Right was earned by victory in combat/conquest.

Which appears to be pretty much what our invaders are shooting for as well. It's the amount of collaborators that confounds me, we don't even seem to be getting the junk jewelry & liquor out of the deal.

You are ignoring all the obstructionism from the Democrats as well. It's been escalating since Reagan, and yes it's been taken to new heights recently, but if you think the Democrats are somehow innocents just trying to govern and make this a better place if it weren't for those big bad Republicans, then they've got you fooled, too.

I'm actually sort of with Jon, but I think we should be a bit more open other than dump everyone out. We suffer the consequences of our parents actions all the time, why should this be any different? At what age would it be ok to send somebody back. I totally understand that the kids are not at fault, but at the same time we are subsidizing it either way.

Here's an example, years ago our school district in Dekalb county was one of the better ones (it still is pretty decent). The elementary school was thought to be pretty good. Now we had a bunch of apartment complexes put up in the zone and flooded with tons of children so much so that the school is now 31% Hispanic. The ratings, test scores, every metric has gone down and this is in an area inundated with Emory and CDC employees. My daughter is ready to go there this year but we've kept her in Montessori for 1 more year. The complaint I hear from parents is that most of these children have no involvement from the parents, most flooded these apartment complexes to get into the good schools (I can't say I blame them), and many of these children start 1st grade with almost no verbal English skills.

So I'm actually on the fence about all this. I do not think the children are the scum of the earth and should be shot (like Jon), but I also recognize that many of these children could go on to great things. In fact, I think there are plenty of undocumented children who will contribute significantly more to society than many of Jon's redneck friends who jack off to Fox News daily. But at some point, we are simply encouraging this behavior by making excuses and continually allow people who do not belong in this country to utilize our resources. Problem is, as many have said, no politician really wants to confront this, as there is a lot to lose by being on the "wrong" side depending on your district. That being said, it's not the children's fault, but why should they reap the gain by their parent's illegal behavior?

I can't get too excited about the kids entering school without any English skills. A lot are probably American citizens (anchor babies would be the derogatory term). But my grandmother was a third generation American that when she first went to school she only spoke German. There were still German newspapers in our town at that time too.

When I go to neighborhood functions with a heavy Latino presence, any kid that has gone through 4K and spent a few years in the school system is speaking English with friends and Spanish with their parents. It doesn't take that long for the youngest kids to pick up English. One of my employees is frustrated that his 4 year old son sometimes gets confused because his mother speaks Spanish to him but he is trying to learn English. But for a four year old, I can have a conversation with him in English. Give it a few years and he'll be speaking English better than some of the native born Americans that never really grasped proper English.

Show me some examples and I'll show you some false equivalence.

Yeah, I mentioned something like this in another post. When I was in Kindergarten, the first wave of refugees from southeast Asia were arriving. Over half of our class were a mixture of Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian, and only one of them spoke any English. There were also a couple of kids from Mexico who only spoke limited English. By the end of the year, they all were speaking English, and one of them ended up being Salutatorian of our high school class.

So... NAFTA, welfare reform, State Children's Health Insurance Program, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act... all that was held up by the Congressional Republicans? I mean, Clinton even passed a big ass tax cut and the Republicans didn't even mention filibuster once (though none of them voted for it).

Don't even try to equate post Tea Party lockdown with the 90s Republicans. That's just being completely silly and rewriting history.


What about it? McCain swung rightwards (because of the Primaries), but in no way acted obstructionist and was still championing working with the other side.

Is this an onset of liberal derangement syndrome?

SCHIP is the only one of those I'd consider progressive legislation. That the rest were passed with Democratic help speaks to the hostage syndrome the Democrats have operated under since roughly 1992 (and certainly 1994).

DADT is a good example. Clinton came out of the gate in 1992 looking to allow gays in the military. The blowback was so rough (and this and a few other fights in Clinton's first year are what created, for instance, conservative talk radio's influence) that he spent considerable political capital settling on DADT.


I was drawing the historical development for context. If you can't see the parallels between Gingrich's budget fight and the GOP's subsequent marginalization of the White House through endless spurious investigations and what's happened post-2008, I can't help you.


When you can't win an argument, go ahead and resort to insults.

AHHH, I see. So basically since Clinton was far more center-right than you wanted, it was because he was "held hostage". It's like you never heard him when he said he was a "New Democrat" (similar to Blair's rebranding as "New Labor").

DADT was a compromise. Sometimes that has to be done in politics. It makes as much sense as saying Reagan's 1986 tax increases was because the Democrats were holding him hostage.


If you can't see the parallels between Democrat's lockdown fight against Justice Bork's nomination and partisan gridlock in 2014... oh wait... that makes no sense whatsoever.


Au contraire, I've already run circles around you. You just apparently live in a different world than the rest of us do and I was pointing it out.

I don't know why I get this lecture when we've already established that only one of us actually WANTS the Republican party to be unreasonable, and that person isn't me.

But like you said, this is where everything ends up year after year. Team v. team politics. Even when you don't support the tactics, you still get a lecture about the tactics and about how superior the Democratic party is. I agree with Democrats on like 85% of things. But there's just no room in national politics for moderates who lean right on some things, and that mindset trickles down to message boards as well, where people just have no concept of the idea that someone can disagree with you on a couple of things and not be Rush Limbaugh. But that's the strategy, to characterize anyone who disagrees on anything as part of this unreasonable right. It's incredibly hypocritical to constantly complain about the unreasonableness of Republicans when you, just like the tea party, actively want the Republican party to move further to the right, and actively want to marginalize moderates and people who want reasonable discourse in Washington.

And every time I try to express anything like this, the response is always the same - the Republican party is obstructionist and the Democratic party is great and reasonable, and that's the answer to everything. Which has nothing to do with me or any point I'm making. I'm not supporting any obstructionism or unreasonableness. I, of the two of us, is the only one who DOES NOT want the tea party to have influence. I, of the two of, is the only one who wants the Republican party to be closer to the center. And yet you're the one who feels he can lecture others about how reasonable your team is. Which is kind of mind-boggling.

So much more can be accomplished at all levels of government if you're more focused on solutions instead of just annihilating the other team. I can't comprehend how you think you're so far above that when you post what you post in here. Everything is party v. party, to the extreme of rooting for worse candidates to have influence and power because it's better for your team.

Maybe this just really hits home for me because I can see how clearly that team-first attitude would specifically impact things in my own personal life and career in my own state government. And thank god here, the liberals didn't have the strategy to expel the moderates and the reasonable voices. They had the opposite strategy, to actually register as Republicans (and renounce their registration immediately after voting) in a closed primary to actually help keep that from happening, because they saw this as more than just a game. I don't know if that swung the elections or not, but we need more of that type of mindset. I'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican who supports unreasonable positions and tactics. I just don't think anyone's qualifications and views are necessarily tied to the tactics any party might employ. If those in power of a party utilize a tactic I don't like, I don't associate everyone in the party as being tied to that, I'll vote against those who actually support that tactic.

It has been an upward trend for a while now. Sure, I'll pull a Reagan example, you'll show false equivalence because the current is much worse. I'll pull a Bush I or II example, and you'll show false equivalence because the current is much worse. But you won't look at how the Bush II example shows a trend vs Reagan.

Heck, the last time I can recall a President trying to "govern" and make a compromise for the good of the country was Bush I's tax hike compared to his "Read My Lips", and he was crucified for that by the press and others. Compromise has been going downhill at a faster and faster clip since then.

Until you are willing to look honestly at the kind of garbage Pelosi and company have pulled, there's not a whole lot of discussion that is possible.

Part of that reminds me of something from Dan Carlin's WWI podcast, he was talking about the deep ethnic hatred between certain groups that existed for centuries, and how the war gave a lot of them a chance to act it out. They'd justify their acts by saying how the other side did things to them that were worse. And usually, they were right. And there's just no way to untie those knots of hate. Any attack on another side can be reasonably justified by something they did to you, or looking at it from the view that they're worse. That's part of why I find party politics so frustrating. People get tied to their parties as intensely as people are tied to their ethnic identity, and have similar resentment of those outside the tribe, or even those who try to find common ground between the tribes. (just not accompanied by quite the same level of death and destruction, in the U.S. at least). I don't know what it takes to stop that downhill momentum you described when it really gets going like this. Probably great leadership, but that's not a desired trait when the focus is winning and beating the other team.

Good thing I don't have time for lunch today, given how full I'm feeling after all the words you guys have been putting in my mouth.

Since I don't think I've said it in a little while, I'll repeat the same thing I've said here many times over the years: it isn't about "party", it's about values & priorities, about core beliefs.

Parties are ultimately nothing more than convenient shorthand.

I believe that's the case for you, but I don't think its the focus for most. I don't agree with a lot of your views but I do see that you hold those values above any party.

But otherwise - I think if it was just about values I wouldn't be constantly challenged to defend Republican tactics I've never agreed with.

In utpian societies I agree with you, however the more politicians I am around the more and more I believe the tail wags the dog.

It is what I alluded to earlier. In our current system, you are unelectable without party affiliation with very, very few exceptions. As such the party backing is crucialto your very survival in your current role. For this reason alone people are influenced (at best) and down right manipulated (at worst) to vote a certain way based on their allegiances.

I'll express it this way, you cant tell me that there wasn't a single Democrat that thought the AHCA Bill was a bad idea, needed a re-write or at least was over burdensome. Yet they couldnt vote against it as in doing so they would be ostracized by their very finacial campaign lifeline.

That sentiment holds true on the other side as well.

Everyone has to jump in neat buckets, and the buckets all align perfectly with thier partisan stance.

Well, that's not what I said at all, but if you absolutely must misrepresent what I'm saying, I guess I can't stop you.


Reagan's spending & taxes was a clear compromise worked out between him and Tip O'Neill in which both sides got something. It's very different from what happened with DADT.


Yes, you are making no sense whatsoever.


You're certainly running circles around the strawman of me you have so meticulously created. Well done.

O RLY?


Do you even read what I write?

To me that's the craziest thing in your argument. It is shocking to me that you do not see that how the rich and powerful are benefiting from this issue.

From cheap labor all the way to fast and easy campaign fundraisers. Teacher, police, prison guards and nurse Unions are benefiting for the services they provide. Media personalities get rich off this topic. Military contractors get rich off the ever increasing need to "beef up" the border. The payday loan industry exist because of illegals.And on and on

You maybe right in their desire for conquest, but clearly there are a lot of pale faces getting rich in the meantime.

Just because it fits your narrative, doesn't make it so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell



You'll note that the Democrat Sam Nunn was leading the charge against an open service of gays in the military, FWIW.

---


When you feel that everyone else you are debating with has created a strawman of you, maybe the one who has failed in this debate is you?

So, let me see if I understand.

In your eyes I am the guy who:

• Views everyone who disagrees with me, on anything, as Rush Limbaugh
• Doesn't want moderates (of any party, I assume?) in government
• Believes the Democratic party is superior to all other parties in every way

Is that about it? Because I'll go out on a limb here and content that such a characterization isn't really all that well supported by my posting history. But hey, it's a lot easier to argue against a construct than an actual person, AMIRITE?


In the CONTEXT OF OUR CURRENT 2-PARTY SYSTEM, the Democratic party is currently much more reasonable than the Republican party. Such was the extent of my contention.

Blow shit out of proportion much? Mother of god.


Well, I agree. Tell me, which party has been increasingly focused on annihilating the other team since 1994, to the point where it became a #1 legislative priority?

And in such a situation your recommendation to the non-annihilation party is to, what, try and compromise more? Um, yay?

So, basically, you're not going to use examples.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

This happens to you because you have always been more vociferous in your complaints about the Democratic party than the Republican party. Specifically, stupidity expressed by the Democratic party is part of the whole of the Democratic party, whereas stupidity expressed by Republicans is only of that particular Republican.

But those don't-buck-the-line votes -- portrayed here as being don't-buck-the-party -- can also easily be interpreted as "don't go against the wishes of those who elected you".

and/or those that fund your campaign.

This is a great point, so I'll build off of it.

What we're really arguing about here is who started the political nihilism (i.e. "destroy the other side above all else"). Having been politically active throughout the time period where this approach to politics became widespread (say the last 25 years), it will surprise no one that I have a very clear idea as to who started it.

And "who started it" is important. The current GOP was built on political nihilism (starting with Gingrich, continuing through Rove) and as such this is reflected in its core beliefs and platforms today. Sure, Democrats have engaged in political nihilism as well, but can a case really be made that it's been as widespread and systemic as the GOP? I contend the answer is no, and am still looking for someone to attempt to show otherwise.

So, is the Democratic Party better? In the sense that it actually seeks to govern, yes. On individual issues it's both yes and no, because that depends on one's own view of the issues.

Yes, I read that too. I was also in Washington at the time.

When you read the description, does it really sound like a compromise to you, or preserving the status quo while adding some window dressing? After all, a) Clinton himself later admitted DADT was a "mistake", b) it was eventually repealed anyway and c) it got passed by getting tacked onto a Defense Reauthorization Bill.


No, because it's a characteristic of FOFC to pigeonhole people based on characterizations because so many of you are such lazy debaters. :p

Removed, I find the other post a much more clear way to respond.

This is a key point of disagreement - I will never forget the class warfare Clinton used to get elected in the first place, which led to Gingrich. I'm sure we can take it back further.

To take this in a slightly different direction perhaps ... what else do you do when "the other side" presents the greatest threat to your goals, to your desires, to the principles you hold most dear? I keep coming back to those aforementioned "core values".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really don't get the negativity associated with (to borrow your phrase) political nihilism. For many it's a fairly honest & sincere approach, and while I may regard many of my polar socio-political opposites in an area between disdain & utter contempt, I at least respect their willingness to go to the wall for (whatever they have that passes for) their principles.

In no way do I see compromise as an endearing character trait, instead I'm reminded of Revelation 3:15-16 "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth".

*I'm not suggesting that my objection to lukewarm politics is spiritual/religious, simply utilizing a literary reference here that sums up my feelings on the topic as well as anything I can think of*

Is class warfare political nihilism, though?

Jon - I guess my point is that there's a line where political nihilism poses a danger to the whole system (or, to put it plainly, the country, it's economy, and it's ability to function), and that's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Whereas merely destroying another party's ability to function meaningfully in the legislative process isn't as big of a problem (and indeed a number of parliamentary systems are based on the idea that whomever wins the election gets to do what they want).

You may, however, disagree with the concept of a line not to be crossed.

But if one of your core values is to not let the other side gain anything, in a poly-party system, the end result is nihilism though, isn't it? If you refuse to budge at all, and would rather gain nothing than let an opponent get something, then it is just a matter of semantics.

When you paint the other side as evil, I'm pretty sure it fits the bill of what we're discussing here. Just trying to follow the trend. Dems were getting desperate to get the Republicans out of the White House, and had backed Bush I into a corner leading to the "Read My Lips" tax hike.

Of course, maybe we're all freaked out for nothing, given how vitriolic, obstructionist, and dirty-tricks-filled American politics has been since it was founded...

Oh sure Greg, just as I got started on a point-by-point refutation of your examples. Curse you! :p

If you're not open to ideas outside your own narrow set of closely-held beliefs then yes, probably.

But that's not my particular goal. My particular goal would be that the TP pushing the GOP into electoral irrelevance would either a) force rank-and-file Republicans to actually actively work to expel the TP from their party, returning the GOP to some state of normality or b) the reasonable people from the GOP and part of the Democrat's "big tent" might combine to form a replacement party (for which there is historical precedent, of course, even thought this is probably a lot less likely than (a) ).

Not the literal concept of such a thing perhaps, but definitely not in any of situations we've faced to date.

At this point, I'd rather see the nation cease to exist entirely than to continue down quite a few of the roads that government (and its various tentacles) have taken us down of late. If destroying the county/its economy/ability to function prevents those steps then I prefer that to the alternative.

But that's not what the Tea Party are doing (and, by extension, a GOP they've cowed into serving them - albeit to a certain extent). To the TP, the whole system is evil, thus the support for letting the country default, go bankrupt, and slide into Depression.

It's the difference between calling Wall Street CEOs evil and calling the stock market evil.


Since people seem to have a penchant for misreading me, I'd just like to confirm that I'm not freaked out. On the topic of the TP causing the GOP problems, I'm actually kind of giddy. On the topic of the GOP doing obstructionist and nihilist things, I'm mainly annoyed, though the saving grace there for me is to see the roots of their demise in those particular actions. Or at least one can hope. :D

Just up to my old dirty tricks :devil:

The real problem here is I just don't have the time for proper research. I just know I remember railing at Democrat tactics under Reagan, remember how Bush I got treated when he finally had to bow down and compromise on taxes, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Clinton campaign (when I really started to hate the Democratic Party), the Gingrich Congress (I liked some of what they wanted to do, but was scared of some others), the treatment of Bush II, the hypocrisy of Obama, the radicalism of the Tea Party.

I've watched similar things at my state level - the cronyism of the Democrats who had run it for near a century, the tricks to get a Lottery passed by the Democrats, our Optometrist speaker passing a bill to get all schoolkids eye exams, when they were already a part of typical annual physicals already required for school (he's finally in jail), and then the Republicans coming in and getting the budget under control but also letting in Fracking, continuing to refuse to address teacher salaries.

I hate both parties. I'm not here to defend the Republicans, but I'm not about to let the Democrats off the hook, either. I just don't see any real evidence that either one of them wants to fix problems, and frankly until I do I'd rather have gridlock and obstructionism in Congress. In a very twisted way I'm actually kind of happy with it - we'll do much better off helping each other than we will letting these guys continue to find new ways to rip us all off to pad their pockets and their supporters' pockets.

We really need a Centrist party of some sort. Get rid of the radicals on BOTH sides.

I hear you. I mean, you all missed me doing this kind of stuff when I took the 2-year break due to having a busy job & real life, right? :D


This is one place where we can find common ground. I'd agree that the system as a whole is, if not fully broken, then operating in a very broken manner. It's clear that any of the "big" problems facing the country won't get addressed until they are beyond acute (see: debt ceiling) and even then, the solutions won't be systemic, but band-aids (see: debt ceiling, again).

More centrists would be great. Also great would be marginalizing the extremists.

You claim to want two reasonable parties, but then you went on and on about Republicans are just unreasonable, even pre-tea party, and how even the so-called moderate ones stab you in the back or whatever, so that solution is simply impossible. So the "second best" thing is for the Republican party to just be moved further to right and minimized. I took that to mean that you think that conservatives are just inherently unreasonable. That your claimed "first choice" is impossible. Which means it isn't even really a choice to you, you don't think it something that exists, you don't think people who disagree with you can ever be reasonable. Which is the very mindset, of course, that minimizes the moderates and reasonable views. You don't want those views out there, they get in the way of your game. Can you see how that would be frustrating to an actual moderate conservative who is frustrated with the Republican party? You're saying I basically don't exist, and so the only sensible thing to do is root for tea partiers so I can exist even less. All while claiming to also WANT the other side to be more reasonable. It just doesn't add up.

Oh please, less drama.

I'm not saying reasonable, moderate Republicans don't exist.

I'm saying a reasonable, moderate GOP doesn't exist.

And on the other hand, my biggest gripe with the GOP is that it is far too moderate, far too accommodating, far too malleable.

If that paints me as an extreme conservative then, well, the reverse would tend to paint you as, umm, let's just call it something less than centrist ;)

Don't ever change, Jon. :D

Wouldn't moving the Republican party to the center, as opposed to further to the right, make a moderate GOP more possible? And give reasonable, moderate Republicans more influence?

Sure. How do you intend to do that? Especially when the TP movement, and the many, many Super-PACs are pulling it in exactly the opposite direction?

I don't know - voting that way, being reasonable, the changing times, tea partiers losing lots of elections (instead of your preference that they win elections). We're not permanently fixed in this moment in time. Again, you're expressing here that it's just impossible for reasonable Republicans to have influence, which is exactly the mindset that keeps them from having more influence. Which is great for Democrats as a team, but not so great for the values you claim to have.

You want the Republican party to move to the right because it's better for your team. That's how you put party loyalty ahead of your values.

It is my opinion that if there were a non-partisan way of determining Congressional districts, that a lot of the extremism in the election process would go away. I think the recent Virginia primary shows what can happen when you have a district drawn so solidly for a particular party. The opposing party will either not bother to put up a challenge, or choose to try and disrupt the majority party's process. And even though the majority party might have drawn themselves a safe district, all it takes is voter apathy coupled with a small, energized group to derail your plans.

There are enough skilled GIS people out there that an algorithm to divide up districts based solely on geographic area and population density shouldn't be an impossible task to tackle. Remove any info on salaries, party identity, race, age, etc from the formulas. There is going to be some kind of bias inherent in any way of choosing, but trying to cut it down to the bare number of inputs mitigates that. Another safeguard might be allowing X number of redistricting proposals to be submitted, with one of them chosen at random.

Absolutely. But this lays bare one of the problems: politicians as a group probably aren't going to sign on to such a redistricting process when it's likely to rob them of an important tool to keep power.

No such thing exists.

EVERYONE has a bias of some sort, even if it's just a bias toward lukewarm, there's still a bias.

Some states, most notably California, have implemented redistricting reforms. CA now uses a citizen's panel to draw the districts.

If the only inputs were population density and area, that removes a lot of chances to inject bias.

I guess what I was getting at that, of itself, that IS a bias.

It reduces the opportunity for like-minded citizens to be adequately represented, watering down the likelihood of that to happen in favor of neutered lightweight representation attempting to be all things to all people.

I'm pretty sure we've watered enough things down to the LCD enough times in this country to know that nothing worthwhile comes from such an approach, or at least that such that the negatives of such far far outweigh any benefits.

This is the most ringing endorsement of my plan that I could have hoped for. :D

I'd argue that it would cause the like-minded people to become more engaged in the process, as they would have to put some effort into spreading their viewpoint, instead of just coasting. Actual debate might occur, instead of safe districts fighting over who is the most conservative or most progressive.

I can tell you as one of those GIS people who have drawn districts, doing it the way you want really won't change anything. People who think alike tend to live in groups. In order to get districts with a that are pretty evenly split politically, you have to do a hell of a lot of gerrymandering. Drawing districts that are half inner city, half outer suburb, that type of thing.

I'm not looking for districts that are evenly split politically. As you mentioned, people do tend to live in like-minded groups. What I'd be looking for would be ways to avoid the intentionally designed districts with tortuous borders that try to either put as many like-minded people as possible into one district, or divide up groups of like-minded people in order to intentionally diminish their impact.

Take for example, Austin. It is probably the most extreme example of a large population being gerrymandered. There are 6 districts that cover the city limits of Austin, yet none of them contain a population of more than 27% Austin residents. The districts stretch from parts of Austin up to Fort Worth, over to Houston, down all the way to the Mexican border.

I think maybe there's a difference too in a macro/micro way of looking at it.

Let's take one state attorney general Republican primary that I've touched upon, I think maybe it will look different to you when its one, practical, meaningful election, instead of just this broad view of the national trends of the parties.

Candidate A: The tea-party choice who has raised more money than the incumbent because he's locked down the PACs and the business support. He says he has 3 main goals in office: (1) repeal Obamacare, (2), transfer federal-owned lands in the state to state ownership, and (3) have state attorneys serve as "watchdogs" in state agencies to ensure that those agencies are "working for the people" (i.e., pursuing conservative policy values).

Candidate B: The incumbent, who believes none of those 3 goals of candidate A have anything to do with an Attorney General is actually supposed to do. He's lost the big money and some republican endorsements for a couple of reasons - like the fact that he sued Republican members of the state land board who suppressed the lease costs of state-owned lakefront property so that connected rich people get it as a discount, when the proceeds of those lots are constitutionally mandated to go towards education; and he's also made a lot of Republican enemies in the legislature by giving them correct legal advice they don't want to hear (i.e., that a lot of their wacky proposed laws, including heavy-handed restrictions on abortion, are unconstitutional). He has a lot of policy opinions you would disagree with, but he sees his job not as a vehicle to influence conservative legislation, but simply to represent and advise the state agencies and the legislature, as an attorney. He's endorsed by all of the newspapers and media outlets between the left and moderate right. And the Democratic opponent effectively dropped out as soon as Candidate B won the primary, because he said his differences with Candidate B were "nominal." (Candidate A refuses to endorse Candidate B in the general election, because this Democrat basically said he liked Candidate B, and to be liked by a Democrat is like treason or something, in his view. I'm not even joking.)

There's elections going on like this all over the country. Candidate B described this race as a "battle for the soul of the Republican party" in the state and I agreed with him and was really glad he won. I don't know if maybe this single example is so extreme that it doesn't fit what you've said in this thread, but from what I understand, you'd want Candidate A to win here because the GOP party as a whole is unreasonable, and therefore the "second best" option is to see the party move to the right with guys like Candidate A in important positions, push out Candidate B, and thus make the party as a whole more heavy with tea-party influence, which is of course good for Democrats. You said things about how you want the "regular" republicans to grow a spine or whatever and kick the tea-party to the curb, and here, that happened, against the odds when it comes to money....but you would have gone in the other direction, right?

I think it sucks that any liberal would rather see Candidate A than Candidate B in office. I think that puts party over values. It really illustrates the uphill battle here, and really illustrates how the tea party can gain traction. It was nice to see the liberals and moderates in the state really draw the line in the sand and fight the threat of Candidate A. The liberal weekly artsy city newspaper had tutorials on how to register as a republican for the primary and then renounce that affiliation right afterwards.

In this example, I'd be OK with how that went down, including the Democrat dropping out for those reasons. However, I'd be happier if a qualified Democrat ran, Candidate A won the primary, and then the Democrat won the election. Because, as you note, Candidate B still holds a number of beliefs contrary to me.

But having said that, and to your macro/micro point, I've said a number of times that I'm mostly looking at this as a national-level GOP issue. Local politics are, well, more local, and there's more to it, IMO.

For instance, take Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), a technically "moderate" Republican Senator. I'd be happy to see her Tea Partied if it meant a Democrat could get that seat because a) it causes the GOP to lose a seat in the Senate, which helps the cause of progressive legislation and b) she still votes quite often in ways with which I don't agree.

I'm not sure how I feel about Christie yet but its nice to see him easy going and making fun of himself.

Watch Jimmy Fallon, Chris Christie Get Down In 'Evolution Of Dad Dancing'

LOL. No. Just no.

The UNION is absolutely benefiting. Just not the teachers.

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How does a union benefit? I'm thinking manufacturing not teaching, but there have been a lot of cases where unions will be the ones responsible for large busts of plants employing illegal workers. I guess you could say that strengthens their cause but not really as it's not as if they gain much from it.

SI

Is it more subtle than more kids -> more jobs?

Putting aside the powerhouse unions like Chicago, most teacher unions have zero power over the school districts. They'll negotiate some minor detail when the contract comes up declare victory, and say how awesome they are. They do practically nothing to benefit a rank and file teacher, all while collecting an inordinately large amount of dues. For doing jack shit.

It's also extremely rare for a teacher to ever lodge a complaint. Even if you manage to persuade the union reps to look into anything (harder than you'd think), once you get labeled by the district as a troublemaker (and it WILL get out), good luck working again.

I'm married to a teacher, I'm related to 2 more, I'm friends with several others. None of them work in the same district, they all happen to be in different unions, ALL of them repeat this general theme - the union sits on their ass and collects their cut. They're a political entity who exist to serve themselves far more than those they represent.

So how exactly are they benefiting from illegal immigration? That was the what the original quote was talking about:


Or was this just a chance to take a swing at teachers unions with relation to context?

SI

A point of which I was not aware. I didn't go back far enough to find WTF the comment came from (it had dropped off the current page) and I took it to imply unions in general are a benefit to teachers. Which I take issue with.

But mea culpa regardless. Missed the original context.

Except that's not what happens that I'm aware of. Classroom sizes usually just get bigger and/or they'll overload the present teachers with more sections, as overload costs are cheaper than hiring more instructors.

Of course, Clark County has such a terrible school district and completely incompetent administration that isn't able to deal with a substantial transient student population with a significant first generation American percentage, that there's always teaching openings in the schools.

I've been tough on Obama for his near-constant foreign policy blunders, but this is not one of them.

Bush started a war without any sense of an end-game. This destabilized the Iran/Iraq conflict. At some point, American troops could no longer provide temporary stabilization. This was inevitable the moment Bush took that reckless and stupid action.

Hopefully, though, Obama has learned enough from his Egypt blunders to understand that he can't make friends with the new Iraqi government.

The notion that this would ever be an area capable of self-governing (without being a hostile actor at least) was, indeed, stupid.

Alot of moving parts. Would the US even do air support now that Iranian troops are supporting Iraq?

I would assume the Iranian troops will turn the tide and Iraq will become more embedded with Iran in the future.

Iraq girds to defend Baghdad, with help from Iran - The Wall Street Journal - MarketWatch

Yes, it is indeed unfortunate that we ever considered these sorts of people capable of such. They are proving how ingrained in subordination they truly are every day that they let democracy slip away. I applaud Bush's belief that they were good enough to do this, but it is what it is.

Now back to more important things. Like lowering my damn gas prices!

Can't say I disagree with anything the president just said on the Iraq situation.

It'll be interesting to see how the Iranian elite units fare in combat, if they do indeed end up seeing action. Bet the satellites are working overtime watching those troops.

There are about 1.5 million undocumented students.
Therefore 1000's of more teachers are hired to address this population.
Thus, unions receive 1000's of more dues, gaming more money and political clout.

Given the history between the two countries it's pretty amazing to see Iran/Iraq working together militarily. It wasn't really all that long ago that Saddam was deploying chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

Yeah some air strikes will solve this.

It's all about the Sunni/Shia split. Saddam was a Sunni fighting the Shia Iranians. Iran backed Shia Maliki against Sunni ISIS. Sunni ISIS is also fighting Shia Syrians. Sunni Saudi Arabia is backing ISIS in a proxy war against Shia Iran.

And most importantly, there's very little we can do about any of it.

Oh I know about the religious split, it's just still...actually seeing the two armies cooperating still kinda makes you do a double-take.

Yeah. Artificial national borders aren't as important as religious dogma.

I smell a vote for annexation!

I wanted to counter this beaming review of Obama. How about President Obama just shut up about Iraq already and just keep looking the other way? He quit Iraq so it would be their fight, not ours. Now let them fight.

So you don't disagree with what he said, just that he said something.

O to the I to the L

Meh, at this point, let them fight, let one side win, let that side be happy and then we deal with them. If they won't deal fairly, then we go back to fighting. I'm done with this "theory" that it's all about oil. Let's instead just react to crazy oil prices. Just let them fight.

I thought I made that clear in my follow up that I disagreed.

That's strange, because that is pretty much what he said. Any US intervention wouldn't help long-term, they need to figure it out themselves how they want things to be.

President Obama says a lot of things.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/barac...-et-1402674796

I think he just wishes it was a (R) that said it. Or you know...

The guys that own the politicians won't let that happen. We care a little because of Israel, but mostly it's about oil. There's just too much money tied at risk to just react to crazy oil prices.

Here's the full transcript:

Transcript: President Obama’s remarks on the crisis in Iraq - The Washington Post

I am not trying to predict what we WILL do, but what we SHOULD do. You might very well be right.

Whew. So he'll be consulting closely with Congress on what not to do. Seems like a good use of his time! :)

To be fair, Congress have proven themselves as being downright experts on not doing anything.

You complain when he consults Congress, you complain when he doesn't. What exactly is your preferred outcome in that regard anyways???

Not sure where you get the idea that the focus was congress. Had you read the article, you would have known that was mentioned to show he wanted to talk his options over with them.

Good point.

Umm it's right in your comment. :confused: