Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I kind of agree with you Phryxis. I I can do is offer proof and let people chose what to think. I don't agree with the fact that if the republicans have a good idea, one that makes it past the Senate and to Obama's desk he'd sign it. He's a people pleaser and he'd be able to take some credit. The man is no idiot.

dogma wrote:Politicians that only want to win re-election are probably better, on the whole, for democracy than the sort of politicians we have now. Unfortunately for, that sort of politician has only existed in a couple places throughout history, and most of them have been military juntas.

What are your thoughts on the tea party winners? 30 or so won, right?

I'm trying to find a full list without filtering through a bunch of stuff. Do you think that the Tea Party will actually be able to exert influence over the GOP? More importantly, are they, or will they just become part of the GOP? Maybe this is a case by case basis thing.

Politics is funny. Even if they have 1 party, they would still be at each others throats (1824 election)

Yeah. Thats why I believe in Micronations!

Let's be honest, the Republicans started planning how to take the White House back the day after Pres. Obama was sworn in. Either party would do this if they lost a key component of the government.

So the D.A.R.E. rhetoric is nothing more than that?

Just say no, gubermint is bad.

Is there really an issue here? The republicans can block most things, while the administration blocks everything else. Sounds like fair play even if it sucks for many of the issues left to work on. Stuff like jobs...

Hopefully dogma is wrong and happy ponies arrive adorned with serious discussion about unemployment. I'll bring a pinata.

Wrexasaur wrote:
What are your thoughts on the tea party winners? 30 or so won, right?

I'm trying to find a full list without filtering through a bunch of stuff. Do you think that the Tea Party will actually be able to exert influence over the GOP? More importantly, are they, or will they just become part of the GOP? Maybe this is a case by case basis thing.

Most of them already are parts of the GOP, and have been for some time. The Tea Party is a protest movement that, for the most part, was latched on to by Republican operatives looking to get ahead in the political world, or get back an office they lost. And, really, their only electoral advantage over traditional Republican candidates was that they had been out of office, or never held it. The rhetoric was the same standard GOP line, plus "Socialism!!!!"

The question is whether or not they'll be able o parley their wins into effective governance. Its pretty easy to get elected by simply saying "I think you're right, American voters!", especially at the Congressional level where you have the ability to target your message relatively tightly. The trouble comes when you have to maintain consistency with that message, while also working with the other side to fix the problems that you said the other side was causing.

If the problem in question was some BS boilerplate like "Socialism!!!!!", the the GOP/Tea Party will probably do fine if they obstruct any real attempt at governance. If the problem is unemployment, then doing something like that is probably going to see a Democrat House in 2012, and a Republican Senate. The Presidency could go either way, but the incumbent always has a big advantage; particularly if the economy continues its modest growth.

Flashman wrote:Never thought I'd say this, but I'm more impressed with our political system at the moment. I'm staggered that a coalition government formed of two parties with completely opposite ideals has managed to last over six months with nothing more superficial cracks. Go UK politics!

I think America needs a third party to spice things up a bit. You should expand on this Tea Party thing. I confess I was reading up on it today and the basic ideal of small government is (surprisingly) not total nonsense. Now if they could just get rid of all the nutters they have attracted to the cause...

Actually we do have other parties. The green party is the most known, but we also have independent candidates. Fpr example, that young upstart "Neither of these candidates" got 2% of the vote in Nevada.

Also, the democrats have had complete control of both house and senate for the last two years. Blaming republicans is just silly because 1) they could just be ignored and 2)there weren't many filibusters 3) I doubt over 50% of congress actually showed up to work.

Watch C-Span and you'll see that the house and senate are relatively empty most of the time because well, they just don't show up and when they do they vote 'present' and don't do any work.

I liked the senator we had in office even though he was a democrat, unfortunately he was the incumbent and I wanted them all out. Seriously, even in the local 1 candidate elections I wrote in Brett Favre.

The question is whether or not they'll be able o parley their wins into effective governance. Its pretty easy to get elected by simply saying "I think you're right, American voters!", especially at the Congressional level where you have the ability to target your message relatively tightly. The trouble comes when you have to maintain consistency with that message, while also working with the other side to fix the problems that you said the other side was causing.

Hmm... So Reps will be forced to work with Dems in some way? Is that a bad thing for us?

If the problem in question was some BS boilerplate like "Socialism!!!!!", the the GOP/Tea Party will probably do fine if they obstruct any real attempt at governance. If the problem is unemployment, then doing something like that is probably going to see a Democrat House in 2012, and a Republican Senate. The Presidency could go either way, but the incumbent always has a big advantage; particularly if the economy continues its modest growth.

I'll call it for Obama right now. BAM! My chips are in.

It will be interesting to see what the climate is like 2 years from now. I just can't see the administration losing their next election.

dogma wrote:Most of them already are parts of the GOP, and have been for some time. The Tea Party is a protest movement that, for the most part, was latched on to by Republican operatives looking to get ahead in the political world, or get back an office they lost. And, really, their only electoral advantage over traditional Republican candidates was that they had been out of office, or never held it. The rhetoric was the same standard GOP line, plus "Socialism!!!!"

Devilsquid wrote:Meh, I'll say it: Yes, it's the Republicans fault.

I'll also say that the Democrats are not faultless either.

If you look at the Voting the Republicans have done the past two years, they've fillibustered just about everything from passing. And now, when the elections came around, they shouted and screamed about how nothing got accomplished.

The sad truth is that we, the People, will continue to suffer because politics is now about Republican vs Democrat, not taking care of the country. Republicans block and blame Democrats, and Democrats block and blame Republicans. Meanwhile, nothing gets done, we as a country continue to dwindle, and my children have to learn Chinese as a second language in order to have a change in the future.


Our political system sucks ass.

One correction, they threatened to filibuster. It's a parlimentary tactic that is quite useful in situations that the GOP had for the last two years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

dogma wrote:Politicians that only want to win re-election are probably better, on the whole, for democracy than the sort of politicians we have now. Unfortunately for, that sort of politician has only existed in a couple places throughout history, and most of them have been military juntas.

What are your thoughts on the tea party winners? 30 or so won, right?

I'm trying to find a full list without filtering through a bunch of stuff. Do you think that the Tea Party will actually be able to exert influence over the GOP? More importantly, are they, or will they just become part of the GOP? Maybe this is a case by case basis thing.

Depends on the state really. The 30 number is just in the house. Marco Rubio in FL was a Tea Party backed candidate who walloped the presumed favorite to the establishment, Charlie Crist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baming the GOP for wanting to win is like blaming crack addicts for wanting crack. It's what they do! Politicians want to win!

Not for wanting to win Wanting to win and nothing else.

Wrexasaur wrote:I'll call it for Obama right now. BAM! My chips are in.

History is on your side. The last three presidents that went through a power change like this during the midterm all ended up winning reelection. FDR, Clinton, and I forgot the third one.

Flashman wrote:

Da Boss wrote:More than another party, you need competent politicians and a savvy electorate

Which is why democracy doesn't really work. Politicians (when they're not being corrupt) are forever trying to appease the public which prevents them from pushing through controversial decisions that are good for the country.

But then again, the Conservatives/Lib Dems have taken a huge axe to public spending and nobody is batting an eye lid (relatively speaking, we're not France after all), so again, go UK politics!

I call bs. Historically democracies have worked just fine, with better GDP growth than dictatorships. That still applies.

No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Really? Really? The ability to build a bomb does nothing to show perofrmance, only that you'd rather build a bomb to threaten your neighbors than feed your people.

In Your example look at South Korea and North Korea on a satellite map at night. Enough said.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Really? Really? The ability to build a bomb does nothing to show perofrmance, only that you'd rather build a bomb to threaten your neighbors than feed your people.

In Your example look at South Korea and North Korea on a satellite map at night. Enough said.

Rummy, is that you? Here's a question for you: has the ROK been a democracy or dictatorship for most of its history? Answer: dictatorship.

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Read this to find out the truth about the DPRK.

dogma wrote:

gorgon wrote:This is all just part of the show. The GOP can only be so combative. Waste two years screwing around and their butts will get voted right back out again. Forget ideology...that's mostly a show. Politicians' primary focus is keeping their job, i.e. getting re-elected.

See, I don't agree with that. I think that the primary goal of any politician is ensuring his political well-being. This doesn't necessarily mean getting re-elected. In fact, it can mean something as simple as voting a given way often enough to ensure a cushy lobbyist position where you don't have to worry about the capriciousness of the mob. Or it can mean stepping out of the way of a younger candidate so you can tour the lecture circuit, or accept a cushy partisan job, or even cushy office at a lower level of government.

Although that's only a minor sidestep from what I was saying. Self-interest is self-interest. And self-interest doesn't lead to hard decisions getting made.

Politicians that only want to win re-election are probably better, on the whole, for democracy than the sort of politicians we have now. Unfortunately for, that sort of politician has only existed in a couple places throughout history, and most of them have been military juntas.

Not entirely sure where you're going here...are you claiming politicians now tend to be ideologues or focused on personal enrichment?

On the topic of ideologues, I'll share something I may have shared before here. You probably remember Rick Santorum, former Senator from PA and noted conservative firebrand? He was a favorite of the rightiest righties and in about a term and a half ascended to the number 3(?) Republican in the Senate. And I have it on good authority from someone who knew him back in the day that he wasn't that conservative until he started running for the House and Senate. And in fact he seemed to get even more conservative the longer he was in the Senate. Which made him a rising star in the party as I mentioned, but it was ultimately was poor strategy given that PA tends to like moderates of either ilk and therefore voted him out.

I think there are elements in the Tea Party and elsewhere that are a bit unhinged, but generally I tend to shrug when someone in the Dems or GOP is labeled a left- or right-wing wackjob. Often the ideological extremism is tied to their desire for personal enrichment.

And by feeding most of the popoulation you mean the army and the Communist party right?

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

Frazz is correct. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/47307495_9286b3c0d1.jpg

Frazzled wrote:And by feeding most of the popoulation you mean the army and the Communist party right?

A lot of it with US food aid as well.

Devilsquid wrote:Meh, I'll say it: Yes, it's the Republicans fault.

I'll also say that the Democrats are not faultless either.

If you look at the Voting the Republicans have done the past two years, they've fillibustered just about everything from passing. And now, when the elections came around, they shouted and screamed about how nothing got accomplished.

The sad truth is that we, the People, will continue to suffer because politics is now about Republican vs Democrat, not taking care of the country. Republicans block and blame Democrats, and Democrats block and blame Republicans. Meanwhile, nothing gets done, we as a country continue to dwindle, and my children have to learn Chinese as a second language in order to have a change in the future.


Our political system sucks ass.

Beware of false equivalencies. Yes, the Republicans, as demonstrated by their voting record for the last two years, have virtually opposed nearly everything the Democratic party has put forth. The biggest problem with the Democrats is not that they try to obstruct everything that the Republicans put forth, but that they all too often capitulate and allow these horrible policy decisions to pass.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

avantgarde wrote:Several of Obama's policies don't get reported or get very much coverage.

-The $120 billion stealth tax cut.
-Reversing some executive privilege policies
-Drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan
-The State Department's continued hiring of PMCs to shore up troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan

Americans are just too engrossed by whatever hot button issue or "he said-she said" games the media pushes to notice.

Exactly right! In certain respects, the Obama administration has carried on many of the same detestable policies started with the Bush administration. It's surprising that what was once thought of as this administration's greatest weakness, that of foreign policy, is so closely aligned with the Bush administration.

-Yad

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And by feeding most of the popoulation you mean the army and the Communist party right?

A lot of it with US food aid as well.

That is become we are awesome and our food is delicious.

olympia wrote:No way frazzled. Dictatorships, ounce for ounce, out perform democracies. Recall that the DPRK has an economy of comparable size to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Yet the DPRK has gone nuclear and has one of the largest armies in the entire world. It has accomplished this while managing to feed most of its population and providing child vaccinations that are second to none. Furthermore, no continental democracy could or in fact did stomach the carnage and mayhem visited upon the belligerents of the second world war.

...this is sarcasm right?

Could be, but unfortunately some people really are that naive.

Or else are so oddly wired that they experience no cognitive dissonance at calling, 'dear leader spends $200,000 a year on Hennesey while the rural lands starve' 'feed most of its population.'

I'm not saying that a well run dictatorship wouldn't kick a democracy's ass but... using North Korea as an example? Maybe it's my misplaced and sadly not yet exorcised faith in humanity that believes no one is really that stupid.

Sadly that faith is misplaced.

I know, I keep trying to exorcise it but it just keeps sneaking back in.

Tyyr wrote:I'm not saying that a well run dictatorship wouldn't kick a democracy's ass but...

Can you give some historical examples of this happening? Or is the 'well run dictatorship' something that's never actually been seen?

Would Singapore count as WWD?