I'm sure this's been posted, but it's still worth reposting because it's sexcellent.
I guess that's cool, but it still propagates the whole 'both sides are the same mantra,' so ultimately I think it's misleading and will do more harm than good.
I don't think it will do much harm OR good in any meaningful way, but it's interesting and enlightening and I don't see how it propogates "both sides are the same" at all, unless you mean "both sides are voting along party lines" or "both sides form alliances" which, you know, duh. It's a pretty value-neutral tool.
There is an argument to be made that the real problem with both sides is that they are sides at all.
Yeah, a bad argument. Congress shouldn't agree on everything, because opposition and compromise can improve legislation and maintain faith in the process even for citizens of radically differing opinions.
I agree that they should not agree on everything, but there is a middle ground between total agreement and lockstep opposition parties. I would like to see a smaller number of representatives, so that the need for voting blocs and enduring voting agreements would be lessened, and our representatives could actually interact as individuals instead of members of one of two parties.
edit: BTW, I love your sig.
This will literally never happen. Even in a system which has a smaller number of representatives (for why? the UK has a larger legislature than we do, as does Canada I believe) will still ahve people making alliances and blocs.
You can go to a student government meeting at a local community college that has a whole thirty people in it and you will have at least five voting blocs.
You may disagree, but the supreme court largely does not have voting blocs, and has not during its history as an institution. There are high correlations to be sure among certain justices, but there are also cases where the sides that form would be impossible in the house or modern senate based on past voting histories.
Hahahahaha wait, you're serious?
You can basically set a clock by what issue is going to get a 5/4 decision and why and has done for my entire lifetime, and probably most of yours.
And the supreme court is not making laws, so they have very little need to rally the troops. The supreme court is a pretty piss poor example for how to set up a legislature.
It's like comparing belligerent oranges to gesticulating apples.
You are thinking of big ticket decisions that get press, not the smaller decisions dealing with things like pure statutory interpretation questions or regulatory matters.
But even in the big ticket cases, if you set your watch by them, I assume you were late to a number of appointments following the ACA decision?
Okay, and Congress bucks party lines when naming court houses and declaring National Eat a Doughnut Week.
You are not doing your point any favors.
Except that the smaller cases are the bulk of what the court handles. But as AMFE says, they are not a legislature anyway. I still think that we would be much better off in a world where a smaller number of people actually engage with each other instead of forming rigid voting alliances.
Smaller legislatures just end up with strong-men incumbents who end up formulating legislation based on their own whims. Honestly what we need to do is just bring back earmarks and that will fix a whole bunch of the issues in both the house and senate.
This idea.
It's an implication of eliminating earmarks I never considered.
Holy shit, Obama got Israel to apologize to Turkey for the 2010 flotilla raid and they are already re-normalizing their relations? That's fucking HUGE. Thanks Obama!
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Holy shit, Obama got Israel to apologize to Turkey for the 2010 flotilla raid and they are already re-normalizing their relations? That's fucking HUGE. Thanks Obama!
"Next on Fox news, Obama sides against Isreal again weakens the region."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Holy shit, Obama got Israel to apologize to Turkey for the 2010 flotilla raid and they are already re-normalizing their relations? That's fucking HUGE. Thanks Obama!
"Next on Fox news, Obama sides against Isreal again weakens the region."
"Obama's apology tour continues, starts apologizing for other nations."
So I guess we get another continuing resolution instead of an actual budget, but this one somehow modifies the sequester? I haven't found any details on what exactly the modifications do, but it would be excellent if any of them benefited me personally.
That's like attaching a rabid wolverine to your dick, shrieking about how much it hurts, and then stapling the wolverine to your nutsack so it can't get away.
ElJeffe on
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.
The new CR is just to extend the most recent Continuing Resolution for this current fiscal year which technically doesn't have a budget. It doesn't eliminate the sequester, but that was never going to happen and is basically what the entire budget battles over the (potentially) actual budget for 2014 will be about. Hopefully defusing it and settling the debt ceiling fiasco, which technically the sequester is simply the latest chapter of in our rolling omnishambles (since 2011 for fucks sake what is wrong with House Republicans), as well. The current CR gives some degree of flexibility to the military, grant funding of research (unless you're political science in which case your own studies should have shown that Coburn fucking hates you and your 'data') and a few other things. Probably White House tours or and similar symbolic crap that doesn't help anybody who actually needs the government to run well.
I'm sure this's been posted, but it's still worth reposting because it's sexcellent.
I guess that's cool, but it still propagates the whole 'both sides are the same mantra,' so ultimately I think it's misleading and will do more harm than good.
I don't think it will do much harm OR good in any meaningful way, but it's interesting and enlightening and I don't see how it propogates "both sides are the same" at all, unless you mean "both sides are voting along party lines" or "both sides form alliances" which, you know, duh. It's a pretty value-neutral tool.
There is an argument to be made that the real problem with both sides is that they are sides at all.
Yeah, a bad argument. Congress shouldn't agree on everything, because opposition and compromise can improve legislation and maintain faith in the process even for citizens of radically differing opinions.
I agree that they should not agree on everything, but there is a middle ground between total agreement and lockstep opposition parties. I would like to see a smaller number of representatives, so that the need for voting blocs and enduring voting agreements would be lessened, and our representatives could actually interact as individuals instead of members of one of two parties.
edit: BTW, I love your sig.
Every county in California is are governed by 5 people aside from the City/County of San Francisco. In fact the entire LA metropolitan area (aside from State and Federal governments obviously) is in the hands of 21 people.
When I think of good governmental structures with transparent representation enacting the will of the people...well I do think of California. But mostly as a cautionary tale.
If anything, we probably need more reps & senators and to probably move to a PR system. It's not like we don't have the tech to manage. We also have other means to ensure diversity and proper knowledge of regions in the legislative body.
Anyways Obama news.
-That's awesome that he seems to have gotten Israel and Turkey to patch things up. With Syria being a mess, it would be handy for our allies in the Middle East to not be at each other's throats; especially, when both of them border one of the ongoing clusterfucks.
-So looks like there will be two vacancies on the FCC soon. Hopefully, Obama can find a way to get both spots filled with people who get that the current set up isn't adequate and that won't be willing to give to big business.
-And thanks to the GOP's bullshit obstructionism, Obama is going to need to find another pick for the DC Circuit court. Fuck Reid and the other people that didn't want to fix the filibuster. Also fuck Reid for being a spineless piece of shit, should just bring court picks up for an up or down vote and tell the GOP to go fuck themselves since their precious filibuster isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
-Also fuck the GOP before their bullshit projection. Guess which chamber is going on a two week break having failed to really do anything constructive.
That's like attaching a rabid wolverine to your dick, shrieking about how much it hurts, and then stapling the wolverine to your nutsack so it can't get away.
Don't forget that you only bought the cock-crazing wolverine because you knew it would be horrible for you and you never thought you'd need to let it loose.
Then you just decided "Fuck it, I wanna tea bag this thing!"
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
The U.S. has way less party discipline than basically any other consolidated industrial democracy. It's a historical feature of American democracy.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's the result of have a two-party system that represents 200 million voters.
When your umbrellas are that big, some overlap happens.
Just 50 years ago, the South was 100% Democratic.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's the result of have a two-party system that represents 200 million voters.
When your umbrellas are that big, some overlap happens.
Just 50 years ago, the South was 100% Democratic.
No, stop that. Bad Atomic Ross.
This is a huge oversimplification of everything. The South was 100% Democratic because all the racist morons who now run the GOP were Democrats. The parties flipped what they stood for, the voters are exactly the same. Democrats got behind the civil rights movement, the south split off into Dixiecrats, then Nixon and Goldwater decided if they race baited enough the south would be solidly republican, which it was.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's the result of have a two-party system that represents 200 million voters.
When your umbrellas are that big, some overlap happens.
Just 50 years ago, the South was 100% Democratic.
No, stop that. Bad Atomic Ross.
This is a huge oversimplification of everything. The South was 100% Democratic because all the racist morons who now run the GOP were Democrats. The parties flipped what they stood for, the voters are exactly the same. Democrats got behind the civil rights movement, the south split off into Dixiecrats, then Nixon and Goldwater decided if they race baited enough the south would be solidly republican, which it was.
What I'm implying, Amphy, is that demographic shifts are enabled within our political system because our parties are too broad to serve everyone all the time, and 12 O'Clock Issues do occur from time to time (see: Objectivists and civil rights activists). This gets the foot in the door for things like the party of Lincoln to turning into the party of Santorum, or the party of Wallace turning into the party of Obama.
Democratic congressmen in contentious (typically Southern or Midwestern districts) often can't afford to be as uniformly liberal as their Coastal counterparts because of the kind of voters they represent. A Midwestern Democrat may not have the same values as a MidAtlantic Democrat.
Atomika on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's more the culmination of a forty year shift away from the party of progressives into being a party of big money, and then big money using issues to get voters abandoned by another party that kept up with demo shifts.
It has more to do with how diverse the party structure is. We don't have two parties, we have 100 different parties, each vying for control of their "side". I guess you could cross your eyes and say that makes it "big tent" but again, that's oversimplifying it.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's more the culmination of a forty year shift away from the party of progressives into being a party of big money, and then big money using issues to get voters abandoned by another party that kept up with demo shifts.
It has more to do with how diverse the party structure is. We don't have two parties, we have 100 different parties, each vying for control of their "side". I guess you could cross your eyes and say that makes it "big tent" but again, that's oversimplifying it.
It's only oversimplifying it in the same way that every four years I have the option of voting for just a Democrat or Republican.
It's the system that oversimplifies and obfuscates.
It's how you get tribal thinking among the electorate that says, "The worst conservative candidate is better than the best liberal candidate."
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's race. If something looks weird about American politics, there is a 95% chance it has to do with slavery.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
So.... that's good right? It'll die in the House, but it makes it easier for less politically-minded people to have GOP obstructionism highlighted for them.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's race. If something looks weird about American politics, there is a 95% chance it has to do with slavery.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's race. If something looks weird about American politics, there is a 95% chance it has to do with slavery.
You forgot religion.
Why do you think they cling to religion?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's race. If something looks weird about American politics, there is a 95% chance it has to do with slavery.
You forgot religion.
Why do you think they cling to religion?
I get the connection between whites and Protestantism (ie. WASPism) through U.S. history, but I would not say that racial politics define "95%" of even the "weird" things in U.S. politics. You'll find no more ardent advocate of religion-as-politics/sociology than me, but I would say religion (and its uses) have become as essential and descriptive of U.S. politics as race or class -- especially post-1968, and especially relative to other industrialized democracies.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
This idea.
It's an implication of eliminating earmarks I never considered.
It makes a lot of sense.
or Snidely Whiplash
pleasepaypreacher.net
But apparently one that understands sports.
Except that Harvard won?
They won.
He forgot that Steve Alford is an even worse coach than Tommy Amaker.
No one expected that except anyone who watched New Mexico play this year. So clearly Obama didn't. NOT MY PREZIDENT!
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Next on Fox news, Obama sides against Isreal again weakens the region."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also Iowa fans.
Whateva cracka.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Or. . . SKFM. Here I am running on the Romney platform:
And yes, I made sure to make workers build the platform before I fired them.
"Obama's apology tour continues, starts apologizing for other nations."
wait what
Like, seriously?
That's like attaching a rabid wolverine to your dick, shrieking about how much it hurts, and then stapling the wolverine to your nutsack so it can't get away.
That is the thing I have read, yes.
EDIT: Well, through the end of the fiscal year (9/30). But by then it'll be the new normal, so we're doomed.
Every county in California is are governed by 5 people aside from the City/County of San Francisco. In fact the entire LA metropolitan area (aside from State and Federal governments obviously) is in the hands of 21 people.
When I think of good governmental structures with transparent representation enacting the will of the people...well I do think of California. But mostly as a cautionary tale.
Anyways Obama news.
-That's awesome that he seems to have gotten Israel and Turkey to patch things up. With Syria being a mess, it would be handy for our allies in the Middle East to not be at each other's throats; especially, when both of them border one of the ongoing clusterfucks.
-So looks like there will be two vacancies on the FCC soon. Hopefully, Obama can find a way to get both spots filled with people who get that the current set up isn't adequate and that won't be willing to give to big business.
-And thanks to the GOP's bullshit obstructionism, Obama is going to need to find another pick for the DC Circuit court. Fuck Reid and the other people that didn't want to fix the filibuster. Also fuck Reid for being a spineless piece of shit, should just bring court picks up for an up or down vote and tell the GOP to go fuck themselves since their precious filibuster isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
-Also fuck the GOP before their bullshit projection. Guess which chamber is going on a two week break having failed to really do anything constructive.
Don't forget that you only bought the cock-crazing wolverine because you knew it would be horrible for you and you never thought you'd need to let it loose.
Then you just decided "Fuck it, I wanna tea bag this thing!"
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
The U.S. has way less party discipline than basically any other consolidated industrial democracy. It's a historical feature of American democracy.
It's the result of have a two-party system that represents 200 million voters.
When your umbrellas are that big, some overlap happens.
Just 50 years ago, the South was 100% Democratic.
No, stop that. Bad Atomic Ross.
This is a huge oversimplification of everything. The South was 100% Democratic because all the racist morons who now run the GOP were Democrats. The parties flipped what they stood for, the voters are exactly the same. Democrats got behind the civil rights movement, the south split off into Dixiecrats, then Nixon and Goldwater decided if they race baited enough the south would be solidly republican, which it was.
What I'm implying, Amphy, is that demographic shifts are enabled within our political system because our parties are too broad to serve everyone all the time, and 12 O'Clock Issues do occur from time to time (see: Objectivists and civil rights activists). This gets the foot in the door for things like the party of Lincoln to turning into the party of Santorum, or the party of Wallace turning into the party of Obama.
Democratic congressmen in contentious (typically Southern or Midwestern districts) often can't afford to be as uniformly liberal as their Coastal counterparts because of the kind of voters they represent. A Midwestern Democrat may not have the same values as a MidAtlantic Democrat.
It has more to do with how diverse the party structure is. We don't have two parties, we have 100 different parties, each vying for control of their "side". I guess you could cross your eyes and say that makes it "big tent" but again, that's oversimplifying it.
It's only oversimplifying it in the same way that every four years I have the option of voting for just a Democrat or Republican.
It's the system that oversimplifies and obfuscates.
It's how you get tribal thinking among the electorate that says, "The worst conservative candidate is better than the best liberal candidate."
It's race. If something looks weird about American politics, there is a 95% chance it has to do with slavery.
So.... that's good right? It'll die in the House, but it makes it easier for less politically-minded people to have GOP obstructionism highlighted for them.
You forgot religion.
Why do you think they cling to religion?
I get the connection between whites and Protestantism (ie. WASPism) through U.S. history, but I would not say that racial politics define "95%" of even the "weird" things in U.S. politics. You'll find no more ardent advocate of religion-as-politics/sociology than me, but I would say religion (and its uses) have become as essential and descriptive of U.S. politics as race or class -- especially post-1968, and especially relative to other industrialized democracies.