He's still looking for purple unicorns.That’s demonstrably false. Under Nancy’s leadership we have had very positive and meaningful change including health care reform and infrastructure.
Complaining that that wasn’t good enough or didn’t go far enough is not only is antithetical to the founding fathers design of our government but it makes perfection the enemy of the good and only ensures that “nothing meaningful” will ever get done.
Fuck them, give them none until there is a clear & binding agreement as to what they’ll get for voting Scalise.The 8 that voted to oust, sounds like all voted for Jordan and unlikely to change their mind. They won’t do a vote today because they are trying to get Dem votes. 🤣🤣🤣
Well i’m sure the white rich male land owners of the time who didn’t think to let women, blacks, or any other minority they hadn’t even thought of yet, vote. seems a reasonable assumption"Hey, under our shiny new democracy, everyone will behave much better"? Or was it just a lack of diversity among them as a group - they didn't see clashes of interest because they were all part of the same demographic?
Interestingly enough they were right for most of US history, absent the period before the civil war (oops!) and now. In the post WW2 US it was very common for the most liberal Republican to be to the left of the most conservative Democrat and those ideologically diffuse parties let government work.I find it intriguing to wonder about how the world looked to those founders. The simple fact that they didn't like the idea of political parties (and didn't expect such a system to take hold?) makes me think that they really had a very different experience of the world than the one we have. I gather (from what I read on the History Channel site!) that they thought political parties were an effect of monarchical systems and would just not exist in a proper democracy. I find it very hard to get my head around the worldview that would lead one to think that.
I mean, isn't it obvious that different demographic groups (social class, race, town vs country...) will have different interests and in a democracy will band together with parties to fight their corner, monarchy or not? Yet somehow their formative experiences (of the not-terribly-democratic system of 18th century Britain) caused them not to see things like that. Was it just over-optimistic idealism? "Hey, under our shiny new democracy, everyone will behave much better"? Or was it just a lack of diversity among them as a group - they didn't see clashes of interest because they were all part of the same demographic?
Unless you're a woman, or anything other than a straight, white male I guess.I think people wildly overestimate how much federal policy will personally affect them. It means a lot for the country as a whole. You personally, generally not.
We had common enemies back then. We tech'd into 'military industrial complex' and made a shitload of money while building dozens of doomstacks, so now all we have to fight is ourselves.I find it intriguing to wonder about how the world looked to those founders. The simple fact that they didn't like the idea of political parties (and didn't expect such a system to take hold?) makes me think that they really had a very different experience of the world than the one we have. I gather (from what I read on the History Channel site!) that they thought political parties were an effect of monarchical systems and would just not exist in a proper democracy. I find it very hard to get my head around the worldview that would lead one to think that.
I mean, isn't it obvious that different demographic groups (social class, race, town vs country...) will have different interests and in a democracy will band together with parties to fight their corner, monarchy or not? Yet somehow their formative experiences (of the not-terribly-democratic system of 18th century Britain) caused them not to see things like that. Was it just over-optimistic idealism? "Hey, under our shiny new democracy, everyone will behave much better"? Or was it just a lack of diversity among them as a group - they didn't see clashes of interest because they were all part of the same demographic?
During and after the FDR era, Republicans got politically smacked around and were the minority party for decades. It wasn't until the advent of the Southern Strategy, Trickle Down Economics, Two Santa Claus Theory, removal of the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich that Republicans started doing whatever it took to gain seats, and thus power, in government. The GOP's "Party > Country" mandate manifested itself only within the last 40 or so years.Interestingly enough they were right for most of US history, absent the period before the civil war (oops!) and now. In the post WW2 US it was very common for the most liberal Republican to be to the left of the most conservative Democrat and those ideologically diffuse parties let government work.
Now, that’s not the case, and our government is basically in crisis mode all the time.
Even with Jordan kissing Scalise's ring with his tail between his legs, they Still don't have the votes else they wouldn't have canceled the voting today.
During and after the FDR era, Republicans got politically smacked around and were the minority party for decades. It wasn't until the advent of the Southern Strategy, Trickle Down Economics, Two Santa Claus Theory, removal of the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich that Republicans started doing whatever it took to gain seats, and thus power, in government. The GOP's "Party > Country" mandate manifested itself only within the last 40 or so years.
Edit: Here's some data from Wikipedia. FDR and the New Deal were immensely popular, so the Republicans needed something to claw back positive sentiment, hence culture wars and peddling to religious/racist angst etc.
View attachment 86972View attachment 86973
Our system over represents rural voters, and the south was/is mostly rural. FDR ran basically on a platform of helping the little guy while also tacitly endorsing southern racism, and that held until the 60’s.Not clear what that second graphic shows. Is it showing that from the '50s till the '90s the system actually _under_ represented Republican votes? What was the cause of that, if so? (Or is it showing the opposite? Can't work out what the symbols mean).
When LBJ signed the Civil Right laws - it was now taken well by the south. Later on, the Republicans adopted their southern strategy because of that weakness and have largely succeeded. Weird thing is the Democrats used to be racist in the south (some even KKK members). When the Republicans started winning, the did so by running on a more racist platform. The more things change...Our system over represents rural voters, and the south was/is mostly rural. FDR ran basically on a platform of helping the little guy while also tacitly endorsing southern racism, and that held until the 60’s.
The South is poor, but the South LOVES racism, so when democrats got rid of the racism part Republicans swooped in to pick it up, which is why the South went from voting solidly Democratic to solidly Republican in a generation.
Our system over represents rural voters, and the south was/is mostly rural. FDR ran basically on a platform of helping the little guy while also tacitly endorsing southern racism, and that held until the 60’s.
Pretty much, yes.So for most of the post-war period the Republicans were _under_ represented, because during that time period those rural voters were Democrats, hence the bias had the opposite effect from what it does now (in party terms)?
As a bonus, many Americans shift their ideologies/moralities based on what direction their political party goes, which the party then adjusts to compensate for.The US system is confusing in the way that political parties are not obviously strongly-coupled to particular ideologies/group-interests. Or, at least, those group-interests are more complicated than in most of Europe, because it seems there's a constantly-shifting interaction of race, class and geography.
Politics in the US is much less class based than European politics, yes.The US system is confusing in the way that political parties are not obviously strongly-coupled to particular ideologies/group-interests. Or, at least, those group-interests are more complicated than in most of Europe, because it seems there's a constantly-shifting interaction of race, class and geography.
I like Nancy Mace's sexual escapades but she is such a liar.
And it is 100% the Republicans' decision to not involve Democrats in selecting a speaker. They can change that decision at any time!Beyond parody. Also blaming the Ds who have nothing to do with their mess after having just competently ran the body with a slimmer majority is something.
Beyond parody. Also blaming the Ds who have nothing to do with their mess after having just competently ran the body with a slimmer majority is something.
Here’s the problem. There is an overwhelming majority of voters who have no idea how the process works. Repeating the same thing without resistance causes it to be true.And it is 100% the Republicans' decision to not involve Democrats in selecting a speaker. They can change that decision at any time!
Here’s the problem. There is an overwhelming majority of voters who have no idea how the process works. Repeating the same thing without resistance causes it to be true.
If the Rs crash into a shutdown because they are infighting the public will start to notice.