Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Government Shutdown


  • Please log in to reply
519 replies to this topic

#16 TANTRIC-NINJA

TANTRIC-NINJA

    The holy ghost of Mr. Miyagi

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,175 posts
  • LocationColumbia, South Kacky

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:00 PM

Over 90% of Congressional incumbents are reelected to office, yet Congress as a whole has an approval rating of less than 10%.

Solution: Get rid of political gerrymandering of districts and limitless campaign contributions by billionaires and big business.

Then, and only then, will the percentage of incumbents reelected tumble.

Once that happens, most Congressmen will quickly reevaluate their views to align more closely with the majority of American citizens, instead of their extremist deep pocketed sponsors.


They are never going to reverse this....unfortunately. Once you open this money vault it will be impossible to seal back up.

#17 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,570 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:11 PM

They are never going to reverse this....unfortunately. Once you open this money vault it will be impossible to seal back up.

 

I don't know if it is impossible to reverse, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where reforms are possible when our supposed "political representatives" are stooges for powerful moneyed interests and the majority of the judges on the United States Supreme Court are bought and paid for as well. 



#18 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,282 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:02 PM

As far as Obamacare goes, I think if I were a Republican, I would just say, "we tried to stop it, but cannot".  Here you go America, enjoy.



#19 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,298 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:41 PM

The impact of recent Gerrymandering is greatly overstated by the left these days.  The reality is that republicans would control the House even if congressional districts went back to what they were 5-10 years ago.  The problem with the belief is that they use nationwide vote totals which are completely irrelevant irt the house elections.  Which is how the founders designed things. 

 

 

What if we “re-run” the 2012 House election, but using the old districts? We have done that simulation, using the 2008 presidential vote in both the old and new districts to capture how the redistricting might have moved partisans around. If we assume that nothing else affects House election outcomes but the partisanship of the districts—in other words, if we allow redistricting to have its maximum possible effect—we find that the 2011 redistricting cost Democrats 7 seats in 2012. This is not nothing, but it’s far less than what the Democrats needed to take back the House and about half what Wang estimated.

 

The effect is even smaller if we incorporate other important factors. Incumbency is the most important of these: lots of Republicans who were running as challengers or in open seats in 2010—and then won—ran as incumbents for the first time in 2012. We know that incumbency is a powerful factor in House elections, bringing candidates greater visibility, adding to their campaign coffers, and deterring quality challengers from running. On average, an incumbent in 2012 ran five percentage points ahead of a non-incumbent candidate from the same party in a similar seat. Sixty-one seats were were decided by less than this margin.

 

More important, once we took incumbency into account, the apparent effect of gerrymandering vanished. That is, the ability of Republicans to retain the House majority may have been due to incumbency advantage, not new and more favorable districts.

 

 



#20 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,298 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:49 PM

As far as Obamacare goes, I think if I were a Republican, I would just say, "we tried to stop it, but cannot".  Here you go America, enjoy.

 

Agreed, its time to give up that fight and let the chips fall where they may. 



#21 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:56 PM

The impact of recent Gerrymandering is greatly overstated by the left these days.  The reality is that republicans would control the House even if congressional districts went back to what they were 10-15 years ago.

 

If that is truly the case, I guess this is just another distraction created by the right to keep their few faithful thinking they're actually doing something besides obstruct.

 

Quickly...or even take your time, but name me 2 significant pieces of legislation that actually effect some positive direction for the majority of people in this country that this Congress has collaberated on, discussed, debated, voted on and passed, and ultimately signed into law.

 

If gerrymandering is so "overstated" why is it such a priority for the Repubtards? And why do they spend more money and time on this effort rather than something that may actually benefit the citizens of this country.



#22 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:08 PM

As far as Obamacare goes, I think if I were a Republican, I would just say, "we tried to stop it, but cannot".  Here you go America, enjoy.

 

 

Obamacare was a part of the Democratic platform in 2008. Obamacare is the brainchild of none other than Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. The Mass program established by then-Governor Romney was the blueprint for Obamacare.

 

Obamacare was passed and signed into law in March 2010. The right took it to the Supreme Court, which is a Bush-appointed, conservative-leaning court and it was upheld. 

 

3 1/2 years later the Repubtards are still crying the blues and instead of drafting anything as an alternative, legislating anything that might actually help the American people, accomplishing anything, they have found their niche. Obstruction, "just say no," and disenfranchising the voting public is their claim to notoriety.



#23 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,282 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:11 PM

Except that the public now does not want it.



#24 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:17 PM

Except that the public now does not want it.

 

As long as the Koch brothers continue to fund every subversive effort to undermine the program, turn public opinion and essentially propagate lies, this is not unexpected.

 

Now most conservative states are not exacting the online exchanges to register in an effort to undermine the program.

 

What else are we to expect? Oh, I know, back to the birth certificate thing again....lol
 



#25 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,298 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:19 PM

 

If that is truly the case, I guess this is just another distraction created by the right to keep their few faithful thinking they're actually doing something besides obstruct.

 

Quickly...or even take your time, but name me 2 significant pieces of legislation that actually effect some positive direction for the majority of people in this country that this Congress has collaberated on, discussed, debated, voted on and passed, and ultimately signed into law.

 

If gerrymandering is so "overstated" why is it such a priority for the Repubtards? And why do they spend more money and time on this effort rather than something that may actually benefit the citizens of this country.

 

 

Seems to me its a distraction by the left, since the majority of criticism comes from that side of the political aisle. 

 

Bipartisan student loan act of 2013 and the reauthorization of the violence against women act.  Both spent time being debated, discussed and eventually a compromise was reached that allowed both to pass.  

 

And its not as much of a priority for republicans as some have indicated.  Its not happening across the country, just in a handful of districts.  It only happens in a few districts, and its impact on the current setup in the house is overstated. 

 

From the Washington Post article I linked earlier:

 

 

 

Why do Democrats have a somewhat chronic disadvantage in these graphs, especially in the last 20 years? Part of the reason is that Democratic votes are increasingly concentrated in urban areas where they are more likely to waste votes with large majorities. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden have simulated thousands of redistricting plans in a handful of states and found Democrats generally do worse when districts are constrained to be compact (that is, as close to simple shapes like circles and squares as possible).

 

 



#26 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts
  • LocationWherever I May Roam

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:03 PM

 

 

And its not as much of a priority for republicans as some have indicated.  Its not happening across the country, just in a handful of districts.  It only happens in a few districts, and its impact on the current setup in the house is overstated. 

 

From the Washington Post article I linked earlier:

 

 

And from another study published in the Hew York Times:

http://thecaucus.blo...udy-finds/?_r=0

 

"FairVote, an organization that examines voting patterns and laws, predicts that Republicans will maintain control of the House in 2014 unless Democrats meet the unlikely threshold of winning 56 percent of the vote nationwide.

In nonpresidential elections, the president’s party rarely gains seats in Congress.

Few external factors are likely to change what has effectively become a fixed game, FairVote said. Republicans seem likely to hold the House even if Democrats have another banner year like 2008. Even the ever-growing flow of money into politics is unlikely to make a difference in the outcome of races, the study concluded."

 

Imagine that, having to win an election 56% to 44% to actually win... not 51%, but 56%.



#27 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,570 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 29 September 2013 - 07:07 PM

A clear minority of the populace has an oversized influence in deciding our nation's policies based solely on their concerted efforts to marginalize other Americans' right to vote.

 

Is there anyone who truly thinks the GOP wouldn't cry foul at this obvious attempt to steal elections if the tables were turned?

 

As it is, gerrymandering works to the GOP's advantage, so complaints about a few million voters being effectively disenfranchised every election cycle falls on deaf ears. 

 

The GOP won't lift a finger to advance democratic principles in this country because the party lacks the desire to govern in any sort of equitable manner that would compel a majority of US citizens to vote for them.

 

The founding fathers wanted representation in the US House (The purveyor of our nation's looming shutdown) to be proportional to a state's population. 

 

Well the majority of NC voters wanted the democratic party to represent them in Washington DC, yet the GOP provides the greatest number of representatives.  The majority of Americans voters wanted the democratic party to represent them in the US House too, yet the GOP is in control.   Why?  Simply because of unethical behavior on the part of politicians and their corporate sponsors.

 

What exactly would you call a system where the vote of the majority is systematically and intentionally disregarded due to collusion by political and corporate interests?  

 

Fascism?

 

What has historically occurred in societies where the majority feels the system is rigged against them?

 

Keep it up GOP, your day is coming.



#28 ecu88

ecu88

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 08:59 PM

For some reason the Repubtards are having a very difficult time understanding they've lost the last 2 elections, pretty handily, I might add. And they believe they can extort their way back into relevancy by continuing with the threats of debt ceiling and trying to hold off the ACA, neither of which have anything to do with the spending bill on the table to keep the government running.

Here's the problem, Tea Baggers. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which people refer to as "Obamacare" was signed into law in March 2010. So, rather than try to fix the law or tweak the law or make any improvements, they've simply gone about the weekly routine of voting to repeal Obamacare in Congress. The Congress has wasted time and money taking this vote some 35+ times now. Guess what, the ACA is still a law and Congress hasn't come up with a better alternative in the 3.5 years they've had at their disposal to do something.

Rather than distract everyone with the debt ceiling threats and the Obamacare issues, the Repubtards would be better served by simply coming up with a budget other than the trainwreck they came up with in March.... which is the root cause of the looming shutdown today.

http://www.politico....dget-97504.html


We must pass the ACA to find out what's in it. Fug you fugging Democrats for fugging with my dad's job on Cherry Point marine airbase. Democrats never compromise on anything. By the way navy jackass sir, the house and senate controlled at the time are the one's who passed the bill and by the way bought Republican support by exclusions and state funding to vote for it, low life politicians . You just pissed on an ant hill sir. The dems had there way for the Obama's first two years and the citizens responded by giving the repubs the house. Before you answer, learn about indirect consequence and moral hazard. Good intentions does not always mean good results like the great war on poverty or the last Iraq war. We do not live in a utopia society but a society that demands respect and people like you "progressives" and establishment Repubturds have degraded our moral and economic standing in this world by acting like children.

It takes two to tango....

Working for the NCDOR, I know how much this ACA is going to hurt. I am getting married next year and with the new rates that ACA I will not be able to put my wife to be up there with my insurance. I do not understand why our state insurance has to go up for states that have high insurance to lower theirs. I know about struggle, everyday I have small businesses barely keeping their heads above water come into my office and with the ACA coming to affect it will get worse for them.

I am tired of the government playing 'God' with our well being and other nations!

#29 ecu88

ecu88

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:04 PM

Does anyone on this damn board understand economics because even economist I talk to in research say this is going to be a disaster.

We are not ready for ACA and after three years to prepare, this is a disgrace......

#30 ecu88

ecu88

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:08 PM

Obamacare was a part of the Democratic platform in 2008. Obamacare is the brainchild of none other than Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. The Mass program established by then-Governor Romney was the blueprint for Obamacare.

Obamacare was passed and signed into law in March 2010. The right took it to the Supreme Court, which is a Bush-appointed, conservative-leaning court and it was upheld.

3 1/2 years later the Repubtards are still crying the blues and instead of drafting anything as an alternative, legislating anything that might actually help the American people, accomplishing anything, they have found their niche. Obstruction, "just say no," and disenfranchising the voting public is their claim to notoriety.


Actually Hillary had the framework done years ago which was probably modelled under what Ted Kennedy envisioned.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com