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.
2015/09/29 21:42:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BrotherGecko wrote: I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
It doesn't help that the biggest thing moderate voters do in America every election is stay home. Most of America does in fact. Which also helps explain why the average person hates politics so much, since they are probably part of the majority that stays home.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/29 21:48:33
2015/09/29 22:00:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BrotherGecko wrote: I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
It doesn't help that the biggest thing moderate voters do in America every election is stay home. Most of America does in fact. Which also helps explain why the average person hates politics so much, since they are probably part of the majority that stays home.
I think there's also something to be said for the money that is flooding into elections, especially since Citizens' United. People who do get out to vote are probably more likely to vote for the "face" they've seen most often, in the most positive light.
2015/09/29 23:52:10
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
/snip A whole bunch of the pot calling the kettle black, along with just enough truth mixed in with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in order to stir the pot to stroke his ego.
I couldn't even make it 25% of the way through that transcript before I could feel my blood pressure rising and had to stop, because I fething loath and despise Ted Cruz more than anyone else in Washington right now.
BrotherGecko wrote: I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
It doesn't help that the biggest thing moderate voters do in America every election is stay home. Most of America does in fact. Which also helps explain why the average person hates politics so much, since they are probably part of the majority that stays home.
George Carlin would disagree with you about blaming the non-voters: (NSFW for language, because George Carlin, duh)
Spoiler:
If anything, the real problem isn't the people who don't vote, or even, in general, the people who do vote. The problem is the uninformed people who vote. The people who blindly tick off all the R or D boxes without even looking at the names first. The people who live only in the R or D echo chambers, who take for gospel truth everything they see on Fox News or MSNBC (that's the opposite of Fox News, right?). The people who don't care about what may actually be truth, but only care about what already confirms their own beliefs or agitates their fears.
And the problem is that the uninformed far outnumber the informed.
But the political parties have no interest in creating informed voters, because that does not benefit the political machine. Uninformed voters are the cogs that keep that Rube Goldberg contraption going.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think there's also something to be said for the money that is flooding into elections, especially since Citizens' United. People who do get out to vote are probably more likely to vote for the "face" they've seen most often, in the most positive light.
Many times, it's not the face they see most often, but the face they think looks better. I had seen a report some years ago where people were shown the official campaign photos of various politicians (local level people from other states so the people surveyed wouldn't recognize them) and asked which one they thought looked better. Most of the time, the one people said looked better was the one that had won their election.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/29 23:54:36
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/09/29 23:56:52
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
/snip A whole bunch of the pot calling the kettle black, along with just enough truth mixed in with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in order to stir the pot to stroke his ego.
Could not agree more.
the catastrophic Iran nuclear deal
was a good one, considering nothing catastrophic has happened as a result of it. Also,
His colleagues refused to allow him the courtesy of a roll-call vote on his motion
you're saying he isn't being allowed to make the senate vote whenever he wants on whatever he wants? The horror! How will he survive in this undemocratic pit of vipers?
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2015/09/30 01:50:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: Particular when this Pope's approval rating is at least 3-4 times that of Congress's.
The irony is that people love the Pope for saying lots and doing nothing. But hate congress for doing the exact same
“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.
2015/09/30 02:01:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: Particular when this Pope's approval rating is at least 3-4 times that of Congress's.
The irony is that people love the Pope for saying lots and doing nothing. But hate congress for doing the exact same
To be fair, that's mainly the Pope's job, he's not really there to craft and pass legislation of a large nation (what he is responsible for is a few small acres). He's there to be a an inspirational figure & spokesman for a religion.
Last time Pope's went out and "did things" we got Papal armies and Inquisitions. Congress however is *supposed* to do things
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/09/30 02:08:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: And lets be honest about it. If the congress critters pass a budget or continuing resolution defunding planned parenthood but paying for most of everything else the Pres wants, Obama COULD sign it. Instead, you expect the Rs to sell out their principles and will get shrill over it yet demand Obama sticks to his even at the cost of a shut down. In the end, it is Obama's choice to shut it down or not.
Oh look, this again. And here's the reply, again.
If I take a hostage and say I'll shoot them unless you give me a million dollars, I am the one taking the hostage. Just me. Other people can call my bluff or give in, but at the end of the day I'm the one with the hostage.
And on an issue as stupidly minor as Planned Parenthood, it isn't even like the Republican party is asking for a million dollars. It's more like a meth-addict asking for $50 and some McNuggets.
Fun fact: The speaker doesn't need to be current elected Representative.
Shall we begin with Speaker Trump?
Yeah, I read that too. It's my new favourite fact
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'.
Uh, no. The power of the purse can't override veto. That makes no fething sense.
The clue is in the name, purse strings. String allows you to pull back, to restrain. So Congress can deny funding to contain presidential action. But string is very useless for pushing, and the purse strings can't be used to push anything on the president.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: You know thats the very definition of "power of the purse". Something that was deliberately given to Congress. You may not like a shutdown, I don't think anyone likes them, but the ability and power to cause them is 100% intentional.
Actually, no. Not really even very close.
The power of the purse is for specific actions. Don't like the president's overseas military adventure, then you don't fund it. But threatening to shut down all of government over one single thing was never the intention.
Because people used to understand government stability was actually a good thing. This new era of Republicans, though, they aren't just incapable of steady government, they actively reject the idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Guys... does Obama bear any faults? Any at all?
Obama has done plenty wrong. But we hardly ever get to talk about that because there's a bunch of complete and total fething lunatics over on the side calling themselves the Republican party.
It's like if I'd just taken way too much prescription medicine and passed out in my own vomit, that's pretty bad. But when there's a guy over on the other side of the room who's in the midst of an incredible acid trip, and he's flinging his poo at people and trying to eat his own flesh, well then my own prescription medicine binge just doesn't really rate a mention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Twelve months ago, could you fathom Trump doing this well? Seriously? Holy gak that's awesome and we can sit here deliberating why in the hell this is happening. I think we all know that Trump is a terrible candidate and would be an awful President (he has thinner skin that Obama for cripes sake!). So why... why is this happening.
All you have to do is look at any polling numbers on Congress for the last decade or so... it's epically bad.
So, Trump isn't leading the pack because he's such an awesome candidate and is reflective on what GOP voters want... he's leading because folks are more vocal now about how anti-establishment they are now... it seems to be the only way to get the established GOPers to fething listen to their constituents. Hence, there's many on the righty-blogersphere who subscribe to the "Let It Burn" tactic... by doing whatever necessary to vote for the "not GOP preferred candidate" to send a message. It might just happen.
There's a pretty old observation that whenever the other side has a problem, that's their problem, but when your own side has a problem, that reflects on all politicians.
I think I've just seen that logic stretched to justify a terrible candidate in one side's primary campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Again... I'm gonna call BS that Obama is a Republican being right of center.
It's a weird defense, as if it's a bad thing to be liberal.
No, it's just a counter to the argument that he's some kind of crazy socialist. It's independent of whether someone might want a more liberal or a less liberal candidate, it's a statement of fething fact.
Anyhow, look at your own link. He's left liberal than Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, or Truman. You counter this by saying that you believe that once his term is ended that will change. That's about the most perfect example of wishful thinking I've seen.
It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).
What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.
Yeah, it's sort of showing the Trump method, take the standard Republican plan, and make it extreme and very Trumpy.
As for the actual budget, it's pretty much the same as every Republican budget (well, except for the truly, deeply crazy budgets, ie flat tax). There's some good stuff in there, especially raising the zero tax bracket, and removing a lot of the deductions. But then it squanders that good stuff by pushing in to crazyland, cutting overall taxes way too much and then saying it will all be okay because we will grow fast enough to afford this. The result is the effect is certain to be many trillions added to the debt.
And so, like all Republican budgets since 2000, it makes it pretty obvious that the Republican concern about deficits was all pretend, but then anyone that cared knew that was pretty obvious already.
My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!
Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING?
It's tax policy. It just talks about tax changes. Spending changes are dealt with in their own policies, or in consolidated budget policies.
No, there's no love or hate. Cruz is ridiculous, has no interest in being anything but ridiculous. We need to just shake our heads and move on. But that can't happen because people keep pretending there's something to the guy that makes any kind of sense.
I mean, fething hell, how transparently ridiculous is this?
"Over and over again, the American people win elections. In 2010, a tidal wave election. In 2014, a tidal wave election. And yet, nothing changes in Washington."
Let's just put that in slightly different language;
"The people have spoken and they demand that Republican policies are met. It's clear if you look at the 2014 and 2010 elections. Admittedly you have to ignore 2012, 2008 and 2006, in which the people spoke and demanded a completely opposite set of policies. But still, I'm going to ignore those elections. Because I don't give a gak about reality, and nor does my voting base."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: The plan is gakiy because it raises taxes on the poor (notice the part about getting rid of exemptions, etc) and it continues the misinformation that the tax code is incredibly complex. For 90% of people, it's pretty simple. It's only complex if you are doing weird things or had your lobbyists get special stuff put in for you.
Sort of. Taxes can be very simple, and it certainly isn't the number of tax brackets that makes it tricky.
But the US tax code is pretty incredibly obtuse, especially if you're in business. There's a mess of special exemptions and allowances with almost no consistency between. I see if I can find it, but there's a tax body that publishes a review of tax codes around the world, and ranks them for good they are for business. The US ranks terribly each year, not because of the rate of tax, but because the cost of compliance is so high.
As a comparison, here in Australia there's a very simple basic concept. Any income you earned from any source, that gets added up. Then any expense you had that was incurred in order to earn income, that gets taken off. That final figure is your taxable income. There's a bunch of special rules for other circumstances, but they operate on the same basic principle. The end result is that even if you don't know exactly how something works, you can normally guess pretty accurately.
That doesn't exist in the US. Not even close. A consolidation of the whole system has been due for a few decades now, but decent reform is probably less likely than it's ever been. Republicans can't understand taxes in any context but tax cuts, and Democrats are not the party you turn to if you want consolidation and streamlining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, that's mainly the Pope's job, he's not really there to craft and pass legislation of a large nation (what he is responsible for is a few small acres). He's there to be a an inspirational figure & spokesman for a religion.
Last time Pope's went out and "did things" we got Papal armies and Inquisitions. Congress however is *supposed* to do things
Of course, I'm not blaming the Pope for doing nothing. Just saying that really, the relative popularity is more a product of what job the Pope is in relative to congress, than any inherent qualities in either the Pope or the people in congress.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2015/09/30 03:25:03
“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.
2015/09/30 11:46:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'.
Uh, no. The power of the purse can't override veto. That makes no fething sense.
The clue is in the name, purse strings. String allows you to pull back, to restrain. So Congress can deny funding to contain presidential action. But string is very useless for pushing, and the purse strings can't be used to push anything on the president.
Where did I say the power of the purse overrides a POTUS veto? What I (correctly said) is that POTUS doesn't get to dictate what is in the budget.
This shouldn't be hard for you. Presidents doesn't write the budgets. The congress critters in the House do. If they decide not to include funding for something, POTUS can throw a hissy fit all he wants. If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/30 13:07:16
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
If anything, the real problem isn't the people who don't vote, or even, in general, the people who do vote. The problem is the uninformed people who vote. The people who blindly tick off all the R or D boxes without even looking at the names first. The people who live only in the R or D echo chambers, who take for gospel truth everything they see on Fox News or MSNBC (that's the opposite of Fox News, right?). The people who don't care about what may actually be truth, but only care about what already confirms their own beliefs or agitates their fears.
And the problem is that the uninformed far outnumber the informed.
But the political parties have no interest in creating informed voters, because that does not benefit the political machine. Uninformed voters are the cogs that keep that Rube Goldberg contraption going.
Sorry to shatter your narrative there but it is not like every uninformed voter out there is a partisan and all the informed ones are moderate. There are plenty of moderate and non voters in America that are complete morons when it comes to politics. There are also some well informed partisan voters out there that probably understand politics better than you or I do. These people understand both major parties and picked to support the party that agrees with them, and has the values that they have. They also probably understand that politics is a team sport.
Don't just assume that people vote R or D down the line because they are uninformed.
Edit: Also I will see your George Carlin and raise you a Bill Maher (NSFW)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/09/30 14:36:22
2015/09/30 13:51:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If all Congress does is refuse to include a particular item in the budget, then it is deliberately avoiding the issue while attempting to push blame to the President.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/09/30 14:14:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Could anybody answer this quick question: I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment (fascinating subject) and I was wondering if SCOTUS' ruling on the Heller case could be overturned by SCOTUS in the future?
Or is that set in stone?
Thanks.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/09/30 14:18:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It's possible. Not any time soon, but possible. Perception on the 2nd has changed greatly through the years, and it may eventually get to the point where the supreme court does rule that way.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2015/09/30 14:24:55
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's possible. Not any time soon, but possible. Perception on the 2nd has changed greatly through the years, and it may eventually get to the point where the supreme court does rule that way.
I've always loved my American history (never a dull minute) but even I didn't realise how fascinatingly complex the whole history/politics of the 2nd is.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/09/30 15:13:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If all Congress does is refuse to include a particular item in the budget, then it is deliberately avoiding the issue while attempting to push blame to the President.
It is specifically Congress' job to decide what is in the budget, what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. That's what a budget is, after all. If Congress does their job and creates and passes a budget, then they've done their job. If the President chooses to veto that budget, that's on the President. If the President chooses to veto the budget that got passed by Congress then it behooves the President to have the ability to convince Congress to pass a budget he won't veto because the lack of a budget is due to the Presidential veto. If the President uses hisveto power to try to force Congress to pass a budget that the duly elected Congress doesn't want to pass or the govt will shut down due to the lack of a budget then it is the President that is taking the hostage.
Congress' budget is the product of hundreds of people elected by their constituents across the country reaching a consensus, the President cherry picking programs that have to be funded or he'll veto the budget causing a govt shut down is political hostage taking. Once the budget is passed by Congress it has been approved by a majority of the representatives of the people. In this instance it is the President stating that all those representatives and by extension their constituents are wrong and the budget has to be what he personally wants or nothing.
If a majority of the electorate doesn't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded then it should be very difficult or impossible for Congress to pass a budget that defunds Planned Parenthood because doing so would cause many of the representatives who voted for it to lose their re-election bids. The power of the purse was given to the legislative branch with this intent, to allow the will of the people to hold govt accountable and keep unpopular actions and programs in check. The voters are supposed to hold their representatives accountable for their votes therefore preventing unpopular legislation from being passed and making sure that constiuents interests are protected. If the President was supposed to have final say on the budget then the constitution wouldn't have given Congress the power to write the budget and the power to overcome a Presidential veto.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/09/30 15:21:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What's also interesting, is that more people would be blaming the R's for a shutdown, and less blaming Obama, than last time (where they actually had a much better case that it was all their fault).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2015/09/30 15:33:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's possible. Not any time soon, but possible. Perception on the 2nd has changed greatly through the years, and it may eventually get to the point where the supreme court does rule that way.
I've always loved my American history (never a dull minute) but even I didn't realise how fascinatingly complex the whole history/politics of the 2nd is.
Sometime in the future you might see another challenge to the Heller case but it would have to be brought by the municipal govt of DC and it would have to be appealed up to SCOTUS and chosen to be heard by SCOTUS. The Heller case essentially struck down the ability of the District of Columbia to enact a de facto ban on private firearm ownership that was in obvious conflict with the 2nd amendment. The District of Columbia was basically told that it's system for allowing residents to obtain a handgun permit had to actually work and allow qualifying citizens to own handguns if they chose to own one. So even if the Heller case was reversed it would have a limited impact on the 2nd because DC is a unique entity. Multiple states already have firearm ownership rights written in their state constitutions and state laws. For instance Florida is a shall issue state for concealed carry permits. There's really no way for somebody to create a case that would get appealed to SCOTUS to somehow rule that Florida's firearm ownership laws are somehow unconstitutional regardless of how the future SCOTUS viewed the meaning of the 2nd. You would really need to have the 2nd repealed and a new amendment with a diametrically opposed meaning to give grounds for challenging permissive state firearm laws as being unconstitutionally permissive. That particular scenario is probably too remote of a possibility to consider seriously.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/09/30 15:36:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
/snip A whole bunch of the pot calling the kettle black, along with just enough truth mixed in with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in order to stir the pot to stroke his ego.
I couldn't even make it 25% of the way through that transcript before I could feel my blood pressure rising and had to stop, because I fething loath and despise Ted Cruz more than anyone else in Washington right now.
Then you missed the "red meat".
Sure, he's bitching and moaning about the Obama/Democrat's policies... that's his standard shtick. Had you read more, he's eviscerated the Republican Leadership on the Senate Floor.
And you know what? He's right that the Republican Leadership has capitulated to Obama and Democrat's demands...
*THATS* part of the reason why Trump/Carson/Fiorina is doing so well at this stage imo. When those candidates eventually drops out, Cruz is trying to position himself towards those supporters.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/30 15:40:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What's also interesting, is that more people would be blaming the R's for a shutdown, and less blaming Obama, than last time (where they actually had a much better case that it was all their fault).
Yeah, this whole Planned Parenthood funding debate is putting the cart before the horse. We need to wait and see what budget actually gets passed by Congress before we can even make an educated guess as to whether or not Obama will veto it and if Congress had the votes to over ride the veto. Congress exists to manifest the will of the people and the budget, like all the other legislation they pass, should be a reflection of that will.
Of course, I recognize that unfortunately in our current state of politics that the representatives in Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!) and that the people tend to do a poor job of holding their representatives accountable (everyone disaproves of Congress but incumbents keep getting re-elected). The system doesn't always work the way it was intended to work but it's still the system we have.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/09/30 15:42:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Buy votes... what?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/30 15:47:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Buy votes... what?
Citizens' United.
2015/09/30 15:55:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Buy votes... what?
Citizens' United.
Uh...
That wasn't a special interest group buying their votes.
That was about a moviecritical of Hillary Clinton.
Fun fact about that case: The Government Attorney actually argued that the Government *could* legally burn books.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/30 16:08:38
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Buy votes... what?
In McCutcheaon vs FEC SCOTUS ruled that it's illegal for the govt to limit political speech by limiting how much money a person can donate to a politican because even if a donor gives massive amounts of money and gains "incluence over or access to" public officals it doesn't qualify as a specific quid pro quo instance of corruption.
CptJake wrote: If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If all Congress does is refuse to include a particular item in the budget, then it is deliberately avoiding the issue while attempting to push blame to the President.
Explain how they would be 'avoiding the issue'.
It seems to me by deliberately leaving out something they don't want funded they have addressed the issue straight on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/30 16:09:43
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/30 16:10:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
2015/09/30 16:16:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It seems to me by deliberately leaving out something they don't want funded they have addressed the issue straight on.
Addressing the issue would involve working on legislation which eliminates the relevant portion of government. Defunding the portion, but leaving in place the legislation which establishes it avoids the issue.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/09/30 16:18:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
If you mean buying the votes of the electorate then yeah, Citizens United pretty much instituted unlimited spending on political ads but in terms of buying the vote of the representative in Congress, the case you want to cite is McCutcheon.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/09/30 16:20:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
