American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

The big issue has stayed the same, but their have been variations re certain votes. They just voted this week for 2 seats and the nominees got filibustered. 3 months ago the Republicans backed down from their filibuster and allowed some votes for other positions to go forward

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115606/obamacare-fiasco-hurts-democrats-undercuts-faith-government

and this is coming from john judis

could someone explain to me how Scalia and vote margins are related since he was confirmed 98-0?

I guess Republican Grassly was somehow just suggesting that the type of Supreme Court justice Dems currently are most afraid of would more easily be appointed and not filibustered. Grassley was of course not referring to actual judicial nomination history where other than Bork and maybe a few others, Dems usually roll over for any nominee no matter how extreme they are, and do not filibuster

Lots more scalias? The fact that there is already one scalia proves that the Republicans can nominate as many as they like and they'd get voted in. Now, if the threat had been a boatload of Borks, I'd flinch.

Alito is a Scalia. Roberts is a Scalia. Thomas is a Thomas.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/11/15/house-passes-republican-keep-your-health-plan-act/

With 39 Democratic votes. 153 Dems votes No; and 8 did not vote.

so cool!

• *90 percent of the Republican leadership in both House and Senate deny climate change
• *17 out of 22 Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, or 77 percent, are climate deniers
• *22 out of 30 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, or 73 percent deny the reality of climate change
• *100 percent of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans have said climate change is not happening or that humans do not cause it

-

• *The 30 climate deniers in the Senate have taken $21,463,400 in dirty energy contributions while the 70 Senators who haven’t denied the science have only taken $12,637,284 in career contributions. On average, Senate deniers took $715,447 from dirty energy while other Senators took $180,532.
• *The 131 climate deniers in the House have taken $32,637,372 in dirty energy contributions while the 302 members who haven’t denied the science have only taken $21,657,259 in career contributions. On average, House deniers took $249,140 from dirty energy while other members took $71,712.
• *In total, climate deniers, or 161 members, have taken $54,100,772 in dirty energy contributions while other members, or 372, have taken $34,294,543 in career contributions. On average, deniers took $336,029 from dirty energy while other members and Senators took $92,190.

Washington Post editorial board that supports chained cpi cuts to Social Security, explains why they oppose Senator Harkin and representative Sanchez plan to instead raise the payroll tax cap for Social Security. I don't buy their argument:

With respect to Social Security specifically, the percentage of wage and salary earnings subject to the tax has shrunk in recent years, and there’s an argument for correcting that.

Yet even the rich have finite resources; government can only go to that well so many times. Why spend this gob of revenue on the elderly, who are already heavily protected by the federal government? The bill’s authors warn of a looming “retirement crisis” because of low savings rates and disappearing private-sector pensions. In fact, the poverty rate among the elderly is 9.1 percent, lower than the national rate of 15 percent — and much lower than the 21.8 percent rate among children.

This suggests that Social Security is doing a good job of fighting poverty as is and that those gains could be preserved in any attempt to trim the program. But if anyone has a claim on a greater share of federal resources, it would seem to be the young — and especially the poor young. Unchecked entitlement spending for the elderly crowds out spending on programs that might help them, as well as defense, research, infrastructure and law enforcement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/social-security-proposals-are-wrongheaded/2013/11/17/38ebb486-4bde-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

Yet even the rich have finite resources; government can only go to that well so many times

has someone posted this? one "conservative" IKEA-like "idea" branch store for every state?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/11/is-ikea-the-new-model-for-the-conservative-movement.html?currentPage=all

they sure are independent thinkers, our GOP pals

its funny when people try to come up with ideas

it's funny when a progressive think tanker and a new yorker writer automatically choose 'ikea' as their example of a 'franchise'

^^^
this

At least it wasn't Crate & Barrel?

it's funny when a conservative think tanker chooses 'ikea' as her example of a 'franchise' and the 'new yorker' reports it verbatim

At the annual meeting, which took place in Oklahoma City this past September 24th through 27th, Sharp explained what she called The IKEA Model. She said that it starts with what she described as a “catalogue” showing “what success would look like.” Instead of pictures of furniture arranged in rooms, she said, S.P.N.’s catalogue displays visions of state policy projects that align with the group’s agenda. That agenda includes opposing President Obama’s health-care program and climate-change regulations, reducing union protections and minimum wages, cutting taxes and business regulations, tightening voting restrictions, and privatizing education. “The success we show is you guys,” she told the assembled state members. “Here’s how we win in your state.”

^^^

hey, if they want to design their think tanks after the ninth circle of hell, why not *wipes Malm dresser*

"For example, you're looking for a Zipcar to drive to IKEA, but it's parked in some bad neighborhood next to a White Castle, right? That's Obamacare."

it's funny that when taxes are at historic lows and a black man is president, a bunch of old white dudes will play founding fathers dress-up and demand action on the streets and embarrass their children, but when the republican party essentially privatizes the legislative branch by outsourcing policymaking and billwriting to organizations like ALEC and SPN, the pointy triangle hats gather dust in the closet, nah, everything's cool, we're ok with it

^^^
this

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/within-cheney-family-a-dispute-over-gay-marriage/?smid=tw-share

to be really real, fuck all the cheneys afaic. but it must be something terrible to have your own sister going on tv devaluing your very existence -- at least her own father, who remember literally does not even have a fully-functioning heart -- publicly supports her relationship (though it looks like it's not stopping him from endorsing liz, obv). one is sort of surprised cheney's old buddy rove didn't play winston wolff and make sure all this never happened, but then again maybe rove wasn't too fond of the idea of a primary challenge in the first place

wow i knew you guys were young but if you actually think we're just now privatizing legislating wow

letting industries write regulatory bills is a venerable tradition

ditto to fuck all the cheneys but that whole situation reads a bit staged to me, liz cheney's dropped huge in the polls the past few months and literally the only thing to point at as a possible cause has been a series of ads they've been running accusing her of being soft on gay marriage. she's been anti-gay marriage in her platform from day one but enough ppl either haven't known or haven't bought it, regardless of an awkward xmas this whole episode does serve to establish her bigot bonafides.

xpost
wow well duh but i wasn't aware that there was an organization before ALEC that was as wellfunded and influential and doing it across the country in a coordinated fashion. if there was i'd sincerely like to know because there are over 5 trillion topics to discuss on this terrible planet and sadly i'm not an expert on this one like balls wow. also what i said had nothing to do with whether it existed up until this point, but rather that it's annoying that tea party patriots don't get all up in arms about stuff like that when you'd think it would offend their love for the status quo of the late 18th century wow

o wow another thing you're clueless about keep em coming

o wow keep the attacks coming

privatizing legislating pretty close to late 18th century status quo btw.

xpost
liz cheney's a bigot? i mean o wow

wow can me make it a rule that every post on this thread has to be bookended with the word "wow" wow

whoah

WoW partisan ^ xp

o wow tell me more about the word wow cause like i totally dont know wow

waiting for qualmsey to tie ikea into one of his secondhand conspiracy theories. swedish meatballs did 9/11 wow.

ʍoʍ maybe we should take a page from Spanish syntax wow

¡o wow!

waiting for balls to dismiss another misread 'new yorker' article

oh wow
such politics
alec so smart
lies

condescension with subpar reading comprehension skills to boot o wow

WoW partisan ^ xp

wow fyi this got a hearty chuckle from me wow

wow

wow i misread some blogpost that blew yr mind who gives a fuck you sound like yr mom when you cry wow

http://i.imgur.com/eIYquGO.jpg

i'm not the one who got my facts wrong in my uncalled for dismissal o wow i'm so hurt o wow

balls - not giving a fuck since 2007

balls -- just stalking politics

lol 2007?

A search on user name balls, all boards, showing the oldest first, did pull up a single post from 2001:

balls wrote this on thread Pop-Eye Extra: OBEs for Atomic Kitten? on board I Love Music on Feb 12, 2001

No, you were right the first time, it IS about by distaste for those bands. They're rubbish.

But all the other posts shown prior to 2007 had usernames that only incorporated the word "balls", such as "monkey balls" or "MR BEEG BALLS".

The first post-2001 result for username "balls" was on thread Someone's O has go to GO: The NE@DAL 5-0 week 6 thred on board I Love NFL on Oct 12, 2007:

TENN
CHI
JAX
CLE
BAL
WASH
KC
PHIL
ARI
SD
NE
SEA
ATL

he had other user names and/or didnt give a fuck before posting to ilxor.com

balls, to set the record straight, what year would you consider was the year you first started not giving a fuck on ilx?