US Politics - From barbarism to decadence

[Shryke]

Anyway, there's been some buzz around the Media about "Democrats showing up for early voting in record numbers" and such. (gotta keep that horse race narrative alive!):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/politics/main6977597.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CBSNewsTheEarlyShowLiving+%28CBS+News:+The+Early+Show:+Living%29

Nate Silver is extremely skeptical: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/a-second-pass-at-early-voting-totals-now-with-extra-skepticism/

But hey, why let that stop the baseless accusations!

Here comes Tea Party creator Dick Armey: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/dick_armey_so_many_dems_are_voting_early_because_t.php?ref=fpb

After CBS News reported today that Democrats are showing strong numbers at early voting polls, FreedomWorks CEO Dick Armey offered his theory as to why: Those Dems are committing voter fraud.

Appearing on Fox News this afternoon, he told Neil Cavuto that Democrats vote early because there's "less ballot security," creating a "great opportunity" for fraud. He also claimed that such fraudulent early voting is "pinpointed to the major urban areas. The inner city."

FEAR THE DARKIE!!!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/gop_lawyers_group_warns_newsmax_of_epidemic_voter.php

The community-organizing group ACORN has "absolutely" re-emerged since it was disbanded in the spring and there could be an "epidemic" of voter fraud problems this year to change the outcome of the midterm elections, David Norcross, the chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association, told Newsmax.

Newsmax, a conservative website, compared ACORN to "the mythological hydra that grew two heads for every one cut off."

Norcross -- whose group hosted a panel on ACORN at the Conservative Political Action Conference entitled "Saving Freedom From Vote Fraud" -- lamented that Democrats were using the anti-voter fraud initiatives launched by conservatives to rally their base.

FEAR

[alguien]

So, is it all but certain that Republicans will take the House? Does anyone think there's any chance at all that this won't happen?

I figure the Senate is still up for grabs but that the Dems have a decent chance of retaining that.

[Old Nan]

I could buy that the ACORN cells have been reactivated.

[awesome possum]

Anyway, there's been some buzz around the Media about "Democrats showing up for early voting in record numbers" and such. (gotta keep that horse race narrative alive!):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/politics/main6977597.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CBSNewsTheEarlyShowLiving+%28CBS+News:+The+Early+Show:+Living%29

Nate Silver is extremely skeptical: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/a-second-pass-at-early-voting-totals-now-with-extra-skepticism/

But hey, why let that stop the baseless accusations!

Here comes Tea Party creator Dick Armey: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/dick_armey_so_many_dems_are_voting_early_because_t.php?ref=fpb

FEAR THE DARKIE!!!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/gop_lawyers_group_warns_newsmax_of_epidemic_voter.php

FEAR

Well duh, it's obvious Democrats can't be voted into office legitimately. As opposed to the two presidential elections previous to 2008, which were both completely and totally legitimate in all facets because a Republican won.

I could buy that the ACORN cells have been reactivated.

Did you buy it while also buying from Goldline?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The GOP needs to get to 51 to technically have control, because a 50/50 tie is broken by Joe Biden.

Speaking of this, can someone explain the logic of why the way the VP is elected? Originally, the guy who got the second-most votes got to be VP. That meant that the minority still received representation in government. Also it probably kept things more civilized what with you having to work with the guy you are campaigning against. Why did we ever change that?

[Altherion]

Speaking of this, can someone explain the logic of why the way the VP is elected? Originally, the guy who got the second-most votes got to be VP. That meant that the minority still received representation in government. Also it probably kept things more civilized what with you having to work with the guy you are campaigning against. Why did we ever change that?

The way it initially worked was that each elector got 2 votes which they had to cast for people from different states. The problem is that once political parties became established, if every elector voted along party lines, it would lead to a tie in the race for President. When this happened to Jefferson and Burr in 1800, they needed the opposing party to break the tie which didn't really make much sense. It didn't help that they couldn't make up their minds and needed to vote 36 times (literally) before the issue was finally resolved.

[Shryke]

It was also alot less civilized. They didn't really "work with one another".

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The way it initially worked was that each elector got 2 votes which they had to cast for people from different states. The problem is that once political parties became established, if every elector voted along party lines, it would lead to a tie in the race for President. When this happened to Jefferson and Burr in 1800, they needed the opposing party to break the tie which didn't really make much sense. It didn't help that they couldn't make up their minds and needed to vote 36 times (literally) before the issue was finally resolved.

Sounds good and democratic to me. Better than the VP being picked by one guy. How is that consistent with government of the people?

[Altherion]

It was not worth the hassle. At the time, the Vice-President wasn't as prestigious a position (the pattern of Vice-Presidents having a good chance of becoming President wasn't firmly established yet).

[Swordfish]

One of my favorite voter disconnects is people who want to vote Democrats out because of "the bailouts." I wonder how many of those people have Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars and don't realize that Bush signed TARP. Yes, there were also the auto bailouts, but I don't think that those garnered quite the same rage. The whole situation is complicated, the Dems were involved in a lot of the handling of TARP after it was signed (the part in which it cost us very little money). It's just very clear that people are pissed off about the economic environment, and it's so easy for people to be convinced it's all the Dem's fault.

That's just pigeons coming home to roost. The dems did all they could to stoke up the 'OMG we shouldn't be bailing out these evil high faluting big whigs!!?!?!!!!!! Bonuses!!!! Private jets!!!! Fly commercial!!!!!!' narrative.

They hardly get to play the victim card now just because people didn't conveniently forget about all that inflamatory rhetoric.

[TrueMetis]

No one should have stepped on her head. You cant justify that. I was answering why the people were grabbing her. restraining her until proper police intervention happened should have been sufficient.

Wait, would that be legal?

[Shryke]

That's just pigeons coming home to roost. The dems did all they could to stoke up the 'OMG we shouldn't be bailing out these evil high faluting big whigs!!?!?!!!!!! Bonuses!!!! Private jets!!!! Fly commercial!!!!!!' narrative.

They hardly get to play the victim card now just because people didn't conveniently forget about all that inflamatory rhetoric.

Wait, what? This makes no sense.

They complained about somebody else doing the bailout so it's their fault they get blamed for the thing they were complaining about that they didn't do?

WTF kind of non-logic is this?

[Shryke]

Also, more on the curb-stomping

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/10/rand_paul_volunteer_ordered_to_court_for_scuffle.php?ref=fpblg

The volunteer with Rand Paul's Republican U.S. Senate campaign who stepped on the head of a liberal activist and pinned her face to the concrete said Tuesday the scuffle was not as bad as it looked on video and blamed police for not intervening.

"I'm sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand's safety," Tim Profitt told The Associated Press.

Classy

[Swordfish]

Are you saying that this happened during TARP?

I thought we were talking about the reactions to bailouts?

I don't even think you can really call TARP a bailout, but that horse has been beaten to death already.

[Watcher]

Also, more on the curb-stomping

Classy

Translation: There's nothing wrong with me stomping on her face after she's been pinned down. I'm really sorry someone captured it on tape. In any case, it's the police fault. Even though she was already being held down with her arms pinned behind her back and couldn't move I had to rube her face into the concert with my foot. What else could I do? I'm also a douchebag. Vote Rand Paul!

[mcbigski]

Didn't John Adams say that it was the most worthless position ever invented? I think he said something like that in the mini-series, but I don't know if it was a real historical statement or not.

I didn't see the HBO series but one VP compared the position, not favorably, to a bucket of piss. I'm thinking it was LBJ, but it could have been a couple of centuries sooner.

If the chick getting assaulted at the Rand Paul event story is entirely true, I hope she gets more justice than Ken Gladney.

I'm also going to go not far at all on a limb and predict that in 2012 the Democrats pick up lots of seats in Congress, due entirely to Tea Party disillousment with the Republicans. Though I think in the medium run a lot of the career RINOs realign with the Dems, eventually the TP platform will gain popular purchase as the PC myths get destroyed by experience.

[Swordfish]

I think many average voters are actually thinking about TARP when they think about the bailouts that they don't like. But this was bolstered by the AIG bonus story and the auto bailouts that happened shortly after. It frustrates me because by far the biggest piece of it was signed by Bush (and rightly so, in my opinion), yet they want to punish Democrats for it. The Democrats helping to manage it now have seen that it didn't cost nearly what the original sticker-shock price suggested it was going to cost.

I would love to see a link to these projected costs.

TARP was never going to cost us very much. Attributing it's low cost to democratic oversight is a pretty silly thing to suggest, regardless of what rolling stone tells you.

Either way, the point remains the same. They stoked the flames of the 'BIG BIZNESS IS TEH EVIL AND DOESNT DESERVE ANY MONEYZ', and now the angry chickens are coming home to roost. I don't really see how that is surprising. In fact, I think it's kind of hilarious.

So I think a lot of people just sort of compartmentalize all of it together as "all those bailouts" or something like that.

Well, OK. What's wrong with that? It's not like the democrats fought those bailouts. You sit on the bench liker a bunch or preening peacocks and smugly pretend to be the guardians of the purse by lambasting auto execs about using private jets, then hand them the money anyway and let them get back to business as usual, what do you EXPECT people to think?

You want to live by the sword, you can't cry like little girls when you're life gets threatened by the self same sword.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I think many average voters are actually thinking about TARP when they think about the bailouts that they don't like. But this was bolstered by the AIG bonus story and the auto bailouts that happened shortly after. So I think a lot of people just sort of compartmentalize all of it together as "all those bailouts" or something like that. It frustrates me because by far the biggest piece of it was signed by Bush (and rightly so, in my opinion), yet they want to punish Democrats for it. The Democrats helping to manage it now have seen that it didn't cost nearly what the original sticker-shock price suggested it was going to cost.

You do realize that it was a Democrat-majority congress that passed the TARP legislation right? And that of the 25 "nay" votes in the Senate 15 were Republican? And of the 178 "nay" votes in the house 108 were Republican?

The president may have supported it but the majority of it's supporters and authors were Democrats. Also recall that Barack Obama rushed back to Washington from the campaign trail amidst much fanfare to support it.

[Paladin of Ice]

It's not like the democrats fought those bailouts. You sit on the bench liker a bunch or preening peacocks and smugly pretend to be the guardians of the purse by lambasting auto execs about using private jets, then hand them the money anyway and let them get back to business as usual, what do you EXPECT people to think?

You want to live by the sword, you can't cry like little girls when you're life gets threatened by the self same sword.

I thought it was a horrible example of government overreach and interference when the Democrats removed the execs at GM rather than just let them get back to business. And then made GM profitable for the first time in a decade, despite the fact that the Free Market is always better than the government?

Or should everyone that works for GM, every tire company and mechanic that gets part of their revenue from GM products and so on have been thrown out of jobs because of executives flying a plane? Then we could have heard all about government letting people lose their jobs over a hissy fit...

[ThinkerX]

Guide to the people who will own the various congress-critters - regardless of the party they belong too (which is pretty much a 'just for show' distinction anyhow) :

http://factcheck.org/playersguide2010/