Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2014, 05:04:44 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1202
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 23, 2014, 02:51:48 am
I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.

...when you have 60 senators from the majority party, which the Dems enjoyed for like 5 months in 2009. Unsustainable.


Coakley blew it, but in the end MA of all states voted in number 41 Scott Brown to stop the healthcare law. That says that somewhere along the line Democrats screwed up rather badly in the process of forming and passing the law. The size of he majority bred complacency as did the promises of its forty year longevity. They thought they had time to squabble over different components and such forth.

If Obama had started with immigration he would have had it by August of 2009 most likely.

Like I said, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass law is a symptom of a broken government. We have natural swings toward the middle and the party in power is judged by their ability to govern. A President with huge majorities in both houses shouldn't be limited to the first 1.5 initiatives he can accomplish before natural trends reduce the majority to just very large. Remember the impact of Norm Coleman's lawsuit.

I don't expect blue avatars to sympathize with the Dem agenda in 2009 but I hope you'll consider the impact of a majority party being judged on their efficacy by voters when the minority party--in some cases, a minority party reduced to a small regional rump--can exercise a veto and then run against the majority for its inability to govern.

Yes, but with Graham, McCain, Lugar, Bennett, Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, Gregg, Brownback, Martinez, Kyl, Voinovich, Lugar, Specter (who switched of course), there were more then enough votes with all those Democrats to pass amnesty. In our household it was considered a foregone conclusion with no cards left to play to prevent the inevitable. That it didn't happen came as a litteral shock to us all.

Imagine if Republicans had won VA 2006, MT 2006, AK 2008 and MN 2008.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is "Is" a dog whistle? on: November 23, 2014, 02:42:21 am
I am suddenly reminded of George Carlin's 1978 show in Pheonix.

"There is no list.

Okay, here is the list of words Mommy and Daddy don't ever want to hear you say.

Oh gee, thanks Ma, this save me an a--kicking or two.

WHACK!!!!"
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is "Is" a dog whistle? on: November 23, 2014, 02:40:25 am
Might as well be saying the n word Maxwell. You're such a racist. Tongue Wink
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 23, 2014, 02:33:34 am
I am reminded of something Babara Boxer said last week about the Keystone bill in a manner of trying to say something nice but instead managing to insult Mary Landrieu.


Paraphrasing, "The Democrats are a big tent, we have people who represent the 'big-oil agenda', people who are all of the above, and people who fighting for alternative energy..."
5  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: IDS November 2014 Elections on: November 23, 2014, 02:29:38 am
Legislative Ballot (3 Seats to fill)
[ 2 ] Dixie (Fed-TN)
[ 3 ] Yelnoc (Ind-GA)
[ 1 ] Pingvin99 (Fed-TX)
[ 4 ] Mr. X (TPP-FL)
[ 5 ] Write-in:_AHDuke99__________________________
[ 6 ] Write-in:_Jbrase__________________________
[ 7 ] Write-in:_PiT __________________________
[ 8 ] Write-in:_Small L__________________________
[/quote]
6  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: November 23, 2014, 02:24:52 am
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act; 7 Southern Democratic Senators and 1 Southern Democratic member of the House, however, did. In the North, more Republicans voted against the Act than Democrats.

At the end of the day, both a higher percentage of Northern Democrats voted for CRA than Northern Republicans, and a higher percentage of Southern Democrats voted for CRA than Southern Republicans. To simply combine the two groups and aggregate the numbers to fit your point is hilariously foolish from a historical perspective.


You got your numbers flipped in the second to the last paragraph.

To arbitrarily seperate them implies that these Democrats 1) share nothing in common with Democrats and 2) that they all left the Democrating Party and the Democrats abandoned wholesale their values. All were born and most died as the Democrats they were. Most still viewed themselves as fighting for the common man, as Democrats have nearly all agreed upon going back to the days of Jackson. Those that came to be termed as Conservatives/Bourbons embraced the business interests and continued to see the political realm through the lens of the approach versus the objective to be achieved. Those that became Populist/Progressivess/New Dealers emphasized the objective over the means and came to embrace a larger government to help the common folk. They both had in common the racist views dominant at the time. At the end of the day, those Southern Democrats were Democrats even if they were absolutely repulsive to you, they are the reason you have a Democratic Party, a suffrage beyond just the rich, a country beyond just that of the elites, a New Deal, a Great Society, a politics based on advancing those who cannot advance themselves.

Whether they took the off ramp in 1830, 1880, 1930, 1965, 1994, or 2010, they are still etched upon nature and soul of the Democratic Party. The liberalized and helped to Laborize America and you wonder why as they have streamed out of the Party to be replaced by rich pro-choice Republicans and well to do elites, that you now have a Democratic Party that doesn't stand for anything that can motivate even its new base to turn out. In rejecting their flaws, it seems something else has been thrown out with the bathwater as well.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Paul Davis should run for Senate against Jerry Moran on: November 23, 2014, 02:07:28 am
Quote
Greg Orman: Despite Obama’s action, real immigration reform remains in the future
No Kidding!

Quote
understand that impulse. And while I agree with the policy objectives represented by comprehensive immigration reform

Thank God for Pat Roberts.

Quote
an executive order that can be undone by the next president doesn’t provide the certainty that undocumented workers and businesses need.


You don't say.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 23, 2014, 02:01:06 am
Two more Webb nuggets: He apparently refused to "shake John Kerry's hand for 20 years" because of Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities, though did end up voting for him in 2004:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801994.html

And on climate change:

http://grist.org/politics/jim-webb-sucks-on-climate-change/

Quote
When he served in the Senate, Webb was a “climate curmudgeon,” as Kate Sheppard put it in Mother Jones. “A moderate, coal-state Democrat … Webb has emerged as a major pain in the @ss for Democratic leaders on climate issues.” In 2008, when public concern for climate change was at a high point, Webb told Politico that he didn’t think reducing emissions was a priority. “We need to be able to address a national energy strategy and then try to work on environmental efficiencies as part of that plan,” Webb said. “We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.”


Considering we had $4.00 a gallon gas, persuing anything other then investment in efficiency and alterantives was a mistake and the focus should have been to short term to alleviate that cost by boosting production (which in hindsight was not the impossibility people thought it was then), with efficiency in the pipeline medium term and alternatives ready to be deployed when such regulations came to be long term.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 23, 2014, 01:55:29 am
I want to like Webb, but I'm not sure I can vote for him.  I can post a link later if anyone's interested, but I believe I once read that he's written some pretty sketchy stuff about the the run-up to the Civil War and the Confederacy (including that he was at least somewhat supportive of "popular sovergnity" and implying that the South had a right to secede, IIRC).  I hope it was distorted or taken out-of-context somehow because as I said earlier, there is a lot to like about Webb.  However, if the article was right, then that's a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I do recall that as well regarding the right to secede.

What do you think of Webb? He seems like a Democrat you would like and respect, if not necessarily ote for.

Why, in your opinion, does he seem that way? What makes him seem to be someone I would respect? Not that I am expressing doubt, just genuinely curious here.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary advisor: Bush-Portman ticket could doom Dems in 2016 on: November 23, 2014, 01:52:28 am
So we know who not to run in 2016 then.


11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Vermont go Republican in 2016? on: November 23, 2014, 01:50:32 am
I will say this, Vermont could be closer then expected depending on the candidates.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Vermont go Republican in 2016? on: November 23, 2014, 01:49:49 am
Ahhhhhhhh...



...yes. Tongue

Sorry, couldn't resist. Wink
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Bob Dole on Immigration in 1996 on: November 23, 2014, 01:45:21 am
Another question, why did Asians vote for Bob Dole, when Romney got butched amongst the same group ostensibly because of immigration?

1996 Asians were likely more heavily weighted towards Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian immigrants who were more disposed to Republicans because of lingering Cold War issues.

Asians didn't just dislike Romney because of immigration; they were turned off by a party that is increasingly anti-intellectual and prone to rhetoric that implies "their kind" are not welcome to be part of America's cultural patchwork.

Yes, but 25% difference? Has the Asian community really diversified that much in sixteen years? Also Romney did horribly amongst those same groups that apparently didn't mind the allegedly likewise anti-immigrant Bob Dole.

Exactly, I mentioned Todd Akin in aprevious post, but that was more symbolic in terms of the impact I was referring to, more generalized than just that one instance obviously.
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Paul Davis should run for Senate against Jerry Moran on: November 23, 2014, 01:39:31 am
FWIW, I got an email in my inbox from Greg Orman discussing Obama/immigration.

Yep, then I proceeded to unsubscribe.

What did it say?
15  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Paul Davis should run for Senate against Jerry Moran on: November 23, 2014, 01:37:38 am
Yea, he might actually get 35% instead of 25%-30%.
16  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Debating) on: November 22, 2014, 10:38:06 am
Would you be interesting in a staged process? You sell it to NATO and hold what you don't sell for a defined period of time, at which point if there are no takers you scrap it and use the scrap value for this program.
17  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2014 Senate results by CD on: November 22, 2014, 10:35:08 am
The second, seventh and fourth just make me sick. The first is probably even worse.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 22, 2014, 10:25:11 am
I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.

...when you have 60 senators from the majority party, which the Dems enjoyed for like 5 months in 2009. Unsustainable.


Coakley blew it, but in the end MA of all states voted in number 41 Scott Brown to stop the healthcare law. That says that somewhere along the line Democrats screwed up rather badly in the process of forming and passing the law. The size of he majority bred complacency as did the promises of its forty year longevity. They thought they had time to squabble over different components and such forth.

If Obama had started with immigration he would have had it by August of 2009 most likely.
19  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: November 22, 2014, 10:03:51 am
A much better thread title would be that apathy powered the Republican triumph. And if anything, the election shows that this tactic of defining Republicans as racist et al isn't enough to get them out to vote, not when they expected results and didn't get it. NC demonstrates that more than any other state.

Culture defines the limits of what a person is willing to vote for (a swing vote is merely that narrow tract that can decided between the two) in a polarized environment, but votes are still won and lost at the kitchen table and there is always a second option even if it means not voting.
20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2014 Senate results by CD on: November 22, 2014, 10:02:51 am
I cannot describe just how ugly I find this map.
21  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: November 22, 2014, 09:58:15 am
I hate to bump this, but I just noticed so much nonsense that I couldn't resist.

So you need six seats to win the majority, you win nine, three out of which are in the South (Confederacy defined) and it is because South is racist that Democrats lost the Senate?

Sure. The Republican electorate of this country nowadays is for all intents and purposes part of the South, because their present-day ideology has been irreversibly shaped by the dominance of Southerners in the Republican Party and its media. Southern culture as a whole is now altering the entire country's culture (much more so than vice-versa) as we become a larger share of the nation; why on God's green earth would that not apply to the politics of the region's dominant party? As I'm sure I don't have to tell you, there was a time in which Republicans from the North varied considerably from Republicans in the South and Republicans in the West; this really is no longer the case by and large (I'm talking about the electorate here, so please don't go into giving examples like Charlie Baker to refute). Republicans in Iowa and Colorado now respond in the same way to dog-whistling tactics as Republicans in Alabama respond to them. The Republican Party's belief system has been nationalized, and the Republican Party is now Southern.

I don't disagree with much in your post so I am at a loss as to your point. There has always been a degree of racism in the Midwest and West as well as the South and even the Northeast (Why Mecha, why?), but unless you think Conservatism is entirely underpinned by racism, it is hard to claim that it drove the bulk of Republican successes outside of those states that trended away from Obama (WV, LA, AR etc), anymore then it drove 2014 any other Republican victory going back for the last four decades and maybe you do.

Racism comes from a traditionalist mindset and so they would be naturally attracted to a Conservative Party over a liberal one, particularly over one that long ago cease to be marginally any better than the other in representing their economic interests. However, as long as the person they are voting for knows what they are fighting for and why, those voter's racism doesn't suddenly invalidate legitimate conservative points and ideology. You can play out this game to its furthest extent that you want and turn every conservative slogan into a dog whistle, but Conservatism isn't going to just disappear and the country will be all the worse for it being further divided. You would also be torturing yourself for with a two party system, "The Devil" is going to win sooner or later and to some exten I agree with Jon Stewart, in that you shouldn't demonize everything.

Plus in labeling everything as racist, you devalue the meaning of what true racism really is and run the risk of it being normalized behavior amongst a larger percentage of the population as opposed to the slow decline one could argue has been occuring over the past several decades, which I think is more what everyone desires.

I don't need to remind you also, that as the South grows it is changing and at a rapid pace. The Republican Party adapted its issue focus to cater to the South, ironically as a means to preserve itself as a conservative party and they tolerated far too much in the way of Helms, Thurmond etc to get there. The alterantive was somehow for a split to occur and with each party taking half of the racists and for two decades that was the case more or less, but you aren't going to just drop them in the ocean and if you don't want them as Democrats they are going to be Republicans (again two party system). At that point our only recourse is communication, education and eventually, generational change and that has done wonders over the decades to reduce their number.  Let that process of attrition continue.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who are the ten best Senators in America? on: November 22, 2014, 01:24:08 am
Moran - Called it Tongue
Burr - Yes, I am entitled to be biased
Toomey - Same but it can be justified more here.
Paul - He has impressed me in a lot of ways
Barasso - Generic Conservative who doesn't cause problems and votes the right way on what I care about
Risch - same
Roberts - same
Crapo - same
Sessions - I don't agree with him 100%, but he is the only one occupying the message space that some Democrats did in 2007 and it needs to be present in the conversation.
Portman I guess

Sullivan, Ernst, Cotton, Gardner and Capito have a good chance of making it on here next year.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 22, 2014, 01:10:31 am
I want to like Webb, but I'm not sure I can vote for him.  I can post a link later if anyone's interested, but I believe I once read that he's written some pretty sketchy stuff about the the run-up to the Civil War and the Confederacy (including that he was at least somewhat supportive of "popular sovergnity" and implying that the South had a right to secede, IIRC).  I hope it was distorted or taken out-of-context somehow because as I said earlier, there is a lot to like about Webb.  However, if the article was right, then that's a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned.

Yes I do recall that as well regarding the right to secede.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who are the ten worst Senators in America? on: November 22, 2014, 12:59:59 am
Reid, Inhofe, McCain, Murkowski, Cruz, Schumer, Hagan, Casey, Graham, and I guess Menendez
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb launches exploratory committee! on: November 22, 2014, 12:53:31 am
Webb can have some appeal but he is going to have to deal with a couple of issues. One is that he voted against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, essentially being the deciding vote killing the Bill (which puts him to the right of GW Bush). The other is that he has spoken out against affirmative action.

Deciding vote?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00235

Vote Counts: YEAs 46
 NAYs 53
 Not Voting 1

It couldn't even get a majority.

And Webb was hardly alone amongs Democrats:
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1202


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines