Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery.
You're defining legal bribery as a rep getting something they want out of a deal.
Compromise means both parties get something out of a deal.
Therefore you've defined compromise as inherently bribery.
This is goosiest thing you could have written.
I mean, yes, if we just redefine things so that they mean something else then logically that makes an argument winning claim. But do we really want to potato cask petunias?
Can you explain how this doesn't follow from what spool wrote? I see this as an accurate descriptor of his opinion.
You used a definition of compromise so broadly construed as to be meaningless?
I mean what you just described encompasses everything from me buying a gallon of milk to racketeering. In the first case I get milk and the grocery store gets money. I want milk more than I want $2, and they want money more than milk so we both get something out of the deal. Yay compromise! In the second case I get to keep functional kneecaps and the mafia gets money. I want to be able to walk more than I want $2k, and they want money more than they want to assault me so we both walk out of the deal with something we want. Yay compromise?
The Tea Party wing would consider taking earmarks a heresy.
There are three parties in the House. ~200 "GOP", ~188 Dems, and the remainder is the Tea Party. Boehner has had to use the GOP/Dem alliance to get the must pass bills done, even though they are functionally allied to the Tea Party. The Tea Partiers have their own fundraising arm, media arm, and "policy" groups. The Tea Party representatives seem to understand that they are a minority kingmaker party and act the part. I don't know if the "GOP" party understands the situation.
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery.
You're defining legal bribery as a rep getting something they want out of a deal.
Compromise means both parties get something out of a deal.
Therefore you've defined compromise as inherently bribery.
This is goosiest thing you could have written.
I mean, yes, if we just redefine things so that they mean something else then logically that makes an argument winning claim. But do we really want to potato cask petunias?
Can you explain how this doesn't follow from what spool wrote? I see this as an accurate descriptor of his opinion.
You used a definition of compromise so broadly construed as to be meaningless?
I mean what you just described encompasses everything from me buying a gallon of milk to racketeering. In the first case I get milk and the grocery store gets money. I want milk more than I want $2, and they want money more than milk so we both get something out of the deal. Yay compromise! In the second case I get to keep functional kneecaps and the mafia gets money. I want to be able to walk more than I want $2k, and they want money more than they want to assault me so we both walk out of the deal with something we want. Yay compromise?
Ok, but we're talking about congress. There the definition is much more restricted.
It's really not though. I stand by what I said as a general statement about the republican party, and so the House in general. They have a substantial minority who view compromise as immoral, and so are pushing the House in general to stand against compromise. That's why Boehner is resigning, and it's why they can't find a replacement, because everyone who actually understands the process knows that compromise is inevitable. Fighting against earmarks is just one way of eliminating the possibility of compromise.
It's not dumping on spool to note that what he said, and the position he took, is exactly what is leading the House down this road.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Can we at least not dump all over spool no matter how passive-aggressive he may have been?
It's hard enough tying earmarks int a topic about Boehner resigning.
What this guy said.
He is as correct as his name is seasonally festive.
Less passive aggressive sniping and earmarks discussion please.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
I consider earmarks to be a useful check on the Executive/civil service and formula funding when used appropriately. When used inappropriately then they are terrible. But the same can be said about literally every aspect of governance. I'm glad eminent domain gave me a faster commute. I hate that it put a coal plant across from my dad's desk and let ComEd give out higher dividends in the process. Should we eliminate eminent domain because of how it has been abused? Or should we retain it and put stronger ethics requirements on its use? The same for earmarks.
But, again, the issues that the House is facing (and Senate to a lesser extent) has very little to nothing to do with earmarks. The problem is a fractured majority that cannot control enough of its members to effectively govern on its own. 'Giving' those 40 guys in the caucus a new bridge or something isn't going to change their minds about the list of demands that they want to have happen. It's just not. They want to run the House regardless of how many votes they have. Even though that is not how democracy works. That is the problem. Earmarks don't address it.
Which is the whole problem with the Speakership and the replacement for Boehner. Because the party as it exists is currently ungovernable because the leadership seems to be incapable of, well, leading because they can't exercise any control over their own members. Which is both why Boehner wants out and why no one wants his old job.
Earmarks were a carrot, but you also need a stick and the GOP just doesn't seem to have any sort of stick right now. And without that, they cannot govern. And the US system doesn't really have any easy way to deal with this unfortunately.
And that Freedom Caucus purity test questionnaire was demanding any potential candidate for Speaker agree to burn all his sticks before they'd support him.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
The Weekly Sift has a very thoughtful synopsis of the mess in the house. The worrisome part of it is his conclusion, though:
So it’s not about personalities or trust or being “one of us”. The next time the Tea Party tries to hold the country hostage, they don’t want the Speaker to tell them no. It doesn’t matter whether the “no” comes from John Boehner or Paul Ryan or even Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan. Who doesn’t matter. They want a commitment that the next speaker will shoot the hostages.
I don’t think they’ll get it. (I think that’s what Kevin McCarthy meant when he told National Review that HFC members “wanted things I couldn’t deliver”.) If they stick to their guns — and so far I don’t see any reason to think they won’t — then I don’t see anything moving until we get close to November 5, when Democrats and the Republican establishment will have to unite against them, either to elect a new speaker or to back Boehner’s debt-ceiling resolution.
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
That's an angle I hadn't thought of - force the more moderate Republicans to make the decision to not burn the place to the ground, then beat them over the head with it.
There's apparently a chance Paul Ryan would accept being speaker if he had 100% of the House Republicans behind him completely, and no one made him sign on to any of those ridiculous freedom caucus stipulations.
The Weekly Sift has a very thoughtful synopsis of the mess in the house. The worrisome part of it is his conclusion, though:
So it’s not about personalities or trust or being “one of us”. The next time the Tea Party tries to hold the country hostage, they don’t want the Speaker to tell them no. It doesn’t matter whether the “no” comes from John Boehner or Paul Ryan or even Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan. Who doesn’t matter. They want a commitment that the next speaker will shoot the hostages.
I don’t think they’ll get it. (I think that’s what Kevin McCarthy meant when he told National Review that HFC members “wanted things I couldn’t deliver”.) If they stick to their guns — and so far I don’t see any reason to think they won’t — then I don’t see anything moving until we get close to November 5, when Democrats and the Republican establishment will have to unite against them, either to elect a new speaker or to back Boehner’s debt-ceiling resolution.
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
That's an angle I hadn't thought of - force the more moderate Republicans to make the decision to not burn the place to the ground, then beat them over the head with it.
This evinces an intelligence I sincerely doubt the Freedom Caucus has.
Frankly that should be a demand of any speaker candidate, total fealty from the caucus, or at least 218 of them, with the option that the caucus can re-elect them after the next election (or throw them out as the case may be).
So at this point the Republican Party is Cersei and the Freedom Caucus are the Sparrows.
That has unfortunate implications for Boehner's walk of shame when he finally does step down.
I continue to be amazing at analogies.
I would personally be fine with someone walking behind boehner ringing a bell and shouting Shame! Shame!
But even though on some level you wanted to see this happen, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth because you know they're being punished for what you perceive as the wrong reasons!
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
So at this point the Republican Party is Cersei and the Freedom Caucus are the Sparrows.
That has unfortunate implications for Boehner's walk of shame when he finally does step down.
I continue to be amazing at analogies.
I would personally be fine with someone walking behind boehner ringing a bell and shouting Shame! Shame!
But even though on some level you wanted to see this happen, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth because you know they're being punished for what you perceive as the wrong reasons!
The Weekly Sift has a very thoughtful synopsis of the mess in the house. The worrisome part of it is his conclusion, though:
So it’s not about personalities or trust or being “one of us”. The next time the Tea Party tries to hold the country hostage, they don’t want the Speaker to tell them no. It doesn’t matter whether the “no” comes from John Boehner or Paul Ryan or even Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan. Who doesn’t matter. They want a commitment that the next speaker will shoot the hostages.
I don’t think they’ll get it. (I think that’s what Kevin McCarthy meant when he told National Review that HFC members “wanted things I couldn’t deliver”.) If they stick to their guns — and so far I don’t see any reason to think they won’t — then I don’t see anything moving until we get close to November 5, when Democrats and the Republican establishment will have to unite against them, either to elect a new speaker or to back Boehner’s debt-ceiling resolution.
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
That's an angle I hadn't thought of - force the more moderate Republicans to make the decision to not burn the place to the ground, then beat them over the head with it.
This evinces an intelligence I sincerely doubt the Freedom Caucus has.
Really? I don't think so. It's basically right out of these guy's very simple playbook. Demand insane things and primary anyone that doesn't fall in line.
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
I have yet to see anything from Tea Party candidates, major backers, or voters that leads me to believe they're capable of this kind of forward planning. Near as I can tell they are a wrecking ball of hate drunkenly swinging from one pet issue to the next. They don't live in reality and they probably couldn't even cogently explain what they're so pissed off about because I don't think they themselves even know.
I did see over the weekend though that the freedom caucus has begun signaling they would back Ryan, except he would have to agree to all the changes they want that make it easier for newby members to wreak havoc with the party.
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
I have yet to see anything from Tea Party candidates, major backers, or voters that leads me to believe they're capable of this kind of forward planning. Near as I can tell they are a wrecking ball of hate drunkenly swinging from one pet issue to the next. They don't live in reality and they probably couldn't even cogently explain what they're so pissed off about because I don't think they themselves even know.
I did see over the weekend though that the freedom caucus has begun signaling they would back Ryan, except he would have to agree to all the changes they want that make it easier for newby members to wreak havoc with the party.
Their backers wanted them to help the GOP cause, not hijack it. Or at least initially, i don't know where the money's coming from now.
The big question is, "What is the establishment going to do now that they realize the infection and the damage it's going to do?" You can only ride the tiger so long before it eats you. It's one thing to be conservative and hold those beliefs, it's another altogether to be an arsonist. So, what is the GOP response to being taken over?
The big question is, "What is the establishment going to do now that they realize the infection and the damage it's going to do?" You can only ride the tiger so long before it eats you. It's one thing to be conservative and hold those beliefs, it's another altogether to be an arsonist. So, what is the GOP response to being taken over?
They want this to continue! It's working exactly like they want - GOP keeps picking up legislative seats, have "outsider" Ted Cruz waiting in the wings to take the GOP pres nom
Their complete cynicism regarding the Tea Party continues to prove the point that that the GOP establishment never cared about governance or the country, as long as there aren't any regulations holding them back from insider trading and off-shore accounting
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
I have yet to see anything from Tea Party candidates, major backers, or voters that leads me to believe they're capable of this kind of forward planning. Near as I can tell they are a wrecking ball of hate drunkenly swinging from one pet issue to the next. They don't live in reality and they probably couldn't even cogently explain what they're so pissed off about because I don't think they themselves even know.
I did see over the weekend though that the freedom caucus has begun signaling they would back Ryan, except he would have to agree to all the changes they want that make it easier for newby members to wreak havoc with the party.
Honestly, imagine a left wing equivalent.
"Free trade agreements hurt American workers AND allow the workers of foreign countries to be exploited; get rid of them all. Male privilege is a destructive force in society, lets break it down by putting a tax on companies equivalent to 10% of what they pay out on men's paychecks to encourage hiring more women. Gut the military - we don't need any aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, etc; convert what's left of the military into a purely humanitarian relief and search and rescue force. Impose strict emissions limits immediately, with a goal of becoming carbon neutral within five years. Impose quotas on democratic representation, so that at least 50% of the member of Congress must be women, and that racial demographics are appropriate represented."
I don't think that those positions are any crazier than anything that the far right holds to. Some are less crazy than some of those of the far right.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
The Weekly Sift has a very thoughtful synopsis of the mess in the house. The worrisome part of it is his conclusion, though:
So it’s not about personalities or trust or being “one of us”. The next time the Tea Party tries to hold the country hostage, they don’t want the Speaker to tell them no. It doesn’t matter whether the “no” comes from John Boehner or Paul Ryan or even Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan. Who doesn’t matter. They want a commitment that the next speaker will shoot the hostages.
I don’t think they’ll get it. (I think that’s what Kevin McCarthy meant when he told National Review that HFC members “wanted things I couldn’t deliver”.) If they stick to their guns — and so far I don’t see any reason to think they won’t — then I don’t see anything moving until we get close to November 5, when Democrats and the Republican establishment will have to unite against them, either to elect a new speaker or to back Boehner’s debt-ceiling resolution.
That will energize a string of Tea Party primary challenges against establishment Republicans, which may have been the point all along. The ultimate goal of the Tea Party isn’t to defund Planned Parenthood or even ObamaCare, it’s to complete their takeover of the Republican Party. They’re playing a long game, and even a defeat in the speakership battle could work to their advantage.
That's an angle I hadn't thought of - force the more moderate Republicans to make the decision to not burn the place to the ground, then beat them over the head with it.
This evinces an intelligence I sincerely doubt the Freedom Caucus has.
Really? I don't think so. It's basically right out of these guy's very simple playbook. Demand insane things and primary anyone that doesn't fall in line.
I mean doing it for any kind of plan that requires forethought and not just cause they want to burn everything down.
The Freedom Caucus is very much a stopped clock at this point. Their tactics are not planned with a long term strategy, it just happens that their tactics are possibly going to benefit them even more than they expected.
Or possibly they have a better grasp of the general attitude of conservatives in this country than anybody else, but that would be terrifying.
It does make me dream of the Tea Party splitting off from the Republicans officially, giving us 3 national parties. In my dream scenario, the Tea Party would fully adopt the hard right positions, the remaining Republicans would shift to the left on such things as immigration and the Democrats would move a little further left. It would be beautiful.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Found our next House Speaker everyone.
+7
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
The difference between the tea party folks and the rest of the republican caucus is that the 'mainstream' pubs just want to use the threat of a shutdown for leverage; the tea partiers actually want to do it. They look at forcing the government to shutter various agencies and stop transfer payments as a good outcome.
the problem for mainstream republicans is that they've been saying similar stuff forever because they thought it was a good way to pander to the base. Claiming to want to shut down three federal agencies is a good sound bite (even if you can't actually name all three), not a policy position that actually makes any sense.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Posts
You used a definition of compromise so broadly construed as to be meaningless?
I mean what you just described encompasses everything from me buying a gallon of milk to racketeering. In the first case I get milk and the grocery store gets money. I want milk more than I want $2, and they want money more than milk so we both get something out of the deal. Yay compromise! In the second case I get to keep functional kneecaps and the mafia gets money. I want to be able to walk more than I want $2k, and they want money more than they want to assault me so we both walk out of the deal with something we want. Yay compromise?
There are three parties in the House. ~200 "GOP", ~188 Dems, and the remainder is the Tea Party. Boehner has had to use the GOP/Dem alliance to get the must pass bills done, even though they are functionally allied to the Tea Party. The Tea Partiers have their own fundraising arm, media arm, and "policy" groups. The Tea Party representatives seem to understand that they are a minority kingmaker party and act the part. I don't know if the "GOP" party understands the situation.
Ok, but we're talking about congress. There the definition is much more restricted.
It's hard enough tying earmarks int a topic about Boehner resigning.
It's not dumping on spool to note that what he said, and the position he took, is exactly what is leading the House down this road.
What this guy said.
He is as correct as his name is seasonally festive.
Less passive aggressive sniping and earmarks discussion please.
Which is the whole problem with the Speakership and the replacement for Boehner. Because the party as it exists is currently ungovernable because the leadership seems to be incapable of, well, leading because they can't exercise any control over their own members. Which is both why Boehner wants out and why no one wants his old job.
Earmarks were a carrot, but you also need a stick and the GOP just doesn't seem to have any sort of stick right now. And without that, they cannot govern. And the US system doesn't really have any easy way to deal with this unfortunately.
That's an angle I hadn't thought of - force the more moderate Republicans to make the decision to not burn the place to the ground, then beat them over the head with it.
And recent history tells us even if they say they won't be fuckers, they'll be fuckers anyway.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This evinces an intelligence I sincerely doubt the Freedom Caucus has.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I continue to be amazing at analogies.
I would personally be fine with someone walking behind boehner ringing a bell and shouting Shame! Shame!
But even though on some level you wanted to see this happen, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth because you know they're being punished for what you perceive as the wrong reasons!
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
The analogy still holds!
If you raffled off the opportunity to be the one with the bell, you could fix the deficit in hours
Really? I don't think so. It's basically right out of these guy's very simple playbook. Demand insane things and primary anyone that doesn't fall in line.
Alternatively, you could hunch over, covering your raffle money like a protective mother, and shout "Fuck you! I got mine!" and run out the door.
I have yet to see anything from Tea Party candidates, major backers, or voters that leads me to believe they're capable of this kind of forward planning. Near as I can tell they are a wrecking ball of hate drunkenly swinging from one pet issue to the next. They don't live in reality and they probably couldn't even cogently explain what they're so pissed off about because I don't think they themselves even know.
I did see over the weekend though that the freedom caucus has begun signaling they would back Ryan, except he would have to agree to all the changes they want that make it easier for newby members to wreak havoc with the party.
Their backers wanted them to help the GOP cause, not hijack it. Or at least initially, i don't know where the money's coming from now.
They want this to continue! It's working exactly like they want - GOP keeps picking up legislative seats, have "outsider" Ted Cruz waiting in the wings to take the GOP pres nom
Their complete cynicism regarding the Tea Party continues to prove the point that that the GOP establishment never cared about governance or the country, as long as there aren't any regulations holding them back from insider trading and off-shore accounting
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Honestly, imagine a left wing equivalent.
"Free trade agreements hurt American workers AND allow the workers of foreign countries to be exploited; get rid of them all. Male privilege is a destructive force in society, lets break it down by putting a tax on companies equivalent to 10% of what they pay out on men's paychecks to encourage hiring more women. Gut the military - we don't need any aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, etc; convert what's left of the military into a purely humanitarian relief and search and rescue force. Impose strict emissions limits immediately, with a goal of becoming carbon neutral within five years. Impose quotas on democratic representation, so that at least 50% of the member of Congress must be women, and that racial demographics are appropriate represented."
I don't think that those positions are any crazier than anything that the far right holds to. Some are less crazy than some of those of the far right.
I mean doing it for any kind of plan that requires forethought and not just cause they want to burn everything down.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Or possibly they have a better grasp of the general attitude of conservatives in this country than anybody else, but that would be terrifying.
It does make me dream of the Tea Party splitting off from the Republicans officially, giving us 3 national parties. In my dream scenario, the Tea Party would fully adopt the hard right positions, the remaining Republicans would shift to the left on such things as immigration and the Democrats would move a little further left. It would be beautiful.
Found our next House Speaker everyone.
Nope, too willing to cross the aisle:
Not sufficiently obstructionist:
And in any case he would not pass the Freedom Caucus's test:
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Yeah.
*internally screaming*
the problem for mainstream republicans is that they've been saying similar stuff forever because they thought it was a good way to pander to the base. Claiming to want to shut down three federal agencies is a good sound bite (even if you can't actually name all three), not a policy position that actually makes any sense.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget