Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

They'd impeach Obama for having a (D) behind his name if they knew they could get away with it.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Me-OOOWW!

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-paul-launch-foreign-policy-war-words-165951288--election.html

Yeah, Rick Perry's new look has not gone over well with some:

Commissioner: Rick Perry ‘metrosexual’

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson gave the Lone Star State governor a fashion critique, saying without the cowboy boots, he resembles a “West Coast metrosexual.”

“Tell Rick that boots can be purchased with normal heels,” Patterson wrote of the Texas governor, as reported by the Austin American-Statesman on Tuesday. He was responding to a column by staff writer Ken Herman, urging the author to get cowboy boots. “I lament the fact that our governor could now pass for a West Coast metrosexual and has embarrassed us all with his sartorial change of direction.”

Perry attributed his decision to ditch the boots to ongoing back pain. Patterson called that a “feeble excuse.”

 

[thepotatoman]

People don't get more conservative as they get older. It's just that their views do. What was considered "progressive" 50 years ago is considered normal nowadays. What changes is that progressive views keep getting more progressive with each generation.

50 years ago, most people who supported the Civil Rights movement didn't support Gay Marriage. 50 years from now, most people who who support Gay Marriage, probably wont support Robot Marriage, or whatever big issue of that time period is.

Seriously, 50 years from now I think it's clearly going to be animal rights. Particularly with science making things easier and easier to live without animals on a nutrition, health, cost, and taste basis. And I'm pretty sure kids are going to realize that fact faster than the grownups who just have always done things that way and can't stand the idea of doing anything different.

I think a lot of people here at least know that the torturous factory farming goes too far and needs to be stopped, and that could easily gain a lot of focus after LGBT rights are considered sufficiently accomplished and the limelight opens up for other issues. After enough people finally stop turning a blind eye and stop the insanity there, there will start being a debate about why we should stop there, and young people won't accept "it's how it's always been done" for an answer.

There's certainly differences from civil right fights of the past, and obviously animals aren't going to become voting citizens or anything, but there are still a lot of changes to be made as to how we look at animal rights going forward.

 

[zero shift]

Holy fucking shit at the Israel/Palestine thread.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Spreak Englesh Illegalls

But in all seriousness this kind of stuff is worrying. The rhetoric and xenophobic actions towards CHILDREN is embarrassing as best and horrifying at worst

 

[zero shift]

How Birth Year Influences Political Views

It's a neat tool showing how white people change their views overtime to see if people really do turn republican as they age. There seems to not be a move right at a certain age, but a simple across the board move right during the reagan '80s.

Also interesting is people born in the small window between '49 and '54 stayed democrat for whatever reason. They'd be age 9-14 for the JFK assassination, and age 18-23 for when watergate first started coming out. I guess being even 1 year younger or older than that age group makes those events miss those key formative years.

The tool does not include non-white because non-whites have been pretty consistently democrat no matter the era or age. And you can't forget that non-whites are taking up a larger share of the young demographics than the older ones.

If you are Democrat when you are 18 you'll likely be Democrat when you are 81. The chart does a good job displaying how your allegiance to parties starts at youth but moderates over time. The crazy thing about that chart is that it includes just WHITES. Add in hispanics, blacks, and Asians and we'll see a blue tide in the country in the coming years.

Seriously, 50 years from now I think it's clearly going to be animal rights. Particularly with science making things easier and easier to live without animals on a nutrition, health, cost, and taste basis. And I'm pretty sure kids are going to realize that fact faster than the grownups who just have always done things that way and can't stand the idea of doing anything different.

I think a lot of people here at least know that the torturous factory farming goes too far and needs to be stopped, and that could easily gain a lot of focus after LGBT rights are considered sufficiently accomplished and the limelight opens up for other issues. After enough people finally stop turning a blind eye and stop the insanity there, there will start being a debate about why we should stop there, and young people won't accept "it's how it's always been done" for an answer.

There's certainly differences from civil right fights of the past, and obviously animals aren't going to become voting citizens or anything, but there are still a lot of changes to be made as to how we look at animal rights going forward.

A big one is going to be the death of the traditional family and marriage. Marriage and the nuclear family will likely be nearly non-existent for anybody under 35 in 50 years.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If you are Democrat when you are 18 you'll likely be Democrat when you are 81. The chart does a good job displaying how your allegiance to parties starts at youth but moderates over time. The crazy thing about that chart is that it includes just WHITES. Add in hispanics, blacks, and Asians and we'll see a blue tide in the country in the coming years.



A big one is going to be the death of the traditional family and marriage. Marriage and the nuclear family will likely be nearly non-existent for anybody under 35 in 50 years.

No. Stop reading the communist manifesto. The youth still desire marriage. Families are changing because of more freedom and changing social norms but there's nothing to get anywhere near the absolutely rediclous hyperbole you just uttered

 

[Retro]

Two-Thirds Of Republicans Think Impeaching Obama Would Be Justified

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/obama-impeachment-poll_n_5584055.html

That's a lot of people, going to be a very ugly midterm but then again we all knew that already.

Two-thirds of Republicans probably think assassinating him would be justified too, since he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist who has hijacked the country and all.

 

[zero shift]

No. Stop reading the communist manifesto.

What does the marriage have to do with communism?

The youth still desire marriage. Families are changing because of more freedom and changing social norms but there's nothing to get anywhere near the absolutely rediclous hyperbole you just uttered

I'll admit non-existent was a bit hyperbolic. But marriage as a whole is definitely going to become less and less common then you are willing to admit.

EDIT - Already less than half of US adults are married. Not to mention many respondents saying marriage is obsolete (~ 40%).

 

[thepotatoman]

A big one is going to be the death of the traditional family and marriage. Marriage and the nuclear family will likely be nearly non-existent for anybody under 35 in 50 years.

That's not really a political issue though. Even today you're not really punished much for staying unmarried your whole life if you choose to. All there is to that is a bit of discrimination on some tax issues.

Could still be considered a societal shift I guess.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What does the marriage have to do with communism?

Guess you have't read it. They call for the abolishment of the family

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

I'll admit non-existent was a bit hyperbolic. But marriage as a whole is definitely going to become less and less common then you are willing to admit.

EDIT - Already less than half of US adults are married. Not to mention many respondents saying marriage is obsolete (~ 40%).[/QUOTE]

Marriage as official marriage contracts? Maybe so (your missing economic factors diminishing the ability to marry and general youthful ambivalence towards monogamy). But what's changed in the last 50 years that people won't want to have families? They might not solidify them in the same ways but families are here to stay.

 

[zero shift]

Guess you have't read it. They call for the abolishment of the family

You have to remember that the Communist Manifesto is from the 1800s in Europe. This was back in the day when family had a very different concept of today as back then children and wives regularly went to work in poor Europe. I mean the quote basically explains that. Marx viewed the family structure to be dependent on the mode of production. That concept of family died in the West long ago.

Marriage as official marriage contracts? Maybe so (your missing economic factors diminishing the ability to marry and general youthful ambivalence towards monogamy). But what's changed in the last 50 years that people won't want to have families? They might not solidify them in the same ways but families are here to stay.

You misunderstood by what I meant by "family", I should have said "nuclear family" instead. You will see children raised in an environment with their parent(s) in an open relationship or separated from one another much more often in the future.

That's not really a political issue though. Even today you're not really punished much for staying unmarried your whole life if you choose to. All there is to that is a bit of discrimination on some tax issues.

Could still be considered a societal shift I guess.

Societal shifts are big reason why people change political parties. People often vote for conservative parties because they want "the old country back".

 

[WayneMorse]

Spreak Englesh Illegalls


But in all seriousness this kind of stuff is worrying. The rhetoric and xenophobic actions towards CHILDREN is embarrassing as best and horrifying at worst

Maybe they just didn't want Don Henley getting everyone sick.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You misunderstood by what I meant by "family", I should have said "nuclear family" instead. You will see children raised in an environment with their parent(s) in an open relationship or separated from one another much more often in the future.

I don't think these kids of relationships are by choice. I think economics drives it a lot of the time. I

 

[adamsappel]

Spreak Englesh Illegalls

They care so much about that building that they defaced it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Are you sure about these? I feel like there's some truth that pot-smoking/secularism have been demonized by previous generations (when older generations were cooler with pot - although I wouldn't think atheism/agnosticism was ever an acceptable position for many people) but they're back on the rise. Look at the polls showing majority support for legalizing marijuana. And American youth are less religious than ever.

Well views were beyond what the political reality was. I mean hemp and weed were pretty common. It took a concerted effort to make it horrible. People tended to trust drugs, look at smoking, cocaine, heroine it was only went health authorities had massive PR campaigns did these things become "bad".

And secularism doesn't mean atheism or agnosticism, it means the separation of church and state. It wasn't that big of a deal for many. People didn't have to prove their religiosity in the same way (lol Hillary, sure the bible is your book!).

The point was more to illustrate these issues aren't unidirectional. The world just doesn't move more progressive. The exception to this is greater communication has generally made empathy more transmutable which translates to more progressive ideas in general.

 

[thepotatoman]

Last Week Tonight had a fantastic segment on the wealth gap

I do have to ask, though, is the term "class warfare" really that damaging to a politician? Seems to me you can mostly ignore it, and if confronted about it just say the real class warfare is the siphoning of money to the top that's been happening over the last 20 years.

Then if charged some version of "it's not a zero sum game", just point out that workers have a role in the gains of productivity as well. Say for instance when Apple provided the technology of the iPhone, it is workers that learned to use the technology to get their jobs done quicker and more efficiently, but they didn't get any reward for that increase in productivity. Their skills increased but their real wages stayed flat or dropped while the top took all of the extra production those workers provided with that new technology.

It just doesn't seem like a hard argument to make to make to me, and yet democrats are completely terrified of it. I guess you can't blame them if the only people they talk to are the ones that can pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for campaign fundraiser dinners.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Last Week Tonight had a fantastic segment on the wealth gap

I do have to ask, though, is the term "class warfare" really that damaging to a politician? Seems to me you can mostly ignore it, and if confronted about it just say the real class warfare is the siphoning of money to the top that's been happening over the last 20 years.

Then if charged some version of "it's not a zero sum game", just point out that workers have a role in the gains of productivity as well. Say for instance when Apple provided the technology of the iPhone, it is workers that learned to use the technology to get their jobs done quicker and more efficiently, but they didn't get any reward for that increase in productivity. Their skills increased but their real wages stayed flat or dropped while the top took all of the extra production those workers provided with that new technology.

It just doesn't seem like a hard argument to make to make to me, and yet democrats are completely terrified of it. I guess you can't blame them if the only people they talk to are the ones that can pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for campaign fundraiser dinners.

I think a lot of it is campaigning, but you do have to remember the vast majority of the current Democratic caucus, especially those in leadership positions, came into politics during the 80's and 90's, when any sort of left-ish economic policy got you slammed, even by parts of your own party.

I do think that in the next 5 to 10 more years, we're going to see a much more liberal Democratic Party in deeds and words on economics, as it'll be a new generation of Democrat's in leadership who came to office during the Obama era.

 

[speculawyer]

Spreak Englesh Illegalls

But in all seriousness this kind of stuff is worrying. The rhetoric and xenophobic actions towards CHILDREN is embarrassing as best and horrifying at worst

Is 'Democrats' at the bottom supposed to be a signature line? Or do they want no undocumented Democrats? (Whatever that means?)

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/589878...molish-rick-santellis-inflation-fearmongering

Why does this douche yell all the time?

 

[Joe Molotov]

Is 'Democrats' at the bottom supposed to be a signature line? Or do they want no undocumented Democrats? (Whatever that means?)

Brown people = Democrats, duh. But they'll graciously allow the documented Democrats to stay in Their America, for now.

 

[Joe Molotov]

But maybe there's a group of Democrats that are just really mad about sick eagles that no one is documenting, who knows?!

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/589878...molish-rick-santellis-inflation-fearmongering

Why does this douche yell all the time?

Because if your argument sucks, it might sound a bit better if you yell it.

 

[thepotatoman]

I think a lot of it is campaigning, but you do have to remember the vast majority of the current Democratic caucus, especially those in leadership positions, came into politics during the 80's and 90's, when any sort of left-ish economic policy got you slammed, even by parts of your own party.

I do think that in the next 5 to 10 more years, we're going to see a much more liberal Democratic Party in deeds and words on economics, as it'll be a new generation of Democrat's in leadership who came to office during the Obama era.

Indeed. I mean I am very happy that they are letting Warren campaign on populist positions even in deep red states like Kentucky. Things like that are huge signs of things changing.

But I still can't help but be annoyed at top democrats running scared on this issue.

 

[Diablos]

50 years ago, most people who supported the Civil Rights movement didn't support Gay Marriage. 50 years from now, most people who who support Gay Marriage, probably wont support Robot Marriage, or whatever big issue of that time period is.

Good question: What's the next big thing after gay marriage?

Also if anything we're becoming less progressive in terms of social legislation. We were a far more leftist nation in that sense pre-Reagan.

 

[RustyNails]

Good question: What's the next big thing after gay marriage?

Brony marriage.

 

[B-Dubs]

Good question: What's the next big thing after gay marriage?

Also if anything we're becoming less progressive in terms of social legislation. We were a far more leftist nation in that sense pre-Reagan.

Transgendered rights. We can already see the build up towards it.

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, Rick Perry's new look has not gone over well with some:

Commissioner: Rick Perry ‘metrosexual’

What the hell? Texas politics is so petty.

 

[FyreWulff]

Good question: What's the next big thing after gay marriage?

Also if anything we're becoming less progressive in terms of social legislation. We were a far more leftist nation in that sense pre-Reagan.

We still don't have equal rights for women in the United States

 

[benjipwns]

But maybe there's a group of Democrats that are just really mad about sick eagles that no one is documenting, who knows?!

Dammit I was slowly scrolling down hoping nobody got this t-ball joke.

This isn't true. Economic views changed. People supported big government. The same people now detest it.

Its not a common thing and there's nothing inherent making the changes liberal or conservative. But the idea that the world gets more progressive which makes older views look conservative is not supported by history or any evidence. It might be true of marriage but not of other social issues (marijuana was once accepted as were other drugs, secularism was bigger, science education more important)

They support "big government" they'll just claim it's gone past the "right amount of government" level of the New Deal/Fair Deal/Great Society and that they "earned" and "paid for" their Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Flood Insurance, etc.

Secularism wasn't bigger than it is today, nor science education. Church and state wasn't separated more it was just so intertwined that nobody batted an eye when "Under God" was added to stuff or people were made to pray in schools.

Now "science education funding" got a lot more attention when we had to "catch up" to the Soviets, but in constant dollars there's never been more spent on it than today.

I'd argue drug prohibition is very "progressive" since their original (and continuing) basis for banning it is that you were undermining the collective nation by not providing the full amount of your labor to the state for plunder.

Guess you have't read it. They call for the abolishment of the family.

Interesting that you point to this. From that same chapter:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Look, the Democratic Party platform!

 

[sc0la]

What the hell? Texas politics is so petty.

So stupid. Rand Paul was bagging on his new glasses too. I don't like Perry but this is one of the lower forms of criticism.

 

[B-Dubs]

So stupid. Rand Paul was bagging on his new glasses too. I don't like Perry but this is one of the lower forms of criticism.

One of? This is literally an elementary school type attack.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Interesting that you point to this. From that same chapter:

Look, the Democratic Party platform!

I dont get what you mean its interesting I point to that?

And I think your comments about the other part of my post are very US centered (and historically narrow, time didn't start at the turn of the 19th century.)

 

[benjipwns]

Last Week Tonight had a fantastic segment on the wealth gap

I do have to ask, though, is the term "class warfare" really that damaging to a politician? Seems to me you can mostly ignore it, and if confronted about it just say the real class warfare is the siphoning of money to the top that's been happening over the last 20 years.

....

It just doesn't seem like a hard argument to make to make to me, and yet democrats are completely terrified of it. I guess you can't blame them if the only people they talk to are the ones that can pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for campaign fundraiser dinners.

They can't confront it or make it because the very policies they support are those that bring about the "siphoning" with the whole intelligent design trickle down theory they've got.

Then if charged some version of "it's not a zero sum game", just point out that workers have a role in the gains of productivity as well. Say for instance when Apple provided the technology of the iPhone, it is workers that learned to use the technology to get their jobs done quicker and more efficiently, but they didn't get any reward for that increase in productivity. Their skills increased but their real wages stayed flat or dropped while the top took all of the extra production those workers provided with that new technology.

They did get a reward in this example. It's the iPhone and the productivity increases.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

They can't confront it or make it because the very policies they support are those that bring about the "siphoning" with the whole intelligent design trickle down theory they've got.


They did get a reward in this example. It's the iPhone and the productivity increases.

We understand your inveighs against 'society' and any kind of relationship that's not 'voluntary'.

 

[benjipwns]

And I think your comments about the other part of my post are very US centered (and historically narrow, time didn't start at the turn of the 19th century.)

So secularism and "science education" was greater globally in the 18th century? 17th?

We understand your inveighs against 'society' and any kind of relationship that's not 'voluntary'.

What does this have to do with my post?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So secularism and "science education" was greater globally in the 18th century? 17th?

I'm not making grand statements about greater or worse I'm saying the current backlash is a very specific thing.

What does this have to do with my post?

They can't confront it or make it because the very policies they support are those that bring about the "siphoning" with the whole intelligent design trickle down theory they've got.

its foreseeing where the conversation is going to go

 

[sc0la]

One of? This is literally an elementary school type attack.

My post originally said THE lowest but I figured someone would right call me out using a gender/race/sexuality example which would obviously be lower than making fun of glasses. I defend my use of "one of."

Also, Damned if I do...

 

[benjipwns]

Except I was already conceding the "need" for coercive violence against innocents when I mentioned policies.

It's hard to bang the drum against the upper classes when you openly support creating an all powerful elite class in the government and large corporations to centralize and distribute wealth, favors and privileges while enacting endless barriers to competition and costs to extract wealth from the middle and lower classes. All while harping on the need for those classes to sacrifice for the "greater good" and how actually they owe the elite classes for the harvest's plenty or some such. But they do pull it off with some people. Just read comment sections of the "netroots" for a plethora of examples.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Except I was already conceding the "need" for coercive violence against innocents when I mentioned policies.

It's hard to bang the drum against the upper classes when you openly support creating an all powerful elite class in the government and large corporations to centralize and distribute wealth, favors and privileges while enacting endless barriers to competition and costs to extract wealth from the middle and lower classes. All while harping on the need for those classes to sacrifice for the "greater good" and how actually they owe the elite classes for the harvest's plenty or some such. But they do pull it off with some people. Just read comment sections of the "netroots" for a plethora of examples.

This isn't what they support unless you believe democratic governance is an 'all powerful elite class' enacting barriers and extracting wealth from the 99% which you seem to with your ideas you've shared before. But its not worth re-arguing those points.

 

[benjipwns]

I think the Democrats (and Republicans) are pretty explicit on their support for it. See: Dodd-Frank, ACA, the Tobacco settlement, the Energy Department, farm subsidies, Market Access Program, etc.

 

[PantherLotus]

Except I was already conceding the "need" for coercive violence against innocents when I mentioned policies.

It's hard to bang the drum against the upper classes when you openly support creating an all powerful elite class in the government and large corporations to centralize and distribute wealth, favors and privileges while enacting endless barriers to competition and costs to extract wealth from the middle and lower classes. All while harping on the need for those classes to sacrifice for the "greater good" and how actually they owe the elite classes for the harvest's plenty or some such. But they do pull it off with some people. Just read comment sections of the "netroots" for a plethora of examples.

This is a fascinating example of mental gymnastics to argue something your opponent would never want, also known as a red herring. Liberals don't want an elite class, nor corporations to centralize and distribute wealth. What a bizarre, Rovian style argument. Nothing could ever be gained by arguing with someone that operates so dishonestly. Uuuuuuuggggghh.

 

[benjipwns]

Liberals wouldn't no, but there aren't many of them left. Especially in the Democratic Party.

Plus revealed versus stated preferences. "Fighting for the working/middle class" as a slogan while doing all of that above list and more to support the elites and corporations in centralizing wealth and privilege to place it outside the reach of the many.

 

[PantherLotus]

Liberals wouldn't no, but there aren't many of them left. Especially in the Democratic Party.

Plus revealed versus stated preferences. "Fighting for the working/middle class" as a slogan while doing all of that above list and more to support the elites and corporations in centralizing wealth and privilege to place it outside the reach of the many.

I won't argue with this. Do note that much of what you describe are all concessions to conservatives, though. I mean, all of those bills look the way they do because of republicans.

 

[benjipwns]

Did Dodd-Frank or the ACA get a single Republican vote? I think there might have been one or two in the House...

I don't want to get exculpating Republicans as they have few liberals either but Democrats have been in power plenty of times, even "absolute" power and not just maintained but enacted and expanded all of these policies. And they most employ the rhetoric that runs counter to their revealed preferences in this case. (Republicans do in other ways.)

There's probably no better political lesson of the last three decades than Microsoft. And the best part is that Orrin Hatch made it explicit.

Spoiler

Disclosure: My mother "almost" killed Orrin Hatch because he was jogging in dark clothes at night in an office park in Iowa in 1999.

Spoiler

Disclosure: Not really, but it could have easily been made to look like an accident. Just saying.

 

[RustyNails]

Did Dodd-Frank or the ACA get a single Republican vote? I think there might have been one or two in the House...

0 Republican votes. (Frank Dodd)

Link

 

[Aaron Strife]

ACA actually got one Republican vote in the House during the first vote - Joseph Cao who represented New Orleans and was voted out unceremoniously in 2010. (He also asked Obama to campaign for him lol) He voted against it the second time though because he was unsatisfied with its anti-abortion measures.

Dodd-Frank got a few GOP votes in the Senate.

 

[benjipwns]

Wasn't able to get govtrack working earlier or I would have looked myself, thanks RustyNails/Aaron.

Looks like in the Senate you had Scott Brown and the Maine Ladies vote for it.

Maria Cantwell and Russ Feingold against on the D side. Though Cantwell voted for the Conference Bill.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

This is a real indictment on the right-wing media. They feed their base so many lies that that they create this torches & pitchforks mob mentality. But as much as they may dislike Obama and his policies . . . you gotta have some crime to bring impeachment. You can't just impeach someone because you don't like them. And no matter how much Fox News fluffs up scandals with exaggeration and insinuation . . . they just don't have a real case of anything. I mean really . . . the best thing they could come up with for their lawsuit against Obama was delaying the employer mandate?

This is also another indication of how powerful Republicans can be in manipulating a message; democrats can only hope to have this kind of power.

That being said, it's also the cause of the rift between moderates and tea partiers which could be a blessing in disguise.

 

[Mario]

This is also another indication of how powerful Republicans can be in manipulating a message; democrats can only hope to have this kind of power.

The Republican ability to control the message is amazing, even if it seems to just come down to repeating the same key phrases and talking points again and again until people believe them.

Having everybody in the party in lockstep 99% of the time to support that messaging is impressive too.