DANIEL HOROWITZ: GOP House Codifies Obama's Transgenderism in Dark of Night

[DiogenesLamp]

Some people seem to like publicly displaying their ignorance of Civics. Because as much as they 'feel' that there are only two choices, civics shows there are not. These types usually suck at world history too.

If they were honest with people, they would say that there are two choices in their opinion. Because it is only their opinion and is wholly incorrect based on how our political system works.

I challenge @DiogenesLamp or any of them to show the world constitutionally or in any of the founders writings where a vote for one person counts for another, or where we are legally required to 'either one or the other' voting.

I'm not going to spend much effort on this.  I will once again point to Hitler's election of 1933.   


Votes for the non viable candidates put Hitler into power.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Good grief, can't anyone here just talk about the topic of this thread?  Hitler, executions for treason, marxist communists, fascists?  This forum didn't used to be like this for years.  Why now?

Because smarter and more knowledgeable people showed up?    Judging by what I am seeing on most of these threads (never ending tirades both for and against Trump)    I think that's a pretty fair guess. 

I really thought conservatives had more sense and class than all this stuff.  People don't like Trump, great!  People don't like Cruz, great!  I really wish we could all just take a breath, decide who we're going to vote for or against, and stop hijacking every damn thread.

And here I think you have a point.   I'm tired of all the posturing and "virtue signaling"  going on regarding how many people aren't going to vote Trump to show  the rest of us.   

I wanted Cruz.   Now the best I can do is to not get Hitlery.   Grow up people.   It's either Hitlery or Trump.   

This thread is about the Energy Bill.  There are already 68 amendments to it and before it's voted on from the House floor there will likely be 50 or 60 more.  The non-discrimination in contracting amendment will most likely not be in the final bill anyway.  Get a grip!

Now back to the insane hijacking.   

Threads drift.   Don't get too wrapped around the axle about it.   

[DiogenesLamp]

There is NOT just TWO choices.  There are other parties on the ballot (at least here in Michigan) and at least one (the Constitution Party) hold the principles and values I expect in a candidate for public office.  I'm sorry if others would prefer some sleaze ball as a president, but not me.

Once again,   Germany had other choices on the ballot.   The biggest chunk of greaseballs stuck with Hitler and he won even though the other candidates got 67% of the vote.   


In retrospect,   those other candidates in the German election weren't real choices,  now were they? 

[RetBobbyMI]

I'm not going to spend much effort on this.  I will once again point to Hitler's election of 1933.   


Votes for the non viable candidates put Hitler into power.

So now you want to vote directly to put a Hitler in power?

[DiogenesLamp]

Baloney.

At least half the states are already settled. Oklahoma is Trump's. Rhode Island is Clinton's. Conservatives in the deep red or deep blues states can vote for Darrell Castle, not elect Clinton, send a message to the GOP that conservatives will not be compromised by a big government platform that is weak on abortion and promotes perversion.

You want to send a message,  use Western Union.   The GOPe hasn't been listening to any of the messages that have been sent to them for decades.   They won't listen to this one either. 

But most importantly, conservatives in these states can preserve their standards.

If you live in Texas,  Oklahoma,  Utah,  etc,   go right ahead and vote for whomever you please.   But if you live in a swing state,   the nation cannot afford your pity party.    You need to stop Hitlery by voting for the only viable candidate that can beat her. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You want to send a message,  use Western Union.   The GOPe hasn't been listening to any of the messages that have been sent to them for decades.   They won't listen to this one either. 

I think this is an important point.  The idea of "sending a message" by not supporting someone doesn't send a message to the party.  Not voting for Trump, just like not voting for Romney, or McCain, or anyone else, is going to have zero impact on who gets nominated in the future.  What controls who gets nominated are the primary votes cast in this election, not who didn't vote in the last one.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can't tell which one is which.

You mean you have little to no understanding of the histories and policy positions of both individuals?   Then why are you voicing an opinion?   Were I so ignorant,  I would shut up,  go study,   and come back when I had enough knowledge to recognize which one is sleazy,  and which one is evil. 


I'll save you some time.   Hillery is Evil.  Donald Trump is sleazy.     

But big cheers for the GOP in reflecting the values our presumptive nominee in this vote.  Looking forward to more compromises and an end to the GOP's "Party of No" moniker, as we slide closer and closer to the end times.

Oh,  I have no doubt at all that we are going to be seeing a lot of "compromise"  with Democrats when we get a President Trump.    Our chance to avoid compromising with Democrats passed when so many on our side went sleaze mongering to support the Donald.   


Let me be clear.   I do not prefer Donald Trump.   I very much wanted Ted Cruz,   but Trump is more successful at manipulating the media and the narrative,   and Cruz simply could not win in a war where sleaze is the primary weapon. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Arsenic or Cyanide? I choose neither!

The choice is between cyanide and buttermilk.   Yes,  buttermilk is disgusting,   but it's better than being dead. 

[RetBobbyMI]

If you live in Texas,  Oklahoma,  Utah,  etc,   go right ahead and vote for whomever you please.   But if you live in a swing state,   the nation cannot afford your pity party.    You need to stop Hitlery by voting for the only viable candidate that can beat her.

The nation cannot afford to keep going down the same path of stupid DemRat liberals and RINOs.  They are on the verge of forever ruining this country by taking it on a path of no return.  Electing another libtard dressed in orange RINO clothing will not change the path, and probably further endanger the country with his careless, pompous attitude.

[MACVSOG68]

I think it's important to note that the Maloney amendment to require the executive order be added to the bill, was itself amended before any votes were cast.  It was amended by Congressman Pitts, PA, as reflected by the Congressional Record:

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts to Amendment Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick
                          Maloney of New York

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment to the
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      In the section proposed to be added, insert before the
     period at the end the following: ``, except as required by
     the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I
     of the Constitution''.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 743, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes on the amendment to the
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this perfecting amendment to my colleague's amendment. This is amendment is very simple. It would merely state that, as the Federal Government spends money with regard to contracting, the administration must not run afoul of the First Amendment, the 14th
Amendment, or Article I of the Constitution.

The President's executive order referred to in the Maloney amendment defines a law that was never defined by Congress. It violates the equal protection rights of individuals who are merely seeking work from the government. With this amendment, this Congress can help ensure that, while funds may be going out the door to implement this policy, he must respect Congress' authority to write the law, respect an individual's right to exercise his or her religion, and respect their rights to work. Does anyone in this Chamber seriously oppose Article I of the Constitution, the First Amendment, or the 14th Amendment? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Constitution and limiting the damaging effects of this executive order. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Pitts amendment was passed by voice vote before the vote taken on the Maloney amendment.  The next amendment was submitted by Byrne of Alabama to ensure that no funds would be expended in contravention to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  This was passed by recorded vote.  Bottom line is if a company doing business with the DOE doesn't want to allow men into the women's bathroom, this bill doesn't force them to, nor to do anything else not embedded in law or the Constitution.  It does require that they do not discriminate in hiring because of sex, sexual preference or gender identity.

[DiogenesLamp]

So now you want to vote directly to put a Hitler in power?

You need to rephrase that.   It makes no sense the way you've written it.   

[GrouchoTex]

The choice is between cyanide and buttermilk.   Yes,  buttermilk is disgusting,   but it's better than being dead.

Except when you're making Biscuits (the buttermilk, that is).

[MACVSOG68]

It is too bad this seems to have fallen on deaf ears.  The fact that the amended bill with that tranny language was voted down seems to have been lost in the shuffle, which is rather pathetic given that it was the entire point of the thread in the first place.

Dead-on again.  I'm too new here to call for mods, but maybe some of you old-timers should have them do something about the hijacks.  It's not that people can't be pro-anti Trump, but it should have to infect every topic.  Particularly because the actual thread of the topics keep getting lost.

I agree with you Major, but don't think you can't submit a post report anytime you feel something is wrong on the thread.  I tried to turn it back around, but a couple of new members here simply want to talk about Hitler and the election, neither of which has anything to do with the OP.

[RetBobbyMI]

I think it's important to note that the Maloney amendment to require the executive order be added to the bill, was itself amended before any votes were cast.  It was amended by Congressman Pitts, PA, as reflected by the Congressional Record:

The Pitts amendment was passed by voice vote before the vote taken on the Maloney amendment.  The next amendment was submitted by Byrne of Alabama to ensure that no funds would be expended in contravention to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  This was passed by recorded vote.  Bottom line is if a company doing business with the DOE doesn't want to allow men into the women's bathroom, this bill doesn't force them to, nor to do anything else not embedded in law or the Constitution.  It does require that they do not discriminate in hiring because of sex, sexual preference or gender identity.

So why go down this path of kabuki theater. 

If the GOP members are so adamant that the President violated the the rule of law and the constitution they have two options:  1) the House could appeal directly to the Supreme Court or 2) open Articles of Impeachment against the President.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think this is an important point.  The idea of "sending a message" by not supporting someone doesn't send a message to the party.  Not voting for Trump, just like not voting for Romney, or McCain, or anyone else, is going to have zero impact on who gets nominated in the future.  What controls who gets nominated are the primary votes cast in this election, not who didn't vote in the last one.

I've argued this point many times before.  You send a message by voting for the opposition candidate. 


In the Senatorial elections of 2014,   I urged Kentucky and Mississippi conservatives to vote for the Democrat.   By electing a Democrat in strong Republican states,   you would have sent a message that the behavior of those Republican candidates who deliberately attacked their constituency  (Mitch McConnell and Thad Cochran)   will not be tolerated. 


Instead,  there were all these whiners saying " There is no way I can vote for a Democrat",  and so they just sent the exact wrong message.   They sent the message that "of course we will tolerate underhanded and vile tactics used against real conservative opponents of establishment candidates. " 


I warned they would get more of such treatment,   but the "I can't possibly vote for a Democrat"  crowd think small,   and they can't seem to see the larger picture.   

[MACVSOG68]

Posted by Diogenes Lamp:

Threads drift.   Don't get too wrapped around the axle about it.

Thread drift is normally not a bad thing.  But this was pure and simple hijacking.  Every thread does not have to be about Hitler and the pro-anti Trump food fight.  Every president from Johnson on has been referred to as a Hitler type, either because of foreign or domestic policies.  Not only are these comparisons historically absurd, but demonstrate a lack of ability to use any reasoned approach to actual debate.  I said it before, and I'll say it again, it's not what this forum is all about.  I understand that TOS is noted for such comparisons, but this forum isn't, or at least wasn't at one time. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I've argued this point many times before.  You send a message by voting for the opposition candidate.

Heh, well, I don't see that as sending a message either.  Nobody cares why you voted a certain way, and ultimately, there isn't even any way for them to know why.  All they see are the vote totals.  For all they know, your vote was more a reflection of support for the leftist policies of the person elected, not a protest vote against the other guy because he wasn't conservative enough.  I don't think a conservative "messages" actually gets through except to the extent you actually elect someone with the point of view your support.  That message gets through simply because of the fact that the guy got elected.  But every other "message" gets lost in the noise.

In the Senatorial elections of 2014,   I urged Kentucky and Mississippi conservatives to vote for the Democrat.   By electing a Democrat in strong Republican states,   you would have sent a message that the behavior of those Republican candidates who deliberately attacked their constituency  (Mitch McConnell and Thad Cochran)   will not be tolerated.

I think the only message that gets sent is that you preferred the Democrat to the Republican.  That's it.  The "why" is completely lost, and there is no way to distinguish your vote from the vote of a lefty who just looooved that Democrat.  Someone could just as easily interpret your vote as the state being further to the left than they thought.  And ultimately, the next time that election rolls around, all they're going to care about is the votes they get in the primary, not the speculation as to why a certain candidate lost last time.

Instead,  there were all these whiners saying " There is no way I can vote for a Democrat",  and so they just sent the exact wrong message.   They sent the message that "of course we will tolerate underhanded and vile tactics used against real conservative opponents of establishment candidates. "

Again, I just don't think that "message" actually comes through the way you intended.  It is just a vote, with no codicil or explanatory statement.  It actually carries the potential for sending the opposite message as well, because the next time, they may think the only way to win is to move closer to the Democrat positions, because that's what won the last time.

[MACVSOG68]

So why go down this path of kabuki theater. 

If the GOP members are so adamant that the President violated the the rule of law and the constitution they have two options:  1) the House could appeal directly to the Supreme Court or 2) open Articles of Impeachment against the President.

The executive order that was inserted into the spending bill by Maloney didn't violate any constitutional provisions.  The executive branch has authority to set standards for federal contracting.  Maloney offered the amendment simply as a statement, and Pitts immediately amended the Maloney amendment, which itself was later amended to ensure that the provisions of the RFRA was preserved.  Many of the amendments to every spending bill are more statements rather than substantive spending issues.  The executive order on non-discrimination in government contracting has been around in various forms since the days of LBJ.

Bottom line is that nothing changed.  There were obviously other issues having to do with the size of the bill itself as well as some of the spending provisions included.  Anyway it failed, and if not passed by 9/30, will go into the hopper with all the other packages, just like every year until after January when a two or three thousand page omnibus package will be offered with a couple of days for review.   

[geronl]

It's Trump's party now, they are simply falling into line with their nominee.

You can expect a lot more of this.

[DiogenesLamp]

Posted by Diogenes Lamp:

Thread drift is normally not a bad thing.  But this was pure and simple hijacking.  Every thread does not have to be about Hitler and the pro-anti Trump food fight.  Every president from Johnson on has been referred to as a Hitler type, either because of foreign or domestic policies.  Not only are these comparisons historically absurd, but demonstrate a lack of ability to use any reasoned approach to actual debate.

Do you know of any other horribly bad leader known to all and sundry that was elected on a plurality because the other candidates split the majority?     


I fancy myself a pretty good history buff,   and I don't see any other potential examples beside Hitler.   Now you may think it is absurd to compare Hillary and Hitler,   but  I do not see it as being so very far off.   I've been keeping up with the doings of Hillary for quite a long time,   and I have little doubt she would be amenable to going all "Prairie Fire"  on us. 

The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism.

If you do not see it,  then you have not done due diligence regarding the history of this hate filled witch. 

I said it before, and I'll say it again, it's not what this forum is all about.  I understand that TOS is noted for such comparisons, but this forum isn't, or at least wasn't at one time.

Well as the Brilliant Young Lawyer "Stormy" Weathers said:



" Fine, give me the replacement. Give me one word that captures the same image. One word. You name it, and I will use it." 

[DiogenesLamp]

Heh, well, I don't see that as sending a message either.  Nobody cares why you voted a certain way, and ultimately, there isn't even any way for them to know why.  All they see are the vote totals.  For all they know, your vote was more a reflection of support for the leftist policies of the person elected, not a protest vote against the other guy because he wasn't conservative enough.

I ask you to thoughtfully consider the following two pieces of information relating to the Cochran/McDaniel race in Mississippi. 










He accused his conservative constituency of being racist and unethical,   and you don't think anyone would have gotten a message if this man who had been in congressional office since 1973 was defeated in the 2014 election?   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I ask you to thoughtfully consider the following two pieces of information relating to the Cochran/McDaniel race in Mississippi. 





He accused his conservative constituency of being racist and unethical,   and you don't think anyone would have gotten a message if this man who had been in congressional office since 1973 was defeated in the 2014 election?

Sure, in that particular instance where there was a clear scandal.  And what's the message going forward?  "Don't send out false campaign materials and lie about other groups?"  Most people already know that.

But in the vast majority of cases where it is primarily a difference of policy, no, the message doesn't come through.  McCain losing in 2008 didn't lead to a massive reconsideration by the party.  Neither did Romney losing in 2012.  In fact, after Romney lost, Priebus came up with a document that doubled down on amnesty.  The election results sent them the exact opposite message intended.

The only time the message actually got through was when Trump and others advocated a much tighter border did well in the primaries.  And that's my point -- the real policy messages come from voting for people who stand for something, not voting against those who don't -- particularly when the other candidate (for whom you are actually casting your vote) doesn't stand for it either.

To put it in concrete terms, voting for Hillary (who doesn't stand for limited government) because you're angry that Trump doesn't stand for limited government, can't help but send a screwed-up message on the issue of limited government.

[Norm Lenhart]

I'm not going to spend much effort on this.  I will once again point to Hitler's election of 1933.   


Votes for the non viable candidates put Hitler into power.

It's not that you don't want to expend the effort. It's that you are unable to refute the fact. Which as just as well since you, or no one else CAN refute the fact.

And you are even wrong about Adolf to boot. Hitler was put in power by willing people. Just as Barry was. Just as Donald will be. Vote for him an his actions are your responsibility since you;ll have done your part to put him there. Same for Hillary.

But a vote for a conservative absolves every single one of us that vote on principle. Because we will have voted correctly, on principle, for what we believe in. And we will do it 100% guilt free regardless of how loud the pragmatists scream about it.

[RetBobbyMI]

The executive order that was inserted into the spending bill by Maloney didn't violate any constitutional provisions.  The executive branch has authority to set standards for federal contracting.  Maloney offered the amendment simply as a statement, and Pitts immediately amended the Maloney amendment, which itself was later amended to ensure that the provisions of the RFRA was preserved.  Many of the amendments to every spending bill are more statements rather than substantive spending issues.  The executive order on non-discrimination in government contracting has been around in various forms since the days of LBJ.

Bottom line is that nothing changed.  There were obviously other issues having to do with the size of the bill itself as well as some of the spending provisions included.  Anyway it failed, and if not passed by 9/30, will go into the hopper with all the other packages, just like every year until after January when a two or three thousand page omnibus package will be offered with a couple of days for review.   

Oh I know how federal budgeting works. Done it for 30+ years in the DOD world. That in itself is kabuki theater.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's not that you don't want to expend the effort. It's that you are unable to refute the fact. Which as just as well since you, or no one else CAN refute the fact.

The fact is clearly refuted by that link I gave you,  but something I saw today reminded me of something I keep forgetting. 

2.  dc.sunsets May 20, 2016 8:22 AM

    I now realize that it is a waste of time to try to persuade others. Some people change their own minds, then go looking for confirmation, finding it at rally points established by those of great passion.

    Once thresholds are reached, others begin to join out of herding impulse.

    Vox Popoli is one such rally point.

And that's why I don't want to spend much effort attempting to persuade the unpersuadable.

And you are even wrong about Adolf to boot. Hitler was put in power by willing people.

Yeah,  33% of them,   because the other 67% were stupidly voting for third party candidates that did not have a prayer of winning.   


Voters for third party candidates allowed  the plurality of Fascists to win,   and some people are apparently going to try and replicate the same effect with Hillary.