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

[lue]

I don't think the problem is so much that there are extremists elected to the House (I suspect this happens all the time rather), but that we have a House leader who's pandering to them. We really should consider doing something about that, somehow, after the dust settles.

They very well might not have been on the same side at all. Communism didn't stop Russia and China from splitting, and it probably wouldn't have stopped Germany either. Besides, it is doubtful they would have actually established a communist state, what with it being a coalition.

What I remember from History class says they didn't form a coalition because the two groups are fundamentally opposed on how to bring the changes they want. But still, what could have been prevented...

[Descan]

If you want to keep a two party system (Well, YOU guys don't, but the Gov. seems to), why not have the speaker of the house be a split position, one Speaker for each party, and each can introduce bills? (Do speakers do other jobs that need to be entrusted in only one person? In that case, have a Senior Speaker (party majority) and Junior Speaker.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They very well might not have been on the same side at all. Communism didn't stop Russia and China from splitting, and it probably wouldn't have stopped Germany either. Besides, it is doubtful they would have actually established a communist state, what with it being a coalition.

What I remember from History class says they didn't form a coalition because the two groups are fundamentally opposed on how to bring the changes they want. But still, what could have been prevented...

One party was composed of radical socialists, the other of revolutionary communists. I think they probably could have found common ground somewhere.

[Darvi]

You fools. Deranged millionaire John Hodgman will tell you that the best investment you can make is in beryllium.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Don't be ridiculous, our future clearly lies in palladium.

[smirk]

Is the US government still dead?

Still dead. It being Sunday, I doubt anything much will get done today except for the obligatory Daily Media Circus. This coming week is going to get rather... heated.

For those non-Staters following this thread, the latest rejected Republican proposal was spearheaded by Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is known for being one of the few remaining truly moderate/bipartisan/centrist-minded Republicans in office. I have a suspicion that shooting down her proposal is in no way going to add feelings of reasonableness and brotherly love. +1 for Great Extremist Justice!

[Chaoswizkid]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/tennessee-valley-authority_n_3055345.html

Okay, first off, is that article from April 10th or from October 4th?

Second off, woah, woah, no, bad idea. Tennessee and the surrounding states have a lot of poverty going on, but one of the things that helps everyone survive is electricity being pretty darn cheap. Employment with benefits with TVA is also a really big deal for people. If you privatize the TVA, that all goes to hell, electricity costs whatever the owners want it to, employment benefits disappear, likely tons of legal loopholes after its sale due to it being a federal entity for the longest time and probably being exempt all over the place, etc.

It would ruin Tennessee. We'd lose the current re-industrialization we've got going on due to the low cost of electricity and other incentives (we don't have a lot else going for us, really). I don't know how far away the energy distribution for the TVA goes, but it would likely ruin them, too.

And on the other hand, if it weren't for Hitlers rabid and crippling hate of communists, they might have very well allied, Nazis and Commies. Even WITH Hitler's stupidity, they did manage to split Poland between the two of them.

(I might be wrong~)

You're wrong, at least for it being mostly Hitler's fault. Stalin didn't like anybody. He was damn near criminally insane, if not just plain criminally insane. Even if Germany were communist, I'm not sure Russia would have much to do with them unless a war broke out or they would agree to become a part of Stalin's Soviet Union, because he didn't like any other version of communism than the one he was tweaking. The only reason the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact happened was because Russia did not want to fight Germany (They couldn't even beat Finland, for goodness sake! ), and Germany wanted to deal with France and Britain first.

The only reason why Russia had anything to do with the West is because Germany was picking on everyone, and even though we sent tons of supplies to Russia, Stalin still wasn't happy. Granted, we were not happy with him either, but we weren't being little bitches about it.

[lue]

If you want to keep a two party system (Well, YOU guys don't, but the Gov. seems to), why not have the speaker of the house be a split position, one Speaker for each party, and each can introduce bills? (Do speakers do other jobs that need to be entrusted in only one person? In that case, have a Senior Speaker (party majority) and Junior Speaker.)

Sounds awesome. Hell, each party already has a majority leader in the House (Eric Cantor for the GOP, and Nancy Pelosi for the Dems if memory isn't failing).

Senate leadership doesn't look too different at first glance, so maybe we're just lucky to not see the Senate lock up in the same way?

[Bauglir]

And on the other hand, if it weren't for Hitlers rabid and crippling hate of communists, they might have very well allied, Nazis and Commies. Even WITH Hitler's stupidity, they did manage to split Poland between the two of them.

(I might be wrong~)

It's doubtful. Fascists and Communists in general considered one another mortal enemies, and philosophically the two really are, even if the dictatorial implementations turned out to be disturbingly similar. What they have in common is an insistence that the average citizen is to surrender their own will to the needs of a greater power, which is just a running theme in cults as a general rule. Cults of personality are no exception.

[LordSlowpoke]

beryllium is around $110/100 grams

palladium is around $2200/100 grams

i wonder which one i have enough capital to waste my money investing into

[Max White]

Either, you spend the same amount of money either way, you just get less of the more valuable palladium.
I thought the great big investment sink this death spiral was in water rights?

[lemon10]

The senate is different for a couple of reasons, all of which help prevent this kind of thing from happening there.

First off, it is immune to gerrymandering due to their simply being two senators for each state, which is the entire reason for this problem coming about in the first place.
Secondly, all the most influential and powerful politicians go to the senate after the house, because they get more power per person as well as much longer terms. This means that they are harder to unseat because they are pretty strong in their state, and have probably been there longer.
Thirdly, only a third of senate seats are up for grabs each election. This means that it is harder and takes longer for power to change hands. Because of this a single election won't cause a massive shift in the power balance unless it is really one-sided.
Fourthly, new politicians usually go to the house first, because it is far easier to win (as well as always being open to contest).

All four of these combined basically mean that the tea partiers have far less power in the senate, and thus are prevented from having any real power there. If the tea party movement continues and keeps getting stronger, eventually they will have their share of senators, but it looks pretty unlikely that that will happen at the moment.

[lue]

The senate is different for a couple of reasons, all of which help prevent this kind of thing from happening there.

First off, it is immune to gerrymandering due to their simply being two senators for each state, which is the entire reason for this problem coming about in the first place.
Secondly, all the most influential and powerful politicians go to the senate after the house, because they get more power per person as well as much longer terms. This means that they are harder to unseat because they are pretty strong in their state, and have probably been there longer.
Thirdly, only a third of senate seats are up for grabs each election. This means that it is harder and takes longer for power to change hands. Because of this a single election won't cause a massive shift in the power balance unless it is really one-sided.
Fourthly, new politicians usually go to the house first, because it is far easier to win (as well as always being open to contest).

All four of these combined basically mean that the tea partiers have far less power in the senate, and thus are prevented from having any real power there. If the tea party movement continues and keeps getting stronger, eventually they will have their share of senators, but it looks pretty unlikely that that will happen at the moment.

Ah, that makes sense. I was too busy wondering about how the Senate stops being gridlocked if the leader of the Senate tries to pander to extremists. But I guess that can't happen if the Senate won't gain any significant enough number of extremists .

[Lord Shonus]

The senate is different for a couple of reasons, all of which help prevent this kind of thing from happening there.

First off, it is immune to gerrymandering due to their simply being two senators for each state, which is the entire reason for this problem coming about in the first place.
Secondly, all the most influential and powerful politicians go to the senate after the house, because they get more power per person as well as much longer terms. This means that they are harder to unseat because they are pretty strong in their state, and have probably been there longer.
Thirdly, only a third of senate seats are up for grabs each election. This means that it is harder and takes longer for power to change hands. Because of this a single election won't cause a massive shift in the power balance unless it is really one-sided.
Fourthly, new politicians usually go to the house first, because it is far easier to win (as well as always being open to contest).

All four of these combined basically mean that the tea partiers have far less power in the senate, and thus are prevented from having any real power there. If the tea party movement continues and keeps getting stronger, eventually they will have their share of senators, but it looks pretty unlikely that that will happen at the moment.

There's one major exception to this analysis. Because the Senate was originally composed of gubernatorial appointees instead of elected officials. Senate seats that become vacant are settled by that method. With the current strength of the Tea Party in (largely unpopular and unlikely to survive the next election) state governors,  it is possible that a significant die-off (such as from a terrorist attack) or mass scandal resulting in resignations or expulsions could cause a significant shift.

[Descan]

Investing in that, I'd go after the cheaper one. You get more bang for your buck. If they both go up 1 dollar, then for every 1 of palladium you buy, you could have gotten 20 bucks from the beryllium.

It also goes the other way, if they both go down a dollar, you lose 20 bucks in beryllium compared to the palladium.

It all depends on how much they go up~ But the berylium has a 20-fold headstart on the palladium.