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.
Mannahnin wrote: Are you pulling my leg? If the ACA was an example of what you've suggested, it would have passed about a year earlier, and have included a public option. Instead they spent a year compromising it to appeal to right-leaning Dems and to try to get bipartisan support.
Because they wanted bipartisan support, and they needed it to get through the Senate, where they did not have a filibuster-proof majority. Not the scenario I'm talking about. It was a gak bill, nobody's first choice, and they wanted cover for it in the mid-terms and the general.
Question: do you agree with the statement that with control of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House, a party can pass the legislation it chooses without the opposition being able to stop it? That's the point of contention.
And the answer is that they can only do it if the party is united, and doesn't divide itself due to conflicting internal priorities and concerns. Like blue dogs running in red states concerned for the future of their careers, for one example, or just legitimate differences of opinion, for another. Do you know who Bart Stupak is?
You made the claim that if the Reps picked up the majority in the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, the only thing preventing them from implementing their version of debt/budget reform would be lack of backbone. But in fact a lot of other things can get in the way, like representatives not wanting to cut things which are important to their own constituencies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 02:07:19
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Mannahnin wrote: And the answer is that they can only do it if the party is united, and doesn't divide itself due to conflicting internal priorities and concerns. Like blue dogs running in red states concerned for the future of their careers, for one example, or just legitimate differences of opinion, for another. Do you know who Bart Stupak is?
You made the claim that if the Reps picked up the majority in the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, the only thing preventing them from implementing their version of debt/budget reform would be lack of backbone. But in fact a lot of other things can get in the way, like representatives not wanting to cut things which are important to their own constituencies.
That's a backbone issue, is it not? Keeping pork coming into your district so you can keep getting reelected vice doing the right thing for the country is, to me, not something commendable or particularly principled.
dogma wrote: You just outlined why it is principled.
Of course, if we got rid of those heathen "states" we would all be better off.
No, I outlined why it's unprincipled. It is, at its core, a choice between doing the right thing or keeping your job. Which one of those is the principled thing to do?
Seaward wrote: Question: do you agree with the statement that with control of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House, a party can pass the legislation it chooses without the opposition being able to stop it? That's the point of contention.
That is not the point of contention, as I've already explained to you. Twice.
The point in contention is your assumption that a party having theoretical control means they will then proceed to pass any bills they want. That claim doesn't work because the party is not a hive mind, but made up of individuals with their own political values, and so even when the minority party cannot pass legislation you still get a check on the passage of bills through the internal processes of the party in power.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yes, but the party will be able to pass the majority of their bills with impunity.
Interparty divisions rarely do much beside slow a bills progress unless it radical enough that the more moderate members of the party will oppose it, and then they are more likely to abstain from voting then to vote against it.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
whembly wrote: Yes, I know who Bachman is... it's telling to me that you don't think Pelosi or Reid has the same sort of issues...
Mrs Pelosi "we'll have to pass the bill in order to read it"...
Mr. Reid "I'm not going to work with the House, cause its to my best interest to keep the status quo"...
I mention an actual extreme outlier in the Republican party, and it is telling that the only names you can come back with our house leaders. I mean, couldn't you at least have gone for someone from the actual left of the Democrats, like Kucinich?
Seb... you're arguing with me based on your opinions. Stop saying everything out of your mouth is "facts".
The fact is, that "fantasy" bill that your keep bringing up (ya know, that Ryan plan) was derived from the Simpson-Bowles commission that Obama just ignored.
You seem to think that when a bill is passed in the House, that the Senate must pass it "as is". That's NOT how it works. The Senate has an opportunity to then take that bill and tweak it, add stuff, whatever... then if that pass, it goes into conference to the House for them to approve.
It's at back and forth thing.
I know how the process works, how the back and forth is intended to operate.
And what I'm telling you is not just an opinion. I don't think there's a person on Earth who'd honestly claim that the Republican budget was passed with the intent of being a starting point in a back and forth process.
Are you claiming you honestly believe that's why the Republicans passed that bill?
Didn't say you weren't "people"... and no, political realities are NOT the same. That's too simplistic.
Of course some things change. Cultural values are slightly different, and processes are different.
But in this very general case the point holds true for all politics.
If that's how you interpret that...
The Tea Party was a grassroot movement without any established Republican endorsment for a long time.
That's a little simplistic. The Koch brothers through a pile of money into some think tanks to figure out how to rebrand conservatives politics outside of the Republican party, given how toxic the Republican brand had become in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2008 election (remember that legal dispute where the Republican candidate was putting Conservative next to his name on election advertising, and the Democrat was trying to force him to put Republican?).
From there the movement spurred a lot of genuinely grassroots groups. But it was not a purely grassroots movement.
The basic reason its had considerably more success in affecting national politics than the OWS, despite being a much smaller movement overall, is because it had better organisation and better direct links to a political party.
That 2010 election was more about pissed off electorate, than the Republican "reaching out" to the fringe elements.
Not really. You basically saw the same Republican demographics turn out in the same numbers you see in every mid-term election, while turnout among Democratic groups was very depressed, even by mid-term standards.
The only thing that stopped it being a complete disaster for the Democrats, including the loss of very safe seats and the loss of the senate was the number of Tea Party people that won through the Republican primaries and then proceeded to crash and burn through sheer crazy.
Don't make the same mistakes that the alliances you see in your Parlimentary system works the same way here.
The alliances in our Parliamentary system? I don't think you know much about Australian politics, yeah?
The norm here is a single majority government, and all other parties in opposition. I think you might have some vague idea of proportional representation common in Europe in your head.
You're right, it is debatable... but, it shouldn't be ignored.
For sure.
Well see shall we?
We shall.
LOL... fair enough... (I'll check out that site, first time I've heard of it).
It's well worth a read.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: That's a backbone issue, is it not? Keeping pork coming into your district so you can keep getting reelected vice doing the right thing for the country is, to me, not something commendable or particularly principled.
That all depends on whether you're willing to pretend that a person could know that something is not in the best interests of the country, but still protect because it is good for their chances of re-election. Which is great fodder for a Mr Smith Goes to Washington type movie, but real life is more complicated than that.
For instance, much of your party might believe that part of the necessary cuts to military spending include an R&D project undertaken in your state. But you might believe that particular project is essential to the future defence of the country, in addition to any jobs it provides.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 07:01:14
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mannahnin wrote: And the answer is that they can only do it if the party is united, and doesn't divide itself due to conflicting internal priorities and concerns. Like blue dogs running in red states concerned for the future of their careers, for one example, or just legitimate differences of opinion, for another. Do you know who Bart Stupak is?
You made the claim that if the Reps picked up the majority in the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, the only thing preventing them from implementing their version of debt/budget reform would be lack of backbone. But in fact a lot of other things can get in the way, like representatives not wanting to cut things which are important to their own constituencies.
That's a backbone issue, is it not? Keeping pork coming into your district so you can keep getting reelected vice doing the right thing for the country is, to me, not something commendable or particularly principled.
A. You ignored the example of Stupak.
B. Reducing all "things which are important to (state) constituencies" to "pork" as a rhetorical device is absurd. You can't honestly mean that. Part of a State rep's job is to look out for the interests of their constituents.
whembly wrote: The Tea Party was a grassroot movement without any established Republican endorsment for a long time.
That's a little simplistic. The Koch brothers through a pile of money into some think tanks to figure out how to rebrand conservatives politics outside of the Republican party, given how toxic the Republican brand had become in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2008 election (remember that legal dispute where the Republican candidate was putting Conservative next to his name on election advertising, and the Democrat was trying to force him to put Republican?).
From there the movement spurred a lot of genuinely grassroots groups. But it was not a purely grassroots movement.
The basic reason its had considerably more success in affecting national politics than the OWS, despite being a much smaller movement overall, is because it had better organisation and better direct links to a political party.
It also had a lot of direct funding from Republican and other conservative richies, like the Kochs, as soon as they decided it was a useful tool to advocate decreased regulatory and tax burdens on themselves, through the guise of "ordinary" citizens concerned about economics and deficits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 11:03:06
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
I'm going to rooting for the Tea Party candidates like there's no tomorrow
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
At least the elected official from the Tea Party listens to them --->insert evil laughter<--- seems to be more and more elected to --->insert even more evil laughter<-----
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Mannahnin wrote: B. Reducing all "things which are important to (state) constituencies" to "pork" as a rhetorical device is absurd. You can't honestly mean that. Part of a State rep's job is to look out for the interests of their constituents.
I can indeed mean it. It's a short-sighted individual who prioritizes a local public works project over the fiscal solvency of the nation. The "interests of their constituents" are most certainly not going to be served by failing to do anything at all about the debt.
That's a simple false dichotomy. Real life, and politics, are more complicated than a simple A vs. B proposition. Just because you consider a particular law or program which costs money to be important and worthy of preservation, doesn't mean you're necessarily "failing to do anything at all about the debt." Part of the job of representatives is to look at the big picture for the national interest, and part of it is to champion stuff in their constituents' local interest. There's a balance, and part of Congress is negotiating and making compromises on differing priorities.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/20 00:42:43
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
I don't think there has been a serious presidential candidate that didn't come from privilege since Lincoln.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Hey... he had some doobies... I read all political threads...
Which one warps the brain?
Hmmmmm...
Seriously though... these types of information is getting out... whether they're fair or not, doesn't matter, people will seek more infomation. To be honest, any criticism of him growning up, or even his college years is dumb...
I was a dumb ass in college too..
And now, I'm AWESOME! (my kidz tell me so, therefore, it's true)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: I don't think there has been a serious presidential candidate that didn't come from privilege since Lincoln.
Um... wasn't Clinton and Regan like dirt poor growing up?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/20 04:35:41
I can indeed mean it. It's a short-sighted individual who prioritizes a local public works project over the fiscal solvency of the nation. The "interests of their constituents" are most certainly not going to be served by failing to do anything at all about the debt.
Then perhaps we should do away with state governments.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I've seen Obama's apartment complex in Hawaii. It's pretty standard, middle of the road accomodation. So I'm a bit puzzled as to what point is being made here.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I've seen Obama's apartment complex in Hawaii. It's pretty standard, middle of the road accomodation. So I'm a bit puzzled as to what point is being made here.
Keep reading each chapter... there's 10 pages.
But, yeah, his young life... why bother going there?
Who doesn't have stuff the don't want other's to know?
gak... I don't know how I'm alive with that crap I did...
EDIT: Careful seb... Manny says it may warp your brain...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/20 05:03:05
whembly wrote: Um... wasn't Clinton and Regan like dirt poor growing up?
I think probably because of its emphasis on personal stories as a major part of a politician's platform, the US throws up a pretty remarkable number of rags to riches presidents.
I think when talking about privilege and top tier politics, the point is more that by the time a candidate is able to go for an office of any real standing, even a state representative position, he will have acquired all kinds of political connections and alliances with powerful establishment figures. As such, the idea of an actual outside candidate is a bit of a myth.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
No, I outlined why it's unprincipled. It is, at its core, a choice between doing the right thing or keeping your job. Which one of those is the principled thing to do?
No it isn't. Senators and Representatives are not elected to represent the nation, that isn't how our system works.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The door that he opened 5 years ago saying that outside influence is needed for change? The message that he has been consistent with? That communities have to be engaged and be the force that enacts change? That we are all part of the change instead of some random people in DC. The door that he never closed to begin with?
Honestly, do you even know why you are outraged? Or are you just outraged because people tell you that you should be?
The door that he opened 5 years ago saying that outside influence is needed for change? The message that he has been consistent with? That communities have to be engaged and be the force that enacts change? That we are all part of the change instead of some random people in DC. The door that he never closed to begin with?
Honestly, do you even know why you are outraged? Or are you just outraged because people tell you that you should be?
I'm not outraged...
That comment was perplexing me...
He has ALWAYS stated the he (and "we") would change Washington... right?
That comment he made sounded like he threw in the towel... that's all.
Obama needs to look more into the Libya attack. He's not on the same sheet of music with Carney. Whats this about the ads in Pakistan....
edit
Five years ago I thought it was about Hope and Change....and transparency.....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 04:18:28
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
It's well worth a read.
