DescentBB

November just got interesting. Can't say I'm sorry to see Cantor go either.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/ ... index.html

don't really give a Rip about Cantor.

4 more to go for starters
Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell

CUDA is barking up a hopeful, but unlikely tree. The Cantor loss was a stunner, and can be seen purely as a rejection of the status quo(throw the bums out mentality). In a very safe, gerrymandered GOP district that was essentially created to protect Cantor's valuable seniority in the House, the voters chose to kick seniority in the pants. It was not, as some on both sides seem to try and paint it, a Tea Party victory, except for the fact that Cantor was apparently hated by the national TP movement. No outside money flowed into the race. Cantor outspent his opponent by 2500%., he ran 40 times the number of TV ads. The locals, though, were fed up with the fact that he aimed for a national audience, and seemingly wasn't in agreement on some issues.
Now, to TC's original point. This might lead to a massive pissing match. Cantor, as I figured, is resigning his leadership post(he has ZERO clout now), and there is a Conservative Wing push for one of them to assume his post, if not another of their caucus as Speaker. These ideas, I suspect, send the establisment Republicans into their third Scotch, melting the ice cubes by snorting in disgust. Lotsa money and clout to be pissed away in this fight, and lotsa hard feelings afterward, unless handled perfectly. Not a great scenario going into a major Presidential cycle, with a LOT of GOP incumbant Senators up in 2016.

Kind of like 1964 all over again, sorta. Republicans do like to fight amongst themselves.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/ ... rinos.html

My God, read the comments on that page. So much inbreeding.

I think people are tired of career politicians period. I hope anybody that's been there longer than 6-8 years gets their walking papers this cycle.

callmeslick wrote:CUDA is barking up a hopeful, but unlikely tree. The Cantor loss was a stunner, and can be seen purely as a rejection of the status quo(throw the bums out mentality).

Considering the winning candidate stumped strongly against Cantors immigration reform policy, I'd disagree.

I think Cantor got beat by the 'bad cop perception'.

You know when you hear about a drug dealer getting busted you think ok, he broke the law so he gets busted. Nothing significant there. But, if you hear about a cop who was selling drugs he took off drug dealers he arrested you think 'what a scumbag!'

Cantor represented himself as a hardcore conservative and was trying to sell a very liberal concept of amnesty at the very moment the media was showing his constituents how the mere rumor of amnesty has caused a swarm of incoming illegals.

I imagine a whole lot of conservative voters saw him on TV and thought 'what a lying scumbag'.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:CUDA is barking up a hopeful, but unlikely tree. The Cantor loss was a stunner, and can be seen purely as a rejection of the status quo(throw the bums out mentality).

Considering the winning candidate stumped strongly against Cantors immigration reform policy, I'd disagree.

a poll of the district shows them to be 60% IN FAVOR of immigration reform, with over that number saying they would support a candidate who helped get comprehensive immigration reform done this year. Maybe the issue has resonance with the 13% of the GOP registrants that turned out, Tuesday. Still, that Tuesday poll might hold the answer in two other questions: Cantors job approval was 40% and the approval of House GOP leadership was 32%, which led me to guess that it's more of a 'throw the bums out' mentality at work. For the GOP sake, it had better not be a sign that they cling to obvious losing issues, or lack of compromise, to win primaries. Because, if so, they are DONE. I'll bet you right now that Bart might not win the seat in the fall if he runs on blocking immigration reform, even in that district.

"immigration reform" means different things to different people. it's like polls that ask if you approve of the President. Some die hard leftists disapprove of him not being crazy enough...that doesn't mean they agree with the Tea Party on the issues.

And a poll that cites "60% of the district" includes non republican primary voters so don't apply that metric to the results of a republican primary.

if you see the poll(it's easily found via google) you will see that they asked the immigration question 3 different ways. One had a sort of pro-immigration wording, one was sort of suggestive of harsh anti wording, and the third was sort of bland and open. Same results all three ways. You are right, Will, in what you say, but these pollsters covered the bases pretty well.


and, in yet another example of the GOP taking dangerous, stupid positions for a national party:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Ri ... 59871.html


the two are SO similar.....and, most intelligent adults know this is idiocy.

so, if it makes sense to force insurance carriers to cover transgender medical expenses. Doesn't that also mean they should be forced to cover that reparative therapy if the gay person happens to want to try and fight the urge he feels?

I'm not suggesting I think gay people should do that, nor do I believe it could be an effective solution (being gay doesn't need a 'solution' in my view). Just like I don't believe sewing a penis together out of vaginal tissue is 'effective'.
But if it gives the recipient comfort...and we are talking about inherent biological anomalies in all examples....it seems logical and ethical to be 'all in' for treatment regardless of how it falls in the popular political rhetoric war.

It seems to me both sides of the debate want to restrict the healthcare and medical industries to only facilitate procedure that supports their side instead of giving the patient access to all the choices the industries provide.

Lots of demagoguing going on up in there from all angles.

Will Robinson wrote:so, if it makes sense to force insurance carriers to cover transgender medical expenses. Doesn't that also mean they should be forced to cover that reparative therapy if the gay person happens to want to try and fight the urge he feels?

were the 'therapy' shown to work. Ever.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:so, if it makes sense to force insurance carriers to cover transgender medical expenses. Doesn't that also mean they should be forced to cover that reparative therapy if the gay person happens to want to try and fight the urge he feels?

were the 'therapy' shown to work. Ever.

was a penis made from a vagina ever shown to make a girl into a guy?

now you get into complexities, Will. Frankly, the whole transgender thing is liable to be the next big sexual issue that society grapples with. now that a clear critical mass of the public has accepted the homosexuality of individuals as something one is born with. The complexity around gender is NOT so simple as 1) has penis or 2) has vagina. A lot of genetics behind what makes a man or a woman identify by gender.

This does not make Perry's remarks one bit less stupid, though.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:were the 'therapy' shown to work. Ever.

was a penis made from a vagina ever shown to make a girl into a guy?

It is important to point out that, generally speaking, government sponsored programs and medical procedures are only approved once they reach a success milestone. This is because no one, dem or rep, wants to waste tax dollars on stuff that isn't a good bargain. The success of gay therapy is basically zero while gender reassignment has great results. You might not have fully functioning parts but then again lots of people are born without working parts. Working parts is a different problem than having them in the first place.

Here's a good explanation for the upset. The usual fringe stuff that "conservatives" are buying into these days that is now being called "mainstream". God gave him the victory he claimed.

New Yorker wrote:In a call-in interview with Sean Hannity, of Fox News, recorded shortly after his shocking victory was made official, Brat came across not as a pitchfork-wielding Tea Party activist but as what is now a mainstream right-wing Republican—if that isn’t a contradiction in terms, and I don’t think it is. He made clear that he’s a believer in divine intervention, the Pentagon, balanced budgets, free enterprise (except when it comes to the enterprise of immigrants crossing the U.S. border without documentation), and Ronald Reagan. “It’s a miracle,” Bart told Hannity. “God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... party.html

Jon Stewart wrote:"What? I imagine you could've said Eric Cantor was too liberal pre-Enlightenment. Certainly during the middle ages, Cantor's views on accepting gravity would be considered dangerous. How is this cat too liberal?"

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-analy ... 33740.html

callmeslick wrote:


a poll of the district shows them to be 60% IN FAVOR of immigration reform, with over that number saying they would support a candidate who helped get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.

You might want to link your poll:

Questions have been raised about PPP's methods (The Pollster) in the past. Here's how it's poll framed the matter:

"There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. The bill would secure our borders, block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal?"

This question on the surface, looks like something conservatives would go for. But is the question what is really going on with immigration reform? And the PPL poll was sponsored by Americans United for Change, A very liberal group. So in short the poll was sculpted to give a very appealing question for both sides and is being used as "proof" that voters are all for Cantors idea of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Instead of worrying about transgender operation, the govt. health care should be more worried about basic care. I just went on Medicare part B and imagine my surprised when I got a 250.00 bill for my yearly physical,that I might add, was paid for by my prior insurance carrier. It looks like the govt. wants you to get sick first before they will pay. So much for preventive health care eh?

Woody,
here's your requested link. Please note that not only was the immigration thing worded two ways, the issue of immigration and the urgency thereof was asked a third time. All came out similarly. Note also, the voters approval of Congressional leadership:
http://www.americansunitedforchange.org ... s61114.pdf


I agree, by the way, with your call for greater emphasis on basic well care.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:were the 'therapy' shown to work. Ever.

was a penis made from a vagina ever shown to make a girl into a guy?

It is important to point out that, generally speaking, government sponsored programs and medical procedures are only approved once they reach a success milestone. This is because no one, dem or rep, wants to waste tax dollars on stuff that isn't a good bargain. The success of gay therapy is basically zero while gender reassignment has great results. You might not have fully functioning parts but then again lots of people are born without working parts. Working parts is a different problem than having them in the first place.

No, government programs/mandates have all sorts of questionable stuff in it. Aroma therapy coverage must be covered by insurance policy in some states.
And results isn't always a benchmark. God knows we've seen lots of things that are designed to boost self esteem with no other productive quality mandated in schools etc.

If a guy is tortured by the realization he is gay and wants to have a counselor talk him thru his denial that is just as valid as Ebonics and no score keeping in school sports and in my mind not any less helpfull than the fleshy construction they tell you is a penis.