US Politics - From barbarism to decadence

[Maithanet]

To the election results. I was a bit disappointed about Giannoulias and Sestak, but also pleasantly surprised by Reid.

Though I'm not sure if I would have traded results, since Reid losing would have meant Angle in the Senate.

Overall, events went as most predicted, yes? GOP won the House (by perhaps slightly larger margins than thought) but Dems retained the Senate.

Will be interesting to see how that unfolds.

I do feel a bad for Nancy Pelosi though, since she was the one who essentially passed healthcare and she loses her Speaker position while Reid retains his.

Yeah. Shame we can't trade Reid for Feingold. I think Russ would be willing to move to Nevada if that would make things easier...

Fun fact, my House district (VA District 11) is separated by less than 500 votes with 99% counted. It hasn't been declared because it is so close and apparently there was some sort irregularity with a couple of voting machines. Glad I voted yesterday.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you really want to convince me of this, I'm going to need some data.

Hey, you didn't prove any data for your assertions, did you? Since you're asserting that those views actually have majority support, it should be on you to provide support for that. And given that I suspect I've been more attuned to internal GOP sentiment than you've been, I'd say my opinion should be given greater weight anyway. :) Shit, I'm in the more conservative/libertarian wing of the GOP, and even I don't agree with eliminating all social welfare programs.

But look, what I can do is tell you that none of the things I listed have appeared in any Republican Party national platform going all the way back to 1980 at least. If you're going to claim that those positions in fact represent the majority GOP view, you should be able to find then in Reagan's, Bushs', Dole's or McCain's platforms. It would be accurate to say that the GOP as a whole generally endorses a less progressive tax system, less of a social safety net, opposes affirmative action by not all employment discrimination laws, etc.. But the absolutist positions you abscribed to the GOP just aren't correct, and aren't reflected in any national party platform of which I'm aware.

[alguien]

You know, if the GOP wasn't going to get enough votes to retain control, I'd much rather have the buffoonish Harry Reid as the face of Senate Democrats as opposed to the much savvier (in my view) Chuck Schumer.

Well, as opposition goes, yes, bully for you. :P

As another poster said, I would have totally traded Reid for Feingold, even at the expense of Angle, I think.

[Fez]

I guess I differ from many people in thinking that our primary political problem isn't too much polarization, but not enough. Voters deserve clear choices, but when both parties compromise too much to chase the middle, you end up with Ser Scot's "duopoly". There have always been some true libertarian/conservative elements within the GOP, but just not enough. I'm hopeful that tea party candidates like Rubio can help make the GOP more like the party I want it to be, because the only viable alternative is a party whose principles and policies are even further from my own beliefs.

You know, if the GOP wasn't going to get enough votes to retain control, I'd much rather have the buffoonish Harry Reid as the face of Senate Democrats as opposed to the much savvier (in my view) Chuck Schumer.

Except that when the parties are too far apart it means nothing will ever get done because the odds of a party having enough seats in both houses and controlling the white house do as they want is rather unlikely. The Dems were close, with maybe 5 more Senators they would've been there, and as is they'd had some of the largest majorities either party has had in a long time. Sure lots of people seem to like gridlock (not me), but almost everyone agrees that there are times that a functioning legislature is necessary.

And I wouldn't be so sure Reid doesn't step down as leader. Not saying he will, but I would not be surprised if Durbin became leader (Schumer is more unlikely, and probably seen as too liberal even though he and Durbin are pretty much identical)

Isn't shutting the government down precisely what has been promised? At the very least, I know we'll see efforts at a hiring freeze and possibly mandatory furloughs.

Sure its been promised, but I don't see it happening unless the tea partiers win out over the corporatists (which I'd peg as unlikely). I do see the House as submitting some rather wacky budgets and the Senate countering with their own 'normal' budgets, things getting nowhere in conference, and House leadership eventually agreeing to continuing resolutions in order to avoid a shutdown which would kill them in the next election (people aren't happy when they don't get their SS checks because there's no one to mail them) which even if some of their own party don't support the House Dems would. Of course due to inflation a continuing resolution is like a spending cut, but over two years wouldn't add up to much.

Of course I did see that Bachmann is planning on running for the No. 3 Republican spot in the House, if she somehow does win that than all bets are off on what happens next.

[Darkostar]

Minnesota looks to have a tight race on its hands once again. Dayton has about a 10K vote lead on Emmer. Expect a recount.

[TerraPrime]

But look, what I can do is tell you that none of the things I listed have appeared in any Republican Party national platform going all the way back to 1980 at least. If you're going to claim that those positions in fact represent the majority GOP view, you should be able to find then in Reagan's, Bushs', Dole's or McCain's platforms. It would be accurate to say that the GOP as a whole generally endorses a less progressive tax system, less of a social safety net, opposes affirmative action by not all employment discrimination laws, etc.. But the absolutist positions you abscribed to the GOP just aren't correct, and aren't reflected in any national party platform of which I'm aware.

The 2008 platform found from UCSB Presidency project:

Fundamental Tax Reform

Over the long run, the mammoth IRS tax code must be replaced with a system that is simple, transparent, and fair while maximizing economic growth and job creation. As a transition, we support giving all taxpayers the option of filing under current rules or under a two-rate flat tax with generous deductions for families. This gradual approach is the taxpayers' best hope of overcoming the lobbyist legions that have thwarted past simplification efforts.

Sounds to me like they want to eliminate all progressive taxing. I mean, isn't that what a flat tax is?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The 2008 platform found from UCSB Presidency project:

Sounds to me like they want to eliminate all progressive taxing.

Doesn't sound that way to me at all given that it calls for a two-rate flat tax with "generous deductions for families".

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

How can you have a multi-rate flat tax? I'm still looking on that site for details of the proposed implementation, etc.

[Ken Stone]

I guess I differ from many people in thinking that our primary political problem isn't too much polarization, but not enough. Voters deserve clear choices, but when both parties compromise too much to chase the middle, you end up with Ser Scot's "duopoly". There have always been some true libertarian/conservative elements within the GOP, but just not enough. I'm hopeful that tea party candidates like Rubio can help make the GOP more like the party I want it to be, because the only viable alternative is a party whose principles and policies are even further from my own beliefs.

Voters deserve clear choices, but we don't have them. Who should you vote for if you want the US to stop policing the world? What if you want to cut military spending? What if you don't like the idea of the President being allowed to kill US Civilians without due process? What if you want to see the power of the Presidency rolled back some? Which alternative are you given? What if you would like more transparency in gov't? What if you want less corruption? On the important issues the GOP and Dems are on the same side.

[Guest Raidne]

Hey, you didn't prove any data for your assertions, did you? Since you're asserting that those views actually have majority support, it should be on you to provide support for that.

I can see how you feel this way. The issue came up because someone expressed surprise at how far right the right is here. I listed examples of positions held by the right wing here, and asked if anyone knew of any other country who has them. You thought it was unfair that I listed those positions and so I shouldn't use them for that purpose. I am going to continue to use them for that purpose. Apologies. I do not believe that the Republican party is the party of national enforcement of separation of church and state, anti-discrimination restraints on private business, abortion, etc. I don't think that a controversial position.

But look, what I can do is tell you that none of the things I listed have appeared in any Republican Party national platform going all the way back to 1980 at least. If you're going to claim that those positions in fact represent the majority GOP view, you should be able to find then in Reagan's, Bushs', Dole's or McCain's platforms. It would be accurate to say that the GOP as a whole generally endorses a less progressive tax system, less of a social safety net, opposes affirmative action by not all employment discrimination laws, etc.. But the absolutist positions you abscribed to the GOP just aren't correct, and aren't reflected in any national party platform of which I'm aware.

The same thing is true to the same extent regarding Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama's platforms. You're not going to find support for universal health care in there. I'm willing to say that liberals nevertheless want universal health care. Because I'm honest like that. :)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

How can you have a multi-rate flat tax? I'm still looking on that site for details of the proposed implementation, etc.

It's really a "flatter" tax, not a true flat tax. And even the single rate flat tax proposals I've seen (there may be others) generally have a minimum income threshhold, as well as maintaining some key family deductions that are inherently "progressive".

The same thing is true to the same extent regarding Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama's platforms.

Clinton didn't have UHC in his platform, but he did try to pass it while in office.

I'm willing to say that liberals nevertheless want universal health care. Because I'm honest like that.

Yes, but you did rather cleverly move the goalposts by saying that liberals want universal healthcare, rather than Democrats wanting universal healthcare. That would be the proper point of comparison since you were talking about what "Republicans" believe. Now, if you wanted to say that conservatives (not "Republicans") believed in a flat tax, etc., I'd agree that's a more debatable point.

[MinDonner]

The issue came up because someone expressed surprise at how far right the right is here.

To be fair, I think the surprise was expressed at how far right the left is there.

[awesome possum]

So it turns out that seniors were the GOP's biggest voting bloc yesterday, with 23% of GOP voters being 65 or older. Which really isn't surprising after the "death panel" and "keep your government hands off my medicare" stupidity. But now the GOP either has to go back on their word and refuse to cut spending, or cut spending.... in the form of medicare and social security cuts.

The irony is delicious.

I am simply saying that Republicans ran on that platform, and I'm going to be pissed if they don't follow through with it, regardless of whether the President likes it or not.

Prepare to be pissed then.

I believe the calls for "bipartisanship" are currently being made by the President and Harry Reid.

As they have been for two years. Republican politicians have as slimy in their calls for bipartisanship as they have been in just about everything else.

Dems: Here's a bill. We even watered it down for you.

Repubs: It's not watered down enough. How about you add this and this and this and this and this?

Dems: OK, we'll add this and this and this. But not this or this. Or this... in addition to being incredibly short-sighted and bad for the country it just sounds stupid.

Repubs: OMG LOOK AMERICAN PUBLIC THEY'RE NOT BEING BIPARTISAN!!!!!!!