|
AmiYumi posted:What about age limits, rather than term limits? Bonus points if it's pegged to the average life expectancy of a black male in their district. Possibly unconstitutional (Murgia suggests it would be okay, but Murgia didn't have lawyers paid by Congressmen fighting the law.)
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
You know, as long as we're talking about insane ideas to fix Congress, if the problem with the Senate is that large states have diluted representation compared to small states, why don't we just split the large states up? Limit the disparity in population between large and small states to the ratio of largest/smallest when the constitution was signed and redistrict the entire country after each census. (This is a terrible idea btw, just like increasing the number of representatives, but it's not like "abolish the Senate!" Is more practical or more likely.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:This would result in the rural areas of a state being lumped together and then the urban areas split off so that the urban majorities still have their two senators but the rural areas of the country get even more senators. It's a really terrible idea. Why would you assume it generates more states, rather than fewer? Forming Wyomontanaho also reduces the disparity between largest and smallest states, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Or it shows that at the peak of Dean's campaign strategy there was still a decent amount of votes to still be wrung out that could have given dems an even bigger victory then and allowed them to hold onto the majority for longer than the two working weeks they did. No such thing as a free lunch. If your candidate appeals to some slice of that 26% (and let's be clear - a good portion of that is likely to have been "ain't conservative enough for me" people who are never going to vote D) what does that cost you from your existing voters? There's no magic candidate that buys you a chunk of that 26% without costing you elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:So by that argument both parties should sit in the middle all the time in order to rack up the most votes and yet we see better results for the GOP when they don't do that and declining returns for the Democrats when they do. That's pretty much what they do, though - both parties triangulate towards the center of the electorate from the center of the party when trying to win general elections. When they don't (e.g., Tea Party nominees for Senate races in 2012), they get punished. There are some limits to the "sit in the center" theory because the other party is also triangulating to the center meaning that you can only gain so much by moving in that direction compared to potential losses, but the basic triangulation issue isn't a surprising result, it's Black's median voter theorem from the 50s in action. You can't GOTV for someone who doesn't want to vote for you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Why would women be inherently better or worse at chess (or shooting)? There's slim evidence (but some) that skeletal mechanics make women better at competitive rifle shooting. I think mostly because you brace your arm into your hip for the standing position and women have an easier time doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
The SCOTUS thing isn't technically a decision, it's an order - the Court of Appeals had stayed the district court's order, meaning that the voter ID law could go through; SCOTUS reversed the Court's stay. It's not precedent, there's not really any reasoning given, etc., which is why I say it isn't a decision in the way people think of SCOTUS decisions. It's still awesome, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
FWIW, corporate lawyers lean liberal (like most lawyers, including lawyers at large firms.) So the whole "debt makes doctors republicans" theory has a gaping hole through it there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Have you ever talked to a corporate lawyer? Yes. I have definitely talked to a number of the ~200 corporate lawyers I work with. In Washington DC where talking about politics actually does happen in the workplace. The majority are liberal, including on economic issues (on social issues, it's a vast majority). Look! We both have anecdotes on our side! (I've also looked at donation patterns for lawyers and surveys of self-expressed affiliation based on employment, both of which support my point with real data, unlike your "my friend" story.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
zoux posted:A paralegal idolizing lawyers Sorry, I'm a lawyer. (I actually idolize our paralegals for making my life much easier.) I know that people don't like to be contradicted and all, but the data says you are wrong. (A bonus link.) (For obvious reasons, the majority of lawyers who make political donations are from large well-paying law firms; AAJ is the trial lawyers group, the remaining firms on the list are just big firms, almost all of which have large corporate law practices.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That is just an awesome link, thanks for throwing it in. No problem, it's got lots of fun things buried in it. For example, the top 3 occupations by total given are attorney, retired, and homemaker. These three massively outweigh other professions (for example, homemakers give twice as much as CEOs and executives combined.) But no, of course no one gives money in their parents'/spouses' names to evade contribution caps!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:Why is Grimes the #5 recipient of legal lobby money? Who did McConnell piss off? Lawyers are generally Democrats. So at an (educated) guess, I would say McConnell pissed off Democrats. (Also, aside from large firms, the trial lawyers lobby donates heavily and tort reform is one of their issues - they are not on the pro side - so I would guess McConnell's efforts there also hurt him.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Sorry, I was under the impression that what Obama says matters to Wheeler since as far as I understand he appointed him to the job. FCC Commissioners are independent term appointees, not subject to arbitrary removal without cause, so there's quite a bit more insulation between presidential desires and commissioner actions. Remember when the Bush White House pressured the EPA to decide the way they wanted them to? Remember the pushback on that? That's exactly the same as presidential efforts to pressure the FCC. (And as I have said a number of times, Wheeler's telecom lobbying was a long time past when he was appointed.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:There we go! I could make the argument that university IDs don't count as government issue but I know that sort of technicality is horseshit. Private schools issue student IDs so it's actually pretty legit to argue that student ID isn't government issued. (Which is irrelevant because voter ID is loving stupid.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That's my understanding. I remember Alpha House being a weekly released thing, actually. Either way it's the kind of good news I needed today. (On the same page: finding out Butch Otter's ex-wife's name is Gay Simplot, or Gay Otter while they were married. Little things.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Possibly dumb question, but are federal judge appointments a particularly big deal? I mean, I presumed they were, but since we have a right-wing Supreme Court, won't they just simply nullify any liberal decisions that the lower courts pass? Most court decisions aren't reviewed. Federal judicial appointments are a huge deal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Man, he just cannot stop trolling his daughter. It's amazing. She really is as crazy as she comes off - it isn't an act.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:I don't see McConnell getting 60 votes for any of those, particularly since every seat at risk this year with the exception of Colorado and Iowa was vulnerable to defecting on those anyway. There's often potential defectors in non-vulnerable seats. For example, both MN senators would probably defect on a medical device tax repeal (see: Medtronic), CA senators may be vulnerable on TPP due to tech/entertainment industry issues, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Which federal taxes are on the poor? Payroll taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:The DoJ under Holder/Obama did a ton to fight a lot of that stuff until SCOTUS gutted the VRA. Zeitgeiust also believes that PPACA is a Republican health care plan, despite the numerous times that's been debunked - his relationship with reality is a little suspect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The PPACA was a the 90s Republican plan, and that's repeated verbatim, like everywhere, even among liberals. If it's not true, god drat, because that idea is everywhere It's not true.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The argument that it isn't, is what folks have morphed the current defense of it into, in an attempt to support the idea that Dems are the lesser evil, which they are. So it's actually incredibly different from the Republican plan in hugely meaningful ways? I mean, otherwise you might as well say that a progressive plan to "raise income tax rates to where they were in the 90s" and a regressive plan to "raise income tax rates on poor people only to where they were in the 90s" are the same plan because they happen to share a feature. Glad we agree. Maybe you'll stop misleading people who really don't understand that there are huge differences, such as people who have posted in this thread, by saying they're the same plan in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 18:49
|
|
if you will.
|
Actually, yes, both plans don't involve subsidizing private insurance and mandating private insurance. Heritage didn't require actual insurance, it only mandated catastrophic insurance. And it didn't provide a direct subsidy paid to the insurer, it provided year end tax credits. I mean, even on the thing that you claim is what was taken from Heritage, there are massive, meaningful differences. Maybe you should stop saying its a Republican plan.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I've said there are differences but that the plans are similar in broad strokes. No, you said: Zeitgueist posted:Missing the point. Both sides were going for a GOP healthcare plan from the 90's. Neither side wanted real reform, you're just picking flavors of fake reform. I.e. 'democrats were advocating for a Republican plan.' Zeitgueist posted:Saying they're not exactly the same is arguing against a strawman. Very few folks are saying they are the same. Other than, you know, people in this thread: Nonsense posted:The PPACA was a the 90s Republican plan, and that's repeated verbatim, like everywhere, even among liberals. If it's not true, god drat, because that idea is everywhere Maybe you were trying to use it in a nuanced fashion. But it's kind of hard to tell against the extensive background ignorance and you owe it to yourself to pay attention to that if you don't want to be misunderstood.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
If I get an end of year tax credit, and I'm poor, I can't actually afford to pay for health insurance during the year so the tax credit doesn't do me much good. I guess some health care plan somewhere would probably have sprung up that happily got paid around tax time - at payday lender rates, of course. If I get a direct insurer subsidy, that problem does not exist. Do you see how the two plans are massively different even though they're superficially similar?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Ugh that's loving dumb, tax credits called subsidies drives me up the loving wall. Obviously, this is not a you thing, this is a general language thing. Actually, that's still him being a poor reader (or disingenuous). The post talks about subsidies, but only in the context of PPACA - it correctly identifies that as a point of distinction from the tax credits that Heritage offered. The closest it comes is saying Heritage offered "a tax credit to help subsidize it." All uses of subsidy other than that usage refer to PPACA.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I think what they're saying is that 20 - 25 years ago, the fundamental elements of the plan the GOP proposed were the same as those of the ACA but now they're branding it as a big government socialist takeover. While it makes for a great political sound bite, it's simply not true that the fundamental elements of the plan the GOP proposed were the same as the ACA. (Unless you define fundamental elements in such a way that it's effectively meaningless, like saying the fundamental elements of a plan to extend Medicare to everyone and a plan to extend Medicare to all people making over a million bucks are the same because both involve an extension of Medicare.) E: unless you're talking about Chafee's bill, in which case you're right that they are fairly similar, you're just wrong about it being a Republican health care plan because that would imply Republicans supported it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Are they similar enough that it's disingenuous and hypocritical for Republicans to label the ACA a government takeover and radical far-left idea? Yes and no - as noted above by Duke Igthorn, to the extent the complaint focuses solely on the individual mandate, it's hypocritical because the mandate is the closest thing in PPACA to anything in the Heritage plan (with the caveat that the Heritage mandate was significantly different in scope and was only a mandate in the sense that you lost access to tax breaks if you didn't participate - there wasn't a tax penalty, not that PPACA's is particularly significant). To the extent they focus on other aspects, it's not hypocritical - it might still be stupid, but that's different. quote:Is it fair to say that the difference between the two is small enough that labeling one as "free market" and the other as "socialism" is bullshit? No. They're massively different in approach and effect. (It's not what I would call socialism, but it meets the right wing definition, so while it's a bullshit argument it isn't because the difference between the two is small.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Except Obama campaigned specifically against Hillary and McCain on this precise issue and it was one of the reasons I voted for him. The fact that he began negotiations with the mandate in place is what (rightly) makes the people who went to bat for him, donating time and money they didn't have, in the midst of a giant economic crash, so loving pissed off. He ran on radical change, won on radical change and then never even tried. You voted for him because he was against the individual mandate? What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously. You know that he campaigned against the mandate because he didn't think people should be required to buy health insurance, right? It wasn't a stealth progressive thing - he was to the right of both Hillary and McCain on the topic. Campaign Obama's plan wasn't single payer and he was consistently against it; his plan was more or less PPACA with a public option and without an individual mandate. He changed his mind on the mandate and lost the public option in negotiation to get it through. People who got pissed off because the mandate was initially in place are dumb because it's fundamentally a good thing to have in place - even single payer effectively has an individual mandate by way of the increased taxes to pay for it, it just happens to be invisible. People upset about losing the public option are at least upset about losing something meaningful, but seriously, you're mad the individual mandate is part of the end product?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's the core of the office politics, I'm thinking. Well, you're clearly not reading the article with details about the office politics, so at least you're thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:One of the reasons, yes. Answer the second part of the question: what the hell is wrong with you? Why were you against an individual mandate?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Because I didn't want to be forced to give my money to an insurance company and felt that as long there was an individual mandate, we should have single payer or somewhere else, like a public option or a Medicare buy in, to spend my money on. As long as I was being required to have insurance and spend money, I at least wanted some competition and choice in the matter instead of being automatically required to hand money to the companies that are largely responsible for loving up our healthcare system up in the first place. Except both Campaign Clinton and Campaign Obama were supportive of a public option, so your complaint above makes no sense as a reason to have voted for Obama - you'd have had an option even with a mandate. Also, were you against guaranteed issue? (Note that even in a public option system, you still want an individual mandate if you want to keep guaranteed issue and, to a lesser extent, anti-rescission. That's why Obama came around to it, after he got past the cost concerns a previous poster identified, which were the reason he questioned the original mandate in the first place.) It doesn't anger me - it just makes me question your intelligence.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:And if they did how would we know? The entertainment industry is basically a propaganda arm for the military. Not that this is anything new, and it doesn't hurt studios bottom lines. It's not like you're forced to accept a military advisor. And plenty of works critical of the military are made, sooooo...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 01:30
|
|