Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (11169.41)
    @DavidLeJeune I don't believe they'll flip from Tea Party Republican to Moderate Republican, for a couple reasons.

    1) To go to an example the Daily Show used, one Tea Party Republican, Bill Cassidy, won his election with a 70% margin of victory. Now, he's not every single member, and there's 79 other districts here to talk about, but the back of the envelope math isn't good.
    These people don't all have 70% victory margins, but assuming their margins are only half of that, it's still nigh-impregnable. Not impossible, but we're talking moon timeshare in our lifetimes here.

    2) That Tea Party base still lives there and they're not going to come to their senses. Even if for some reason they look at their 2014 election and go "wow, that guy made a publicity stunt that cost the United States billions of dollars," they're still expecting the same kind of catering from whomever replaces him. They're the ones that show in Republican primaries in the numbers that count. This is why gerrymandering is great for politicians, as opposed to the voters picking their representative, the representative picks their voters.
  2.  (11169.42)
    Everyone chill the fuck out. The President's got this.

    Either a national emergency will trigger executive powers to raise the debt limit or House leaders will give up and cut a deal with the Dems. Either way the tea party loses. They will either turn on their own Reps for perceived "betrayal" or become disillusioned altogether.

    So why not just crush them right now? Because shutdowns are illustrative, reminding the voters of the differences between the parties. Plus, the Dems are receiving campaign donations from aghast usually-right-wing donors, in record numbers.

    I know it sucks, but every victory demands a sacrifice. Obama never shies away from the tough ones. Now he's asking his supporters to do the same.
  3.  (11169.43)
    "the representative picks their voters."

    Exactly right. If you've got a swath of voters north of the river that don't vote for you, give them to me, and I'll let you have these voters on the west block that hate my party but love yours.

    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2013
    Shouldn't that be illegal?
  4.  (11169.45)
    It probably already is. I'm reminded of an old Henry Kissinger quote:

    "The illegal, we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a while longer."
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2013

    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2013
    @Oldhat, gerrymandering is like, kind of illegal? But it's not clear, and you need to challenge districting within the congress and you see how that might be a problem.
  5.  (11169.48)

    From the title, I thought that was a parody of Alex Jones. It was only a minute and a half in until I realized that was the genuine article. Wow. EDIT: I was going to run my mouth about gerrymandering, but dorkmuffin beat me to it with a post that is based in logic and articulable fact.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2013
    Gerrymandering is not illegal. It sure as fuck should be but it isn't (it is, in fact, a time-honored "tradition" dating back to the glory days of political shenanigans practiced by the likes of Tammany Hall).

    The problem with district drawing is that it's done by the very people whom it benefits, which is a huge conflict of interest and why you get things like:
    1. Whacked out districts of unequal size that are focused solely along concentrations of one political party (thus disenfranchising the voters of any other party in that area by effectively stacking the deck against them) and
    2. When control of the state government changes hands the political party in control will redraw the district lines to screw over the other party by combining their districts (and thus eliminating one of the reps from that area, which is what happened to Dennis Kucinich).

    The only way to take the corruption out of the process would be to remove the power to draw the district lines from the people it impacts and putting it either in the hands of an independent group of people or dividing up the state into chunks based on population numbers in those chunks so that you have enough chunks to equal the number of reps a state is entitled to (and doing that would be problematic as the reps from the high-population density locations would out-number the rural reps whose agendas for their constituents might get sidelined).
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2013 edited
    @ebullientsoul, I cobbled that together from shit I was half-reading. Basically it's TECHNICALLY illegal as defined by a Supreme Court case but in order to challenge someone on it you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's gerrymandering and not redistricting.

    Karcher v. Daggett set the legal precedent. HOWEVER. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is what controlled racial gerrymandering that section got overturned as being like, unnecessary or whatever (SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS) and so it's difficult to make regions pre-clear their redistricting plans on the grounds that those regions are historically racist.

    Guess where most of the Tea Partiers are from.
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2013
  6.  (11169.52)
    @dorkmuffin See? Links are great. Me blathering about gerrymandering is much less useful.
  7.  (11169.53)
    @RenThing A couple of years ago, the voters of California changed the process by which the lines establishing electoral districts were drawn. Instead of having the party in power call the shots, an independent citizen's commission took on the job. From what I heard secondhand, the results have satisfied everyone except the more hardcore Republicans.

    Meanwhile, guess what the shutdown has done to what were supposed to be ongoing biomedical research experiments?
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2013
    @Miranda's Eyes

    For the most part yes (speaking as a native and current Californian).
      CommentAuthorDoc Ocassi
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2013
    My pit, FWIW.

    Welcome to the Colosseum. Although the Tea Partiers could be 'nice' and say OK! Have you Obamacare. The problem is there are larger forces that caused this impasse, and it is not solely a problem in America.

    Worldwide there is a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. In the US as well as most of the western world, central banks have been printing money with the intention of growing the economy, but that by itself doesn't grow the economy, it devalues the currency, it is an interesting thought experiment to view it as a tax on wealth, where the rewards are reaped by the people who get hold of the newly created money.

    This money then gets handed over to the banks at the base interest rate, set by the central bank. UK = 0.5% US = 0-0.25%, then the banks lend this money out at whatever interest rate they feel, the return on this is used to value your/the countries 'growth', now you can invest in banks and banks can invest in each other. I would argue that most rational people would want a piece of that business. Now remember none of this actually grows the economy.

    What has all of this got to do with Obamacare? Not a lot, but neither does what is happening in the US, the people who vote for the tea party on these issues and appear on the TV/news-media spouting forth this crap are ignorant, or-else they are complicit, as most of people of power generally are.

    The Obamacare narrative is used to separate the voting public using a non-class based division. the aspirational mindset would hate moochers, so lets make this about them, also are probably not as many moochers as these people think in society. This is effective because they set the narrative in
    these people social context, if you do this it makes it easier for the population to relate to it.

    There in also a more honest view to have on this, that leaves the morality the same, hate moochers, but instead place it in context of class. Goldman Sachs Received a $1.500,000,000 tax break for it's new headquarters, in a previous fiscal cliff bill, not a word was spoken. With the gap between rich and poor growing, are these Tea Partiers feeling the inequality? I would say so, that would push them to be more active in politics. quite a number of them would be for local business, these people though ignorant are probably decent people.

    Now to the democratic side, You think that obamacare will provide results if Obama doesn't tackle the root cause of this equality, He has given no sign that he would, he is actually doing the opposite. Look at his positioning of key financial people in government positions, that should worry all democrats more than the non-implementation of a welfare instrument. but these ignorant, I am not letting them get away either, democrats are stuck in the same false narrative as the Tea Partiers. They are on the other side because of their compassion, or some other reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that they are agreeing to fight in non-existent arena, they should demand of their representatives a solution to the root cause of the problem this would actually put them in line with the Tea Partiers, both against moochers and the ruling class.

    Welcome to class war America,
    enjoy the games.

    PS. To marginalize this even more I would argue that both camps are still stuck in the delusion that their 'representatives' will or can do anything about this.
  8.  (11169.56)
    @Doc Ocassi

    Um, both camps? Only one party hijacked the government. And I suspect it started as little more than a bluff that backfired.

    But that's neither here nor there.

    Keep in mind, if people expect too much from their elected officials it's only because those fools make GARGANTUAN promises in the first place.
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2013
    Can the Treasury prioritize which debts and obligations to pay? For example, could they issue Social Security checks to all congressional districts except for those electing these idiot Tea partiers?
  9.  (11169.58)
    Meet the Republicans who publicly feel the federal government's defaulting on the national debt is no big deal.
  10.  (11169.59)

    Geithner did a lot of prioritizing work back in 2010, when the new class got elected. I know the interest on the debt gets paid first... Damn, give me a few, it's going to take some digging...
  11.  (11169.60)
    @johnjones A handy explanation for why debt ceiling breach = default, including a brief answer to why debt prioritization is not a good idea.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.