because we're discussing ways the gop is trying to stay relevant, and I figured artificial attempts were just as important.
being part of the norm is more a discussion surrounding the problems with how America does things.
because we're discussing ways the gop is trying to stay relevant, and I figured artificial attempts were just as important.
being part of the norm is more a discussion surrounding the problems with how America does things.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
But the implication is that it's changing its behavior...
Hope is the denial of reality
http://m.jsonline.com/news/statepoli...186720481.html
That's another way, I suppose. They're not even denying that's it purely for winning, instead of fairness or whatever, only wanting it in red states that voted blue
I'm sure certain Dems would have liked it differently in 2000 as well :P
The electoral college is past it's due date.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42...Lie7Fqq1-FzOQc
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
[Thread title]...our holy hope to avoid European social-democrat socialism.
Well, if we're going to be dominated by two parties, they should both be able to put up viable candidates the electorate can choose from. That wouldn't include bat shit crazy extremists like the birthers, homophobes, misogynists, apocalyptic preppers, climate change deniers, evolution skeptics, etc. Oh, I know they're already in congress and sit on science and technology committees.
But just as Democrats had moved too far left in the 60's-70's, Republicans have moved too far right. They exploited the Tea Party factions to get votes and gain house seats. Instead of ostracizing kooks like Christine O'Donnell (I am not a witch) they risk letting the lunatics run the asylum. Purists vs Establishment, it's an interesting in-fight.
If moderate and rational Republicans--who still believe there's a role for government/governance--won't weed out the crazies, I'd just as soon the Tea Party people start their own third party to compete for votes.
The first phrase of your first sentence shows the problem. We need a real reset to how we elect people, but alas the Herp Party and the Derp Party have a good lock on that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE...Lie7Fqq1-FzOQc
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Cute use of animals, but electing King? Please...
The US is a Representative Democracy, not a Parliamentary system. But I do agree that how we elect national/federal representatives needs an overhaul, and shouldn't be controlled by the parties themselves. Particularly when districting is tied to the US Census, which is only conducted every ten years....and lets the party-in-charge change the rules.
OMG...
The King/Queen thing WAS A JOKE!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Then don't link joke youtubes as substitutes for your own, real and valid opinions.
Or...you could engage your brain.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
That we agree on
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Today's Republican Party is.... shamelessly pandering to hispanics. I wish they would instead put a tighter leash on the fiscal brinks-man-ship nuts so the government can stop shooting itself in the economic recovery foot.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Today's GOP is willing to stymie a Presidential appointment to a crucial cabinet post (Dept. of Defense)....in order to appeal to the fringe elements of their state constituents (ie, Tea Party Express) instead of conducting business for the Nation.
No wonder our national credit rating for treasury debt was downgraded due to political paralysis.
It's not a Presidential appointment. The President nominates and the Senate confirms his nominations. Hegel's confirmation hearings were a disaster.
Correction noted -- this nomination is being held up by the GOP, for reasons McCain now admits are personal. Sour grapes about Hagel not supporting Bush, fellow Republicans, or the Iraq war. Ironic, since McCain once said Hagel would be a great Sec. of Defense in his administration.
Senators refusing to confirm someone with whom they have key philosophical differences on issues that the nominee would deal with on a daily basis. How dastardly.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not if those "issues" were mainly litigating past history (the Iraq War and party allegiance) and airing personal grievances....instead of current state of affairs, with global terrorism and non-state actors in an increasingly turbulent world, and re-defining Defense.
Past views on terrorism and Iran tend to indicate future views on terrorism and Iran. I believe his views on Iran are pretty naive and they worry me.
This is just one of those cases where the press depicts Democrats as heroic for holding up Republican nominations, and Republicans as "obstructionist" for holding up Democratic nominations.
Well, I may be a naive European, but either confirm him or not, why hold out (on what seems to be an important position).
Obama's going to set the policy RE Iran and terrorism anyway. I think the "problem" with Hegel has more to do with messing around with Obama than whether Hegel was right that the Surge in Iraq was a bad idea. Or that attacking Iran would be a bad idea.
Which secretary of defense nomination did the Democrats obstruct?This is just one of those cases where the press depicts Democrats as heroic for holding up Republican nominations, and Republicans as "obstructionist" for holding up Democratic nominations.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Come on, are you really going to be such a partisan? It's not about the Secretary of Defense nomination, it's about the fact that Presidential nominees are obstructed all the time. The idea that this is somehow a new thing is garbage. 25 years ago the Democrats full-on blocked a Republican Secretary of Defense nomination when they voted-down John Tower in an open vote.
The Secretary of Defense has a great deal of policy influence on foreign and military affairs. He/she is the Secretary of Defense. Of course Obama sets policy, but there is usually another person in the room on the big issues. Hegel's naiveté on these kinds of things is totally germaine.
How does something that hasn't happened for nearly 30 years translate into "all the time"?
When did the Sec. of Defense, which by definition is a position meant to implement the President's policy agenda, become a position that's seen as driving policy? Because John McCain says so? The same McCain who's wanted to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran for years, and once said Hagel would be a great Sec. of Defense? The same McCain who can't admit that the Iraq war was a huge mistake?
I'm not sure I'm following. If a person you thought would be a terrible Secretary of Defense was nominated, you should be expected to confirm the nomination... because why again? Or do you actually think Hagel did a great job at his confirmation hearing, and that the Republicans are being obstructionist just be obstructionist?
If that's the case, why was Kerry confirmed as Secretary of State with 93 votes?
I think you answered your own question. Senators grilling Hagel about "policy" didn't do the same with Kerry. Not even when it would have been more 'appropriate' to task Sec. of State about incidents in Benghazi....
and how to coordinate CIA or other intelligence, for the Defense of our nation.