quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's possible that they're calling it the Tea PARTY because they actually plan to split into an ultra conservative third party, completely separate from the GOP.
I'm not scared of that for the reason that I'm not scared of a Palin presidency. It will not, can not happen. The politics of the American people have not changed much, and they will not become more conservative as time wears on. You can divide the conservative pie in any way of your choosing, but any way you cut it, their piece is just getting smaller. Tarter, and bitterer, but smaller just the same.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: You are playing on the edge of the TOS. Discuss how much you disagree with, or dislike what other people's church's or groups are doing as much as you like. But don't directly disparage other posters, or religious organizations.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's possible that they're calling it the Tea PARTY because they actually plan to split into an ultra conservative third party, completely separate from the GOP.
I've heard mutterings along those lines. The Tea Party could feasibly attract GOP voters who are primarily interested in the fiscal and immigration stances of the party (small, hands-off government; no gun control; choke immigration). It could also attract a good many libertarians, and libertarian leaning moderates.
The GOP is definitely fracturing. I think it would be interesting to see a GOP that courts the minority vote with a positive view of socialized medicine, and that embraces education and immigration, in addition to its current stance on "traditional" values.
I don't think it will ever happen. But it would be interesting if it did.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that same note, despite the general ineffectiveness of the Dems in governing the country (consider the supremely low approval rating of Congress), they're united, more or less. As far as I can tell, even though they can't get anything done, they're closing ranks and quietly trying to ride out the death throes that are afflicting the Republicans.
Of course, there is that whole Charlie Rangel thing coming up.
We've got a long time until November. If the Dems can maintain their control of Congress, I believe the GOP will start to fracture in earnest. Although whatever party lumbers out of its ashes will make a good showing in 2012, I think the Dems will wind down the war in Afghanistan and will not fiddle with the economy enough to make much of a difference. Obama will win by a small margin for a second term, and that will destroy the GOP.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It could also attract a good many libertarians, and libertarian leaning moderates.
I tell you what: if it draws off the culturally conservative libertarians and other raving nutjobs who currently pollute that party, I'll officially become libertarian; that's the only thing keeping me from being a libertarian now.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh. Economic libertarians are at least as bad as social libertarians. At least social libertarians aren't cold-hearted thugs.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I didn't think you could be a culturally conservative libertarian. That's like saying you can be a merciful serial murderer.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the metaphor of the anthill might even be appropriate here, at least, in the way you seem to see your role in this environment: you see a little anthill and put your foot on it -- and then get excited when the ants come out (and, in your case, even more excited when they don't)
... you're calling me a troll? Really?
sigh.
Sorry about that, didn't mean to insinuate you were anything like a troll or, even more insidiously, that church members resemble anything like ants (even metaphorically speaking).
It was like a balloon that got loose--the ants and feet that is--and, I could only watch it float away.
Looking rather shrivelled, caught in the lilac bushes, this morning.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't think you could be a culturally conservative libertarian.
Oh, you'd be surprised. Almost all the registered libertarians I know are "I'm libertarian on most things, but this thing I think it's important for the government to do..." And, y'know, I'm perfectly okay with that; I think the Libertarian Party, as a political party, would function much better by holding to the principle that small government in most cases is a good idea and should be pursued, but that rare exceptions can and should be made. Many of its most principled members shoot themselves in the foot by clinging to the principle beyond all practicality, while its other members undermine this principled stand by being, well, drooling idiots. If you pull the drooling idiots out, I'm confident that the uncompromisingly principled ones would very rapidly be outnumbered by people who are fans of but not slavishly adherent to the principle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mind, I'm not *calling* you a complete fraud, I'm calling you vain- you haven't been particularly strong on "understanding" things in this thread, so I want that to be clear.
C'mon, dude. Of course you're calling him a fraud.
quote:No, I'd say that piece of reductionism is not supportable according to what I've said. It's an important distinction that I and Samp and others have pointed out again and again that in *this* specific situation, support cannot be targeted with anything resembling surgical accuracy. That is because of the way the Mormon church functions. That applies to the Mormon church.
Well, no, because as has been justly criticized, we don't know how the Mormon Church functions exactly with regards to its finances. They aren't publicized. You don't know what the specific situation is. And just as much as that's not a compelling reason to lean one way, it's neither a reason to lean the other way. Or at least certainly not as far as you're doing.
One of your and Samprimary's points is that it is effectively impossible for an organization to separate its finances. So, in fact, my bit of 'reductionism' does apply.
quote:Yeah, it does. And I bet if you dug into the history of every unsavory backwards hate-driven organization that ever waved a flag against civil liberties, you would find that it too had a fund for orphans.
That doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
quote: Perhaps the gays should get together and support orphans as well... but then in order to do so they would probably like to have legal recognition of their abilities to jointly care for those orphans, and that would mean... oh right, the Mormon church doesn't care enough about orphans to let gays raise them. How silly of me to think the LDS church might be so honorable.
It does, it may surprise you to hear, seem to me to be pretty dishonorable as well. We Mormons flourish and are protected by the American system. Part of that system has been embracing the secular nature of our government. That secular nature has been a shield for us in the past, as for many other minorities, and we've been fortunate to have it. Now comes a time when another group attempts to avail themselves of that shield as we have, and our organization throws up roadblocks where it can (to put it mildly). For that reason alone I consider it pretty dishonorable, quite separate from my own opinion on homosexuality which is quite a bit more liberal than most, it seems.
Now, please be about telling me all the ways I'm deluding myself and attempting desperately to hide my shame from y'all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can tell, even though they can't get anything done
They've passed a large amount of wide-ranging bills, including but not limited to healthcare reform that radically adjusts the system and sets us on the path to single-payer much earlier, a banking reform bill, another stimulus bill, etc etc etc.
"congress can't get anything done" is a label that the g.o.p. is trying to foist and work to their advantage. The more they break congress, the better they do. So they've become the record party of obstructionism in our country's history and now create the serious concern that we might have to get rid of the filibuster entirely.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I'd say that piece of reductionism is not supportable according to what I've said. It's an important distinction that I and Samp and others have pointed out again and again that in *this* specific situation, support cannot be targeted with anything resembling surgical accuracy. That is because of the way the Mormon church functions. That applies to the Mormon church.
Well, no, because as has been justly criticized, we don't know how the Mormon Church functions exactly with regards to its finances. They aren't publicized. You don't know what the specific situation is.
This. The Mormon church doesn't release its financial records, therefore in *this* specific situation, it is impossible to tell how the Mormon church spends its money. "How the Mormon church works" in this specific discussion was meant as "conceals its finances." So individuals cannot target their support with any reasonable level of confidence in how their money is being spent. See what I'm talking about now? The not knowing is the part that ought set off alarm bells, but doesn't seem to.
quote: Now, please be about telling me all the ways I'm deluding myself and attempting desperately to hide my shame from y'all.
I knew your attitude already, I'm not surprised by it. In that particular moment I wasn't really speaking to you, but reacting to the appeal you were nonetheless making: "The Mormons do good things too" bit. Perhaps they do, but it doesn't change the fact that they are committed to a cause with which I fundamentally disagree, and which I believe is contrary to ideals of liberty and democracy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can tell, even though they can't get anything done
They've passed a large amount of wide-ranging bills, including but not limited to healthcare reform that radically adjusts the system and sets us on the path to single-payer much earlier, a banking reform bill, another stimulus bill, etc etc etc.
"congress can't get anything done" is a label that the g.o.p. is trying to foist and work to their advantage. The more they break congress, the better they do. So they've become the record party of obstructionism in our country's history and now create the serious concern that we might have to get rid of the filibuster entirely.
posted
There have been some key issues that have made congress look unproductive. Chief among these has been Republican obstructionism. Ironic, but true.
As I believe someone here has posted about in great-length, either Lyr or Sam, or somebody else, or maybe I read it somewhere else entirely, the Republican party swift has become the party against government. Failures of government, even when engineered and effected by them, can be classed as victories for their philosophy. A political victory is a political victory, the Republican party wins- an utter defeat averted or mired in endless messy politics is a win as well, because "government is bad! See?" Never mind the inanity of such a philosophy amongst those who want to be elected representatives in government.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're an old organization. The way this tea person uses it though... Where do They're an old organization. The way this tea person uses it though... Where do I even start? is it worth starting? I even start? is it worth starting?
IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem is that people are seeing things like the health care reform and financial reform bill as somehow evidence of congress being effective. I don't think you can just look at the bills that got passed, but instead have to consider the quality of those bills.
On many major pieces of legislation, the Democrats have come out looking weak and incompetent and have ended up with results that are themselves weak and of poor quality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And they are usually that way (true or assumed) due to attempting to wrangle their way past categorical filibuster designed solely as a measure of preserving republican viability in future elections by hindering legislative progress as often as possible.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but out of a range of possible ways to deal with the Republican's strategy of all filibuster all the time, they apparently chose the "whine about it, but otherwise lie there and take it" one. Oh, and compromised away most of the parts of the bills that their supporters really wanted without getting much of anything in return (although, with the financial regulation, I'm not sure that this wasn't by design).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but out of a range of possible ways to deal with the Republican's strategy of all filibuster all the time, they apparently chose the "whine about it, but otherwise lie there and take it" one.
I've heard less accurate approximations of what the democratic majority has accomplished, but this one's pretty amazing. If it were true, then the surest evidence of it would be that nothing in Juxtapose's link would be accurate (and in case it need be known, it IS accurate; the democratic caucus majority has strongarmed and strategized means to push through productive and wide-reaching legislation in spite of the most obstructionist campaign in American history).
However, you provide an important demonstration of the mobilizable elements of common perception that the republicans are banking on. It doesn't matter if their opposition has moved heaven and earth in spite of their obstruction. All they have to do is convince you that they're just 'whining and taking it' and otherwise being indolent or useless. Then they win.
SO, I suppose the level of gains they can expect in the next election largely have things like this to thank for it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
err...the article that Juxt posted says this:
quote:And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60.
How is that not lieing there and taking it?
And, as I said, getting bills passed is not all that impressive, at least to me. Getting strong bills passed is. From what I've seen from both the health care and financial reform bills, they may have achieved the first, but the second is sorely lacking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: err...the article that Juxt posted says this:
quote:And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60.
How is that not lieing there and taking it?
"Lying there and taking it" is going 'oh well, the republicans are just going to filibuster everything" and not doing, say, a ridiculous quantity of massive legislation with profound effect in spite of off-the-charts obstructionism.
quote:And, as I said, getting bills passed is not all that impressive, at least to me. Getting strong bills passed is. From what I've seen from both the health care and financial reform bills, they may have achieved the first, but the second is sorely lacking.
Great! So the republicans preventing these bills from being strong as they could have been by blocking legislation purely out of the need for the survival of their party makes you fault the democrats. There you go! You're exactly who they need.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh dude, seriously? When your kids bring home an A- paper with a big smile and a gleeful giggle, don't smack them in the faces and ask them why it isn't an A+.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Lying there and taking it" is going 'oh well, the republicans are just going to filibuster everything" and not doing, say, a ridiculous quantity of massive legislation with profound effect in spite of off-the-charts obstructionism.
To me, the fact that it has become an uncontested facet of the American political scene that you need 60 people in the Senate to get anything done indicates that the Democrats have lied down and taken it in regards to the filibuster issue. I honestly don't see the legislation passed (which, as I've said, I don't find anywhere near as impressive as you seem to want me to) changes this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, the fact that it has become an uncontested facet of the American political scene that you need 60 people in the Senate to get anything done indicates that the Democrats have lied down and taken it
This right here makes absolutely no sense. If the republicans start filibustering everything and the democrats DON'T challenge it, it's lying down and taking it. If the republicans start filibustering everything and the democrats challenge it as often as possible to worm in supermajority votes, that's not lying down and taking it. But you've taken the "the republicans start filibustering it" to mean they're lying down and taking it, without any additional qualifiers necessary.
It makes me wonder if your usage of the term is, like, from another language or something. Is the fact that it's an uncontested facet of the american political scene supposed to be the democrats' fault indicating utter passivity in your mind?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would they not "lie down and take it"? What filibuster-busting strategy would work? Getting more seats is an obvious choice, but that is a tall order. Is the filibuster rule breakable? What are the consequences of that? What do we do about Dems who don't toe the party line like Sen Nelson or Sen Baucus? How do we make them vote with the party? Can we punish them? What are the consequences?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
Alternatively, they could make the Republicans pay for being so incredibly obstructionist. The Dems control the legislative agenda and the Presidency. They have numerous opportunities to really stick it to the Republicans. They also have an opponent who is being outrageous with the filibuster, but they have made no moves that I can see to capitalize on that with public opinion.
Samp,
quote:This right here makes absolutely no sense.
Or, alternatively, you don't understand my point. The Democrats have a great deal of options in addressing the Republicans absurd use of the filibuster to reign it in. They have, as far as I can tell, decided to go with not trying to address it.
As I said in the other thread, can you imagine anyone talking about how the Republicans lost control of the Senate because the Democrats picked up 41 seats? Of course not. But that was the story when Scott Brown got in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
I think he meant forcing senators to actually stand up there and talk, rather than them just advising the majority leader that the filibuster is, "on."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: As I said in the other thread, can you imagine anyone talking about how the Republicans lost control of the Senate because the Democrats picked up 41 seats? Of course not. But that was the story when Scott Brown got in.
This says rather more about the Republicans than about the dems. The dems are understandably difficult to corral into voting all together on the same things. That's a *good* thing. The fact that the Republicans are so willing to sacrifice their individual concerns for a group victory that often has little to do with representing their constituencies or, gasp, helping those people they represent is a *bad* thing.
Good vs. Bad. Seriously.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
I think he meant forcing senators to actually stand up there and talk, rather than them just advising the majority leader that the filibuster is, "on."
Still, waiting on his take.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the mini-nuke one of making a filibuster an actual filibuster, like you said. Making the filibuster be something more than a procedural thing is by this or other means would work.
What do you think an 'actual filibuster' is? I'm just curious.
I think he meant forcing senators to actually stand up there and talk, rather than them just advising the majority leader that the filibuster is, "on."
Still, waiting on his take.
Fine, wait here all day for Mr. Squicky. I'm gonna go get icecream and play in one of those inflatable cities. You're welcome to come along.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And, as I said, getting bills passed is not all that impressive, at least to me. Getting strong bills passed is. From what I've seen from both the health care and financial reform bills, they may have achieved the first, but the second is sorely lacking.
My understanding is that both these bills are massive improvements* on the status quo. Do you dispute that? Can you give examples of bills that you would hold up as paragons of strength?
*improvement is a subjective term. Obviously, for example, if one doesn't think poor people are entitled to health insurance, then the bill is not an improvement.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Democrats attempting to wrap up work on a small business jobs bill were stymied Thursday morning when they were unable to break a Republican filibuster. In calling for a vote to end debate on the bill, Harry Reid, the majority leader, said that he had won the support of one Republican, enough to reach the 60-vote threshold. But when the vote was counted, all the Republicans held together. The final tally was 58 to 2 — Mr. Reid switched his vote to no in a procedural maneuver that allows him to call for another vote and try again.
those democrats, am i right? :/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a reason: senate rules are actually so broken that getting rid of the filibuster doesn't actually prevent the potential for legislative roadblock. If anything, it would make it easier. The minority party (or even ONE SINGLE SENATOR, I'm serious) can indefinitely shut down all bills as long as they are not dead.
The blatant self-interest overuse of the current congress' minority party is actually
The whole reason that Obama either put new agencies in place or expanded the powers of existing ones in the health care and finreg bills is because he couldn't get the Senate to actually do anything thanks to the procedural roadblocks, so he's basically putting more and more power into the executive branch because stuff has to get done and all the Senate does all year is punt bills. I mean, really, we're two years into his Presidency and the Senate still hasn't confirmed a crap-ton of his appointees, so guess what, he recess-appoints them or just lets some "doesn't need to be confirmed" lackey basically run the stuff forever. Which TOTALLY CUTS THE SENATE OUT OF THE EQUATION.
The abuse of the filibuster and the inability of the Senate to do its job is ceding more and more power from the legislative to the executive branch, making abuse of power ever more likely, and ever more dangerous, disrupts the checks and balances system, and increases the power of the unelected (and thus unaccountable) federal bureaucracy. People who support the G.O.P. becoming an entrenched obstructionist roadblock in the legislative via the filibuster or any means have no idea how their government (doesn't) work. Eventually, the Senate will have to get rid of all of its non-democratic obstruction means, and the longer that can't be done (ironically DUE to obstruction), the more the nation will suffer as a result.
And you can absolutely be sure that one of the obstacles to the removal of filibuster, besides other legislative roadblocks that can be employed, is the fact that the G.O.P. relies greatly on it as a survival mechanism and so would raise hell and high water were it to be challenged, like they previously did with the Nuclear Option.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
