Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[kaijyuu]

Only from the first paragraph, there's three things wrong with it: Overly sensationalist, uses slippery slope arguments left and right, and misblames the government shutdown on religious nuts rather than tea part nuts who are the actual cause.

[smirk]

Only from the first paragraph, there's three things wrong with it: Overly sensationalist, uses slippery slope arguments left and right, and misblames the government shutdown on religious nuts rather than tea part nuts who are the actual cause.

Agreed. There's probably a few useful thoughts in there, but it's mostly like watching someone bludgeon Karl Marx to death with a copy of "Atlas Shrugged".

[Helgoland]

Only from the first paragraph, there's three things wrong with it: Overly sensationalist, uses slippery slope arguments left and right, and misblames the government shutdown on religious nuts rather than tea part nuts who are the actual cause.

Agreed. There's probably a few useful thoughts in there, but it's mostly like watching someone bludgeon Karl Marx to death with a copy of "Atlas Shrugged".

You don't simply bludgeon Karl Marx - do you know how much force you need to get through Das Kapital? And yes, all the volumes. That thing can stop bullets.
I want an animated show about beatdowns between philosophers, and also between philosophers and Ayn Rand. Like the Monty Python football match, but with more blood.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Only from the first paragraph, there's three things wrong with it: Overly sensationalist, uses slippery slope arguments left and right, and misblames the government shutdown on religious nuts rather than tea part nuts who are the actual cause.

Well, we do see from the analysis of Republican factions that was posted earlier in the thread that the Tea Party-Evangelical alliance is very strong, so they are sort of involved.

[alway]

Though I suspect the important bit will be this:

Wall Street could be the biggest indicator of who is right in this fight. Investors nervous over the political impasse in Washington pushed all three major U.S. stock indexes lower on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average alone lost more than 130 points, or nearly 1 percent of its value.

The DOW was down another 1% today, and the NASDAQ down 2%. When it really starts crashing, and it will if no deal appears imminent within the next week, Republicans will have absolutely no choice in the matter. When all their middle-aged and elderly constituents suddenly lose $10k or $20k, $40k or more from their retirement funds, and when their corporate sponsors see their invested wealth and businesses start to tank, there will be hell to pay for these shenanigans.

Ha. I was right. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/09/20886586-kochs-to-congress-focus-on-spending-not-obamacare?lite
And so it begins.

But privately, Koch officials have expressed concern to lawmakers that the prospect of a government default over the Obamacare issue would be a "disaster" for the economy, according to one GOP consultant who recently discussed the matter with Koch officials and asked for anonymity. Koch Industries associates note that the firm is widely diversified, including last month's $7.2 billion purchase of a company that makes connectors for Apple iPhones and other consumer products -- one of many markets that could be effected by spikes in credit resulting from a government default.

[Mephansteras]

I was expecting this, and it's why I don't think congress will actually default. WAAAAY too many powerful people and companies would be hurt by a default, and they make up most of the funding support for both sides. If push comes to shove, you can be that the dems and most republicans will cave on this issue. The Tea Party might now, but they just don't have the numbers to stop the rest of congress.

Besides, most reps are rich, and they'd all suffer quite a bit in the default as well.

[misko27]

Problem: There is a not insignificant minority that is actually angry the debate has shifted from Obamacare. If you hear speeches from the people causing this Banana-fest, There is less mention of general budget cuts then of Obamacare. Some are honestly of the Opinion that the default would be worth getting rid of Obamacare. Some state that a Default wouldn't be that bad, and Obamacare would do more damage then a Default. The Problem is people have finally been elected who believe the drivel that has been spit out for so long on the right. Due to gerrymandering, no one can topple them in their own districts, and they simply have 0 reason to ever, ever compromise. Ever. They are at this point debating even the facts of the Default, like it's date, and the actual damage it will do. Some think the Shutdown is helping, this as Stocks tank. This is not your Grandparent's Congress. There are grassroots who will support the Tea-Party forever, maybe they won't have as much to do it with, but more then enough. We have actually achieved the avatars of the problems in the US system, people who are funded from on high, but aren't beholden to them; who have the full support of their small districts and thus are immune; and who will get into a game of Chicken with a speeding train while casting doubt on whether collision will even hurt. Please, don't hope these people will sudennly be struck by a corporate sponser. Even if they wanted to, they can't back down now. Our only hope is that moderates defect.

just do nationwide representation. 45% votes in the whole country = 45% of seats.
Same for the president.

Or, as you're stuck with two parties, invent a new form of government reflecting the 50/50 repartition of your population. But do not stay wth this godawful system.

Personally, I believe the point of the American system is that it is individual-driven, not party driven, and so it would be better to do away with the parties entirely. Voting with parties enforces ideological rigidity. The new system in California shows some promise; totally non-partisan Primaries, that is to say, everyone votes on anyone they want, and the top 2 get a general election. New York has Electoral Fusion laws, which allow support for another party while casting your vote for a specific person, as long as that person has been endorsed by that party.
NEws
Anyway, in Politico is a summation of Boehner and his options. He was barely re-elected to the Speakership, and a failure here would be his end. He has seen more support in recent weeks, but only by going against his instincts and deferring to the Tea Party. His options:

• The "magic-trick" scenario, a win over the Democrats occurs, his dreamed for grand bargain occurs, and he is re-elected to the Speakership. This hasn't happened in the past, and only a complete break by Democrats because of Economic Pressure would cause this. Highly unlikely.
• "Blaze of Glory" The Principled scenario, he goes "I ain't taken this shit no more", breaks with his party, supports a end to the Cliff (I feel I'm mixing metaphors here), and maybe resigns from the Speakership to drive home the point. Either way, he wouldn't be in charge, but damn it he saves them. This is also unlikely, as this goes against his personality.
• "Ash in mouth" that is, failure in one way or another. The Democrats win, or the Republicans lose the House. The end of Boehner, kicking and screaming. This is the most likely scenario.

Obama is currently taking advantage of the best scenario possible for Democrats and his hard-line has lead to a increase in poll numbers, and the full-support of the left. Between Obamacare going live and Republicans going mad, Obama has more unity then he has had for a long time. He is not doing any of the things that attracted rage earlier, mostly unpopular and ultimately useless compromise. Obama has also chosen Yellen to be the next Fed Chief, which helps.

Oh and look a Moderate republican has a plan.

[RedKing]

The Problem is people have finally been elected who believe the drivel that has been spit out for so long on the right.

This is pretty much the problem in a nutshell. You have people who rather than playing political theater, are playing that shit TO THE HILT. When it comes time for them to play the part of Brutus assassinating Caesar, they're not carrying stage daggers.

Or to use another metaphor, when the script calls for them to sneak into the ring with a folding chair to wail on Obama, they're bringing a real chair and they're looking to cripple or kill, not just provide a "heel" for the audience.

The Koch Bros. et al created a monster and it got away from them. And while I don't want to see a default, a certain small part of me would derive great schadenfreude if that monster wound up costing them tens of billions of dollars. (Unfortunately, the uber-rich would still come out far better than the rest of us would.)

[lue]

Does anyone else feel at least a twinge hopeful that Böhner has offered a deal that raises the debt ceiling in exchange for talks concerning the shutdown? Anyone?

[RedKing]

Not really. It's an interesting attempt to appear open to negotiation, but in essence it's just doing what they said they wouldn't do, which is link the debt ceiling to the Obamacare debate.

R: Okay, we'll raise the debt ceiling (for six weeks).
D: Okay, let's talk about the shutdown.
R: Okay, our position remains the same.
D: So does ours.
R: Okay then....see you in six weeks to do all this again?


And that's the BEST case scenario, IMHO.

[GlyphGryph]

And that will be terrible, just terrible, for the economy.

Meaning that the next six weeks, as the ACA gets it's legs, will be the worst Christmas season the economy has had in a long, long time.

Meaning that the ACA is clearly ruining the economy. Tea Party wins again! Hah!

[Morrigi]

The Problem is people have finally been elected who believe the drivel that has been spit out for so long on the right.

This is pretty much the problem in a nutshell. You have people who rather than playing political theater, are playing that shit TO THE HILT. When it comes time for them to play the part of Brutus assassinating Caesar, they're not carrying stage daggers.

Or to use another metaphor, when the script calls for them to sneak into the ring with a folding chair to wail on Obama, they're bringing a real chair and they're looking to cripple or kill, not just provide a "heel" for the audience.

The Koch Bros. et al created a monster and it got away from them. And while I don't want to see a default, a certain small part of me would derive great schadenfreude if that monster wound up costing them tens of billions of dollars. (Unfortunately, the uber-rich would still come out far better than the rest of us would.)

And the Obama administration is blameless, right? One of the bills passed through the House did nothing more than extend the exemptions inn Obamacare that will allow hundreds of corporations to opt out, to everyone else for one year.

This was, of course, refused.

But really, what is unreasonable about that? The government gets funded, and corporations don't get special treatment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because you don't get to hold the economy hostage to block legislation you disagree with. This is not the time or place for it. If the Republicans want to repeal or limit the ACA, they can file independent legislation on the topic.

[lue]

The Problem is people have finally been elected who believe the drivel that has been spit out for so long on the right.

This is pretty much the problem in a nutshell. You have people who rather than playing political theater, are playing that shit TO THE HILT. When it comes time for them to play the part of Brutus assassinating Caesar, they're not carrying stage daggers.

Or to use another metaphor, when the script calls for them to sneak into the ring with a folding chair to wail on Obama, they're bringing a real chair and they're looking to cripple or kill, not just provide a "heel" for the audience.

The Koch Bros. et al created a monster and it got away from them. And while I don't want to see a default, a certain small part of me would derive great schadenfreude if that monster wound up costing them tens of billions of dollars. (Unfortunately, the uber-rich would still come out far better than the rest of us would.)

And the Obama administration is blameless, right? One of the bills passed through the House did nothing more than extend the exemptions inn Obamacare that will allow hundreds of corporations to opt out, to everyone else for one year.

This was, of course, refused.

But really, what is unreasonable about that? The government gets funded, and corporations don't get special treatment.

Although I'm certainly with the Democrats here, I certainly think they could give up the individual mandate for a while. And if that's all the Republicans ask for, I'd say that's a pretty sweet deal. A functioning government and economy for one delayed tax.

[Helgoland]

It would be a horrible mistake to allow such a delay: ACA needs to be cemented as status quo so the Republicans can't repeal it when they come to power again - such a cementation needs time, and that one-year delay could have broken ACA's neck, so to speak. A political argument, sure; but why allow opt-outs at all? The original opt-out possibility was just as politically motivated.