Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

Not at all. If the Kansas Constitution expressly grants the Kansas courts authority to ensure minimum funding for education, then I believe it should be amended. If it does not, then the courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction for prudential reasons, and the Constitution doesn't need to be amended. I'm saying that the courts should recognize the limits of judicial competence, and the importance of matters of policy being determined by the elected branches (except when a particular policy decision is clearly mandated by a constitution, which isn't the case here).

You're arguing your policy preference and trying to say its mandated or obliged to follow it.
Yes there are political questions that courts have not decided on rule on, but in this case they decided they could.

Disagree with that. But don't say they were obliged to come to your conclusion especially on a issue like 'what is a political question' when its no where near established like it is on other issues. Also why would you amend to limit the court rather than just taking out the "reasonable' in the education clause?

Its entire purpose is to limit the legislatures authority to reduce spending beyond levels that would be 'reasonable'. You can't have the legislature determining its own competence that would be parliamentary supremacy which we don't have.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/11/fast-track-trade-democrats_n_4580720.html

Pelosi is leading a congressional Dem mutiny against the White House over TPP.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You're arguing your policy preference and trying to say its mandated or obliged to follow it.

No, I'm not. I don't know how much the legislature has set aside to fund its public school system. Moreover, I don't care. I don't live in Kansas, and the level of funding has nothing to do with my argument.

But don't say they were obliged to come to your conclusion especially on a issue like 'what is a political question' when its no where near established like it is on other issues.

I haven't and won't say they are obliged to come to my conclusion. But they should.

Also why would you amend to limit the court rather than just taking out the "reasonable' in the education clause?

The term is "suitable," not "reasonable." And I wouldn't amend the Constitution to remove "suitable" because I don't care about the level of funding. My concern is with who determines the level of funding.

Its entire purpose is to limit the legislatures authority to reduce spending beyond levels that would be 'reasonable'. You can't have the legislature determining its own competence that would be parliamentary supremacy which we don't have.

The courts of Kansas have been granted no authority with respect to education funding. The legislature has been granted all authority with respect to education funding. Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution repeatedly says "[t]he legislature shall" do this and that, and nowhere creates a system of judicial oversight. What the courts in Kansas are doing is different from traditional judicial review. Judicial review is, in essence, the courts refusing to take part in implementing a law that the courts regard as unconstitutional. But, here, the courts have no role in funding education. At no point do they participate in the process, such that they would have to participate in an unconstitutional activity as part of their responsibilities.

And permitting the legislature to determine the constitutionality of its funding decisions is not a sign of "parliamentary supremacy." It's a sign of due respect to a co-equal branch of government to which the question of funding has been committed, which is better suited to duke it out over questions of policy, and which is completely accountable to the voters of the state.

 

[KingK]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/11/fast-track-trade-democrats_n_4580720.html

Pelosi is leading a congressional Dem mutiny against the White House over TPP.

Thank god. This TPP just reeks of a corporate wet dream.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Thank god. This TPP just reeks of a corporate wet dream.

I'm supportive of free trade, still am. But TPP is a horribly secretive and scary treaty.

No, I'm not. I don't know how much the legislature has set aside to fund its public school system. Moreover, I don't care. I don't live in Kansas, and the level of funding has nothing to do with my argument.

I haven't and won't say they are obliged to come to my conclusion. But they should.

The term is "suitable," not "reasonable." And I wouldn't amend the Constitution to remove "suitable" because I don't care about the level of funding. My concern is with who determines the level of funding.

That's an even more forceful term as it gives the meaning their funds much meet the goal of publican education.

The courts of Kansas have been granted no authority with respect to education funding. The legislature has been granted all authority with respect to education funding. Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution repeatedly says "[t]he legislature shall" do this and that, and nowhere creates a system of judicial oversight. What the courts in Kansas are doing is different from traditional judicial review. Judicial review is, in essence, the courts refusing to take part in implementing a law that the courts regard as unconstitutional. But, here, the courts have no role in funding education. At no point do they participate in the process, such that they would have to participate in an unconstitutional activity as part of their responsibilities.

And permitting the legislature to determine the constitutionality of its funding decisions is not a sign of "parliamentary supremacy." It's a sign of due respect to a co-equal branch of government to which the question of funding has been committed, which is better suited to duke it out over questions of policy, and which is completely accountable to the voters of the state.

Their is a prevision in the constitution that states the legislature must (shall is a requirement) provide that funding a suitable level. That is a requirement on the legislature and something they can not deviate from. Who do you propose to determine the legislature has meet this requirement? The legislature? The court should just trust them. That's tantamount to just scraping the requirement. Its not respect its acquiescing to a legislature that doesn't abide by its limits.

And how is this different than other judicial review? The law passed, or at least the portion of the law that felt with funding was found to not meet the constitutional requirements so it was changed back to the previous level.

 

[Oblivion]

Thomas Sowell has written the most hilarious conservative op-ed of the year thus far by arguing that because Republicans don't use the term "trickle-down economics" themselves to describe their supply-side policies, trickle-down economics does not actually exist.

Lol. He's actually written similar articles like that before. At the very least this shows a certain awareness that the concept is pretty unpopular to most people.

 

[Oblivion]

Anyone know what the GDP growth rate was for 2013 compared to 2012?

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

Not at all. If the Kansas Constitution expressly grants the Kansas courts authority to ensure minimum funding for education, then I believe it should be amended. If it does not, then the courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction for prudential reasons, and the Constitution doesn't need to be amended. I'm saying that the courts should recognize the limits of judicial competence, and the importance of matters of policy being determined by the elected branches (except when a particular policy decision is clearly mandated by a constitution, which isn't the case here).

In a logical structure, anything not disallowed can be assumed into existence. I was under the impression that this is how the constitutional system worked in the US, and that this is how we have judicial review in the first place?

 

[wartime1020]

Anyone know what the GDP growth rate was for 2013 compared to 2012?

Q4 2013 GDP data doesn't get released until the end of the month I believe.

Edit: Yep January 30th
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/news_release_sort_national.htm

 

[Oblivion]

Q4 2013 GDP data doesn't get released until the end of the month I believe.

Edit: Yep January 30th
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/news_release_sort_national.htm

Ah, okay thanks.


New request, where can I find just private sector monthly job growth numbers?

 

[wartime1020]

Ah, okay thanks.


New request, where can I find just private sector monthly job growth numbers?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth

I think that is right.

 

[Oblivion]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth

I think that is right.

You are awesome, thanks!

 

[Metaphoreus]

That's an even more forceful term as it gives the meaning their funds much meet the goal of publican education.

The goal to which provision must be suited is "the educational interests of the state." This, like "suitable," isn't defined. This is part of the problem with saying that the level of funding is justiciable.

Their is a prevision in the constitution that states the legislature must (shall is a requirement) provide that funding a suitable level. That is a requirement on the legislature and something they can not deviate from.

Yes, there is. Just as there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that states that Congress shall "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (US Const. Art. IV sec. 4). Yet, the courts will not interfere in Congress' compliance or non-compliance with that requirement. I'll rephrase my above statement this way: not every constitutional requirement is judicially enforceable. Nor should they be.

In a logical structure, anything not disallowed can be assumed into existence. I was under the impression that this is how the constitutional system worked in the US, and that this is how we have judicial review in the first place?

If I understand you correctly, you begin from the position that the government--or a branch of government--has any power that is not expressly prohibited. This gets constitutional theory backwards. Government--and any branch of government--has no power except what is expressly granted.* Things like the Bill of Rights then carve out exceptions to that nevertheless-limited government power.

Judicial review exists because usually, someone will eventually go to court to enforce some provision of law. At that point, the court needs to determine if it can enforce the law without violating the relevant constitution. Because the court's authority is bound by the constitution, it is obliged to decline to apply any law in violation of that constitution. In short, the power of judicial review is an implied power that flows necessarily from the grant of judicial power in a constitutional government.

However, my argument isn't so much that the court cannot do this as a part of judicial review, but that they should not do so. The political question doctrine is a prudential doctrine. Courts adopt it to keep themselves from stepping on the toes of the other branches of government, which, after all, are equally beholden to constitutional duties, and equally capable of interpreting the constitution.

*These powers can be extraordinarily broad, particularly in the case of state governments, which have a general "police power."

 

[speculawyer]

Thomas Sowell has written the most hilarious conservative op-ed of the year thus far by arguing that because Republicans don't use the term "trickle-down economics" themselves to describe their supply-side policies, trickle-down economics does not actually exist..

Are conservatives this stupid? Or do they think everyone else is stupid and believes the stupid arguments they give.

This is like the "See . . . the words 'separation of church & state' are not in the constitution and thus the concept does not exist" argument. Just stupid semantics.

Yes . . . the 'trickle-down' economics (or 'supply-side' if you want that term) is based on GIVING tax cuts to rich people. How does that help poor people? Well . . . it doesn't. So the only way it can is if that action 'trickles down' to the poor. Yeah, you don't use that phrase because it sounds like your are pissing on people. But honestly, it is step up from the "Horse and Sparrow" terminology that existed before wherein you feed the oats (money) to the horses (rich people) and the sparrows (the poor) will get some money that the horse (rich people) shit out.

So embrace it . . . pissing on people (trickle down) is better than having them eat shit (horse & sparrow).

 

[Piecake]

So embrace it . . . pissing on people (trickle down) is better than having them eat shit (horse & sparrow).

I would agree with that

 

[JesseEwiak]

I think one thing nobodies mentioned on the Christie thing that hurts him is that this entire mess feeds into a stereotype. People already think of New Jersey as this corrupt place where people who look like Chris Christie push people around. If frankly, he looked like PD's favorite Republican Rick Snyder or John Kasich and was the Governor of Ohio, this probably would blow over.

But your average low info voter can take what he knows of Christie and think, "I can see that guy doing it." It's the same reason why the whole 'corrupt Chicago politician' deal never stuck to Obama. He never acted like a slick corrupt Chicago politician, so people never bought it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton always acted like the guy who would get blowjobs from a chubby JAP.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think one thing nobodies mentioned on the Christie thing that hurts him is that this entire mess feeds into a stereotype. People already think of New Jersey as this corrupt place where people who look like Chris Christie push people around. If frankly, he looked like PD's favorite Republican Rick Snyder or John Kasich and was the Governor of Ohio, this probably would blow over.

But your average low info voter can take what he knows of Christie and think, "I can see that guy doing it." It's the same reason why the whole 'corrupt Chicago politician' deal never stuck to Obama. He never acted like a slick corrupt Chicago politician, so people never bought it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton always acted like the guy who would get blowjobs from a chubby JAP.

Christie looks and sounds like a guy straight out of The Sopranos. Besides, there's a lot of stories like this circulating about him. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

The goal to which provision must be suited is "the educational interests of the state." This, like "suitable," isn't defined. This is part of the problem with saying that the level of funding is justiciable.




Yes, there is. Just as there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that states that Congress shall "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (US Const. Art. IV sec. 4). Yet, the courts will not interfere in Congress' compliance or non-compliance with that requirement. I'll rephrase my above statement this way: not every constitutional requirement is judicially enforceable. Nor should they be.



If I understand you correctly, you begin from the position that the government--or a branch of government--has any power that is not expressly prohibited. This gets constitutional theory backwards. Government--and any branch of government--has no power except what is expressly granted.* Things like the Bill of Rights then carve out exceptions to that nevertheless-limited government power.

Judicial review exists because usually, someone will eventually go to court to enforce some provision of law. At that point, the court needs to determine if it can enforce the law without violating the relevant constitution. Because the court's authority is bound by the constitution, it is obliged to decline to apply any law in violation of that constitution. In short, the power of judicial review is an implied power that flows necessarily from the grant of judicial power in a constitutional government.

However, my argument isn't so much that the court cannot do this as a part of judicial review, but that they should not do so. The political question doctrine is a prudential doctrine. Courts adopt it to keep themselves from stepping on the toes of the other branches of government, which, after all, are equally beholden to constitutional duties, and equally capable of interpreting the constitution.

*These powers can be extraordinarily broad, particularly in the case of state governments, which have a general "police power."

You are saying a gov has no power prior to a constitution, right? I am not stating anything against that....what I am saying is that once that "structure" has been established, and a government formed, this government can do everything that is not disallowed (constitutionally). I.e congress can enact legislation the constitution does not stop them from enacting. Judicial Review came to be in that way. If the constitution directly prohibited it, it can't happen. But even though it is not an explicit power, here we are.

At least, that is how it should work if it is a logical document...

 

[Metaphoreus]

You are saying a gov has no power prior to a constitution, right? I am not stating anything against that....what I am saying is that once that "structure" has been established, and a government formed, this government can do everything that is not disallowed (constitutionally). I.e congress can enact legislation the constitution does not stop them from enacting. Judicial Review came to be in that way. If the constitution directly prohibited it, it can't happen. But even though it is not an explicit power, here we are.

At least, that is how it should work if it is a logical document...

That would make sense only if the people forming the government wanted the government to be totalitarian, but with limited carve-outs. But that's not the kind of government that the framers of the U.S. Constitution--or the Americans who ratified it--wanted. Instead, they wanted a government which started out with a limited scope of power, and which was still subject to certain carve-outs.

An analogy may prove useful. Let's say that I want to bake a cake. I realize that I don't have all the necessary ingredients. So, I ask you if you'll go to the store for me. My end goal, remember, is to bake a cake. What will my instructions to you look like? I could say, "Please go to the store and purchase things. But don't buy any Brand X items." But this would mean I'm unlikely to end up with the ingredients for a cake. Instead, I should instruct you in the following way, "Please go to the store and purchase the ingredients for a cake. But don't buy any Brand X items." Here, I've limited your authority in two ways: first, by specifying the extent of your authority (you can buy me cake ingredients; you can't buy me motor oil); second, by carving out some actions which, without the carve-out, might be within my instructions (if, for instance, Brand X is a brand of eggs.) Now, I'm much more likely to end up with the necessary ingredients to make a cake and I won't end up with something I definitely don't want (Brand X eggs).

A constitution works the same way: there is first a grant of limited authority, and then various carve-outs from that authority. In this way, the framers of a constitution seek to achieve their goal of good government (as they define it). There's no reason to grant to government the power to dictate what brands of televisions to buy (to use a fanciful example) to ensure that society is well-governed. And it would be an impossible undertaking to chip away from a government that begins with total power to get to the relatively free society* that people like the founders of the United States valued. So they began at the other end, starting with a government with no powers and building up from there.

So, where does the power of judicial review come from? Does it arise from the fact that the court actually is omnipotent, except insofar as certain actions are prohibited? Not at all. Again, it arises by necessary implication from the limited powers actually granted. Or, to put it less succinctly:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Still, I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject. Why do you believe that the only logical arrangement is one where the government has all powers not expressly denied it?

*Obviously it was relatively unfree in certain respects, and absolutely unfree for many Americans alive at the time.

 

[KingK]

I'm supportive of free trade, still am. But TPP is a horribly secretive and scary treaty.

I think trade agreements can be a very effective diplomatic tool to tie countries together in theory, but more often than not corporate interests write the agreements to better their interests above any of the countries involved and just use it as a way to fuck regular people over to make a quick buck. And in the case of the especially secretive and corporate influenced TPP, I imagine regular folks aren't even being offered lube.

 

[Oblivion]

Huh. Apparently Rand Paul's son goes to a public university.

 

[Mondy]

In a lot of ways, this BridgeGate is a tragedy for any politician that could at all fit the description of a moderate Republican. They had a chance to seize the anti-Tea Party sentiment and run with it with Christie going into the 2016 election and now it seems like he's going to be railroaded.

I guess Jeb is a "moderate", but can we truly expect him not to fall to the same familial influences his brother did.

 

[Hitokage]

Courts decide what actions have standing under law.

Constitutions are law, and they carry supremacy.

Legislative bodies pass laws, but these are inferior to constitutional law.

Court is presented with contradicting laws.

One is superior.

?????????????????????

 

[empty vessel]

That would make sense only if the people forming the government wanted the government to be totalitarian, but with limited carve-outs. But that's not the kind of government that the framers of the U.S. Constitution--or the Americans who ratified it--wanted. Instead, they wanted a government which started out with a limited scope of power, and which was still subject to certain carve-outs.

An analogy may prove useful. Let's say that I want to bake a cake. I realize that I don't have all the necessary ingredients. So, I ask you if you'll go to the store for me. My end goal, remember, is to bake a cake. What will my instructions to you look like? I could say, "Please go to the store and purchase things. But don't buy any Brand X items." But this would mean I'm unlikely to end up with the ingredients for a cake. Instead, I should instruct you in the following way, "Please go to the store and purchase the ingredients for a cake. But don't buy any Brand X items." Here, I've limited your authority in two ways: first, by specifying the extent of your authority (you can buy me cake ingredients; you can't buy me motor oil); second, by carving out some actions which, without the carve-out, might be within my instructions (if, for instance, Brand X is a brand of eggs.) Now, I'm much more likely to end up with the necessary ingredients to make a cake and I won't end up with something I definitely don't want (Brand X eggs).

A constitution works the same way: there is first a grant of limited authority, and then various carve-outs from that authority. In this way, the framers of a constitution seek to achieve their goal of good government (as they define it). There's no reason to grant to government the power to dictate what brands of televisions to buy (to use a fanciful example) to ensure that society is well-governed. And it would be an impossible undertaking to chip away from a government that begins with total power to get to the relatively free society* that people like the founders of the United States valued. So they began at the other end, starting with a government with no powers and building up from there.

So, where does the power of judicial review come from? Does it arise from the fact that the court actually is omnipotent, except insofar as certain actions are prohibited? Not at all. Again, it arises by necessary implication from the limited powers actually granted. Or, to put it less succinctly:

I'm not following this discussion terribly closely, but it seems to me like you are talking about state governments as though they were the federal government. State governments are actually quite different; they don't have delegated powers and are closer in form to governments of inherent authority.

 

[Cloudy]

David Gregory is full of it. No direct link to Christie? He fired his campaign manager and Deputy COS!

 

[Diablos]

Keep climbing, please.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Keep climbing, please.

Liberal has negative connotations.

They should use the word "Progressive" instead.

 

[Diablos]

Liberal has negative connotations.

They should use the word "Progressive" instead.

'Tea Party', ' Republican' and 'Conservative' are starting to become one and the same to a lot of Americans (because it basically is), which is just as bad if not worse.

 

[Tristam]

1.) Gallup
2.) Telephone polls

I expect that those numbers are actually less depressing in reality.

 

[TacticalFox88]

1.) Gallup
2.) Telephone polls

I expect that those numbers are actually less depressing in reality.

Of course. In reality, the country is center-left overall, it's just that Washington outright refuses to reflect this for one reason or another.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

That would make sense only if the people forming the government wanted the government to be totalitarian, but with limited carve-outs. But that's not the kind of government that the framers of the U.S. Constitution--or the Americans who ratified it--wanted. Instead, they wanted a government which started out with a limited scope of power, and which was still subject to certain carve-outs.

An analogy may prove useful. Let's say that I want to bake a cake. I realize that I don't have all the necessary ingredients. So, I ask you if you'll go to the store for me. My end goal, remember, is to bake a cake. What will my instructions to you look like? I could say, "Please go to the store and purchase things. But don't buy any Brand X items." But this would mean I'm unlikely to end up with the ingredients for a cake. Instead, I should instruct you in the following way, "Please go to the store and purchase the ingredients for a cake. But don't buy any Brand X items." Here, I've limited your authority in two ways: first, by specifying the extent of your authority (you can buy me cake ingredients; you can't buy me motor oil); second, by carving out some actions which, without the carve-out, might be within my instructions (if, for instance, Brand X is a brand of eggs.) Now, I'm much more likely to end up with the necessary ingredients to make a cake and I won't end up with something I definitely don't want (Brand X eggs).

A constitution works the same way: there is first a grant of limited authority, and then various carve-outs from that authority. In this way, the framers of a constitution seek to achieve their goal of good government (as they define it). There's no reason to grant to government the power to dictate what brands of televisions to buy (to use a fanciful example) to ensure that society is well-governed. And it would be an impossible undertaking to chip away from a government that begins with total power to get to the relatively free society* that people like the founders of the United States valued. So they began at the other end, starting with a government with no powers and building up from there.

So, where does the power of judicial review come from? Does it arise from the fact that the court actually is omnipotent, except insofar as certain actions are prohibited? Not at all. Again, it arises by necessary implication from the limited powers actually granted. Or, to put it less succinctly:



Still, I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject. Why do you believe that the only logical arrangement is one where the government has all powers not expressly denied it?

*Obviously it was relatively unfree in certain respects, and absolutely unfree for many Americans alive at the time.

Your example, I think, is one where the power of government would first be defined. Like I said, I am not arguing this: a constitution should define what an executive branch is and what a legislative branch is. My argument is that once this has been established, their limits are defined by what they cannot do. For example, in your analogy, I could construe the second statement to mean "any cake", and to buy the ingredients "n times" over, because you did not stop me from doing so.

As for the court, that is what I am saying: its implied powers are powers that are not expressly denied. I think what we are having misunderstanding with is that I am not denying the initial definition of government (something has to be first brought into existence), but within those definitions, each branch can do everything not denied from it. Hence why I said within the structure of government.

Your last point: Well, the reason is because you cannot enumerated all the things a, for example, legislative branch CAN do. You have to say what they cannot do. Kinda like a mathematical contradiction.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Liberal has negative connotations.

They should use the word "Progressive" instead.

According to the Tea Party, "Progressive" is the same as "Communist".

 

[Joe Molotov]

According to the Tea Party, "Progressive" is the same as "Communist".

According to Progressives, "Tea Party" is the same as "Racist Imbecile".

 

[WayneMorse]

Of course. In reality, the country is center-left overall, it's just that Washington outright refuses to reflect this for one reason or another.

Because the only people who consistently go out and vote are Republicans...and gun nuts.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Official veto threat on any new Iran sanctions
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-veto-threat-iran-sanctions

Now we wait and see whether Harry Reid will allow sanctions to even be voted on. I have a feeling that if it comes to the floor, it'll pass with 70+ votes. If that happens Obama should just torch the senate live. Anyone who puts political games and financial gain ahead of the potential of peace deserves to be slammed.

 

[Piecake]

Official veto threat on any new Iran sanctions
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-veto-threat-iran-sanctions

Now we wait and see whether Harry Reid will allow sanctions to even be voted on. I have a feeling that if it comes to the floor, it'll pass with 70+ votes. If that happens Obama should just torch the senate live. Anyone who puts political games and financial gain ahead of the potential of peace deserves to be slammed.

They deserve to be tarred and feathered and thrown out of office, but I will settle for a good tongue lashing. Hopefully the idiots in the senate will actually ratify it, because damn, that would be an embarrassment and greatly weaken American power.

 

[Diablos]

Official veto threat on any new Iran sanctions
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-veto-threat-iran-sanctions

Now we wait and see whether Harry Reid will allow sanctions to even be voted on. I have a feeling that if it comes to the floor, it'll pass with 70+ votes. If that happens Obama should just torch the senate live. Anyone who puts political games and financial gain ahead of the potential of peace deserves to be slammed.

+1 Obama for putting them on the spot. It might end up getting thrown back in his face but I admire his willingness to buck the trend of bending over here.

 

[Wilsongt]

Bridgegate on the same level od benghazi, irs, etc lol. Also, more dems siding with the gop against healthcare in the house.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Liberal has negative connotations.

They should use the word "Progressive" instead.

Who cares if it has negative connotations? You can fix that.

But I like the progressive label anyway. Liberal is inaccurate and confusing on the International stage as it reflects classical and neo liberalism.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Because the only people who consistently go out and vote are Republicans...and gun nuts.

Actually, in addition, Congresspeople think their constiuents are far more conservative than they really are. Spoiler altert - a lot of those moderates are liberal in reality.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/05/politicians_think_americans_are_super_conservative/

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's silly--and, frankly, insulting--to think that you're going to change people's political views just by replacing one word with another.

Won't people who dislike "liberals" simply come to dislike "progressives" as well?

The phrase "compassionate conservative" sure got people to seperate Dubya from the Grinch who tried to cut Medicare and the rest of the dumbass GOP caucus of the 90's.

So, yeah, I think it can. People aren't as deep in their political views as you think. After all, why is socialism suddenly popular with people under 30? Because the GOP has spent the last six years calling basic functions of government 'socialism.'

 

[empty vessel]

It's silly--and, frankly, insulting--to think that you're going to change people's political views just by replacing one word with another.

Won't people who dislike "liberals" simply come to dislike "progressives" as well?

Not necessarily. Liberal has a negative connotation because business interests have spent a lot of money to condition people in that manner. It's Pavlovian. Different words won't necessarily elicit the same snarls, or at least business will have to spend anew to create them.

 

[Piecake]

The phrase "compassionate conservative" sure got people to seperate Dubya from the Grinch who tried to cut Medicare and the rest of the dumbass GOP caucus of the 90's.

So, yeah, I think it can. People aren't as deep in their political views as you think. After all, why is socialism suddenly popular with people under 30? Because the GOP has spent the last six years calling basic functions of government 'socialism.'

I think that has more to do with people under 30 not growing up during the Cold War and constantly hearing about how the evil Socialist/communist Soviet Union isn't going to wipe us off the face of the earth

 

[zero_suit]

It's silly--and, frankly, insulting--to think that you're going to change people's political views just by replacing one word with another.

False. Obamacare has lower approval ratings than ACA, for example.

 

[jamesinclair]

It's silly--and, frankly, insulting--to think that you're going to change people's political views just by replacing one word with another.

Won't people who dislike "liberals" simply come to dislike "progressives" as well?

Did the tea party not teach you anything?

 

[Sibylus]

Official veto threat on any new Iran sanctions
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-veto-threat-iran-sanctions

Now we wait and see whether Harry Reid will allow sanctions to even be voted on. I have a feeling that if it comes to the floor, it'll pass with 70+ votes. If that happens Obama should just torch the senate live. Anyone who puts political games and financial gain ahead of the potential of peace deserves to be slammed.

Good. The war lobby should go fly its kites into traffic.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I think that has more to do with people under 30 not growing up during the Cold War and constantly hearing about how the evil Socialist/communist Soviet Union isn't going to wipe us off the face of the earth

Well, yeah. There's a bit of that. In that Sweden is socialism instead of the USSR, but I do think a large part of it is that basic governmental functions that are non-controversial in every other country in the world is suddenly socialism in the US.

 

[speculawyer]

Is it insulting to think that advertising and branding work?

I mean... they clearly do, right?

Companies would not spend money on advertising if it didn't work.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Thomas Sowell has written the most hilarious conservative op-ed of the year thus far by arguing that because Republicans don't use the term "trickle-down economics" themselves to describe their supply-side policies, trickle-down economics does not actually exist.

Edit: This is including Cal Thomas's recent column about how his music is better than anyone else's music even though he didn't understand his music at the time.

Republicans have tried to move away the term "trickle-down" as its become a really unpopular buzz word.

Yet they will continue to say things like, "We need to cut corporate taxes and taxes on the rich so we can spur growth which will lead to more and better jobs".

 

[shadowsdarknes]

It's silly--and, frankly, insulting--to think that you're going to change people's political views just by replacing one word with another.

Won't people who dislike "liberals" simply come to dislike "progressives" as well?

ACA is more popular than Obamacare.

Ask people if they believe in sensible gun control vs. sensible gun laws and you will get a different response.