The General American Politics Thread

[Tornado]

Whoa. What's up with those spoiler tags? Never seen anything like that before.

 

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Whoa. What's up with those spoiler tags? Never seen anything like that before.

 

Uh, dunno how that happened. I'll fix it.

 

EDIT: Dealt with...sorta. though now the quote system is freaking out.

Edited April 18, 2013 by 743-E.D. Missile

[Tani Coyote]

Unsurprising. Most Americans don't support amnesty either but the bill pops up every few years only to quietly fade away. Same with the really strong anti-piracy laws. The government constantly tries to tippy toe around the preferences of the voters but once it gets out they quickly back down.

 

They're right though; they do NOT represent us. Campaigns should be publicly-funded, and we should consider term limits for members of Congress. We've only had a 12-year President yet have term limits to "prevent a dictatorship," yet don't mind a clique of guys who can easily be in power for 30-40 years before they croak?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Can I see this rejected proposal before I actually decide to do something about it? I'm not taking this at face value here.

[Tornado]

Obama was pushing for two things.

1. The compromise between the original Obama plan of background checks for all sales, which really wasn't feasible and never would have passed; and the Republican plan of "throw more money at the current system", which obviously wasn't going to accomplish anything (granted, Obama notably failed to note that background checks wouldn't have done much of anything for Sandy Hook despite constantly surrounding himself with Sandy Hook victims; but the GOP rather obviously threw their idea together just to say they had something). Called for background checks on internet sales and gun show sales, but not private party sales between family members. Actually kinda surprising that it failed at 55:45, and I suspect the Democrat senators who voted against it are going to end up on the whipping post. Reid voted against it, so it will probably come back up fairly soon anyway.
2. The assault weapons ban renewal, which Obama was never in a million years going to get and he wasted far too much effort pushing for anyway after it became clear that the bill's primary sponsor had a complete inability to defend it. It was tossed by a near landslide; and Obama pushing so hard for that despite the miniscule odds probably played a defining role in making both measures fail.

 

There was also a couple more minor joke proposals that were defeated (like making conceal carry permits federally applicable, and a federal limit on magazine sizes) but weren't ever under serious consideration anyway and were just trotted out to make the bill sponsor look good for his personal constituents.

 

 

 

 

We've only had a 12-year President yet have term limits to "prevent a dictatorship," yet don't mind a clique of guys who can easily be in power for 30-40 years before they croak?

 
Most Americans would probably balk at the idea of term limits for senators.

[Tani Coyote]

Most Americans would probably balk at the idea of term limits for senators.

 

I can't see why, personally. We limited the President to prevent his ability to form power around himself, but a group of 100 or so people who win office and then are virtually guaranteed re-election isn't much better. An oligarchy's only a step up from a dictatorship.

 

Then again I blame the fact the term limits was actually to prevent Democratic monopoly of the Presidency in the wake of WW2. A reasonable fear given that Democrats ruled the House and Senate pretty much continuously up until the 1980s (when the GOP, which had accepted Democratic economic ideas from the 40s, went all right-wing like it is now), and even after that they still remained the dominant party most of the time.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Tornado]

I can't see why, personally. We limited the President to prevent his ability to form power around himself, but a group of 100 or so people who win office and then are virtually guaranteed re-election isn't much better. An oligarchy's only a step up from a dictatorship.

 

Because for all of the (justified) ballyhooing about how useless Congress tends to be collectively, Congressman are usually extremely popular in their home state regardless. Even stuff that gains outrage on the National level like pork barrel projects simply stop being an issue for the Senator that pushed them through, because why complain when he did something for your state?

 

That's why Senator races tend to be such landslides so long as the Congressman in question didn't do something stupid or scandal-worthy. You'd basically be asking Americans to stop voting for the guy they like who votes along with whatever issues they care about so he can be replaced by some guy who might not; and you'd have a difficult time explaining the benefits for why. More objectively, it would also remove Senators from office who actually bring fresher concepts to the floor (like Lieberman or Paul) and possibly replace them with partisan Yesmen.

[Tani Coyote]

That's why Senator races tend to be such landslides so long as the Congressman in question didn't do something stupid or scandal-worthy. You'd basically be asking Americans to stop voting for the guy they like who votes along with whatever issues they care about so he can be replaced by some guy who might not; and you'd have a difficult time explaining the benefits for why. More objectively, it would also remove Senators from office who actually bring fresher concepts to the floor (like Lieberman or Paul) and possibly replace them with partisan Yesmen.

 

Well in retrospect this does make sense, given that the Senate is supposed to represent the states' interests and not the popular will.

 

Term limits for House members is definitely on the table though.

 

Then again I think a more competitive political system is a better idea than any arbitrary amount of terms you can serve. Competition produces the best results most of the time, and reworking the system so there's no safe seats whatsoever would likely be no different.

[Patticus]

Unfortunately, Republican Mark Sanford has defeated Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch in their little Congressional election today. Incredibly disappointing.

 

[-Robin-]

On the other hand, Mark Sanford has just signed himself up as the resident punching bag by the House and Senate Democrats.

A certain surge in claims made by the Republican Party that it's the party of "moral values" and "traditionalism"? No worries mate, just call forth the Sanford punching bag and constantly reference his abandonment of his governor post and his family for a mistress. Also reference his disobeying of a court order not to enter his ex-wife's home if they need to.

Republicans want nothing to do with this guy because of the colossal fuck-ups he's done, but because Sanford can't go two minutes without his face on a camera or his name in headlines somewhere, they're stuck with him and his baggage for the next two years. Democrats should abuse this maliciously.

[Tani Coyote]

Knowing how to exploit your opponent can be pretty lucrative indeed, for both sides. Democrats can capitalise on his messups pretty well... granted, it'll probably just cause the talking heads to say the Democrats are acidic and unwilling to work together with the GOP. Enter the No Spin Zone!

 

Unfortunately most folk won't abandon their party so in the end all it really is is a bunch of caustic remarks.

 

Maybe some day we'll have PR and IRV so we don't have to constantly pick whether to have our teeth or shins broken with a hammer.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

 

So the Koch Brothers are trying to take over the LA Times:

 

Thanks for speaking out about the Koch brothers' plan to destroy local news. The Los Angeles Times deserves an owner who will serve the news and information needs of the whole community.

Please share this action with your friends and family today: http://act.freepress.net/sign/consolid_news_pledge_los_angeles/?source=conf

Thanks,

Timothy Karr
Free Press

 

[Patticus]

If they succeed, it'll become a Republican mouthpiece.

 

Edit: Minnesota's House of Representatives has passed the Marriage Equality Bill, 75-59. The next vote will be on Monday in the Minnesota State Senate.

 

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/marriage-passes-the-mn-house

[SenEDDtor Missile]

The TPP agreement threatens to criminalize use of your favorite websites — Youtube, Instagram, Facebook, your favourite blog — and even your online comments -- that's why we're teaming up with our friends at OpenMedia to fight it.

A man named Michael Froman has just been appointed as the new TPP chief negotiator. Michael Froman now has a unique ability to put this secretive, global Internet criminalization plan to an end or he could cement it into place for generations.

Will you click here to send a message to Michael Froman at this pivotal moment? We must speak up before Big Media lobbyists convince him to criminalize use of the Internet.

The fact is, if we don’t speak up now, legal experts warn that everyday online activities “could lead you to be cut off from the Internet, have your computer seized, fined up to $150,000, or even land you in prison.”

This is happening fast — the binding agreement will rewrite national laws around the world --- 12 countries are already on board.

If we can get enough people to sign this international call, we’ll put our numbers directly on display at a TPP press conference for Michael Froman and all the media to see.

The question is: who will Michael Froman hear from in his first week on the job? You, or the Big Media conglomerates who see the Internet as a threat?

We know these public officials feel the heat when enough people speak out at once. 

Let’s make sure Michael Froman has no choice but to respect your privacy and free expression online.

Thanks.

Demand Progress

More stuff.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Michelle Bachmann, kick her off the House Intel Committee, since she's organizing witch hunts on Muslims...or something like that.

Representative Michele Bachmann is the Tea Party’s queen of crazy. So what kind of a signal does it send that she's on the House Intelligence Committee where she has access to sensitive national security information?

Bachmann has actually said that gay marriage is the biggest problem facing the nation, financial reform efforts equate with Mussolini-style fascism, and that President Obama is "anti-American" and "turning our country into a nation of slaves.”

Her loose association with the facts and her willingness to believe in all sorts of completely baseless conspiracy theories makes her one of the last people in Congress who should be entrusted with our nation’s secrets.

Tell John Boehner: Remove Michele Bachmann from the House Intelligence Committee. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

One of Bachmann’s most irresponsible actions was to launch an anti-Muslim witch hunt and suggest, à la Joe McCarthy, that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the American government.

Bachmann articulated her paranoid fever dream of a conspiracy theory during an interview with Glenn Beck, saying:

 

“The influence today of the Muslim Brotherhood at the highest levels, from the White House, to the Pentagon, to the FBI, even to our United States military, truly is breathless and people have to know about it.”

Tell John Boehner: Remove Michele Bachmann from the House Intelligence Committee. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

As part of her witch hunt, Bachmann also suggested that a top aide to then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was part of the conspiracy, which was so obviously absurd that it led to rebukes from a number of prominent Republicans including John McCain and even John Boehner himself, who called the accusations “pretty dangerous.”

Indeed, accusations like these are dangerous.

They are dangerous because they add a patina of legitimacy to the virulent and hateful Islamophobia that shamefully pervaded our society , all too often erupting into violence against people who are (or are believed by their attackers to be) Muslim.

And these kinds of public accusations are dangerous because the xenophobia they incite bring us as a country farther from the mutual recognition of shared human dignity that will help us peacefully and successfully resolve conflicts with others around the world.

Outrageously, Bachmann defended her accusations by suggesting that her position on the Intelligence Committee gave her access to classified information that backed her up. There’s only one sure-fire way to make sure Bachmann doesn’t do the same thing again, and that’s to get her removed from the committee.

Send a message today, and tell Speaker John Boehner to remove Bachmann immediately from the House Intelligence Committee. Click the link below to automatically sign the petition:

http://act.credoaction.com/go/544?t=5&akid=7873.4839745.SbTEwz

Thank you for speaking out.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

 

[Patticus]

I'm getting really fucking tired of this Benghazi thing being considered 'news,' and not the Hillary Clinton smear campaign it so obviously is.

If Benghazi is so serious, why was there no Congressional uprising over all of the embassy attacks that happened under Bush, which saw dozens killed? Why was Reagan not impeached for ordering Marines to unload their guns before the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks, in which hundreds died?

 

Benghazi isn't news any more, it's straight up political smearing and it bugs me that nobody is calling them on this shit.

[-Robin-]

Obama actually called out the people who insist on continuing the Benghazi controversy today.

If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down — that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later, we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down, for three days? So the whole thing defies logic and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly has a lot to do with political motivations. We’ve had folks who have challenged Hillary Clinton’s integrity, Susan Rice’s integrity, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering’s integrity. It’s a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. they’ve used it for fundraising and frankly, you know, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again? I am happy to get their advice and information and council.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002301/obama-benghazi-cover-up/

[Patticus]

What things can Obama do, what approaches can he take, what strategies can he adopt (which don't contradict his mild-mannered character, because doing things that contradict it probably won't happen), between now and the end of his presidency, to remove the Lame Duck 'feel' about his administration? I want Democrats to do really well in next year's mid-terms, but all these Gerrymandering Republicans seem to be making the likelihood of voters getting rid of one of the worst Congresses in American history really, well, unlikely. That just means that they're going to keep on blocking everything he is seen to want ad nauseam until 2016, after which point they'll probably do the very same to Hillary (if she runs and wins).

 

There has to be a way for the Obama administration to get around Congress, to get things done.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

What things can Obama do, what approaches can he take, what strategies can he adopt (which don't contradict his mild-mannered character, because doing things that contradict it probably won't happen), between now and the end of his presidency, to remove the Lame Duck 'feel' about his administration? I want Democrats to do really well in next year's mid-terms, but all these Gerrymandering Republicans seem to be making the likelihood of voters getting rid of one of the worst Congresses in American history really, well, unlikely. That just means that they're going to keep on blocking everything he is seen to want ad nauseam until 2016, after which point they'll probably do the very same to Hillary (if she runs and wins).

 

There has to be a way for the Obama administration to get around Congress, to get things done.

Say "fuck you" to them and do what needs to be done anyways? I think Theodore Roosevelt did it, didn't he?

 

EDIT: Oh, mild-mannered thing...um...I got nothing.

Edited May 13, 2013 by 743-E.D. Missile

[Patticus]

Well, that'd be great to see, but that seems like more of a Hillary Clinton thing to do than an Obama thing.

 

Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, and this is purely wishful thinking, but I'd really like to hope that if Hillary runs and manages to win in 2016, that she would be able to do what Obama couldn't and bring in a public option or single payer system of healthcare. Her hardassery could be hugely helpful in enacting the kinds of changes the country needs to go through to become a better place.

[PSI Wind]

That, and maybe she can /FINALLY/ get the Women's Rights Bill passed after so long.

[Patticus]

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when women in the freest country in the world should need their own bill of rights, instead of the regular one everyone has been going by for the past couple of centuries... and I bet it still wouldn't stop extremely conservative state legislatures from trying to deny them rights.

[Tornado]

Hilary isn't going to run because Hilary would never win. Especially not after 2008.

[Patticus]

Hilary isn't going to run because Hilary would never win. Especially not after 2008.

 

So, who would you rather see as the next Democrat president, if one wins in 2016? Who are the front runners? Serious question, other than Hillary I haven't a clue who else could run.

[Stacy]

I can imagine Bill back in the White House trying to resist to tap some more ass.

 

  Edited May 13, 2013 by BW199148