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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I personally get the impression that the two-party system might be nearing the end of its rope. Maybe not for ten or twenty more years, but the support for wide-ranging democratic reform is fairly impressive these days, as is frustration with the problems of gerrymandering, FPTP, etc. It would be very interesting to see what happens to the system if we instituted shortest-splitline and range voting. Even now, 50% of Americans support completely banning private campaign finances in favor of fair public funding. Considering that this is almost the polar opposite of the current system, 50% is a crazy number.

And that's not all: 75% support term limits for Congress, and 63% support abolishing the Electoral College.

Oh look, I found even more things: 68% support national popular votes on laws if a petition with enough support is created, 61% want to limit Presidential campaigns to five weeks, and 58% want to make the primaries a single election rather than one that happens over the course of months.

[misko27]

The Obamapproval index is rebounding (scroll down a bit to see the graph). It seems like the fallout from the ACA is clearing. Still pretty bad, but it's getting better. I think if Obama keeps this up and pulls for a win on Immigration or something similar he might have something to show the voters for Years 5 & 6.

[Max White]

The Obamapproval index is rebounding (scroll down a bit to see the graph). It seems like the fallout from the ACA is clearing. Still pretty bad, but it's getting better. I think if Obama keeps this up and pulls for a win on Immigration or something similar he might have something to show the voters for Years 5 & 6.

It is still a pretty shitty system compared to actual, state funded, public heath care. Worst case scenario is that it gets implemented, doesn't actually work that well, and gets in the way of a better system coming in.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Obamapproval index is rebounding (scroll down a bit to see the graph). It seems like the fallout from the ACA is clearing. Still pretty bad, but it's getting better. I think if Obama keeps this up and pulls for a win on Immigration or something similar he might have something to show the voters for Years 5 & 6.

It is still a pretty shitty system compared to actual, state funded, public heath care. Worst case scenario is that it gets implemented, doesn't actually work that well, and gets in the way of a better system coming in.

It's funny you say that, because this is the opposite of the conspiracy theory is that Obamacare is designed to fail so the Democrats can justify implementing a single-payer system later (optional: and then they'll implement the socialist rationing and death panels).

Still, having read up on the ACA, I'm fairly certain it will work out at least better than the way things were without it. What's going on now with the businesses dropping coverage is market shock, and they're going to swing hard the other way once they start getting fine notices for not providing coverage (which will happen over the course of 2014, with 2015 being the first year the fines are enforced).

[lue]

I really wish this John Boehner came out sooner.

I personally get the impression that the two-party system might be nearing the end of its rope. Maybe not for ten or twenty more years, but the support for wide-ranging democratic reform is fairly impressive these days, as is frustration with the problems of gerrymandering, FPTP, etc. It would be very interesting to see what happens to the system if we instituted shortest-splitline and range voting. Even now, 50% of Americans support completely banning private campaign finances in favor of fair public funding. Considering that this is almost the polar opposite of the current system, 50% is a crazy number.

And that's not all: 75% support term limits for Congress, and 63% support abolishing the Electoral College.

Oh look, I found even more things: 68% support national popular votes on laws if a petition with enough support is created, 61% want to limit Presidential campaigns to five weeks, and 58% want to make the primaries a single election rather than one that happens over the course of months.

Just because I feel like stating how I would've responded on those polls:

• No private finance? Sounds good to me, though limited private campaign finance would do just as well by me.
• I actually don't mind the term-limit-lessness of Congress, at least not at the moment. The problems I see right now aren't caused by having too many terms. Granted, not having limits means problematic election results stay around longer, but I only see that as fixing symptoms instead of causes. Unless one can show me the effects of no limits.
• The Electoral College is stupid. You cannot convince me otherwise.
• National referenda? Sounds nice, but I somehow get nervous about the idea. As if the laws that affect the entire nation should be decided upon by people who actually know existing law...
• I like watching campaigns. I'd be sad to see them limited. Besides, I would bet money that a lot of trickery over what exactly is campaigning will ensue, and I don't think that annoyance is worth it.
• Unifying primaries seems like a good idea, though it doesn't matter either way to me. Primaries, by the way, would be one of those "what exactly is campaigning" things from the last bullet.

And, as usual, death to FPTP, gerrymandering, etc. I think the House of Reps. is a good place to implement Germany's two-vote system, by the way, we just need to make the seat numbers even and do some redistribution magic for the specific numbers to each state .

The Obamapproval index is rebounding (scroll down a bit to see the graph). It seems like the fallout from the ACA is clearing. Still pretty bad, but it's getting better. I think if Obama keeps this up and pulls for a win on Immigration or something similar he might have something to show the voters for Years 5 & 6.

It is still a pretty shitty system compared to actual, state funded, public heath care. Worst case scenario is that it gets implemented, doesn't actually work that well, and gets in the way of a better system coming in.

Of course it's not the best system. But at least we're a tiny little morsel of a piece of some measure towards a part of the way better off than before.

[Max White]

Well yea, no doubt I would take Obamacare over the harsh free markets... But then again I'm a dirty parasite that is scared of independence, so there is that. Still, bring on the death panels!

[FearfulJesuit]

Whilst the GOP holds a conference to tell Republican lawmakers not to pull another Todd Akin, the Michigan Legislature bravely fights Obamacare's tyranny by being asshats of the highest order.

(To be fair, I don't think this was their original intention. But it's as good as when this consequence was pointed out and they didn't drop it.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well yea, no doubt I would take Obamacare over the harsh free markets... But then again I'm a dirty parasite that is scared of independence, so there is that. Still, bring on the death panels!

It isn't even a free market. Obamacare is a free market system for healthcare, another attempt at forcing non-capital to be capital. The previous system isn't really a market at all because the "consumers" are essentially a captive audience who may be locked out entirely on the basis of their health.

Whilst the GOP holds a conference to tell Republican lawmakers not to pull another Todd Akin, the Michigan Legislature bravely fights Obamacare's tyranny by being asshats of the highest order.

(To be fair, I don't think this was their original intention. But it's as good as when this consequence was pointed out and they didn't drop it.)

The Michigan State Legislature first passed the measure last year, but Governor Rick Snyder (R) vetoed it, saying he does not "believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage."

When you're being more of an asshole than Rick Snyder, you may want to re-evaluate your life.

[scriver]

In that case, you and your socialist hacker friends can have all the fun they want disgracing the holy copyright of Comedy Central here:

Fuck it, just watch this.

Dear lord. Thanks for the link. That was... Well. I don't think I've ever really seen anything like that.

[lue]

Whilst the GOP holds a conference to tell Republican lawmakers not to pull another Todd Akin, the Michigan Legislature bravely fights Obamacare's tyranny by being asshats of the highest order.

(To be fair, I don't think this was their original intention. But it's as good as when this consequence was pointed out and they didn't drop it.)

Oh come on, you're forgetting all that legitimate rape stuff! Real rape doesn't result in pregnancies, so this isn't even a problem. Geez. You even referenced Todd Akin in your post, which makes this omission of facts even more embarrassing. Tsk tsk tsk.

[FearfulJesuit]

I can't help but wonder when the Republicans are going to get their hat out of their ass about abortion. I mean, the thing is, unlike anti-gay marriage folk, there are good, honest, consistent, and often left-wing pro-lifers out there (I'd say I'm pro-choice, but with reservations; I'm hoping better forms of contraception will make the whole thing a non-issue in a decade or two). This sort of zero-sum, no-holds-barred nonsense, unfortunately, makes them all look like misogynistic twathats.

[misko27]

I can't help but wonder when the Republicans are going to get their hat out of their ass about abortion. I mean, the thing is, unlike anti-gay marriage folk, there are good, honest, consistent, and often left-wing pro-lifers out there (I'd say I'm pro-choice, but with reservations; I'm hoping better forms of contraception will make the whole thing a non-issue in a decade or two). This sort of zero-sum, no-holds-barred nonsense, unfortunately, makes them all look like misogynistic twathats.

And there are radical pro-choicers out there to point to as well, ones that gives moderates pause when decision-making; yet the Republicans are still trying be the loudest extremists they can be.


Anyway, it's a strange day when Rick Snyder is going "Wait, wow, back up here a minute, this is wrong." But today is stranger still: The House passed the budget deal today, and no politicians were killed in the making of this deal.

[FearfulJesuit]

Opposite day in the halls of this great nation? It's more likely than you think!

[lue]

I can't help but wonder when the Republicans are going to get their hat out of their ass about abortion. I mean, the thing is, unlike anti-gay marriage folk, there are good, honest, consistent, and often left-wing pro-lifers out there (I'd say I'm pro-choice, but with reservations; I'm hoping better forms of contraception will make the whole thing a non-issue in a decade or two). This sort of zero-sum, no-holds-barred nonsense, unfortunately, makes them all look like misogynistic twathats.

Being so stubborn on their position doesn't help; but the worst part about the abortion debate is that the dichotomy is not

Code: [Select]

ABORTION IS MURDER ←———→ ABORTION WILL CURE OVERPOPULATIONlike it would be if it were like any other issue, but rather

Code: [Select]

ABORTION IS MURDER ←———→ ABORTION IS SOMETHING YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DO OR NOTArguing is near impossible when the argument is at its core about allowing someone to choose to do something. It almost feels like a "monarchy v. democracy" type argument, insofar as the general opinions of each side on what other people can do are easily transposable.

[FearfulJesuit]

There are pro-forced abortion people out there- see any eugenics circlejerk on Reddit. My favorite was a dude on /r/atheism who thought theists should be forced to have abortions. Luckily, they're in the minority.

(My personal problem with the abortion debate is that any position you choose can basically be followed to an unacceptable conclusion. The problems with hard pro-life positions are well-known, so I'll just throw out: If abortions aren't murder, then why do we prosecute people who knowingly kill pregnant women for two deaths? The principle seems to be that a fetus is a person if the mother wants it to be a person, which is practicable and all, except that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all and makes no philosophical sense whatsoever (and for that matter, what's the difference between a fetus and a newborn? Where's the line?). I've even seen some people claim that although abortion is murder, it should still be allowed by law (?). The takeaway I've drawn is that when we have a problem, we want an unambiguous solution that is ethical, practical and egalitarian. For abortion, such a solution very likely does not exist.)