Octopus Overlords

Texian wrote:Michelle Bachmann, source of much humor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rling.html" target="_blank

Pop culture fail:

In one of the pictures, Mrs Bachmann, 55, is shown screaming in delight, alongside an image which looks like the notorious blood-sucking 1920s movie vampire Nosferatu.

Sorry, that's Bat Boy.

SpaceLord wrote:

Exodor wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Wow. Obama leads Perry (and Palin) in a poll of Texas. Sounds like a great nomination choice for the GOP.

He's also outpolling Palin in Alaska

If the economy improves, he will crush anything the GOP can throw at him, unless they find a transformative, charismatic Obama-like game-changer. It'd also help him to make progress on immigration reform.

I'm not sure the immigration reform point is true. Presumably progress on immigration reform would help him win more latino votes. But since immigration reform is such a hot-button issue, he'd only get a significant bill after a long and ugly legislative battle. That would likely cost him significantly among non-latino voters.

I'm not sure the gain in latino voters would outweigh the costs among other voters. This is especially true given that Obama's opponent is very likely to be much, much, much more hostile to immigration reform. It's possible it's a winner for him, but if I were advising him on politics I'd suggest that he make whatever minor reforms that are possible via executive orders, but stay away from a legislative fight on immigration.

I hope Rick Perry runs just so we can get him out of Texas for awhile. I mean, seriously, this is his idea of governing.

Captain Caveman wrote:I hope Rick Perry runs just so we can get him out of Texas for awhile. I mean, seriously, this is his idea of governing.

On second thought, maybe Bachmann isn't so bad. Yeah, we need that guy outta this state.

Captain Caveman wrote:I hope Rick Perry runs just so we can get him out of Texas for awhile. I mean, seriously, this is his idea of governing.

The Perry statement is pandering of the highest order. "I, Rick Perry, in my Texas-size humility, am here to announce that I, Rick Perry, have declared a day of prayer and fasting, for Jesus, who means a lot to me, Rick Perry, and to you, the people who should vote for Rick Perry."

But the Get-on-your-Knees-and-Get-with-the-Program commercial after Perry is just creepy-pathetic.

Despite the fact that resolutions placing potential state Constitutional amendments on the ballot for consideration by the voters do not need to be signed by the Governor, only passed on third reading by both houses of the Legislature with the approval of 2/3 of members seated, Rick Perry decided to sign the 2005 amendment proposal that would ban gay marriage and civil unions.

And not only did he sign it, but he held the signing ceremony in a *church*.

That's all anyone needs to know about Governor Goodhair.

David Duke considering a run.

As if it was needed yet another reason not to like Rick Perry:

http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/05/be ... ick-perry/" target="_blank

Texian wrote:As if it was needed yet another reason not to like Rick Perry:

http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/05/be ... ick-perry/" target="_blank

All of this, however, pales beside Perry’s current project–a Christian all-day prayer event called “The Response” on August 6 in Houston. The governor is sponsoring the event along with the American Family Association, which is footing the estimated $1.5 million tab for the gathering. The Response is intended for Christians only, although one spokesman said that if people of other faiths attend, he hopes they will see the light and “seek out the living Christ” for their lives.

I haven't seen it stated so directly.

It's stuff like this that causes me to laugh when I see the periodic "why don't more Jews vote for Republicans?" articles in conservative-leaning magazines.

Cross posting, but the quoted point plays into the Field topic - Richard Cohen (Washington Post) calls the Cult out by name:

Someone ought to study the Republican Party. I am not referring to yet another political scientist but to a mental health professional, preferably a specialist in the power of fixations, obsessions and the like. The GOP needs an intervention. It has become a cult.

To become a Republican, one has to take a pledge...

...This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political Jonestown. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. It is a redoubt of certainty over reason and in itself significantly responsible for the government deficit that matters most: leadership. That we can’t borrow from China.

Pyperkub wrote:Cross posting, but the quoted point plays into the Field topic - Richard Cohen (Washington Post) calls the Cult out by name:

Someone ought to study the Republican Party. I am not referring to yet another political scientist but to a mental health professional, preferably a specialist in the power of fixations, obsessions and the like. The GOP needs an intervention. It has become a cult.

To become a Republican, one has to take a pledge...

...This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political Jonestown. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. It is a redoubt of certainty over reason and in itself significantly responsible for the government deficit that matters most: leadership. That we can’t borrow from China.

That's just too much. It's silly. "Jonestown"?

The GOP is a political party like it has always been. Sure, it's suffering from a crisis of identity, with the extremists dominant, but it's not a "cult" by any stretch. Boy Scouts take a pledge, as do doctors and soldiers and liberal Democratic presidents. Are they cultists?

If the GOP were to succumb completely to the hard-core purity movement now getting traction, it still wouldn't be a "cult." It would be an extremist party, that's it. People can be wrong without being brainwashed.

The editorial's absurd name-calling is no better than Tea Partiers calling public employees "parasites" or health-care reform "death panels."

Holman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:Cross posting, but the quoted point plays into the Field topic - Richard Cohen (Washington Post) calls the Cult out by name:

Someone ought to study the Republican Party. I am not referring to yet another political scientist but to a mental health professional, preferably a specialist in the power of fixations, obsessions and the like. The GOP needs an intervention. It has become a cult.

To become a Republican, one has to take a pledge...

...This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political Jonestown. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. It is a redoubt of certainty over reason and in itself significantly responsible for the government deficit that matters most: leadership. That we can’t borrow from China.

That's just too much. It's silly. "Jonestown"?

The GOP is a political party like it has always been. Sure, it's suffering from a crisis of identity, with the extremists dominant, but it's not a "cult" by any stretch. Boy Scouts take a pledge, as do doctors and soldiers and liberal Democratic presidents. Are they cultists?

If the GOP were to succumb completely to the hard-core purity movement now getting traction, it still wouldn't be a "cult." It would be an extremist party, that's it. People can be wrong without being brainwashed.

The editorial's absurd name-calling is no better than Tea Partiers calling public employees "parasites" or health-care reform "death panels."

I don't think it's just that the extremists are dominant - it's that they're running everyone else off in the name of ideology and not governing. What is the difference between a bunch of single-minded extremists and a cult?

Pyperkub wrote:
I don't think it's just that the extremists are dominant - it's that they're running everyone else off in the name of ideology and not governing. What is the difference between a bunch of single-minded extremists and a cult?

"Cult" here means beliefs completely at odds with any mainstream interpretation not only of policy and values but of reality itself. Brainwashing and loss of capacity for reason are strongly implied.

As much as we liberals might want to characterize the Right that way, it just doesn't apply. It's hyperbole and sloppy argument, and it's a waste of newspaper space. This kind of talk does as much violence to decent political discourse as anything on any Tea Party placard.

I still hold out hope that we might have a country where people disagree without demonizing each other. Richard Cohen isn't helping.

Holman wrote:I still hold out hope that we might have a country where people disagree without demonizing each other. Richard Cohen isn't helping.

Neither is the GOP leadership. It all started with driving out the moderates as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). It became worse when candidates were required to sign loyalty pledges to special interest groups. When compromise can not be an option, democracy is endangered. The most sound legislation comes from bipartisan negotiations, not from a single party's relentless demands.

Pyperkub wrote:What is the difference between a bunch of single-minded extremists and a cult?

The cult wants to drink the kool-aide themselves, while the extremists want to serve it to everyone.

Holman wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:
I don't think it's just that the extremists are dominant - it's that they're running everyone else off in the name of ideology and not governing. What is the difference between a bunch of single-minded extremists and a cult?

"Cult" here means beliefs completely at odds with any mainstream interpretation not only of policy and values but of reality itself. Brainwashing and loss of capacity for reason are strongly implied.

As much as we liberals might want to characterize the Right that way, it just doesn't apply. It's hyperbole and sloppy argument, and it's a waste of newspaper space. This kind of talk does as much violence to decent political discourse as anything on any Tea Party placard.

I still hold out hope that we might have a country where people disagree without demonizing each other. Richard Cohen isn't helping.

Did you say brainwashing?

Good lord. This is not a debate. The Republican Party is not a cult, nor anywhere close to it. Like Holman said, it's just absurd hyperbole that does nothing to help the political debate. This is Jonestown:

Jonestown was the informal name for the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, an intentional community in northwestern Guyana formed by the Peoples Temple, a cult led by Jim Jones. It became internationally notorious when, on November 18, 1978, 918 people died in the settlement as well as in a nearby airstrip and in Georgetown, Guyana's capital. The name of the settlement became synonymous with the incidents at those locations.

A total of 909 Temple members died in Jonestown, all but two from apparent cyanide poisoning, in an event termed "revolutionary suicide" by Jones and some members on an audio tape of the event and in prior discussions. The poisonings in Jonestown followed the murder of five others by Temple members at a nearby Port Kaituma airstrip. The victims included Congressman Leo Ryan, the first member of Congress assassinated in the line of duty in the history of the United States. Four other Temple members died in Georgetown at Jones' command.

To the extent the actions in Jonestown were viewed as a mass suicide (controversial as many were allegedly forced to participate, including babies), it is the largest such event in modern history and resulted in the largest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001.[1]

THAT's a cult.

If you ever wonder why MSD or YK periodically get their right wing panties in a bunch in this forum, this is why.

The Republican Party is not a cult.

It is an incredibly irresponsible organization, and the fact that they refuse to consider any revenue increases to address our deficit (which was mostly caused by the tax cuts they championed ten years ago), is the height of inanity.

Unfit to govern. But not a cult.

Fireball1244 wrote:The Republican Party is not a cult.

It is an incredibly irresponsible organization, and the fact that they refuse to consider any revenue increases to address our deficit (which was mostly caused by the tax cuts they championed ten years ago a century of spending on social engineering by Congress and Presidents), is the height of inanity.

Unfit to govern. But not a cult.

Giving Taxpayers back more of the money that they earn is NOT a problem. Inability for government to scale back a century of social engineering to allow taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn *is* the problem.

Ah yeah... and

/insert standard panties in a bunch response

I don't have the energy today to draw up a response to the cult accusations.

msduncan wrote:Ah yeah... and

/insert standard panties in a bunch response

I don't have the energy today to draw up a response to the cult accusations.

Can't you get the cult leader to do it? If that's you - man, the cult leader has to put in 110% even when they're tired!

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Ah yeah... and

/insert standard panties in a bunch response

I don't have the energy today to draw up a response to the cult accusations.

Can't you get the cult leader to do it? If that's you - man, the cult leader has to put in 110% even when they're tired!

I defer to my Deputy Cult Leader, YK. I'll be at Camp Palin for the remainder of the week.

msduncan wrote:Giving Taxpayers back more of the money that they earn is NOT a problem.

We, as a people, have established certain programs for the betterment of our nation. When conservatives led by Bush and the Republicans slashed tax revenues in 2001, they made no attempt to offset those lost revenues by reducing spending. In fact, they dramatically increased spending by launching a misbegotten, 100% pointless war in Iraq, which they put *entirely* on the nation's credit card, not making any effort to pay for it as they went. That is the height of financial irresponsibility.

In the 1990s, Republicans and Democrats worked together to balance the budget through a series of tax increases, spending cuts and tools including PAYGO designed to maintain fiscal sanity -- if you increased spending, you had to increase revenue, if you decreased revenue, you had to decrease spending. Those 1990s reforms *worked*.

The *first* thing the Republicans did when they took completely power in 2001 was to cancel PAYGO, the second thing they did was slash taxes for the highest-income Americans (while leaving unchanged or lowering only slightly the taxes of most Americans), the third thing they did was launch a boondoggle of a war that has exhausted us militarily and ruined us economically. The fourth thing they did was establish Medicare Part D, which is effectively a giant giveaway to the prescription drug companies and which makes no effort to control drug costs.

"Giving taxpayers their money back" without making the hard choices on spending at the same time *IS* a problem. Starting a war without paying for it as we went or even making an effort to "share the burden" through revenue increases *IS* a problem. Eliminating the notion that there might be programs we don't want to cut, which means that closing the deficit might require the wealthiest in this country to pay *slightly* higher marginal tax rates *IS* a problem.

Fireball1244 wrote:

msduncan wrote:Giving Taxpayers back more of the money that they earn is NOT a problem.

We, as a people, have established certain programs for the betterment of our nation. When conservatives led by Bush and the Republicans slashed tax revenues in 2001, they made no attempt to offset those lost revenues by reducing spending. In fact, they dramatically increased spending by launching a misbegotten, 100% pointless war in Iraq, which they put *entirely* on the nation's credit card, not making any effort to pay for it as they went. That is the height of financial irresponsibility.

In the 1990s, Republicans and Democrats worked together to balance the budget through a series of tax increases, spending cuts and tools including PAYGO designed to maintain fiscal sanity -- if you increased spending, you had to increase revenue, if you decreased revenue, you had to decrease spending. Those 1990s reforms *worked*.

The *first* thing the Republicans did when they took completely power in 2001 was to cancel PAYGO, the second thing they did was slash taxes for the highest-income Americans (while leaving unchanged or lowering only slightly the taxes of most Americans), the third thing they did was launch a boondoggle of a war that has exhausted us militarily and ruined us economically. The fourth thing they did was establish Medicare Part D, which is effectively a giant giveaway to the prescription drug companies and which makes no effort to control drug costs.

"Giving taxpayers their money back" without making the hard choices on spending at the same time *IS* a problem. Starting a war without paying for it as we went or even making an effort to "share the burden" through revenue increases *IS* a problem. Eliminating the notion that there might be programs we don't want to cut, which means that closing the deficit might require the wealthiest in this country to pay *slightly* higher marginal tax rates *IS* a problem.

And we agree. We should not decrease taxes without decreasing spending. I intentionally named Congress and past Presidents as the culprits(rather than naming a party or specific President), because the problem has existed across the political spectrum.

msduncan wrote:

Fireball1244 wrote:

msduncan wrote:Giving Taxpayers back more of the money that they earn is NOT a problem.

We, as a people, have established certain programs for the betterment of our nation. When conservatives led by Bush and the Republicans slashed tax revenues in 2001, they made no attempt to offset those lost revenues by reducing spending. In fact, they dramatically increased spending by launching a misbegotten, 100% pointless war in Iraq, which they put *entirely* on the nation's credit card, not making any effort to pay for it as they went. That is the height of financial irresponsibility.

In the 1990s, Republicans and Democrats worked together to balance the budget through a series of tax increases, spending cuts and tools including PAYGO designed to maintain fiscal sanity -- if you increased spending, you had to increase revenue, if you decreased revenue, you had to decrease spending. Those 1990s reforms *worked*.

The *first* thing the Republicans did when they took completely power in 2001 was to cancel PAYGO, the second thing they did was slash taxes for the highest-income Americans (while leaving unchanged or lowering only slightly the taxes of most Americans), the third thing they did was launch a boondoggle of a war that has exhausted us militarily and ruined us economically. The fourth thing they did was establish Medicare Part D, which is effectively a giant giveaway to the prescription drug companies and which makes no effort to control drug costs.

"Giving taxpayers their money back" without making the hard choices on spending at the same time *IS* a problem. Starting a war without paying for it as we went or even making an effort to "share the burden" through revenue increases *IS* a problem. Eliminating the notion that there might be programs we don't want to cut, which means that closing the deficit might require the wealthiest in this country to pay *slightly* higher marginal tax rates *IS* a problem.

And we agree. We should not decrease taxes without decreasing spending. I intentionally named Congress and past Presidents as the culprits(rather than naming a party or specific President), because the problem has existed across the political spectrum.

I suspect the primary reason I get annoyed with you (though I still would high five you any day of the week) is that, statistically speaking, for the last 30 years the worst offenders of this has been the republican party. Both in congress and particularly the presidents from the republican party. Both Bush 2 and Reagan were famous for this. Meanwhile, Clinton actually did fix the issue, yet he is widely hated by the same party that should theoretically agree with him.

It's just downright odd.

The issue here is you are using increased taxes = increased revenue. This can be the case but isn't always. The problem I see is that every time someone looks at a tax cut or tax increase they put it in isolation. They ignore the implications of that tax change on spending and just assume that whatever spending happened or will happen during that time would be the exact same if the taxes changed or not. That is flat out ignorance. As MSD said both parties have screwed the US Taxpayer with insane spending and promises of more.

Now that being said I do feel that we can raise taxes a small amount without causing economic hardship on anyone. Taxing just the rich fails on many levels, most importantly there aren't enough of them to make a difference and they also have the best ability to shift things around to avoid as much taxation as possible. The only way to begin eliminating the debt is to drastically cut spending, remove the credit card entirely, and find that ideal tax rate that balances growth and revenue (it is a moving target and will be all but impossible to do). As I have said before they need to strip the entire tax code so that it fits in a pamphlet, the complexity really is only adding loopholes to hide money in.

I'll add that as a country we need to really define what we want the government to do for us. Right now there is a huge schism in the country where a significant portion want high taxes and a government providing many services and support, while there is another group wanting low taxes and providing fewer services and support. The problem really is that we have 2 mutually exclusive groups each trying to drive the country to their way of thinking, not to mention lots of splinter groups from each that have their own variation or pet topics, and it is resulting in each getting the "feel good" half of what they want and no sustainable course. I don't have an answer for how to reconcile this schism, but if the country doesn't try to go in a single direction then it will collapse our economy.

Arcanis wrote:The issue here is you are using increased taxes = increased revenue. This can be the case but isn't always. The problem I see is that every time someone looks at a tax cut or tax increase they put it in isolation. They ignore the implications of that tax change on spending and just assume that whatever spending happened or will happen during that time would be the exact same if the taxes changed or not.

I agree with you. And both sides are prone to ignoring it, yet at the moment, I don't believe that cutting taxes at the moment will do anything to generate revenue. It seems like the right is married to the idea that tax cuts will always generate more revenue, which is patently ludicrous. Some invoke the Laffer curve without ever demonstrating where we are on the curve or how they've arrived at this number.

And it is basic economics that an increase in taxation and government spending crowds out private investment and charity donations. But centuries have shown that you can't provide anything approaching a safety net that will benefit the populace as a whole.

Economics is as much a social science as a mathematic one. The same actions taken even a decade apart will result in very different reactions from the populace. That's why there are studies on consumer confidence. And at this point, even though the government tells us that the recession is over, the job and housing markets are still bad enough that most people don't consider this to be over.

A private sector recession is just the time we need the government to even out the bumps, not cut them to the quick. Unfortunately, when times are good, no one wants to take the leadership role to pare back the government role on the other side.

Credit cards exist to help you out when times are tough and you can't make ends meet. You don't cancel them all when you're laid off, as you might need them to get groceries that month. And you pay them off once you're back on your feet and days are sunnier. Unfortunately, too many in the government want to use those salad days to ignore the debt that we accrued in the dark days, and go buy new TVs and consoles while we ignore the debt and keep paying the interest when we would be better served paying it off.

Tl;DR version - The government needs to get smaller in the long term, but when the country is still suffering is not the time to do it.

Yes and the blade cuts both ways as you said, on the tax changes and revenue changes aspect. The reason I say ditch the credit card is because the federal government has shown itself to be irresponsible with it. We can't trust that they will use it appropriately or pay it off in a timely manor, which is particularly dangerous considering it essentially has no limit. As you said the government does need to shrink over the long term, at the very least not grow for a long time, but that slashing it enough to balance the budget is unfeasible right now.

msduncan wrote:Giving Taxpayers back more of the money that they earn is NOT a problem. Inability for government to scale back a century of social engineering to allow taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn *is* the problem.

The current deficit is largely the result of tax cuts, not spending increases.

EDIT: Didn't see all those responses before I posted. Still, that page has a lot of interesting info.

Arcanis wrote:Yes and the blade cuts both ways as you said, on the tax changes and revenue changes aspect. The reason I say ditch the credit card is because the federal government has shown itself to be irresponsible with it. We can't trust that they will use it appropriately or pay it off in a timely manor, which is particularly dangerous considering it essentially has no limit. As you said the government does need to shrink over the long term, at the very least not grow for a long time, but that slashing it enough to balance the budget is unfeasible right now.

Agreed. The problem with political discourse is that it seems devolve into dogmatism too easily.

As we draw down our wars, we can cut back on that 20% that goes to the defense budget. As the economy and jobs picture improves, we can draw back on the 14% that goes to the safety net programs. Social Security and the medical programs (20% and 21% respectively) need to be reviewed and looked at for some cost reductions as well.

But any time anyone starts crowing about cutting Veterans and retiree benefits (7%), scientific research (2%), or education (3%), I tend to discount anything else they say, as the money to be saved pales in comparison with the big hitters.

Source

A Center analysis shows that such programs kept approximately 15 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million people. (Such programs likely kept even more Americans out of poverty since the recession began. For example, seven provisions of the Recovery Act enacted in February 2009 kept more than 6 million additional people out of poverty in 2009, according to a Center analysis.)

Bachmann up to 18% in New Hampshire, second only to Mitt's 25%.

Exodor wrote:Bachmann up to 18% in New Hampshire, second only to Mitt's 25%.

President Clinton recently remarked how surprisingly strong of a candidate Bachmann is.

Bachmann is just the latest ignorance-embracing, gay-hating, history-warping, religious fundamentalist sack of human excrement to float to the top of the sewer that is the Republican presidential field.

There are plenty of decent, honorable conservatives in this country -- the kind of people who would never sign a pledge declaring the entire notion of raising some taxes to help close the deficit completely out of bounds. But with the possible exception of Huntsman, none of them are seeking to lead the intellectually stunted husk that is the modern Republican Party.

Hey, you know who's positions on certain social issues, on certain tax policies and on immigration would cause him to be branded a despicable "Republican in Name Only," and thus unfit to be nominated for president by the 2011 Republican Party? Ronald Wilson Reagan, who spoke out against anti-gay rhetoric in California, who raised taxes when it was necessary to address a budget crisis, who signed a sweeping amnesty, who met directly with our most fearsome adversaries and cut deals with them to disarm American warheads... all actions that would render him anathema to a party that today claims to carry his torch.

Pathetic.

Hey -- I didn't say I'd vote for Bachmann, just that she's developing into a strong candidate. Strong candidate being defined as Clinton defined it -- one that is politically savvy enough to run an effective campaign.

But thanks for the left wing sweeping brush of doom across all the candidates. Most primaries bring out the fruits and nuts this early on no matter what party we are talking about. 95% of them will never make it the distance and be cast aside.

Fireball1244 wrote:If Rick Perry gets into the race, I'd give him even-money odds on the nomination.

President Goodhair would be a disaster of epic proportions.

msduncan wrote:Hey -- I didn't say I'd vote for Bachmann, just that she's developing into a strong candidate. Strong candidate being defined as Clinton defined it -- one that is politically savvy enough to run an effective campaign.

But thanks for the left wing sweeping brush of doom across all the candidates. Most primaries bring out the fruits and nuts this early on no matter what party we are talking about. 95% of them will never make it the distance and be cast aside.

Yup, I don't see it not being Mitt. There was an article that he raised as much money as all of the rest of the R candidates put together in the last month.

Representative Yarmuth won't hear it:

“She's [Bachmann's] a very talented marketer. She knows her assets and she markets them well. But if she were fully exposed to the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, I'm very confident President Obama would win all 50 states.”

If Rick Perry gets into the race, I'd give him even-money odds on the nomination.

Michele Bachmann signed on to a pledge. What pledge? This pledge.

The pledge includes such federalist, small-government, Washington-out-of-our-business concepts as these:

Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.”

Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.

There's also this:

Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

Some are asserting that this clause requires support of a ban of all pornography; I don't read it that broadly.

What does this even mean?

Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual arassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles

I get the "OMG!Gheys in teh Showers!" aspect but "sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles" ?