StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Aaron MkII wrote:That's actually a pretty brilliant idea. And it started under Bush? But I guess you can't play the small government card if you take credit for it.

Want to hear another one? Here in my thoroughly Republican state there are funds that assist the unemployed and poor in getting vehicle repairs, again, to assist them in getting the reliable transportation needed for gainful employment. Again, you need to qualify, but the program is out there. The rationale being that it's better to pay a few dollars so someone can get their car fixed and go to work and pay taxes than to support them in the social safety net (tattered mess that it is).

My thoroughly Republican state also has a state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor without access to employer-sponsored insurance. It's why my family has had health insurance these past 4 years or so. I pay 5% of my monthly income towards the premium and the state covers the rest. The more I earn the more I pay in absolute dollars (up to the actual cost of the premium) but the percentage remains the same.

I keep telling people - there really are moderate Republicans in my state, and they actually have a hand in running things. Social and fiscal conservatives, but not blinded as much by ideology as the extreme parts of their party.

Those moderates may end up inheriting the party federally when the extremists inevitably implode.

Or at least I hope.

Dalton wrote:There was a program under the Bush administration to provide free or low-cost cellular phone service to those who could not afford it. Naturally, this was picked up by various right-wing trash-talk sites as "free stuff" from Obama.

IIRC there was a similar landline program started under Reagan.

That's actually a fantastic idea and gives me a small measure of respect for W. I guess conservatives hyperventilating about a non-issue was productive after all!

Lonestar wrote:

Dalton wrote:There was a program under the Bush administration to provide free or low-cost cellular phone service to those who could not afford it. Naturally, this was picked up by various right-wing trash-talk sites as "free stuff" from Obama.

IIRC there was a similar landline program started under Reagan.

The current cell phone program is an extension of the land line program. As I had to explain to certain people on facebook, it's not paid for with federal money - it's paid for with the fees that are on phone bills. If you don't want to pay for it, don't get a phone.

Gil Hamilton wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:"We just weren't conservative ENOUGH".

Republicans... Predictable as the sunrise.

Expect far more obstruction in congress the next two years. And it would not surprise me at all if the House Tealiban started working up an impeachment bill against Obama.

I think everyone called this. It was clear that if Romney lost, the GOP was going to turn on him and line up to explain how they never thought he was a good idea anyway, that they were against him from the very beginning, and that any evidence of them talking about how awesome Romney is is misrepresenting them or an outright fabrication.

Yes. Obviously, agents of Goldstein were involved in creating any other impression. The GOP sinks further and further into its own brand of doublethink.

It's a measure of how prevalent and pervasive the echo chamber is when members of the other forum, who I consider to be a little more educated than the average Americans, repeat shit about Benghazi and Obamaphones in their threads. They're confident that Obama will be impeached for Benghazi after January.

I would love to see the Republicans try this; my instinct says it will hit them hard in 2014.

Benghazi was the AQ attack disguised as a riot, right?

He wasn't impeached over ordering the murder of a citizen without trial, a fucking minor, he won't get impeached over that.

UnderAGreySky wrote:It's a measure of how prevalent and pervasive the echo chamber is when members of the other forum, who I consider to be a little more educated than the average Americans, repeat shit about Benghazi and Obamaphones in their threads. They're confident that Obama will be impeached for Benghazi after January.

I would love to see the Republicans try this; my instinct says it will hit them hard in 2014.

Republicans have been trying to Impeach Obama almost as soon as he came into office. There has been a half dozen "Scandles" that they feel certain will spell doom for Obama, and then yell and scream when no scandle seems to develop.

The Benghazi issues is yet another sorry display of not just how deserate they are to turn ANYthing into Obama 'Watergate' but at the same time just how damn gullible they are. Ill read right wing blogs where they go on and in about the 'Crimes' Obama commited and the various 'illegal' acts he has done... ANd you realize these people know NOTHING about what actually happened in Benghazi, but are simply spewing what they hear from other Right Wing echo chambers.

Broomstick wrote:

Aaron MkII wrote:That's actually a pretty brilliant idea. And it started under Bush? But I guess you can't play the small government card if you take credit for it.

Want to hear another one? Here in my thoroughly Republican state there are funds that assist the unemployed and poor in getting vehicle repairs, again, to assist them in getting the reliable transportation needed for gainful employment. Again, you need to qualify, but the program is out there. The rationale being that it's better to pay a few dollars so someone can get their car fixed and go to work and pay taxes than to support them in the social safety net (tattered mess that it is).

My thoroughly Republican state also has a state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor without access to employer-sponsored insurance. It's why my family has had health insurance these past 4 years or so. I pay 5% of my monthly income towards the premium and the state covers the rest. The more I earn the more I pay in absolute dollars (up to the actual cost of the premium) but the percentage remains the same.

I keep telling people - there really are moderate Republicans in my state, and they actually have a hand in running things. Social and fiscal conservatives, but not blinded as much by ideology as the extreme parts of their party.

I never knew that, but it is freaking AWESOME! It is such an amazing display of how government can "Work" and how it can do things the private sector would never EVER do. Programs like that are an absoulte perfect example of why the far right belief system would never work. Can anyone imagine a private company doing this to unemployed people?

Personally I hope that if there is a future for Republicans, it will be as fiscal conservative Rockefeller Republicans. Ones interested in growing the economy by things that WORK instead of blind faith.

On THAT note.. Anyone who thinks that the "Huge Loss" in the election will somehow make Republicans more open to compromise THINK AGAIN

The far right are practicing the time hounored skill of putting their heads in the sand and going "LA LA LA LA" by claiming that, because 'america' voted them back in control of the house, that this somehow 'prooves' that America is REALLY repudiating Obama and Democrates and endorsing Republicans views of never ever raising taxes, despite the fact that Poll after Poll after Poll show Americans in FAVOR Of higher taxes on the rich...

Aaron MkII wrote:Benghazi was the AQ attack disguised as a riot, right?

He wasn't impeached over ordering the murder of a citizen without trial, a fucking minor, he won't get impeached over that.

Except there was no riot. And there are reports that requests for help were made from one of the facilities but that they were turned down by someone in D.C.

The thought process is that if the reports are true, and the call for support was turned down by the White House, that it could/will blow up in the administration's face.

Yes, I could see how it would.

Now you'll have to forgive my ignorance of impeachment but that means the VP takes over as President?

Aaron MkII wrote:Yes, I could see how it would.

Now you'll have to forgive my ignorance of impeachment but that means the VP takes over as President?

Strictly speaking the act of impeachment is just the act bringing of charges. If the President were found guilty then yes, the VP would become President.

First there is impeachment. That's a formal accusation. For the PotUS, the House passes "articles of impeachment" outlining the offense(s). Once those are passed there is a trial in the Senate, which determines innocence or guilt. Guilt means removal from office and then the VP takes over.

So... if a Republican House impeachment Obama would the Democratic Senate find him guilty?

Clinton was impeached, but the Senate acquitted him and thus he stayed in office.

Nixon resigned because he was threatened with impeachment, but in that case the offenses weren't due to politics but to real suspicion he was behind an actual crime.

Crossroads Inc. wrote: The far right are practicing the time hounored skill of putting their heads in the sand and going "LA LA LA LA" by claiming that, because 'america' voted them back in control of the house, that this somehow 'prooves' that America is REALLY repudiating Obama and Democrates and endorsing Republicans views of never ever raising taxes, despite the fact that Poll after Poll after Poll show Americans in FAVOR Of higher taxes on the rich...

I know there's a lot of gerrymandering involved in why the house is still Republican, but it still looks like "america" voted back in a Republican controlled house - do explain (i'm not american) why this doesn't show that "america" broadly supports in some way Republican policies?

The House is more representative of the geographical makeup of the US when compared to the Senate.

The Senate is almost directly based on the total population of each state: since the entire state gets to vote on their Senators, the overwhelming Democratic majority shows that in most states, the total population of each state is leaning more Democratic.

The House is based on Congressional districts, of which there are many in each state. If you look at a by-county breakdown of who voted in the last election, you'll note that the majority of counties voted Republican. This is because most of those counties are rural areas, sparsely filled with voters who were lucky to get high school diplomas for the most part. The Congressional districts are the same way, but through gerrymandering they cut even further into the blue regions (by diluting urban votes with rural votes).



Fun part? Overlay the county map on top of a nighttime light map and you'll see that all the blue areas neatly coincide with cities.

Another fun fact, get the big version of Crazy9000's district map and zoom in and you can pick out the "safe" gerrymander districts just by picking the top 150 House Districts with the oddest shapes. You will find districts that are shaped like bent letter H's in Georgia in order to ensure black votes are contained with large segments of rural votes or districts in Pennsylvania that resemble long cords that are built around highway corridors to make safe seats.

AniThyng wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote: The far right are practicing the time hounored skill of putting their heads in the sand and going "LA LA LA LA" by claiming that, because 'america' voted them back in control of the house, that this somehow 'prooves' that America is REALLY repudiating Obama and Democrates and endorsing Republicans views of never ever raising taxes, despite the fact that Poll after Poll after Poll show Americans in FAVOR Of higher taxes on the rich...

I know there's a lot of gerrymandering involved in why the house is still Republican, but it still looks like "america" voted back in a Republican controlled house - do explain (i'm not american) why this doesn't show that "america" broadly supports in some way Republican policies?

That is sort of missing the point, gerrymandering aside "America" is showing to more and more support tax icreases on the rich... The argument goes "Sure, raise taxes on the rich, just don't raise MY Taxes..."
These people may still vote Republican, but the thinking of taxes IS changing. mostly people are gettign really really pissed off at the rich in America. The problem is that the Republican leadership will go out of it's way to NEVER EVER raise taxes of any kind. ((Because lets face it, their REAL constituents are the Rich in America))

If 10,000 people showed up on a Republicans doorstep and all shouted "We want you to raise taxes on the rich!" They would pretend not to see it.

As for America as a whole supporting Republican policy, Well Crazy said it a great deal better then myself...

America is split about 50/50 population wise right now, and the Senate reflects this.. The house however shall almost ALWAYS lean Republican because of the idiotic way the districts are cut up. A state could have 10,000,000 Democrats and 500,000 Republicans... But thanks to gerrymandering, those 10,000,000 Democrats could be split among 10 different districts, giving the Republicans the advantage to win all the seats.

Mr Bean wrote:Another fun fact, get the big version of Crazy9000's district map and zoom in and you can pick out the "safe" gerrymander districts just by picking the top 150 House Districts with the oddest shapes. You will find districts that are shaped like bent letter H's in Georgia in order to ensure black votes are contained with large segments of rural votes or districts in Pennsylvania that resemble long cords that are built around highway corridors to make safe seats.

While this is all true, in fairness the Democrats are no slouches at gerrymandering. Example.

Lord Zentei wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:Another fun fact, get the big version of Crazy9000's district map and zoom in and you can pick out the "safe" gerrymander districts just by picking the top 150 House Districts with the oddest shapes. You will find districts that are shaped like bent letter H's in Georgia in order to ensure black votes are contained with large segments of rural votes or districts in Pennsylvania that resemble long cords that are built around highway corridors to make safe seats.

While this is all true, in fairness the Democrats are no slouches at gerrymandering. Example.

Excuse me I should have gone with a counter Chiacgo example, it used to be worse. I did not mean to imply that only one party gerrymanders districts. In fact often times there is a trading deal going on with both sides building in a state with say forty districts each side will get ten safe districts and the dominate side gets another ten and the rest are lean districts. Naturally the reason for doing this is so the other side does not scream gerrymandering. While we might have cut down on the smoke filled rooms of power... they still exist and have a strong base at the state level.

The only possible solution would be to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering, as some states (including California) have attempted to do by forming non-partisan citizen redistricting boards. Of course, these boards are often attacked by both sides for various reasons, but I'd say they are generally a positive influence.

There has been no movement in terms of uncalled races. Allen West will likely demand a recount, and Florida is still a hair away from a mandatory statewide recount. Updates as they come in. Last call was made yesterday at 4:24pm.

A taste of the election night action:

Crayz9000 wrote:The only possible solution would be to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering, as some states (including California) have attempted to do by forming non-partisan citizen redistricting boards. Of course, these boards are often attacked by both sides for various reasons, but I'd say they are generally a positive influence.

Here in Arizona we "tired" to do that, we voted a state wide ballot measure to make a non partisan council. Of course the Gov and her cronies have spent the last two years fighting it tooth and nail calling it "a puppet of Liberals" every chance she gets.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote:The only possible solution would be to eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering, as some states (including California) have attempted to do by forming non-partisan citizen redistricting boards. Of course, these boards are often attacked by both sides for various reasons, but I'd say they are generally a positive influence.

Here in Arizona we "tired" to do that, we voted a state wide ballot measure to make a non partisan council. Of course the Gov and her cronies have spent the last two years fighting it tooth and nail calling it "a puppet of Liberals" every chance she gets.

Couldn't you use the Shortest-Splitline Algorithm [youtube]? This has the benefit of being easy to implement and can't be swayed by politics because, well, it's a geometry algorithm.

EDIT: Link to CGPGrey's blog post on Gerrymandering, with pictures of this algorithm creating districts.

Obama currently leading in FL by 1.22%

So, what's the difference if Obama wins Florida vs. Romney at this point?

Not that I'm not curious which way the state went, but my understanding is that the contest is otherwise already decided.