Sanders wins debate. CNN pushes hillary anyway

[Grey Lensman]

Just read that Clinton is polling 10 points higher after the debate (mostly gained from people who wanted to draft Biden). .

[Orfamay Quest]

Grey Lensman wrote:

Just read that Clinton is polling 10 points higher after the debate (mostly gained from people who wanted to draft Biden). .

Not surprised. An electoral debate isn't like a race where you have one winner and a whole bunch of losers. It's not even like an art competition where the judges can disagree about who earned Best in Show.

It's closer to a Demo Day, where everyone shows off what they can do, and everyone watching can decide whether to invest, or not, in each participant. Had I enough money, I could go to Y Combinator and buy every company there, just the four that I thought were potential unicorns, or none at all.

That's one reason I wasn't very impressed by the title of this thread. Sanders doing well at the debate doesn't take anything away from Clinton, and vice versa. The only "losers" were the ones who didn't do well (or who didn't participate at all and lost out as a result -- like Biden, apparently).

[thejeff]

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Well, this one did have the effect of torpedoing McCarthy's bid for Speaker.

Speaking of which, have they found anyone willing to jump on that grenade yet?

It's gotten to the point where Rand Paul is being hassled at the gym to take the job. Now he knows how the women feel. At the same time however the BriteBart crowd is chiming in on how he's "the worst possible choice for the job". Not exactly a major inducement.

Well of course not. He knows it. Everyone sane in politics knows it.

The job can't be done. You can't just find a Speaker who's enough of a true conservative to force the agenda of the 40 most conservative House members through Congress and into law. That's not the way Congress works. but the Freedom Caucus won't accept that and the Republicans don't have the votes to do anything without them.
Which means they can shut everything down, but they can't actually accomplish anything. Another shutdown over the debt ceiling looms, unless Boehner bites the bullet and passes an extension with Democratic support before he leaves.

If he's smart and cares about the party, much less the country, he'll go for one that'll last until after the election. Depriving his party of one weapon to shoot themselves in the foot with.

And apparently, I was wrong about Ryan. Maybe.

He's said he's willing to throw himself on the grenade. With some conditions, which it really doesn't seem likely will appeal to the extreme wing of the House, but there are some conciliatory noises this morning. Possibly they realizing how deep it's getting.
Still very up in the air.

[Krensky]

I was listening to an interview on NPR about the Freedom Caucasus.

As our was explained by the journalist who researched them they don't want a Speaker who will force their agenda through, they want one who will let them "put the ball in play" and see what happens rather then play "silly, undemocratic parliamentary games" because they refuse to learn how the House works and how the sausage is made. Rather than the GOP leadership not bringing bills forward from committee until they have a decent chance, they want them brought to the floor to see what happens and what can be hussled.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

I was listening to an interview on NPR about the Freedom Caucasus.

As our was explained by the journalist who researched them they don't want a Speaker who will force their agenda through, they want one who will let them "put the ball in play" and see what happens rather then play "silly, undemocratic parliamentary games" because they refuse to learn how the House works and how the sausage is made. Rather than the GOP leadership not bringing bills forward from committee until they have a decent chance, they want them brought to the floor to see what happens and what can be hussled.

Yeah, that's what I'd heard on similar (or even the same interviews).

It didn't make sense to me, because it clashes with what they've done and what they've tried to do in the past.

They don't, for example, want a clean bill voted on to raise the debt ceiling without defunding Planned Parenthood or whatever the issue of the week is, because it will pass.

So they talk a lot about more freedom and power for the Members, but those are platitudes and don't make it clear what they really support. Their demands for the next Speaker include codifying the so-called Hastert rule that only measures supported by a majority of the majority should be brought to a vote. That's more like keeping the Speaker from bringing things forward than making him let the House vote.

They also have a list of policy demands for the Speaker, including things that just won't happen: use filibuster proof bill to repeal Obamacare, for example. I assume a must pass one, because they've passed plenty of Obamacare bills that weren't filibustered in the Senate, but just ignored.

[Krensky]

It made sense to me, but maybe that's because I interpreted it as they consider the fight more important than the victory and they don't understand how the House or Congress actually function, not that they really want more transparency or Representative control of the legislative agenda or whatever they say.

There was a bit about how they view the House like a sportsball game, not a legislative body and they don't care if their actions actually work, just that they're doing something because on any give day, they might win with a Hail Mary.

Heck, one of them was talking about holding town halls with his district residents to determine if h should support Ryan for Speaker.

They're idiots, in other words.

[thejeff]

Just to add: I heard a couple similar interviews and they really annoyed me. The interviewer let him talk in terms of philosophy and generalities and didn't even try to dig into what the actual demands were, much less what the implications might be.

Listening to him, it all sounded good to me. But the devil is in the details and they wouldn't talk about the details.

Edit: The point is, the rhetoric sounds good, but the actual demands don't match the rhetoric.

[BigNorseWolf]

Krensky wrote:

They're idiots, in other words.

Nope. There's a method to the madness.

It IS a game. But the game is either a deliberate "I want to stay elected" or an evolutionary selective process (or more likely, a mix of the two to varying degrees everywhere) either way the result is the same:

people do not get elected for the good or will of the nation

they don't get elected to the good or the will of their state

They don't even get elected to the good or the will of their district:

Because the districts are so heavily gerrymandered they get elected to win the republican primary. Thats ALL that matters. If they're not right wing enough to do that, they will elect someone who is.

[Krensky]

thejeff wrote:

Just to add: I heard a couple similar interviews and they really annoyed me. The interviewer let him talk in terms of philosophy and generalities and didn't even try to dig into what the actual demands were, much less what the implications might be.

Listening to him, it all sounded good to me. But the devil is in the details and they wouldn't talk about the details.

Edit: The point is, the rhetoric sounds good, but the actual demands don't match the rhetoric.

Ah, no, different piece. I was talking about Tim Dickenson from Rolling Stone talking to Terry Gross Dave Davies about what he learned trying to figure out how the forty idiots think.

Journalist Describes How The Freedom Caucus Hijacked Congress

EDIT: Wrong Fresh Air host, whoops.

[Orfamay Quest]

Krensky wrote:

It made sense to me, but maybe that's because I interpreted it as they consider the fight more important than the victory.

I think a lot of them do, but that doesn't necessarily make them idiots.

A lot of revolutionaries, and political activists generally, engage in windmill-tilting as a form of consciousness raising and developing support. When I chain myself to the front door of St. Dwynwen's Cathedral to protest their lack of women clergy, I'm not really expecting that the Pope will suddenly realize that I disagree with him and change Church doctrine overnight. I'm expecting that the police will come by with a set of bolt cutters and that I'll spend the night in a cell, and then pay a fine in a few weeks after the legal mess is sorted out. Similarly, if I try to chain myself to the gates of Ft. Wannahockaloogie, I don't expect the President to disband the entire Department of Defense.

So why would I do those things? Because if enough people see me fighting a fight that they also believe in, it will help crystalize enough support for a long-term victory.

That said, they're still idiots. But what makes them idiots is what they want, not the tactics they're using to achieve them.

[Krensky]

No, they're idiots because of their tactics too.

They're not tilting at windmills to attract attention, they're doing because they hope if they run enough plays they'll somehow get a touchdown. They're idiots because they're engaging in tactics that actually lessen their chances of accomplishing what they want. They actually believe that if they send enough bills repealing the Affordable Care Act to the President's desk he might break down and sign one. They believe that if they shut down or break the government that, somehow, this time, that people will blame the President or the Democrats or even 'realise' that they don't need government.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

No, they're idiots because of their tactics too.

They're not tilting at windmills to attract attention, they're doing because they hope if they run enough plays they'll somehow get a touchdown. They're idiots because they're engaging in tactics that actually lessen their chances of accomplishing what they want. They actually believe that if they send enough bills repealing the Affordable Care Act to the President's desk he might break down and sign one. They believe that if they shut down or break the government that, somehow, this time, that people will blame the President or the Democrats or even 'realise' that they don't need government.

That's basically it. I've been saying this for a while, but this is the endgame of the strategy the Republicans have been using to fire up the base since Reagan, redoubling with Gingrich in the 90s and exploding with the Tea Party. At first it was a scam and the politicians were in on it, willing to basically be sane and govern, but use the rhetoric to get votes.

They've been running the con so long that younger politicians now aren't in on it. They're True Believers. Willing to tear the evil government down in order to stop the socialist baby killing liberals.

[Orfamay Quest]

Krensky wrote:

No, they're idiots because of their tactics too.

[...] They believe that if they shut down or break the government that, somehow, this time, that people will blame the President or the Democrats or even 'realise' that they don't need government.

But that's basically what I'm hoping for when I chain myself to the cathedral door. This time, people will realize that what "they" are doing is wrong, and band together to demand that "they' stop doing whatever I'm protesting this week.

And it's precisely when you're in a minority -- which the Freedom Caucus are, holding less than 10% of the seats in Congress -- that you need to resort to theatrics like this in order to get the attention the cause needs.

[Krensky]

But that is not what they're doing. They think politics in the House is a football game. That if they run up and down the field enough times, maybe, just maybe, they can tough it out and score.

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're batshit insane. They literally believe they can force the President to sign a repeal of the ACA if they just put it on his desk enough times. That they can make him sign bills defunding things they don't like by holding the government and needed programs hostage despite the fact that every time they're tried it it blows up in their faces and the GOP looses. Maybe, just maybe, this will be the time that it'll work.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

But that is not what they're doing. They think politics in the House is a football game. That if they run up and down the field enough times, maybe, just maybe, they can tough it out and score.

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b~&~&+$ insane. They literally believe they can force the President to sign a repeal of the ACA if they just put it on his desk enough times. That they can make him sign bills defunding things they don't like by holding the government and needed programs hostage despite the fact that every time they're tried it it blows up in their faces and the GOP looses. Maybe, just maybe, this will be the time that it'll work.

It only lost because Boehner was weak and he folded before the Democrats did. That or he's really a traitor RINO working with Obama and Pelosi.

With a real true conservative in charge, they won't give in and Democrats will have to.

The problem is, we're all in this game of chicken.

[Krensky]

The problem for them is they don't realise that the Speaker won't be able to stop it. The same way the lack of party discipline due to Citizen's United lets them run their shenanigans and drive Boehner into pulling a Scarface (NSFW - Language) also means that Pelosi just needs to find thirty GOP Reps whose official and unofficial constituents are not happy with a shut down to get things rolling again.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

The problem for them is they don't realise that the Speaker won't be able to stop it. The same way the lack of party discipline due to Citizen's United lets them run their shenanigans and drive Boehner into pulling a Scarface (NSFW - Language) also means that Pelosi just needs to find thirty GOP Reps whose official and unofficial constituents are not happy with a shut down to get things rolling again.

Not if the Hastert Rule is in effect and nothing comes to a vote without a majority of the majority supporting it.

They might be able to get discharge petition, but that hasn't happened in previous showdowns. Major party disloyalty. Otherwise, the Speaker controls what reaches the floor.

[GreyWolfLord]

I read an interesting article recently about the REASON the Republicans can do this is because they are currently in a VERY good and powerful political position. They can afford to contest amongst themselves.

Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble

Though some may laugh it off, when you look at what they are talking about...I think they may have a point. Democrats only control 11 states right now, compared to 25 completely under Republican control. At the local levels (which eventually filter up) the Democrats have been getting smeared politically.

The reason the Republicans can get away with games like this in the house is because they are currently in such a position of power...they really don't have to worry about it as much.

I can say this...I might be first in line to vote for Bernie Sanders...but no way in HELL would I vote for Hillary unless the opposition was really bad. Right now, the only ones bad enough to get me to vote (and it would be a vote against them rather than a vote for Clinton) is Trump.

And that's where the problem lies for the Democrats...

They are so focused that they can't see beyond the presidential election at this point. Right now it isn't a vote of Clinton or Sanders really, but who will be deadlocked by Congress because they won't be able to do anything anyways with Congress as it is.

Or as the article I linked to above states

Quote:

But instead of a dialogue about how to obtain that success, Democrats are currently engaged in a slightly bizarre bidding war between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to see whether Congress in 2017 will reject a legislative agenda that is somewhat to the left of Obama's or drastically to its left. The differences between them are real, of course, and at least somewhat important

With the exception that I think Hillary is actually to the RIGHT of Obama in most things if you look at how she actually acts.

Addition: The problem also lies in that if people say the Republicans were very hurt by the Shutdowns...However...even with those shutdowns they have swept elections up and are in more control now than 2010 (about the time when they started threatening the shutdowns). From all appearances the Republicans have been gaining ground despite the best attempts by Media and others. Almost all progress that Liberals can point to happened in the first two years of Obama's first term when Democrats had control over the House and Senate. Since then, except for Supreme Court rulings...it's been either stalemated in Congress, or Republican victories overall. Obama really hasn't had room to breath the past two years for all those who are claiming his stagnation.

[Lou Diamond]

The whole power struggle within the house GOP is that the Red state republicans are tired of being ruled by the blue state republicans who are spineless Rhinos who have no beliefs other than being reelected.

Why should the Republicans who are elected in majority republican states have to knucle under to blue state republicans who cry all the time that we can't win in our states if the House GOP advances Conservative plans to control spending rebuild the military and on the social side block the democratic gun grabbers and defund Planed Parenthood.

IMO the establishment republicans are gutless. In the Senate they have a weakling in charge. Mitch Mc Connell allows Harry Reid to run roughshod over him The Republicans are so feckless they allow the democrats to use the filibuster rule to block all regular order spending bills none have been passed in the last 8 years, all spending is approved by continuing resolution [which is the prior years budget + the rate of inflation insteasd of spending bills the proper way is to have each department of the federal government submit a budget have it debated and voted on by the committee of jurisdiction and then have amendments passed on the floor voted out of the senate and merged in a conference committee with the house and then sent to the president to sign or veto]

I am going to put forward a radical idea do away with the Senate and go to a unicameral House elected each four years the same election cycle of the President this in my Opinion would make the single remaining house more responsive to the people. if the people don't like the direction of the country they vote out the party in charge and move the country in a different direction. This would also allow for more parties to form change or disappear if they do not work the will of the people. Do away with the House of Lords in the US end the Senate!!
THe time for the Great compromise is over.

[Orfamay Quest]

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

The Freedom Caucus today represent the most effective politicians who represent a very significant (if small, in total demographic terms) of the electorate. They are very effective at delivering what the people behind them want. And the people behind them are also not screaming at reptoid bus drivers while wearing bathrobes; they simply share a set of beliefs that you and I find counterfactual.

Let's start with the obvious. "The game is rigged, and "the people" don't have any say in it." Therefore, don't play the game. If Washington has to shut down for a while, that's not a bad thing; the people hurt the most by it are the people the most plugged in to the Washington, DC, system, and since they have the most to lose, they'll blink first.

Another obvious one. "God is on our side." A large fraction of this demographic are active, evangelical Christians who are believe in an active God who can and will perform miracles. If it takes a miracle to remove Obama and Biden from office so that Speaker Ryan can sign a repeal of the ACA into law, it is their duty to put that bill onto the president's desk (and hope for the miracle).

A third, perhaps less obvious. "Persistently failing is itself a victory." This one has substantial Biblical support. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." [Matt. 5:11], Part of God's plan is to test you (read the book of Job) to see if you are steadfast enough in your support for the right, and only then will you be rewarded.

A fourth. "It's not whether you win or lose, but whether you were faithful to your duty." Or, to quote Matthew again, "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." This world is but the preseason, and none of the political games we play really matter. What is important is to show God your faith and steadfastness; even if the world itself does not come to an end, when you are called upon to be judged, having fought the good fight and lost is just as meritorious, and perhaps even more so, than having won. And certainly more meritorious than having compromised and chosen the lesser evil.

A fifth, which ties in to the first. "If they fight this long and hard enough, the movement will spread." People who see Ted Cruz's filibuster will realize that these evils can be fought. How many people wrote their own senator after Ted Cruz's little theatrical escapades? How many people need to write their own senator to get him to change his vote?

And even if they don't win this round, now Ted Cruz has proven himself to be a man of principle, willing to fight even the unpopular and politically dangerous battle, which means he can be trusted to be the President in a way that, say, Jeb Bush (or Mitt Romney) could not.

Quote:

They literally believe they can force the President to sign a repeal of the ACA if they just put it on his desk enough times.

And they may well be right. How many phone calls can how many senators withstand? This is where the attention-getting theatrics come in; by showing like-minded people (the same people who have, see point one, been systematically ignored) to exercise their power and reshape the government in the correct way.

[GreyWolfLord]

Lou Diamond wrote:

The whole power struggle within the house GOP is that the Red state republicans are tired of being ruled by the blue state republicans who are spineless Rhinos who have no beliefs other than being reelected.

Why should the Republicans who are elected in majority republican states have to knucle under to blue state republicans who cry all the time that we can't win in our states if the House GOP advances Conservative plans to control spending rebuild the military and on the social side block the democratic gun grabbers and defund Planed Parenthood.

IMO the establishment republicans are gutless. In the Senate they have a weakling in charge. Mitch Mc Connell allows Harry Reid to run roughshod over him The Republicans are so feckless they allow the democrats to use the filibuster rule to block all regular order spending bills none have been passed in the last 8 years, all spending is approved by continuing resolution [which is the prior years budget + the rate of inflation insteasd of spending bills the proper way is to have each department of the federal government submit a budget have it debated and voted on by the committee of jurisdiction and then have amendments passed on the floor voted out of the senate and merged in a conference committee with the house and then sent to the president to sign or veto]

I am going to put forward a radical idea do away with the Senate and go to a unicameral House elected each four years the same election cycle of the President this in my Opinion would make the single remaining house more responsive to the people. if the people don't like the direction of the country they vote out the party in charge and move the country in a different direction. This would also allow for more parties to form change or disappear if they do not work the will of the people. Do away with the House of Lords in the US end the Senate!!
THe time for the Great compromise is over.

I still think the constitution is a Great document and hate the idea you put forth. You NEED the Senate AND the House. The House is for the populous vote, but equal representation by each state is also needed...hence the Senate.

Plus...what goes around comes around. Though Republicans control the House now...what happens if the Democrats control it...

Republicans have also had their fair share of filibustering...

In fact some of the more famous filibusters of late have come from Republicans.

Anyways, I don't think we need to fear that happening any time soon. However, perhaps if the Republicans do win the House, Senate and Presidency you'll see many of the things enacted by the Democrats when they ahd the same thing when Obama first elected...rolled back.

That's the thing...these individuals do NOT think ahead. JOINT agreement on bills by all sides is best because then laws, regulations, and rules are not as subject to coming and going in accordance with who is in power. When it is one sided...when the other side gains just as much power...things go backwards instead of forwards.

Right now...we'll see what happens with the next election...but I'd say if the republicans can get a reasonable candidate...the Democrats could be in HUGE trouble.

The most likely ticket for the Democrats at this point is probably a Hillary/Sanders ticket or Sanders/Hillary ticket...but I think Hillary is running on the name of her husband and Sanders is a wild card. What's worse though is if Hillary or Sanders chooses someone else, I think there's a very real threat of fracturing the democrats which really would give the Republicans a victory whether or not they field a viable candidate or not.

[Rednal]

In many cases, putting a bill on the President's desk isn't always with the expectation he'll sign it - it's to get himself to publicly commit to something they can use to build support against him.

...Kinda the way some bills are introduced solely as an excuse to be lobbied out of supporting them (i.e. fundraising), or how bills may be passed with great public fanfare, then quietly given a legal challenge for which no defense is mounted, resulting in its nullification or a change that's favorable to whoever brought the case against it (i.e. getting political points for passing a good bill, but not actually doing anything against rich interests).

Isn't government fun? o wo~

[thejeff]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

The most likely ticket for the Democrats at this point is probably a Hillary/Sanders ticket or Sanders/Hillary ticket...but I think Hillary is running on the name of her husband and Sanders is a wild card. What's worse though is if Hillary or Sanders chooses someone else, I think there's a very real threat of fracturing the democrats which really would give the Republicans a victory whether or not they field a viable candidate or not.

I really don't expect either of those. That was touted as the obvious answer back in 2008, it didn't happen then. It won't happen now.

Nor will the party fracture over it. Any more than the PUMAs broke the Democrats back in 2008.

Not gonna happen.

[Caineach]

Clinton/Sanders is not gonna happen. Clinton/O'Malley I think is the most likely option right now. I would love if Sanders can pull off an upset, but it is not looking good right now.

[thejeff]

Rednal wrote:

In many cases, putting a bill on the President's desk isn't always with the expectation he'll sign it - it's to get himself to publicly commit to something they can use to build support against him.

...Kinda the way some bills are introduced solely as an excuse to be lobbied out of supporting them (i.e. fundraising), or how bills may be passed with great public fanfare, then quietly given a legal challenge for which no defense is mounted, resulting in its nullification or a change that's favorable to whoever brought the case against it (i.e. getting political points for passing a good bill, but not actually doing anything against rich interests).

Isn't government fun? o wo~

Those are the establishment Republicans. They want the strategic votes. Those are the ones running the con I was talking about earlier. They go back to their districts and tell the patsies "I tried" and fire them up against the liberals again.

The Freedom Caucus isn't like that. They're the ones who grew up being conned and they believe. They realize they've been conned, but think they can win anyway. Think shutting down government won't be that bad since government is evil anyway and the Dems will cave and give them what they want.

[Caineach]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

The Freedom Caucus today represent the most effective politicians who represent a very significant (if small, in total demographic terms) of the electorate. They are very effective at delivering what the people behind them want. And the people behind them are also not screaming at reptoid bus drivers while wearing bathrobes; they simply share a set of beliefs that you and I find counterfactual.

Let's start with the obvious. "The game is rigged, and "the people" don't have any say in it." Therefore, don't play the game. If Washington has to shut down for a while, that's not a bad thing; the people hurt the most by it are the people the most plugged in to the Washington, DC, system, and since they have the most to lose, they'll blink first.

Another obvious one. "God is on our side." A large fraction of this demographic are active, evangelical Christians who are believe in an active God who can and will perform miracles. If it takes a miracle to remove Obama and Biden from office so that Speaker Ryan can sign a repeal of the ACA into law, it is their duty to put that bill onto the president's desk (and hope for the miracle).

A third, perhaps less obvious. "Persistently failing is itself a victory." This one has substantial Biblical support. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you...

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both batshit insane and morally bankrupt.

[LazarX]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

The most likely ticket for the Democrats at this point is probably a Hillary/Sanders ticket or Sanders/Hillary ticket...but I think Hillary is running on the name of her husband and Sanders is a wild card. What's worse though is if Hillary or Sanders chooses someone else, I think there's a very real threat of fracturing the democrats which really would give the Republicans a victory whether or not they field a viable candidate or not.

You mean as likely the Obama/Clinton ticket was in '08? Everyone who's savvy knows that the Vice President is not the office to shoot for if you're looking to advocate. Clinton will not play number 2 to anyone, and Sanders is too principled to be a Clinton minion.

And you're right. Eliminating the Senate IS a horrible idea. What we do need to get rid of is the Electoral College before the Republicans put in their new scheme to award electoral votes by congressional district instead of the straight popular vote majority.

[Orfamay Quest]

Caineach wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both b~%!+*@ insane and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of repeating myself: No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

[Rynjin]

And I say you set the bar for insanity quite high.

I don't know any other proper term to describe the sort of blind zealotry you mentioned above.

[LazarX]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both b~%!+*@ insane and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of repeating myself: No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Tim Cruz seems to have done well enough to be a career Senator.

[Caineach]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both b~%!+*@ insane and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of repeating myself: No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Just because someone is a high functioning sociopath doesn't mean they are not insane.

[Caineach]

LazarX wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both b~%!+*@ insane and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of repeating myself: No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Tim Cruz seems to have done well enough to be a career Senator.

At first I thought you mistyped Tom Cruz, because the point is the same :)

[Orfamay Quest]

Caineach wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both b~%!+*@ insane and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of repeating myself: No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Just because someone is a high functioning sociopath doesn't mean they are not insane.

They're not high functioning sociopaths, either. Those know how to -- and delight in -- working social networks (essentially playing the political game), and current mess in the House shows that the Freedom Caucus isn't doing that.

The Freedom Caucus know exactly what they are doing. They were elected to break the Federal Government. They campaigned on a platform of breaking the Federal Government, and were voted into office to break the Federal Government.

Now everyone's acting surprised when "break the Federal Government" is at the top of their to-do list.....

[Orfamay Quest]

Rynjin wrote:

And I say you set the bar for insanity quite high.

Not me, I'm afraid. It's a medical term, and the people who set the bar that high are the people who write the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Quote:

I don't know any other proper term to describe the sort of blind zealotry you mentioned above.

Your lack of vocabulary is not really my issue, but I'd suggest the word "zealot." Or possibly "ideologue."

[Caineach]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Quote:

I don't know any other proper term to describe the sort of blind zealotry you mentioned above.

Your lack of vocabulary is not really my issue, but I'd suggest the word "zealot." Or possibly "ideologue."

Both synonyms for batshit insane.

[thejeff]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

And I say you set the bar for insanity quite high.

Not me, I'm afraid. It's a medical term, and the people who set the bar that high are the people who write the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Quote:

I don't know any other proper term to describe the sort of blind zealotry you mentioned above.

Your lack of vocabulary is not really my issue, but I'd suggest the word "zealot." Or possibly "ideologue."

I've been using "True Believer".

They've drunk the Kool-Aid, as it were. They were conned. They believed the lies the establishment Republicans have been telling for decades and now they're running the same scam, but they don't think it's a scam.

I think they're self-limiting. It's just a question of how much damage they do on the way down.

[Rynjin]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

And I say you set the bar for insanity quite high.

Not me, I'm afraid. It's a medical term, and the people who set the bar that high are the people who write the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Quote:

I don't know any other proper term to describe the sort of blind zealotry you mentioned above.

Your lack of vocabulary is not really my issue, but I'd suggest the word "zealot." Or possibly "ideologue."

You may want to check your dictionary again because there is a second, more often used colloquially definition. Medical terminology is used by medical professionals, but is not the only usage of words.

Being pedantic takes the discussion nowhere. You know exactly which meaning was meant, unless you're suggesting the term "batshit" has made its way into proper medical jargon...?

[Krensky]

I'm no psychologist, but I'm fairly sure the phrase "batshit insane" does not appear anywhere in the DSM-IV.

Particularly since insane isn't a medical term, it's a legal term. However, I also doubt that the phrase in question appears in Black's either.

[Rynjin]

Krensky wrote:

I'm no psychologist, but I'm fairly sure the phrase "b%$%#~! insane" does not appear anywhere in the DSM-IV.

Particularly since insane isn't a medical term, it's a legal term. However, I also doubt that the phrase in question appears in Black's either.

Out of curiosity, what is the medical term then? "Mental disorder" or some such?

[Krensky]

As a general term mental disorder or illness, if memory serves, but the preference is to use the name of the actual condition.

[BigDTBone]

LazarX wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Krensky wrote:

You keep wanting to see them as rational people who have wrong opinions, they're not. They're b#+!$%* insane.

No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Anyone who actually believes Any Rand is both b~%!+*@ insane and morally bankrupt.

At the risk of repeating myself: No. That's not what they are. I've seen b#+!$%* insane before, and so have you. That's the guy wearing a bathrobe and a tinfoil hat screaming at the bus driver because he's secretly a reptile overlord. B#+!$%* insane don't hold jobs, and they certainly don't manage to build and maintain funding and campaigning networks controlling millions of dollars just to stay in office. The b#+!$%* insane candidates don't win primaries, and in most cases can't even figure out the procedure to get on the ballot.

Tim Cruz seems to have done well enough to be a career Senator.

I didn't know that first-term senators were considered "career."

[BigNorseWolf]

Lou Diamond wrote:

The whole power struggle within the house GOP is that the Red state republicans are tired of being ruled by the blue state republicans who are spineless Rhinos who have no beliefs other than being reelected.

They have one other belief: that rich people shouldn't pay taxes and that the system should be set up so that rich people benefit. Since thats not something that would get a whole lot of votes, they put out an ayne rand ideology that greed is good, get people riled up about abortion and fake wars on christmas.

[Scott Betts]

Lou Diamond wrote:

IMO the establishment republicans are gutless.

The alternative is non-establishment Republicans, who are as brainless as the establishment ones are gutless. I'd much rather the opposition be led by smart people with no spine than by stupid people with balls of steel.

[Coriat]

BNW wrote:

You need someone at least as crazy left as they are right to get anything that isn't right.

My expectations for such a strategy are low.

[BigNorseWolf]

Coriat wrote:

BNW wrote:

You need someone at least as crazy left as they are right to get anything that isn't right.

My expectations for such a strategy are low.

Mine are too. But they're still higher than the current status quo where republicans just keep pulling democrats right.

[Orfamay Quest]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mine are too. But they're still higher than the current status quo where republicans just keep pulling democrats right.

The Republicans aren't pulling the Democrats right. The media and voters are.

Elections in the United States have always been about the race-to-the-center, or if not "always," then for at least 100 years. You cater to the base to win the primary, then swerve far enough to the center to make sure that you pick up the actual disputed votes. That's basically how winner-take-all elections work.

The political "center" has been shifting right in the United States for nearly fifty years, which means that the Democrats have to take positions further and further right to capture the center.

[thejeff]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mine are too. But they're still higher than the current status quo where republicans just keep pulling democrats right.

The Republicans aren't pulling the Democrats right. The media and voters are.

Yes and no. The Republicans are moving right, leaving an opening for the Democrats to pickup the voters they leave behind in the new center.

[Orfamay Quest]

thejeff wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mine are too. But they're still higher than the current status quo where republicans just keep pulling democrats right.

The Republicans aren't pulling the Democrats right. The media and voters are.

Yes and no. The Republicans are moving right, leaving an opening for the Democrats to pickup the voters they leave behind in the new center.

Except that even the centrist voters are themselves moving right. I posted some survey data upthread.

[Caineach]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Mine are too. But they're still higher than the current status quo where republicans just keep pulling democrats right.

The Republicans aren't pulling the Democrats right. The media and voters are.

Yes and no. The Republicans are moving right, leaving an opening for the Democrats to pickup the voters they leave behind in the new center.

Except that even the centrist voters are themselves moving right. I posted some survey data upthread.

Yes, but are the centrist voters moving right on their own or because the Republicans are moving right making more extreme views acceptable in the main stream? We haven't had a real left voice to counter the rightward pull for decades.

[BigNorseWolf]

Caineach wrote:

Yes, but are the centrist voters moving right on their own or because the Republicans are moving right making more extreme views acceptable in the main stream? We haven't had a real left voice to counter the rightward pull for decades.

Generally whats happened is that the voters have moved left, but the districts moved right anyway. Instead of electorate picking their candidates, the candidates are picking their electors through gerrymandering.