Octopus Overlords

In case anyone's curious as to who voted no: House vote details, and Senate.

Zaxxon wrote:In case anyone's curious as to who voted no: House vote details, and Senate.

So at the last minute, when the choice had finally to be made and the implications of all options were clear, almost 2/3 of House Republicans voted to push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt.

Holman wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:In case anyone's curious as to who voted no: House vote details, and Senate.

So at the last minute, when the choice had finally to be made and the implications of all options were clear, almost 2/3 of House Republicans voted to push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt.

and those that didn't for the most part should start looking for a job. Like Boustany for us. No way he gets elected to anything around here again IMHO, despite the local rag trying to save his ass.

http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/ ... esponsible

Scuzz wrote:I have spent the last hour listening to my local talk radio station, which is very conservative. The talk show host, who has had Rep. Devin Nunes on explaining how the whole GOP strategy was flawed and doomed from the start, is being bombed by people saying how the GOP surrendered, chickened out and should have defaulted the country.

Amazing. The host is being out right winged by his callers.

I think the Tea Party should break from the GOP. Start their own party. They are already running their own candidates and demanding they be the drivers of the party. Then when they don't get what they want they wouldn't have to blame themselves.

That's the Valley for you (though I doubt it is much different anywhere on talk radio). It's not quite as bad as Oklahoma (with Massive, somewhat graphic, Anti-Abortion billboards on the Interstate), but there definitely seems to be a lot of pent-up anger there that tends in that direction...

Holman wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:In case anyone's curious as to who voted no: House vote details, and Senate.

So at the last minute, when the choice had finally to be made and the implications of all options were clear, almost 2/3 of House Republicans voted to push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt.

They did so because they knew it was safe for them to do it. The "safe" R moderates were going to vote sanely because their districts are okay with it. The TP were going to vote to burn it all down because their voters demand it. I'll bet a bunch of the "others" voted nay because they're facing primary challenges from TP prospects. They knew this had to pass and they knew enough of the "safe" Rs were available to guarantee the passage, so they voted no to still appeal to the mouth breathers underinformed voters come election time.

Biyobi wrote:

Holman wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:In case anyone's curious as to who voted no: House vote details, and Senate.

So at the last minute, when the choice had finally to be made and the implications of all options were clear, almost 2/3 of House Republicans voted to push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt.

They did so because they knew it was safe for them to do it. The "safe" R moderates were going to vote sanely because their districts are okay with it. The TP were going to vote to burn it all down because their voters demand it. I'll bet a bunch of the "others" voted nay because they're facing primary challenges from TP prospects. They knew this had to pass and they knew enough of the "safe" Rs were available to guarantee the passage, so they voted no to still appeal to the mouth breathers underinformed voters come election time.

Right. I'm sure most of the Nay'ers knew that they could count on a majority Yea. But choices are still important. If nothing else, it tells us who is more serious about country than party.

Somewhere I saw a breakdown by district safety. R's who could face conceivable challenges only from the Right voted No, while R's in swing districts overwhelmingly voted Yes.

We're back to gerrymandering, which more and more seems to be the great bane of the republic.

Just want to state up front that I'm not interested at all in trying to pile on MSD or anything.

I just want to touch on a comment you made earlier about standing up for their/your principles. I would like to offer some advice on that front. We all have our beliefs, principles and ideology. What we all need to understand is that our beliefs, principles and ideology aren't any more important than the next guy's. And we have to understand that there are a LOT of next guys.

I understand that you believe fervently in smaller government. But I have to ask...so what? Why do you think that your belief in smaller govt is more important than my belief in different-sized government? Neither one of our beliefs is important - at all.

Your convictions entitle you to vote for candidate A, B or C. Their convictions entitle them to vote yeah or nay on the issues before them. And you get to evaluate them on the merits of those actions. You are obviously entitled to abandon the Republican Party because they aren't advocating for your beliefs.

But I would strongly urge you to take a moment to consider that most people form their core beliefs when they are teenagers, and rarely modify them as they mature. The problem is that most teenagers are idiots, and form lots of stupid, clearly unsubstantiated beliefs and core principles. Which they then defend to the death as they age.

And so I would ask people to remember that your beliefs, as important as they are to YOU, don't give you the right to try to burn this mother fucker down to achieve them. Because they aren't any more important than my different beliefs. Or Smoove's beliefs. Or Rip's beliefs.

That's the tactical error that the GOP made when they took us down this road (please stop pretending that they didn't cause this, it makes me wonder if any of your comments are serious - it's that absurd). To their credit, the GOP leadership realized that this was a no win situation and did the only thing they could do.

You are free to punish them, that's your choice. But what they did was wrong. And we should all reject the tactic that they employed. Because their principles aren't that important either.

That's what the Tea Party needs to learn. They are just people with beliefs. And those beliefs aren't more important than my beliefs. And them having a belief doesn't give them the right to do what they did. Because they probably formed that belief when they were in high school.

And finally, I don't understand your concept of negotiating. Negotiating usually involves a give and take. You give me this thing I care about, and I'll give you that thing that you care about. In this specific situation, I know what the GOP was asking for (demanding). What were they offering in return? As far as I can tell, they weren't offering anything. Other than to not pull the trigger. Maybe I'm wrong though. Hopefully you have more info on that.

Bleeding heart liberals survived GWB. You'll make it the rest of the way through Obama. I promise.

Holman wrote:gerrymandering, which more and more seems to be the great bane of the republic.

Amen.

Gerrymandering seems to be the new buzz word in politics. Is it actually realistic to believe that a majority (large majority) of districts can be set up with fair and balanced voting populations? I understand that many now are designed to be what they are but how much can they be changed in most cases?

I am just curious. With all the gerrymandering talk someone must have already decided what changes would mean in the overall vote.

I don't think the goal is to setup fair and balanced populations. Just don't draw insane boundaries to protect the incumbent and neutralize some part of the opposing party .

Scuzz wrote: I am just curious. With all the gerrymandering talk someone must have already decided what changes would mean in the overall vote.

I don't know what a path to reform would entail, but in 2012 the party that won 47.7% of the votes was given 53.4% of the seats.

While Arnold was still governor of California is got through a new method of re-districting that was expected to be more balanced for the GOP. After everything was done the GOP sued over the final results. They lost. The attempted gerrymander back fired on them I guess.

Holman wrote:

Scuzz wrote: I am just curious. With all the gerrymandering talk someone must have already decided what changes would mean in the overall vote.

I don't know what a path to reform would entail, but in 2012 the party that won 47.7% of the votes was given 53.4% of the seats.

Cannot a percentage discrepancy like that not be explained through larger population centers voting to a certain party in higher percentages?

Again, I don't doubt there are districts designed to accommodate certain political parties.

Holman wrote:

Biyobi wrote:

Holman wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:In case anyone's curious as to who voted no: House vote details, and Senate.

So at the last minute, when the choice had finally to be made and the implications of all options were clear, almost 2/3 of House Republicans voted to push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt.

They did so because they knew it was safe for them to do it. The "safe" R moderates were going to vote sanely because their districts are okay with it. The TP were going to vote to burn it all down because their voters demand it. I'll bet a bunch of the "others" voted nay because they're facing primary challenges from TP prospects. They knew this had to pass and they knew enough of the "safe" Rs were available to guarantee the passage, so they voted no to still appeal to the mouth breathers underinformed voters come election time.

Right. I'm sure most of the Nay'ers knew that they could count on a majority Yea. But choices are still important. If nothing else, it tells us who is more serious about country than party.

Somewhere I saw a breakdown by district safety. R's who could face conceivable challenges only from the Right voted No, while R's in swing districts overwhelmingly voted Yes.

We're back to gerrymandering, which more and more seems to be the great bane of the republic.

I don't think that is true for Boustany, he will face an opponent that will certainly play the farther right against him. His vote stands to cost him plenty of support. The only R in Louisiana to vote Yea along with our token D.

Scuzz wrote:While Arnold was still governor of California is got through a new method of re-districting that was expected to be more balanced for the GOP. After everything was done the GOP sued over the final results. They lost. The attempted gerrymander back fired on them I guess.

That was as a result of an initiative, which I don't believe was Arnold's. That plus the top 2 Primary rules are likely to help keep the CA Legislative Houses less extreme than they have been lately (I hope). There are a lot of CA problems which couldn't be solved in the old-school legislature which I think will have a better chance of getting fixed with a less radicalized give and take.

An example being pension reform. Something which is necessary, but doesn't need to be shoved down either side's throat via initiative, but rather part of a give and take. IMHO.

Just got off the phone with a young lady from the Democratic National Congressional Campaign Committee (or something like that). A very persistent young lady trying to convince me to donate $250 to them to help them take back the House.

I tried explaining that I'm a registered Republican (albeit not a very good one), and that while I hate my Congressman with the fire of a thousand suns, it is very unlikely that I am going to donate to the Democrats. I'd rather find a reasonable Republican (assuming such a thing exists). She finally accepted defeat.

Scuzz wrote: Cannot a percentage discrepancy like that not be explained through larger population centers voting to a certain party in higher percentages?

But lumping all those voters together is how you make the problem. Gerrymandered districts are designed to create these zones, creating two high-density districts for the opposing party and five for yours where there might more reasonably be seven competitive districts.

A look at gerrymandered maps shows that it's never about obvious urban/rural splits or organic neighborhood lines.

RunningMn9 wrote:Just got off the phone with a young lady from the Democratic National Congressional Campaign Committee (or something like that). A very persistent young lady trying to convince me to donate $250 to them to help them take back the House.

I tried explaining that I'm a registered Republican (albeit not a very good one), and that while I hate my Congressman with the fire of a thousand suns, it is very unlikely that I am going to donate to the Democrats. I'd rather find a reasonable Republican (assuming such a thing exists). She finally accepted defeat.

Well, there is the threat of your elected representative seeking the Throne of Bhaal....

On the other hand, even I don't donate to Political Parties. A friend of a friend running for office, sure, but a party? No.*

*Union dues not withstanding, though I think I belong to probably the crappiest Union in CA.

msduncan wrote:The Republican party is destroyed tonight. It's not for the reason that this heavily liberal forum might think, but because of people like me and others I know.

This complete surrender to every single demand of this President means I will not vote Republican again. I'll either vote libertarian, or I will stay home. Enjoy your single party rule Democrats. You broke a bunch of sniveling, no-guts, spineless cowards against the rock tonight. I've been voting Republican for 21 years, and I've voted for my last one be it national, state, or local. Fuck them.

I've intentionally stayed out of this crazy drama, the pronouncements of doom, etc. The ONLY issue I will bring up on this forum is that the Republicans were unable to keep from bending over and being totally raped by a clearly stronger bunch of career politicians.

Fuck em all. I'm done with them.


Edit: and at least it will secure Alabama dominance for the next couple decades.

This was a wonderful caricature of angry (former) Republican.
I give it a 9.7

I can gladly say I didn't vote for any of these asses in the Government and be proud of that while everyone else can say its my fault hahaha. But i hate them all equally .

Scuzz wrote:Gerrymandering seems to be the new buzz word in politics. Is it actually realistic to believe that a majority (large majority) of districts can be set up with fair and balanced voting populations? I understand that many now are designed to be what they are but how much can they be changed in most cases?

I am just curious. With all the gerrymandering talk someone must have already decided what changes would mean in the overall vote.

Gerrymandering is not a new idea or buzzword. The term traces its roots to 1812, and it's been a fixture of politics ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology

Daehawk wrote:I can gladly say I didn't vote for any of these asses in the Government and be proud of that while everyone else can say its my fault hahaha. But i hate them all equally .

The politicians or everyone else?

RLMullen wrote:

Scuzz wrote:Gerrymandering seems to be the new buzz word in politics. Is it actually realistic to believe that a majority (large majority) of districts can be set up with fair and balanced voting populations? I understand that many now are designed to be what they are but how much can they be changed in most cases?

I am just curious. With all the gerrymandering talk someone must have already decided what changes would mean in the overall vote.

Gerrymandering is not a new idea or buzzword. The term traces its roots to 1812, and it's been a fixture of politics ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Etymology

I visit probably 5 forums and "gerrymandering" has appeared on all those forums as if by magic. I know that doesn't mean people got a e-mail from the boss and started using the word but I just think it is strange that suddenly it is to blame for our troubles. I also think the Tea Party replaces other republicans in many cases so it isn't gerrymandering causes the problem it is right wing of the GOP eating the moderates.

Scuzz wrote:I visit probably 5 forums and "gerrymandering" has appeared on all those forums as if by magic. I know that doesn't mean people got a e-mail from the boss and started using the word but I just think it is strange that suddenly it is to blame for our troubles. I also think the Tea Party replaces other republicans in many cases so it isn't gerrymandering causes the problem it is right wing of the GOP eating the moderates.

It's certainly not the first time gerrymandering has been discussed on OO. I think it's just a natural moment for the topic to come up -- the shutdown is behind us, so people are starting to consider what may have led to this crisis.

AWS260 wrote:

Scuzz wrote:I visit probably 5 forums and "gerrymandering" has appeared on all those forums as if by magic. I know that doesn't mean people got a e-mail from the boss and started using the word but I just think it is strange that suddenly it is to blame for our troubles. I also think the Tea Party replaces other republicans in many cases so it isn't gerrymandering causes the problem it is right wing of the GOP eating the moderates.

It's certainly not the first time gerrymandering has been discussed on OO. I think it's just a natural moment for the topic to come up -- the shutdown is behind us, so people are starting to consider what may have led to this crisis.

That is my point, not that it is a "new" word.

AWS260 wrote:

Scuzz wrote:I visit probably 5 forums and "gerrymandering" has appeared on all those forums as if by magic. I know that doesn't mean people got a e-mail from the boss and started using the word but I just think it is strange that suddenly it is to blame for our troubles. I also think the Tea Party replaces other republicans in many cases so it isn't gerrymandering causes the problem it is right wing of the GOP eating the moderates.

It's certainly not the first time gerrymandering has been discussed on OO. I think it's just a natural moment for the topic to come up -- the shutdown is behind us, so people are starting to consider what may have led to this crisis.

I'ma take you back. Way back. Back to Bush fever and a time before Obamacare. Back to when gerrymandering was first discussed in this context on OO.

And to a few days before that when the concept was first brought up.

If you are facebook friends with Fireball you hear "gerrymandering" a lot, general in close proximity to unkind words.

Brian Williams was on Letterman a week or so ago and brought two district maps with him, one Republican and one Democrat, to show it's not just a Republican thing (although they have made more use of it recently). The maps looked like someone randomly splattered paint in various places around the map rather than looking like a real district. It's very clear that it is manipulation and there should be some sort of law against it.

Here's the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kQChlhoiU&t=4m35s" target="_blank

What I would like to do, and I'm not yet sure if this is possible, would be to devise some kind of formula for drawing congressional districts. Start by figuring out how many seats you need and thereby the popluation per seat. Maybe pick a starting point and then starting adding counties (or maybe zip codes) in a spiral / circle direction until you hit the population / seat amount. At that point you start the next district, and keep adding in the same fashion until you hit the limit again, then start over again, until you wind up with the final map.

RE: Gerrymandering

Eliminate districts altogether. Hold a general state-wide election. X is the number of house of reps seats up for grabs. The top X candidates (in terms of number of votes) get the seats.

This also has the added benefit of diluting the two party system - if each party only puts up one guy and there are more than two seats up for grabs, then a third-party candidate has a pretty reasonable chance of slipping in.

NickAragua wrote:RE: Gerrymandering

Eliminate districts altogether. Hold a general state-wide election. X is the number of house of reps seats up for grabs. The top X candidates (in terms of number of votes) get the seats.

This also has the added benefit of diluting the two party system - if each party only puts up one guy and there are more than two seats up for grabs, then a third-party candidate has a pretty reasonable chance of slipping in.

Wouldn't that lead to a state with 99% of it's reps being from the most populace city or cities? In California you would have everyone be from LA or SF.

El Guapo wrote:What I would like to do, and I'm not yet sure if this is possible, would be to devise some kind of formula for drawing congressional districts. Start by figuring out how many seats you need and thereby the popluation per seat. Maybe pick a starting point and then starting adding counties (or maybe zip codes) in a spiral / circle direction until you hit the population / seat amount. At that point you start the next district, and keep adding in the same fashion until you hit the limit again, then start over again, until you wind up with the final map.

I've always thought that would be the best way.

The argument I've heard against it is that districts are drawn so under-represented people get a voice. I think that's a very unconvincing argument and think the bad from the current system far outweighs any of the good that may come from it.

Scuzz wrote:Wouldn't that lead to a state with 99% of it's reps being from the most populace city or cities? In California you would have everyone be from LA or SF.

Aren't districts already based mainly on population? Isn't that the point of districting. Otherwise, we'd just have a senate and be happy.

Scuzz wrote:

NickAragua wrote:RE: Gerrymandering

Eliminate districts altogether. Hold a general state-wide election. X is the number of house of reps seats up for grabs. The top X candidates (in terms of number of votes) get the seats.

This also has the added benefit of diluting the two party system - if each party only puts up one guy and there are more than two seats up for grabs, then a third-party candidate has a pretty reasonable chance of slipping in.

Wouldn't that lead to a state with 99% of it's reps being from the most populace city or cities? In California you would have everyone be from LA or SF.

Yep. Regardless of where they're from, they will answer to the highest concentrations of voters.

A lot of weirdness can happen that way. What if one candidate is wildly popular and gets 80% of the vote? You're going to have another rep elected with like 10%.

LordMortis wrote:

Scuzz wrote:Wouldn't that lead to a state with 99% of it's reps being from the most populace city or cities? In California you would have everyone be from LA or SF.

Aren't districts already based mainly on population? Isn't that the point of districting. Otherwise, we'd just have a senate and be happy.

They're apportioned to have roughly equal population numbers. Looks like currently around 700K each.

First, Orange Man says he was "run over" by his caucus.

“John, what happened?” Obama asked Boehner on the second day of the shutdown, according to Politico.

“I got overrun, that’s what happened,” Boehner replied as he reportedly tried to exit a White House meeting for a smoke break.

I'm not sure which is more surprising - his candor or the revelation that Boehner is a smoker.


Second - Ted Cruz. Fuck that Guy

According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, he has a 14% approval rating nationwide, with 28% disapproving of him. Now he's back to saying that he can't rule out shutting down the government again.

LordMortis wrote:

Scuzz wrote:Wouldn't that lead to a state with 99% of it's reps being from the most populace city or cities? In California you would have everyone be from LA or SF.

Aren't districts already based mainly on population? Isn't that the point of districting. Otherwise, we'd just have a senate and be happy.

As I understand it they try to balance populations, somewhat anyway. So you end up with some geographically large districts but at least they have representation. In a state like California there are huge tracks of land that would never have a representative.

As it is SF and LA dominate the initiative voting. I think if somebody put it on the ballot to get rid of all farmers (for eco reasons, water, whatever) it would stand a good chance of winning because of where most the votes come from.

Exodor wrote:Second - Ted Cruz. Fuck that Guy

According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, he has a 14% approval rating nationwide, with 28% disapproving of him. Now he's back to saying that he can't rule out shutting down the government again.

Well, it is God's Will granted to him by the people to shut down our Federal Government after all. WTF is wrong with Texas? You hate immigrants! Send his ass back to Canada already.

I'm tellin' ya...if the Kickstarter folks would allow it, I bet a CRAP ton of money would be raised to "Bribe Ted Cruz into moving back to Canada" currently. Would probably be picked up by some news, etc. Making sure of course, that the actual proceeds would go to some charity, or liberal fund raiser.

It really does go back to the whole rural/urban thing. A farmer or someone who lives in a rural area has different concerns than someone who rents an apartment in a city. If you say that it's a straight popular vote, then the concerns of those in the urban areas will carry more weight than those in the rural area, since their interests will be more heavily represented.

Of course, the argument could certainly be made that since there are more people in urban areas, government should represent their interests more heavily. But what happens if you live in a rural area and your interests are simply never represented?