PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Someone should make an image like this one with Trump but do "Punished Boehner, a man denied his resignation"

315.jpg
Click to expand...
Punished "Venom" Trump, to be more precise. Hero rejected by his country. He will create his own country, and it will be glorious with yuuge walls.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Yeah man, more dogmatic ideologues, that's what we need to get this government working again.
Click to expand...

NYCmetsfan said:
It would do no such thing. It would just further make it impossible to do anything.
Click to expand...

NeoXChaos said:
Would make government even more dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

You all ignore that this is quite common on most of the world.

Plus, your fears ignore the obvious: it already is dysfunctional. Completely. How could it possibly get any worse?
When one side is electing radicals and the other isn't, you know in which way the system will shift. Otherwise, It is then that the majority closer to the middle gets together and does what needs to be done.
 
Coriolanus said:
Parliamentary republics are nowhere near as popular as other systems.

Yet to hear how it would make the system more dysfunctional.
Click to expand...
Your pointing to places with ours as functional examples? It's clear when people criticise the US they're looking at euro sytle systems with PMs. Unless your saying were not living up to the example of South America and Africa

And completely destroying the division of legislature and executive would make it more dysfunctional because given the vast political systems, the strong federal power, vast amounts of money in the system they're be no incentive be for perpetual fighting.

The system works when people acknowledge constraints on their immediate actions, radicals never do.
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...for-plaintiffs-in-Florida-redistricting-trial

download.png


Most likely the Florida redistricting map. Likely two pickups for Dems.

No other districts change by a significant enough margin to affect the likely 2016 partisan outcome. Overall, we can expect Democrats to net two seats as a result of redistricting: There's a good chance they'll pick up FL-10, FL-13, and FL-26 while losing FL-02. If Democrats can hold on to the open 18th District (which is unaffected by this map), Florida's delegation would wind up with 15 Republican seats and 12 Democratic seats. That's still a big advantage for the GOP, considering Obama carried the state twice, but it's definitely an improvement.
Click to expand...

Another big prize for Democrats is Republican Rep. Dan Webster's 10th District in Orlando, which flips from a Romney seat to one that Obama carried by 22 percent.
Click to expand...

lololololololol
 
NYCmetsfan said:
Your pointing to places with ours as functional examples? It's clear when people criticise the US they're looking at euro sytle systems with PMs. Unless your saying were not living up to the example of South America and Africa

And completely destroying the division of legislature and executive would make it more dysfunctional because given the vast political systems, the strong federal power, vast amounts of money in the system they're be no incentive be for perpetual fighting.

The system works when people acknowledge constraints on their immediate actions, radicals never do.
Click to expand...

Legislative functionality isn't the same as country functionality. Are you trying to equate the two?

As for the bolded, who in blazes suggested doing that?

And you're quite correct in your last paragraph. The system indeed works when that happens. The problem is that you've allowed radicals to contaminate the right, with no counterweight in the left. Without that, what, pray tell, do you think happens? Look at how economic rethoric is handled in your country. That's what fucking happens.

And that, my friend, is not something that the SC will eventually solve for you, no matter how many seats you get up there.
How do you plan to tackle that?
 
But speaker of the House isn't an "ideas man" position. That position is for the chairman of the House Weighs and Means Committee...which he is.

Speaker of the House (as well as Leader) is a position that deals with personalities, control, egos, etc.

I mean, in some ways the Speaker sets the agenda and the Leader gets everyone in line, but the actual nitty gritty is done elsewhere...such as where Ryan is.

I mean, we all know Ryan's ideas are crock, but if he's an "idea man," the last thing he should be is Speaker. That's a management job.

This is all the result of how fucking terrible Boehner was at his job. The fact that he didn't establish a dictatorial control from day one, like nearly every speaker before him, set the House on this course. You can't give the keys to the kids.
 
Black Mamba said:
But speaker of the House isn't an "ideas man" position. That position is for the chairman of the House Weighs and Means Committee...which he is.

Speaker of the House (as well as Leader) is a position that deals with personalities, control, egos, etc.
Click to expand...

And also fundraising for the party, to the tune of 200 days per year on the road. It makes no sense for Ryan.
 
Ryan clearly doesn't want the job but he will most likely take it. Far too much party pressure at this point. He will for the good of the party.
 
You know how some offices are FUBAR'D because they keep promoting engineers and developers to executive managerial positions, basically the nerds with zero social skills and PM experience to manage masses of humans and their work? Yeah, this is totally not going to backfire. If anything I want Ryan to be the speaker for the schadenfraude. He's gonna get rolled over. We just might witness the worst speaker in history. You actually do need a tough guy, chain smoking asshole like Boehner if you have rowdy caucus that needs to be controlled.
 
Cheebo said:
Ryan clearly doesn't want the job but he will most likely take it. Far too much party pressure at this point. He will for the good of the party.
Click to expand...

What pressure?

"For the good of the party" is an empty platitude. It's not leverage. If that's what they're banking on to get him to take the job, they're fucking screwed.
 
Coriolanus said:
Legislative functionality isn't the same as country functionality. Are you trying to equate the two?

As for the bolded, who in blazes suggested doing that?

And you're quite correct in your last paragraph. The system indeed works when that happens. The problem is that you've allowed radicals to contaminate the right, with no counterweight in the left. Without that, what, pray tell, do you think happens? Look at how economic rethoric is handled in your country. That's what fucking happens.

And that, my friend, is not something that the SC will eventually solve for you, no matter how many seats you get up there.
How do you plan to tackle that?
Click to expand...

I don't know why we'd care about passing bills if the country was non-functioning

and that's what other countries tend to do. There aren't many countries with a presidential system that clearly separates legislative and executive. Most of Europe has members of the legislature serve in that role. If that's not what you're advocating I'd like to know what it is. Because I'm confused on what other parts of the world we could model besides those that get rid of the difference. France is the only other one but, even then they have a more mixed system.

And just countering right radicals with left radicals does nothing, it solves nothing. They moderate right then won't do business with them and your left with nothing. Has the radical right moved the left anywhere? So why would a radical left?

I'm sure your point is the country is moving to the right with the radical right but that doesn't really say a radical left would solve this. First of all I don't think its moved rightward, the only thing its done is promote austerity because they enforce the status quo which is by virtue an austerity. They've enacted non of their policy goals besides cutting spending which again is do to left-leaning policy requiring affirmative consent which radicals won't provide. The left can't opperate the same since their actions require collective consensus and majority. All the radical left would do would be to further solidify the status quo.

The left to achieve their goals needs numerical advantages which the right doesn't. And I'm not sure how having a radical left would solve the economic rhetoric. Because what makes the right radical isn't its rhetoric, it's its willingness to act and let the house burn. Again I don't see how a radical left changes this.

You seem to just think by some mythological balance things will change. That ignores the tools the radical right has because of its goals that would be unusable to the left. That or be having their own ted cruz they'll convince people that they're stupid for voting for the GOP which is silly given ted's own lack of success with the same.

Again, the left needs numerical majorites and power (i.e. the courts, presidency).
 
theprodigy said:
They'd have to show up and vote first.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the electoral uselessness of our radical left is already baked in, where the Tea Party was always just the Dixiecrat wing of the Republicans. Much like Bernie isn't an actual Democrat, the crazies* that are supporting him aren't either, and never were as far as voting is concerned.

Our best hope is that the teabaggers stop voting out of frustration with the Republicans, and become just as electorally useless.


* Talking about the ones that are actually crazy, where they refuse to vote for the final nominee, say both parties are the same, have Trump as their second choice, etc.
 
Politico is saying that elmers-mccarthy thing has been rumored for years within the GOP circles in Congress, and the leaks from conservative donors started happening early 2015.

Smoke will meet fire soon.
 
Quinnipiac:

Murphy 37, Lopez-Cantera 29 Murphy +8
Murphy 37, DeSantis 30 Murphy +7
Grayson 35, Lopez-Cantera 32 Grayson +3
Grayson 37, DeSantis 31 Grayson +6

So much for PoliGAF's assertion Grayson will lose the seat if nominated.
 
ErasureAcer said:
Quinnipiac:

Murphy 37, Lopez-Cantera 29 Murphy +8
Murphy 37, DeSantis 30 Murphy +7
Grayson 35, Lopez-Cantera 32 Grayson +3
Grayson 37, DeSantis 31 Grayson +6

So much for PoliGAF's assertion Grayson will lose the seat if nominated.
Click to expand...
I'm not about to draw immense conclusions from polls with a third undecided. That being said Grayson is doing worse in those match-ups despite being better known.

I'd be more sympathetic if Murphy were considerably more conservative (I'd consider him centrist at worst) or if Grayson came off as a more sincere liberal like Warren or Sanders. He's not (against raising taxes, against the Iran deal) and furthermore he's an abrasive dick. I would love it if even an unappealing personality like him could win in Florida but he can't.

Ellmers/McCarthy rumors came from Scott Bixby's Twitter
 
ErasureAcer said:
Quinnipiac:

Murphy 37, Lopez-Cantera 29 Murphy +8
Murphy 37, DeSantis 30 Murphy +7
Grayson 35, Lopez-Cantera 32 Grayson +3
Grayson 37, DeSantis 31 Grayson +6

So much for PoliGAF's assertion Grayson will lose the seat if nominated.
Click to expand...
Those Lopez-Cantera numbers say otherwise.

Also you want Grayson to win? Why? He is a corrupt asshole and not even that liberal.

You attack Hillary on her personality and trustworthiness, Grayson is a well known pretty awful person and fake liberal.


He is everything you claim to hate about Hillary yet support him? Hilarious.
 
That Florida map is really solid. Between that and the Virginia redistricting case Democrats should have a net three pickups on lockdown. Of course, it's very unlikely this will push them into a majority by itself. But given the utter chaos the Republicans have created for themselves I wouldn't be surprised if more targets open up.

Right now I would say in a good 2016 election (say the Dem wins by five points in the popular vote) the Democrats would probably pick up 20 seats at most.
 
ErasureAcer said:
Quinnipiac:

Murphy 37, Lopez-Cantera 29 Murphy +8
Murphy 37, DeSantis 30 Murphy +7
Grayson 35, Lopez-Cantera 32 Grayson +3
Grayson 37, DeSantis 31 Grayson +6

So much for PoliGAF's assertion Grayson will lose the seat if nominated.
Click to expand...
He's barely beating unknows. Murphy is close to an generic D and he's winning. It pretty clearly shows Grayson lessens the dems natural advantage.
 
I still can't get over the irony of EracerAcer being for a pathological lying pro-corporate corrupt wacko candiate. It's so beautifully ironic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
549K
Hideous Snake replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Formula 1 2017 Season |OT2| A Dutch Horror Story - Sundays on Sky
54 55 56 57 58
3K
343K
Grieves replied
Top Bottom