Donald Trump is a lousy negotiator and House Speaker Paul Ryan is an incompetent ideologue. Those are supposed to be the takeaways of the Obamacare repeal debacle, but anyone with a pulse who has been paying attention could have told you the same years ago. No question that the failure will damage the GOP’s agenda. After all, not being able to pass a bill you’ve promised for seven years when you have control over the executive and legislative branches of government is a pretty fair definition of political incompetence.
But if you think that the failure means that the end of the right-wing’s entire wish list, think again. Failure has its limits. Here are four points to keep in mind as the Republicans try to get their act together.
1. The Administration doesn’t need Congress to do damage
Trump is populating his administration with right-wing fanatics (when he is populating it at all). There’s his Cabinet, of course, with such dim bulbs as Rick Perry and Ben Carson. But more frightening is the largely faceless layer beneath the Cabinet heads. These are the folks who can carry out a lot of changes through rules and regulations without any input from Congress. And by all accounts, they are a pretty wild bunch. If they want to use the levers within their agency to come after us, there’s no stopping them. Just one example: the antigay groups that the administration has appointed to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
2. One loss doesn’t mean others will follow
In the Obamacare replacement bill, Paul Ryan displayed his unique talent to alienate both the far-right and moderates in his caucus. But if he brought a religious liberty bill to the floor, he only has to worry about moderates. He can afford to lose them, since their numbers are so tiny. The Republicans may be in disarray, but anti-gay animus is still a unifying factor for them.
3. Trump can recover
Bill Clinton began his administration by promising to repeal the ban on gays in the military. What ensued was a bipartisan political firestorm during which Clinton had his head handed to him and we got saddled with the oppressive Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Yet Clinton managed to claw his way back with some significant legislative achievements and went on to win re-election. If Trump wants to apply himself to the hard work of governing (a big if), he still has plenty of time to succeed.
4. Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court would mean decades of anti-gay rulings
In the long-run, the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is potentially much more destructive than any legislative change. Gorsuch played cute during his hearings, but he did make an important admission. “I’ve tried to treat each case and each person as a person—not a ‘this kind of person,’ not a ‘that kind of person,’” Gorsuch said. The problem with that response is that our gains from the Supreme Court are precisely because the Court recognized as a a particular class of people. Gorsuch is subtly suggesting that he’s not on board with that approach. You can cue the bad decisions from him the second he’s sworn in.
Roan
That’s the first think I said to everyone in my FB group. The evangelicals sold their souls. They have the receipts. They haven’t been paid. This is an easy target for that man and he will give the evangelicals their reward.
Bob LaBlah
Queerty, I’m curious as to why did you pick now to run these articles on an issue that COULD have had devestating/catastrophic effects on MANY members of our community AFTER its defeat instead of running them while the debate was going on in hopes of galvanizing our lazy ass community to get up off of their asses and let it be known that we too were not going to just sit back and watch this happen?
Or was that possibility the reason you chose silence? Shame on you if it were. You ran not one article on how this proposal fragmented the GOP in such as manner that in comparison Humpty Dumpty could have been put back together by a preschooler. The GOP as a whole is never going to look the same again and we all know it. A civil war has already erupted in Washington but here you show up with last weeks news. Shameful.
Xzamilloh
Thank you!! Nope, they like the rest of the regressive left (and shamefully me, too) thought that corrupt ass Clinton was a surefire win for the White House, so like the GOP sold their soul to Trump, the left sold their soul to Hillary Clinton and backed her instead of Bernie Sanders, who most definitely would have defeated Trump in the election. Now, it’s the same doom and gloom paranoia we’re used to seeing from the lunatic Teavangelical right. Besides, they keep acting like Gorsuch’s appointment suddenly tips the scale in conservative’s favor. Gorsuch would be replacing Scalia, who was a conservative, and gay marriage was passed because of Justice Kennedy, the known swing vote. So I’m just not seeing the hysteria when SCOTUS will function much like it did when Scalia was there.
KaiserVonScheiss
Pure fear-mongering. And 4 is just absurd.
Gorsuch is an originalist, not some anti-gay crusader. He bases his opinions on his interpretation of the constitution. I don’t think you could be anymore disingenuous.
Gorsuch probably believes that definition of marriage should be left to the states. I don’t agree with that view. If the government is to have a monopoly on marriage, then they need a legally compelling reason to deny it to same-sex couples, which is something they lack.
And what the hell is wrong with judging a person as a person and not by some identity? How ass-backwards are you?
ChrisK
He’s ruled in favor of religious freedom rights. That’s just new BS for anti gay bigotry.
Mo Bro
They’re so ass-backwards that they tell us to stop using oil while guzzling it themselves, they defend Muslims who oppress women and kill gays, they demand the right to free speech while shutting down those they disagree with, they embrace criminals and anarchists, and worst of all, they think the ultimate insult against their perceived “enemies” is to accuse them of having homosexual tendencies . . . THAT’S how ass-backwards they are.
And yes, Gorsuch is an ideal candidate for SCOTUS, but because he’s Trump’s pick, they’re determined to find some surreptitious connection to Satan, and it’s driving them nuts that they cannot.
Mo Bro
@ChrisK:
So, you’re going to demand a religious baker makes your cake?
Even if that baker is Muslim?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
KaiserVonScheiss
@ChrisK
The 10th Circuit based its decision on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Gorsuch was only doing his job. Congress should write better laws.
Bob LaBlah
@Mo Bro…………….. “they defend Muslims who oppress women and kill gays,”
Lord, listen to the pot call the kettle black. Don’t jews over in Israel do the same thing? A few years back two kids were killed outside a jewish youth center and to this day their killer has not been caught and brought to justice. And lets not forget the fatal stabbing at a gay pride parade by a lunatic rabbi who had just been released for doing the same thing at another pride parade.
mhoffman953
@BobLaBlah The problem with your analogy is that Jersusalem allowed a gay pride event and there happened to be 1 lunatic who happened to be a rabbi attacking people. His actions were denounced by the Israeli PM as well as prominent figures in the Jewish faith. If Jews wanted gays dead, they wouldn’t allow for a gay pride parade to even take place in their city.
Try and start a gay pride parade in Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or any other majority Muslim country and see if it even happens and see if anyone defends gay people from their attackers.
Bob LaBlah
@Mo Bro and mhoffman953……………….go on, go on. Now tell us about the kids outside of the gay jewish center and their killer not being brought to justice. I can’t wait to hear YOUR interpretation of that event.
mhoffman953
@BobLaBlah I’m unaware of that situation, I tried Googling it but couldn’t find anything to learn the facts before I comment. However, based on what you say, it sounds like a miscarriage of justice. Many times the court system gets it wrongs and gets someone off on a technicality.
I’m unsure of how that speaks for the majority of Jews because in one case, one guy didn’t get what he deserved. It sounds like a false equivalent.
Bob LaBlah
@mhoffman953………………… “It sounds like a false equivalent.”
Judging from the shit you keep TRYING to shovel you had to be a political science major or in senior management. Its one or the other. I love it when you back yourselves into a wall. I also remember back to 1991 when I left the phone company a few of them practically broke out the champagne on the day I walked out that door for good. And by the way, they were mostly YOUR kind (hint).
mhoffman953
@BobLaBlah
Why did you get so triggered when people called out Muslims for their vast hatred toward gays? You deflected by bringing up one rabbi who lost his mind and tried saying this shows that most Jews hate gays too. Then you went into some rant about your time working for the phone company and how your co-workers celebrated when you left.
If your claim is true, they wouldn’t hold gay pride parades in Jewish cities. When was the last time they had a gay pride parade in Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Somalia? Will you acknowledge that the Muslim world hates and most of times kills gays?
Mo Bro
@mhoffman953:
It truly is Stockholm Syndrome that gays and feminists support and defend Islam and their anti-women, anti-gay philosophies. Don’t know how it happened, or what it stems from, but it’s very real and very disturbing (actually, my theory for WHY is that Muslims are every bit as anti-american as leftists are, therefore they all preach to the same gods of anti-westernism).
DCguy
LOL! I love it when the different screenames come on here and try to unroll B.S. like “Gorsuch is an originalist, not some anti-gay crusader. ”
Oh, is “Origionalist” the new word the right wing is using now that the media called B.S. on the old word “Constitutionalist”?
Well considering the “ORIGIONAL” constitution had Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, you know the one that stated that African American men were not considered to be a complete person? Oh, and no rights for women.
So it’s always hilarious when bigots like you come in here with your terms “Origionalist” or “States Rights” that you use to hide flat out defenses of bigotry.
But keep trying….you amuse us.
KaiserVonScheiss
@DCGuy
I never said the constitution was perfect.
One of the reasons for the 3/5 compromise was to limit the power of slave states because the House and the Electoral College are base on state population. The 3/5 compromise is no longer in effect.
Originalism is the idea that the words of the constitution should be defined the way they were defined when they were written. That’s it. Textualism means making legal judgements based on the words of the law. That’s it. If the law says X, then the ruling is X.
I never used the term states rights. Where did you get that, anyway? I specifically stated that I don’t agree with leaving the definition of marriage up to the state in this instance.
DCguy
KaiserVonScheiss Said………
———————————————————————-
@DCGuy
I never said the constitution was perfect.
One of the reasons for the 3/5 compromise was to limit the power of slave states because the House and the Electoral College are base on state population. The 3/5 compromise is no longer in effect.
Originalism is the idea that the words of the constitution should be defined the way they were defined when they were written. That’s it. Textualism means making legal judgements based on the words of the law. That’s it. If the law says X, then the ruling is X.
———————————————————-
And my response to that, really? Then it’s funny that so called “Origionalists” don’t put the idea that the words of the constitution be defined in the way they were written when they talk about the 2nd amendment. Oh no, in THAT part they claim that it wasn’t just about forming a militia and that the meaning should be stretched. But of course, when you want to excuse somebody for being a bigot THEN you get to talk about them being an “Origionalist”.
It’s just another right wing bigot cop out.
But nice try.
mhoffman953
@DCguy
“Well considering the “ORIGIONAL” constitution had Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, you know the one that stated that African American men were not considered to be a complete person? Oh, and no rights for women.”
Congress people make laws and amendments to laws. The court is not subject to making laws nor to make a judgement based on their personal beliefs. Judges are to make a judgement based on what is written law at the time. The laws you stated have been since changed and it is up to a judge to follow through with what the current law dictates. If you feel a judge should make judgements based on his / her personal beliefs then that is not a judge but an activist. How would you feel if a judge ruled that black men and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because it’s what he believed personally? This wouldn’t be appropriate and is why a judge should rule based on what the law says.
arcoarconcio_passivy
It´s CastlePallice Royal Bristtus Family Princeses Duke Cambridge Rei is Rainha Elizabettt II Englaterra Reinu Uniddus It´s Royal .
Neonegro
This has to be the most asinine point made on this board yet.
Bob blah blah blah equating treatment of Gays and women in Israel with their treatment in Moslem states.
Bob LaBlah
You are correct. Now answer ol’ Bob LaBlah’s question or offer your analysis of that incident. I won’t mention the named being changed to change the subject.
Bob LaBlah
The more you defend this knucklehead and his policies the more you sound and act like him.
DCguy
Oh look, ANOTHER of Mo Bro’s screename trying to deflect the topic.
Sorry there cupcake, but the topic is about attacks on equality by this administration. I know that your job is to change that topic, but you’re bad at it.
Bob LaBlah
@ol’ neon/mhoffman953/mo bro and all the other names you use I have to congratulate you on your lobbying to get the last two comments we made removed from this thread.
Folks, around midnight last night he got so desperate to defend Israel that he actually put a compassionate comment on this thread regarding muslims, jews and basically the entire world saying that we all get along better thru negotiating. Its clear that once he realized the tone of that comment made him sound HUMAN he HAD to get that comment erased and for whatever reason (and I now STRONGLY have me suspicions as to why “Queerty” decided to get rid of our comments) the editors went along with it. You are full of it. I am not shocked they left a few of my comments up to deflect the obvious but it is not fooling me. You are full of shit Alistair or whatever name you chose to respond with and you know it. But I thank you for confirming what I suspected all along.
Its really too bad you guys did read what he wrote. You wouldn’t have believe it. Trust me.
Mo Bro
@Bob LaBlah:
@DCguy:
I’m truly curious as to why you think I’m posting under numerous aliases . . .
Is it because you’re unable to grasp that more than one individual on the planet could possibly disagree with you?
Is it that you honestly believe all lgbt people have identical political outlooks?
Is it that you’re threatened by the fact that some of your fellow lgbt’s are (gasp!) conservative?
Is it because you’re partial to conspiracy theories?
I’m honestly looking for an answer.
Bob LaBlah
Its because I honestly KNOW you are full of shit. Case closed. Jury dismissed.
Mo Bro
@Bob LaBlah:
Yeah, pretty much what I expected.
Bullshit answer from a bullshit thinker.
Thanks for reinforcing your ridiculousness.
Bob LaBlah
And I say the same thing to you referencing that comment of yours two days ago that “magically” disappeared. Touche’.
natekerchel
Surprise surprise – mhoffman, Mo Bro and neonegro are once again leading the glorificamus te for Santo Donaldo. The tactics are always the same – deflect, obfuscate and counter-blame. Islamophobia is writ large in the comment about the ‘Muslim’ baker. No one will seek to defend acts of terror – and to attempt to understand why such things happen is not to be equated with ‘support’. If we don’t understand why things happen how can we change them? If you look at some of the most protracted campaigns of ‘terror’ in recent years you will see that they ended through negotiation, a willingness to understand the other point of view and a willingness to adapt to a new political and social reality – Ireland/UK and South Africa. In both cases it was recognized that rhetoric offered no solution, the blame game only held back the compromises that were needed to reach a settlement. Just attacking all Muslims and labeling them as terrorists or potential terrorists is counter-productive – as well as being untrue and offensive.
1EqualityUSA
The most trollish comment of the thread made Gorsuch out to be non-threatening to the gay community. Don’t aggravate yourself by reading MHoff, KaiserVonNothingburger, and Mo. Trump could shoot someone in plain sight, and they’d still love the inept tyrant. I suspect that they’re trying to make Queerty unpleasant enough to drive away business.
KaiserVonScheiss
@1EqualityUSA
KaiserVonNothingburger
That made me laugh.
I would not support Trump if he shot someone. Just so you know, I don’t support his views on immigration or protectionism, and I really don’t like Jeff Sessions because of his continued defence of the drug war.
DCguy
So KaiserVonScheiss, you just typed the bigoted troll defense.
“Oh, well I don’t really like THAT part of what he does”…….
Really? Funny, you voted for him and THAT PART was the only thing he articulated clearly during his campaign. Pretending that Trump’s bigotry wasn’t why you voted for him is like ordering Speghetti and meatballs then saying “Oh, but I don’t really like Italian Food”.
iggy6666
DC guy you used to go by Cam. So stop accusing others of having multiple screen names.
Go back a year. And you’ll see DC guy and Cams sentence structure are the exact same.
DC GUY SAYS———-
“But nice try ……… “
KaiserVonScheiss
@DCguy
If you were any more obtuse, you’d spit in twine.
Militia meant every able-bodied male, hence why it says the “right of the people.”
Do you always agree 100% with every candidate for whom you cast your ballot? Surely not. Hillary Clinton was awful and I would have made the same decision today as when I voted.
Neonegro
Jesus freakin Christ, it’s like a teenage girl chorus.
“he is a troll, go away, he is posting under different names, he had my post removed,” lol…lol
God this is too easy.
1EqualityUSA
This particular reply says more about this lonely loser than it does about others. He had a horrible relationship with his parents, was rejected by that gay bar (fired) in SoHo where he worked part-time (never getting over the narcissistic injury), and a was a bully to one, a particular kid in school who will never forget him. Now words are his fists, and it feeds his need for thought-induced biochemical stimuli that borders on sadistic. JoeyT (SeeingAll) NeoEpithet, get some help before your rage disorder lands you in trouble. You’ll only need more and more dosing if you continue harboring ill will. What a weird way to spend your days. Go, volunteer, go back to school, study. Do something with your life. Disability can be more than a physical state.
natekerchel
I am not sure what is meant by ‘anti-American’ as used by Mo Bro. It is one of those stock phrases used by a group of people who wish to denigrate the views of another, usually opposing, group and to imply that those who oppose the first group are in some way traitorous. It actually means being opposed to or hostile to the USA. It is, of course, nonsense. The suggestion is that the vast majority of the population in the USA hold a single view on a particular issue – in this case Islam. The second inference is that those who are in the minority would willingly betray, or harm in some way, their country.
It may be that a large number of Americans believe that followers of Islam are all likely to be hiding an explosive device in their bag. But then a large number of Americans also believe that the day will come when 140,000 people will taken up to heaven in an event called ‘the rapture’. I don’t believe either.
Stereotyping is an over-simplified view of a group of people who are different to you – and it usually has a pejorative bent – it also directly links to racism, homophobia et al. To claim that all people are follow Islam are terrorists or potential terrorists is outrageous and simply does not stand up to the reality check. To then claim that denying the facts is somehow ‘anti-American’ is even more deluded. A fact is a fact is a fact whether or not we like it. The fact is – the vast majority of Islamists do not pose any threat to the USA or any other country. Within any group of people you will find those who are unbalanced and express that is ways which are violent. There are plenty of examples of unbalanced Americans who go around shooting and killing thousands and thousands of other Americans. We don’t then say that all Americans are potential or real killers. As so often seen in history, we need scapegoats.
So before you accuse people of being ‘anti-American’ make sure you understand the meaning of what you say. Just because people disagree with you does not mean they are ‘anti-American’.
Mo Bro
tl;dr
1EqualityUSA
In other words, the comment didn’t elicit the biochemical pellet Mo craves, so “too long to read.” Natekerchel, I read your insightful comments and am glad you washed up onto Queerty Isle. In my work, I encounter people from all walks of life. The Muslim people I’ve worked with have been some of the most beautiful souls I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting. Of course, we’ll never convince undereducated, psychologically damaged haters of this. They need to look down on others to feel good about themselves; pitiable.
1EqualityUSA
“Morning Joe” regarding Trump’s Administration so far. I wish they would replace Mika with Doris Kearns Goodwin. All of the guests were fantastic. If Trump wants to dump the religious fanatics of the conservative school, Merrick Garland would be an indication of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0d-Lblwl_E
natekerchel
Thanks for the nice words 1Equality. Mo Bro puts too long to read – no. Cant find a response that is not abusive – yes. Must be pretty difficult if 30 sentences are too long to read. I don’t do soundbites – I give what I hope is a considered reply to the issues.