posted
"Updated 1:22 p.m. | Senate Democrats succeeded Thursday in deploying the “nuclear option” to make the most fundamental change to floor operations in almost four decades, ending the minority’s ability to kill most presidential nominations by filibuster.
The Senate voted, 52-48, to effectively change the rules by rejecting the opinion of the presiding officer that a supermajority is required to limit debate, or invoke cloture, on executive branch nominees and those for seats on federal courts short of the Supreme Court."
quote:[/qb]"...To the average American, adapting the rules to make Congress work again is just common sense. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans” [/qb]
That's pretty thin. This is about the Republicans always filibustering to an absurd level and the Democrats want to stop them from doing it.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's being diplomatic in the sense that he's not just flat-out saying that they have to prevent the republican party from breaking our government further. We're kind of to the point where they realistically had no choice. republicans were filibustering and using secret holds on nominations that they were not prepared to offer an argument that they were unsuited to the post, incompetent, or even too liberal. they were just blocking.
there's no secret story behind this. i don't even know how conservatives justify this on behalf of their party.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The filibuster is dead, long live the filibuster.
The GOP and their supporters have the goal of destroying the federal government, constant filibusters insure (a) no more Democrats in federal offices, and (b) destroying the government. It is a feature not a bug and they can always blame the Democrats for not caving to their every demand.
The base just eats it all up.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure what McConnell thinks he can do to gum up the works any more than he already has. He simply doesn't have any sticks left to threaten dems with. And Reid doesn't believe him when he offers carrots because the last three times they cut deals to move along the nomination process, McConnell stabbed him in the back within a month. Plus they figured of the Republicans got the Senate back they'd just change the rules then anyway, so might as well get some appointments rolling while he can.
In reality though this is a pretty narrow change. Republicans will still filibuster legislation and SCOTUS nominees.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always chuckle when a politico says an issue is "not about Democrats and Republicans" when the vote on the issue is, mostly, exactly that.
The Republicans were in favor of the "nuclear option" when they were in power, and now the Democrats are exercising it (and, therefore, making the arguments to justify it) now that they're in power. To each side in the minority at the time, it was a horrible, egregious misuse of power that signaled the end of the world (proverbially).
Our national politics long ago ceased to be a collaborative effort and descended into name-calling and fearmongering by both sides of the aisle. Both parties now aim their efforts towards steering as many people as possible into becoming a member of their respective "core" (read: extreme) constituencies. When the most extreme factions of your party are getting larger, and therefore are able to gain greater leverage in making you act in their interest, it means that the elimination of power-limiting rules like this (which could always have been changed with a simple majority vote) is inevitable.
The nuclear option was always going to be exercised... it was just a matter of who would pull the trigger first. (For my part, I always predicted the Democrats would do it first, because it's easier to paint Republicans as the uncaring despots trying to squash their opposition and impose their will upon the country. I doubt there will be much backlash at all for the Democrats, and even if there is, it will be a small fraction of what it would have been if Republicans had done it.)
You can bet the next time there's a Republican Senate majority, though, they won't be falling over themselves in a rush to re-institute the supermajority rule. I really think both parties have wanted this for a while and just were waiting for the other to do it first so they could attempt to score political points for opposing it.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... In reality though this is a pretty narrow change. Republicans will still filibuster legislation and SCOTUS nominees.
Technically true, but once the dam has burst, there's no putting the water back in the reservoir. All filibusters' days are numbered.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Just gotta hope the GOP dies.
Please tell me you don't actually hope that.
Two-party politics is embedded in the psyche of our country, and has been the rule of the day literally since George Washington declined to run for a third term. The only exception was during Monroe's presidency after the Federalist Party had collapsed. The "Era of Good Feelings" (which is laughable because it was anything but) led to the rise of the Whig Party, and after the Whigs, the Republicans.
Even if the Republicans did go away as a political party, another institution would rise to take its place among those who hold the beliefs that Republicans tend to espouse.
In fact, your comment smacks of the kind of hate and intolerance that embodies much of what is detestable in our national political scene today. People don't want to talk about their differences on issues anymore; they simply want to yell platitudes across the aisle and demonize their opponents. (This, I suppose, is also a tradition steeped in the American political system, going all the way back to the Presidential election of 1800. But I digress...)
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... In reality though this is a pretty narrow change. Republicans will still filibuster legislation and SCOTUS nominees.
Technically true, but once the dam has burst, there's no putting the water back in the reservoir. All filibusters' days are numbered.
Not that I would have a problem with that, but why do you think that is the case?
The difference between what happened and a full repeal is the difference between a 9mm bullet and a hellfire missile. You can pretend they're both equal just because they're weapons, but in reality they are incredibly different on every factor that matters.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... In reality though this is a pretty narrow change. Republicans will still filibuster legislation and SCOTUS nominees.
Technically true, but once the dam has burst, there's no putting the water back in the reservoir. All filibusters' days are numbered.
Not that I would have a problem with that, but why do you think that is the case?
The difference between what happened and a full repeal is the difference between a 9mm bullet and a hellfire missile. You can pretend they're both equal just because they're weapons, but in reality they are incredibly different on every factor that matters.
Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on this point (we're kind of looking into a crystal ball, after all), but I think that simply executing the "nuclear option" at all was the big political demarcation line. Now, all of the subsequent repeals of the supermajority rule can be justified with a relative argument. If the Democrats do it, they can say, "Oh, well see how much been able to accomplish now that the Republicans are no longer able to cause gridlock and prevent us from working on behalf of the American people." Or, if it doesn't happen until Republicans are back in power, they can justify it by just saying, "Well, the Democrats did it first."
I think eliminating filibusters on SCOTUS candidates is, logically, the lowest-hanging fruit for the next move because it's "just another judicial nomination," but I really can't see legislation filibusters being that much higher of a hurdle.
In some respects, I think the filibusters over legislation are even less of a hurdle than that for judicial nominations, since legislation can later be changed or overturned once the minority party returns to power. Judicial nominations can't be taken back without impeachment, which means it has a much more long-lasting effect. (And is, I suspect, a reason the Republicans have made such a big stink about filibustering so many presidential appointments.)
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting it will happen tomorrow, or even very soon. I'm just saying it will eventually happen.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Just gotta hope the GOP dies.
Please tell me you don't actually hope that.
Two-party politics is embedded in the psyche of our country, and has been the rule of the day literally since George Washington declined to run for a third term. The only exception was during Monroe's presidency after the Federalist Party had collapsed. The "Era of Good Feelings" (which is laughable because it was anything but) led to the rise of the Whig Party, and after the Whigs, the Republicans.
Even if the Republicans did go away as a political party, another institution would rise to take its place among those who hold the beliefs that Republicans tend to espouse.
In fact, your comment smacks of the kind of hate and intolerance that embodies much of what is detestable in our national political scene today. People don't want to talk about their differences on issues anymore; they simply want to yell platitudes across the aisle and demonize their opponents. (This, I suppose, is also a tradition steeped in the American political system, going all the way back to the Presidential election of 1800. But I digress...)
It's neither here nor there, but most of the founding fathers, Washington more than any, hated the idea of factionalism and the party system.
To be honest, I think the two party system is a cancerous lesion on our society.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Multiple parties. I think human nature and modern politics makes it impossible for a no party system. Even if you made parties officially illegal, people of like minds would still form them unofficially.
But I'd much prefer a proportional representation system, which would probably result in 3-4 major parties and a dozen parties represented by 1-10 people.
Laws would be passed with ad hoc alliances.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vineyarddawg: I always chuckle when a politico says an issue is "not about Democrats and Republicans" when the vote on the issue is, mostly, exactly that.
The Republicans were in favor of the "nuclear option" when they were in power, and now the Democrats are exercising it (and, therefore, making the arguments to justify it) now that they're in power. To each side in the minority at the time, it was a horrible, egregious misuse of power that signaled the end of the world (proverbially).
Except that under the republicans, it's been used as an egregious misuse of power to which there is no comparison to anything the democrats ever did.
Literally the GOP used more secret holds and filibusters in the last five years than in the whole of the twentieth century.
The nominations they are blocking aren't even controversial. And they're being blocked to an extent that entire federal departments which the republicans have effectively shut down because they have never permitted Obama to appoint them a head for the entirety of his tenure in office. Their obstructionism in the DC circuit court has been particularly inexcusable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Just gotta hope the GOP dies.
Please tell me you don't actually hope that.
I do. I want it to get crushed under the bootheel of the growing demographics that it has steadily alienated, saddled by its own increasingly desperate reliance on wedge issues that attract increasingly older demographics and alienate everyone else.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The GOP are so morally and ethically reprehensible and worth every condemnation human language can craft. They are a cancer that seeks only to spread and exist for the interests of the monied minority through the ceaseless efforts of the propaganda mill maintained by the pundit class.
The sooner it dies the sooner the overture window can shift political discourse back towards the left; self identifying as Republican today is a legitimate test of character, if you are Republican there is a high chance you are a terrible human being.
Both parties should die but only with a Mixed-Member proportional system that can be more democratic.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok so obviously i'm not nearly as far down hyperbole highway as elison here. I have different descriptions of what i think the GOP is and why I think it should, effectively, cease to exist in its present form.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I'm guessing that self-identifying as a conservative is an even faster road to being labelled a "terrible human being"?
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Multiple parties. I think human nature and modern politics makes it impossible for a no party system. Even if you made parties officially illegal, people of like minds would still form them unofficially.
But I'd much prefer a proportional representation system, which would probably result in 3-4 major parties and a dozen parties represented by 1-10 people.
I linked to an article that links to the Start-up Party's site page because I think it has a nice summary of the site that's not readily available at first glance.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Multiple parties. I think human nature and modern politics makes it impossible for a no party system. Even if you made parties officially illegal, people of like minds would still form them unofficially.
But I'd much prefer a proportional representation system, which would probably result in 3-4 major parties and a dozen parties represented by 1-10 people.
Laws would be passed with ad hoc alliances.
I don't necessarily disagree with the ideals you want to achieve, but the parliamentarian system to which you refer is antithetical to the very design of our federal government.
The bicameral design of our legislature is based on the original compromise reached as one of the foundational principles of the nation. Specifically, it's the notion that states with the largest populations should not be able to overwhelm the will of states with smaller populations.
The mobility of the populace in today's modern world means that we tend to see less distinction in state boundaries and, therefore, less recognition of the rights of individual states' desires when they conflict with each other, but the fact remains that our government is designed around the representation of the populations of the states, not the representation of the entire nation's population as a whole.
(That might seem like a minor distinction to make, but I don't think that's the case. It goes a long way towards explaining, for example, why the electoral college is still an institution that is relevant in the modern world. The votes of the Electoral College are directly derived from the apportionment of Congressional votes amongst the states, which means it's a direct reflection of that same large state/small state compromise upon which the U.S. was founded.)
Changing the House of Representatives and the Senate to a nationwide proportional representation model would literally require us to rewrite the Constitution. And let's be honest; that ain't never gonna happen.
(As an aside, one could attempt to "retrofit" a proportional representation style allocation of House seats in states with many seats like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. But for states with only 1 or 2 House seats like Hawai'i, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, and the like, it's hard to be "proportional" when you only have one or two slots.)
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:but the parliamentarian system to which you refer is antithetical to the very design of our federal government.
I'm a sentimentalist, but the men who wrote the Constitution never could have imagined what the world or American society would look like 220 years later.
quote:The bicameral design of our legislature is based on the original compromise reached as one of the foundational principles of the nation. Specifically, it's the notion that states with the largest populations should not be able to overwhelm the will of states with smaller populations.
Yeah, and it worked out so well that the North and the South played political war before going to actual war over representation in Congress, especially the Senate. The South only went on actual offense when they lost control of the Senate. The Senate has also served as the most backwards looking force against equality and progress this nation has had. Besides, I have no interest in giving Wyoming the same voice as California. State lines are completely arbitrary lines that give small groups of people tremendous power over much, much larger ones for no reason I can readily discern.
California has the same population as the least 20 populous states combined. Yet those states get 40 votes to California's 2. That's not a tradeoff, that's a tyranny of the minority. For that matter, the House of Representatives isn't even a tyranny of the majority. Voters in Wyoming get 4 times the power in presidential elections as voters in California. Voters in Wyoming get one and a half times the representation per House Rep. If we increased the size of the House to actually allow equal representation by pegging the size of a district to the lowest populated district, New York and California would probably get another dozen seats.
Frankly, I think the larger populated states SHOULD be able to overwhelm the will of the lesser populated states. 500,000 people shouldn't be able to hold 37,000,000 million people hostage. We should respect the governing philosophy of "majority rule with respect for minority rights," which means you can't take away their constitutional freedoms or put undue strain on them, but that's not the same thing as giving them a minority veto.
Otherwise, seriously, what's the point of even having a democracy if the minority is always calling the shots?
[/quote]That might seem like a minor distinction to make, but I don't think that's the case. It goes a long way towards explaining, for example, why the electoral college is still an institution that is relevant in the modern world. The votes of the Electoral College are directly derived from the apportionment of Congressional votes amongst the states, which means it's a direct reflection of that same large state/small state compromise upon which the U.S. was founded.[/quote]
The electoral college is one of the biggest poisonous influences that continues to rob of us real democracy. It needs to be destroyed. It does almost nothing for smaller states. Yes, it gives them disproportional votes in the grand scheme of things, but at the end of the day only 10 or so battleground states ever really get their voices heard or get a share of campaign visits and dollars. The other 40 states are taken for granted and ignored. It's terrible. It needs to go.
quote:Changing the House of Representatives and the Senate to a nationwide proportional representation model would literally require us to rewrite the Constitution. And let's be honest; that ain't never gonna happen.
I'm in favor of doing just that, but you're right, it's unlikely to happen. You could, on the other hand, tinker with how representation is defined through Congress without going through the Constitution. For example, the number of members of the House of Reps could be altered in a way to make representation more equal, which would further empower states with large populations. At the very least I think it'd be more equal.
Really though, I don't know why we're so hung up on states rights to representation in the Senate. The Senate, and really the House, are far more beholden to national political will than they are to state legislatures. I think that bond was severed most fully when the amendment passed to allow direct elections of senators.
My ideal government would be unicameral, probably 600 strong, and done with proportional representation on a national scale, not a state by state scale, otherwise it'd be meaningless in most states.
posted
I'm going to betray/reveal my political persuasion as a firm advocate of "states rights" here, but I think a parliamentarian system like the one you advocate could actually serve to increase regional divisiveness, not ameliorate it.
It's impossible to defend the historical record of the U.S. as a whole, especially as it relates to civil rights, nor would I attempt to try. (For that matter, the fact that "states rights" was a founding principle of the country doesn't automatically mean it should be sacrosanct. Another "founding principle" of the country was that a slave only counted as 3/5 of a person.)
The simple fact, however, is that our nation is a very geographically large one with regional interests that very widely, and which are often at odds with one another. In addition, our "democracy" has never really been a democracy by the dictionary definition of the term, in which the majority always rules without question (and in which they might or might not decide to respect the opinions and rights of the political minority). Our system of government is a federal constitutional republic, and has always been designed to give sizable minority state interests an outsized voice in its governance.
In organization, the U.S. is a republic consisting of states that (originally) granted the federal government its power, not a central government which devolved its power to its constituent states. Regardless of the original filibuster argument that started this thread (which is irrelevant to the point I'm making, but which I specifically wanted to state), this means that the voices of individual states are necessarily stronger in the federal government than would otherwise be the case in a system of government that "started" with the central federal body.
One can logically argue that such a system is anachronistic in modern culture, but I would take the opposite viewpoint. Take Europe, for example. As we've seen dramatically demonstrated for us over the last 5-7 years, the EU would be impossible to govern as a central, federalized entity due to the numerous differences in local politics and interested that diverge radically from one another.
The question of governing Europe vs. governing the U.S. is frequently dismissed by detractors noting that Europe has centuries of divisiveness driving it, but I don't think the differences are any more vast in today's rapidly-changing modern culture than in the U.S., which has its own 250+ year history in its oldest regions. A two-century-old fishing town in Massachusetts trying to keep up with modern changes in the industry still has far different interests than, say, San Jose, California. And both of those towns have virtually nothing in common with towns in a region like south Georgia that have been through multiple agricultural revolutions and are, in their own ways, trying to keep up with technological changes in both industry and demographics. Yet in a strictly proportional/democratic model, San Jose's population, which dwarfs both other towns/regions, would be able to dictate policy to them.
Strict majority rule is almost never a good thing. Empowering the views and interests of the minority, while unquestionably frustrating to those who have majority votes, is one of the most time-tested ways of ensuring governmental stability.
And by "empowering," I'm not saying that the minority should be able to have all the power. I'm saying that the system we have today essentially works to help promote stability. A minority of the population does have influence and votes that are outsized to their proportional makeup of the overall population, but they do not have a majority of votes, nor can they rule by fiat. They do unquestionably influence the laws that are passed and the policies that are set into place in the country, though, (in addition to the previously-mentioned outsized voice in presidential elections) and I do think that is a good thing.
The outsized influence of (then less populous) southern states vs. northern states did lead to a civil war once, but I question what the geographic territory we know as the United States today would have looked like if this had never occurred. It's likely the USA would have never been formed at all without the compromises that created the country, which means it's also likely that the war which freed the slaves would never have happened. External and internal pressures would still have eventually forced slavery's abolition, but who knows if we'd have been any further advanced down the road of civil rights than South Africa was in the '90's without the influence of a larger, broader-reaching federal government to force the issue.
Any sufficiently major destabilizing issue can tear apart virtually any nation. The fact that a sizable minority can still see that they have the power to affect issues in their country serves, in my opinion, to keep them invested in the process rather than championing revolution and replacement of the system.
And I still think that the real majority of Americans actually fall in the middle of the current political spectrum, having more in common with each other than with the extremist wings of both the Republican and the Democratic party. It's in each party's interest to pull more of the population into those extremist camps, however, since the extremists are some of the most loyal party-line voters. For that reason, I lay much of the fault for the current toxic climate of politics at the feet of the parties themselves, not at the organization of the political system.
As I've said before, though, reasonable minds can always disagree on these points.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vineyarddawg: I'm going to betray/reveal my political persuasion as a firm advocate of "states rights" here, but I think a parliamentarian system like the one you advocate could actually serve to increase regional divisiveness, not ameliorate it.
In brief, your ensuing argument fails to account for the lengths to which the over-representation of minority views in parties holding real power has distorted the political landscape towards catering to that minority. Because a vote in Wyoming can be worth literally 70 times more to the Republican party than a vote in California, the Republicans cater to voters in Wyoming. Why shouldn't they? Two senators from Wyoming represent a miniscule fraction of the voters as do two senators from California, but they have the same voting power in the Senate.
This has a demonstrable influence on the politics of both parties: which lend an incredible amount of weight to the opinions of these minority voters. Just consider for a moment, that when explained in practical terms, Single-payer universal health care is actually supported by a majority of Americans, but it was almost political suicide for Barack Obama to push through a solution that in any other OECD country would be considered incredibly conservative. I should know, I live in the most fiscally conservative OECD country, and we have virtually the same health care system.
The very fact that a Sarah Palin or a Ted Cruz (as illustrative examples of politicians who verily embody minority rhetoric) can bank on pleasing half of half a million Wyomans (or whomever) as an effective counterweight to half of 37 Million Californians (in the senate) and half of 9 million in the house pulls the entire electorate into a debate between two parties that lends weight to the needs of that half million people in equal proportion to the needs of 37 Million others.
And we have a VERY clear picture of the results: a system that elected Barack Obama by some 5 Million votes, and a 6 percent margin (and a healthy electoral victory that can't be undone by gerrymandering, but STILL favors minority districts by over-representing their votes as a percentage of population) while in the same breath also electing a house majority of Republicans with a sworn vendetta against that very same President.
And we're left with the undyingly popular "two sides" cannard because our system has been literally re-constructed in order to sustain this imbalanced "balance."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know what the "extremist wing" of the Democratic Party looks like at a national level anymore.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't even know what the "extremist wing" of the Democratic Party looks like at a national level anymore.
What could it possibly look like? When Obama is called an extremist for embracing Republican ideologies of 20 years ago?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't even know what the "extremist wing" of the Democratic Party looks like at a national level anymore.
It's not that hard. There are factions of the Democratic party that think partial-birth abortions are just fine under any circumstances, some that even supported Kermit Gosnel and his abortion clinic. There are environmental extremists or "Eco-Terrorists" that have caused millions of dollars in damage.
They aren't mainstream though. I'd argue most of what liberals call "Right Wing Extremist" isn't actually extremist at all, but a way to try and insult or politicize certain positions they disagree with. That's not to say there aren't right wing extremists out there, but the term as it is currently used is overused. Being a member of the NRA and owning a firearm or disagreeing with most types of abortion doesn't make you an extremist. Joining a militia and plotting to overthrow the government WOULD.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a difference when we use the extremist label to describe the ranks and file vs. the actual political leadership. For the rank and file, yes, your delineation is apt. For the leadership, we tend to narrow the spectrum a bit because the unibomber doesn't really have anyone of like mind in congress.
So for the purposes of congressional politics, the extremist wing of the Democratic Party is like five guys. Other than that, most "liberals" are basically republicans circa 1992. The extremist wing on the republican side is much larger because they've tacked so hard to the right that the extreme is becoming the norm. There's been no equivalent titanic shift in democratic politics. In fact, democratic politics have only gotten more moderate and centrist since the 1990s.
To the frustration of millions of actual liberals who fume every time they pull the lever for a democrat knowing they're voting for the Arby-Q of liberalism. It's not quite real BBQ, but if you close your eyes and believe, it's enough to keep you from going hungry.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would disagree that even Kuccinich would even qualify as "extremist" under anything that looks objective. OH noes! Not caving in to Republican wishlists! We're Xtreme!
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't even know what the "extremist wing" of the Democratic Party looks like at a national level anymore.
It's not that hard. There are factions of the Democratic party that think partial-birth abortions are just fine under any circumstances, some that even supported Kermit Gosnel and his abortion clinic.
There's actually a difference between individuals who think this (of which there are not actually that many), and politicians who espouse this as a good public policy, of which there are none that I know of.
This is pretty much like saying there are "factions" of the Republican party who believe it's okay to shoot abortion doctors. Yes, some Republicans undoubtedly believe that, but not many, and none who let it seriously affect their public policy viewpoint, and also manage to win elections. This is the difference between it being part of the far-left and being a "far left" idea.
Of course, the partial birth abortion cannard is mostly an invention of Republicans trying to discredit Roe V. Wade, not a topic seriously entertained by any serious liberal on the national stage- who, by the way, are no more represented politically by the ACLU than the Republican party is by the NRA. Political orgs like these have the luxury of hard-lining where political parties don't.
quote: They aren't mainstream though. I'd argue most of what liberals call "Right Wing Extremist" isn't actually extremist at all, but a way to try and insult or politicize certain positions they disagree with.
On the contrary, there was a breathtaking large contingent of the house and senate who recently wanted the United States to default on its sovereign debts. A step that can only with great meekness be called political posturing, considering that they voted for it to actually happen. This kind of approach to public policy is fairly extreme. Fairly beyond our normal definitions of extremity. If you don't think that represents something new and something decidedly radical in American politics, we're not in the same conversation, or the same reality.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I would say it is the Republican Party that has stayed mostly centrist, with a growing movement by Tea Party Republicans to embrance genuinely consistent conservative principles. The Democrat Party has been drifting leftward ever since the days of Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy would have been a good Republican today.
When is the Democrat/Obama administration going to be held accountable for the inexcusable failure of duty and judgment in Benghazi; for the use of the IRS against political opponents of the president, and against any group with a conservative-sounding name; for the blatantly illegal spying by the NSA against conservative groups; for the "Fast and Furious" unmitigated disaster; for the blatant lying from the outset about Obamacare; for the ridiculous pro-Iran "diplomacy" of the administration (obviously influenced by Obama's Iranian-born chief of staff, Valerie Jarett); and a host of other impeachable offenses?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ron don't forget you claimed you would make a thread announcing you were wrong and I was right if Obama was not impeached and won a second term
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, I would say it is the Republican Party that has stayed mostly centrist, with a growing movement by Tea Party Republicans to embrance genuinely consistent conservative principles. The Democrat Party has been drifting leftward ever since the days of Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy would have been a good Republican today.
When is the Democrat/Obama administration going to be held accountable for the inexcusable failure of duty and judgment in Benghazi; for the use of the IRS against political opponents of the president, and against any group with a conservative-sounding name; for the blatantly illegal spying by the NSA against conservative groups; for the "Fast and Furious" unmitigated disaster; for the blatant lying from the outset about Obamacare; for the ridiculous pro-Iran "diplomacy" of the administration (obviously influenced by Obama's Iranian-born chief of staff, Valerie Jarett); and a host of other impeachable offenses?
lol, Kennedy would make a good Republican? I was going to say Eisenhower and Reagan would make good Democrats. They're both far, far to the left of today's Republicans. Ever since the Clinton-era, Democrats have consistently stayed center to center-left on most issues. Republicans were mostly center-right in the 90s, but in the 00s tacked really, really hard to the right. In the last five years the curve toward the right has been so hard I'm surprised more of them don't have whiplash. Carter and Johnson are the only two presidents of the last 50 years you can really lay a liberal mantle at the feet of. And Carter was mostly shouted down by Congress.
As for your second paragraph. I don't know, probably around the same time you can prove ANY of that is actually true, which is very likely never. The funny thing is, I have PLENTY of complaints with Obama, lots of liberals do, but the Conservative Victim Complex makes it difficult to get to the legitimate ones, because your BS whining tends to make all attacks on him look just as ridiculous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I would disagree that even Kuccinich would even qualify as "extremist" under anything that looks objective. OH noes! Not caving in to Republican wishlists! We're Xtreme!
Kucinich is the far left of the Democratic Party. He was pretty shrill in 2004, but he toned it down a little bit after he lost the nomination. The only reason he doesn't get talked about more is because he rarely ever gets any face time these days in the media.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, I never promised any such thing. There you go again, to quote a famous American. Though I was wrong about Obama not winning re-election. It has recently been reported that part of the reason for his re-election was that he leaned on the agency that was supposed to report the unemployment numbers, and those figures were deliberately faked. This had a definite impact on the second debate. It has since been blamed on some "rogue" person who took it upon himself to fake the numbers. But that does not wash. Someone did what the president ordered.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
yeah, you made a bunch of claims. I guess I can expect you would have forgotten. Yes, your prediction about obama losing was wrong, and you also predicted obama would be impeached and that was wrong too. You're also wrong about obama being born in kenya and you're wrong about all this benghazi crap, so how's about not blathering at us about that stuff. I hear this here's a thread about filibuster rules in congress.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I never promised any such thing. There you go again, to quote a famous American. Though I was wrong about Obama not winning re-election. It has recently been reported that part of the reason for his re-election was that he leaned on the agency that was supposed to report the unemployment numbers, and those figures were deliberately faked. This had a definite impact on the second debate. It has since been blamed on some "rogue" person who took it upon himself to fake the numbers. But that does not wash. Someone did what the president ordered.
So your contention is that a shadowy move to force the head of the BLS to release unemployment numbers that were off by, what, a few tenths of a percent, swayed millions of Americans to vote for him?
If you can produce a report that says that many American even know what the unemployment number is, I'll let it go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not forget unemployment was still so high that traditionally Presidents wouldn't have been able to overcome it and win reelection, but hey I'm sure it was a whole percentage point that kicked the margin of winning a whole 5%.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I never promised any such thing. There you go again, to quote a famous American.
quote:Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”
To quote a famous pope.
The current one actually!
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: It has recently been reported that part of the reason for his re-election was that he leaned on the agency that was supposed to report the unemployment numbers, and those figures were deliberately faked. This had a definite impact on the second debate.
Just to correct the record for anyone reading: this is outrageously false. But, of course, it's Ron, so you should know that by now.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait wait wait, what part of the current Accords with Iran are "Pro" Iranian? Is talking with them and agreeing to unfreeze some assets impeachable Ron?
quote: (obviously influenced by Obama's Iranian-born chief of staff, Valerie Jarett);
Guys isn't this actually a racist thing to say? Next thing Ron will say is that Obama is pro-China for having some Chinese sounding dudes on staff.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It has recently been reported that part of the reason for his re-election was that he leaned on the agency that was supposed to report the unemployment numbers, and those figures were deliberately faked. This had a definite impact on the second debate.
Just to correct the record for anyone reading: this is outrageously false. But, of course, it's Ron, so you should know that by now.
"It has recently been reported" is ron's version of the fox news "some people say" — minus the part where it is used for covering one's ass in terms of maintaining a pretense of journalistic integrity while hyping partisan hearsay.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Guys isn't this actually a racist thing to say? Next thing Ron will say is that Obama is pro-China for having some Chinese sounding dudes on staff.
kinda yeah, when that becomes the most pertinent piece of information about her in terms of underlining what her ~iranian born~ influence will be on the administration
posted
I realize this is pointless, but just for the fun of it:
"Let me answer you this way. If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong."
posted
I have the strangest feeling that this will be one of those times where Ron, wit and wisdom and prophetic gifts and pipeline straight to God notwithstanding, will once again mysteriously vanish for months or longer after having once again shown himself to be probably wrong.
I'm torn on which to hope for. The benefits of an absence of Ron speak for themselves, of course, but geeze you just never know what kind of bats*%t crazy stuff will be offered up with smug certainty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I realize this is pointless, but just for the fun of it:
"Let me answer you this way. If Obama finishes out his term without being impeached or hounded out of office, and actually wins a second term, I will state that you were right and I was wrong."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
