PDA

View Full Version : GOP Will Take Control of Senate: What Now?



JAD_333
05 Nov 14,, 06:24
As of this writing the GOP can count on a 52-seat majority with additional seats likely when all results are in.

This means first that the leadership of the Senate will be in GOP hands. Secondly, nearly 400 bills passed by the GOP-controlled House of Reps that have been bottled up in the Senate by the current Senate majority leader, Senator Reid will begin coming out of committee and moving toward a vote in the Senate.

The new leader is likely to be Mitch McConnell, who has pledged to entertain amendments proposed by the dems, something that Reid rarely did for GOP senators. Is compromise in the air? With a Democrat president in the White House for at least 2 more years, only the veto stands in the way of unfettered GOP influence on the direction of the country. Hopefully the GOP will move cautiously and revive the shattered collegiality between the parties.

Be that as it may, the main focus will be on how the change in Senate leadership will affect the fundamental direction of the county in such key issues as health care, immigration, defense spending, regulatory reform, and tax policy, to name a few areas of concern. That should be the focus of this thread.

DOR
05 Nov 14,, 10:48
We’re still suffering the consequences of the last time GOPers controlled both houses.

Officer of Engineers
05 Nov 14,, 12:58
We’re still suffering the consequences of the last time GOPers controlled both houses.Be that as it may, they were voted in. As they are now, meaning the Americans couldn't stand anymore Democrat influence at that time as they do now.

zraver
05 Nov 14,, 15:19
We’re still suffering the consequences of the last time GOPers controlled both houses.

Thats the party line coming from the left that is for sure. But apparently the American people think what e are still suffering from is what happened the last time the Dems controlled both houses and they knew who to blame for the do nothing Congress. This election was about Reid as much as Obama.

TopHatter
05 Nov 14,, 16:06
I never thought I'd quote Sarah Palin but for once she gave a thorough, albeit rather obvious, summation of what really happened yesterday.


Now, new Republican Congressional majority in the House and Senate, please realize that Americans were not necessarily voting FOR any party; they were voting AGAINST the continued dysfunction and corruption in D.C. We the People were saying, “enough is enough” to the scandals, crony capitalism, and utter lack of leadership in Washington.

The Democrats got mauled today, deservedly so. To prohibit that from happening to the GOP in 2016, it must learn the lesson from the last time Republicans held the Senate majority. This time they must not retreat, and it's our responsibility to hold them accountable. Will they fight for reform that aligns with the limited government planks of the Republican platform, or will they return to the big government cronyism and status quo favored by the permanent political class? Will they drain the swamp or decide the D.C. cesspool is really just a jacuzzi they can't wait to jump on into and shake us off?

If GOP leadership returns to business as usual, then this majority will be short lived, for We the People say, “once bitten, twice shy.”

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 16:28
I hope the Dems give the Republicans as much cooperation as they got over the last few years

JAD_333
05 Nov 14,, 16:28
I never thought I'd quote Sarah Palin but for once she gave a thorough, albeit rather obvious, summation of what really happened yesterday.


The main problem with Ms. Palin's statement, which I doubt she wrote herself, boils down to unreasonable expectations. Washington is not the 'swamp' she thinks it is, or at least not much different than it has always been from day 1. People should not be made to expect wholesale unraveling of government programs and policies. However, there will be adjustments, some major, and she is right about one thing: The GOP must now deliver on the voters' expectations, which means ending the so-called gridlock on the Hill that has existed the past several years, AND in so doing, bring about positive improvements, particularly for the much maligned middle class.

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 16:32
The main problem with Ms. Palin's statement, which I doubt she wrote herself, boils down to unreasonable expectations.

Not our damn problem. The Reps raised those expectations, they need to live up to that.

GVChamp
05 Nov 14,, 16:39
Watched American Horror Story last night. Woke up presently surprised, but exit poll data seems sparse right now. At least for governors, Republicans are doing about 5 points better than expected (which means I get Rauner instead of Quinn, yay for me).

Repubs are still in rough shape, as far as I can tell. 2012 was a bad year, pretty much saved only because of the way districts are drawn. Just because this year Reps performed better than expected, doesn't mean that 2016 will be any better. Way too soon to draw breath. 2016 could be a VERY bad year.

That means the GOP needs to take initiative to actually govern and build some momentmum. Not to mention continuing to expand the party tent.

TopHatter
05 Nov 14,, 16:47
Not our damn problem. The Reps raised those expectations, they need to live up to that.

*shrug* The Democrats did exactly the same thing in 2008, except they whipped those expectations up to fevered pitch the likes of which I've never seen.

They didn't live up to and I doubt the GOP will either.

It's all just cycles of boom and bust for both parties, and the country seems to muddle on through. Although I believe that the muddling is starting to slow to a crawl and will eventually stop.

Double Edge
05 Nov 14,, 16:47
We’re still suffering the consequences of the last time GOPers controlled both houses.
Clinton was in charge, economy was recovering and it went on to do well. Glass Steagal got removed.

Was listening to talk by Greenspan about his latest book, he went on about discounting the future which i did not understand. He did not sound very positive.


Americans were not necessarily voting FOR any party; they were voting AGAINST the continued dysfunction and corruption in D.C. We the People were saying, “enough is enough” to the scandals, crony capitalism, and utter lack of leadership in Washington.
Sounds very familiar to where i am.

Did not realise in the US you use that 'c' word as in corruption. Touted solution to all evil :)

bfng3569
05 Nov 14,, 19:01
We’re still suffering the consequences of the last time GOPers controlled both houses.

still Bush's fault, huh......

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 19:11
*shrug* The Democrats did exactly the same thing in 2008, except they whipped those expectations up to fevered pitch the likes of which I've never seen.

They didn't live up to and I doubt the GOP will either.

It's all just cycles of boom and bust for both parties, and the country seems to muddle on through. Although I believe that the muddling is starting to slow to a crawl and will eventually stop.

Hope you are right, because in a GOP led Congress, the opposite of "muddle" would be aggressively backward legislation on women's rights, social freedoms and minority voting rights, like we have started seeing in the GOP controlled states.

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 19:12
Clinton was in charge, economy was recovering and it went on to do well. Glass Steagal got removed.


You view removal of Glas Steagal as positive?

GVChamp
05 Nov 14,, 21:00
Folks like Antimony are how I switched from volunteering for Dem campaigns to becoming a straight-R voter. Get an ID to vote=you're a racist GVChamp. Welp, I'm not voting for YOUR party ever again.

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 22:05
Folks like Antimony are how I switched from volunteering for Dem campaigns to becoming a straight-R voter. Get an ID to vote=you're a racist GVChamp. Welp, I'm not voting for YOUR party ever again.

Dude, what are you smoking? When did I say that? Getting an ID to vote is not the problem. I have time and again argued on this board that we need ids to vote (just like I have argued for universal background checks for guns, bringing it up since voting rights and gun rights are sometimes conflated), through a comprehensive voter id program that sets out the rules for everyone, not partisan politicians deciding at the local level on what voter id needs to be.

However it is true that in many GOP rules states, there have been backward movements on women's rights and social freedom. That is a fact. The R- party keep trying to turn the clock backwards on modernity.

however, please feel free to live in your own illusions.

Native
05 Nov 14,, 22:27
However it is true that in many GOP rules states, there have been backward movements on women's rights and social freedom. That is a fact. The R- party keep trying to turn the clock backwards on modernity.

however, please feel free to live in your own illusions.

Could you please educate me with some specific examples of how the GOP is removing women's rights and social freedom? Maybe besides the abortion argument?

Albany Rifles
05 Nov 14,, 22:31
Be that as it may, they were voted in. As they are now, meaning the Americans couldn't stand anymore Democrat influence at that time as they do now.

Sir,more precisely, with only 32.7% of the electorate voting (read that in paper this AM), approximately 55% of the electorate who voted chose Republican.

The voters held true to form in off year elections; the turn out was older, whiter and more conservative than in 2012....and in 2008. Across the country, the trend was under 45 overwhelmingly voted Democratic; over 45 voted Republican.

So lets see what happens.

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 22:58
Could you please educate me with some specific examples of how the GOP is removing women's rights and social freedom? Maybe besides the abortion argument?

1. Why should I keep out the abortion argument?
2. What about trying to paint women asking for birth control as sluts? It is only very recent (Aug/ Sep this year) that the GOP has tried to make up for that.
3. Opposition/ dilution of Equal Pay laws
4. Dilution of domestic violence protection for immigrant women

This is to name a few. Some Republican politicians abandoned their stances just in time for the elections, but I am reasonably sure they would let the hard line appear once again soon.n OLeopards dopn't change spots

Native
05 Nov 14,, 23:07
3. Opposition/ dilution of Equal Pay laws
4. Dilution of domestic violence protection for immigrant women


Can you please provide specific links to where the GOP has attempted to or made those statements?

Red Team
05 Nov 14,, 23:12
Sir,more precisely, with only 32.7% of the electorate voting (read that in paper this AM), approximately 55% of the electorate who voted chose Republican.

The voters held true to form in off year elections; the turn out was older, whiter and more conservative than in 2012....and in 2008. Across the country, the trend was under 45 overwhelmingly voted Democratic; over 45 voted Republican.

So lets see what happens.

AR,

Was gonna mention this point but you beat me to the punch. The younger generation turnout for voting (especially among the 20s-30s age range) has historically always been pretty low in midterms, or we would've seen quite a bit more Democrats remain. Hell, most people in my college just didn't have the time, resources, or motivation to vote themselves. I only had time to vote right after an exam (on Election day :pari:) just because I lived within close proximity to the polls.

All in all, I'm tentatively satisfied that the American people have geared their votes towards ending congressional gridlock. I just hope the Republicans don't squander their new found gains, lest they make us regret it.

antimony
05 Nov 14,, 23:23
Can you please provide specific links to where the GOP has attempted to or made those statements?

How about you addressing the points I already made?

Double Edge
05 Nov 14,, 23:34
You view removal of Glas Steagal as positive?
No, that is what i assumed DOR was alluding to.

removing glass steagal led to the subprime mortgage crisis a decade later.

zraver
06 Nov 14,, 01:02
My thoughts on the national election.

Biggest Loser- Harry Reid. The single biggest destructive force in America, the man who single handedly broke the Senate saw his hamfisted, corrupt, partisan approach to government soundly rejected.

Runner up loser- President Obama- his policies were the issue and Americans had 3 choices- vote for, vote against, or stay home. Of those who cared enough to show up and vote, they spoke loudly and clearly. Though honestly I think it was less about policy than about leadership style. Obama is so dismissive and disconnected that he is not seen as a leader, especially in troubled times. His speech this afternoon was lacking everything that made Mitch McConnell's speech so great.

3rd place loser- Hillary and Bill Clinton. Their star power and ground game was not enough to swing even a single race. This is going to raise serious eyebrows among Democrats looking to see who will run to replace President Obama. Hillary's ground game failed 6 years ago and it just failed again. Not only could she not deliver voters, she was not able to collect any chits from Democrats who owed their survival to her intervention.

Biggest Winner- Mitch McConnell. He achieved a life long dream to be the king maker. The countries future and future of several GOP presidential hopefuls now rest in his hand. His speech as majority leader-elect was everything Obama's wasn't- conciliatory, honest and direct. he soundly rejected the Reid style of senate leadership.

Runner up winner- Scott Walker. The left threw everything they had at him to try and blunt him and recapture a formerly blue state for the 3rd time in 4 years and they failed again. This sets him as the conservative who can win over blue voters and deliver results even in the harshest of partisan environments.

3rd place winner- American people. Minimum wage increases and decriminalized marijuana were winning items where ever they appeared on the ballot. One promises a better life for some 300,000 minimum wage workers in the affected states and one a life with more personal agency and liberty.

JAD_333
06 Nov 14,, 02:14
Z:

I congratulate you for commenting within the spirit of the thread. It doesn't matter whether one is a Republican or a Democrat to express thoughts on the direction the country will take in the aftermath of the elections.

Someone mentioned McConnell's post election comments in contrast to President Obama's comments, which I found to be somewhat flip and dismissive. McConnell was conciliatory, businesslike, and aware of the historical context of yesterday's developments. But there will be political hardball played for the next year. It's important to the GOP now to deliver on the promise to end gridlock and, just as important, to satisfy mainstream Republican aspirations. Otherwise, 2016 will be a disaster for the GOP.

Here are his comments. McConnell Pledges to 'Get Senate Back to Normal' - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/mcconnell-pledges-get-senate-back-normal-n242106)

DOR
06 Nov 14,, 02:16
Be that as it may, they were voted in. As they are now, meaning the Americans couldn't stand anymore Democrat influence at that time as they do now.

Sir,

I have no problem whatsoever with a fair vote fairly counted, and have not seen evidence that this election was subject to any more (or less) undue influence than any other. I take great offense at the Koch brothers -- and others on both sides -- being allowed to have a greater voice than other people, but I do not challenge any fair vote fairly counted.

And, to clarify for those who seem to have skipped "the last" time both houses were in GOPer hands, I was referring to

* Invasion, destruction and oh-so-poorly handled occupation of the only secular regime in the Middle East on the basis of lies;
* Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, a/k/a tax cuts for the rich;
* The Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration (TSA); and
* The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (that’s the one that took all the environmental controls off fracking).

Just to name a few . . .

zraver
06 Nov 14,, 02:45
Z:

I congratulate you for commenting within the spirit of the thread. It doesn't matter whether one is a Republican or a Democrat to express thoughts on the direction the country will take in the aftermath of the elections.

I am so happy that Reid is unseated. I loathe him and what he has done to our political environment. When he was in the minority he was for gridlock and cried about the nuclear option. When he was in the majority he pulled the nuclear trigger and then used the fall out to block almost all activity in the senate and shut down the ability of senators to offer amendments. I was thrilled to hear McConnell say the Senate was the problem (repudiate Reid) and that it was going back to work.

JAD_333
06 Nov 14,, 03:13
1. Why should I keep out the abortion argument?
2. What about trying to paint women asking for birth control as sluts? It is only very recent (Aug/ Sep this year) that the GOP has tried to make up for that.
3. Opposition/ dilution of Equal Pay laws
4. Dilution of domestic violence protection for immigrant women

This is to name a few. Some Republican politicians abandoned their stances just in time for the elections, but I am reasonably sure they would let the hard line appear once again soon.n OLeopards dopn't change spots


You intimate that Republicans are opposed to equal pay for women and protection for immigrant victims of domestic abuse. Is that truly the case?

WRT equal pay, the 14th amendment as well as other laws on the books already make it illegal to pay women less than to men for identical work, skill and tenure. What you are referring to is a bill that would allow women to petition administrative courts to force companies to reveal their payroll records without any evidence that they are the victim of gender pay discrimination.

This is a lawyers' bill, because law firms will profit handsomely from filing these petitions. Opponents of the bill point out that, in addition to laws already on the books outlawing gender pay discrimination, women who have evidence they are being discriminated against have legal remedies including suing in court.

But this latest bill would result in thousands of fishing expeditions as lawyers seek court orders to allow them to freely rummage through years of company pay records, the cost of which would be a burden on smaller businesses. Where there is no evidence of prior discrimination, this amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure. This is another effort by progressives to help a narrow class of citizens at the expense of the Constitution.

As for domestic abuse of immigrants, the whole story begins with what Congress HAS done in this problem area:


How has Congress sought to protect immigrant women?

In the last two decades, Congress has made numerous changes to U.S. immigration laws to offer protections for immigrant victims of domestic violence and crime. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 included provisions to allow immigrant victims of domestic violence to obtain immigration relief independent of their abusive spouse or parent through a process called “self-petitioning.” The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000) created new forms of immigration relief for immigrant victims of violent crime (“U” visas) and victims of sexual assault or trafficking (“T” visas). Finally, the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 expanded these protections and included some victims of elder abuse.

What is at issue with efforts to revamp the bill? You present it as GOP opposition to helping abused women. Here are the concerns of a few GOP members of Congress:

Why Would Anyone Oppose the Violence Against Women Act? - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/2/)

GVChamp
06 Nov 14,, 03:26
Dude, what are you smoking? When did I say that? Getting an ID to vote is not the problem. I have time and again argued on this board that we need ids to vote (just like I have argued for universal background checks for guns, bringing it up since voting rights and gun rights are sometimes conflated), through a comprehensive voter id program that sets out the rules for everyone, not partisan politicians deciding at the local level on what voter id needs to be.

However it is true that in many GOP rules states, there have been backward movements on women's rights and social freedom. That is a fact. The R- party keep trying to turn the clock backwards on modernity.

however, please feel free to live in your own illusions.
Fair enough, specific objection withdrawn. My apologies.

antimony
06 Nov 14,, 03:35
Fair enough, specific objection withdrawn. My apologies.

Thank you, that was gracious of you.

On this matter, and in other matters of electoral reform, I think the US can take a page from the Indian Election Commission, which manages the entire election process over there. There are comprehensive voter ids, and uniform electronic voting systems across the country.

A right that cannot be properly ascertained is not a right. When people ineligible to vote do so, they abuse everyone else's right. But there has to be proper systems in place so that legitimate voters are not turned away. That is my point.

antimony
06 Nov 14,, 03:47
Biggest Winner- Mitch McConnell. He achieved a life long dream to be the king maker. The countries future and future of several GOP presidential hopefuls now rest in his hand. His speech as majority leader-elect was everything Obama's wasn't- conciliatory, honest and direct. he soundly rejected the Reid style of senate leadership.


I hope Mr. Cecil Turtle gets exactly the same sort of exemplary cooperation from the new Democratic Leadership in the Senate, that he displayed over the last few years.



3rd place winner- American people. Minimum wage increases and decriminalized marijuana were winning items where ever they appeared on the ballot. One promises a better life for some 300,000 minimum wage workers in the affected states and one a life with more personal agency and liberty.

Yeah, something that the GOP voted against.

zraver
06 Nov 14,, 04:00
I hope Mr. Cecil Turtle gets exactly the same sort of exemplary cooperation from the new Democratic Leadership in the Senate, that he displayed over the last few years.

Thats neither fair nor accurate. Reid broke the senate, it had nothing to do with Republicans who were merely doing what the opposition party has always done-oppose. If you look at the Dems when Bush had majorities you see the same behavior. The Senate did not actually become dysfuntional and then non-functional until Harry Reid dropped all pretense of playing be any rules but his. Then after the 2010 elections he pulled the nuclear trigger and shut the senate down. 400 bills from the house denied a vote all due to Harry Reid not the Republicans.




Yeah, something that the GOP voted against.

Don't be so sure about that. In Arkansas (min wage increase) the state went redder than it has ever been and those same GOP voters pushed the wage increase to an super majority win.

bonehead
06 Nov 14,, 04:12
LOL the national pendulum swung to the right. How long before it swings back? 6 years? 8? Give those bums the keys to the country for a bit then give it to the bums on the other side. American politics at its best. I really wish the voters would wake the hell up and break this vicious cycle.

antimony
06 Nov 14,, 04:21
Yes, I am aware of all those efforts at pulling wool over the eyes.


You intimate that Republicans are opposed to equal pay for women and protection for immigrant victims of domestic abuse. Is that truly the case?


No, please re-read my post. I say that Republicans are opposed to "Opposition/ dilution of Equal Pay laws". Whether that means fear of lawsuits for businesses or plain dislike of equal pay for women or something else, is not for me to decide or care about. The end result is that women will have a bigger uphill battle for equal pay.



WRT equal pay, the 14th amendment as well as other laws on the books already make it illegal to pay women less than to men for identical work, skill and tenure. What you are referring to is a bill that would allow women to petition administrative courts to force companies to reveal their payroll records without any evidence that they are the victim of gender pay discrimination.

This is a lawyers' bill, because law firms will profit handsomely from filing these petitions. Opponents of the bill point out that, in addition to laws already on the books outlawing gender pay discrimination, women who have evidence they are being discriminated against have legal remedies including suing in court.

But this latest bill would result in thousands of fishing expeditions as lawyers seek court orders to allow them to freely rummage through years of company pay records, the cost of which would be a burden on smaller businesses. Where there is no evidence of prior discrimination, this amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure. This is another effort by progressives to help a narrow class of citizens at the expense of the Constitution.


And yet we have this:

Microsoft's Nadella: Women Should Trust 'the System' on Pay Raises - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/microsofts-nadella-women-should-trust-system-pay-raises-n222511)


On stage with Maria Klawe, president of Harvey Mudd College, Nadella was asked what advice he had for women in the tech industry who aren’t comfortable asking for a raise. Nadella replied in part: “It’s not really about asking for the raise but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along. And that, I think, might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don’t ask for a raise have, because that’s good karma. It’ll come back because somebody’s going to know that’s the kind of person that I want to trust, that’s the kind of person that I want to really want to give more responsibility to. And in the long term efficiency, things catch up.”

Come on Jad, we all know exactly what salary negotiations go like. The employer will try to go with the lowest that they can possibly get ahead with, within the specific salary/ wage band. Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in. And this decision comes back to haunt them at each and every stage, (unless they get internal raises, which they are not supposed to ask for because of Karma and shit) as even in future they are not likely to get more than 10% of their current earnings. Even If I assume that you are right (and I don't think you are) about this lawyer-friendliness of this legislation, did they propose any alternatives or did they leave it to the Constitution, Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Eagle.



As for domestic abuse of immigrants, the whole story begins with what Congress HAS done in this problem area:

What is at issue with efforts to revamp the bill? You present it as GOP opposition to helping abused women. Here are the concerns of a few GOP members of Congress:

Why Would Anyone Oppose the Violence Against Women Act? - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/2/)

Yes, I have gone through this and the more detailed links, and they seem to rest on flimsy grounds. Opposing the clause about visa expansion to immigrant spouses seem more about pre-supposing that there will be visa fraud rather than be on the side of victims. The opposition to closing the Native American related loophole doesn't even seem to have a real reason.

antimony
06 Nov 14,, 04:25
Thats neither fair nor accurate. Reid broke the senate, it had nothing to do with Republicans who were merely doing what the opposition party has always done-oppose. If you look at the Dems when Bush had majorities you see the same behavior. The Senate did not actually become dysfuntional and then non-functional until Harry Reid dropped all pretense of playing be any rules but his. Then after the 2010 elections he pulled the nuclear trigger and shut the senate down. 400 bills from the house denied a vote all due to Harry Reid not the Republicans.


Then I hope that that is exactly what the Democratic opposition will do what the opposition party is supposed to do - oppose.



Don't be so sure about that. In Arkansas (min wage increase) the state went redder than it has ever been and those same GOP voters pushed the wage increase to an super majority win.

And when the pigs start flying, I will be there right along with you to cheer along.

TopHatter
06 Nov 14,, 17:17
decriminalized marijuana were winning items where ever they appeared on the ballot

Well, not everywhere, but pretty darn close. (Medical marijuana rather than decriminalization, admittedly, which was what you actually said)

Personally I have no use for recreational marijuana, particularly after watching what it did to someone very close to me.
Yes yes, I know. It's their fault and not the weed's fault and alcohol is so much worse. Spare me, please.

Having said that, I also have no use for arresting people and charging them for minor amounts intended for personal use.
I REALLY have a problem with people doing jail time for minor possession. Jail time for minor possession is utterly stupid and should be abolished at the federal and state level.

I still think that the purported benefits that the pro-marijuana crowd has been fervently chanting about for years are both overblown and fail to consider the Department of Unintended Consequences. But that remains to be seen.

JAD_333
06 Nov 14,, 17:32
LOL the national pendulum swung to the right. How long before it swings back? 6 years? 8? Give those bums the keys to the country for a bit then give it to the bums on the other side. American politics at its best. I really wish the voters would wake the hell up and break this vicious cycle.

The 'pendulum' is always in motion. The party in power always seeks to mold the national body according to its vision.

The pendulum swings the other way when the party long in power pushes its agenda beyond its original vision. Take progressives, for instance. After a few decades of ascendancy, they've spent their wad and now rely on niche initiatives, often designed to appease smaller and smaller voting blocks. The conservatives will do the same eventually.

But as to your dismissive attitude toward American politics, you seem not to understand that the dynamics of what we call "the pendulum" is a godsend in a democracy. To be sure, it seems messy and disruptive, and it's populated with enough idiot politicians to make you despair. But step back and see the whole, and you'll find it all rather marvelous. :)

GVChamp
06 Nov 14,, 17:57
States can't legalize something that's prohibited by the federal government.

TopHatter
06 Nov 14,, 18:50
States can't legalize something that's prohibited by the federal government.

*smirk* Sure they can, they already have. Then people the people that get busted under Federal law can whine and cry about it.

GVChamp
06 Nov 14,, 19:57
*smirk* Sure they can, they already have. Then people the people that get busted under Federal law can whine and cry about it.

Pretty much what will happen if the feds choose to enforce the law. It's still a Class I substance under the Controlled Substance Act and we're still apparently treaty-bound to keep cannabis illegal.

Nice, complicated issue. None of my college class mates really seemed interested in the details.

FJV
06 Nov 14,, 21:44
In my opinion Barack Obama has up until now enacted almost the same policies George Bush would have enacted.
(even the Obama health care plan is a version of a Republican health care plan a few years earlier)

So in my opininion it is not unreasonable to expect business as usual on all the important issues, with a few "enormous" controverses on minor issues that don't really matter all that much.

That, and the rightwing loonies will tone their insanity down a little while the leftwing loonies will turn theirs up a notch.

tbm3fan
06 Nov 14,, 23:31
Sir,more precisely, with only 32.7% of the electorate voting (read that in paper this AM), approximately 55% of the electorate who voted chose Republican.

The voters held true to form in off year elections; the turn out was older, whiter and more conservative than in 2012....and in 2008. Across the country, the trend was under 45 overwhelmingly voted Democratic; over 45 voted Republican.

So lets see what happens.

Yes, let's see what happens.

In 2016 a larger portion of the electorate will show up and the pendulum will move towards the liberal side. The Dems have 10 Senate seats up in blue states which is a plus for them. The Reps have 24 seats up and many happen to be in blue and purple states. I'm sure they will want to hang onto to them meaning those Senators will likely trend towards the middle for election time. In the end it doesn't take many losses to put the Senate back into the (D) column and it will probably happen.

McConnell looks like a winner but that is only for now. We will see when they actually get control in January. His problem is Cruz, Rubio and Rand. Especially Cruz if I read his personality right. He is the kid in school where the teacher would complain of his constant disruption of the class starting in kindergarten. Now is his chance and I don't think he has it in him to toe the line. That isn't him. So all that Republican unity may just go out the window if the different factions in the party pull McConnell every which way. If Cruz first wants to repeal health care then look out. End result nothing gets done and they are wide open to assault in 2016.

On the far horizon there is 2020 and redistricting. We only have about 50 seats that are really in play while all the rest are gerrymandered. The electorate and population will have undergone big changes between 2010 to 2020. I see the Republicans losing seats in the House only how many is hard to say. Enough to lose the house in the first election after redistricting? Probably not but one may see a bunch of House Republicans becoming more moderate. They better since that is the way the electorate is going. Interesting in that three red states passed laws raising the minimum wage despite their representatives opposition.

Bottom line is I don't think this election had much to do with Dems or Reps per say. I had more to do with the economy and who was in charge. It could have been Romney and the same would have happened to him. This 5.9% unemployment rate is crap. It is higher than that but since they drop people out after a certain amount of time it looks better than it is. The middle class is clearly not benefiting at all. Stock market looks great but it is great for the banks, investment houses and the 1% who are pretty incestuous in their dealings among each other. If the middle class does not see their wages and buying power improving just a little each year then it is going to be a very wild roller coaster ride for both parties every two years.

tbm3fan
06 Nov 14,, 23:32
That, and the rightwing loonies will tone their insanity down a little while the leftwing loonies will turn theirs up a notch.

Always had a tough time getting the bass and treble in balance..

zraver
07 Nov 14,, 00:26
Well, not everywhere, but pretty darn close. (Medical marijuana rather than decriminalization, admittedly, which was what you actually said)

Personally I have no use for recreational marijuana, particularly after watching what it did to someone very close to me.
Yes yes, I know. It's their fault and not the weed's fault and alcohol is so much worse. Spare me, please.

Having said that, I also have no use for arresting people and charging them for minor amounts intended for personal use.
I REALLY have a problem with people doing jail time for minor possession. Jail time for minor possession is utterly stupid and should be abolished at the federal and state level.

I still think that the purported benefits that the pro-marijuana crowd has been fervently chanting about for years are both overblown and fail to consider the Department of Unintended Consequences. But that remains to be seen.

I've got no use for weed, it stinks and it makes me sick. Not to mention in a past life I was stupid and proved that better living through modern chemistry is a double edged sword. That said, I believe in liberty and personal agency.

zraver
07 Nov 14,, 00:30
States can't legalize something that's prohibited by the federal government.

Yes they can, you will find no part of the Constitution saying state law must conform to federal law. The caveat being that when the two conflict, federal law is supreme. But state cops don't enforce federal law so if the feds want a law enforced, they can do it themselves.

zraver
07 Nov 14,, 00:30
Always had a tough time getting the bass and treble in balance..

That is because you're all about that bass, bout that bass, no treble....

tbm3fan
07 Nov 14,, 00:46
More likely because I can't find this which would allow me very fine tuning of both sides...

drhuy
07 Nov 14,, 04:51
Yes, I am aware of all those efforts at pulling wool over the eyes.

And yet we have this:

Come on Jad, we all know exactly what salary negotiations go like. The employer will try to go with the lowest that they can possibly get ahead with, within the specific salary/ wage band. Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in. And this decision comes back to haunt them at each and every stage, (unless they get internal raises, which they are not supposed to ask for because of Karma and shit) as even in future they are not likely to get more than 10% of their current earnings. Even If I assume that you are right (and I don't think you are) about this lawyer-friendliness of this legislation, did they propose any alternatives or did they leave it to the Constitution, Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Eagle.

.

i dont see how thats problem applied only for women? Its like saying male employees can get paid at whatever rate they like. And you sound extremely sexist saying "Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in."

antimony
07 Nov 14,, 05:20
i dont see how thats problem applied only for women? Its like saying male employees can get paid at whatever rate they like. And you sound extremely sexist saying "Women, who anyway think that they are less likely to be hired for whatever reasons, there is a desire to give in."

Sexist, except when its true

Why Women Don't Ask For More Money : Planet Money : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/08/300290240/why-women-dont-ask-for-more-money)
Find Jobs: Find your next job and advance your career today | Monster.com (http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/negotiation-tips/salary-negotiation-gender-wage-gap/article.aspx)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/moving-past-gender-barriers-to-negotiate-a-raise.html?_r=0

Also, personal experience

drhuy
07 Nov 14,, 05:48
Sexist, except when its true

Why Women Don't Ask For More Money : Planet Money : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/08/300290240/why-women-dont-ask-for-more-money)
Find Jobs: Find your next job and advance your career today | Monster.com (http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/negotiation-tips/salary-negotiation-gender-wage-gap/article.aspx)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/moving-past-gender-barriers-to-negotiate-a-raise.html?_r=0

Also, personal experience

using other sexist argument to support your sexist argument? Besides, i still dont get it, like women get paid less because of their own fault? Ok let say its true, then the solution simply is they themselves have to change.

JAD_333
07 Nov 14,, 06:19
Yes, let's see what happens.

In 2016 a larger portion of the electorate will show up and the pendulum will move towards the liberal side.

This idea of the pendulum, as I see it, covers decades at a time, not one election to another. From the New Deal of 1930s till now, the progressive mood of the country has dominated. While conservatives took power several times during that period, they could not overcome the electorate's taste for progressive thinking. Now things may be changing, or to use the pendulum analogy, swinging the other way.

It's important to remember that the pendulum represents the mood of the electorate. This fact is borne out by the effort parties make to adjust their appeal to that mood. It's also important to understand the inevitability of mood swings. For example, how long will voters go on supporting a progressive agenda in the face of deteriorating middle class living standards. Or the converse, how long will they turn a blind eye to poverty when they are experiencing flush times? But only one inevitability can exist at a time. Which is it today? It's not hard to figure out.

As to your prediction for 2016, I have to disagree for now. If the GOP plays its cards right for the next two years, e.g., ends the gridlock in Congress or appears to be trying mightily to end it, they stand a very good chance of taking the White House in 2016.



McConnell looks like a winner but that is only for now. We will see when they actually get control in January. His problem is Cruz, Rubio and Rand. Especially Cruz if I read his personality right. He is the kid in school where the teacher would complain of his constant disruption of the class starting in kindergarten. Now is his chance and I don't think he has it in him to toe the line. That isn't him. So all that Republican unity may just go out the window if the different factions in the party pull McConnell every which way. If Cruz first wants to repeal health care then look out. End result nothing gets done and they are wide open to assault in 2016.

That's a decent reading. On the other hand, Cruz, etal. will have no future chance of higher office if they buck their own leadership and act as agents of gridlock for the next 2 years. Sure, there will be differences among them and with McConnell, but most likely these will be worked out behind closed doors. Does any of this remind you of Gingrich's "Contract for America", the reforms that he promised to enact when he became Speaker of the House?

antimony
07 Nov 14,, 15:12
using other sexist argument to support your sexist argument? Besides, i still dont get it, like women get paid less because of their own fault? Ok let say its true, then the solution simply is they themselves have to change.

That's what you got out of it?

The point is that women tend to negotiate less, as the research and anecdotal evidence shows, and are more likely to be short changed.

GVChamp
07 Nov 14,, 15:45
That's what you got out of it?

The point is that women tend to negotiate less, as the research and anecdotal evidence shows, and are more likely to be short changed.

But it's not discrimination against women, it's discrimination against a personality trait (which women are more likely to have). Those are two very different things. It's not illegal to discriminate against a personality trait, and it's not even "discrimination," but the outcome of a fair negotiation.
It's also not a fair solution to simply tell companies to pay women more, because men with that personality are NOT being protected, solely because they are men.

tbm3fan
07 Nov 14,, 19:19
That's a decent reading. On the other hand, Cruz, etal. will have no future chance of higher office if they buck their own leadership and act as agents of gridlock for the next 2 years. Sure, there will be differences among them and with McConnell, but most likely these will be worked out behind closed doors. Does any of this remind you of Gingrich's "Contract for America", the reforms that he promised to enact when he became Speaker of the House?

We'll see about Cruz. I can't believe he would actually think he has a shot at higher office unless he has an ego the size of Mt. Everest. Today I can see the first itty bitty signs of things to come. Obama is expected to name Loretta Lynch as the new AG. Cruz has said she should not be confirmed by a lame duck Senate that has Dems who have lost and she needs to be vetted by the new Senate. On the other hand Graham has said he has no problem with having the hearings now and noted that other nominations have been approved during a lame duck session since she seems a solid choice. With Cruz first out the gate on this then I wonder what he is thinking when it is his turn to be in the majority on the Judiciary Committee. A pulpit?

antimony
07 Nov 14,, 20:16
But it's not discrimination against women, it's discrimination against a personality trait (which women are more likely to have). Those are two very different things. It's not illegal to discriminate against a personality trait, and it's not even "discrimination," but the outcome of a fair negotiation.
It's also not a fair solution to simply tell companies to pay women more, because men with that personality are NOT being protected, solely because they are men.

Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

omon
07 Nov 14,, 21:17
It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

and if those are women themselves? you automatically assume that it will be men by defaut, why??? what makes you think women in high managment positions, do not act the way you describe? and what makes you think they do not act the same way with males????

tbm3fan
07 Nov 14,, 21:38
Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.


It would seem to me that this topic should be a different thread now since it is veering away...

Genosaurer
07 Nov 14,, 22:45
Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

Good point - equality of opportunities is insufficient, so we need equality of outcomes too.

omon
07 Nov 14,, 22:49
Good point - equality of opportunities is insufficient, so we need equality of outcomes too.

good point, and i would agree, if equality of contribution can be garranteed as well. plus, when you talking about equality you talk about equality for all, not just 1 segment of population. or it becomes special treatment, and no where near an eqauality

JAD_333
07 Nov 14,, 23:10
Okay. So does anyone have an opinion on what's going to happen on the political front starting with the new Congress in Jan. Already, Obama has said he will explore compromises with the GOP leadership, but not violate his principles, whatever that means. The GOP leadership is up for exploring for compromises. What does that mean for immigration reform, Obamacare, etc?

Native
07 Nov 14,, 23:22
Yes, its is taking advantage to a personality trait and no, the solution is not to tell companies to pay women more. It is about empowering women to challenge those who are taking advantage of them and essentially not accepting the 14th amendment. However, I would also be in favour of something that forces/ encourages/ incentivizes companies to treat candidates purely on the basis of merit during salary negotiations.

Okay, now we get to it. But I still don't understand how this is the GOP's fault?

looking4NSFS
07 Nov 14,, 23:49
That's what you got out of it?

The point is that women tend to negotiate less, as the research and anecdotal evidence shows, and are more likely to be short changed.

If this is true, then why do men get hired at all? Why hire a man when by simply hiring a woman you can lower your labor costs, increase your profits, be a hero to the main stream media and feminist everywhere. A purely win win situation for any business without any downside risk.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 00:07
and if those are women themselves? you automatically assume that it will be men by defaut, why??? what makes you think women in high managment positions, do not act the way you describe? and what makes you think they do not act the same way with males????

No I don't, take your strawmen arguments somewhere else. I fully expect Women executives to take advantage of this if they can, does not in any way change my argument.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 00:09
Good point - equality of opportunities is insufficient, so we need equality of outcomes too.


No it is not about equal outcomes, it is about taking advantage

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 00:09
Okay, now we get to it. But I still don't understand how this is the GOP's fault?

Go back and look at the original point being discussed

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 00:11
If this is true, then why do men get hired at all? Why hire a man when by simply hiring a woman you can lower your labor costs, increase your profits, be a hero to the main stream media and feminist everywhere. A purely win win situation for any business without any downside risk.

Good points, start a movement to highlight these points. If you disagree with the research and evidence itself, cite your own evidence

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 00:19
Okay. So does anyone have an opinion on what's going to happen on the political front starting with the new Congress in Jan. Already, Obama has said he will explore compromises with the GOP leadership, but not violate his principles, whatever that means. The GOP leadership is up for exploring for compromises. What does that mean for immigration reform, Obamacare, etc?

The GOP did not violate their principles (whatever that meant) all these 6 years, why would you expect Obama to violate his? I am not sure why you expect that Dems will take any changes to Obamacare lying down

Native
08 Nov 14,, 01:10
Go back and look at the original point being discussed


Hope you are right, because in a GOP led Congress, the opposite of "muddle" would be aggressively backward legislation on women's rights, social freedoms and minority voting rights, like we have started seeing in the GOP controlled states.

Which one, you kind of jumped around a bit.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 02:29
Which one, you kind of jumped around a bit.

Jad picked it up on post 28.

tbm3fan
08 Nov 14,, 06:30
Okay. So does anyone have an opinion on what's going to happen on the political front starting with the new Congress in Jan. Already, Obama has said he will explore compromises with the GOP leadership, but not violate his principles, whatever that means. The GOP leadership is up for exploring for compromises. What does that mean for immigration reform, Obamacare, etc?

For all we know is that they are both just playing the game for the press and the public right now. What happens behind closed doors can be very difficult to discern. One may come and and say we tried to compromise but in reality, behind closed doors, they were unyielding in their position. If they are good at keeping it secret then either side can play the "I tried" public relations game in the press and we are still out of the loop. Needless to say I don't expect big things.

JAD_333
08 Nov 14,, 07:10
The GOP did not violate their principles (whatever that meant) all these 6 years, why would you expect Obama to violate his? I am not sure why you expect that Dems will take any changes to Obamacare lying down

Did I say I expect Obama to violate his principles? I was just more or less quoting him. He brought up principles. There are moral and ethical principles and political principles. I assume he meant the latter, but why bring it up? He's telegraphing that he won't move on some issues, probably referring mainly to the ACA. But the ACA is not all it's cracked up to be. It needs fixing. While his veto power will prevent the GOP from repealing it, Obama would be smart to agree to fix aspects of it. The more fixing, the better its chance of surviving in the long run.

Republican Senate and Obamacare: How they could change the law. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/05/republican_senate_and_obamacare_how_they_could_cha nge_the_law.html)

JAD_333
08 Nov 14,, 07:41
For all we know is that they are both just playing the game for the press and the public right now. What happens behind closed doors can be very difficult to discern. One may come and and say we tried to compromise but in reality, behind closed doors, they were unyielding in their position. If they are good at keeping it secret then either side can play the "I tried" public relations game in the press and we are still out of the loop. Needless to say I don't expect big things.

Public positioning and getting your message out affects public opinion. These guys do read their mail and score the feedback they get from their constituents. Just write your Congressman a thoughtful letter and you'll see. You'll get a reply, maybe not what you want to hear, but at least what he or she thinks about the issue you raise.

Politician on politician is a different matter. You're definitely out of the loop there. In the backroom, the conversation takes on a completely different cast. They stow the sermonizing and posturing because it only brings yawns. They're looking for consensus and/or compromise with the people who can give it to them. They make offers and counteroffers, even make threats. That's the way every democratic country in the world hones legislation. The alternate, Athenian democracy won't work. Populations are too big to give everyone a vote on every measure.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 08:20
Did I say I expect Obama to violate his principles? I was just more or less quoting him. He brought up principles. There are moral and ethical principles and political principles. I assume he meant the latter, but why bring it up? He's telegraphing that he won't move on some issues, probably referring mainly to the ACA. But the ACA is not all it's cracked up to be. It needs fixing. While his veto power will prevent the GOP from repealing it, Obama would be smart to agree to fix aspects of it. The more fixing, the better its chance of surviving in the long run.

Republican Senate and Obamacare: How they could change the law. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/05/republican_senate_and_obamacare_how_they_could_cha nge_the_law.html)

Why would you think that they would be only political principles? There are moral and ethical positions to be had on social justice issues (women, minorities, LGBT), immigration, importance of education, climate change and Obama would be a damned poor President if he gave in to hard-line GOP demands. By hard-line I mean the types they have started in GOP controlled states.

North Carolina GOP Candidates (Alexander, Bannon, Grant) think that states should be able to ban contraceptives. Republican governors and GOP state legislatures are still fighting against gay marriage. Even the Log Cabin folks sound unsure of how LGBT issues would progress. On Education and environmental issues, it is again regressive in GOP states. Tennessee passed the monkey bill HB 368 which attempts to allow teaching creationism.

It should be the duty of Democrats and responsible Republicans to oppose any such measure from the Republican rightwing, in order to ensure that the country is not dragged back into the 17th or 18th century. However, given the general spineless nature of Democrats I really do not have much hope.

GVChamp
08 Nov 14,, 13:34
If I could be permitted one more divergence?

It would seem to me that this topic should be a different thread now since it is veering away...

A few nights again I went to a young professionals networking event. I work at a major Fortune 50 surrounded by other Fortune 50s, so I met a varied cast of characters. The crowd was majority women.
We listened to some "senior" people at our companies speak for an hour. Your typical vague platitudes. One of the things that they harped on was not to expect anything, to appreciate times are tough, and to trust that you will be recognized when the time is right. Along with noting the extreme entitlement of our generation.

My ball-busting accountant friends do not listen to this advice. They have been leaving companies left and right, because other companies are offering better roles and higher pay. They don't wait for their current companies to generously offer them the largess from the corporate treasury. If their current company won't, there's another company that will, right down the road, because the labor market is heating up and everyone wants "good" workers.

However, my ball-busting accountant friends are all guys.

Okay, spiel over.

JAD,
Immigration reform could be interesting, and that might tear the Republican Party apart. The House Leadership supports a moderate, amnesty-lite bill, but the Tea Party absolutely will not vote for that. Is Republican leadership really going to push it? They need to keep the party in-line to set good expectations for the 2016 election. I assume we won't see any action from the Republican leadership on immigration, for precisely that reason. I also don't expect to hear the Dems whipping it up until 2016, because...well...election-year issue, to be cynical.
I expect some more fast-tracked trade deals.
More pot-shots at Obama-Care, too, that essentially make the whole thing a piece of shit (as if it weren't already).

omon
08 Nov 14,, 14:38
No I don't, take your strawmen arguments somewhere else. I fully expect Women executives to take advantage of this if they can, does not in any way change my argument.

somewhere else???? why don't you buddy, take your none existing issue someplece else. so far you failed miserably to show your issue even exist. you actually though you had an argument?? lmao, hilarious

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 14:50
somewhere else???? why don't you buddy, take your none existing issue someplece else. so far you failed miserably to show your issue even exist. you actually though you had an argument?? lmao, hilarious

You the hell are you to tell me what I should be talking about? You are the one starting with a argument that I never put forward


and if those are women themselves? you automatically assume that it will be men by defaut, why???

Something that I never said. If your sole contribution is going to be snarkiness then talk to the Hand

omon
08 Nov 14,, 15:09
You the hell are you to tell me what I should be talking about?

what????lol.

so let me get it straight, you can tell me to take my agrument something else, but when i tell you the same, (btw your point does not even exist) you getting all buthurt over it????

well i could not have proven you are full of hot air any better.

omon
08 Nov 14,, 15:17
Something that I never said.

you do not have to, you do not even realise, that women right issue does not exist whan you alleged inequality is be done by another woman. and since you admited that females can act that way just as much as men, your hot air of an issue of women's rights, has nothing to do with it. just like racial issues you need 2 different races for it to be racial, same way here you need man vs woman to even start talking about womens issue.
but i'm not surpriced you do not get it, typical dems tactic, imagine an enemy, and fight it, well, it is sure next to impossible to lose against something that does not exist.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 15:23
what????lol.

so let me get it straight, you can tell me to take my agrument something else, but when i tell you the same, (btw your point does not even exist) you getting all buthurt over it????

well i could not have proven you are full of hot air any better.

I am telling you to take your strawman arguments elsewhere, not your points on the thread. I have not seen any actually point put forth by you on this thread apart from one where you simply agreed with one other poster. Put forth your points as you wish, just don't twist my words around.

And my points do not need your certification to exist.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 15:26
you do not have to,


Translation: you could not find a basis for your strawman but you will fight on nevertheless. Good move so far


you do not even realise, that women right issue does not exist whan you alleged inequality is be done by another woman. and since you admited that females can act that way just as much as men, your hot air of an issue of women's rights, has nothing to do with it. just like racial issues you need 2 different races for it to be racial, same way here you need man vs woman to even start talking about womens issue.
but i'm not surpriced you do not get it, typical dems tactic, imagine an enemy, and fight it, well, it is sure next to impossible to lose against something that does not exist.

You really have no clue about women's rights, do you? Hint: they are not necessarily a man vs. women thing

omon
08 Nov 14,, 15:32
You really have no clue about women's rights, do you? Hint: they are not necessarily a man vs. women thing

apperantly you suffer from what you blame others, go reread your posts, and take some medications, your posts seem to lean towards psycotic, and arrogant tone.

antimony
08 Nov 14,, 16:17
apperantly you suffer from what you blame others, go reread your posts, and take some medications, your posts seem to lean towards psycotic, and arrogant tone.

So, no actual points apart from an intense urge to criticise others, eh?

JAD_333
10 Nov 14,, 06:20
So, today Face the Nation (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fvideos%2Fpresid ent-obama-talks-isis-immigration-and-midterm-elections%2F&ei=KEdgVLv-BoW6yQSGuYLQBw&usg=AFQjCNGAJhUUEmfpfxh_e1nhHbPxoPqmVQ&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw) aired an pretty good interview with Obama. There were some low points. When Bob Shieffer, who conducted the interview, asked Obama what he may done wrong in dealing with Congress in the past and what he'll do differently now, Obama said he could have done better at defining and selling his message to Congress and would have to do a better job of it in the wake of the Democrats losses in the mid-terms. The panelists which included some of the better talking heads, like David Gergen and Bob Woodward immediately picked up on the absence in Obama's answers of any mention of compromise. The interview was taped so we don't know how Obama might have answered a follow-up question wrt compromise.


On Meet the Press this morning, Howard Dean, speaking about what the dems had to do to recover, said the party needed to bring in more money to sell itself. Money to fund the DNC seems to me to be the last thing the dems should be talking about in public right now. Wonder if he realizes how crass it sounds to dems looking for real answers.

DOR
10 Nov 14,, 11:17
After all the votes are counted, recounted, contested and confirmed, the 2014 Mid-Term Election may go down in history as the election with the lowest turnout. The early estimate is a mere 36.6%, as compared to an average of nearly 40% (whoopee?) in the 13 elections since 1962.

As a result, the following voter turnouts won the following representation:

- - - - - - - - - - Turnout - - - - - - - Senators - - - - -Representatives
Indiana: - - - - - 28.0% - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
Texas: - - - - - - 28.5% - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 36
Utah: - - - - - - - 28.8% - - - - - - - - -- 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
Tennessee: - - - - 29.1% - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
Mississippi: - - - - 29.7% - - - -- - - - -- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
Oklahoma: - - - - 29.8% - - - - - - - - - -2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 5
(Oklahoma had a special election to fill a Senate vacancy.)

Anyone familiar with the political map will immediately recognize that these are all deep red states, which means that a very high turnout in each of them might have changed the balance of power.


Five senators and 67 congress-critters were elected in seven states where the average turnout was 28.7% . . .

GVChamp
11 Nov 14,, 22:34
Wow. I've been looking for turnout figures for a little while. That's astonishingly low.

tbm3fan
11 Nov 14,, 22:56
Wow. I've been looking for turnout figures for a little while. That's astonishingly low.


Makes one wonder what the Electoral Map and Congress would look like if 90% turned out.

Jimbo
12 Nov 14,, 02:21
Ok I am just going to say it. If you don't care enough to vote, or don't know enough about the candidates that you can't make an informed decision, I don't want you voting. I won't stop anyone from voting, but in my view if you don't know what the differences are between the candidates or know what is actually on the platform, you shouldn't vote. Basing off of my conversations with people, those that cared one way or the other on the elections voted; those that didn't, didn't vote.

The problem isn't the low voter turnout, that is a symptom. The problem is apathy for what is a civic duty. What do we expect though when entertainment news gets more views than news (whether that be online, Fox, CNN, NYT). This is the same nation were our celebrities are those who leak a tape of intercourse.

I will say that part of the problem is people feel like there are no good candidates, well welcome to every election since Washington was first elected. If you don't like the candidates what are you doing to change who the candidates are? I remember going to the caucus in 2012, 40 people out of a roughly registered 10000 of our district showed. This is what determined whose name was on the ballot for our state house, and contributed to who would be the name on the state senate and U.S. Rep on the ballot.

JAD_333
12 Nov 14,, 03:51
Low voter turnout in my neck of the woods had a lot to do with general dislike for the candidates, but statewide (Virginia) the incumbent senator, Mark Warner, a well-liked and by no means wildly liberal politician, almost lost to the GOP candidate, Ed Gillespie, whose lobbyist past didn't stand him well. Warner won about 49% of the vote, barely beating Gillespie (48%) and might have lost if the Libertarian candidate on the ballot had not gotten 53,000 votes. Now, consider that Warner won his first run for the Senate in 2008 with 65% of the vote. That was the year Obama first ran. Something other than low-voter turnout was at work.

Anyone who theorizes that low-voter turnout explains the near defeat of a popular incumbent Democrat in a state that went for Obama two times is dissing the electorate.
The same holds true nationwide. Democrats are free to console themselves with the stats DOR posted. The GOP did the same after Romney lost in 2012. But the droves of idealistic young voters who turned out for Obama in 2008 are 6 years older and will be 8 years older come 2016. This is problematic for the Democrats. In all likelihood their idealism has faded as they face the realities of growing up, finding a job, earning enough to support a family, etc. The dynamics in 2016 will be different. If the democrats depend on demographic to save their bacon, they'll go down. Voters age!

JAD_333
12 Nov 14,, 04:25
With my last post I'm guilty of looking back and not forward. What will the GOP and the Democrats do to end the gridlock?

Answer: Obama will play the field.

I don't know his name, but there was a knowledgeable commentator on NPR saying that losing the election freed Obama from backroom pressure from Democratic members of Congress. He went on the explain what he meant. It seems that some senators pressured him earlier this year into delaying action on his plan to issue the infamous Executive Order re immigration arguing that it would help Senator Mark Pryor win a close race in Arkansas. Obama agreed. Pryor lost. A little later another group of democratic senators urged him to issue the Executive Order to help Senator Mark Udall win in Colorado, which has a large Hispanic population. But Obama was already committed. Udall lost.

So, the thesis goes that with the dems no longer in control of the Senate, Obama is free to be his own man. I didn't make this up and it's not my theory, but it will be interesting to see just how much he's willing to play with the GOP to get the ball rolling again. Bill Clinton played ball with the GOP in his 2nd term, or rather co-opted them. You didn't think he balanced the budget all by himself. :)

tbm3fan
12 Nov 14,, 04:50
But the droves of idealistic young voters who turned out for Obama in 2008 are 6 years older and will be 8 years older come 2016. This is problematic for the Democrats. In all likelihood their idealism has faded as they face the realities of growing up, finding a job, earning enough to support a family, etc. The dynamics in 2016 will be different. If the democrats depend on demographic to save their bacon, they'll go down. Voters age!

I am going to take a different view and that is those idealistic voters will become apathetic voters and sit on the sidelines. Just a gut feeling of those between 20-30 nowadays who rather take selfies all day long.

antimony
12 Nov 14,, 05:01
With my last post I'm guilty of looking back and not forward. What will the GOP and the Democrats do to end the gridlock?



JAD

I will repeat a point that the GOP and their TP supporters made time and again over the last few years. It is better to have gridlock than bad laws.

DOR
12 Nov 14,, 06:41
Wow. I've been looking for turnout figures for a little while. That's astonishingly low.

GVChamp,

Great source: Voter turnout data for United States (Parliamentary, Presidential) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA (http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=US)

When people tell me they don't vote, I politely thank them for doubling the value of my own ballot.

bfng3569
12 Nov 14,, 19:04
JAD

I will repeat a point that the GOP and their TP supporters made time and again over the last few years. It is better to have gridlock than bad laws.

and I'll repeat Ms Pelosi and a few others.... 'You need to pass it to find out what's in it'.......





Strangely enough, it sounds like shes talking about a bad bowel movement......

antimony
12 Nov 14,, 20:21
and I'll repeat Ms Pelosi and a few others.... 'You need to pass it to find out what's in it'.......





Strangely enough, it sounds like shes talking about a bad bowel movement......

So you expect us to just trust the government? Sounds like a complete reversal now that the GOP is in control of Congress

JAD_333
12 Nov 14,, 20:36
GVChamp,

Great source: Voter turnout data for United States (Parliamentary, Presidential) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA (http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=US)

When people tell me they don't vote, I politely thank them for doubling the value of my own ballot.


True in a way. I had a hard time convincing my wife to vote (she's Republican) and could make no headway even with friends who are Democrats. Their excuse was they disliked the way the campaigns were run. It took all of 10 minutes to vote from the time I parked my car to the time I left the polling station...what the hell.

TopHatter
12 Nov 14,, 21:01
I am going to take a different view and that is those idealistic voters will become apathetic voters and sit on the sidelines. Just a gut feeling of those between 20-30 nowadays who rather take selfies all day long.

Well, who can blame them really? They stupidly put their faith into a promised "Messiah" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/barbara-walters-admits-we-thought-obama-was-next-m/), expecting that he would somehow work miracles. Hell, they swooned (http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/56559/) over him. :wors:
(Never mind that he had a bare minimum of experience in actual politics)

And then he took office. :confu:

So here we are, it's 2014 and those 20-30 ex-swooners are now singing a popular 1971 hit by The Who.

JAD_333
12 Nov 14,, 21:20
JAD

I will repeat a point that the GOP and their TP supporters made time and again over the last few years. It is better to have gridlock than bad laws.


That goes without saying. Of course, good and bad can be entirely subjective to one's political inclinations. Good causes do not always make for good laws. It is good to help the truly needy, but it does not follow that a law to help them is good. If, for example, a law intended to address a good cause creates negative results elsewhere, say it drags on the economy or diminishes the resources of the less needy or say that it violates the founding social compact (the Constitution), then in the final analysis, it would be a bad law.

Let me relate a conversation I had with a good friend with strong liberal tendencies. To make it short, she was all for creating a social program to address some problem, and after she told me her idea, I said, "whoa, that's totally unconstitutional." Her answer was, in effect, screw the constitution; we have to fix this problem. I explained to her that the Constitution limits the power of the central government, and that's all that protects us from runaway government control. She was unconvinced. People who think that way have lived all their lives in our relatively free society and don't grasp that the reason it is that way is because of the Constitution.

Constitutional discipline is vital. If we skirt it for a good cause once, we're likely to do it again and again and again, until we wake up and notice our freedom has dribbled away, and, by the way, it has. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you and I cannot rise to a good cause. We, the people, are free to do so, but government is not free to do so in all cases, and that we have to watch out for. A law that chips away at the Constitution is a bad law even when intended to achieve a good end. Of course, they're bad laws that are Constitutional, but that's another matter.

Excuse me for rambling on; blame it on your excellent comment. :)

JAD_333
12 Nov 14,, 21:43
I am going to take a different view and that is those idealistic voters will become apathetic voters and sit on the sidelines. Just a gut feeling of those between 20-30 nowadays who rather take selfies all day long.

I'm going to agree with you--65%. The rest of those idealistic voters, all 35% of them, will vote and half will change parties. That's what happened to me. I was a Kennedy democrat, and in '68 I worked for Eugene McCarthy. But by the time Carter came around, the party had left me behind. A lot of formerly idealistic Obama youth will experience the same thing. That is, the ones who aren't more interested in taking selfies all the time. :)

bfng3569
12 Nov 14,, 22:48
So you expect us to just trust the government? Sounds like a complete reversal now that the GOP is in control of Congress


not at all.

but i assume your comment about the GOP 'preferring grid lock' was a bit of a shot at repubs.

and i assume you get that my response was a bit of a shot at Dems for passing Obamacare with out knowing what was in it, hence the Pelosi quote about having to pass it to find out whats in it.

zraver
12 Nov 14,, 23:12
(Never mind that he had a bare minimum of experience in actual politics)


He got elected in to a job he could not have gotten hired to as a staffer- no education records, no medical records, shady dealings with a convicted felon, friends with admitted terrorists, ant-American statements, admitted drug use.... He never would have passed a back ground check for an entry level staffer, let alone a cabinet level position.

zraver
13 Nov 14,, 00:45
and yes I know this applies to everyone in the office since GHW Bush.... thats the problem we are electing scoundrels instead of leaders.

antimony
13 Nov 14,, 01:00
not at all.

but i assume your comment about the GOP 'preferring grid lock' was a bit of a shot at repubs.

and i assume you get that my response was a bit of a shot at Dems for passing Obamacare with out knowing what was in it, hence the Pelosi quote about having to pass it to find out whats in it.

Yes, it was, and it was based on the laws that is being passed in the GOP controlled states. If the GOP Senators and Congressmen try to bring some of that nonsense to the Federal govt., then the Dems should wholeheartedly oppose.

On the other hand, if they leave those policies behind and actually try to bring around pragmatic policies based on actual needs, the Dems should definitely cooperate.

bfng3569
13 Nov 14,, 15:17
Yes, it was, and it was based on the laws that is being passed in the GOP controlled states. If the GOP Senators and Congressmen try to bring some of that nonsense to the Federal govt., then the Dems should wholeheartedly oppose.

On the other hand, if they leave those policies behind and actually try to bring around pragmatic policies based on actual needs, the Dems should definitely cooperate.

that's your opinion, witch you are certainly entitled too, however many people do not agree with that statement, at all.

and if the dem oppose and try to veto everything the repubs present, are you going to call out the dems as obstructionists and the party of no as you would and do for the repubs, or are you going to say its ok because they are opposing things you don't want to see passed just because they aren't things you agree with or things that come from people you support.

and it still doesn't change the point of my comment that you haven't even addressed.

Pelosi got Obamacare passed by all dem's with out ever reading it, and she was even foolish enough to state that, hence my quote of her, 'you have to pass it to see what's in it'.

It sure sounds like you are saying that its ok for the government to operate that way, or at least, it was ok.

antimony
13 Nov 14,, 16:08
that's your opinion, witch you are certainly entitled too, however many people do not agree with that statement, at all.

and if the dem oppose and try to veto everything the repubs present, are you going to call out the dems as obstructionists and the party of no as you would and do for the repubs, or are you going to say its ok because they are opposing things you don't want to see passed just because they aren't things you agree with or things that come from people you support.

and it still doesn't change the point of my comment that you haven't even addressed.

Pelosi got Obamacare passed by all dem's with out ever reading it, and she was even foolish enough to state that, hence my quote of her, 'you have to pass it to see what's in it'.

It sure sounds like you are saying that its ok for the government to operate that way, or at least, it was ok.

I am not sure what you are asking me.

No I don't agree with Pelosi. In the US system, Legislators are not bound by party whips, so they have the privilege and duty to actually read, understand and support or oppose the legislation they are supposed to act on.

As for specific legislation, if the Repubs try to d anything they are doing in the States (cut funding for family planning, creationism/ intelligent design in education, any further corporate cronysim laws, ban same sex marriage) then I do expect the Dems to show their spine. On the other hand, if they bring about meaningful resolutions in issues, then I would expect the Dems to cooperate. Is that wrong?

SteveDaPirate
13 Nov 14,, 16:26
I am going to take a different view and that is those idealistic voters will become apathetic voters and sit on the sidelines. Just a gut feeling of those between 20-30 nowadays who rather take selfies all day long.

As a member of that age group, I can tell you that the majority of people our age will develop strong opinions in the next presidential race, argue about it on social media for weeks, and then most can't be bothered to vote despite their "deeply held beliefs". As for the midterm and local elections, good luck even getting it on the radar of most of the people our age.

Most of my peers tend to feel like the man in the oval office is the king who can issue whatever decrees he likes, and therefore anything good or bad that transpires is either his to his credit or his fault. Never mind that it is congress that controls the purse strings and passes laws, or that local government has far more influence on their lives than the president ever will.

If a bridge is out for a few months to be repaired, it's the president's fault. If their water bill goes down, its thanks Mr. President. I swear its like half of them think the President IS the government and the concept of federalism is a foreign one. I can't count the number of times I've gotten blank looks when I explain that the president can't just take away everyone's guns without the agreement of a supermajority in congress and 3/4 of the states ratifying it.

I apologize for the rant, but it grates when people constantly moan about the government but can't be bothered to participate or even figure out how it works.

antimony
13 Nov 14,, 19:43
As a member of that age group, I can tell you that the majority of people our age will develop strong opinions in the next presidential race, argue about it on social media for weeks, and then most can't be bothered to vote despite their "deeply held beliefs". As for the midterm and local elections, good luck even getting it on the radar of most of the people our age.

Most of my peers tend to feel like the man in the oval office is the king who can issue whatever decrees he likes, and therefore anything good or bad that transpires is either his to his credit or his fault. Never mind that it is congress that controls the purse strings and passes laws, or that local government has far more influence on their lives than the president ever will.

If a bridge is out for a few months to be repaired, it's the president's fault. If their water bill goes down, its thanks Mr. President. I swear its like half of them think the President IS the government and the concept of federalism is a foreign one. I can't count the number of times I've gotten blank looks when I explain that the president can't just take away everyone's guns without the agreement of a supermajority in congress and 3/4 of the states ratifying it.

I apologize for the rant, but it grates when people constantly moan about the government but can't be bothered to participate or even figure out how it works.

I would venture to say that the other age groups do not fare much better.

An anecdote from a friends of mine. He was hanging out at the local gym when he overheard a discussion between some elderly folks. One of them brought up Net Neutrality, and the discussion then became: "Oh, so Now Obama wants to shut down the internet"

Democratic rights some with democratic responsibilities. All democratic nations owe it to themselves to teach their citizens some civics and political science, on how actually the government works.

Officer of Engineers
13 Nov 14,, 21:28
Democratic rights some with democratic responsibilities. All democratic nations owe it to themselves to teach their citizens some civics and political science, on how actually the government works.There are kids around me graduating from high school who can't even add up to $100 and you're expecting them to learn about political science?

antimony
13 Nov 14,, 22:44
There are kids around me graduating from high school who can't even add up to $100 and you're expecting them to learn about political science?


Yes, I do. I was taught civics in the 8th grade and I remember the important parts of it
Why are they allowed to graduate high school if they cannot add up to 100
People take engineering exams when they pass high school. The best ones can calcualte a path to the moon

SteveDaPirate
13 Nov 14,, 23:15
I've often wondered why American public high schools don't teach more life skills. Calculus is well and good if you plan to go to college and major in a relevant field, but I can't help but suspect that kids as a whole would be better off if they learned things like personal finance instead.

The number of kids out of high school who don't understand how interest and fees work and end up getting themselves in a pickle is rather astounding. Every new adult needs to know things like how to make a budget, how compounding interest works, and why the minimum payment on your credit card is a trap.

tbm3fan
14 Nov 14,, 00:03
I'm going to agree with you--65%. The rest of those idealistic voters, all 35% of them, will vote and half will change parties. That's what happened to me. I was a Kennedy democrat, and in '68 I worked for Eugene McCarthy. But by the time Carter came around, the party had left me behind. A lot of formerly idealistic Obama youth will experience the same thing. That is, the ones who aren't more interested in taking selfies all the time. :)

This is from my hands on perspective. Remember this is the Bay Area and things are vastly different here given Silicon Valley and the internet high tech both there and San Francisco. I see a fair amount of this age group in my office. Some for going on 20+ years now. Once they were 5 and now they are 25 years old. Once in awhile my wife will hear me make a comment about this young adult really clued into the national and international scene. Very rare though and usually they are going to Yale, Harvard, Georgetown and similar colleges. However, the great majority are not that clued in.

The only thing on their minds is partying after work, what the newest tech craze, whats the newest game, what is the newest social sites and so forth. Very distressing when compared to me being 25 in 1978. How distressing? Well there has been more than a few times when they had no clue who JFK, LBJ or FDR were. I kid you not. These adults are not political whatsoever and most likely didn't even vote in 2012 whether Obama or not. Given the conversations we have and my knowledge of them for 20+ years I can say confidently that they are just not that interested in politics especially the females. This doesn't mean they are apathetic it just means they are not interested at this time.

Funny, I was the opposite of you. Then along came Gingrich and that was it as I would have nothing to do with him involved in any manner. I am very socially liberal, which takes priority over my somewhat more conservative fiscal side, and I don't believe in telling anyone who they cannot marry all the way to the dreaded "A" word.

Officer of Engineers
14 Nov 14,, 01:59
Yes, I do. I was taught civics in the 8th grade and I remember the important parts of it
Why are they allowed to graduate high school if they cannot add up to 100
People take engineering exams when they pass high school. The best ones can calcualte a path to the moon
Yes, the good ones will be the good ones but again, we have the lower half who can't add to 100 and who don't want to add to 100 and couldn't care less who sits in Parliament but would bitch to high hell.

The point is that people have a right to be stupid and you're not going to change that.

gunnut
14 Nov 14,, 02:19
The point is that people have a right to be stupid and you're not going to change that.

THIS!!!

People have the right to be stupid. People have the right to not vote. We shouldn't use the power of the government to change that. Nor should we use the power of the government to help them avoid the consequences of such actions.

I encourage people not to vote. That way my vote would weigh more. :biggrin:

antimony
14 Nov 14,, 04:25
First of all, a pedantic question: how do people have a right to be stupid?

The "people" we are talking about are kids (<18) and we don't give them most the rights we give adults (free expression, lifestyle choices etc.). So how would they exercise this right to be stupid if they are made to enroll in schools and not passed out till they learn something?


THIS!!!

People have the right to be stupid. People have the right to not vote. We shouldn't use the power of the government to change that. Nor should we use the power of the government to help them avoid the consequences of such actions.

I encourage people not to vote. That way my vote would weigh more. :biggrin:

Next point: what kind of a country do you think you are going to have if half your citizenry really turns out to be duffers? I assume you agree that the US should continue to lead the world in science, technology and the like, right?

Officer of Engineers
14 Nov 14,, 04:38
The "people" we are talking about are kids (<18) and we don't give them most the rights we give adults (free expression, lifestyle choices etc.). So how would they exercise this right to be stupid if they are made to enroll in schools and not passed out till they learn something?By allowing them to do mickey mouse coures instead of real career training. I could not even fathom the courses being offerred these days in my county. Gone are hard trade courses and now you can pass with courses in baby sitting.

Mind you, these are real life skills these kids need. This is a welfare county and how to take care a baby is more important than knowing how to vote. When kids get excited and happy at being pregnant at age 13-14 because they know they just got a welfare check coming, who and what the PM is ain't exactly high in their desire to know.

Edit: And you do know it is not illegal not to finish high school ... or any schooling for that matter.

gunnut
14 Nov 14,, 05:43
First of all, a pedantic question: how do people have a right to be stupid?

They have the right to be stupid because we don't have the right to force them to be smart.



The "people" we are talking about are kids (<18) and we don't give them most the rights we give adults (free expression, lifestyle choices etc.). So how would they exercise this right to be stupid if they are made to enroll in schools and not passed out till they learn something?

I never agreed with public education, especially our dumbed-down system based on social promotion. Even a tomato can graduate US high school these days. I don't mind tomatoes. The problem I have is these tomatoes apparently have a high school diploma, not ready for life, not having a job skill, but think they deserve a "living wage."



Next point: what kind of a country do you think you are going to have if half your citizenry really turns out to be duffers? I assume you agree that the US should continue to lead the world in science, technology and the like, right?

US is doing quite well with all the dumb people we have right now. All I'm saying is we don't need to force them to do anything. Forcing them to go to school and telling them everyone should go to college is just a colossal waste of resources.

JAD_333
14 Nov 14,, 08:49
This is from my hands on perspective. Remember this is the Bay Area and things are vastly different here given Silicon Valley and the internet high tech both there and San Francisco. I see a fair amount of this age group in my office. Some for going on 20+ years now. Once they were 5 and now they are 25 years old. Once in awhile my wife will hear me make a comment about this young adult really clued into the national and international scene. Very rare though and usually they are going to Yale, Harvard, Georgetown and similar colleges. However, the great majority are not that clued in.

The only thing on their minds is partying after work, what the newest tech craze, whats the newest game, what is the newest social sites and so forth. Very distressing when compared to me being 25 in 1978. How distressing? Well there has been more than a few times when they had no clue who JFK, LBJ or FDR were. I kid you not. These adults are not political whatsoever and most likely didn't even vote in 2012 whether Obama or not. Given the conversations we have and my knowledge of them for 20+ years I can say confidently that they are just not that interested in politics especially the females. This doesn't mean they are apathetic it just means they are not interested at this time.

That brings to mind a sort of theory I have that it doesn't matter what kids are interested in so long as a certain percentage of them are interested in government, international affairs, politics, social issues, and so forth, and that percentage goes on to university and later becomes part of the intellectual life and leadership of the country. The same holds true for science, engineering and other pursuits. We need good people in all fields. We also need people to drive the trucks, pound nails, and wire homes. I don't see it as a shame that a young person only cares about skateboarding and skips college to work to buy a car. But I do believe as you do that everyone should have a good grounding in civics, history and current events. The best way is to start young and make it interesting and personal. Schools as a whole aren't getting it done. Why?



Funny, I was the opposite of you. Then along came Gingrich and that was it as I would have nothing to do with him involved in any manner. I am very socially liberal, which takes priority over my somewhat more conservative fiscal side, and I don't believe in telling anyone who they cannot marry all the way to the dreaded "A" word.

Well, it's too bad your fiscal conservatism comes second to your liberalism.:) If all liberals could just balance the two, we might make some headway on dealing with issues like poverty, etc. The problem with liberals is not their desire to solve social issues, but their indifference toward the way the programs they create are run. They're pleased when get a program created, but turn their head when the program is abused, inefficiently run, wasteful and establishes a bureaucracy of thousands to manage it. And they'll cry foul when any effort is made to streamline the program, as if dollars equals effectiveness. If liberals and conservatives started listening to each other we might be able to get more social bang for our bucks. As for marriage, it's dead

JAD_333
14 Nov 14,, 09:03
First of all, a pedantic question: how do people have a right to be stupid?

No; that's a legal question. The pedant would ask, "what is stupid?" :)

tbm3fan
14 Nov 14,, 19:56
That brings to mind a sort of theory I have that it doesn't matter what kids are interested in so long as a certain percentage of them are interested in government, international affairs, politics, social issues, and so forth, and that percentage goes on to university and later becomes part of the intellectual life and leadership of the country. The same holds true for science, engineering and other pursuits. We need good people in all fields. We also need people to drive the trucks, pound nails, and wire homes. I don't see it as a shame that a young person only cares about skateboarding and skips college to work to buy a car. But I do believe as you do that everyone should have a good grounding in civics, history and current events. The best way is to start young and make it interesting and personal. Schools as a whole aren't getting it done. Why?

I'm not so sure that schools are changing just because they are changing. I think it would be more accurate to say they are changing because parents are changing. My son is in kindergarten and I am 61 years old while the other parents are 30-35 years old. Their ideas of what school should be are vastly different.

Here are two examples of what I have seen. I went to U.C. Berkeley from 1977-81 as a grad student. The school was not as political as in the late 60's but it was still politically oriented and progressive. A girlfriend in the first two years was Chicana and belonged to La Raza so imagine how that went over. She is now in the DA's Office in Los Angeles. Anyway move on to 2014 and what does one see. The school is hardly political at all. Could feel just like UC San Diego or UC Davis.

The city government still is but the students are interested in one thing and that is their education. An education that costs big bucks compared to my ridiculously cheap tuition. I walked the school campus two weeks ago for the first time in 20 years and the vibe was vastly different. Let's get our education and get out to make those dollars. Stanford is even worse with students trying to figure out the next big app and next big start up to make their millions. Making money is primary for most and only time will tell what happens when they are 15 years removed from college.

Second was about eight years ago when friends invited me over to their house for a small gathering for a fellow running for the State Assembly. Afterwards there were questions and some dealt with education. I'm in the back listening to the parents whine over school subjects, whine over how the schools aren't doing enough and so forth. I am rolling my eyes over all of this and a State Senator, off to the side, sees that and asks me directly why as the crowd turns. Let's say I didn't make friends in the crowd when I started to say the responsibility relies on the parents to help their kids and make sure they learn their subjects. It was also the parents responsibility to request more challenging classes not easier. Being 25 years older than them explains my viewpoint versus theirs or 1958-1971 compared to 1981-1993. So needless to say I didn't agree with their whining as I had nuns who would whack you and your parents would say you had it coming. Oh, and that State Senator is now School Superintendent and I had said things he couldn't say.





Well, it's too bad your fiscal conservatism comes second to your liberalism.:) If all liberals could just balance the two, we might make some headway on dealing with issues like poverty, etc. The problem with liberals is not their desire to solve social issues, but their indifference toward the way the programs they create are run. They're pleased when get a program created, but turn their head when the program is abused, inefficiently run, wasteful and establishes a bureaucracy of thousands to manage it. And they'll cry foul when any effort is made to streamline the program, as if dollars equals effectiveness. If liberals and conservatives started listening to each other we might be able to get more social bang for our bucks. As for marriage, it's dead

Oh, I can balance as long as no one comes along saying you can't do this. I have this strong streak in not liking being told what to do or how to do it unless I ask you first. I know many programs could run better and am all for it but when some say let's just run them all off or tell them all no then I walk out the door.

antimony
15 Nov 14,, 01:20
They have the right to be stupid because we don't have the right to force them to be smart.

I never agreed with public education, especially our dumbed-down system based on social promotion. Even a tomato can graduate US high school these days. I don't mind tomatoes. The problem I have is these tomatoes apparently have a high school diploma, not ready for life, not having a job skill, but think they deserve a "living wage."


This is something that the society has created. I think we need a system where children are given a clear feedback when they are not doing well.



US is doing quite well with all the dumb people we have right now.

Is it? The US is ranked 28th in terms of HDI, 21st in terms of educational Index. It is eclipsed by other rich countries and is ranked around East European countries



All I'm saying is we don't need to force them to do anything. Forcing them to go to school and telling them everyone should go to college is just a colossal waste of resources.

I agree that college for all may be a waste of resources, but what about skill development/ vocational training, like Germany does?

My elder daughter entered the Gifted Education program this year. I keep pushing her to be on top of her schoolwork and if she continues to work hard (fingers crossed), I hope she will be do relatively well, especially in the United States of Tomato. But relatively well in the United States of Tomato may not be good enough while facing a future highly competitive global workforce.

Students doing very well in hypercompetitive educational environments like India and China will still fare economically poorly compared to tomatoes in the US, so many of them will come here to compete, which is great, as the US will have access to some of the best talent in the world. However, it would be rather sad if the US becomes a place of opportunity to every corner of the globe except her own citizens.

antimony
15 Nov 14,, 01:28
No; that's a legal question. The pedant would ask, "what is stupid?" :)

I take it back, a pedant would go a board and try to differentiate between pedantic and legal :biggrin:

JAD_333
15 Nov 14,, 05:10
I'm not so sure that schools are changing just because they are changing. I think it would be more accurate to say they are changing because parents are changing. My son is in kindergarten and I am 61 years old while the other parents are 30-35 years old. Their ideas of what school should be are vastly different.

I thought I was bad having kids in my 50s. :) Mainly what's different today is Federal involvement in education. Fundamentally there's nothing wrong with that, but in practice--at least so far--it's been a goat rope. As always happens with government involvement, control of the purse strings shews the school's mission of educating kids into one of competing for federal dollars. We'll see how that plays out. But as it stands now, I wouldn't miss the "Education" in HEW.



So needless to say I didn't agree with their whining as I had nuns who would whack you and your parents would say you had it coming.

I had my share of ruler whacks from the nuns in parochial school. By my second year I was a model student. :) I also went to a military school run by nuns (and retired military officers). A smack on the backside with a slat from an orange crate did wonders for discipline. It didn't happen often, and I wouldn't have dreamed of telling my mother for the very reason you give. I have mixed feeling about corporal punishment. Too much and too hard is counterproductive. But how do you know when enough is enough?



Oh, I can balance as long as no one comes along saying you can't do this. I have this strong streak in not liking being told what to do or how to do it unless I ask you first. I know many programs could run better and am all for it but when some say let's just run them all off or tell them all no then I walk out the door.

For your reading enjoyment: Current Issue (http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current)

JAD_333
15 Nov 14,, 05:14
I take it back, a pedant would go a board and try to differentiate between pedantic and legal :biggrin:

Touche. Still doesn't define stupid. Forrest Gump had it about right: "Stupid is as stupid does." :)

JAD_333
15 Nov 14,, 05:24
Low turnout is blamed for the Democrats loss in the mid-terms. Emphasis on regional disparities plays into that assessment. But a post-election Gallup Poll measuring national favorable rating for each party tells a different tale.

38467


Democratic Party Favorable Rating Falls to Record Low (http://www.gallup.com/poll/179345/democratic-party-favorable-rating-falls-record-low.aspx)

Officer of Engineers
15 Nov 14,, 05:44
This is something that the society has created. I think we need a system where children are given a clear feedback when they are not doing well.Your daughter gets pregnant.

And all this pie in the sky bullshit gets thrown out the window.

antimony
15 Nov 14,, 06:54
Your daughter gets pregnant.

And all this pie in the sky bullshit gets thrown out the window.

Col.

Why do you think I am strongly in favor of birth control and family planning? Women should be allowed to decide about their own bodies and their reproductive cycles and not be at the whim of foggy old suits in paneled chambers.

Officer of Engineers
15 Nov 14,, 06:59
Col.

Why do you think I am strongly in favor of birth control and family planning?Yeah, welcome to my world ... actually, you're there.

Wake the hell up, your daughter and mine will get pregnant without our consent.

Scary thought, isn't it?

JAD_333
15 Nov 14,, 08:06
Your daughter gets pregnant.

And all this pie in the sky bullshit gets thrown out the window.


So dark, colonel.

DOR
15 Nov 14,, 10:59
I went to U.C. Berkeley from 1977-81 as a grad student. The school was not as political as in the late 60's but it was still politically oriented and progressive.

I was there at that time, and well remember taking back People's Park 10 years after the original version.

antimony
15 Nov 14,, 16:39
Yeah, welcome to my world ... actually, you're there.

Wake the hell up, your daughter and mine will get pregnant without our consent.

Scary thought, isn't it?

If that indeed happens, then you or I deal with it as individual parents. But if society starts out with the premise that young women will get pregnant without their parents consent, it will end up by putting all women behind purdahs and burqas.

What I am talking about is not pie in the sky. We provide our daughters with the right educational and other tools. If the unforeseen happen, we should also provide them with ways to deal with it, from termination to safely managing their pregnancies, based on their choices

GVChamp
15 Nov 14,, 18:34
The problem is that you have stupid people, you will always have stupid people, and if you are banking on creating a system free of stupid people, you are so screwed that we might as well lube up right now.
The world that we have created pretty much survives despite a huge chunk of the population being really, really, really dumb. Clearly, it's possible to create a working nation, despite some major intellectual shortcomings. It's easy to say "well, people should know better." It's also impossible to do.

I have this struggle at work all the time. My company is one of the many Fortune 50s who feel making more money than 99.9% of the world is not enough, so they needed to outsource and make more money than God. Unfortunately, they have run into the problem that the tomatoes in India and the Phillipines are even less bright than the tomatoes in the US. This isn't necessarily a problem. You need to build a structure that takes advantages of their strengths, and don't expect them to do things they can't do.
My managers, though, think they can manage receivables that range in the tens of millions of dollars, with dozens of different issues, on tens of thousands of claims. You pay them five fucking dollars a day to work 8 hours, at night, and you are demanding them to do something that traditionally was only given to high-level college graduates after years of experence.
That level of retard is on my company, not on the hard-working outsourced employees. That also cannot be fixed by the President. It needs to be fixed by my managers who are stuck in this crappy situation, or my upper-level managers who need to figure a way out of the stupid contract. But maybe I'm just bitter since I'm working on my "day off".

antimony
15 Nov 14,, 20:37
The problem is that you have stupid people, you will always have stupid people, and if you are banking on creating a system free of stupid people, you are so screwed that we might as well lube up right now.
The world that we have created pretty much survives despite a huge chunk of the population being really, really, really dumb. Clearly, it's possible to create a working nation, despite some major intellectual shortcomings. It's easy to say "well, people should know better." It's also impossible to do.


GV

That sounds like a rather negative and harsh view. I am not saying that we imagine a world without stupid people. I am just saying that we create an education system that focuses on skill development, such that people other than brain surgeons or rocket scientists can actually make a living. In that context I gave an example of Germany, which with its three tier educational system tries to ensure that the future college entrant can focus on academics while others not eared towards that can focus on vocational and skills training. You can either give up on your tomato citizenry or at least prepare them for some sort of workplace competence.

The semi tomatoes (those without learning disabilities but without access to a proper educational environment) have the right to be given a chance, while the full tomatoes (those with actual learning disabilities) need society's help anyway.

The more folks you allow to get into the bottom bucket, the more you spend out later on welfare.

JAD_333
15 Nov 14,, 21:01
Before we get to see the new Senate in action, we'll see some groundwork being laid in the lame duck Congress. Things to keep an eye on:

The Keystone pipeline: The House passed authorization to proceed for the 9th time. Outgoing Senate leader Reid has scheduled it for a vote, probably to help Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., chairwoman of the Senate Energy Committee in her upcoming runoff for her seat in Louisiana. It may get the 60 votes needed to pass, but Obama may veto it.

Immigration: The GOP is dead set against Obama using executive powers to deal with immigration problems embodied in the immigration bill bottled up in Congress. Preliminary plans revealed by the White House are to issue work permits for some 3 million offspring of illegal immigrants (or something like that) and to postpone deportation proceedings on another 1 million. Despite teh GOP wish to pass an omnibus spending bill, indications are that the GOP will use stop-gap budget measures to force Obama to pull back from issuing the executive orders on immigration. There's a remote possibility of a fiscal crisis if both sides stick to their guns.

NSA Authority: A bill to more tightly control NSA's latitude for eavesdropping is favored by many dems, while the other side believes the NSA shouldn't be overly hampered particularly now that we are operating against ISIL.

Appointments: Reid wants to wrap up a number of languishing ambassadorial and judicial nominations while the dems are still in the majority. It only takes a simple majority to confirm nominations. No surprises here. To keep the spotlight on current nominees, Obama's nomination of Loretta Lynch to replace outgoing AG Eric Holder, may be delayed to the next Congress.

tbm3fan
17 Nov 14,, 08:41
Okay. So does anyone have an opinion on what's going to happen on the political front starting with the new Congress in Jan. Already, Obama has said he will explore compromises with the GOP leadership, but not violate his principles, whatever that means. The GOP leadership is up for exploring for compromises. What does that mean for immigration reform, Obamacare, etc?

Yep, it was just happy talk. I expect the fun to start as soon as Obama issues his executive order on immigration. The Republican Party will go ape shit in public as well as behind closed doors among themselves. This is going to be some real true life political theater playing out right in front of us with a fair amount caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

astralis
21 Nov 14,, 15:48
so obama's issued the executive order now, which is probably deeper in breadth but shallower in depth than most people would have thought going in.

most likely there's going to be a lot of noise but not much 'bang' from the republican side, as it's pretty clear they cannot agree among themselves what their own immigration policy should be. and this hurts their own political manuevering.

The GOP&#39;s political strategy against Obama keeps leading to policies conservatives hate - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254849/congressional-underreach)