EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2358
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
KwarK
United States44439 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 30 2015 05:52 Plansix wrote: To mean called out in their conflict of interest. That shit wouldn't fly for a law firm and would throw a lot of shade on an expert witness. Also, Brookings can't get "bullied", they are not a kid on a playground. Expect Brookings is just a thinktank... it's not really going to be held to the same standards as say, a physician researcher or a lawyer, both of which are answerable to a regulatory body. You see people sponsored by the Koch brothers churning out climate change denial and antiabortion bullshit while claiming to be nonpartisan and nonbiased. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 30 2015 06:01 ticklishmusic wrote: Expect Brookings is just a thinktank... it's not really going to be held to the same standards as say, a physician researcher or a lawyer, both of which are answerable to a regulatory body. Well if they are not regulated and there are no standards, why do we take them seriously at all? If they can take money from anything they want and just claim to be not bias, what guarantees do I have they are doing so? If they can't self regulate, someone has to regulate them. Pointing out that they are cashing checks from people who want a specific outcome and then their reports showing that outcome doesn't make their argument stronger. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I concur that it appears to rise above mere questioning. I note that my primary interest was in the question of the charge of guilt by association, (which has been satisfactorily addressed), rather than the word choice for warren's actions. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14220 Posts
On September 30 2015 05:42 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm going to make a longshot bet that the craziness we've been seeing is going to translate into some safe seats falling into play. In 2016, the Republicans are defending 24 seats to 10 for the Democrats. Given the shit response the Republican party has made on social issues recently and no charismatic face of the party, I think there's a chance the Democrats could pick some seats based on strong turnout and advantages from women and minorities. Yeah, a veto proof majority is quite unlikely, but a swing to 55+ seats for the Democrats seems within the realm of reason. Things arn't as bad as they were post Bush though. We're going to be relecting the Tea party wave election but those seats they won are in areas where they had some traction with the people who agree with the same shit that they're doing now. @gorsameth It doesn't matter if the issue is about money when you can make it about money. A dog with a note in his mouth can argue about numbers. Someone better can make a pie graph comparing run of the mil pork and what funding gets added to PP. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 30 2015 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote: To go from the largest Republican majority in the House for eight decades to 2/3 the other way would be quite a feat, even for this GOP. Fitting that you mention Cantor too, recently shamed for losing his primary race to the more Tea-Party-aligned Brat. Keep dreaming. After the 2016 election, I think there's a good chance Democrats are gonna have a veto proof majority and the next president won't have any thoughts about trying to reach across the aisle. Oh, and Ted Kennedy's cancer won't be around to bail out the Republicans. The Planned Parenthood hearing just looked like a room full of wannabe alpha males beating up on a woman. I'll laugh my ass off if some of those jokers lose their seats next election because of all the women in their district that vote against them. PP ought to use some NRA-esque tactics or something. @below: remember Eric Cantor, that guy who was majority leader but lost his election? Makes $3M+ as a lobbyist now, and far as I know that's just base salary. I say an outside chance for Dems to retake the Senate, laughable odds for something veto-proof. The House would take many more scandals in the months leading up to Nov '16, and even then it will be tough to mobilize dissatisfaction in the leftward direction. Hate the GOP for not changing the direction of Washington the last time they were elected, true. That's a far cry from rushing lovingly to the same guys you wanted change from when they were ousted. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1102 Posts
Likewise, I've seen plenty of posts on other sites where people act like there's no way a Democrat could possibly win the next presidential election because Obama is such a _____. Yet, a large portion of states are almost guaranteed to be locked up for the Democrat just like some are almost guaranteed to be locked up for the Republican. Only a few are in play for either party and those states will make the difference. We'll see how that shakes out as we near the election. Everyone looks through their own filter, which is usually an echo chamber of ideas with local people. They think those thoughts apply nationwide. Then when someone like Nate Silver comes along with the hard facts, people don't believe him. Then his predictions come true and people think he's some sort of genius or oracle. He really doesn't do anything special, he's just learned to ignore the echo chamber and get closer to the truth by looking at all the hard facts. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
The above is part of why I say this: Feel the Bern baby  | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Yeah, there is quite a bit of that; of course some Republicans really are acting like clowns (figuratively). I'm still confident most of them will still be around of course. Pity people don't throw the bums out; and pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 30 2015 05:23 Sermokala wrote: Why haven't liberals been putting the $50M a year number more? I mean the money that PP gets per year is $450m a year but only $50m of the is anyhow specific to them. Thats real small potatoes to close the government over and yet I don't see shit about it anywhere. There is no chance democrats get a veto proof majority and I highly doubt that they'll take control over the senate Republicans have 44 seats that they're either keeping or are in deep red areas. Democrats have a pretty good chance to get a majority in the Senate (by maybe one or two seats), and better-than-not odds of winning the White House. As for the House, the increased representation of rural areas combined with gerrymandering being in favor of Republicans in many, many states will result in the House being nearly unwinnable for Democrats for probably an entire generation. | ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: re: ren Yeah, there is quite a bit of that; of course some Republicans really are acting like clowns (figuratively). I'm still confident most of them will still be around of course. Pity people don't throw the bums out; and pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out. Agreed that it is way too hard to throw the bums out. Really need term limits, a pay cut, and no pension for life bullshit before government officials are really going to start fighting for the people. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I don't think the congressional pay is out of line for the position, its just that too many of them are scum unworthy of it. The pension should probably be scaled back somewhat; but I doubt a pay or pension change would do anything to get them to do a better job. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out. This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting. Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance. It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:04 Cowboy64 wrote: This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting. Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance. It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation. Nothing wrong with different opinions and dissent but congress should be in the businesses of governing and there are currently people in there who, by their actions, seem to have no such intentions. And they are indeed a problem. voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare despite knowing it cannot succeed is not the purpose of Congress. Its a 5 year old throwing a tantrum. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:04 Cowboy64 wrote: This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting. Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance. It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation. Having spoken with a 6th circuit judge who did prior voter apportionment work as an attorney, you're arguing with a phantasm here. zlefin is not advocating that we silence the voices of dissent and opposition, he's pointing towards a troubling phenomena through which our form of representative government is changing for the worse. That's why your "oh, our system is so nice, don't break it" bit is nostalgic red herring fishing; never before has Congress continuously been rated this poorly and had this degree of "stickiness" to its seats. Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy). With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:10 Gorsameth wrote: Nothing wrong with different opinions and dissent but congress should be in the businesses of governing and there are currently people in there who, by their actions, seem to have no such intentions. And they are indeed a problem. voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare despite knowing it cannot succeed is not the purpose of Congress. Its a 5 year old throwing a tantrum. No, a 5 year old doesn't know better. A college-educated adult on the other hand... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:04 Cowboy64 wrote: This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting. Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance. It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation. I'm very open-minded, but I also know how to actually run things, and how to intelligently assess arguments; and having people in a position who show that they are not interested in having an actual debate or in running things is not helpful. If you see more of it from the Democrats, there are several possible reasons: 1) democrats are less tolerant. 2) Republicans are crazier/doing less reasonable thing 3) both sides do it similarly but you're simply more aware of the bad things done by the other side, which is also quite a common occurrence. I don't think congresspeople should do things that would, if they were in a court of law, be grounds for contempt citations, let alone perjury. The ones more about sticking it to the other side than compromise and tolerance have been the Republicans for several years now. Do not lie, I never said I'd only allow opinions I like and agree with, that you assert otherwise means you're strawmanning or failing to read what is written. I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality. While diversity of opinion is nice, one of the purposes of government is to filter out the crazy stupid, and make decisions based on reality. There does need to be a place for the crazy stupid, so they can at least be heard, and I'm not quite sure where that should be, but Congress isn't the place for it. edit: also, other people keep writing responses better than I do  my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 30 2015 08:42 ticklishmusic wrote: I've decided my dream ticket is crazy uncles Joe and Bernie. I think Sanders will definitely be the vice president of whatever the democratic ticket ends up being. He can be used the same way the GOP used Palin to inspire voter turnout. He's got all the hype, so just need someone else to be like "no, don't worry, I have no intention of making all college free lol". | ||
| ||
