|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29281
Location: La La Land
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Quote: | Congressional leaders' efforts to hatch a massive spending deal have been thrown off course by the Trump administration's 11th-hour intervention, leaving the bipartisan bill teetering on the brink of collapse just a week before a government shutdown deadline.
The hard line taken by White House officials, particularly Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, has strained an emerging deal between House and Senate leaders that would skirt hot-button issues that could shut down the government. In particular, administration officials’ hopes of giving President Donald Trump a win during his first 100 days, such as border wall funding or a crackdown on sanctuary cities, have complicated what had been a relatively smooth, bicameral, bipartisan negotiation, according to staffers in both parties. |
| Quote: | Republican said privately it would be helpful for Mulvaney and the White House to concede that the Democrats are not going to fund the wall and move on. But there is a combative element to the divided Trump White House that believes otherwise.
“There are people in the West Wing who want the shutdown fight because they think that’s how you get things done. And there is another faction in the White House that knows that’s a bad idea,” said a senior House Republican aide.
Still, many Democrats are open to giving Trump some concessions to receive funding on their domestic priorities as part of a deal, which would likely mean more money for defense spending and some money for border security — but not a border wall. Ryan and McConnell will need significant support from Democrats for any bill, given the Senate’s 60-vote threshold and opposition to spending bills among hard-line conservatives in the House.
“Democrats have essentially accepted they’ll have to swallow some kind of defense [and] border funding and are OK with that as long as it’s not to build a stupid wall,” said a House Democratic source. Trump has pushed for an immediate $1.4 billion for the wall. |
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/20/trump-government-shutdown-talks-237435 |
I figure you're more plugged into the conservative mindset than myself.
That why I ask.
Do you or other conservatives want a wall if we're paying for it. I know the GOP base loved the wall during the election. When they thought Mexico was paying for it.
Also with Obamacare. Do you want it repealed if it means you can't afford insurance? Or it means you have to pay more in hospital fees to balance out the cost to cover the uninsured?
It's really not a rhetorical question. I'm wondering. I'm sure some people hate illegal immigration and Obama/Obamacare enough to pay more to change things.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | I figure you're more plugged into the conservative mindset than myself.
That why I ask.
Do you or other conservatives want a wall if we're paying for it. I know the GOP base loved the wall during the election. When they thought Mexico was paying for it. |
I'm a fiscal conservative. Any fiscal conservative would be against this, though there are some GOP fiscal conservatives who might vote to humor Trump by giving him a little money for it. That's just the nature of legislative compromise. If you can help Trump save face by giving him a little money, and if you can get something worthwhile in return, it might be a good deal.
But to answer your question, there are few traditional conservatives who ever took the freaking wall seriously. This is a big deal to the true believers, though, and it would be a physical manifestation of their anger about illegal immigration. As for the taxpayers paying for it, they'd just say that we should slap taxes on Mexican imports to pay for it. (Yes, I know that they would be the ones paying the taxes, but Trump will find a way to keep the price of avocados down.)
| kikanga wrote: | Also with Obamacare. Do you want it repealed if it means you can't afford insurance? Or it means you have to pay more in hospital fees to balance out the cost to cover the uninsured?
It's really not a rhetorical question. I'm wondering. I'm sure some people hate illegal immigration and Obama/Obamacare enough to pay more to change things. |
They are just now starting to figure out that this is true about repealing Obamacare. I sense a lot of confusion from the right when it comes to this topic. I know more than a few who are ready to throw in the towel and support a public option. But I also know that a few who still want to talk about market based solutions, HSAs, or whatever the GOP happens to be peddling. Others blame their premium hikes on Obamacare and think that premiums would go down if . . . er . . . something happened. In the words of the Trumpster, who know that healthcare was so complicated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29281
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Sorry for getting so upset with our conversations about race and politics earlier this week.
I have a common problem when I debate. There is an initial injustice. That I can't get past. And it jades me on the whole conversation.
I was mad because I thought you were playing dumb about the tangible portion of Trump voters who are racist. And I think underneath all the back and forth. You acknowledged it.
Racism in politics is a real thing. AAANNNDDD factoring that in, you were saying .. X.
Sometimes I can't move past my initial upset.
Just today, my bro was telling me about how Aaron Hernandez's (black) wife and daughter could benefit from his suicide ( http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/patriots-now-might-owe-aaron-hernandez-millions/0 ). But I couldn't be happy for that. Because I don't care about the NFL. They don't pay taxes. There are no black owners. And very few superbowl MVPs that I know of. And the medical impact of the sport (predominantly played by black people) literally drives it's players to commit suicide after retirement. So I'm happy baby Hernandez gets $ she wouldn't have otherwise. But it's tough to see it as more than a silver lining on a turd sandwich.
Sometimes I just have to get past the initial injustice. And acknowledge the other person's argument.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | Just today, my bro was telling me about how Aaron Hernandez's (black) wife and daughter could benefit from his suicide ( http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/patriots-now-might-owe-aaron-hernandez-millions/0 ). But I couldn't be happy for that. Because I don't care about the NFL. They don't pay taxes. There are no black owners. And very few superbowl MVPs that I know of. And the medical impact of the sport (predominantly played by black people) literally drives it's players to commit suicide after retirement. So I'm happy baby Hernandez gets $ she wouldn't have otherwise. But it's tough to see it as more than a silver lining on a turd sandwich.
Sometimes I just have to get past the initial injustice. And acknowledge the other person's argument. |
This is off topic, but sports in general are a fraud for most of the players, especially for minorities, if they are of pro quality. Suppose you are Johnny Linebacker, and everyone can see that you are pro quality. What happens? You get a phony high school education, followed by three years of phony education in college during which you get the privilege of playing for free in front of massive crowds of rich people for the glory of a university that doesn't really care about you.
Then you might get picked by a pro team, which would pay you a capped salary in case you get hurt or turn out to be a bust. You have a short career in which you get beat to hell and probably suffer brain injuries. It's the first time you've ever seen any money, so of course you spend it all. Then the team dumps you for fresh meat, and you discover that your "career" isn't really a career at all. You have no money, no useful education, and there aren't many coaching jobs. But you played in the NFL!
Anyway, I'll leave it there. I've railed on amateurism, "student athletes," and the hypocrisy of pro sports in other threads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25076
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | Just today, my bro was telling me about how Aaron Hernandez's (black) wife and daughter could benefit from his suicide ( http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/patriots-now-might-owe-aaron-hernandez-millions/0 ). But I couldn't be happy for that. Because I don't care about the NFL. They don't pay taxes. There are no black owners. And very few superbowl MVPs that I know of. And the medical impact of the sport (predominantly played by black people) literally drives it's players to commit suicide after retirement. So I'm happy baby Hernandez gets $ she wouldn't have otherwise. But it's tough to see it as more than a silver lining on a turd sandwich.
Sometimes I just have to get past the initial injustice. And acknowledge the other person's argument. |
This is off topic, but sports in general are a fraud for most of the players, especially for minorities, if they are of pro quality. Suppose you are Johnny Linebacker, and everyone can see that you are pro quality. What happens? You get a phony high school education, followed by three years of phony education in college during which you get the privilege of playing for free in front of massive crowds of rich people for the glory of a university that doesn't really care about you.
Then you might get picked by a pro team, which would pay you a capped salary in case you get hurt or turn out to be a bust. You have a short career in which you get beat to hell and probably suffer brain injuries. It's the first time you've ever seen any money, so of course you spend it all. Then the team dumps you for fresh meat, and you discover that your "career" isn't really a career at all. You have no money, no useful education, and there aren't many coaching jobs. But you played in the NFL!
Anyway, I'll leave it there. I've railed on amateurism, "student athletes," and the hypocrisy of pro sports in other threads. |
'Student athlete' is a legal label by NCAA to basically keep their athletes as indentured servants (the profit making sports). Outside US, u can start ur career at any age without having to make profit for other entity first (except communist countries) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | 'Student athlete' is a legal label by NCAA to basically keep their athletes as indentured servants (the profit making sports). Outside US, u can start ur career at any age without having to make profit for other entity first (except communist countries) |
This is true only for the US sports where the owners have convinced the player unions to cooperate. But that's a different subject for a different thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | North Korea remained defiant.
"Our revolutionary forces are combat-ready to sink a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a single strike," the Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the North's ruling Workers' Party, said in a commentary.
The paper likened the aircraft carrier to a "gross animal" and said a strike on it would be "an actual example to show our military's force".
The commentary was carried on page three of the newspaper, after a two-page feature about leader Kim Jong Un inspecting a pig farm. |
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-japan-idUSKBN17P01Y |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I argued last week that anecdotal stories about disillusioned Trump supporters were overdone. The fact is that, on a broad scale, Trump supporters say they aren't disappointed. In fact, a poll showed they were more pleased than disappointed, by about 5 to 1:
...The Pew Research Center released a poll showing very little buyer's remorse among Trump voters. The poll showed just 7 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say Trump has performed worse than they expected him to. Fully 38 percent — five times as many — say he has performed better.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll confirms this — in spades. And, in fact, it shows more buyer's remorse for Trump's opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton. And were the 2016 election held again today, it shows Trump would avenge his popular-vote loss.
While just 4 percent of Trump's supporters say they would back someone else if there was a redo of the election, fully 15 percent of Clinton supporters say they would ditch her. Trump leads in a re-do of the 2016 election 43 percent to 40 percent after losing the popular vote 46-44.
That 15 percent is split between those who say they would vote for Trump (2 percent), Gary Johnson (4 percent), Jill Stein (2 percent), and either other candidates or not vote (7 percent).
It's not hugely surprising that the losing candidate in an election would see this kind of drop-off. People don't like voting for losers, and if you look closely at polls after an election, some voters won't even admit to having cast their ballots for the losing candidate. The winning margin for the victor is generally exaggerated. |
| Quote: | | That's not disillusioned Trump supporters; that's quite the opposite. And we have yet to see a poll that suggests there are a bunch of disgruntled Trump voters out there, stewing over their decision to install a reality show star as president. |
WaPo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trmiv
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2001
Posts: 17657
Location: Orlando
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweet-mexico-border-wall-2017-4
| Quote: | | "Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall," Trump tweeted. |
How many more qualifiers can you add to one statement? "Eventually,maybe, at some point, possibly, odds slightly lean towards the chance of Mexico maybe in some form, possibly in a round about way sort of in a manner of speaking, giving a form, something that could in some circles be considered by some to be a form of payment for the wall. Meanwhile the US taxpayers will pay for it because bad hombres are pouring over that open border people are saying. Bigly." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trmiv wrote: | http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweet-mexico-border-wall-2017-4
| Quote: | | "Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall," Trump tweeted. |
How many more qualifiers can you add to one statement? "Eventually,maybe, at some point, possibly, odds slightly lean towards the chance of Mexico maybe in some form, possibly in a round about way sort of in a manner of speaking, giving a form, something that could in some circles be considered by some to be a form of payment for the wall. Meanwhile the US taxpayers will pay for it because bad hombres are pouring over that open border people are saying. Bigly." |
At least Earv knows that the President makes worst tweets than himself. And people have made fun of HIS English. That statement by Trump makes your eyes cross while reading it.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29281
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | Just today, my bro was telling me about how Aaron Hernandez's (black) wife and daughter could benefit from his suicide ( http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/patriots-now-might-owe-aaron-hernandez-millions/0 ). But I couldn't be happy for that. Because I don't care about the NFL. They don't pay taxes. There are no black owners. And very few superbowl MVPs that I know of. And the medical impact of the sport (predominantly played by black people) literally drives it's players to commit suicide after retirement. So I'm happy baby Hernandez gets $ she wouldn't have otherwise. But it's tough to see it as more than a silver lining on a turd sandwich.
Sometimes I just have to get past the initial injustice. And acknowledge the other person's argument. |
This is off topic, but sports in general are a fraud for most of the players, especially for minorities, if they are of pro quality. Suppose you are Johnny Linebacker, and everyone can see that you are pro quality. What happens? You get a phony high school education, followed by three years of phony education in college during which you get the privilege of playing for free in front of massive crowds of rich people for the glory of a university that doesn't really care about you.
Then you might get picked by a pro team, which would pay you a capped salary in case you get hurt or turn out to be a bust. You have a short career in which you get beat to hell and probably suffer brain injuries. It's the first time you've ever seen any money, so of course you spend it all. Then the team dumps you for fresh meat, and you discover that your "career" isn't really a career at all. You have no money, no useful education, and there aren't many coaching jobs. But you played in the NFL!
Anyway, I'll leave it there. I've railed on amateurism, "student athletes," and the hypocrisy of pro sports in other threads. |
On some issues I really align with you. I feel like if we were in the senate or the house. We could find a couple topics to make legislation around. It's a shame our government can't work the same way.
How do you feel about the power lobbyists from special interest groups have? Do you think that power needs to be curbed? If so, how would you do so?
How about legislation against legislative branch members becoming lobbyists immediately after they leave office?
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | How do you feel about the power lobbyists from special interest groups have? Do you think that power needs to be curbed? If so, how would you do so?
How about legislation against legislative branch members becoming lobbyists immediately after they leave office? |
Campaign finance reform and term limits. Lobbying is protected by the first amendment. It may be noxious, but everyone is entitled to make their arguments to Congress. I wouldn't mind seeing a short moratorium, say two years, on members of Congress acting as lobbyists. However, it's a mistake to think that lobbyists, per se, are the problem. They have excessive influence only because of the money and political clout that backs them up.
I'd like to see a 20 year aggregate limit on congressional service. You can split it up between the House and Senate, but once you pass 20 total years, you are done. Some people would make it shorter, but there is a bona fide need for experienced legislators who can serve as a check on the bureaucracy. There is value in having a view of the larger, longer term picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We also need a geographic algorithm to assign house districts.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | We also need a geographic algorithm to assign house districts. |
I don't think it's possible to come up with one that satisfies every region and demographic group and doesn't result in urban/rural divisions. You will still end up with many reliably Democratic and reliably Republican districts. Maybe it's possible in a state like Iowa (I think they do it in the most scientific way), but how do you do it in a state like California?
I'd favor proportional representation, but with a certain threshold so we don't have too many parties and factions in Congress. Or a combination of proportional and single-member districts, which is how Germany does it. In Germany, you basically have two votes. One for a specific party, and one for a specific candidate. Each party creates a list of candidates, and then half the seats are divided proportionally, with a threshold of 5% for a party to have seats in parliament. The other half is assigned through single-member districts, where more independent candidates can run. It is a bit convoluted, yes, but I think it works well and doesn't result in unstable governments with dozens of parties in coalitions, and also doesn't have the negative effects of gerrymandering.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People need to make sure the hellcare bill is called
TRUMP CARE!!
Where all the sick and elderly sign up to die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is this administration filled with racist trash?
| Quote: | | Sessions: Erroneous tax credits to ‘mostly Mexicans’ could pay for wall |
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/23/mexicans-sessions-tax-credits-237490
and doesn't that (bleep) sound just like WOLFOWITZ saying Iraq Oil would pay for the war..
^^Paul Wolfowitz got votes for the war by lying and saying the war will cost only a few billion and we would make Iraq pay for it in oil.. After that he was voted Jerusalem Post man of the year and then PRESIDENT of the World Bank.. he is so good with numbers
lulz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 47580
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Changing the topic a bit, but the recent vote in France following what happened in the USA and Great Britain points towards a continued "populist" movement in Western Governments worldwide.
It will be interesting to see where it all leads, the financial markets seemingly like it and are reacting positively.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you have that backwards, Lanny. The markets reacted because Le Pen did not finish first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, it was an underwhelming performance by Le Pen. And the other nationalist candidate placed fourth, I believe.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nickuku
Star Player
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone read that AP transcript? God I have a yuge headache now.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ani007
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nickuku wrote: | | Anyone read that AP transcript? God I have a yuge headache now. |
Wow. I didn't think Trump could fall any lower in my eyes, but that is so god awful and terrifying. Unintelligible meandering word vomits galore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17246
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | Yeah, it was an underwhelming performance by Le Pen. And the other nationalist candidate placed fourth, I believe. |
Wasn't there an issue with overseas French citizens getting two ballots?
Looks like she'll get crushed in the runoff anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17246
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Don't Bother to Wait for a Centrist Political Revival
I wasn't a big fan of PowerPoint presentations until I saw the one Tom Davis uses to depict some depressing trends in American politics. It shows polarization, which is no surprise. What's striking, though, is how he represents it graphically.
[...]
To demonstrate, Davis devised an instructive formula for Congress: Take the voting record of the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat and then see how many members' voting records fall between them. That would identify moderate lawmakers to use as building blocks for bipartisan coalitions.
In the House of Representatives in 1982, 344 members fell into this in-between category. That was 79 percent of the legislators. In 2002, there were 137 moderates, or 31 percent. By 2014, a grand total of three House members were neither strikingly liberal nor strikingly conservative by Davis's measure.
The widening gap in the House can be partly attributed to factors like gerrymandering to create heavily partisan districts, and by residential patterns that tend to cluster like-minded people in the same communities.
But those factors can't explain the fact that patterns in the Senate are similar. In 1982, 58 Senators had voting records that fell between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat. In 2002, that number was down to seven. By 2014, there were none.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-16/don-t-bother-to-wait-for-a-centrist-political-revival |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ani007 wrote: | | nickuku wrote: | | Anyone read that AP transcript? God I have a yuge headache now. |
Wow. I didn't think Trump could fall any lower in my eyes, but that is so god awful and terrifying. Unintelligible meandering word vomits galore. |
So many gems to choose from. Here's my favorite:
| Quote: | | TRUMP: And I don't watch things that I know are going to be unpleasant. CNN has covered me unfairly and incorrectly and I don't watch them anymore. A lot of people don't watch them anymore, they're now in third place. But I've created something where people are watching ... but I don't watch CNN anymore. I don't watch MSNBC anymore. I don't watch things, and I never thought I had that ability. I always thought I'd watch. I just don't. And that's taken place over the last year. And you know what that is, that's a great, it's a great thing because you leave, you leave for work in the morning you know, you're, you don't watch this total negativity. I never thought I'd be able to do that and for me, it's so easy to do now. Just don't watch. |
Try to decipher that.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Quote: | Don't Bother to Wait for a Centrist Political Revival
I wasn't a big fan of PowerPoint presentations until I saw the one Tom Davis uses to depict some depressing trends in American politics. It shows polarization, which is no surprise. What's striking, though, is how he represents it graphically.
[...]
To demonstrate, Davis devised an instructive formula for Congress: Take the voting record of the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat and then see how many members' voting records fall between them. That would identify moderate lawmakers to use as building blocks for bipartisan coalitions.
In the House of Representatives in 1982, 344 members fell into this in-between category. That was 79 percent of the legislators. In 2002, there were 137 moderates, or 31 percent. By 2014, a grand total of three House members were neither strikingly liberal nor strikingly conservative by Davis's measure.
The widening gap in the House can be partly attributed to factors like gerrymandering to create heavily partisan districts, and by residential patterns that tend to cluster like-minded people in the same communities.
But those factors can't explain the fact that patterns in the Senate are similar. In 1982, 58 Senators had voting records that fell between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat. In 2002, that number was down to seven. By 2014, there were none.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-16/don-t-bother-to-wait-for-a-centrist-political-revival |
|
That's an excellent article, or rather, excellent data, but the author makes a huge error IMO in interpreting it. He thinks that it means that both parties have moved away from the center. The depressing reality is that while the Democrats have actually become more centrist, the GOP has killed off anyone who would break ranks from their move hard right.
That's why, for example, someone like Joe Manchin isn't any less conservative than conservative Democrats from the 80's and 90's. In many cases, he may be more so. But there simply aren't any center right republicans anymore.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
