The place for real American Politics

Discussing current issues in terms of making real laws that improve the lives of real Americans today.
sanityscraps:

brandos:

nom-chompsky:

cobracunt:

thisisappalling:

have I ever told you guys how much I dislike him? because, yeah um, he’s a fucking asshole.

there’s no words for this shit jfc

bill maher is a piece of shit. liberals/progressives need to stop giving a pass to these asshole (mostly white) dudes who say shit like this [brogressives]

I know personally that this man is an asshole. So this tweet is rather unsurprising. I lost respect for him ages ago.

Everything is fine up until the last sentence. Really, why was that necessary? Racism isn’t funny.

Not a huge Bill Maher fan, but he has moments like any entertainer.  But I am liberal/progressive and I am white and I am male.  I do not remember giving anyone a pass to say racist things.  I seem to remember that progressives tend to be on the right side of civil rights.  That all said, in logical seriousness, what is racist about this statement?  I mean I know that he mentions race, but he doesn’t disparage an entire race.  He doesn’t imply that all blacks are good at math, or share any other trait.  OJ was black, Kim’s men have generally been black, getting off means to be found innocent of a crime and to have an orgasm, like in that video where Kim slept with a guy who was black.  I want to be clear, the fact that this guy was black is not meant to in anyway harm the black community at large.  I am missing how this is racist, seriously, explain it to me.

sanityscraps:

brandos:

nom-chompsky:

cobracunt:

thisisappalling:

have I ever told you guys how much I dislike him? because, yeah um, he’s a fucking asshole.

there’s no words for this shit jfc

bill maher is a piece of shit. liberals/progressives need to stop giving a pass to these asshole (mostly white) dudes who say shit like this [brogressives]

I know personally that this man is an asshole. So this tweet is rather unsurprising. I lost respect for him ages ago.

Everything is fine up until the last sentence. Really, why was that necessary? Racism isn’t funny.

Not a huge Bill Maher fan, but he has moments like any entertainer.  But I am liberal/progressive and I am white and I am male.  I do not remember giving anyone a pass to say racist things.  I seem to remember that progressives tend to be on the right side of civil rights.  That all said, in logical seriousness, what is racist about this statement?  I mean I know that he mentions race, but he doesn’t disparage an entire race.  He doesn’t imply that all blacks are good at math, or share any other trait.  OJ was black, Kim’s men have generally been black, getting off means to be found innocent of a crime and to have an orgasm, like in that video where Kim slept with a guy who was black.  I want to be clear, the fact that this guy was black is not meant to in anyway harm the black community at large.  I am missing how this is racist, seriously, explain it to me.

An Actual Bill to End the Federal Marijuana Prohibition

via @gawker

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce bi-partisan legislation tomorrow, June 23, ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference. Other co-sponsors include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. The legislation is the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.

http://gawker.com/5814596/an-actual-bill-to-end-the-federal-marijuana-prohibition

whiporwill:

Why Won’t Republicans Attack Texas For Their Financial Crisis? Because It Doesn’t Fit The Narrative
This is especially apropos since Gov. Rick Perry is now thinking about running for President. How can the governor of an insolvent state pretend he has the chops to tackle the entire country’s fiscal problems?

There’s one state, which is fairly high up on the list of troubled states that nobody is talking about, and there’s a reason for it.
The state is Texas.
This month the state’s part-time legislature goes back into session, and the state is starting at potentially a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion. That’s enormous. And there’s not much fat to cut. The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending. Cutting everything else wouldn’t do the trick. And though raising this kind of money would be easy on an economy of $1.2 trillion, the new GOP mega-majority in Congress is firmly against raising any revenue.
So the bi-ennial legislature, which convenes this month, faces some hard cuts. Some in the Texas GDP have advocated dropping Medicaid altogether to save money.
So why haven’t we heard more about Texas, one of the most important economy’s in America? Well, it’s because it doesn’t fit the script. It’s a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state. You can’t fit it into a nice storyline, so it’s ignored.
But if you want to make comparisons between US states and ailing European countries, think of Texas as being like America’s Ireland. Ireland was once praised as a model for economic growth: conservatives loved it for its pro-business, anti-tax, low-spending strategy, and hailed it as the way forward for all of Europe. Then it blew up.
This is the sleeper state budget crisis of 2011, and it will be praised for doing great, right up until the moment before it blows up.


When questioned about this, Republicans claim that Texas is doing just fine, thank you very much pointing to some BS job numbers, heads fully in the sand.

whiporwill:

Why Won’t Republicans Attack Texas For Their Financial Crisis? Because It Doesn’t Fit The Narrative

This is especially apropos since Gov. Rick Perry is now thinking about running for President. How can the governor of an insolvent state pretend he has the chops to tackle the entire country’s fiscal problems?

There’s one state, which is fairly high up on the list of troubled states that nobody is talking about, and there’s a reason for it.

The state is Texas.

This month the state’s part-time legislature goes back into session, and the state is starting at potentially a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion. That’s enormous. And there’s not much fat to cut. The whole budget is basically education and healthcare spending. Cutting everything else wouldn’t do the trick. And though raising this kind of money would be easy on an economy of $1.2 trillion, the new GOP mega-majority in Congress is firmly against raising any revenue.

So the bi-ennial legislature, which convenes this month, faces some hard cuts. Some in the Texas GDP have advocated dropping Medicaid altogether to save money.

So why haven’t we heard more about Texas, one of the most important economy’s in America? Well, it’s because it doesn’t fit the script. It’s a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state. You can’t fit it into a nice storyline, so it’s ignored.

But if you want to make comparisons between US states and ailing European countries, think of Texas as being like America’s Ireland. Ireland was once praised as a model for economic growth: conservatives loved it for its pro-business, anti-tax, low-spending strategy, and hailed it as the way forward for all of Europe. Then it blew up.

This is the sleeper state budget crisis of 2011, and it will be praised for doing great, right up until the moment before it blows up.

When questioned about this, Republicans claim that Texas is doing just fine, thank you very much pointing to some BS job numbers, heads fully in the sand.

(via whipporwill-deactivated20111220)

stfuconservatives:

greaterthanlapsed:

zosky:

jerfrey:

early-onset-of-night:

OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE CHOOSE
Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and likely presidential candidate, wants all abortions outlawed. He has even said that abortion providers should be “criminally charged.” Clearly, his compassion for zygotes, fetuses, and other squishy, jelly-like substances not fully alive is without question. When it comes to actual human beings, however, there is some doubt. He voted to cut every social and welfare program that came before him as senator, and not just those helping women and girls, but those helping the poor, immigrants, children in general, and, of course, education.
Mr. Santorum doesn’t hate all people, however. As a Republican, he loves rich people, white people, business people, and Christians. The real Americans, he calls them. There’s one other person he loves, too: his wife, Karen Santorum.
He loves her so much, in fact, that in 1997 when she became seriously ill during the 2nd trimester of her pregnancy, he didn’t want her to die.
In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complications while she attempted to go full term.
Two days later, she became severely feverish. She was rushed to the hospital and placed on intravenous antibiotics, which reduced her fever and bought her some time, but could not eliminate the source of infection: the fetus.
Karen was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.
They named it Gabriel Michael Santorum.
The event is obviously tragic, especially for Karen, who, like her husband, opposes any and all forms of abortion, even when it saves a woman’s life. As her fever subsided, she realized what was happening and asked for drugs to stop the labor, saying, “We’re not inducing labor. That’s abortion. No way.” But it was too late.
Today, hindsight being 20/20, Karen says she would have authorized the procedure after all, justifying the saving of her own life by explaining that her other children would have lost a mother.
Indeed.
The procedure, whereby labor is induced to remove the fetus before it has any chance of surviving on its own, is considered by Mr. Santorum to be a ‘partial-birth abortion’, and he is correct. He also personally authorized one to save his wife, whom he loves.
Mr. Santorum is opposed to any and all forms of abortion. Incest? Too bad. Rape? Too bad. Twelve years old? Too bad. Wife, mother, daughter, lover, friend dying? Too bad.
This hypocrite needs to be kept out of all elective offices for the rest of his life.
“Abortion in any form is wrong,” said Santorum in 2000, three years after the tragedy. “Except for my wife. If your wife’s life was at stake and the only thing that could save her was an abortion, well, too bad. Your wife will have to die. It was different with my wife. You see, I love her. I don’t even know your wife’s name.”
share on Facebooksources: Raw Story, New Yorker, NOW, Our Silver Blog


ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME. So, it’s okay to have a life-saving abortion performed on your wife, but not on other peoples’ wives? FUCK THIS DOUCHECANOE. 

Rick Santorum is an evil person.

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion
Written 11 years ago, always relevant.

stfuconservatives:

greaterthanlapsed:

zosky:

jerfrey:

early-onset-of-night:

OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE CHOOSE

Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and likely presidential candidate, wants all abortions outlawed. He has even said that abortion providers should be “criminally charged.” Clearly, his compassion for zygotes, fetuses, and other squishy, jelly-like substances not fully alive is without question. When it comes to actual human beings, however, there is some doubt. He voted to cut every social and welfare program that came before him as senator, and not just those helping women and girls, but those helping the poor, immigrants, children in general, and, of course, education.

Mr. Santorum doesn’t hate all people, however. As a Republican, he loves rich people, white people, business people, and Christians. The real Americans, he calls them. There’s one other person he loves, too: his wife, Karen Santorum.

He loves her so much, in fact, that in 1997 when she became seriously ill during the 2nd trimester of her pregnancy, he didn’t want her to die.

In the 19th week of her pregnancy, Karen discovered during a routine exam that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die inside of her. A long-shot surgery was performed that required cutting directly into the womb. It carried a high risk of infection and was performed not to save the fetus, but to reduce Karen’s complications while she attempted to go full term.

Two days later, she became severely feverish. She was rushed to the hospital and placed on intravenous antibiotics, which reduced her fever and bought her some time, but could not eliminate the source of infection: the fetus.

Karen was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

They named it Gabriel Michael Santorum.

The event is obviously tragic, especially for Karen, who, like her husband, opposes any and all forms of abortion, even when it saves a woman’s life. As her fever subsided, she realized what was happening and asked for drugs to stop the labor, saying, “We’re not inducing labor. That’s abortion. No way.” But it was too late.

Today, hindsight being 20/20, Karen says she would have authorized the procedure after all, justifying the saving of her own life by explaining that her other children would have lost a mother.

Indeed.

The procedure, whereby labor is induced to remove the fetus before it has any chance of surviving on its own, is considered by Mr. Santorum to be a ‘partial-birth abortion’, and he is correct. He also personally authorized one to save his wife, whom he loves.

Mr. Santorum is opposed to any and all forms of abortion. Incest? Too bad. Rape? Too bad. Twelve years old? Too bad. Wife, mother, daughter, lover, friend dying? Too bad.

This hypocrite needs to be kept out of all elective offices for the rest of his life.

“Abortion in any form is wrong,” said Santorum in 2000, three years after the tragedy. “Except for my wife. If your wife’s life was at stake and the only thing that could save her was an abortion, well, too bad. Your wife will have to die. It was different with my wife. You see, I love her. I don’t even know your wife’s name.”

share on Facebook
sources: Raw Story, New Yorker, NOW, Our Silver Blog

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME. So, it’s okay to have a life-saving abortion performed on your wife, but not on other peoples’ wives? FUCK THIS DOUCHECANOE. 

Rick Santorum is an evil person.

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

Written 11 years ago, always relevant.

(via shorterexcerpts)

Have we really become so unsexy as a society that you don’t even get to touch somebody for it to count as an affair? Here are the things Anthony Weiner didn’t do. He didn’t rape a hotel maid or a 13-year-old girl. He didn’t knock up a staffer while his wife was terminally ill with cancer, then misappropriate campaign funds to cover it up. He didn’t serve his sick wife divorce papers while cavorting with yet another staffer. He didn’t leave the maimed woman who cared for him after his release from a Vietnamese POW camp for a 25-year-old brewing heiress. He didn’t (with all respect) get his peepee sucked in the Oval Office by an intern. He didn’t rail against the evils of homosexuality while soliciting the services of a male meth-head prostitute (if you don’t remember exactly which one that was, it’s because there are too many to name). And he didn’t coerce his humiliated wife to stand next to him during a debasing press conference, which, as far as I’m concerned, almost makes him a feminist fucking hero.

BUST Magazine: Let’s all post our weiners (via stfuconservatives)

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

He also did not blackmail anyone by threatening to release lewd photos.

(via am-neubs)

(via amneubs)

Cutting taxes has never led to prosperity

It has never happened in the history of the world that a country has seen an economic recovery following decreased spending and/or decreased taxes.  There is one way to get out of a bad economy, the Eisenhower way, invest in your country, invest in your infrastructure, and invest in your selves.

Three lies about taxes

azspot:

  1. Poor people don’t pay taxes. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Chuck Marr and Brian Highsmith provide the definitive takedown of this myth.

  2. The U.S. suffers from high taxes. As measured in terms of total tax revenue as a share of overall GDP the average tax burden for countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2008 was 44.8 percent. The U.S. — 26.1 percent. The U.S. pays less taxes, as a share of GDP, than Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Austria, France, Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Switzerland and Japan.

  3. U.S. corporations are over-taxed. Actually, as measured in terms of share of GDP, the U.S. has the lowest corporate tax burden of any OECD nation. While the official tax bracket may seems high — 35 percent — if one takes into account various loopholes and tax dodges, the effective tax rate is considerably lower, or around 27 percent, which comes in as slightly higher than average for OECD members. And according to ace tax report David Cay Johnston, the bigger you are, the less you pay — the effective tax rate for the biggest U.S. corporations is only about 15 percent.

I would also like to add a couple more.

4) You pay taxes then get services, nope it is the other way around, you get services and the work of millions of Americans the instant that you are born, taxes are just paying back.

5)  People are taxed.  FALSE.  The US government only taxes exchange of US currency, money is taxed, transactions are taxed, people are not.

(via andrewgraham)

Academic books pack about 600 words to a page. Normal books clock in around 400. Large-print books — you know, the ones for kids or the visually impaired — fit about 250. The House GOP’s jobs plan, however, gets about 200 words to a page. The typeface is fit for giants, and the document’s 10 pages are mostly taken up by pictures. It looks like the staffer in charge forgot the assignment was due on Thursday rather than Friday, and so cranked the font up to 24 and began dumping clip art to pad out the plan.

Ezra Klein reflecting on the GOP “jobs plan.” (via lemkin)

EK needs to marry me. I read the jobs plan earlier and laughed out loud at the first page.

(via chrisfromarose)

(via think4yourself)

Wherefore the “Smoking Semen”?

Injustice was delivered in New York City yesterday with the “Not Guilty” verdict in the now-infamous “Rape Cop” trial.  It was, said Gawker.com, a “case was so outrageous that it even made Andrea Peyser write a decent column.”

The jury decision appeared to hinge on a lack of physical evidence of rape.  Now, a guilty verdict can absolutely be delivered without DNA evidence (one only needs to read through the sad files of the Innocence Project to discover this fact).  However, the New York jury decided that the lack of a “smoking sperm” at the scene of the crime was enough to create a reasonable doubt. As far as I can tell, CSI has taught them that most crime scenes are literally covered in wonderful, guilt-indicating semen and pubic hair samples. So, lesson to all would-be rapists - rape isn’t a crime of you shave first and wrap it up.  Who knew?

I’m mystified as to how 12 so-called rational people could be presented with something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck - and they demand the defense produce a tangible duck feather or they’ll remain unconvinced. 

In my commitment to Real Politics, I tried to think of ways that we can proactively address this as a society.  I can think of two things:

1) We must break the blue shield of silence, and we must, as a society, admit that those charged to protect us are potentially-fallible human beings.  We can do this by encouraging stronger whistleblower protections for those that speak up, and reward those who expose “bad apples”.  With the current system, there’s strong incentive to cover up or refuse to discuss wrongdoing by a fellow officer, as it’s considered to reflect poorly on the force.  To weed out the small percentage of those who seek to use their authority to the public’s disadvantage, we must subvert this paradigm.

2) As a society, we must become more honest about rape.  There’s pervasive attitude that “rapist” is the worst thing someone can be called - an indelible mark of Cain representing ultimate evil.  The crazy-eyes-jumps-out-from-the-bushes-wielding-a-knife scenario.  Consequently, it follows that no one should ever be given this evil, evil name unless we’re 100% caught-on-videotape sure. This attitude is a large part of why only 40% of US sexual assaults are ever reported to the police.

We must understand that rapists aren’t bad, evil demons lurking in the bushes.  They’re just people who have abused their power over others.  However, the pleased sing-song “not guilty” delivered by the jury makes me think they were just so happy to spare this nice young man from being branded with the evillest of words.  The “nice young man” made a phony 911 call, returned to her apartment three times, lied about his reasons for being there and admittedly “cuddled” a vomit-covered, shirtless, incapacitated drunk woman in her own bed.  He’s no saint (and honestly, how even these facts don’t add up to a verdict of sexual assault is beyond me). Perhaps more thought should have been given to the victim, and why she would go through all the pain of prosecuting if the existing doubt in the case was ever-so-reasonable.

Unfortunately, until we can admit that “rapist” doesn’t mean “demon” and instead means “person who has sexually assaulted/victimized someone” we’re going to continue seeing injustices like this verdict.