Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Just a century Ship? George Washington was pretty much a Straw Hypocrite incarnate arguing for freedom of the people when they had slaves and some of his peers didn't want to free their slaves upon their deaths.
edited 10th Apr '13 7:18:32 AM by Wildcard
The Founders were actually, by and large, honorable men who were simply blinded by their own prejudice and ignorance.
But those dudes believed what they doing was right. And as their records show, they had no problem saying "Fuck you" to whoever didn't like what they doing.
Contrast with today's politicians who are too cowardly to take any stand on anything, and know how to sling mud but can't do the difficult things to move the country forward.
It was an honorI am not sure if returning to the custom of permitting politicians to settle issues by pistol duel would be a regression or an improvement. Maybe if they used tazers.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Starship: You give past politicians way too much credit. In any era, there are a few politicians who stand out as leaders among the vast majority who operate almost entirely from crass motives and, like the people who elect them, wallow in their ignorance.
Now, nobody here is claiming that Barack Obama is one of those Great Leader types. We had hope for him but sadly he's been unable to command the same kind of political authority that figures like FDR did. The fact is, however, that our system strongly discourages true leaders from rising to the top, because they make too many enemies along the way.
Witness, for example, the hatred directed at Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when they dared to push through PPACA against unified Republican opposition. Or the savage attempts by the GOP to keep Elizabeth Warren from heading the Consumer Protection Commission.
We keep trying to explain to you that the modern situation is almost insanely one-sided, with the GOP blocking anything and everything that doesn't fit their ideology one hundred percent, while the Democrats are trying to build a coalition of interests in order to govern.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Ship: I don't think it's the people's problem though. I think the fact that mass media exists is what causes their shyness of the issues. They know that any given speech they make will be heard all across the country and the world and they know they can't take it back in the eyes of the public. The press back then wasn't as all encompassing as today.
Faced with similar circumstances I don't think most of them would have done the same thing.
This is using the Prime Minister of Canada, but it is still relevant as to how politicians words are dissected to absurdity.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/7101-Yes-Man
Also, back in those days, the proportion of the population that engaged in political activity was extremely limited. Voting was difficult and most people were more interested in making a living than who was running things in Washington. Plus, the Founders very strongly believed that voting was a privilege of the educated and wealthy rather than something that every unwashed and ignorant individual ought to do.
Remember Romney's infamous "47 percent" speech. Now imagine that those people are the only ones who vote. It's very easy to advance lofty ideals when you only have to persuade a small number of like-minded people.
Frankly, populism — the idea that every man (and woman) not only can vote but should, and that their opinions matter — is largely an invention of the 20th century, and, along with mass media, irrevocably changed the political landscape. For good, mostly, but it has its disadvantages.
edited 10th Apr '13 7:41:38 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Touche.
These are both cases where Democrats tried to use means other than actual politics to force through what they wanted. And they got called on their arrogance. Obamacare, for all it's noble intent, rubbed people the wrong way with it's insurance or penalties stipulation. So Obama forced it through.
The Democrats wanted the Comsumer Protection Bureau to have one director, while the Republicans wanted bipartisan leadership; not the most dastardly demand. Obama decided to sneak somebody in via a recess appointment.
You keep trying to blame Republicans for everything wrong in the universe rather than see many of your great leaders arrogantly refuse to accept their left-leaning vision of the country is not one that's welcome with everyone and simply trying to shove it down people's throats won't fly here.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:05:47 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorExtremely true Sledge. Extremely true. But that's a myth of fatalism that the moneyed interests want to sell so that no one will stop them.
If people stopped bitching about how the evil Republicans were the cause of every sneeze in the universe, or about how the Democrats are all a bunch of undercover communists and actually focused on the fact the oceans are creeping up on us, we find new and better ways to kill millions, and that with all the food in the world, millions starve....things WOULD change.
It was an honorStarship, we should have had universal healthcare back in the 40s with the New Deal, but it was blocked by a coalition of Southern politicians who were afraid that it would force them to integrate their hospitals. We're the only advanced country in the world without it, almost entirely thanks to the legacy of racism. Every attempt to get it into law has been blocked by those same interest groups, plus the increasingly powerful insurance lobby who don't want their plum taken away.
This argument that we can't have a fundamental right of citizens in a First World country because FREEDOM is laughable.
Do you know how much opposition FDR got to his New Deal proposals? Just as much as the modern GOP is resisting what Obama wants, and for the same reason. It's pure class warfare, with one party on the side of the wealthy. Frankly, it's worth just about any "procedural gimmick" to get this stuff pushed through.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Prisons make money of inmates, hence the drug laws. Politicians earn donations from lobbyists. Corporate executives slash benefits and pay for their employees to save money for themselves (like the Hostess guys stealing their workers' pensions). Defense contractors make money off creating and supplying war machines. Private Military Contractors make money as proxy soldiers for a warzone. Lobbyists earn their pay from corporations. Politicians become lobbyists. Lobbyists become politicians. Military commanders join the government to advance their pro-war agendas.
The news media is intimately connected with the establishment. They're friends with the establishment. They'll get jobs as pundits in other establishment-friendly outlets. They earn benefits from the establishment. It's a Bread And Circus for the reporters, as well as any police chiefs that happen to be in the back pocket of the establishment (Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg).
Anything out of tune with the status quo, like opposition to the Iraq War in its early stages, was stamped out. Demonized. Demoted to Extra. Ratings skyrockets in war, so media outlets fearmonger the shit outta the Middle East for it, all the while refusing to attack the establishment like in the days of Deep Throat.
Knowing all that is stacked against us, I ask you, all of you. How the fuck are we gonna change anything? The answer, clear and concise, is that we cannot.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:33:46 AM by Sledgesaul
While all that's good and true 'Teer, it doesn't changes the fact that the Dems, like the Republicans when they had the upper hand, resort to forcing things through, damn what the people actually want, or what might actually be good for the country.
Republican failings in the 40's don't change that.
It was an honorI find it best to focus on 2013 and not on things in bygone eras.
The Republicans didn't filibuster Doudray or Warren for lulz. They clearly stated they didn't want a government agency that had no checks or balances on the leadership. The Democrats basically said "let them eat cake" and the Republicans said, "Okay. We do this the hard way."
Again, we can try to obfuscate with "FDR" and "New Deal" and whatever other HuffPo or MSNBC smokescreen, but Democrat arrogance is a thing and it will continue to bite them in the ass.
It was an honorI asked a question, and you are to answer. It is the polite thing to do. Now, do you oppose the New Deal, the Great Society and/or the New Frontier?
Recess appointments are allowed in the constitution. Filibusters are not. So, let's remove the filibuster in its entirety.
In fact, the Republicans liked Doudray, and several admitted that they only filibustered because Obama wanted him.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:43:01 AM by Sledgesaul
I'm sure we can all find the loopholes that justify our position. And whatever anecdotes about Republican spite you have don't change the fact they said "Look we have nothing against this agency, but we want bipartisan oversight, and the Dems in their arrogance balked.
These are the facts.
I find nothing impolite about saying "Your question isn't quite relevant to the topic at hand and here's the reason why."
edited 10th Apr '13 8:44:46 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorShow me where it says they wanted bipartisan oversight over that agency.
The question is relevant to the thread, which is American politics. The topic at hand changes on a whim. If this was about Team GOP vs Team DNC, there'd be a thread for it, but it isn't. It's about American politics. New Deal, Great Society, New Frontier - all American politics.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:47:01 AM by Sledgesaul
Republican senators blocked confirmation of a director when the bureau opened in July 2011, saying it should be led by a bipartisan board rather than a single director.
Here's the article from Reuters
Quite tellingly, the White House spokesman had no knowledge of the letter.
edited 10th Apr '13 8:47:09 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYes, this is a democratic nation and as such we have to deal with who the people decide to elect. Until their terms are up, anyway.
What I'm interested in is why people decide to elect certain politicians in the first place when their policies are so detrimental to many people's livelihoods and well-being. What do we have to do to get people to pay attention to actual effects and policies, not soundbites? I've always been a fan of starting by making sure all schools are adequate, as among other effects, unless people can understand the real issues politicians have no other recourse but soundbites and appeals to emotion.
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating LiveblogMy point Sledge is that everyone blames Democrats' lack of progress on evil Republicans thwarting their plans. I'm making the point that much of it because Democrats force through nonsense that nobody except a loud minority agrees with.
That Democrats force through things that they believe is a good idea is irrelevant. I'm sure Republicans force through things they believe is a good idea as well.
Is this based on any sort of fact?
edited 10th Apr '13 8:50:36 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor

Re: Alaska GOP: The problem there is that the Alaska Republican Party has been, as an organization, essentially defunct for a while now.
Don Young has his organization. He doesn't need to support the party. Lisa Murkowski has her organization. The party doesn't support her. All the big-name politicians have personal political capital and don't really owe a damn thing to the state GOP organization, and Alaska is one of those states where the voters have a fetish for being "independent." (Full disclosure: this includes myself, though I keep meaning to register as a Republican so I can do my part to troll the primaries.) And our local elections are strictly nonpartisan.
So this clusterfuck is just a sign as to how far our state's party apparatus has collapsed, and why our politicians tend to be so moderate.