KAS Political Stance

Subtype Progressive As 100% GOPPartchment — Pelosi On The Full Power Of Women, The Work-Home Balance, The Republicans, And Iraq

Kevin A. Sensenig | July 19, 2014 | Updated September 7, 2014

TO STATE AGAIN

I am subtype progressive who is 100% GOPPartchment.

I support and identify with the 7 types GOP in the U.S. House Of Representatives.

I identify with the 3 types Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

There are Republican men. There are Republican women. I support each of these.

There are some types I am _not_.

I would work with the subtype progressive layer in the Democratic Party; but the hierarchical leadership has been problematic for some time.

Not everything with title “progressive” is what I mean. I mean a subtype progressive.

NANCY PELOSI ON THE FULL POWER OF WOMEN, THE WORK-HOME BALANCE, THE REPUBLICANS, AND IRAQ

Nancy Pelosi - D - House Of Representatives Minority Leader

C-SPAN

House Minority Leader Weekly Briefing - 2014-07-17

0m50s - “[first point] ... it’s about jobs,,, The second point is about when women succeed America succeeds. That’s familiar to you. ...One of the best things you can do to grow the economy of America is to unleash the full power of women in our economy. ...that work-home balance is essential for men and for women. Third, affordable education, to keep America number one. ...”

1m35s - “it all begins though at a very early age...children learning, parents earning...how we prepare our workforce and how we have a work-home balance, but again all centered around the work place ...”

“Republicans were inside the capitol wasting time and taxpayer dollars suing the President. ... once again, actions taken to avoid our real responsibilities to meet the needs of the American people. ... over 40 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and now they want to sue the president ... ... Another issue they’re ignoring while they do this is comprehensive immigration reform.”

“... Another issue they’re ignoring while they do this is comprehensive immigration reform.”

4m22s - [on immigration] - “what the president asked for in the supplemental is what we need...”

4m45s - legal representation [on behalf of each of the children]

7m25s - [on immigration] - “It’s stunning to me I’ll be very honest with you I’m rarely surprised around here, but it’s stunning to me how the Republicans have tried to politicize this issue. Not all of them. Most of them were responsible for the good legislation that passed in 2008. ... in the here and now on this legislation is to do what’s right for the people and what’s right for the American people, and that’s not to draw lines in the sand [over legislation].”

9m50s - [on immigration] - “I think this can be done under current law with the proper resources.”

14m25 - “Well I think I’d take it the other way...if you need Democratic votes, let’s talk.”

“To get back to your original question, that’s how we get some things done around here. That’s how we funded the war in Iraq when we were in the majority and our members were completely opposed. ... And that’s how we passed the violence against women act...that’s what they were proud of. So they voted for that, and we voted with Republicans to pass the all-inclusive violence against women act. ...”

“In other words, we’re legislators. We know that legislation is about compromise and the rest and balance and if you want this, it’s really damaging unless you do this and so let’s see how we can do it. Because I think most of the Republicans are good hearted on this, I really do. ... they’ve been on the lead on a number of issues that we’re dealing with there in terms of human rights and the dignity of people and in concert with the bishops on many of these issues, and on the issue of trafficking ... and so [let’s] see something that does the job for now ... but not to hold up the funding here. The funding is really urgent. That’s why I said last week, we need that money, we need that money now.”

17m35s - “But I do know this they [the Hispanic caucus] greatly care about this issue. They have firsthand knowledge of it, as many of them represent border areas, or areas contiguous to the border districts.”

COMMENTS

14m35s - “Well I think I’d take it the other way...[if] you need Democratic votes, let’s talk. To get back to your original question, that’s how we get some things done around here. That’s how we funded the war in Iraq when we were in the majority and our members were completely opposed.”

IRAQ

The military.

The general (should) know the meaning of the word ‘place’. Generals (should) just know this, the substance of the meaning.

The general is interested in the security of a free state.

The general knows that sometimes the security of a free state is the term ‘not-war’.

The general knows that sometimes the security of a free state is not-war, or is battle, or is war; or is a fucking phone call, or several; or is defense.

The President is supposed to be the commander in chief. A military commander (in awareness and function). This interlocks with Congress, with the idea of “battle”, the idea of “war”, the idea of “the common defense”, and the generals.

The generals should be trained thus, and they will master it.

The president consults his generals to see if a war is necessary or prudent. His generals contact other generals in other nations. The president does not consult some Joint Chiefs Of Paperwork, or leave the decision to himself and his Sec Def; and he does not leave it (the decision) to the State Department (although the State Department can be consulted — by the generals, and by the President, and if war or not-war is required, by the Congress; along with their own sense, and representation of the people; and for foreign policy). ...A/nd for Congress to consult the generals where required.

In this case also, it’s the Joint Chiefs, the general.

IRAQ 2003

In Iraq 2002 there were several scenarios, that were not thought of. What a disaster. I will spell those out later, here. Maybe.