Thing is, if they did censure her, she'd become a hero for the Tea Party.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
In the long run, it might be for the best.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Good point. And it would probably make Boehner's job even harder lol
Good lord, that woman looks nothing like Palin. You couldn't pay me to see her nude. Eww...
Right. The new laws would be palatable if they were accompanied by a robust effort to facilitate voting. In a few countries the government provides mobile registration units which provide identification. Instead, they are baldy partisan efforts to reduce turnout.
This is merely the apogee of a particularly iniquitous strain of anti-Muslim hysteria that begin last year when conservative bloggers impeached other conservatives, including Grover Norquist of all people, of supporting the MB. And although a censure is a weak gesture, her behavior should be reprobated by the House. Moreover, she should be removed from the House Committee on Intelligence; if not for her inexcusable conduct, at least for the comfort that she's far removed from matters of national security.
He supported the broader conspiratorial allusions. But when she lobbed direct accusations, he wisely backed off.
speculawyer
Member
You might be a conservative if you actually believe that horseshit.
Politico is running a story about how the poverty rate is set to rise to its highest level in 50 years: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78809.html
From reading the comments, I can't help but notice a disturbing conservative meme stating that this is all part of the plan for Barry and the Democrats. Basically, it's, "Liberals want to keep you poor and dependent so you'll have no choice but to vote for them."
I've heard some version of this meme since the 90's, but I don't remember it being this blatant. It makes me pretty angry considering that the party that has really shown complete disregard for the poor in recent years is not the Democrats.
Where do these crazy theories come from? Do Limbaugh and Beck seriously push the "Obama wants to keep you poor and dependent" angle? I find this to be an incredibly dangerous line of thinking. Not only is it blatantly false, but it actively impedes progress. We can't have reasonable discourse when one side constantly accuses the other side of deliberately perpetuating economic terrorism.
From reading the comments, I can't help but notice a disturbing conservative meme stating that this is all part of the plan for Barry and the Democrats. Basically, it's, "Liberals want to keep you poor and dependent so you'll have no choice but to vote for them."
I've heard some version of this meme since the 90's, but I don't remember it being this blatant. It makes me pretty angry considering that the party that has really shown complete disregard for the poor in recent years is not the Democrats.
Where do these crazy theories come from? Do Limbaugh and Beck seriously push the "Obama wants to keep you poor and dependent" angle? I find this to be an incredibly dangerous line of thinking. Not only is it blatantly false, but it actively impedes progress. We can't have reasonable discourse when one side constantly accuses the other side of deliberately perpetuating economic terrorism.
I honestly feel that some conservatives do.
The worst thing about this is that it really doesn't have much to do with Obama's (limited) progressive policies, but the righties will blame it on progressive policies anyway, and that we need MORE tax cuts for the rich, less regulation, and some good ole fashioned Gilded Age work ethic.
SouthernDragon
Member
I've been reading The Prize by Daniel Yergin.
One of the running themes that stand out to me is that the oil industry repeatedly runs into trouble and is saved by either massive consolidations or stringent government intervention.
They also have extremely short memories.
One of the running themes that stand out to me is that the oil industry repeatedly runs into trouble and is saved by either massive consolidations or stringent government intervention.
They also have extremely short memories.
PhoenixDark
Banned
To be fair, that was the point of LBJ liberalism, and only changed with Clinton's more conservative take on welfare reform.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Can I get some more information on this?
Oh, you.
The War on Poverty was actually quite successful. One of the greatest triumphs of the anti-government crowd has been perpetuating the myth that the War on Poverty was an ineffective waste of money. It's amazing how many people believe this when the facts clearly state otherwise.
I wish I wasn't using a Yglesias graph to make my point, but whatever.
SirButterstick
Banned
Regarding Michelle Bachman, in all seriousness, isn't it actually the 'traitor' here. I mean, what's she's saying is basically against everything the US is supposed to stand for . . . In theory at least.
It seems like people like her and Rick Santorum would be more comfortable in a place like Tehran.
It seems like people like her and Rick Santorum would be more comfortable in a place like Tehran.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The Great Society was a giant social program designed to help people, but also was a blatant play at holding the poor vote. Robert Caro's biographies on LBJ give mention to this, as well as the more recent (and awesome) documentary on LBJ. I don't consider this some sinister plot, just a continuation of the local southern politics he made a name for himself with - and many other politicians did this.
Much of LBJ's actions were based on similar motives. I haven't run across anything to suggest he cared too much about black people, in fact he spent most of his early career fighting against civil rights. But he became president and passed the Civil Rights Act because above all LBJ's mentality never changed from that of a senate majority leader: it was all about counting votes. And passing the bill won democrats more (important) votes than it lost them. Same with the Great Society
LBJ was all about power. He craved it. Get the votes and get it passed for the lifeblood of the party/cause. Domestically we saw it with the Great Society. Dude just straight up injected a continuation of FDR into the bills that he signed into law and other policies he supported. He was a legislative juggernaut. You take a look at the stuff he got signed into law and it makes you realize how marginalized the Presidency has become since those days.
Sucks he was such a dick about Vietnam
Sucks he was such a dick about Vietnam
yeah, I can imagine all of them saying "There's a negro in the white house?"
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Yeah, but I don't see the connection with making statements about keeping people in poverty.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Obama only leads by 6 in Minnesota according to the latest Survey USA poll, 46 to 40. Amazingly, something like 7 percent said they're voting third party. hahaha...I don't see that happening.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
This is the same state that elected Jesse Ventura. That 3rd party thing seems about right.
ErasureAcer
Banned
2% didn't vote for Obama or McCain.
< 2% didn't vote for Bush or Kerry.
7.5 % didn't vote for Bush or Gore.
Really, if I were to walk on the street and ask 100 people who Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is...maybe 1 political guru would know both.
As a Minnesotan who frequently votes for 3rd party candidates(2002-Pentel, 2006-Hutchinson, 2008-Nader) I'm voting for Barack this time around. I figure 3rd party candidates in this state will take, once again, 2 percent(60,000 voters) of the vote not 7 percent(210,000 voters).
Really, the numbers they're propping up are basically someone as popular as Nader was in 2000. Show me that candidate?
It's funny anyone would laugh at Ventura (as kooky as he is) getting elected when we all pretty much agree we think the "2-party" system is bad for the country. We need more "Ventura's"
cartoon_soldier
Member
It would at least now allow GOP to go, "OMG Liberal socialist is ruling and ruining us all" if the President is an independent.
The sad state of American Politics is that ideas coming from someone aren't really evaluated on whether they are centrist and independent just because they are coming from a Dem President. Media complicit of course.
As I have suggested in the past - we should ban organized political parties and make people run on their merits.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I would say opposite. Don't have people vote for a person, the votes should be for the political parties and their platforms and ideas.
A President can't accomplish much anyway on his own. So it just makes sense for US to have a parliamentary system.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I think this would be worse in many ways. People would win based on familiarity or celebrity more often than as currently occurs. There is no magic bullet to make people vote sensibly...
PhoenixDark
Banned
Perhaps keeping people in poverty is too much, but keeping them dependent on and happy with the government was a clear goal of democrats at one point. Some would argue it still is
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Who would rebel against the government when they are on the dole every month?
You see the same thing from businesses and corporations who cry foul whenever govt plans on cutting corporate welfare. Businesses that have no essential need should get no special consideration from Uncle Sam.
the stock market confuses me. The world knew that Spain and Italy were both the next pile of shit to hit the fan for the last month, but some hand waving makes people happy, then all of a sudden "OMG THIS IS A MESS!"? Watching this EU crisis from across the ocean makes me think a lot of investors are just grade A stupid
I used to disagree that two-party is bad, but now I don't. It's not that it doesn't sound awesome to have more choice, but I can't see implementing it with any success. I agree there are lots of interesting ideas getting no media coverage simply because they're outside the realm of the two-party system's usual debate. I know there are lots of Gary Johnson fans here would disagree when I say that I like the choice before me now, in part because it seems easy. Most of the population are not gonna gravitate towards what could be considered nuanced policies, even if their personal views align more closely with a third-party candidate. The public at large need something easy to understand; a choice. Now when that choice isn't really a choice at all, then of course there are clear advantages a third-party can and do provide, but for this presidential election I feel the difference between the candidates is sufficient, both in terms of personal ideology and policy initiatives, that I won't lose any sleep over having made my decision.
Say hello to President Theodore Nugent.
Blergmeister
Member
Most people agree that the two party system needs to go. The only way to do this is to go for a proportional vote system as our current First Past the Post system inevetibely leads to a two party system. Any proportional system will put more emphasis on voting for the party but this is alleviated by at least allowing the potential for more parties. I'd prefer the Mixed Member Proportional system as that allows us to still vote for a specific guy, as well as vote for a party. Plus it does a pretty well job of getting the seats of the legislature in the same proportion as the vote.
Below are some youtube links shown to me. I feel like the videos on this channel about voting systems do a good job explaining the pros and cons of each.
Problems with First Past the Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...3F2BA472F62&src_vid=QT0I-sdoSXU&v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Mixed Member Proportional system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&feature=youtu.be
Edit: In addition to editing for corrections I wanted to add:
I feel I should add that these solutions are for leglistlatures. If we were to keep the US with a Congress, President, and Judiciary as is, and we were just changing up how we vote, I would go for a Mixed Member Proportional Congress with an Alternative Vote President.
Alternative Vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=youtu.be
empty vessel
Member
Yep, it's a terrible idea. Parties are incredibly useful for voting. I don't care so much about who the individuals are. I want to know what policies they support. Declaration of adherence to a party conveys more information about that than anything else. I am not going to spend months of my life every year learning about every single candidate running for every single local office. It would be a full time job.
Hold on. Before this discussion goes any further, is this a PD-troll, "Romney has this election in the bag" type of post, or a serious post?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Not for 99% of people who would not make an informed decision about nearly any election outside of the presidental.
Except it forces candidates into irrational stances in order to maintain party support. You don't see a problem with that?
Your excuse is essentially: "I'm lazy, deal with it."
Blergmeister
Member
You seem to make an argument for more party voting here. People now only know enough to make one informed vote (if even that, but lets not get into that point.) Why not make that person inform themselves on the party, and then vote according to that? Now they need to know the party as well as the individual for all positions they vote on, from the President on down. I do think that "vote for a party" sounds distastful on the surface, but if you think about it I think it makes a lot more sense in the long run. That is why I think I'd prefer an MMP, Mixed Member Proportional, proportional system compared to the first past the post system we have now that inevitably leads to a two party system.
Edit:
A more proportional system will ineveitably lead to more parties. Then the party a person joins will be one whos positions match theirs much more than it ever could in a 2 party system. With a MMP style system, each district would vote for the person that they choose first and formost, with other seats reserved going to making sure the makeup of a legislature matches the proportion of the vote.
It is a problem for sure, but as long as there is a stark enough difference on a particular topic, than I am OK with it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
How is that not an obvious point about big government liberalism? Perhaps some of the confusion may boil down to applying this to the modern democrat party. It can't be emphasized enough that Bill Clinton's entire take on big government social programs of the past was quite different from what previous democrat presidents and candidates advocated. Before Clinton, how many national democrats were arguing welfare recipients should have to work if able, or wanted workforce development to be a part of welfare? It's forgotten now, but Clinton took a lot of shit from key democrat bases due to this, who argued the bill would gut the safety net. Yet poverty continued to decline
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I use to be all for the "outlaw political parties" thing until I realized how unrealistic and pointless it would be.
balladofwindfishes
Member
the merits by which corporate lobbying is allowed is also the same merits by which political parties are allowed. In that you can't limit a group of people from getting together for their own common interests.
CharlieDigital
Banned
This is stupid and nonsensical on so many levels.
Not the least of which is
An organized political party is nothing more than a group of people who share similar beliefs who get together and decide that they want to pick a candidate among their ranks that best represent their beliefs, has the best chance of winning in a general election, and other factors.
It doesn't even compute how one would be in favor of banning this.
empty vessel
Member
Nope. This problem can be solved by having a system that allows more parties, not one that eliminates them.
My excuse is that I want to know what policies a candidate supports and declaring allegiance to a party platform is the most efficient way to do that.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Politicians would end up grouping together alongside those they agreed with, especially when it came to voting in the House/Senate. Parties would continue to exist without all the obvious structures.
Objectively, I support proportional representation with reasonable thresholds for representation. PR is inclusive which may enhance satisfaction with democracy. And I would support electoral reform in the U.S. if it were accompanied by broader institutional reform. Presently, I am reluctant to introduce additional political parties into our system. Our current institutional environs is not propitious for the consensus building a more diverse party system might necessitate. Honestly, I think if we introduced minority parties into our present system, the problems would only be compounded.
Right. Political parties are an integral heuristic for representative democracy. They reduce the information costs and facilitate collective action. Further, they're as essential to good governance as electoral politics. Political parties provide the collective coherence a properly functioning government requires.
No. Not only would that fail to curtail partisan behavior, it severely inhibits the government from functioning efficiently. Political parties provide coherence to legislatures. It would introduce a raft of problems while solving none.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Do you not realize that this is exactly what happens now?
You are only advocating for more political parties and more choice, not banning of organized political parties.
However, most of this is irrelevant talk anyways. Within the Democratic party, as we've seen time and again, there are already a great number of regional variances on how a given candidate will vote (e.g. Blue Dogs) and there are Democratic candidates that are borderline conservative (e.g. Lieberman, many Democrats from the Mid-West, South).
Seriously, I am curious how old Kosmo is. Sounds like some stuff some kid in high school would come up with.
- Status