GOP Congressman, Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:04:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  GOP Congressman, Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: GOP Congressman, Tells Women To Give Their Money To Democrats  (Read 1515 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 23, 2012, 11:43:01 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/richard-hanna-gop-congress_n_1373381.html

As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats.

"I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault," he told the crowd of mostly women. "I'll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side -- my side -- has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can't succeed without your help."
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2012, 07:20:43 PM »

Does he normally go by 'Dick Hanna' or am I thinking of someone else?
Logged
fezzyfestoon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2012, 07:22:33 PM »

Good. An honest statement above partisan affiliation. My favorite kind of statement! Tongue
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2012, 08:35:30 PM »

Richard Hanna's not always a great politician, as we can see here, but he seems to be a pretty damn impressive person from what I know of him.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2012, 08:42:52 PM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?
Logged
Svensson
NVTownsend
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2012, 09:22:25 PM »

Well, at this rate, it's sure as hell true. And truth is something Congress has a disconcerting lack of these days. I just wonder how badly his district's GOP is going to murder him for it.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2012, 06:50:13 PM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

It can be reintroduced. Hanna seems to be one of the few sensible new Republicans.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2012, 06:51:35 PM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

It can be reintroduced. Hanna seems to be one of the few sensible new Republicans.
Indentured servitude could be reintroduced. It's about as likely.
Logged
I'm JewCon in name only.
Klecly
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.61, S: 6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2012, 07:08:39 PM »

...Not a fan of this guy.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2012, 07:21:31 PM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

It can be reintroduced. Hanna seems to be one of the few sensible new Republicans.
Indentured servitude could be reintroduced. It's about as likely.

It has been reintroduced in several Congresses and the current one has 185 co-sponsors.

That said, I doubt it would get through Congress as long as the GOP holds one or both chambers.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2012, 08:43:58 PM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

Many groups believe that Congress could extend the limit by majority vote, and the 4 states that have rescinded their support had no basis to do so. Based on that, there are regular attempts in IL and other non-ratifying states to approve the 1972 amendment.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2012, 10:19:33 PM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

Many groups believe that Congress could extend the limit by majority vote, and the 4 states that have rescinded their support had no basis to do so. Based on that, there are regular attempts in IL and other non-ratifying states to approve the 1972 amendment.
That would rather defeat the purpose of having an expiration date, no?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2012, 08:52:12 AM »

Equal Rights Amendment? Didn't that expire 30 years ago?

Many groups believe that Congress could extend the limit by majority vote, and the 4 states that have rescinded their support had no basis to do so. Based on that, there are regular attempts in IL and other non-ratifying states to approve the 1972 amendment.
That would rather defeat the purpose of having an expiration date, no?

That would be my thought, but others believe differently.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2012, 01:50:41 PM »

The advocates of the three-state strategy are on very shaky ground.  Their primary argument rests upon the belief that Congress can after the fact revise its decisions concerning an amendment bit that States cannot.  One could argue from a consistent basis that the 30 State ratifications that have not been rescinded are still valid, and that if eight other states approve the ERA, Congress could then act to approve it.

But then the advocates of the three-state strategy run into a second issue.  They hope to follow the example of the 1978 Congressional extension and have it go into effect with a simple majority of each house.  The constitutionality of the 1978 extension was dubious because it did not pass with the requisite two-thirds vote of each house, and I doubt that it would hold up under a challenge.  The whole point of the three-state strategy is to avoid what is for now an unwinnable two-third vote in each house of Congress and I don't see them being able to avoid it.

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation?  Passage of the ERA seems to have as much relevance as the passage of the still pending Child Labor Amendment would have.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2012, 01:54:26 PM »

Is the same guy that was the sole (?) Huntsman endorser in Congress?
Logged
fezzyfestoon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2012, 02:31:05 PM »

Is the same guy that was the sole (?) Huntsman endorser in Congress?

Yes, indeed
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2012, 02:37:22 PM »

You know, reading the thread headline I thought it was tongue-in-cheek and the article would be about something misinterpretable as that.

But it's literally what he said and what he meant. Wow.

wikipedia, abridged to remove the bits that don't fit the picture.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2012, 02:44:13 PM »

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2012, 07:07:44 PM »

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.

Most supporters of the ERA would probably not want a draft for either gender, so I don't think that is their goal.

In plenty of cases (esp. jobs), it is easier to discriminate against a white woman than a black man (or woman).
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2012, 11:09:05 AM »

However, last but not least, I have this question for advocates of an effort to pass an ERA.  What is it that it would achieve that is not already being achieved via existing civil rights legislation? 

It would create an explicit line in the Constitution to challenge the Draft on the grounds that it is sexist.

Most supporters of the ERA would probably not want a draft for either gender, so I don't think that is their goal.

In plenty of cases (esp. jobs), it is easier to discriminate against a white woman than a black man (or woman).

Doubtful we'd see any draft cases until we had an actual draft, and if single gender registration for the draft was held unconstitutional, we'd likely just see both sexes required to register.  As for job discrimination, the existing provisions to fight it wouldn't be affected in the least.  They are based on the use of the Commerce Clause rather than the Reconstruction Amendments.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.