-
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 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
Abinash117
Member
Is it really, or is it just Trump? If another generic Republican candidate was run would it be that close? The 2016 election was pretty unlike most other elections.
I just overlooked the word.....
Is whig an adjective?
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Pretty sure that in the case of DC it would require amending the Constitution to allow for statehood.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
No, you gotta say you're a Whig or you like to get Whigy with it
There are workarounds. The Constitution only says the Capitol is federal and not a state. Just make the city around the building a state instead.
Autodidact
Banned
#partsoffreespeech
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, noun. The adjective is Whiggish.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Verb is "whiggin out"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
National representatives ought to be concerned with the state of the nation. Pork-barrel spending runs directly contrary to this. As a simple example: suppose we have a country with 10 entirely equal areas, each with a representative to the assembly. Suppose there are two possible laws we can pass (which are mutually exclusive). One law would improve all areas by +5 units of goodness. The other law would improve 6 areas by +6, and 4 areas by +1. Since each representative is concerned with their own area, they will pass the second law - despite the fact this is worse for the country than the first law, leading to a net +40 instead of a net +50.
Of course, if you repeat this over hundreds of laws, each of which benefiting slightly different areas in concentration, over the long run, all areas lose out in absolute terms from the presence of pork-barreling. It works through exactly the same logic as the explanation for why protectionism is bad, and consequently, if you're in favour of free trade, you ought to be against pork-barrel spending.
If you need pork-barrel funding for your system to be functional, you're basically conceding that your national representatives can't be trusted to follow the national interests and they have to be 'bribed', which is a pretty terrible state of affairs. I mean, this holds true for all countries on occasion - any time the veto player's personal interests diverge from national interests might require a pork-barrel inducement - but the necessity of this goes up as the number of veto points go up, which is why the American system needs so much pork-barreling just to function.
The UK is also quite bad at this, incidentally, if not to the same extent as the American system, since our representatives are also highly motivated by local issues over national ones. The only reason we're not quite as bad is we're a parliamentary system and have less veto points. The model here is something like the Scandinavian countries or Germany where national politics is not as highly driven by localised representatives.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/mcconnell-alabama-moore-brooks-strange-241138
Lol watch Trump support Roy Moore or something
Lol watch Trump support Roy Moore or something
Roy Moore?
Sure, why not. It seems the overall theme of this administration's officials is to fail upwards.
If you fire someone for perjury. Then that means they committed a crime. I don't think any of this will happen. Just saying how can you fire somebody for a crime then not make a stink about prosecuting.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
nature boy
Member
First thing he's said in a couple weeks that sounds diabolical
I'm pretty sure the insurance company "bailouts" he's been talking about are the payments the fed is meant to make to stabilise the markets. He's trying to spin them not paying it as a good thing because now he can "hurt" them.
I love that he's also throwing congress under the bus again with this tweet, though.
The Congress part is what I meant. They should have the same health care as everyone else.
Absolutely. While we're at it, they should also have their pay frozen during a shutdown. Maybe then they'll think twice about it.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's unconstitutional to freeze congress' pay
Congressman pay can only effect the next term, congress cannot change their wages for the correct term. That includes pay freezes
Congressman pay can only effect the next term, congress cannot change their wages for the correct term. That includes pay freezes
BoogieWoogie
Banned
That's understood, but my point is, Congress should not continue to be shielded from the actions that they make for their constituents. If they felt the effects of what they were doing, things would change pretty fucking quick.
GoldenEye 007
Member
ACA requires that they and their staff get insurance through the law. They use the DC exchange. They don't use the plan other federal employees do and haven't since 2014.
With these new proposals, they have been exempt though.
nature boy
Member
Shouldn't the same principle apply to the WH?
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Yes totally.
Well... You also have to understand that a lot of congress are already drawn social security and Medicare benefits....
*coughcoughMcCain*
I love/hate this picture so much. This is the team that's going to get the Trump administration back on track.
Team Scandal? The real life tv show?
Scandal always made laugh because the Republicans were basically Democrats policy wise and vice versa....I quit watching a few seasons back.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
nature boy
Member
But in this particular case, what benefit is there for Congress to do what the executive branch wants? Remove healthcare for 20 million people just to keep their health care?
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
That Germany-EU counter measure thread is a mess.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I just have some difficulty believing that Trump could actually arrange to both find somebody as morally bad as Jeff Sessions AND as good at being awful as Sessions is AND get them confirmed by the Senate in any kind of reasonable timeframe. Firing him would be a huge boon to the country, imo.
In November 2016 I was terrified that the rifts in the Democratic Party would result in a tea party of the left. Today I'm shocked that the Republicans are putting on a brave face and/or lying to themselves as Trump turns it into his party. 2018 is going to be a gong show, and not for the Democrats. The president is practically calling for senators in his own party to be primaried, holy shit.
1929 was a great year for America
nature boy
Member
LOL
Poodlestrike
Banned
Yeah, that's... quite the comparison.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Make America Great Again?
Veritigo_X
Member
Why is the vaper's rights guy talking about tax reform?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Taxes were his big thing before vaping.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
I honestly hope that was a subtle hit
Considering that the stock market is doing so wonderful right now... The president insists on focusing on it... And the president and the GOP are actually trying to destroy 1/6th of the economy and implement Kansas style tax reform...
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelllllll............
It's s verb. Like when you are "whigging out".
Example sentence: Benji started whigging out again, expounding on obscure historical factoids for 3 pages (50ppp).
FloydtheFathead
Member
Sure Grover..
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm fairly sure Benji does not subscribe to the Whiggish view of history.
- Status