Nader probably saved millions of Americans from dying in car accidents with his stand against the auto manufacturers over safety standards in the 60s. Read more about the guy before you go off spouting nonsense.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fivethirtyeight has Republicans at almost 70% chance of taking the Senate.
- Thread starter Coins
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
Personally I use a spectrum that runs like this:
Communism/Fascism - Socialism - Progressivism - Conservatism - Liberalism - Libertarianism - Anarchism
But most modern politics completely ignores the right side of my spectrum so you don't get to label many popular people or parties with them. It really had a short lived period of ascendance.
Communism/Fascism - Socialism - Progressivism - Conservatism - Liberalism - Libertarianism - Anarchism
But most modern politics completely ignores the right side of my spectrum so you don't get to label many popular people or parties with them. It really had a short lived period of ascendance.
neurosisxeno
Member
That's because the right-most side of that is basically dedicated to the idea of getting rid of the government. It's illogical to run for a position on the platform of getting rid of that position.
benjipwns
Banned
It's not illogical, just unlikely. And only the far-right position is for eliminating government. The center-right position of liberalism was a dominant governing philosophy for quite some time in the Anglosphere before being supplanted by an ideology which then named itself liberalism.
I actually know somebody who ran for something like drain commissioner to get the position eliminated since it had no powers as they had been usurped by some other body.
I actually know somebody who ran for something like drain commissioner to get the position eliminated since it had no powers as they had been usurped by some other body.
makingmusic476
Member
I want this to all be true. I want this to happen.
But I've become pessimistic as fuck over the past six years. 2010, 2014, the GOP's ability to so strongly shape the narrative surrounding the ACA, etc.
I foresee a GOP Congress that passes bill after bill that Obama will be compelled to veto, ACA repeal, etc., followed by the GOP PR machine spinning it as the Democrats being unwilling to pass crucial bills just waiting for Obama to sign.
neurosisxeno
Member
Lame Duck Obama will turn into their nightmare. The GOP will try more tying repeal efforts to mandatory funding bills and Obama will veto them into oblivion and use every minute of airtime he has to point out their bullshit. With the ACA he should have just tried to get a majority of the reforms they wanted through to build towards universal\medicare for all. Having it al as some giant package was a nightmare for Democrats.
On top of that, the GOP won't have a filibuster-proof majority, let alone a veto-proof majority, so I doubt a majority of the crap they want to shove through will even make it to the other chamber\presidents desk. Democrats have a chance to pick off a lot of weak Republican Senators and House seats in 2016, on top of Republicans having no real viable candidate in the entire field.
benjipwns
Banned
Unless they get rid of it.
The same electorate that's looking at the nonsense they do right now, and voting them into power?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What does that have to do with his politics?
benjipwns
Banned
How about we downgrade "probably" to "maybe"?
And that he advocates for the elimination of all nuclear energy, which would far outweigh any benefits he might have played a hand in regarding auto-safety.
meanspartan
Member
I hope the Democrats goad them into destroying the fucking filibuster once and for all. I hate the modern GOP, but I hate the filibuster more. A goddamn archaic rule that used to only be used once a decade is now the biggest threat to the Republic.
benjipwns
Banned
Personally I'd go with the precedent of a President declaring he can kill an American citizen at any time he wishes without due process, but to each his own.
I'd have no problem with the filibuster if they got rid of the paper version of it and required the senator(s) to actually hold the floor while continuously speaking. The modern implementation - where a mere threat of filibuster is all it takes to stop legislation - is ridiculous.
neurosisxeno
Member
Every so often that plays out. I remember one of my Senators (Bernie Sanders) spoke for like 9 hours to prevent a vote on something.
Infinity Patriot
Member
(Today, 08:23 AM)
I like how your response added nothing, at all. Now your name would be a great response for that
It's more like this:
Your illustration is fantastic, no joke.
It's more like this:
Holy fucking shit. This is so spot on.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
And in fantasy land anything can happen.
Sure, benji.
The worst thing about this election cycle is that we're going to be stuck with Joni Ernst for 6 years.
In 2016 control will flip right back to the Dems, the republicans won't kill the filibuster. They're perfectly happy doing nothing.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
I just hope by some miracle NC gets Kay Hagan or anyone other than Thom Killus. Because if we don't, and everything stays the same here is what we are looking at.
My insurance going from $220 a month to $340. Which means I will be dropping health insurance.
Unemployment continuing to climb from the 25% it is now.
Requirements to vote becoming nearly impossible for many people.
People that need public housing will continue to grow. In Charlotte alone it's something like 50,000 people. Up over 200% since 2007.
There's more but I don't feel like posting it all.
My insurance going from $220 a month to $340. Which means I will be dropping health insurance.
Unemployment continuing to climb from the 25% it is now.
Requirements to vote becoming nearly impossible for many people.
People that need public housing will continue to grow. In Charlotte alone it's something like 50,000 people. Up over 200% since 2007.
There's more but I don't feel like posting it all.
benjipwns
Banned
They can change the rules back at the end of the Congress.
It's more like this:
Funny graph. Who are these crazy far right wing libs?
That must stand for libertarians, not liberals. Obviously liberals are not far right-wing. Libertarians have some extraordinarily right-wing beliefs particularly when it comes to economics, as well as some beliefs that may appear leftist on paper but in the real world would play out pretty right-wing.
exmachina64
Banned
Thanks for the correction.
metalslimer
Member
Welp, time to sit back and watch nothing happen besides whining about Obamacare for 2 years until the election.
That doesn't mean he hasn't done terrible things as well. Consider the effect of Nader votes in the 2000 election.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Damn, this puts things into perspective. Sometimes I forget how different it must be in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg
BuggyDClown
Member
Ugh. Its hard to even care anymore. I will continue to votr every year but fuck, it feels so worthless.
Why we dont have term limits, and federal mandates to guide districts to fix gerrymandering I will never understand.
The system is broken.
Why we dont have term limits, and federal mandates to guide districts to fix gerrymandering I will never understand.
The system is broken.
exmachina64
Banned
The surest way to institute Congressional mandates is an amendment to the Constitution and there's no political will to implement term limits on either side of the aisle.
Yup.
On Wednesday, the GOP will spike the ball and do an end zone dance as though they've just won the SuperBowl, when in reality (given this map, historical patterns, and actual consequences) their feat will be akin to beating the Raiders.
Omegasquash
Member
Depressing as fuck, but what's to be done? I think we're in for some more gridlock for the next few years. Obama will be touted as a president who didn't do anything, the GOP will take credit for the comeback we're seeing, and I guess that's that.
Bring on 2016, yay.
Bring on 2016, yay.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Honest question. What's going to be different about the next two years compared to the last two? This congress has been the most useless. Obama will veto anything truly terrible that they manage to pass and they won't be anywhere near a veto override majority.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Lol! I love how Obama is more racist against white people but for years when white president were obliviously racist against blacks and minorities, none of these so called "Americans" have ever stood up and talked about dividing country. Pathetic people I swear.
PhoenixDark
Banned
To be fair presidents always end up getting the credit for what the legislative body accomplished. See: Clinton.
I'd imagine a GOP senate would allow Obama to accomplish some corporatist agenda items, such as cutting corporate taxes and fast tracking TPP. They'll begin taking credit for the economy's improvement* but ultimately Obama will also reap the benefits. If he makes it to 2016 with a >50% approval rating that's a win. Meanwhile the GOP gets to "prove" they can govern.
*the economy is already improving, I'm not saying cutting corporate taxes will make things better. But it'll be spun that way.
Coriolanus
Banned
*provided their name sounds weird.
This post right here describes my biggest problem with voters. Voters seem so content on making sure their side wins that they do not vote for who they feel is qualified to run the country.
This isn't a game to pick the winner. An election gives you a voice on who feel is best qualified can the country. I do not feel that the democrats or republicans are best qualified to run the country.
Contrary to popular belief my vote does count. I don't care if who I voted for wins. I will vote for them because I feel they are the best qualified to run the country.
Communism and Fascism are near exact opposites.
Here's a definition on fascism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism also tends to be buddy-buddy with corporations. Hitler for instance destroyed unions to get the corporation in Germany to support him.
Also doesn't the Communist Manifesto call for a democracy without class in a society? I think people confuse the Soviet Union with communism's original aims. From my understanding Lenin originally wanted a gradual transfer to Communism and democracy. Stalin and his supporters took power and destroyed that plan pretty quickly.
Diatribe1974
Member
Don't like that Republicans are going to (most likely) take the Senate? Boo-freakin-hoo. Seriously. Whether or not it is your party being swept out of office is a clear indicator that whatever you were doing the previous 2-4+ years, isn't what the people found to their liking. Now, people are stupid and forgetful and in another 2-4+ years we'll see thus cycle happen again when the Republicans get swept out. Nothing new here at all.
metalslimer
Member
Or that little thing called gerrymandering.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
In other words, every single President since WW2 and their party has been doing something that wasn't to people's likings.
benjipwns
Banned
Hitler "destroyed" unions by making them into one single cartel that operated under the thumb of the state, same as the corporations who were similarly organized within their industries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front
There's nothing opposite about Communism in practice and Fascism in practice. Both subsume everything to the absolute state, one in the name of the class (dictatorship of the proletariat), the other in the name of the nation. (And in Nazism, the name of the race.) Fascism is in many ways, a more practical Communism, since it doesn't destroy institutions rather than seek to co-opt them. Communism historically swept through and offed all the people with the expertise and then realized the "chosen" couldn't just run a factory. The Fascists are smart enough to recognize you keep those who know how to do things around, but under your control. You don't start from scratch with a factory, you just tell it to make tanks or certain chemicals or whatever in exchange for the state eliminating competitors.
Fascism was a foe in the era as much as Social Democracy was, they were all enemies of the one "true" Left as espoused by Soviet thought. It was inter-wing warfare. The Popular Front was approved after it became clear that the Fascists were actually successful in the West their anti-liberal aims.
There's nothing opposite about Communism in practice and Fascism in practice. Both subsume everything to the absolute state, one in the name of the class (dictatorship of the proletariat), the other in the name of the nation. (And in Nazism, the name of the race.) Fascism is in many ways, a more practical Communism, since it doesn't destroy institutions rather than seek to co-opt them. Communism historically swept through and offed all the people with the expertise and then realized the "chosen" couldn't just run a factory. The Fascists are smart enough to recognize you keep those who know how to do things around, but under your control. You don't start from scratch with a factory, you just tell it to make tanks or certain chemicals or whatever in exchange for the state eliminating competitors.
Fascism was a foe in the era as much as Social Democracy was, they were all enemies of the one "true" Left as espoused by Soviet thought. It was inter-wing warfare. The Popular Front was approved after it became clear that the Fascists were actually successful in the West their anti-liberal aims.
Which doesn't mean anything for the Senate. Or 1994.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
While this is theoretically true, the fact of the matter is that there are many variables in play in the United States, such as gerrymandering, that pervert the political process. What "the people" want isn't clear in the least.
I also like how you base you post on saying that "the people" want this, and then turn around and say that "people are stupid and forgetful."
Tell me, do you consider yourself part of this group? Or are you one of those political pseudo-intellectuals that considers themselves above the common man as you repeat the same generic, baseless opinions one can find in any comment section?
benjipwns
Banned
How does something that's part of the political process pervert it?
Squirrel Killer
Member
Except we're talking about the Senate.
Eh, that's not necessarily true. Anybody with any sense could have told you this was coming literally years in advance.
The Senate seats that are up for election in this year's midterms are the same seats that were up for election in Obama's first presidential election year. That was a Democratic wave election where virtually every race that could have broken one way or another broke for the Democrats, thanks to Obama leading people to the polls. These included many normally red Senate seats that uncharacteristically flipped blue. These were always going to go right back to being red when they came back up for reelection in 2014 due to a return to a more "typical" election environment. There is no generational candidate leading the charge at the top of the ballot to lift up those Senate candidates, and the demographics of a midterm election favor Republicans to begin with. This is basically a return to the status quo for many of these seats, with the Democratic incumbent sitting in them now the actual outlier.
Simply put, for Republicans to fail to take back the Senate, something would have to be really really really wrong with them.
Will be hilarious if they don't take the senate or if it's 50/50 tomorrow night.
Even though every indicator says they will take it with a slight majority.
bishopcruz
Member
Those evil republicans redrawing state lines! Will the stop at NOTHING?
- Status