General Political Thread

[Guest Don Draper]

The far right is extremely vocal and wields a lot of power. It is important to discuss them. Not only do they mostly control the congress, they have a consortium of media outlets. Yes they are on the wrong side of history, but with that much power, it is important to point out their foibles. Also I find it interesting, how truly ignorant they are, it is astounding. Also not getting worked up, just putting ideas on a message board dedicated to a mid level rock band with a solid fan base.

 

Whereas Al Gore hasn't really been in the news for like 5 years. That is weird.

 

The far right doesn't mostly control Congress, the right does. I think where a lot of people disagree with you is that your conception off right starts much closer to everyone else's center. And foibles are things that are cute/annoying (a minor weakness in someone's character, says Google), like the way that my colleague always leaves the kitchen cabinet doors open; you don't seem to think the right's transgressions are foibles by definition. And I don't think that they have as much power as you think they do. Neither of us - though we can each say otherwise - have a whole lot of evidence that proves this, but I think you get worked up about it more than most. In this context, worked up = what I feel when I see all the kitchen cabinets open, not worked up as in sucker-punching John Boehner.

 

And yes yes yes with the Al Gore stuff. I remember when Sheryl Crow and Dave Matthews each got into a little trouble for essentially green-shaming people and then going on these monstrous, wasteful, bloated tours. Then again, there's a paradox there: you're not going to listen to someone who doesn't have a whole lot of power, and people who have power have more stuff to plug in because they have more people to pay.

[lost highway]

The one thing that often gets missed in the perennial GOP vs. Democrats, who makes unreasonable arguments and has more biased media in their favor etc etc thing is this: Underlying both sides of the aisle is a corrosive financial influence.  Corporate interests and lobbyists have removed the federal political mechanisms from the will of the people.  The most significant difference I see is that the right wing is brazen about who puts money in their pocket and the left is embarrassed about it.  

 

Sometimes it feels like Obama carefully makes statements that could compromise the big oil agenda, the right loudly complains, and then he quietly rolls over.  The industry's dollars are swaying both of the actors in the drama.

 

The right is full of people talking about putting the countries economic stability ahead of environmental stability, while they're really concerned with their own economic stability.

The left is full of people championing environmental stability, while they end up bowing down for their own economic stability.  Two kinds of liars.

[KevinG]

 

The far right doesn't mostly control Congress, the right does. I think where a lot of people disagree with you is that your conception off right starts much closer to everyone else's center. .... I don't think that they have as much power as you think they do...Neither of us - though we can each say otherwise - have a whole lot of evidence that proves this, but I think you get worked up about it more than most.

 

So the Representatives in the 113th Congress were overwhelmingly controlled by the far right.  Per the Congress Scorecard on That's My Congress  213 members (a close majority) are considered either very conservative or redding conservative, whereas those in the middle are only number 122 and those that skew liberal number 99.  It is easy to see by the numbers that right or far right dominate the house right now.  So I suppose both of us could say otherwise, but I actually have evidence that supports my statement.  This is also seen in the how moderate Republicans have been targeted by TEA party in the primaries, often moving these members father to the right or losing their seats entirely.  

 

Also you simply dismiss some of the things that I mention as foibles, something that is annoyingly amusing.  I rarely bring up the stupid statements that the GOP makes.  The stuff that I am passionate about is Voter Rights, Equality, and the Environment, and general hypocrisy.  These subjects are important and to liken them to leaving the cabinet door open seems to me as odd.  You may not agree with me, but to dismiss them is borderline offensive.  A foible is spelling potato with an e.  Limiting early voting or requiring an ID is a serious issue.  

 

   

[uncool2pillow]

I promise you Don Draper will not reply to this.  I would say I tend to agree with you, but the leadership (i.e., Boehner) is less far right than the rank and file and that counts for something.

[KevinG]

I promise you Don Draper will not reply to this. I would say I tend to agree with you, but the leadership (i.e., Boehner) is less far right than the rank and file and that counts for something.

Boehner although moderate is responsible for bringing bills to the floor of the house, and looking at his tenure the bills he has brought are overwhelming conservative. But that again is the nature of the position.

[IRememberDBoon]

The Far Right psychos have the moderate right locked up tight. They are so scared SarahPAC is gonna put some loot behind someone to run against them in the primaries and the Far Right knows how to win those.

Also, is it me or is this the WORST CONGRESS EVER!!?? I mean even thru the 90s with Gingrich and Co we got tons of things passed with bi partisan support. I swear this house doesn't seem to do one damn thing except IRS and Beghazi hearings.

[uncool2pillow]

Holy crap! A coherent post that I agree with from IRDB in the political thread. Weird.

[twoshedsjackson]

The Far Right psychos have the moderate right locked up tight. They are so scared SarahPAC is gonna put some loot behind someone to run against them in the primaries and the Far Right knows how to win those.

 

Also, is it me or is this the WORST CONGRESS EVER!!?? I mean even thru the 90s with Gingrich and Co we got tons of things passed with bi partisan support. I swear this house doesn't seem to do one damn thing except IRS and Beghazi hearings.

That's a damned lie! They also spend a lot of time fighting affordable health care.

 

Spot on post, man. Seriously.

[KevinG]

That's a damned lie! They also spend a lot of time fighting affordable health care.

 

Spot on post, man. Seriously.

But remember apparently they are controlled by the moderate right.

[bleedorange]

I think the far right's influence is far greater now than it ever has been. Unfortunately, a large part of that is taking advantage of the ignorant, willfully or otherwise. There were candidates down here in the Republican primary on the state and local level running ads about how they're going to defeat Obama and fight Obamacare, etc. Last week, while driving home from work, there was a group of people on an overpass holding an American flag and a sign that said "Impeach Obama."

 

The sadder thing is that since nobody bothers to vote, these outliers get elected.

 

I almost hope that the GOP nominates some far-right candidate in 2016 who gets trounced in the general election.

[KevinG]

I almost hope that the GOP nominates some far-right candidate in 2016 who gets trounced in the general election.

 

I think that is the mainstream GOP's fear too.  I wonder if that is why they are so keen on voter suppression efforts.  It is funny hear in Wisconsin our esteemed governor said he would call a special session of the legislature to fix and pass a new voter ID law.  http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/on-politics/gov-scott-walker-says-he-would-call-voter-id-special/article_eae13580-d18e-5175-9584-56cd7bc33380.html

 

Regardless of what you think of the merits of the law (we have had that debate before), it seems odd that a special session would need to be called to get this law in place.  Voter fraud is not a pressing problem and our state has plenty of other problems that would seem to be more pressing.  

 

[bleedorange]

I think that is the mainstream GOP's fear too.  I wonder if that is why they are so keen on voter suppression efforts.  It is funny hear in Wisconsin our esteemed governor said he would call a special session of the legislature to fix and pass a new voter ID law.  http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/on-politics/gov-scott-walker-says-he-would-call-voter-id-special/article_eae13580-d18e-5175-9584-56cd7bc33380.html

 

Regardless of what you think of the merits of the law (we have had that debate before), it seems odd that a special session would need to be called to get this law in place.  Voter fraud is not a pressing problem and our state has plenty of other problems that would seem to be more pressing.  

 

 

It begs the question of how bad does it have to get for the more moderate Republicans. As anecdotal evidence, I was talking to my dad the other night around the primary about how bad it has gotten that Dan Patrick would lead in the Lt. Governor's race (along with other alarming results). He actually agreed with me, but followed that up with how he would never vote for a "damn Democrat" either and would just rather not vote. When I told him that the Democratic candidate in that race was pretty good, and far better than the Republican will be, he didn't really have an answer for that.

 

It makes me wonder how many other self-identifying Republicans are like that, and how many just go silent rather than try to find a way to change things. It's also strange to me how strong the self-identification with one particular party can be.

 

Of course, all this probably doesn't matter much here in Texas.

[KevinG]

Interesting to watch the Supreme Court with the Hobby Lobby birth control fight.  On one hand I feel there is no way a company should can dictate what health services a person can get.  On the other hand I suppose truly they are not they are just refusing to pay for it.  I think the inclusion of birth control in ACA was a misstep to begin with, but I can see why they put it in.  

 

My fear is if the SCOTUS sides with the corporations it could lead to a slippery slope and open up the denial of all kinds services based upon "religion" of the company or its shareholders.  Would this allow companies to refuse employment/service based upon religion?  And at the heart of this can a company be religious?  

 

It is a mess and it will be interesting how it shakes out.    

[tinnitus photography]

 

Wilco says no to law enforcement drone

 

[KevinG]

Wilco says no to law enforcement drone

 

If we continue to be anti drone then we will end up with a Robocop (the reboot) scenerio and no one wants that.  

[KevinG]

Well it looks like our political system is in the hands of the super rich, now more than ever.  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0

 

I find this statement from Chief Justice Robert's decision most ironic.  "There is no right in our democracy more basic, than the right to participate in electing our political leaders."  Sure we have the right to vote, but we are now voting for those that the very rich few allow to be put on the ballot in the first place.  We are barreling towards an Oligarchy.  

 

Money should not equal speech.

[uncool2pillow]

When you limit someone's ability to distribute their political POV, you're limiting their freedom. It might not be right, but it is damn sure constitutional. However, I think one could make a case that people should only be allowed to financially participate in elections for which they can vote (ie, their own district, state, etc.)

[lost highway]

I think the free speech angle is bunk because it's being used to defend corruption.  We need to look for another legal precedent to define the financial ethics of it.  For example, you can not call giving a police officer money "free speech", it's a bribe.  You can't pay a principal of a public school to put your child in your favorite teacher's classroom (or to hire or fire a teacher).

 

I realize both of these analogies are problematic, but I feel it's a good time to brainstorm.  Perhaps the best angle is not that it's illegal for the Koch brothers to donate millions, but that it's illegal for a candidate or a PAC to accept that money.  People can "communicate" however they wish with their money, but politicians can't accept massive checks.

 

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I think it's clear that America needs campaign finance reform if its democracy is expected to function.

[uncool2pillow]

I think the free speech angle is bunk because it's being used to defend corruption.  We need to look for another legal precedent to define the financial ethics of it.  For example, you can not call giving a police officer money "free speech", it's a bribe.  You can't pay a principal of a public school to put your child in your favorite teacher's classroom (or to hire or fire a teacher).

 

I realize both of these analogies are problematic, but I feel it's a good time to brainstorm.  Perhaps the best angle is not that it's illegal for the Koch brothers to donate millions, but that it's illegal for a candidate or a PAC to accept that money.  People can "communicate" however they wish with their money, but politicians can't accept massive checks.

 

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I think it's clear that America needs campaign finance reform if its democracy is expected to function.

You're right, they are problematic, it's a quid pro quo.  I think it's a sadder state of affairs is that fundraising and atrocious 30 second ads work, not that they are legal.  Campaign finance reform is a band aid on the hemorrhaging wound of stupidity in this country. 

[ih8music]

This country was founded on stupidity! :

[uncool2pillow]

Hypocrisy certainly, but not stupidity.

[KevinG]

When you limit someone's ability to distribute their political POV, you're limiting their freedom. It might not be right, but it is damn sure constitutional. 

 

What about my political POV?  I am no millionaire, I am unable to give nearly as much money as say Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, or George Soros.  So I can't get promote a candidate with my views.  Just because the rich have the money they are able push their candidates and the agendas they want.  It is a general rule in elections that the candidate with the most money usually wins.  

 

Unlimited contributions gives a huge unbalance of power to the wealthy at the expense of the common person.  My, and 99% of American's voice in the election process has been severely limited.  BTW this not just because the recent SCOTUS ruling, this has been going on for awhile now.  

[Atticus]

our racist, sexist, bigoted, misogynistic founding fathers would be outraged at the status of our campaign finance situation and our elections. 

 

and our constitution was designed to be changed.  it's really tiresome when people's only argument in favor of something is that it is protected by our constitution.  at various times our constitution has protected a lot of really horrible behavior.  

[bleedorange]

Isn't what the court saying here is that, essentially, there are ways to implement campaign finance reform, but limiting the overall amount of money an individual can give is not one of them?

[Sir Stewart]

our racist, sexist, bigoted, misogynistic founding fathers