Aaron Strife
Banned
Gary Peters would kick his ass.
-
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 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
speculawyer
Member
I'm with this. It was designed to be painful to make them do their jobs.
But instead of doing their jobs and working on a real fix, they just fiddled with it to change the one thing that started to affect their precious little lives.
The point of the sequester WAS TO CAUSE PAIN. And they felt it was fine as long as the pain was only to others.
rocketknight
Member
But, I mean, UE numbers aren't based on companies whining they can't fill jobs. UE numbers are based on people who don't have jobs. So drug testing is hardly a credible excuse for bad UE numbers. New drilling jobs (like those in ND) should never raise the unemployment rate no matter how selective they are, unless heroin users are just trailing rigs like camp followers in A Song of Ice and Fire and increasing state population by huge enough amounts to throw off the ratio.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I don't think this is going to work the way they expect it to.
rocketknight
Member
Yeah, they're aware that we only hold presidential elections every four years and they just lost the one last November, right? Even if it were on point, what would the point be?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The point is that Obama hasn't passed anything substantial in his agenda since said election and so far his second term has been pretty abysmal (I don't really think anyone can argue this, regardless of why you think this is true)
Problem is that all of that was caused by the opposing party, who are the creators of said ad
If you expect the majority of the US to know or care, you're going to be very disappointed.
rocketknight
Member
Yeah, but so what? What do they expect people to do about it even if they agree? Kick Obama out three years early?
Link
The Autumn Wind
I dunno, approval numbers taken after the gun bill seem to indicate people know what's up.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'd imagine this is just a favor or something, but this is still one of the absolute dumbest segments I've seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMcXn5IO0io
Christie is going to win, end of story. His early ad buy seems more like a victory lap than some sign of desperation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMcXn5IO0io
Christie is going to win, end of story. His early ad buy seems more like a victory lap than some sign of desperation.
RustyNails
Member
This just makes me sad.
Imagine if Obama pursued this relentless, adversarial, almost predatory attitude instead of looking for the compromise unicorn every time he got into negotiations with Republicans. How different could this country have been. Maybe all those claims by Hillary during 08 primaries that Obama wasn't experienced enough were right...
Really late but how could anyone think this was ok? It's like "Well it worked in sim city why not in real life?"
Link
The Autumn Wind
The Librarian
Banned
Ah. So you believe in Green Lanterism?
speculawyer
Member
Bill Maher is doing a "Craziest Congressman" contest now. I look forward Louie Gohmert's contribution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcZugKTR8jQ
PhoenixDark
Banned
Different time. Those types of practices don't work anymore, and haven't for awhile (even under Bush). You've got democrats and republicans turning down new post offices in their districts today, it's a new day.
It all goes back to Obama. If your constituents believe Obama watched Chris Stevens die and did nothing, if they believe Obama wants to confiscate all guns, if they believe Obamacare is designed to euthanize the elderly...then there's absolutely nothing they could possibly want their senator/house member to support him on. And there are literally hundreds of primary challengers waiting in the bushes to capitalize on this phenomena.
No one wants to stand up to bullshit though. Even the NRA has pushed back against the "Obama buying bullets to take over the US" stories, but you have two US senators proposing bills that treat the conspiracy like it's a legitimate issue. Someone posted earlier about the proposed bill to eliminate economic markers. I gurantee you all this shit is spawned from petitions, phone calls, and town hall meetings; why pass any laws when you can just pretend to pass nonsense to appease your base.
rocketknight
Member
Ooh, this is fun. "I'd say you can't make this shit up, but obviously he did," is a good line.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
His overall approval rating has stayed steady (decreased a little since the election), but his numbers on guns and immigration have decreased and he has roughly a 10 point deficit on each.
Would expect the immigration one to decrease even further if he tries to get involved and then S 744 doesn't pass the House (which it won't either way but him getting involved - on behalf of binational same-sex couples especially - means it's guaranteed DOA)
RoninChaos
Member
Agreed. I'm very disappointed by this whole thing.
RoninChaos
Member
I've been saying this for years. They have no incentive to work with Obama because their constituents believe all the crazy shit that their elected representatives have said about the president. And once you've said all that crazy shit, over and over and over, and people believe it... Then you can't then compromise or work with they guy, because you said he wants to destroy America.
Republicans have spent the last four years fighting with the Obama they made up, not the one that's actually there. What's worse is there are several news outlets that carry these crazy, crackpot stories and treat them as legitimate. Look at the stuff with the bombing in Boston. It's deplorable.
It really is disheartening to see that moving the country forward is taking a back seat to paranoia and getting reelected.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's not really Representatives -> Constituents, but Far-right Media -> Constituents -> Representatives. I doubt most people in Congress seriously believe some of the stuff they push. Some of them absolutely do - people like Louie Gohmert - but there's a lot who just push it because that's what their constituents want (and by constituents I don't mean all of the voters in their district/state - a politician's constituents are solely the individuals they need to become elected/re-elected, no one else.)
The primary system is really one of the core problems in our political system IMO because it favors far-right and far-left politicians over those closer to the middle
The Librarian
Banned
I think this is mostly wrong. While the primary system seems to be affecting the Republican Party more so than the Democrats, it doesn't particularly favor extremes, especially far left. Incumbents are very difficult to unseat.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's pretty well-documented actually, not exclusive to Republicans, and not really a recent phenomenon. Have a couple articles by political scientists that observed this phenomenon but unsure if you can access them (they're journal articles), but you could look for Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate by David Brady, Hahrie Han, and Jeremy Pope for Legislative Issues Quarterly (Pope also co-wrote a really good book on the polarization in American politics called Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America). It doesn't definitively conclude that primary elections are a source of polarization in American politics, but the evidence they explore definitely suggests that it is a possible if not likely source and merits further exploration
There's obviously other factors at play, most notably redistricting/gerrymandering (which is also not a new thing nor exclusive to one party, though it seems as though recent efforts by the GOP are worse than previous gerrymandering efforts)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Both parties should eliminate South Carolina from the early primary process and make Iowa a primary instead of a caucus.
The Librarian
Banned
Modern polarization is due to a broken Republican Party caused by a continuous need to "purify" the party of which the primary system and gerrymandering only serve to reinforce the purity impulse leading the party into a type of post-policy nihilism.
Primaries may field "far-left" candidates, but they do a terrible job at it, seeing as how one could very well argue that the Democratic Party has moved to the right since the '80s.
Avon Barksdale
Member
The GOP isn't to abandon SC as an early state. Historically, it's been a bellwether for Republican candidates.
Until Newt won. LOL
PhoenixDark
Banned
You're right unfortunately. SC has also spawned some of the ugliest races in recent history for republicans. And let's not forget Clinton's Jesse Jsckson attack on Obama in 2008. It's an ugly state that breeds ugly politics. Romney moved even further right in an attempt to win it, which hurt him in the long term. Now imagine a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz mucking things up for Rubio or Christie there.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I swear to God, though...outside of politics, the people in SC are pretty nice and have that southern attitude.
The minute you bring up politics, the racism comes out in full force.
speculawyer
Member
Fear of a black (Kenyan Muslim commie) president.
RoninChaos
Member
I used to think like you, that the representatives don't believe the shit they push, but I'm starting to lean to most of them believing it now. Look at what happened to Romney. Look at people like Rand Paul who throw out completely unsubstantiated claims just to do it. Fuck, look at MIchelle Bachman. I think more of the people in office sit in that right-wing media echo chamber and believe what they're hearing. And then they regurgitate it, and it becomes a vicious cycle.
I still stand by what I said before-- the republican party has gerimandered itself into a corner. So many of them are in really solid, deep red republican districts so they can't make moves to get things rolling and get things fixed . They can't say "Yes, we need to fix immigration" or "I don't care of gay people get married" or "This gun shit is out of control" without repercussions. They'll get primaried and tossed out of office because there aren't any voters in those districts who will side with them when they take an issue like immigration or gun control, and side with Obama. They're getting elected by the people who think Obama is going to try and serve a third term and is some alien from mars who wants to destroy capitalism and kill your grandmother. These reps got elected by the people who think that crazy shit, that have it regurgitated to them on fox news, and then by their own representatives, so of course they certainly can't work with the president. Instead, the republicans in those districts are beholden to the same crazy ass mother fuckers that got them there in the first place.
Look at Rick Perry. Remember in the debates when he refused to go hard on immigration? Boom. His chances evaporated. Not that Perry is a genius, or was even presidential material, but the minute he said "We can't just be this hardlined about immigration. Have a heart." his chances were shot.
I really, REALLY believe that more and more the representatives of this country believe the lies they've made up and it perpetuates. We're already past the point where nothing can be done. And we're going to be stuck here for a while.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Political parties are always looking to "purify" the party and punish the "non true believers" - that's why loyal party members get good committee assignments and more funding for reelection, while those less loyal get put on the crappy committees and rarely in a leadership position (plus less money from the party for their campaign). Perhaps the only thing new about modern polarization is the Tea Party, but even then I'm hesitant to call the Tea Party a "new" factor - I feel they have always been there, but they've just rebranded themselves because of Bush's unpopularity
Far-left candidates are certainly there (Boxer comes to mind, at least when she was initially elected in 92), but I think people in PoliGAF are less inclined to acknowledge it because their own views probably align with the "far-left" ones (even in my own case, some of the time). I will say that the Democratic Party has been better in nominating moderates recently, but I would note that these are in conservatives states (similar to the Southern Democrats of old, minus the racism of course).
To clarify my position on an earlier point you made about incumbents winning frequently, that doesn't disprove that primaries are partly responsible for increased polarization. What primaries do is force politicians - incumbents and newcomers - to the ideological left or right because politicians are concerned about two constituencies - their primary constituency (ie "the base") and the constituency that will get them elected in the general election (not the entire state, just enough to get them elected whether 50% + 1 or whatever). We like to think that politicians represent everyone in their district/state and legally they do, but Elizabeth Warren is not representing the interests of conservatives in MA. And nor is Ted Cruz representing the interests of liberals in TX. They are representing the interests of their base and balancing it with the interests of independentsin order to gain enough support from left- and right-leaning independents (without moving to the center)
If the politician wants to win renomination (obviously a prerequisite to reelection, their primary goal), he or she has to move to the right or left to appeal to the base. They can move back to the middle for the general, but this also has consequences for the base (probably loss of support/RINO/DINO/etc). As long as politicians think about their base before everyone, there will be polarization. Americans are not polarized; the political elite and party leaders are. And they're the ones who get to determine who the rest of us vote for.
Yep, at least on a presidential level.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Sorry, this isn't a regulatory issue but one of zoning which is all local. Texas state government does not set zoning laws for West. The locals do it themselves. The plant has been there since the 1960s. The city of West chose to build residential around it. Now, you can site the state and the feds for not properly insuring that the plant itself was safe, but you can't fault them for letting West build around it.
You're confusing establishmentarism with zealotry. Political parties are always saying they want to "purify the party," but what they generally mean is that they want to win elections and keep control of the money. That requires throwing people off the boat sometimes, but usually it's the fringe more than the moderates, because they're more likely to buck the party line. (And of course Boehner has worked hard to purge the fringe, because he is an establishmentarian.) It should be obvious that most of the time political parties aren't purging their most liked politicians and those who stand up for broadly popular policies, because political parties that consistently did that would cease to exist.
Are we.. Is this... I just cant
Frank the Great
Banned
zoning laws are devolved from the state. each state has a municipal land use law that governs how zoning ordinances are created, reviewed, and challenged. each state also has environmental laws and regulations that local zoning ordinances must comply with (similar to how federal statutes set the parameters in which state laws can operate).
it's too simplistic to just blame the locals. any zoning power they have comes from the state and the state could have chosen to regulate for safety, but didn't.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
States do have broad general powers when it comes to zoning, but localities ultimately are the people on the ground making the decisions for their area. As I said, the plant has been at it's current location since the 1960s. It's not like they built it in the middle of town. But in the last 50 years, the town expanded towards the plant. West decided to do that. Not the state.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I don't know, and I'm angry about it. I mean, I guess it's part of Obama's consistent judicial strategy of expanding executive power, but if that's what we get for electing a constitutional law scholar then maybe next time we really should elect a cowboy. If we can find a socialist cowboy.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Regulations is a nebulous term. Sure you can put zoning under it if you want. But if I wanted to pick out a particular area of regulations that could have prevented West, then zoning is not going to be it. It would definitely be safety regulations regarding the store of dangerous substances and the creation of a emergency plan which this plant lacked. Also, increase inspections. But having the plant not built there because of zoning would not have effected the accident occurring.
Frank the Great
Banned
the state zoning law could easily have a provision barring residential zones or schools adjacent to heavy industrial zones or hazardous sites. in fact i think many state zoning laws do have such provisions.
the zoning power comes from the state, the buck stops there. and zoning is certainly a regulation. i do not understand why you are so willing to absolve the state of responsibility for this when the state has total and complete police power to pass any safety or zoning regulation but clearly failed to do so here. yes, the town are a bunch of dumbfucks for developing this way, but the state allowed it to happen.
What is this referring to?
wapo said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...to-appeal-plan-b-ruling/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
Basically, it's yet another example of Obama's DoJ arguing for sweeping protection of executive-branch decisions against judicial interference.
RustyNails
Member
Do you think LBJ would've chased the compromise unicorns with the republicans if he was the POTUS today instead of Obama? I didn't think so. I know the political landscape has changed with the rise of conservative media and powerful interests, but the leader has to adapt to his landscape to rise above the clatter. Do you think Teddy Roosevelt would've chased compromise unicorns with Railway tycoons? Or FDR with the anti new-dealers; "I welcome their suggestions" instead of "I welcome their hatred"? Or any great president for that matter.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
No where have I given absolution to the state when it comes to this accident. Nor have I said that zoning is not a form of regulation. They do have a variety of powers at their disposal to police industry in their jurisdiction. But Texas is the largest state in the lower 48 land wise. There are thousands of little towns spread out everywhere. And as typical in the South, they diffuse power from a central government to ones that are more local. This is the same with education. Sure the state has a Department of Education. It sets the statewide standards and gives out the funding. It also certifies all the teachers. But ultimately it is the local school board that determines hiring and specific policy. This is the same for zoning. West was more responsible for the building of residential around the plant than the state was. And you haven't demonstrated to me otherwise.
What the fuck? I thought the Obama admin would have wanted greater access to birth control. That's really disappointing.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Fun story: Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu, vulnerable red state senators, voted in favor of background checks. So their poll numbers went up.
Someone should tell Mark Begich and Mark Pryor this. As well as Max Baucus, not that he gives a fuck.
Someone should tell Mark Begich and Mark Pryor this. As well as Max Baucus, not that he gives a fuck.
empty vessel
Member
But the State could have had a law or regulations that said that West couldn't do it.
RustyNails
Member
It's interesting. NRA overestimated their threats. People weren't as bad as NRA hoped for. Senators sadly fell for it though. Lets hope this trend continues till next year.
- Status