how much she thinks about the department of energy,shes still not actually thinking.
By the way, speaking of Mrs. Palin, shes actually indirectly involved in our next item as well, however this is a totally different kind of stupid...one I actually approve of.
So I noted in my post on the Mt. Denali (formally McKinley) renaming just how god damn illogical it was to name a mountain after a guy who had nothing to do with the state. Well it seems some people have gotten together to push back against the Republican outrage on the name change (outrage centered in McKinley's home state of Ohio), and well their push back is kinda awesome. They have posted a petition on the White House website for a name change to yet another mountain:
"We the people would like to rename Ohio's highest peak "Mount Sarah Palin."
Located 50 miles from Columbus in Bellefontaine, Ohio and towering over the Buckeye State at 1,550 feet, Campbell Hill is a testament to the men and woman who strived to reach its well manicured, landscaped peak, some never to return
We propose to change the name of Campbell Hill to honor Alaska's most famous governor, Sarah Palin.
If the people of Ohio feel it is their right to name Alaska's highest mountain, then it would only be fitting for Alaska to rename Ohio's highest peak."
This is perfect "revenge" that is equally (and intentionally) as stupid as the thing its protesting. Well done Alaska, well done. (by the way, if you would like to sign the petition go here). This is the kind of stupid we need more of.
Or well done to most Alaskans anyways. We turn now to the 4th and final time this go around to something Palin related. However this time its not Sarah but her equally as moronic daughter Bristol:
This was Bristol Palin's reaction to the renaming of Denali:
"By the way, no one is buying the 'Denali is what the Alaskans have called it for years' line. I’ve never called the mountain Denali .. and neither does anyone I know ... It's Mt. Mckinley [sic] … It always has been and always will be to most of us."
So NO ONE Bristol knows calls it Denali...ok.
Actually, rather than do this myself, I outsource my response and bring in a special guest to reply. So here's our Special Guest in there response to Bristol
" What an absolutely beautiful day it is, and it is my honor to speak to all Alaskans, to our Alaskan family this last time as your governor. And it is always great to be in Fairbanks. The rugged rugged hardy people that live up here and some of the most patriotic people whom you will ever know live here, and one thing that you are known for is your steadfast support of our military community up here and I thank you for that and thank you United States military for protecting the greatest nation on Earth. Together we stand.
And getting up here I say it is the best road trip in America soaring through nature's finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun."
That, for those who dont recognize it, is the opening to the resignation speech given by Bristol's mother Sarah Palin.
Well shit, thats awkward.....Then again, this is coming from a woman who is currently pregnant with her second child from her second baby daddy who is most known for being against pre marital sex, so maybe we shouldnt be surprised the words coming out of her mouth have no relation to reality.....
But we turn now from the Palin Family to our winner for dumbest son of a bitch of the week (at least) Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee is, at the moment well known for being a HUGE supporter of Kim Davis, since he kinda hates everyone (having a long history of racist and homophobic comments).
Now here is his justification that Kim Davis is correct in her assumption she doesnt have to marry gays (or straights apparently) as given to talk show host Michael Medved:
“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?’ Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”
Oh.....my....god, I cant even.......He cant possible be that fucking stupid can he? he mispoke or he was drunk or something right???
Nope. he doubled down a couple days later on ABC's this week
“So, I go back to my question, is slavery the law of the land, should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? “Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it. That’s the fundamental question.”
Actually in Huckabullshit's defense we have already well established he hasnt actually read the 14th amendment given his stand on abortion and his belief that the amendment covers fetuses (which it does not, and in fact explicitly excludes)
Meaning that its actually possible Huckabee really doesnt know that the 14th amendment over turned Dred Scott. Once again, for what is way too many times (however I have to keep doing it, as the GOP hasnt read it yet), the 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside[...]
This is directly overturning the Dred Scott decision that some people born here (namely those of African decent) have no rights and are not citizens.
And actually its not just the 14th the Huckster hasnt read....it seems, based on his second set of comment/the ones about lincoln, he may in fact never have never heard of the 13th amendment either.
That being the one that says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
And keep in mind, this guy could be the next president of the United States, and he still thinks slavery is legal, black folks have no rights, and it is only through the benevolence of white folk (presumably) that we allow them to appear to have equal rights and freedom.
Now there is a small silver lining here. Huckabee entered the first republican debate in 4th place. He's going to enter the next one in 7th, and averaging in polls conducted after the deadline for the second debate would drop him even further to 8th. Meaning that, it appears possible we have finally found a candidate that is actually too stupid for even republicans to support him.
Course on the other hand, Trumps numbers are still going up....so its actually possible Huckabee is actually just being out stupided and out racist and thats why his numbers are crashing.....
For the sake of American....lets all hope for the optimistic possibility on this one.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
The day I woke up and agreed with the Westboro Baptist Church (Kim Davis)
Ok so the issue I agree with the WBC on is Kim Davis, a country clerk in Kentucky.
Alright so on the off chance you've been hiding under a rock, in the wake of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage Kim Davis decided that her office (which is in charge of issuing the official recognition of your marriage...sorry true believers) just wouldnt marry ANYONE.
A decision which she somehow thought the Supreme Court would overturn it self on within months because it inconvenienced HER and her religious beliefs.
Now this is usually the part where people (especially those opposed to her) tend to see the wheels coming off the wagon so to speak.
But actually what Ms. Davis did made sense...or at least it should have.
In the Hobby Lobby decision, the SCOTUS did in fact decide it is legal for me to force you to get on your knees and suck on my religion no matter your personal desires.
So hell, if I can be forced to not get birth control because YOU dont like it, why shouldnt you be able to force me not to marry someone YOU disprove of?
Course the problem for Ms. Davis is that she forgot to read the fine print on the Hobby Lobby case, specifically the part where you have to have the special platinum level corporate citizenship, and not the baseline regular human citizenship before you have to right to force people to choke on your religion.
So being just a regular human citizen, Ms. Davis got denied and got sent to jail for failing to do her job.
Which for the record is as it should be. You see many defenders of Ms. Davis say that her religious beliefs should mean she should never be forced to do something she religiously disagrees with as part of her job (in this case marry gays)
Now oddly NONE of those people are rushing to the defense of Charee Stanley, a Muslim flight attendant who was fired because she refused to serve booze (as he religion prohibits it).
Presumably, they would be none to fast to jump to the defense of a Hindu Burger King employee who refused to serve hamburgers. Also Ms Davis' defenders of the female persuasion likely wouldn't be nearly as accepting when the Muslim working at the DMV refuses to renew their drivers license.
Yet, down the rabbit hole of "My religion says X so you can suck it and pay me to not do it" Ms. Davis and her supporters went.
Which brings us back to the beginning, so to speak, and the Westboro Baptist Church
Not to long after going to jail, I woke up to the headline that the basically vile and evil Westboro Baptist Church....best known for protesting the existence of homosexuals during military funerals....based on the idea that gay people are responsible for the death of all soldiers, was protesting the Kim Davis issue.
So I assumed clearly they were coming to her defense as expected......NOPE.
Instead the WBC was protesting AGAINST Davis, mostly through images like this
And in a even more awkward twist, leaving the offensive language out of it, historically speaking the WBC is correct.
So WAAAY the fuck back in the day, it used to be basically impossible to get a divorce, partly cause the bible says shit like this:
"For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man." (Romans 7:2,3)
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)
"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not swear falsely, but you shall keep your oaths to the Lord." (Matthew 5:32,33)
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)
Which worked for a while, at least when marriage was more a business transaction then about love. But as soon as it became up to the bride and groom to fall in love and pick each other (instead of parents or the groom and the brides parents) well people tended to realize a lot of them married assholes. Which is presumably what happened with Kim Davis in all 3 of her divorces......
So suddenly the bible went from being the unbreakable word of God on this issue, and well in the word of everyone's favorite evil zombie pirate:
And hell, if we arnt going to listen to it about this issue, why the fuck should we about any other issue.....like say gay marriage, which as we all know, just kinda happened recently.
So ironically the Westboro knuckleheads have a point. AND if nothing else, you MUST credit them with some consistency, unlike Kim Davis supporters, the WBC is at least trying to follow all the parts of the bible....even the crazy ones. (in fact arguably it is because they follow some of the more crazy parts of the bible that people realize they are nuts)
Which is ironic, because according to Kim Davis it is her deeply held religious beliefs, based on the word of God as understood in the bible, that is her justification.
However, the longer this goes on its becoming apparent that neither Kim Davis, nor any of her supporters, like Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, actually care about the bible, assuming they have read it at all.
For example. 1 Corinthians 7:8,9 says this:
"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
This would seem to be a pretty rousing endorsement of the idea that, we really should let people get married than risk what might happen should their passions continue to burn.....an idea Ms. Davis is clearly against......even if we cede, just for the sake of arguement, the idea that gays shouldnt marry. She was also denying straight marriages....so yea kinda going against the holy book she claims governs ALL her actions.
Oops.
Now by the way, what does that holy book say about those like Ms. Davis who wont marry people?
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."
(1 Timothy 4:1-3)
Now of course that was written down a long time ago, so later times from that point of view would be considered NOW.
And its basically saying that people will eventually fall under the sway of those influenced by demons, who can be spotted by their willingness to deny marriages. (and again this still applies even if we agree to the idea of excluding gay marriages since she was also denying straight ones)
So to those who are proclaiming Ms. Daivs as a defender of the faith:
Per the holy book she is allegedly defending....shes following the doctrine of demons.....as are you by supporting her.
Well shit, that's awkward.....
By the way, this is not the only problem spot for Ms. Davis and the holy book shes chosen to champion. I already made mention of Ms. Davis' 3 divorces (and 4 marriages) and prohibition against that in the bible...but I actually left something out.
See all the prohibitions say those get divorces are committing adultery the next time around (or in Ms. Davis' case the next 3 times around) and adultery, as the 10 commandments suggest, is a sin.
Want to guess what the punishment is?
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)
"If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:22)
it seems to me, that if Ms. Davis is serious....that she can only do as the bible commands, she needs to turn herself, and her 2nd (also 4th) and 3rd Husbands over to be executed.
And the bloodshed doesnt stop there. See while married to Husband 1, Ms. Davis began an affair with Husband 3...who got her knocked up right around the time she married Husband 2/4.
So her twin boys, one of whom now works for her, are the products of adultery. But of course, we would never blame the child for the method of there conception...isnt that what the christian right is always telling us?
Well it turns out...not so much.
"Then the Lord said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
"The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’” (Numbers 5:11-31)
Alright everyone follow that? If not I will summarize. Basically when Kim Davis began the affair that got her knocked up, Husband #1 should have taken her to a priest, where, she basically would have been poisoned so as to cause a lose of the pregnancy (think of it as a biblical era abortion)....thereby killing her children
THEN presumably, she and husband #3 (and I assume #2/4 since its assumed she was sleeping with him as well at this point) should have received their executions for adultery....
Therefore, if we hold Ms. Davis to the belief system she herself claims is a higher law then ours, she should be returned to prison immediately, along with 2 of her 3 husbands, and her twin children, and they should all be executed at the first possible opportunity.
Now that may sound cruel, and it may sound inhumane. But I know its what Kim Davis would want.
And honestly, if we allow her religious beliefs to trump the only laws keeping her alive (those being the laws of the United States of America, which permit divorce, and prohibit death for adultery) I dont think we have a choice, we have to kill her....the bible said so, and the bible is supreme above all.
It seems I need to amend my original title and idea....the Westboro Baptist Church is only calling for Kim Davis to be forced to remarry husband #1 (by having her divorces declared illegal in the eyes of the law because of the bible). They are NOT calling her biblically demanded execution. So it seems even they are hypocrites who cant hold to the tenets of the faith they espouse.
Although, as it turns out, I agree with them on this too. I dont think Ms. Davis or any of her family should be killed. In fact I would suggest perhaps dropping this whole "lets follow the word of the bible (or any holy book) over rule of law thing" cause a near as I can tell, it just leads to a shit ton of corpses.
But should we decide to honor Kim Davis and her way of thinking, well I just hope the executions are quick and painless(which is growing less and less likely every day since are running out of the drugs needed to do that).
Well shit, that's awkward.....
By the way, this is not the only problem spot for Ms. Davis and the holy book shes chosen to champion. I already made mention of Ms. Davis' 3 divorces (and 4 marriages) and prohibition against that in the bible...but I actually left something out.
See all the prohibitions say those get divorces are committing adultery the next time around (or in Ms. Davis' case the next 3 times around) and adultery, as the 10 commandments suggest, is a sin.
Want to guess what the punishment is?
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)
"If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:22)
it seems to me, that if Ms. Davis is serious....that she can only do as the bible commands, she needs to turn herself, and her 2nd (also 4th) and 3rd Husbands over to be executed.
And the bloodshed doesnt stop there. See while married to Husband 1, Ms. Davis began an affair with Husband 3...who got her knocked up right around the time she married Husband 2/4.
So her twin boys, one of whom now works for her, are the products of adultery. But of course, we would never blame the child for the method of there conception...isnt that what the christian right is always telling us?
Well it turns out...not so much.
"Then the Lord said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
“‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
"The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’” (Numbers 5:11-31)
Alright everyone follow that? If not I will summarize. Basically when Kim Davis began the affair that got her knocked up, Husband #1 should have taken her to a priest, where, she basically would have been poisoned so as to cause a lose of the pregnancy (think of it as a biblical era abortion)....thereby killing her children
THEN presumably, she and husband #3 (and I assume #2/4 since its assumed she was sleeping with him as well at this point) should have received their executions for adultery....
Therefore, if we hold Ms. Davis to the belief system she herself claims is a higher law then ours, she should be returned to prison immediately, along with 2 of her 3 husbands, and her twin children, and they should all be executed at the first possible opportunity.
Now that may sound cruel, and it may sound inhumane. But I know its what Kim Davis would want.
And honestly, if we allow her religious beliefs to trump the only laws keeping her alive (those being the laws of the United States of America, which permit divorce, and prohibit death for adultery) I dont think we have a choice, we have to kill her....the bible said so, and the bible is supreme above all.
It seems I need to amend my original title and idea....the Westboro Baptist Church is only calling for Kim Davis to be forced to remarry husband #1 (by having her divorces declared illegal in the eyes of the law because of the bible). They are NOT calling her biblically demanded execution. So it seems even they are hypocrites who cant hold to the tenets of the faith they espouse.
Although, as it turns out, I agree with them on this too. I dont think Ms. Davis or any of her family should be killed. In fact I would suggest perhaps dropping this whole "lets follow the word of the bible (or any holy book) over rule of law thing" cause a near as I can tell, it just leads to a shit ton of corpses.
But should we decide to honor Kim Davis and her way of thinking, well I just hope the executions are quick and painless(which is growing less and less likely every day since are running out of the drugs needed to do that).
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Turn Dumb for What? (This week in stupid)
So unlike my previous blog, where I basically showed the evil of the stupidity infecting the GOP by comparing them to slaveholding nazi's (and no NOT remotely hyperbolic) with this blog we return to the lighter side of stupid, in our semi regular look at the infestation of infantile intelligence currently plaguing us.
Yet despite that, we pick up where we left off in the aforementioned blog, with Gov Chris Christie.
Ok so first, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton had this to say about republicans views on women:
"Extreme views about women? We expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States."
To which Christie said:"Well, there's a uniter, isn't it? Comparing Republicans to terrorist groups. There's a real uniter. That's the woman you want sitting in the Oval Office to bring our country back together, That's a disgrace, and she's a disgrace. She's a disgrace for saying that, for comparing Republicans to terrorist groups. Don't let her go on that, Chris. That's awful."
Now look I'll be honest, normally this wouldnt really register on my dumbass-o-meter as its pretty boilerplate back and forth political bullshit. But normally its not said by someone a couple of days after they double down on forcing people to be identified by an physically embedded number if the government finds them undesirable.
Which ironically means, Christie is kinda right here, Hilary does own an apology for her comments......to the terrorists, cause even they know enough not to suggest nazi pogroms might be models for future policy,
By the way, as long as we are kinda back on the subject of the GOP immigration policies, we actually have a number of Republican presidential candidates, who made comments not horrible enough to make the previous blog, but more of the criminally stupid variety.
Take Ben Carson for example, his solution to illegal immigration is pretty simple:
"You look at some of these caves and things out there one drone strike, boom, and they'd gone."
Ah so we are going to blow up people while they attempt to cross the border? that seems kinda heartless.
Apparently Carson agrees, because he issued the following clarifying statement later:
"I'm not talking about killing people. No people with drones."
Oh ok...so we are only going to blow up caves illegal immigrants ARNT using to cross the border because that makes sense....back to the good doctor
"There are caves that they utilize. Those caves can be eliminated. There are a number of possibilities -- that could be one of them,"
Wait so we ARE blowing up the ones they are using? but wouldnt that mean killing people?
"Drones can help with the surveillance. In no way did I suggest that drones be used to kill people,"
Ok so then what goes boom and why would the caves be gone? Still waiting on a response to that one.
Which brings us to my mothers "favorite" republican candidate Scott Walker
First watch this:
So he gets asked about it directly the next day:
In political terms, getting on both sides of the issue is called the "Romney" but Walker appears to have broken the landspeed record on doing it.
So how does Governor Walker get himself out of this mess?
Well a follow up interview in which he said:
“In both of these instances, what I’ve said and I pointed it out, I did a three-and-a-half hour gaggle, so there was bits and pieces of people interrupting, while we were taking questions along the way,”
Except not so much, since one of those was a 1 on 1 interview, and as near as I can tell no one was talking to Walker except the reporter in the second one.
So what is Walker's ACTUAL position on birthright citizenship? from the same third interview:
"We will talk about things in the future."
When it was pointed out thats a cop out answer he tried instead:
"I'm not taking a position on it one way or another."
So after taking both sides of an issue, walker is now trying to end up on the 3rd side where he can be on both sides or neither at the same time. Ladies and gentleman, we have just seen the fabled "Full Romney".....
Wait no never mind. Two days later, Walker was asked on ABC's This week if he was “seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment,” (that being the part that guarantees birthright citizenship) to which his answer was
"No. My point is any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry."
His Campaign then issued a final follow up
"His position is very firm: We have to secure the border and enforce the laws first. He has been saying this all week long. You have heard him say that countless times. I know what you're asking for but just because you're not satisfied with his answer doesn't make his any less worthy."
Yep, as he said all week, his position is "yes, I mean no, I mean maybe, I mean can we not talk about this? I mean No, definitively no, which is what I said the beginning of the week when i said yes"
But wait, as far as Walker and immigration, theres more.
See in his attempt to get off if he actually does or does not favor stripping americans of birthright citizenship, he decided instead to mention how much in favor he is of building a fence on our border....the Canadian Border.
Ok so in fairness to Walker he was asked about it directly
“Do you want to build a wall north of here too?”
To which his reply was
"Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire, They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at."
So he's in favor right?
if you think so, you havnt been paying attention. Heres what he said the next day:
"I never talked about a wall of the north, I'm certainly not now. That's just what happens when things get run amok"
"Run Amok" must be Walker code for "asked to have thoughts on things"......
Now I dont want to pigeon hole Republicans as ONLY tripping over themselves on immigration issues.
So thankfully we have John Kasich, who attempted (and failed) at a solution to education:
"If I were not president, but if I were King of America, I would abolish all teacher's lounges, where they sit together and worry about 'woe is us,"
Right because the problem here is NOT that teachers job's tend to suck...due to being underpaid, overcrowded class rooms, having to work long hours and weekends at home grading, or any of a number of other issues.
No the problem is teachers being able to talk to other teachers. Its the over-socialization of your teacher during their 10 minutes or less a day of free time that is the real evil of american education.....
BUT in kasich's defense, at least he fucked up on an issue....which is more than I can say for Jeb Bush's supporters.
Ok so a Jeb Bush superpac recently send out a mailer with this image, that was supposed to show Jeb Bush standing strong in Iowa, specifically the third Avenue Bridge in Cedar Rapids.
Alright, anyone see a problem? No? Well take a good look at his left hand.......Yea....thats awkward.
Now most people see that and assume the PAC just got a stock photo off the internet of a black man and photoshopped Bush into the picture and forgot to do the left hand.
Turns out the truth is actually possibly more embarrassing. It turns out, that IS actually Bush's left hand. But the picture is a photoshop and the original was taken elsewhere. When they photoshopped Jeb on to the background they changed the shadowing on his body to make it look like he was standing consistent to where the sun would be in the background picture,
And in doing so, they apparently consciously decided the appropriate level of shading on Bush's left hand was to turn it black. So instead of photoshopping bush onto a black man, the effectively photoshopped a black hand onto Bush and didnt think that would look unusual.......
Yea.....real group of geniuses you got there Mr. Bush.......
But our winner, and this weeks biggest dumbass,.............Jason Doré.
Who? Jason Doré, the executive director of the Republican Party in the state of Louisana, who's name happened to come up as one of the accounts exposed in the Ashley Madison leak.
Now for those who have never heard of Ashley Madison, thats a website that specializing in pairing up those looking to cheat on their spouses with potential mistresses (or misters)
I assume of course that Mr. Dore was far from the only political exposed in that leak....I just hope to god the rest of them have a better excuse:
"As the state's leading opposition research firm, our law office routinely searches public records, online databases and websites of all types to provide clients with comprehensive reports, Our utilization of this site was for standard opposition research. Unfortunately, it ended up being a waste of money and time."
Riiiiiight, and next your going to tell me she tripped and fell on your dick, and that it somehow got stuck in there and you were trying to wiggle it back and forth to dislodge it, so you were clearly NOT having sex when your wife walked in.
Actually to be fair to Mr. Dore, that last sentence in his excuse is probably true, as it seems most Ashley Madison users are straight males, so not of any interest to him.....
So yea, until the next time Mt Moron erupts (which given that its elections season will be soon), this was the week in stupid.
Yet despite that, we pick up where we left off in the aforementioned blog, with Gov Chris Christie.
Ok so first, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton had this to say about republicans views on women:
"Extreme views about women? We expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States."
To which Christie said:"Well, there's a uniter, isn't it? Comparing Republicans to terrorist groups. There's a real uniter. That's the woman you want sitting in the Oval Office to bring our country back together, That's a disgrace, and she's a disgrace. She's a disgrace for saying that, for comparing Republicans to terrorist groups. Don't let her go on that, Chris. That's awful."
Now look I'll be honest, normally this wouldnt really register on my dumbass-o-meter as its pretty boilerplate back and forth political bullshit. But normally its not said by someone a couple of days after they double down on forcing people to be identified by an physically embedded number if the government finds them undesirable.
Which ironically means, Christie is kinda right here, Hilary does own an apology for her comments......to the terrorists, cause even they know enough not to suggest nazi pogroms might be models for future policy,
By the way, as long as we are kinda back on the subject of the GOP immigration policies, we actually have a number of Republican presidential candidates, who made comments not horrible enough to make the previous blog, but more of the criminally stupid variety.
Take Ben Carson for example, his solution to illegal immigration is pretty simple:
"You look at some of these caves and things out there one drone strike, boom, and they'd gone."
Ah so we are going to blow up people while they attempt to cross the border? that seems kinda heartless.
Apparently Carson agrees, because he issued the following clarifying statement later:
"I'm not talking about killing people. No people with drones."
Oh ok...so we are only going to blow up caves illegal immigrants ARNT using to cross the border because that makes sense....back to the good doctor
"There are caves that they utilize. Those caves can be eliminated. There are a number of possibilities -- that could be one of them,"
Wait so we ARE blowing up the ones they are using? but wouldnt that mean killing people?
"Drones can help with the surveillance. In no way did I suggest that drones be used to kill people,"
Ok so then what goes boom and why would the caves be gone? Still waiting on a response to that one.
Which brings us to my mothers "favorite" republican candidate Scott Walker
First watch this:
That would be Walker saying that 4 to 5 months ago he released an immigration plan similar to Trumps.....Trumps of course calling for the end of Birthright citizenship. But to be fair he does say he didnt read all of trumps plan, so hes not sure he agree with all of it
So he gets asked about it directly the next day:
So yea, what youve just seen is Scott Walker take a position that "absolutely" we should end birthright citizenship....then in under a minute say that "no we shouldnt" deport the children of illegals (who are citizens)
In political terms, getting on both sides of the issue is called the "Romney" but Walker appears to have broken the landspeed record on doing it.
So how does Governor Walker get himself out of this mess?
“In both of these instances, what I’ve said and I pointed it out, I did a three-and-a-half hour gaggle, so there was bits and pieces of people interrupting, while we were taking questions along the way,”
Except not so much, since one of those was a 1 on 1 interview, and as near as I can tell no one was talking to Walker except the reporter in the second one.
So what is Walker's ACTUAL position on birthright citizenship? from the same third interview:
"We will talk about things in the future."
When it was pointed out thats a cop out answer he tried instead:
"I'm not taking a position on it one way or another."
So after taking both sides of an issue, walker is now trying to end up on the 3rd side where he can be on both sides or neither at the same time. Ladies and gentleman, we have just seen the fabled "Full Romney".....
Wait no never mind. Two days later, Walker was asked on ABC's This week if he was “seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment,” (that being the part that guarantees birthright citizenship) to which his answer was
"No. My point is any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry."
His Campaign then issued a final follow up
"His position is very firm: We have to secure the border and enforce the laws first. He has been saying this all week long. You have heard him say that countless times. I know what you're asking for but just because you're not satisfied with his answer doesn't make his any less worthy."
Yep, as he said all week, his position is "yes, I mean no, I mean maybe, I mean can we not talk about this? I mean No, definitively no, which is what I said the beginning of the week when i said yes"
But wait, as far as Walker and immigration, theres more.
See in his attempt to get off if he actually does or does not favor stripping americans of birthright citizenship, he decided instead to mention how much in favor he is of building a fence on our border....the Canadian Border.
Ok so in fairness to Walker he was asked about it directly
“Do you want to build a wall north of here too?”
To which his reply was
"Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire, They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at."
So he's in favor right?
if you think so, you havnt been paying attention. Heres what he said the next day:
"I never talked about a wall of the north, I'm certainly not now. That's just what happens when things get run amok"
"Run Amok" must be Walker code for "asked to have thoughts on things"......
Now I dont want to pigeon hole Republicans as ONLY tripping over themselves on immigration issues.
So thankfully we have John Kasich, who attempted (and failed) at a solution to education:
"If I were not president, but if I were King of America, I would abolish all teacher's lounges, where they sit together and worry about 'woe is us,"
Right because the problem here is NOT that teachers job's tend to suck...due to being underpaid, overcrowded class rooms, having to work long hours and weekends at home grading, or any of a number of other issues.
No the problem is teachers being able to talk to other teachers. Its the over-socialization of your teacher during their 10 minutes or less a day of free time that is the real evil of american education.....
BUT in kasich's defense, at least he fucked up on an issue....which is more than I can say for Jeb Bush's supporters.
Ok so a Jeb Bush superpac recently send out a mailer with this image, that was supposed to show Jeb Bush standing strong in Iowa, specifically the third Avenue Bridge in Cedar Rapids.
Alright, anyone see a problem? No? Well take a good look at his left hand.......Yea....thats awkward.
Now most people see that and assume the PAC just got a stock photo off the internet of a black man and photoshopped Bush into the picture and forgot to do the left hand.
Turns out the truth is actually possibly more embarrassing. It turns out, that IS actually Bush's left hand. But the picture is a photoshop and the original was taken elsewhere. When they photoshopped Jeb on to the background they changed the shadowing on his body to make it look like he was standing consistent to where the sun would be in the background picture,
And in doing so, they apparently consciously decided the appropriate level of shading on Bush's left hand was to turn it black. So instead of photoshopping bush onto a black man, the effectively photoshopped a black hand onto Bush and didnt think that would look unusual.......
Yea.....real group of geniuses you got there Mr. Bush.......
But our winner, and this weeks biggest dumbass,.............Jason Doré.
Who? Jason Doré, the executive director of the Republican Party in the state of Louisana, who's name happened to come up as one of the accounts exposed in the Ashley Madison leak.
Now for those who have never heard of Ashley Madison, thats a website that specializing in pairing up those looking to cheat on their spouses with potential mistresses (or misters)
I assume of course that Mr. Dore was far from the only political exposed in that leak....I just hope to god the rest of them have a better excuse:
"As the state's leading opposition research firm, our law office routinely searches public records, online databases and websites of all types to provide clients with comprehensive reports, Our utilization of this site was for standard opposition research. Unfortunately, it ended up being a waste of money and time."
Riiiiiight, and next your going to tell me she tripped and fell on your dick, and that it somehow got stuck in there and you were trying to wiggle it back and forth to dislodge it, so you were clearly NOT having sex when your wife walked in.
Actually to be fair to Mr. Dore, that last sentence in his excuse is probably true, as it seems most Ashley Madison users are straight males, so not of any interest to him.....
So yea, until the next time Mt Moron erupts (which given that its elections season will be soon), this was the week in stupid.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
The GOP attempts to summit Mt. Bullshit. (aka McKinley/Denali)
So perhaps you heard about how unamerican our president is...the newest reason I mean, and the major political scandal because of it?
Well if you havnt basically this is it: President Obama restored the original name of america's tallest mountain.
What? your waiting for the unamerican part? well that was is, that was the entire story. Cant you see how unamerican that is?
Ok maybe the longer version will help. America's tallest mountain was called Mt McKinley, after our former president, and now will instead be known as Denali....granted if your like me you havnt given a fuck about it, no matter its name, since you learned this bit of useless trivia (that its the US' tallest mountain) in 2nd grade.
But still assuming you give a fuck, the mountain is now being renamed. Which apprently is an OUTRAGE according to the GOP...specifically those from McKinley's home state of Ohio.
Or as 1 US Congressman from Ohio, Mike Turner put it
"The Ohio delegation certainly didn't hear about this from the president, I’m certain he didn’t notify President McKinley’s descendants, who find this outrageous. Clearly this is a president who is not concerned with the deliberative process."
Now unlike Turner I am actually POSITIVE Obama didnt notify McKinley's descendants.........because he doesnt have any, Both of President McKinley's daughters died before they reached the age of 4.
Now if you think fucking up the direct descendants of the guy your trying to defend suggests some stupidity on the defenders....well your catching on to how this is going to go.
So lets move on this time to a Senator Rob Portman (of Ohio) who tweeted this in a series of tweets about the renaming:
"Pres McKinley was a proud Ohioan, and the mountain was named after him, as a way to remember his rich legacy after his assassination"
Which sounds good, if not for a couple of small problems: Geography and Facts.
First, it might be a little weird to name something in Alaska after some guy to show how proud he is of being from Ohio....which at the closest point is 2700 miles away from Alaska. Except McKinley is actually from the east side of Ohio (niles) and the Mountain is near the center of Alaska, so they are actually about 4000 miles apart.
This would be like having a Monument to how proud George Carlin was to being from New York City in FUCKING ROME
Second, Mt. Denali was renamed McKinley in 1896 by a gold prospector as a show of support for then presidential candidate William McKinley. Which means, by the time McKinley was assassinated in 1901 the mountain had been named after him for about 5 years. OOPS.
Aint history fun? I hope so cause the GOP is going to try again, this time in the form of Speaker of the House John Boehner,
There is a reason President McKinley’s name has served atop the highest peak in North America for more than 100 years, and that is because it is a testament to his great legacy. McKinley served our country with distinction during the Civil War as a member of the Army. He made a difference for his constituents and his state as a member of the House of Representatives and as Governor of the great state of Ohio. And he led this nation to prosperity and victory in the Spanish-American War as the 25th President of the United States. I’m deeply disappointed in this decision.
Boehner gets partial credit here, McKinley DID serve in the civil war....but I'm not aware of any unusual distinction he showed. Which to be fair isnt uncommon for those in the lower ranks at that time, Generals tend to get all the credit and McKinley only ever made Brevet (temporary) Major (Regular Captain). Now taking nothing away from majors, consider this, in the movie gettysburg one of the main characters is the Unions Joshua Chamberlain, who is the guy who saves little roundtop. He was a Colonel, two ranks about Major. And all he had under his command was 100 men, McKinley wouldnt have even had that.
So you know, kinda up played the civil war thing there....but thats actually NOT the historical problem. Again Mt McKinley was so named in 1896....the Spanish American war (the legacy for which the mountain is named after according to the Speaker) starts in 1898.
God damn facts and their liberal biases.
So we switch tacks,and anyone whos followed republicans for the last few years likely knows whats next.....consistutional overreach:
we start with yet another Ohio US Congressman, this time Bob Gibbs:
“I hope my colleagues will join with me in stopping this constitutional overreach, President Obama has decided to ignore an Act of Congress in unilaterally renaming Mount McKinley in order to promote his job-killing war on energy. This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans.”
then Former Rep, Ralph Regula who said this:
"The law is it’s Mt. McKinley and he can’t change a law by a flick of the pen,”
or Senator Portman who tweeted this (as another in that aeforementioned series of tweets):
"The naming of the mountain has been a topic of discussion in Congress for many years. This decision by the Administration is yet another example of the President going around Congress,"
Or presidential candidate and Ohio Governor John Kasich, who tweeted this:
As POTUS once again oversteps his bounds, Ohio knows every carnation is a monument to our own William McKinley.
And to be honest, this line of thought even got some play outside of Ohio, as another presidential candidate, former Arkansas gov Mike Huckabee chimed in as well:
"One, that the president thinks he can do whatever he wants, even renaming a national landmark,[...]
But here's the second thing that riles me: Where the heck is the Republican Congress that's supposed to be a check and balance? I'd like to see them stand up and tell him he can't do it."
I have a hunch Gov Huckster isnt paying attention here, given that I just gave a ton of comments from members of the republican congress saying just that. None of which changes one small simple problem....all of these guys are in fact WRONG.
But before I lay out how, let me drop a couple of hints of what might be up here, starting with, of all people Sarah Palin, and her resignation speech as "Half Gov" of Alaska:
And getting up here I say it is the best road trip in America soaring through nature's finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun.
But but but, Denali is unamerican, what is Mrs. American doing saying it some 6 years before evil socialist man?
Well turns out Denali has been the official state recognized name for the Mountain in Alaska since 1975.....
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.
4 months ago pretty much every single republican senator voted for something called "SA 838", which was a bill to return ALL national parks to the states...a move that would default the name of the Mountain back to the official name recognized by Alaska, Denali.
By the way, SA 838 was the brainchild of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski...of Alaska, who by the way is totally in favor of the name change, praising Obama's action.
So once again, it turns out Republicans are for something....until a black man is in favor of it.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.
This time courtesy of Senator Rob Portman and his already twice mentioned tweets on the subject. This time around though this is the relevant tweet.
"I now urge the Administration to work with me to find alternative ways to preserve McKinley's legacy somewhere else in the national park that once bore his name."
now you may have noted that up till now we have only discussed the name of the Mountain, and not the national park it resides it. And maybe, you assumed "change one, change the other by default" not so actually, as Senator Portman knows. The name of Mt McKinley National Park was changed to Mt, Denali National Park back in 1980.
In fact the only place the name wasnt changed was the "Federal Board on Geographic Names", who happen to be in charge of making maps, hence why the name McKinley kept showing up on the map. Also should be noted the FBGN is an executive branch sub agency (inside the interior dept), so actually yes, Obama can tell them to do whatever the hell he pleases as long as its not illegal, with no need to consult congress ever. And in this case as it turns out, all he's asking them to do is follow the law from 30 years ago.
So yea, got to say this is a winning issue for republicans. So far they have managed to show they know nothing about a president they claim to honor, or what the laws are, or what their own opinions are, all in defending the name of a place that nobody gives a shit about, except the locals, who ALL (republican and democrat) favor changing the name to the point they already did it 40 years ago.
Yea, got to say this *totally* sounds like a winning issue for the GOP for sure.
But hey, I guess it was bound to happen eventually, even the GOP has actually run out of things they can get outraged about and are now reduced to begging for little mini unwanted outrage scraps like this.
Oh how the mighty are falling......
Well if you havnt basically this is it: President Obama restored the original name of america's tallest mountain.
What? your waiting for the unamerican part? well that was is, that was the entire story. Cant you see how unamerican that is?
Ok maybe the longer version will help. America's tallest mountain was called Mt McKinley, after our former president, and now will instead be known as Denali....granted if your like me you havnt given a fuck about it, no matter its name, since you learned this bit of useless trivia (that its the US' tallest mountain) in 2nd grade.
But still assuming you give a fuck, the mountain is now being renamed. Which apprently is an OUTRAGE according to the GOP...specifically those from McKinley's home state of Ohio.
Or as 1 US Congressman from Ohio, Mike Turner put it
"The Ohio delegation certainly didn't hear about this from the president, I’m certain he didn’t notify President McKinley’s descendants, who find this outrageous. Clearly this is a president who is not concerned with the deliberative process."
Now unlike Turner I am actually POSITIVE Obama didnt notify McKinley's descendants.........because he doesnt have any, Both of President McKinley's daughters died before they reached the age of 4.
Now if you think fucking up the direct descendants of the guy your trying to defend suggests some stupidity on the defenders....well your catching on to how this is going to go.
So lets move on this time to a Senator Rob Portman (of Ohio) who tweeted this in a series of tweets about the renaming:
"Pres McKinley was a proud Ohioan, and the mountain was named after him, as a way to remember his rich legacy after his assassination"
Which sounds good, if not for a couple of small problems: Geography and Facts.
First, it might be a little weird to name something in Alaska after some guy to show how proud he is of being from Ohio....which at the closest point is 2700 miles away from Alaska. Except McKinley is actually from the east side of Ohio (niles) and the Mountain is near the center of Alaska, so they are actually about 4000 miles apart.
This would be like having a Monument to how proud George Carlin was to being from New York City in FUCKING ROME
Second, Mt. Denali was renamed McKinley in 1896 by a gold prospector as a show of support for then presidential candidate William McKinley. Which means, by the time McKinley was assassinated in 1901 the mountain had been named after him for about 5 years. OOPS.
Aint history fun? I hope so cause the GOP is going to try again, this time in the form of Speaker of the House John Boehner,
There is a reason President McKinley’s name has served atop the highest peak in North America for more than 100 years, and that is because it is a testament to his great legacy. McKinley served our country with distinction during the Civil War as a member of the Army. He made a difference for his constituents and his state as a member of the House of Representatives and as Governor of the great state of Ohio. And he led this nation to prosperity and victory in the Spanish-American War as the 25th President of the United States. I’m deeply disappointed in this decision.
Boehner gets partial credit here, McKinley DID serve in the civil war....but I'm not aware of any unusual distinction he showed. Which to be fair isnt uncommon for those in the lower ranks at that time, Generals tend to get all the credit and McKinley only ever made Brevet (temporary) Major (Regular Captain). Now taking nothing away from majors, consider this, in the movie gettysburg one of the main characters is the Unions Joshua Chamberlain, who is the guy who saves little roundtop. He was a Colonel, two ranks about Major. And all he had under his command was 100 men, McKinley wouldnt have even had that.
So you know, kinda up played the civil war thing there....but thats actually NOT the historical problem. Again Mt McKinley was so named in 1896....the Spanish American war (the legacy for which the mountain is named after according to the Speaker) starts in 1898.
God damn facts and their liberal biases.
So we switch tacks,and anyone whos followed republicans for the last few years likely knows whats next.....consistutional overreach:
we start with yet another Ohio US Congressman, this time Bob Gibbs:
“I hope my colleagues will join with me in stopping this constitutional overreach, President Obama has decided to ignore an Act of Congress in unilaterally renaming Mount McKinley in order to promote his job-killing war on energy. This political stunt is insulting to all Ohioans.”
then Former Rep, Ralph Regula who said this:
"The law is it’s Mt. McKinley and he can’t change a law by a flick of the pen,”
or Senator Portman who tweeted this (as another in that aeforementioned series of tweets):
"The naming of the mountain has been a topic of discussion in Congress for many years. This decision by the Administration is yet another example of the President going around Congress,"
Or presidential candidate and Ohio Governor John Kasich, who tweeted this:
As POTUS once again oversteps his bounds, Ohio knows every carnation is a monument to our own William McKinley.
And to be honest, this line of thought even got some play outside of Ohio, as another presidential candidate, former Arkansas gov Mike Huckabee chimed in as well:
"One, that the president thinks he can do whatever he wants, even renaming a national landmark,[...]
But here's the second thing that riles me: Where the heck is the Republican Congress that's supposed to be a check and balance? I'd like to see them stand up and tell him he can't do it."
I have a hunch Gov Huckster isnt paying attention here, given that I just gave a ton of comments from members of the republican congress saying just that. None of which changes one small simple problem....all of these guys are in fact WRONG.
But before I lay out how, let me drop a couple of hints of what might be up here, starting with, of all people Sarah Palin, and her resignation speech as "Half Gov" of Alaska:
And getting up here I say it is the best road trip in America soaring through nature's finest show. Denali, the great one, soaring under the midnight sun.
But but but, Denali is unamerican, what is Mrs. American doing saying it some 6 years before evil socialist man?
Well turns out Denali has been the official state recognized name for the Mountain in Alaska since 1975.....
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.
4 months ago pretty much every single republican senator voted for something called "SA 838", which was a bill to return ALL national parks to the states...a move that would default the name of the Mountain back to the official name recognized by Alaska, Denali.
By the way, SA 838 was the brainchild of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski...of Alaska, who by the way is totally in favor of the name change, praising Obama's action.
So once again, it turns out Republicans are for something....until a black man is in favor of it.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.
This time courtesy of Senator Rob Portman and his already twice mentioned tweets on the subject. This time around though this is the relevant tweet.
"I now urge the Administration to work with me to find alternative ways to preserve McKinley's legacy somewhere else in the national park that once bore his name."
now you may have noted that up till now we have only discussed the name of the Mountain, and not the national park it resides it. And maybe, you assumed "change one, change the other by default" not so actually, as Senator Portman knows. The name of Mt McKinley National Park was changed to Mt, Denali National Park back in 1980.
In fact the only place the name wasnt changed was the "Federal Board on Geographic Names", who happen to be in charge of making maps, hence why the name McKinley kept showing up on the map. Also should be noted the FBGN is an executive branch sub agency (inside the interior dept), so actually yes, Obama can tell them to do whatever the hell he pleases as long as its not illegal, with no need to consult congress ever. And in this case as it turns out, all he's asking them to do is follow the law from 30 years ago.
So yea, got to say this is a winning issue for republicans. So far they have managed to show they know nothing about a president they claim to honor, or what the laws are, or what their own opinions are, all in defending the name of a place that nobody gives a shit about, except the locals, who ALL (republican and democrat) favor changing the name to the point they already did it 40 years ago.
Yea, got to say this *totally* sounds like a winning issue for the GOP for sure.
But hey, I guess it was bound to happen eventually, even the GOP has actually run out of things they can get outraged about and are now reduced to begging for little mini unwanted outrage scraps like this.
Oh how the mighty are falling......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)