There's no pleasing the tea party

Wreckem · Oct 17, 2013

rockyct said:
I consider the Heritage Foundation to be a conservative think tank, and they do as well. Believing them not to be is an issue you have with your definition of conservatism.

Single payer is a better option, but since it would fundamentally change how health care operates in this country, it's going to take a large majority of the country to be on board with. Single payer would have gone down in flames if Democrats had tried to pass it in 2009/2010. I think they were aware of the political reality that it would be a huge mistake to destroy a private industry and replace it as a federal one without having some real bipartisan support. Being against a single payer system in 2009/2010 was more of an understanding of the political landscape than being against the idea of single payer itself.

At this point, Obamacare is a train moving at close to full speed. Delaying it completely would cause a massive more number of issues than the website is creating right now. For coverage to start Jan. 1st, you have to sign up by Dec. 15th. Open enrollment for the year ends on Mar. 31st. If the website issues continue, I could see the Mar. 31st date be pushed back which is a reasonable solution instead of pushing back the mandate itself.

Boehner broke the Hasert rule to end the shutdown, which he said he would never do. If his power has increased, it's because the Tea Party's power in house has decreased. They were fought off within the GOP since they are mostly responsible for this mess and it's political repercussions. I do think the ultimate deal will be a replacement of the sequester with smarter cuts since the sequester was never intended to actually go into effect. Any total cuts more than the sequester is probably going to require revenue increases and since I doubt that's going to happen, we'll probably end up at a final spending level near the current level but with smarter cuts.

Its the second time he broke the Hasert rule. He did it the last time the Republicans played games with shutdown/debt ceiling.

tweaker2 · Oct 17, 2013

Wreckem said:
Its the second time he broke the Hasert rule. He did it the last time the Republicans played games with shutdown/debt ceiling.

And they're going to do it again and again simply because this is the only trick they have left in their bag, because the Tea Party as we all know, are an overly influential minority within the Repub Party and is forcing the Repub leadership to behave this way. Guys like Cruz will not go down quietly due to the fact that they're gerrymandered safe. They can get as stupid as they want to and still ge re-elected with ease, which can't be said for those many Repub legislators who have to pander to a much broader base to get elected.

I'd be really afraid to do a demographic survey of the core group within the Tea Party in its present form. As well, imagine what would be found from backtracking the money trail that allows them to behave the way they do.

On second thought, following the money trail just might lead back to the Dem Nat'l Committee as the Tea Party is helping them more than any other organization at the moment.

hal2kilo · Oct 17, 2013

tweaker2 said:
And they're going to do it again and again simply because this is the only trick they have left in their bag, because the Tea Party as we all know, are an overly influential minority within the Repub Party and is forcing the Repub leadership to behave this way. Guys like Cruz will not go down quietly due to the fact that they're gerrymandered safe. They can get as stupid as they want to and still ge re-elected with ease, which can't be said for those many Repub legislators who have to pander to a much broader base to get elected.

I'd be really afraid to do a demographic survey of the core group within the Tea Party in its present form. As well, imagine what would be found from backtracking the money trail that allows them to behave the way they do.

On second thought, following the money trail just might lead back to the Dem Nat'l Committee as the Tea Party is helping them more than any other organization at the moment.

Ted Cruz unfortuntely or maybe fortunately was not elected by a gerrymandered district. He's a Senator. The whodle idiot state of Texas voted for him. On the fortunate side, Texas demographics are not going to remain the same.

Brainonska511 · Oct 17, 2013

tweaker2 said:
And they're going to do it again and again simply because this is the only trick they have left in their bag, because the Tea Party as we all know, are an overly influential minority within the Repub Party and is forcing the Repub leadership to behave this way. Guys like Cruz will not go down quietly due to the fact that they're gerrymandered safe. They can get as stupid as they want to and still ge re-elected with ease, which can't be said for those many Repub legislators who have to pander to a much broader base to get elected.

I'd be really afraid to do a demographic survey of the core group within the Tea Party in its present form. As well, imagine what would be found from backtracking the money trail that allows them to behave the way they do.

On second thought, following the money trail just might lead back to the Dem Nat'l Committee as the Tea Party is helping them more than any other organization at the moment.

If the House leadership was willing to break that 'rule' more often, they'd probably be able to get a lot more done instead of just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. The Republicans would get a little of what they want, the Democrats would get a little of what they want, and as a side effect, the economy should improve more, as they'd remove this constant brinksmanship and the economic uncertainty and instability that it creates.

Londo_Jowo · Oct 17, 2013

hal2kilo said:
On the fortunate side, Texas demographics are not going to remain the same.

Yet some think this still may not result in the state going blue, it will take a huge grass roots effort to make a difference.

http://gppreview.com/2012/11/12/why-demographics-arent-enough-to-turn-texas-blue/

Why Demographics Arent Enough to Turn Texas Blue

hal2kilo · Oct 17, 2013

Londo_Jowo said:
Yet some think this still may not result in the state going blue, it will take a huge grass roots effort to make a difference.

http://gppreview.com/2012/11/12/why-demographics-arent-enough-to-turn-texas-blue/

Intersting article it looks like it could go either way, especially if the Dems can get the Hispanic voters to the polls.

I know the next race for the Senate in Texas will be quite interesting.

Londo_Jowo · Oct 17, 2013

hal2kilo said:
Intersting article it looks like it could go either way, especially if the Dems can get the Hispanic voters to the polls.

I know the next race for the Senate in Texas will be quite interesting.

Cornyn will be up for reelection next year and he doesn't seem to be as abrasive as Cruz has been. The Democratic Party will need to put someone other than an unknown politician up against him unlike this past election.

Cruz was just elected and his term will not end until 2018.

JTsyo · Oct 17, 2013

boomerang said:
They don't hate it. But they very much fear losing control over an enormous block of potential voters.

Your dog doesn't hunt for his food because you feed him. He has willingly entered into a relationship with you in which you provide for him. Quit providing, and he will instinctually provide for himself. The Democrat party and their offshoot, the Progressives have convinced many that they are the providers. They get real nervous at the prospect of them losing that position. To keep that voting block, they must continually provide more.

It's unsustainable. We know it, they know it, but the status quo is very comforting to them and they are fighting tooth and nail to maintain it.

I had a feeling that welfare recipients were split evenly about party lines but couldn't find any stats to support that. What I did find was that welfare recipients don't vote as often as other citizens.

EDIT: found something for the split of recipients.

dank69 · Oct 17, 2013

JTsyo said:
I had a feeling that welfare recipients were split evenly about party lines but couldn't find any stats to support that. What I did find was that welfare recipients don't vote as often as other citizens.

EDIT: found something for the split of recipients.

That's impossible because Democrats buy votes with handouts.

piasabird · Oct 17, 2013

Only people that believe in Utopia could ever believe that government run health care could be a good thing. Do you think that government run health care is really going to be better than Medicare or the VA Healthcare System?

ivwshane · Oct 17, 2013

piasabird said:
Only people that believe in Utopia could ever believe that government run health care could be a good thing. Do you think that government run health care is really going to be better than Medicare or the VA Healthcare System?

Were you trying to be funny?

dank69 · Oct 17, 2013

ivwshane said:
Were you trying to be funny?

Meet michal1980 + language barrier.

nehalem256 · Oct 17, 2013

JTsyo said:
I had a feeling that welfare recipients were split evenly about party lines but couldn't find any stats to support that. What I did find was that welfare recipients don't vote as often as other citizens.

EDIT: found something for the split of recipients.

Of course given that your numbers include Social Security and Medicare the numbers are obviously going to be skewed.

Medicaid, Welfare, and Food stamps are the programs that are really welfare, as in benefits are not based on paying in to get a pay out as for normal insurance.

Jhhnn · Oct 17, 2013

nehalem256 said:
Of course given that your numbers include Social Security and Medicare the numbers are obviously going to be skewed.

Medicaid, Welfare, and Food stamps are the programs that are really welfare, as in benefits are not based on paying in to get a pay out as for normal insurance.

So are farm subsidies and a lot of legal structure that benefit the wealthy almost exclusively.

michal1980 · Feb 4, 2014

thraashman said:
Well it's not "random data points". It's using the DW-Nominate scores, an explanation of which can be found here http://www.voteview.com/dwnominate.asp. I admit, it's not the most simple thing to understand. And the two different graphs I've linked both show polarization, but show that the Republicans have polarized more and faster and that the Dems briefly did a hard shift close to center before normalizing to left again. It also shows that the Republican shift right is much more stark in the House than in the Senate. I'll link them both again so you can see.

Senate (article explaining http://voteview.com/blog/?p=892)
You can see that the Senate dems hard shift from center to more liberal happened after WW2 and since the 70's the shift left has been gradual, and that the Reps shift was gradual until the last 90's and they've shifted faster since then and are further right than the Dems are left. (Dems -0.39 and Reps 0.53)

House (article explaining http://voteview.com/blog/?p=887) In the house the graph is more stark. You can see how the Dems went from -0.2 in the 50's to about -0.4 now, a gradual shift left over about 60 years. But the Republicans have gone from 0.2 in the mid 70's to about 0.7 now, making them almost twice as conservative as the dems are liberal. (Dems -0.4, Reps 0.71)

Just because you don't like what something shows or don't understand it doesn't mean you can discount it. Yes, both parties have moved from center. The Republicans though have moved further from center and the shift has been very stark in recent years.

I love how the left ignores that democrats have been getting more liberal for decades.

Its only the right that is getting more 'radical' in their eyes. I guess the more you repeat the lie, the more true it becomes.

michal1980 · Feb 4, 2014

and its only on this forum the left denies the truth. Even the crazies at daily kooks agree

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...t-even-slightly-hurt-by-becoming-more-liberal

ElFenix · Feb 4, 2014

michal1980 said:
I love how the left ignores that democrats have been getting more liberal for decades.

Its only the right that is getting more 'radical' in their eyes. I guess the more you repeat the lie, the more true it becomes.

link to such a claim

Fayd · Feb 4, 2014

Jhhnn said:
That's backwards from reality. In Texas, for example, Democratic areas have been cracked apart for no Dem seats when possible, or packed into 90/10 districts as you describe.

http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/w/texas_congressional_map.png

See where those fajita strip districts converge? That's Austin.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...-legislator-calls-austin-largest-us-city-wit/

it's not backwards from reality, it's just different from where you live.

in california, they've done the same thing and gerrymandered republicans out of the races.

no matter who is in control, if there isn't sufficient balance, then the party in control will take steps to ensure they're in control. if there's a balance, then they will try to get control.

it's not a democrat vs republican thing. Every party uses gerrymandering.

ivwshane · Feb 4, 2014

Fayd said:
it's not backwards from reality, it's just different from where you live.

in california, they've done the same thing and gerrymandered republicans out of the races.

no matter who is in control, if there isn't sufficient balance, then the party in control will take steps to ensure they're in control. if there's a balance, then they will try to get control.

it's not a democrat vs republican thing. Every party uses gerrymandering.

No they haven't. California's elected to have a bi-partisan commission make up the districts, the result was the true make up of California. Gerrymandering no longer found

thraashman · Feb 4, 2014

michal1980 said:
I love how the left ignores that democrats have been getting more liberal for decades.

Its only the right that is getting more 'radical' in their eyes. I guess the more you repeat the lie, the more true it becomes.

I get that I linked my own post here in another thread talking about the shifts away from center, but you could have just posted in THAT thread instead of reviving a nearly 4 month dead thread. And now I'm also going to point out that you obviously didn't read a single fucking thing I posted based on this moronic shit you're saying.

sandorski · Feb 4, 2014

The Dems have moved so far to the Left, I heard they will introduce Ukrainian Genocide as part of their 2016 platform!!

tweaker2 · Feb 4, 2014

^^^It's a matter of perspective: As the conservative base moves further and further right, they think they see the left moving farther and farther away from them when the left was/is actually moving toward them but at a much slower pace, giving the appearance of which you refer.

Stewox · Feb 27, 2014

nixium said:
Their irrational single minded hate toward Obamacare is making them eat their own. Psychologists will have to define a new set of mental diseases for explaining their behavior. What else can explain this combination of stupidity, inflexibility, ignorance and lack of empathy?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/09/paul-ryan-angers-tea-partiers.html

This is ridiculous. Republicans need to strongly reject the Tea Party and get things moving in this country again.

Exactly, there's no pleasing the tea party until the new world order is defeated or at least out of the USofA

Thebobo · Feb 27, 2014

Alex Jones again eh. Dude your on the fringe. That guy is wacky even for Boomerang.

There's no pleasing the tea party

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

IN MEMORIAM

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

No Lifer

Lifer

Senior member

Lifer