Ouch for California Teachers

Judge Strikes Down Tenure For California Teachers

As a college student who has had some pretty bad teachers, I can't I say I like tenure.

But on the flip side of the number of violent crimes decreasing, the overall numbers of death and injuries from guns has gone up over the same period. Which goes back to the point I've made before, that the NRA has gone from an organization in favor of responsible gun ownership, to one of straight gun ownership. The more people out there with minimal or no gun safety training handling guns doesn't sync with the idea of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state. "

Where do you see that data? Everything I see shows gun-related deaths/injuries staying pretty flat:

I'm not arguing a side in regards to the gun control debate, but I wouldn't put much stock in crime numbers.

If you have some time, read through these pieces from Chicago Magazine. It's especially interesting if you enjoyed the TV show The Wire (it covers some of the same crime stat issues they did). Anyways, it shows how police departments like Chicago fudge the numbers to make it look like crime is going down. Since there is no universal way of reporting crime data, it's tough to tell when it really is up or down.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...o-crime-rates/
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...me-statistics/

When it comes to these shootings, I think the media could do us all a favor and cut back on the glorification of the shooters. These nuts know now that if they run around shooting a few people, their manifesto will be read to millions of people. Their face will be plastered all over the news. Everything that feeds that narcissism will come to fruition.

I don't think it's any surprise that most of these shooters now come complete with some message they want to spread. And I think even without guns, they'd find a way to kill to get it out knowing the media will eat it up.

Those number are in the per 100,000 population. Population is increasing, so ergo, if those numbers are not decreasing at the same rate as population is growing, the overall numbers are rising. And the per 100,000 numbers have a slight rise to them. The numbers in the per X population for gun deaths/injuries don't reflect the same decrease in the per X population for violent crimes.

The highest numbers were in 2008 and 2005. 2009 had fewer deaths than 2005 and 2002 had nearly identical injury numbers to 2009. I'm not sure how anyone could look at the above numbers and make any kind of conclusion that gun deaths/injuries are more of an issue now than they were in 2002 or 2005.

One of the top commentators there was from this website that claimed 453 "real" homicides in Chicago in 2013. (It's a pretty cool website, heyjackass.com) Chicago claimed 415. That's a pretty significant difference, but it doesn't wipe out the overall trend, even if you assume that Chicago is wrong and the website is correct in every single disputed homicide report. You'd also have to make the assumption that Chicago was much more precise and liberal with their crime reporting techniques in the early 90s, when logic tells you they would have been fudging even more. (Edit: Chicago reported 943 murders in 1992. Why can't we increase that roughly 10% and assume some fudging there too - I bet they were pretty desperate to stay under 1,000? I wonder how many murders heyjackass.com would have reported that year.)

And to respond to another point above, you'd have to also assume that the whole concept of missing people suddenly became a big thing for the first time around the early 90s, when all these murders were apparently replaced by "missing people" whose bodies were never found. Which again seems like a stretch, I think its easier to find missing people and bodies today than it was ever before.

And the DOJ and other entities report similar reduction in crime across the U.S. And I don't even know where to fit in the more common trend, like the one that started this discussion, where police tend to INFLATE the reality of crime for budget purposes.

I think in any other context, people dismissing evidence of this scale would be accused of having an agenda. But when it comes to crime, police, and guns, there's more empowerment to just believe whatever you want.

Here's the raw numbers for gun deaths and injuries, that shows the rise, with figured from the CDC, DOJ and DHHS.

Guns in the United States: Firearms, armed violence and gun law

Deaths:
2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

Non-fatal injuries:
2012: 81,396
2011: 73,883
2010: 73,505
2009: 66,769
2008: 78,622
2007: 69,863
2006: 71,417
2005: 69,825
2004: 64,389
2003: 65,834
2002: 58,841
2001: 63,012

Why should we use flat numbers instead of rates?

I get that gun crime is decreasing way more than than gun accidents (which is either a flat number or a rising number), but what does that tell us and why is that surprising? There's a ton of reasons gun crime is down. (reduced lead paint, abortions, the internet, more police, enhanced law enforcement tools, aggressive prosecution of gangs). Gun clumsiness and negligence isn't impacted by the those kinds of factors.

So, basically, the gun issue was "solved" in 2004, became a major issue in 2008, then got better again in 2009 before becoming a bigger issue in 2010 and staying flat in 2011.

When looked as a % of the population, this is just year-to-year noise. None of it shows any significant increase.

The raw numbers match up with the increase in firearm sales. If you just look at per/X of population numbers, that does better at showing rates, not totals. As the number of firearms sold has increased over the past 10 years, so has the number of deaths and injuries from firearms.

http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...pdate-2012.pdf

So, if I am in a city of 10,000 people and 300 own firearms, guns are less of an issue there than if I was in a city of 50,000 people and 301 own firearms - correct?

Realistically that depends upon the caliber (no pun intended) of the 300 versus the 301.

I got a feeling this is going to get really, really ugly.

Similar to the point I've been making. A gun in the hands of someone who has had the bare minimum of training on how a gun works and gun safety is a risk to themselves and those within range of where a bullet could travel from the gun. To me the bigger problem isn't the number of guns, it is the number of people that haven't had even a bare minimum of gun handling or safety lessons.

The increase in pistol sales is pretty crazy. The gun manufacturers have to love the gun control debate, it just keeps people running to the gun shops.

It's kind of funny that everything is about Obama taking away guns and yet more guns will be sold under his Presidency than any other in history.

I was going to laugh, but then realized that you were correct and knowing or not knowing Aaron Hernandez was actually statistically significant. Which is awesome.

Ah, cool, didn't equate that at the time.

Eric Cantor lost his primary in Virginia.

:thumbsup:

So, gun ownership more than doubled, while gun deaths went up 11%, and that's a worrying trend? FWIW, there was a 14% increase in population.

Sounds like maybe the new gun owners are more responsible than the old ones.

A fate that should have befallen anyone who claimed to be a conservative but backed this amnesty b.s.

There are different ways to count gun ownership, and that affects the picture as well. Some counts show that the number of households with firearms has decreased, but the average number of firearms owned per person in a household with firearms has greatly increased. It is hard to get an accurate count, due to push back of fears of creating a gun registry. So basically the most accurate number available is the total number of firearms manufactured.

Cantor lost, the first time a sitting House Majority leader has lost a primary in 115 years.

Looks like the rumors of the Tea Party's demise have been grossly exaggerated.

Actually it's the first time a sitting House Majority leader has lost an ELECTION in 115 years. They're still checking to see if a sitting Majority Leader has ever lost in a primary (from what I just heard).

Wow.

SI

And now the $64,000 question: is it a district that could go Democrat in the general election? (From my ~2 minutes of googling, it looks like "lol, no.")

I am rubbing my hands with glee at the Eric Cantor news. :D

Or have they?

There are definitely questions -- still unaswered afaik -- about how much of the outcome, or at least the margin, was affected by Dem crossover voters.

Saw that exact thing happen in my own state house district a couple years ago.

Interesting insight from redstate here perhaps. Basically that immigration was the issue that opponents galvanized around but that arrogance was why there was an opening for that to happen in the first place.

Why Eric Cantor Lost | RedState

Costa is reporting that Costa was relaxed as his internal polls showed him up 20-30 points. He outspent his opponent 1 million to 75K the final week.

Insane./

The two candidates now from Cantor's former district are both professors at the same college.

Exactly what I figure is happening. Democrats voting Tea Party so they get to general election and then lose against Democrat.

From the you can't make this shit up file:

The guy who played Cooter from Dukes of Hazard ran against Cantor in 2002 and lost. He urged people to crossover vote for Brat in the primary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5463196.html

I'm not sure it's quite "lol, no" as you said but it's a typically 60/40 or 65/35 R district when we lived there. Just like most, it's an oddball jerrymandered district that gets some of Richmond but a lot of the rural area north of there.

SI

Does anyone know if Cantor is planning to pull a Lieberman and run as an Independent Republican? Is it even possible in his state?

Not possible.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/leg...0+cod+24.2-520

doesn't look like Dem Crossover was the solo reason .. turnout was high compared to 2012, just Cantor actually LOST 1/3d of his vote total from 2012.

Cantor can run as a write-in (like Lisa Murkowski in 2010), but if he does, it should make the election more winnable for the Democrat (assuming that guy is a decent candidate).

Ironically, I tend to see Cantor as a guy who started out somewhat as a moderate (well, at least by GOP standards, so LOLNOPE), tacked hard right to court the Tea Party, and then got burned trying to get back to the center. So this loss serves him right, the hypocrite.

Doesn't seem like he can actually.

I think that morons like Rachel Maddow who are celebrating Cantor losing have no clue what this is going to entail for their side - especially if (when?) the Republicans win the Senate this year. This election was a signal to the GOP - the Tea Party is still alive and will still be going after scalps. Which means, continue to be obstructionist. With the Tea Party losing primary after primary there was hope that the 2015 Republicans would be more willing to work with the President, but that hope may be dashed now.

I'm happy about it because a strong Tea Party means an increasingly marginalized (from an electoral standpoint) GOP.

Yep. A strong tea party will be a hindrance in 2016. Republicans can have the Senate in 2014 for all I care as long as Obama wields the veto pen. I think I read 2016 is a good year for the Dem's to take back the Senate if they lose it this year? At the very least get the biggest embarrassment to Wisconsin since Joe McCarthy out of the Senate (Ron Johnson).

I know fellow Dems like to say that - hey, if more Tea Party, it'll help us down the road. But the Tea Party influence led to the excessive gridlock we have now. And while the Tea Party hurts in Senate races when they say crazy things - they have tended to win House races in Conservative districts.

In addition, Obama has had around a 42% approval rating for quite a while now. Tea Partiers in the Congress hasn't improved the standing of Obama for most people in the country.

{scratches head} Wouldn't that at least make it equally likely to be crossover though?

It'll likely be easy enough to figure out fairly soon, a comparison of voter info & tracking how many traditionally voted in D primaries but voted in this one would tell the tale ... I'd just be very surprised if that level of detail was available to the media or the public less than 24 hours after the polls closed.

In my state's closed primary a lot of liberals and moderates registered Republican just to vote against the tea party candidates, helping the regular Republicans to landslide wins. That seems so much more sensible to me. Vote for the guy you think is the better candidate, the guy who will be better for your state, instead of the guy you actually think will be worse, just your team might look a little better by comparison, and thus has a theoretical better shot, maybe, in the future. This isn't just a game, these things have real implications. The next time I hear a liberal complaining about it being someone else's fault that their guy couldn't accomplish much of what he promised, I'll remember that that was the strategy all along. Winning is more important, it's just a team sport like following the NBA finals or something. Maybe more of this tea party obstructionism in the first place was the plan of some liberals in power all along. It's an easy enemy, you can paint your opposition as generally unreasonable, and you have a built-in excuse for all your policy failures and ineffectiveness.

Eh, one does what they can to discomfit the enemy, that aspect of it really doesn't bother me a whole lot philosophically.

That said, the only time I've cast an intentional crossover vote that I can recall was a year when the local sheriff's race -- where I had a very clear favored candidate -- was being decided in the (D) primary and that happened to present an opportunity to vote against the legend that was Cynthia McKinney. I mean, if you're in the neighborhood anyway ....

72% of voters in Cantor’s district support the bipartisan immigration reform legislation on the table in Washington right now to only 23% who are opposed. And this is an issue voters want to see action on. 84% think it’s important for the US to fix its immigration system this year, including 57% who say it’s ‘very’ important. Even among Republicans 58% say it’s ‘very’ important, suggesting that some of the backlash against Cantor could be for a lack of action on the issue.
Just nine percent strongly oppose the bipartisan immigration bill, so while it's possible that those nine percent voted for Brat at a high rate, it's hard to make the case that immigration explains Cantor's defeat. Cantor's job approval numbers, on the other hand ...
Cantor has a only a 30% approval rating in his district, with 63% of voters disapproving. The Republican leadership in the House is even more unpopular, with just 26% of voters approving of it to 67% who disapprove. Among GOP voters Cantor’s approval is a 43/49 spread and the House leadership’s is 41/50.

http://aufc.3cdn.net/df62bab5a39cc3568d_eym6bn24d.pdf

I find that pretty much impossible to believe, just to be frank. I'm not sure you could get 72% agreement on puppies, kittens and rainbows in most districts.


I'm in that 84% ... but "fix" is a very broad term.


See my link above, there's clearly other stuff at work, making it a single issue outcome is short-sighted at best IMO.

You guys are both assuming that there still are, and will continue to be, a significant number of "reasonable" Republicans in the U.S. House & Senate with whom the Democrats can do work. But in so doing you ignore the somewhat significant evidence of the past few years. Which is: a) those "reasonable" Republicans are increasingly beholden to the Tea Party and b) there's a growing Tea Party presence anyway.

If I want progressive legislation passed, it's increasingly obvious that it's not going to get done by having Democrats work with reasonable Republicans. So the only realistic option is to try and find ways to reduce the ability of the Republican Party as a whole to stop progressive legislation. And the best way to do that, right now, is to help the Tea Party continue to marginalize the ability of the GOP as a whole to win elections.

It's absolutely not a game. It might look like one, but it's not. It's a very clear strategy to remove obstacles (i.e. Republicans) from the path of passing progressive legislation.


Also this.

I really hate to say that the GOP is my enemy, but when they decided to lose their spine to the TP and do things like play chicken with the U.S. economy, advocate the use of torture (even from folks who had been tortured), waste time to caterwaul about ACA which was based on Republican concepts, and just plain be obstructionist for no reason, they became the enemy.

PPP is no slouch. I didn't dig into how the question was worded or crosstabs or anything to see how robust and accurate it is, just wanted to throw the link to the poll up there.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Cantor's loss, in the grand scheme of things anyhow, is the spending disparity between the two candidates.

Grassroots campaign tactics + low expected turnout is definitely a factor.

That's the wrong game. The Republicans are being beholden to the Tea Party due to fear that the Tea Party could knock them off. Those fears were starting to get minimized in this primary season... until yesterday.

The issue is that you think that pushing Tea Party candidates is going to result in GOP marginalization. The issue is that unless they say crazy things about rape, they actually may end up winning (people forget that Todd Akin and James Mourdock were very high UP in the polls before the rape comments). If people dislike their Democratic Representative, they are going to vote for the GOP alternative - even if they are Tea Party. So saying remove Republicans is the goal isn't going to really work out. Plenty of Tea Partiers have already won general election when they don't say things about rape (or witches) - Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Senator Deb Fischer from Nebraska, Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, not to mention scores of House Republicans.

So you WANT a more unreasonable Republican party. I'm sure you're not alone, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's part of why these groups are propped up so much and get so much attention. A lot of people on the left want the Republicans to be wacky and unreasonable and extreme because it makes them look better. But there's nothing just inherently impossible about having two parties who have similar goals, different thoughts on how to approach them, keeping each other in check. It's not inherently impossible for people who disagree with you on things to be reasonable.

You talk like your ultimate goal is a 1-party system in the U.S., and I'm not sure that's either possible or desirable. I like to see reasonable people in both parties have political success. The team/game politics standpoint wants reasonable people on their side, but wacky unreasonable people on the other, because then its easier to win the game. I just want, for example, an attorney general in my state who represents the state agencies in legal matters, and who doesn't think his job is to try to push conservative policy. Fortunately we have that, and we only got it because moderates voted for the best guy for the job, instead of intentionally voting for the worst, just so their team could lose by a more respectable margin in November. Under your mindset, we'd literally have an attorney general named "Christ," instead of a guy who has regularly sued Republican officials when they violated the state constitution (by, for example, fixing lease-costs on luxury state-owned late front property lots for wealthy connected people, instead of maximizing the value of those lots to benefit education, as the state constitution requires.) There are real consequences to this.

Edit: There was a Democrat who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, and his angle was, "I'm only here in case you idiots actually vote for Christ (the tea partier). If the incumbent wins, I won't pursue this in November, because I have no problems with him, but if Christ wins, I need to at least TRY to save my state from that.") I appreciated that mindset - it wasn't just stuck in the team v. team mentality, but was a practical approach recognizing the bigger stakes.

Double Edit: And I guess with the legislative branch maybe playing the game is a little less harmful because an individual legislator, unlike an individual in the other two branches, doesn't really have any power on their own. They're just a tiny part of a large, bloated, ineffective legislative organism. I'd still like that organism to have as few tea partiers as possible though.

About that turnout ... the narrative in most coverage does seem to be about it being "low", but it was also about 1/3rd higher than the turnout two years ago.

Anecdotally, the 65,000 or so votes in Cantor/Brat is more than any contested primary in Georgia managed a few weeks ago and more than several districts managed in the two party primaries combined.

The other big picture story here could very well turn out to be a cautionary tale of "be careful what you wish for".

Brat is a relative unknown, no legislative history. One of the issues during the campaign that Cantor tried to play up (unsuccessfully, but still) was that Brat could actually turn out to be far more liberal than anticipated.

I have to admit, my enthusiasm about the result is entirely based on the demise of a collaborator like Cantor, not on any great hope that Brat will turn out to be an excellent representative.

Great post. You can't actively bemoan the lack of co-operation and actively hope/work for more polarizing politicians in office. There's a reason that previously co-operative republicans aren't able to cooperate any more - it's the threat from the TP and more right wing groups. How on earth is putting more in office a good idea?

But, although I'm certainly looking at the topic from the outside in, isn't the theory roughly that "there's no WAY 'those extremists' could actually get elected in a general election"?

Granted, as someone already pointed out, that isn't true ... but isn't that the theory? Basically that it "can't happen"?

I think it absolutely can happen in the House. In the Senate I think it's more unlikely to happen, unless they're in particular states (as has been noted).

You're looking at it tactically, I'm looking at it strategically. I have no expectation of being able to win every seat where a TP candidate can unseat the "mainstream" GOP person in a primary. I'm interested in trying to get to a point where this sort of activity (and the influence they've had on the GOP when they're actually in the House (or Senate), continues to move the GOP rightward to the point where they're sufficiently divorced from mainstream American that they can't a) compete in national elections and b) form a marginalized minority in the House & Senate.

It's a process. Individual elections aren't the end, they're the means.

I'd love to have a system with 2 (or more!) parties that can work reasonably with each other even if they have different beliefs, and get the machinery of legislation going again.

But given the actions of the GOP since the rise of the Tea Party, this clearly isn't realistic. So, I'll take the second-best option, which is one where the GOP shoots itself sufficiently that it's unable to stop progressive legislation being passed.

And if you fail to bring a 1-party system to America, then you've just succeeded in emboldening and giving power to the far right, and contributed to all the problems that causes for real people.

High risk/high stakes/high collateral.

But why is the continuing relevance of the tea party (something you're rooting for by the way), just inevitable? Why can't all of us work and vote towards minimizing the tea party, instead of encouraging and supporting them for political gain?

Edit: Is your goal maybe to destroy the relevance of the tea party BY emboldening them and making them a bigger part of the right? Thus, you don't want to just cast off the tea party, you want to cast as many non-Democrats over the cliff with them as possible so the Dems can reign supreme. So all non-Dems can be tainted by the stench of the tea party. That's the part I have an issue with. Where it doesn't seem like you want two reasonable parties being a check on either other, you just want the Dems to win.

Last I checked, people like their team to win. :)

God help us if we ever get to a situation where it's a one party situation, be that Democrat, Republican or Moon People. I don't see how the solution to two parties that can't get anything done and are stuck in a cycle of negating each other's changes and abusing their power when they have it is fuck it, let's go to one! It's moving in the wrong direction entirely.

But, I don't think that will actually happen. Instead, I fear the result is that the political discussion gets moved more and more right with the GOP as the middle seemingly moves rightward as well. That's exactly what happened in the 1980s under Reagan - he was so father right than other national Republicans that the entire center moved.

Furthermore, people always can and will get disappointed with the status quo party. They WILL vote for the other major party, even if they are too extreme for them when they get dissatisfied with the party in power. That's what happened in the 1994 Congressional elections.

his internal polling had him winning by like 35 points allegedly. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall in his command center.

I've heard 20-30 but still ... given his reported knack for being a raging ass, I'd say the comedy level would have been pretty high :)

Was he using the 'Unskewed Polls' guy for his numbers?

No, the idea is that more marginal seats end up going to Democrats because unelectable TPers sink the "moderate" Republicans, and so overall the GOP ends up not having that much power.

And note, I'm not necessarily talking about a 1-party state. I'm just talking about a legislative situation where legislation can actually be passed, judges can be confirmed, not everything ends in a filibuster, etc.... Sure, I'm also saying all those things (legislation, judges) would have a progressive bent, but I'm not talking about some sort of runaway Stalinist state.

By the way, you should frame your arguments with less apocalyptic imagery, ok? :p


I don't know. Maybe you should ask the Republicans who are voting for them and the GOP leadership who are kowtowing to them, eh?


Exactly. Well, to specific, if we can't have a situation where two reasonable parties are in governance together, each pursuing their own agendas but in a reasonable way, then I'd prefer a situation where the Democratic agenda was the one being advanced.

This is good for two reasons. One, it's a progressive agenda. Two, the Democrats have a bigger tent with a wider array of opinions, more reflective of America.

Now, that's my opinion. You can not agree with that opinion, but I advance it here to explain my rationale, not to have an argument about whose agenda is inherently better for America (because we all know mine is ;) ).


Hey, I'm on record here as preferring a Proportional Representation setup for our legislature which would surely result in considerably more meaningful parties than the two we have now. But you have to be realistic.


I certainly agree that's a risk, and having lived through that time period (and I'd say we kept moving right since then) I can see the evidence.

But I'd say the rightward shift now in the GOP is outpacing Americans' ability to shift with it.

BTW, I wouldn't be pursuing this whole "destroy the GOP" argument so assiduously if it weren't for the fact that the GOP has turned completely into a party with no interest in governing and being hell-bent on simply destroying the government.

We're not choosing between two roughly-equal philosophies of government here, we're choosing between one of those and downright nihilism on the other.

That's his point. There is a massive risk that it won't happen this way and that the "unelectable" TPers actually get elected because people aren't happy with Democratic incumbents or link them to unpopular Presidents (such as 43% approval rating Obama)


That's arguable. Obama's approval rating is actually pretty low, for doing things that I don't (personally) think are super left leaning. So the problem is that perhaps the GOP isn't outpacing the rightward shift at all. Of course it could be a personality thing too, as Obama doesn't seem to be very forceful (and perhaps a Hillary Presidency could be just what Democrats need in terms of personally confident center-left pol - and perhaps that's what people respond to rather than policy).

Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least its an ethos.

The logic of voting for people to govern who hate government escapes me.

Maybe. To me, it's the electoral equivalent of encouraging parents to feed their children sugary snack after sugary snack, in the hope that at some point they realize "OMG THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA WE SHOULD STOP!"

I do concede the point that it might not be a great strategy, but I don't think aiding so-called moderates like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who then turn around and sell you out, is a great strategy either.

Opinion: Undocumented fed up with partisan politics - CNN.com

Brings up a number of Democrats that don't want immigration solved so that they can continue to beat up the Republicans over it.

Again, it's not just one side playing these obstructionist political games - neither side really cares about solving any of these issues, both just want to maintain power so they can continue to get rich off our tax dollars and kickbacks.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg thing I guess. You say this, but you admit you WANT those types of Republicans in power because it will be better for your party. I don't want those types of Republicans in power because it sucks for my state, for real people.

And we "can't" have that situation, in part, because of your preferred strategy here.

Edit: Which is a strategy, for which you said you "concede the point that it might not be a great strategy". So it's a strategy that's probably won't be effective, AND it puts more tea partiers in power.

One impacts the other. McCain doesn't back away from deals if there is no Tea Party loudly calling for his head.

Srsly?

And no, I'm not trying be ironic or funny or whatever there, is it really that hard to understand?

If you want less government involvement then doesn't voting for the candidate(s) that aren't fans of government kind of make sense?

Aren't you selling them out by emboldening the tea partiers and far right, and preferring a strategy to defeat and oust "so-called moderates" in favor of the tea party?

I'm just truly & genuinely bewildered that anyone gives a big enough fuck what these common criminals think about pretty much anything to do a commentary about it.

THAT is as good an illustration of how truly insane society here has become as I've seen in a fair while.

Oh, I ask them, and I vote against every tea partier I can, and support all of their opponents, whether they're Republicans in primaries or Democrats in general elections. I'm doing my part. It's just an uphill climb when you're competing with this tea party/liberal alliance who appear to be on the same page trying to move the Republican party further to the right and thus minimize (and maybe just destroy the relevance of) moderate conservatives.

Let me ask a rhetorical, radical question.

How different would the federal government, as a whole, look if no politician was allowed to associate with any political affiliation and instead had to make personal decisions on every issue.

I'm really lost on what advantage affiliation with a "party" gives anyone here.

It allows for easy grouping and fundraising opportunities.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more (any?) independents having success in a social media world. You don't necessarily need parties the same way to reach people, the world is a lot smaller. I wouldn't ever expect to be the norm, but you'd think someone would figure out how to tap into that.

The only problem is that the national parties are also big time on social media and they amount of social media they have (with willing party members retweeting or whatnot) would drown it out.

Independents don't move the meter. Think of all the people that you know who inhale political commentary shows - then think of the number of independents in that group. There are some, no doubt, but for a lot of libertarian/independents - it's just as hard to watch Rachel Maddow as it is to watch Sean Hannity. Neither really hold much appeal. So, the fact that there are such few options for them means that they just find their way through the day without a ton of political show watching. Plus, I think the extreme partisans on both sides enjoy seeing their view parroted back as a way to give them reassurance they are right.

Not much coming from the Obama camp.

Fresh off Mosul victory, militants in Iraq wrest control of Tikrit - CNN.com

I don't know if anyone else saw the video of the Vegas shooters but the wife tried to finish off the husband from like 4 feet away and missed 2-3 times. Maybe humorous is not appropriate but hopefully they enjoy burning in hell together.

Yeah, because a girl brought here as a child is a common criminal.

Shitbag.

Engaging you in a civil fashion is really tough sometimes.

That's exactly what these scum all, it's all they will ever be unless they exit a country they have exactly ZERO right to be in. And those who fail to understand that are a bigger disgrace than they are.

If rational people ever regain control of the government (yeah, like that's ever going to happen) I'd hope there's enough sense to dispose of the latter at the same time we dispose of the former.

You act like you're surprised - this is coming from a guy who proudly said he'd shoot his own son. I'd be surprised if his answer was any different.

It's not, though. First with Clinton, and then with Obama, when a Democratic president has gotten into power in the Gingrich & Post-Gingrich era, the GOP as a whole has gone into obstructionist, lock-down mode.

We have been over this time and time again in this thread and others over the past 10 years.

The GOP decides to play hardball through expensive special investigations that cost a fortune and find nothing, impeachment proceedings that drag on for ages - stalling the work of government, flat out halting all attempts to appoint judges and official positions - slowing down two other branches immensely, playing chicken multiple times with the economy and credit rating of the United States, etc....

The Democrats decide to play hardball by, in some cases helping TP folks win elections, but mostly by hoping some "moderate" Republicans get ousted by Tea Partiers.

Which one, do you think, is more damaging than the other?

I mean, Mitch McConnell flat out stated his sole legislative goal in Obama's first term was to make Obama a one-term President. In that light what, exactly, is to be gained by helping the GOP stay relevant as a national party?


Explain the rhetoric of 2008, pre-Tea Party McCain, then. And his good pal Graham, while you'r at it.


As with McConnell, this isn't about "selling out" so much as it is "returning the favor".

And, again, aside from some isolated incidents, it's not as if Democrats (certainly not national ones) are doing anything actually active to support TP types in GOP primaries, other than maybe chuckling and concern trolling the GOP. There's absolutely no equivalence between hoping for a TP-induced GOP demise and everything the GOP has done to try and bring the country to a screeching halt over the past few years.

So a girl is "scum" when she's taken by her parents to another country at a young age and doesn't want to leave the only place she's ever known? Normal human beings don't think that way.

Jon, something inside of you is seriously broken. You might want to take care of that someday.

Native Americans agree with Jon.