In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The Democrats went left and the GOP followed at a slower, moderate pace. The base wondered why the old principles and platform were so quickly abandoned and apparently so lightly esteemed, and rebelled in what came to be known as the Tea Party movement. In 2010, they unseated several moderate candidates and gave the House back to the GOP. They're not done for 2014, even after the moderate's candidate Romney lost in 2012. The left and mainstream GOP together tried to label it as fringe and racists again and again and again, only highlighting how out of touch they are with reality (and for the GOP how out of touch they are with their base).
It turns out that Brat was able to hang amnesty as a millstone around Cantor's neck. Oops.
On June 13 2014 01:21 farvacola wrote: Who let the dogs out? The Republicans did, and now they can't get them back in the cage.
Incidentally, the base is tired of being treated, by their nominal party no less, like dogs that need to be muzzled. If you want to be elected, better pay attention to the views of your constituency, because you can only say one thing and do another for so long.
I find the 2 party system hurts because it's difficult to find a candidate that more closely aligns with your view. For example, I'm lucky to have a party platform in Canada that closely aligns with my views, but in the states as a fiscal conservative and social liberal I don't have a representative that will vote along my ideology. You have to vote along your primary issues(jobs, economy) while giving a mandate for a view you don't support(pro-life, bloated military). It also hurts that you get stereotyped because of the inadvertent mandate you've given with your vote.
Well that's basically because the Republican party doesn't seem to be willing to move to the 21st century. Then you'd have one fiscal conservative party and one that isn't. I don't think we need parties calling for creationism in school and nonsense out of the 19th century. If no one's there to represent that stuff then people will probably move on eventually.
On June 13 2014 06:29 coverpunch wrote: Do you really think creationism is the only or most representative platform of the Republican Party?
Creationism does a good job at putting into perspective the whole idea of disagreeing with 97% of climate scientists, evolutionary biology and social sciences that study the effects of social programs. The republican platform is largely based on gut feelings and views that are more of result of thinking about things to yourself rather than making informed opinions.
On June 13 2014 05:50 Nyxisto wrote: Well that's basically because the Republican party doesn't seem to be willing to move to the 21st century. Then you'd have one fiscal conservative party and one that isn't. I don't think we need parties calling for creationism in school and nonsense out of the 19th century. If no one's there to represent that stuff then people will probably move on eventually.
That's more or less the Libertarian party... Unfortunately they happen to think the Civil Rights Act was big government invading private businesses right to refuse to serve blacks (gays today). They also don't jive well with the Hawks from the GOP as they are relatively isolationist.
I actually support ideas that reduce the need/size for social programs, and recognize our current spending isn't sustainable in the long run. Unfortunately the only representatives that really get after that, also are supportive of things like 'stop and frisk' which is resulting in the systematic destruction of the 4th amendment for people like myself.
I rather like being able to walk down the street without some female police officer damn near ripping my testicles off. Then the people in charge of protecting me, rally behind the woman who may have rendered me infertile...
You would think the anti police state people would be against the equivalent of EVERY man in a city being stopped and searched... I guess if it's not you it's just 'good policing'... Individual freedom my ass...
On June 13 2014 06:32 Nyxisto wrote: Well the other platform is probably trying to get rid of Obamacare for the fiftieth time. (spoiler alert: that's never going to happen)
I don't know what kind of parallels you're trying to draw here from Obamacare to creationism. If you've been following, the types in Congress that are in favor of meaningless votes are the very types the local tea parties are trying to unseat. That's part and parcel of business-as-usual Washington, talk about reducing the size of government, and do nothing.
On June 13 2014 06:29 coverpunch wrote: Do you really think creationism is the only or most representative platform of the Republican Party?
Do you think it is a minor and insignificant portion?
Take any public opinion poll, and tell me what the top reasons people are voting for republicans or tea party candidates. Creationism taught in public schools doesn't even make the list. Secondly, its a state issue in federalism that doesn't impact national candidates and the national debate.
In the spirit of healthy debate, I'll put up his points that he repeatedly covered in campaign speeches. It's also found on his campaign website under a big picture of Ronald Reagan, so I'm sure you'll want to head over there right away.
What We Believe
Dave Brat fully supports the Republican Creed, and any leader who unflinchingly upholds that Creed which reads as follows...
We Believe…
That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice, That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society, That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government, That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations, That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense, That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.
... unfortunately, however, our current congressman, Eric Cantor, has failed to uphold that Creed, and it is time for a change. It is time to term limit Eric Cantor.
And the immigration divide, as he drew it:
Illegal Immigration/ Amnesty
Dave believes that we need to secure the border before addressing immigration reform. Dave is opposed to amnesty.
Eric Cantor was the chief architect behind the ‘Kids Act’ which would have provided amnesty to most illegal immigrants under the age of 30. Cantor cited immigration reform as a “top priority” in 2014.
If you've been following, the types in Congress that are in favor of meaningless votes are the very types the local tea parties are trying to unseat.
Really?
“The guys who have been up here the last two years, we can go home and say, 'Listen, we voted 36 different times to repeal or replace ObamaCare.' Tell me what the new guys are supposed to say?” second-term Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C. TEA PARTY Caucus) said Wednesday at a forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. He said it’s troubling the first vote of the year on the healthcare law is a GOP bill to bolster the high-risk insurance pools.
“We haven’t had a repeal or replace vote this year, so why this is our first vote on anything having to do with ObamaCare is another difficulty,” he said.
After two years in which House Republicans voted on a near-weekly basis to repeal part of or all of the healthcare law, the GOP leadership shifted strategy following Obama’s reelection in November.
With repeal of the law seemingly impossible for the next four years, top Republicans are instead eyeing more modest measures that could change the law or its implementation.
But that’s not sufficient for many hard-liners in the conference who want the party to continue to push for full repeal.
“I want a chance as a freshman to do that, even if it’s just symbolic,” Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla. TEA PARTY [later given slap on the wrist for cocaine possesion]) said.
The chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La. TEA PARTY), said he has pushed the leadership to schedule a repeal vote.
On June 13 2014 06:32 Nyxisto wrote: Well the other platform is probably trying to get rid of Obamacare for the fiftieth time. (spoiler alert: that's never going to happen)
I don't know what kind of parallels you're trying to draw here from Obamacare to creationism. If you've been following, the types in Congress that are in favor of meaningless votes are the very types the local tea parties are trying to unseat. That's part and parcel of business-as-usual Washington, talk about reducing the size of government, and do nothing.
Wasn't the tea party largely responsible for shutting down the government for two weeks because they didn't pass the annual budget just because they didn't like Obamacare? That doesn't exactly sound like meaningful voting to me.
I have a slightly different (perhaps novel?) take on Cantor. He did things that all politicians do, and he kinda embraced the "villain" role. He was all about backroom deals (he even subverted Boehner at times), and he backstabbed the conservative base (he actually has done this on non-immigration issues, immigration is just hypothetical). So what? Well, he also looks like a villain and sounds like a villain, to almost comedic lengths. He is essentially Frank Underwood, except played by Alan Rickman or Gregory Itzin, not the charming Kevin Spacey.
Well that's the kind of trade-off that happens often. The "leaders of the people" often turn out to be populists that try to score with stances like anti-immigration, where as the "backdoor guys" tend to be a little more reasonable about those issues but also can be a little shady at times.
On June 13 2014 06:32 Nyxisto wrote: Well the other platform is probably trying to get rid of Obamacare for the fiftieth time. (spoiler alert: that's never going to happen)
I don't know what kind of parallels you're trying to draw here from Obamacare to creationism. If you've been following, the types in Congress that are in favor of meaningless votes are the very types the local tea parties are trying to unseat. That's part and parcel of business-as-usual Washington, talk about reducing the size of government, and do nothing.
Wasn't the tea party largely responsible for shutting down the government for two weeks because they didn't pass the annual budget just because they didn't like Obamacare? That doesn't exactly sound like meaningful voting to me.
The House does have the power to defund what it likes, just look at the other times the government has been shut down. The House votes to repeal Obamacare will not be passed by the Senate. There is a distinct difference between the two. Policy considerations aside, the two have very different levels of significance.
House conservatives are clamoring for a floor vote on a full repeal of the 2010 healthcare overhaul, saying that freshman Republicans need an opportunity to tell their constituents they tried to scrap the law.
Frustration is mounting in the conservative ranks over the party leadership’s decision to bring up legislation that modifies but does not eliminate President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement. The GOP bill, which shifts money to boost high-risk insurance pools, is facing stiff resistance, putting its passage on Wednesday is in doubt. “The guys who have been up here the last two years, we can go home and say, 'Listen, we voted 36 different times to repeal or replace ObamaCare.' Tell me what the new guys are supposed to say?” second-term Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) said Wednesday at a forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.
It was a discussion of optics for incoming House freshmen at the time taking place (those that hadn't been on the record an absurd number of times). I really don't see how you could conclude otherwise, if you read the part preceding what you quoted. Boehner bringing up votes on modifying the passed bill was precisely the wrong strategy for people newly elected having promised to work to destroy it. In town hall meetings, a recently-elected candidate could feel sheepish if his only vote was having to put down moderate's ideas to alter it from within instead of replacing fresh.
discussion of optics for incoming House freshmen...a recently-elected candidate could feel sheepish if his only vote was having to put down moderate's ideas to alter it from within instead of replacing fresh.
Is that not exactly meaningless?
A vote based solely on the optics? A vote which is admittedly purely symbolic? So that the half-wits that elected them believe them? Without it actually having any meaning at all...? Not to mention the other 30+ votes they ALREADY had... Plenty of them had to be meaningless without the shield of 'optics'...?
They could of voted 1000 times to repeal it and it wouldn't change whether they could/would signed on to reasonable legislation after or before... But their constituency is too dense to comprehend that.
I can't believe it's even a contention whether the Tea Party supported meaningless votes...
Come to think of it I'm pretty skeptical of this whole Earth going around the sun talk... I think it would be healthy to have a robust discussion where all viewpoints have an opportunity to contribute.
Clearly the Science isn't settled.
Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?
When asked that question, 1 in 4 Americans surveyed answered incorrectly. Yes, 1 in 4. In other words, a quarter of Americans do not understand one of the most fundamental principles of basic science.
On June 13 2014 06:32 Nyxisto wrote: Well the other platform is probably trying to get rid of Obamacare for the fiftieth time. (spoiler alert: that's never going to happen)
I don't know what kind of parallels you're trying to draw here from Obamacare to creationism. If you've been following, the types in Congress that are in favor of meaningless votes are the very types the local tea parties are trying to unseat. That's part and parcel of business-as-usual Washington, talk about reducing the size of government, and do nothing.
Wasn't the tea party largely responsible for shutting down the government for two weeks because they didn't pass the annual budget just because they didn't like Obamacare? That doesn't exactly sound like meaningful voting to me.
The House does have the power to defund what it likes, just look at the other times the government has been shut down. The House votes to repeal Obamacare will not be passed by the Senate. There is a distinct difference between the two. Policy considerations aside, the two have very different levels of significance.
Yeah I guess they just had a bad day. Don't act like one thing hadn't to do anything with the other. The problem is that a certain part of the American public, politicians and non-politicians, just have absurd ideas of how a modern society should look like. In that world social healthcare programs are communism, Obama is literally Stalin, creationism is science and so they'll rather try to destroy something like Obamacare than to adapt when they're not busy reading Ayn Rand.
EPT
