Random Political Thoughts

[NowhereInTime]

The CA legislature has been a Democrat a super majority since 2000 when they jermandered redistricted under Gray Davis. Yes the same governor who was removed from office a few years later. 2000 was a huge election at the time because everyone on both sides knew whoever won was going to be able to rig redistrict the state in their favor. The Dems won, they control the state. Mind you both of our noble Democrat Senators Boxer/Feinstein have been in 23 years since 1992, you know the "year of the woman". Before that Dem Alan Cranston was Senator for 23yrs. See any consistencies?

No.  The only thing consistent is how inconsistent you are.  Your point appears to be that the Democrats win the Senate seats for CA because of the CA legislature's "super majority"?  I don't see how Democrats, in their ever-scheming ways, were able to "jermander" the entire state in favor of Boxer or Feinstein, or for Cranston, for that matter. 

The governor in CA has very little power because of the Democrat super majority (veto proof). Its all the legislature which is owned by the unions. The other way CA continuously gets asinine spending through is by propositions. Like the 100 billion thats been set aside for speed trains that will never be built. At least not for anywhere near 100 billion. The 1st I recall was in 2005, 20 billion for a speed train from LA to Vegas. How's that coming?

Or the billions in bonds that pass every year for schools and prisons. Who does't want better schools and prisons? (fartnoise) As though the money every goes to those. How bout those California schools and prisons!

How about the fact that CA is woefully under represented in the US Senate?  How are 38.8 million people to be served as fairly in the Senate as California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined??  CA is outgunned 42 -2 with tons of those red states!!!

[136 or 142]

The Republicans blew their marginal hold on California with their anti Latino policies and rhetoric that they employed to get Pete Wilson reelected in 1994. They were told by both Democratic and Republican consultants that the positions they took on these issues may help them win that election but would hurt them in the long term.  They have nobody else but themselves to blame for that coming true.

[albrecht]

The Republicans blew their marginal hold on California with their anti Latino policies and rhetoric that they employed to get Pete Wilson reelected in 1994. They were told by both Democratic and Republican consultants that the positions they took on these issues may help them win that election but would hurt them in the long term.  They have nobody else but themselves to blame for that coming true.

The fate of the country was sealed in 1965. And worse over the remaining decades with the various amnesties and now an outright open-border policy. When the border won't be defended nationally, you don't, really have a country and there is almost nothing a State (or political Party) can do about it (court decisions and administrations have held this theory at least.)

The Republican Party will "evolve" drastically (as the Democratic Party has done over the past few decades and accelerated especially in the past decade) or at least change (or split apart) I suspect. Both Parties might, depending on how things play out.

[136 or 142]

The fate of the country was sealed in 1965. And worse over the remaining decades with the various amnesties and now an outright open-border policy. When the border won't be defended nationally, you don't, really have a country and there is almost nothing a State (or political Party) can do about it (court decisions and administrations have held this theory at least.)

The Republican Party will "evolve" drastically (as the Democratic Party has done over the past few decades and accelerated especially in the past decade) or at least change (or split apart) I suspect. Both Parties might, depending on how things play out.

I could see a three party system with the Tea Partiers deserting the Republican Party and the so-called moderate Republicans joining what we Canadians call the blue Liberals and abandoning the 'Red" liberal Democrats.

Despite what some here may think, on most issues I would support the moderate Republican/blue Liberal Democratic Party.

That said, people have been talking a  major third party for years, or the moderates forming their own party (much less frequently though) and it hasn't happened.  The closest was when Ross Perot and his supporters started the supposedly moderate Reform Party which now only still exists in Mississippi.

[albrecht]

I could see a three party system with the Tea Partiers deserting the Republican Party and the so-called moderate Republicans joining what we Canadians call the blue Liberals and abandoning the 'Red" liberal Democrats.

Despite what some here may think, on most issues I would support the moderate Republican/blue Liberal Democratic Party.

That said, people have been talking a  major third party for years, or the moderates forming their own party (much less frequently though) and it hasn't happened.  The closest was when Ross Perot and his supporters started the supposedly moderate Reform Party which now only still exists in Mississippi.

Yes, depending on how the Balkanization process goes it could result in a system with quite a few parties and eventually a more European situation with Democrat and Republican forming coalitions with smaller (but influential parties.) Or, even better, a non-violent, organized devolution in power in which more control, sovereignty (at least over everyday matters) goes more to the States, Counties, and people (as originally intended.)  Or, worse, parties based totally upon ethnic/racial/religious make up. Worst case a real Balkan situation with a civil war, government abuses, etc- but I think Americans are too lazy for that (even if warranted at some point down the road.) Excepting some inner-city minority elements and, maybe, some far-right elements (but the latter won't coalesce into a sizable group in one place at least.) Of course, the newer immigrants are used to chaos and mayhem and in them you might be more organized, violent opposition down the road- but, then again, they are also used to crime, violence, and corruption so anything they see here will be heaven- so why protest or even vote?

I'm guessing a status-quo where the two Parties simply continue to mirror each other on most real issues, the media and Courts keeping moving the "progressive" social framework left, and the border remains open to keep both Parties happy (cheap labor, new future prisoners for one and new voters, new generations on the governments largesse for the other and new soldiers and police for both.)

[136 or 142]

1.Yes, depending on how the Balkanization process goes it could result in a system with quite a few parties and eventually a more European situation with Democrat and Republican forming coalitions with smaller (but influential parties.)

New York allows for fusion voting.

2.Or, even better, a non-violent, organized devolution in power in which more control, sovereignty (at least over everyday matters) goes more to the States, Counties, and people (as originally intended.)

Many political analysts already say that with so much gridlock in Congress a great deal of power has already devolved to the states.  Of course, that was largely before the 'great recession', since then states have had to cut spending in order to balance their budgets, though I gather there are frequently ways around the balanced budgets laws, it obviously does still limit state spending (I personally have no problem with balanced budget laws in principle, but in practice it leads to the perverse practice of Democratic states raising spending during good times and cutting spending during bad times and Republican states cutting taxes during good times and cutting spending during bad times...while still cutting taxes.)

So, since only the Federal Government has the ability to significantly deficit spend as well as has the Federal Reserve to print money (though whether they do that or not is entirely up to the Federal Reserve) obviously some power has flown back to the Federal Government.

[albrecht]

So, since only the Federal Government has the ability to significantly deficit spend as well as has the Federal Reserve to print money (though whether they do that or not is entirely up to the Federal Reserve) obviously some power has flown back to the Federal Government.

Yes, though one could imagine localities doing what ND does (they run their own State Bank, and successful though not as successful as intended- other banks blacklist it but not buying its bonds), credit unions, co-ops, or even using local currencies or electronic exchanges (or electronic currency.) The national governments worldwide do tend to crack-down on this, especially if done the wrong way (more than a few in jail for making coinage etc or defrauding people) but one could imagine a way around this, especially if an entire State did this. Or, more doubtful, the Treasury and political system takes central banking away and brings it back under the people's control (which could be bad also, of course. But at least it would be "our fault" and not some less accountable, less elected or even foreign entity.) But the international pressure on that would be almost impossible short of happening after a major world war or, long-shot BRICS etc) gaining a large advantage. Banks tend to "work together" on this one.

[136 or 142]

Yes, though one could imagine localities doing what ND does (they run their own State Bank, and successful though not as successful as intended- other banks blacklist it but not buying its bonds), credit unions, co-ops, or even using local currencies or electronic exchanges (or electronic currency.) The national governments worldwide do tend to crack-down on this, especially if done the wrong way (more than a few in jail for making coinage etc or defrauding people) but one could imagine a way around this, especially if an entire State did this. Or, more doubtful, the Treasury and political system takes central banking away and brings it back under the people's control (which could be bad also, of course. But at least it would be "our fault" and not some less accountable, less elected or even foreign entity.) But the international pressure on that would be almost impossible short of happening after a major world war or, long-shot BRICS etc) gaining a large advantage. Banks tend to "work together" on this one.

No national government or central bank could or would ever allow a state government to start its own currency.   They would likely even crack down on bitcoin if it wasn't convertable to dollars.

It is more than a little ironic that a conservative state like North Dakota is the only U.S State to have a state bank that takes deposits and loan money (all states have quasi banks in the forms of loans and subsidies they give businesses).  A state bank is a dream for the handful of remaining genuine socialists in Canada and the United States. No doubt the North Dakota bank was started during the state's brief progressive era.

[albrecht]

No national government or central bank could or would ever allow a state government to start its own currency.   They would likely even crack down on bitcoin if it wasn't convertable to dollars.

It is more than a little ironic that a conservative state like North Dakota is the only U.S State to have a state bank that takes deposits and loan money (all states have quasi banks in the forms of loans and subsidies they give businesses).  A state bank is a dream for the handful of remaining genuine socialists in Canada and the United States. No doubt the North Dakota bank was started during the state's brief progressive era.

Oh, it was. Back when 'progressive' wasn't burning and looting but looking after rural people and production, especially farming, seamen, etc. Often times it was misguided but did some many good things, no doubt. As an aside even socialism, more full-on, can work rather well with a homogeneous population with shared values, especially if you have enough natural resources, and social cohesion, to support it.

But, having said that, the "progressives" back then weren't what is claimed by the "progressives" now- they cared about the people, farms, helping each other, workers, fighting the 'back-east' monied interests, and local control and their town, church, and family. Not focusing all their power about odd sexual practices, exhorting minorities to riot, division, eliminating Christianity or religion, aggrandizing all power to the Federal government (or international bodies), having open-borders for cheap labor. Nor did they hate the country (and divisions and people from those states served admirably in various wars) etc.

[Gd5150]

Since 1970 Republicans have held a majority in the CA legislature for 2 whole years, 1995-1996. The beauty of the system is unions own the Democrats, steel money from their union members via dues, and give it back to the Democrats in political contributions. Its really a great deal considering unions consist of about 45% Republicans.

Despite having a population breakdown thats almost 50% Republican, they have about 1/3 representation in the legislature. The idea Republicans have anything to do with California's endless problems is laughable.

As far as US Senators go, Feinstein is somewhat tolerable. Boxer is a disgrace. 23 years in, neither is known for single contribution. Due to her incredible stupidity it's extremely rare, however if  you are fortunate enough to see Boxer on tv please watch. Its hysterical. She makes Palin look like Albert Schweitzer.

As for the current Gov Jerry Brown, he is coming off conservative next to the legislature which is laughably liberal. Even he knows their typical ways cannot be sustained and someone has to draw a line in the sand. Until CA pulls its head out and starts being pro business, it will continue down the path to irrelevancy.

[136 or 142]

Oh, it was. Back when 'progressive' wasn't burning and looting but looking after rural people and production, especially farming, seamen, etc. Often times it was misguided but did some many good things, no doubt. As an aside even socialism, more full-on, can work rather well with a homogeneous population with shared values, especially if you have enough natural resources, and social cohesion, to support it.

But, having said that, the "progressives" back then weren't what is claimed by the "progressives" now- they cared about the people, farms, helping each other, workers, fighting the 'back-east' monied interests, and local control and their town, church, and family. Not focusing all their power about odd sexual practices, exhorting minorities to riot, division, eliminating Christianity or religion, aggrandizing all power to the Federal government (or international bodies), having open-borders for cheap labor. Nor did they hate the country (and divisions and people from those states served admirably in various wars) etc.

I believe this sums up the situation of the decline of rural votes for progessives:

Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan countryside has changed.

There are fewer farmers, larger farms, weaker towns, less of a rural community culture and more of an entrepreneurial attitude among farmers, says veteran University of Regina political scientist Howard Leeson.

“There really has been a conservatization of the rural attitude in Saskatchewan,” he said.

“The disappearance of the smaller farms and the co-operatives and community activities those farmers supported have made a huge difference. That was the NDP base and now there is much more a business approach.”

As a farm activist and former longtime president of the National Farmers Union, Swift Current-area farmer Stewart Wells has watched the transformation of rural Saskatchewan with dismay.

“Farmers seem to have bought into the notion that what is good for companies in the food system is good for farmers, the trickle down theory,” he said.

“That certainly wasn’t the view of the farmers who built the co-ops, built the pool, built the CCF.”

Wells, a one-time Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegate, sees the 1990s demise of the pool as a co-operative as a pivotal moment in the change in rural Saskatchewan attitudes.

The pool maintained a strong rural base, an extensive committee system that flagged emerging issues and a strong communications machine that stressed the value of co-operation and support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Wells has an old pool notebook with the slogan: “every bushel of wheat delivered through the pool is a vote for the Canadian Wheat Board.”

Now, while Saskatchewan farmers vote for pro-single desk CWB directors, they also vote for Conservatives vowing to abolish the single desk.

“It really isn’t a ballot question for farmers anymore,” said Leeson.

“They market many of their own crops and have a business outlook, even if they support the board in director elections.”

[albrecht]

I believe this sums up the situation of the decline of rural votes for progessives:

Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan countryside has changed.

There are fewer farmers, larger farms, weaker towns, less of a rural community culture and more of an entrepreneurial attitude among farmers, says veteran University of Regina political scientist Howard Leeson.

“There really has been a conservatization of the rural attitude in Saskatchewan,” he said.

“The disappearance of the smaller farms and the co-operatives and community activities those farmers supported have made a huge difference. That was the NDP base and now there is much more a business approach.”

As a farm activist and former longtime president of the National Farmers Union, Swift Current-area farmer Stewart Wells has watched the transformation of rural Saskatchewan with dismay.

“Farmers seem to have bought into the notion that what is good for companies in the food system is good for farmers, the trickle down theory,” he said.

“That certainly wasn’t the view of the farmers who built the co-ops, built the pool, built the CCF.”

Wells, a one-time Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegate, sees the 1990s demise of the pool as a co-operative as a pivotal moment in the change in rural Saskatchewan attitudes.

The pool maintained a strong rural base, an extensive committee system that flagged emerging issues and a strong communications machine that stressed the value of co-operation and support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Wells has an old pool notebook with the slogan: “every bushel of wheat delivered through the pool is a vote for the Canadian Wheat Board.”

Now, while Saskatchewan farmers vote for pro-single desk CWB directors, they also vote for Conservatives vowing to abolish the single desk.

“It really isn’t a ballot question for farmers anymore,” said Leeson.

“They market many of their own crops and have a business outlook, even if they support the board in director elections.”

Obviously technology has caused some, or maybe most, of this (rural people going more to the "right" and also the loss of family or smaller farmers to larger ones or 'corporate' farms.) But also it could the politics moved left and culture pushed by Hollywood also, at least socially. With regard to farm size also government policies (some well-meaning but bad in execution,) rising property values (and/or mineral rights), some refusing to use new methods and "hold out" the old ways and getting exploited (or just making bad decisions) with banks, and the usual "hard to keep them back on the farm" once kids go to the city. Like in N.Dakota my relatives raised sugar beets but now made more $$ leasing their farm land for gas exploitation (which has booms and busts but pays real well the past few years.) And I have relatives who kept "the family" farm,, further south (corn, soybeans, and hogs) and even expanded it but they ran it like a business and science. For decades using the latest tech, soil analysis, best equipment, market/future following, and amortizing equipment, hybrids, etc like a business would. One Kid go off to Ag school and even get MBAs and run it well (other left for other occupations but generational pass-down went well, so far.) And damn successful and they are happy. (Though Obama wouldn't like them. Their Christmas card looks like something out of a Normal Rockwell painting. All white, all tall, and most blond (or gray) with glasses of milk at the table. I laugh every year I get the card.) They are pretty "progressive" in terms of supporting/using CO-OPs grain operators, leasing deals for their equipment etc to other farmers, church and charities (they love that one that gives goats, chickens, and ducks, to poor people in Africa), missions to S.America and Africa with their church (they aren't Mormon though) etc but can't stand all the homosexual, anti-religious, open-border, change the culture, America is bad, rioting etc stuff pushed by the so-called "progressives" now.

[136 or 142]

Politics1.com @Politics1com
P2106: US Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT) - self-proclaimed "socialist" - to launch run for Dem Presidential nomination on Thursday.

[136 or 142]

How Well Do You Know the News?

April 28, 2015By Taegan Goddard27 Comments
Pew Research has a 12 question news quiz which compares your answers to those of the general public. Questions about politics proved particularly challenging.

The Fix: “The takeaway from all of this? Assuming â€" as lots and lots of people who either live in D.C. or follow politics closely do â€" that the average person is a deeply-informed consumer of political news is not even close to right. For most people, politics is something that almost never intersects with their daily lives and which they spend zero mind space on day in and day out.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

[pate]

No.  The only thing consistent is how inconsistent you are.  Your point appears to be that the Democrats win the Senate seats for CA because of the CA legislature's "super majority"?  I don't see how Democrats, in their ever-scheming ways, were able to "jermander" the entire state in favor of Boxer or Feinstein, or for Cranston, for that matter. 

How about the fact that CA is woefully under represented in the US Senate?  How are 38.8 million people to be served as fairly in the Senate as California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined??  CA is outgunned 42 -2 with tons of those red states!!!

I'm totally hot for that kind of sate=ment, tell me more!

[Avi]

How Well Do You Know the News?

April 28, 2015By Taegan Goddard27 Comments
Pew Research has a 12 question news quiz which compares your answers to those of the general public. Questions about politics proved particularly challenging.

The Fix: “The takeaway from all of this? Assuming â€" as lots and lots of people who either live in D.C. or follow politics closely do â€" that the average person is a deeply-informed consumer of political news is not even close to right. For most people, politics is something that almost never intersects with their daily lives and which they spend zero mind space on day in and day out.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

Yes, well, many studies show that the media and online experience is a self-referential circle. People simply watch/read what they already agree with and even, especially in Western culture, cut off 'friendships' with those whom they disagree. It's not a system which promotes growth in thinking or change. People may evaluate themselves as deeply informed, but again, this is true only in circular terms. The response of most to being told they are wrong is not, "Indeed? Show me," but "You're a dick!" There is a great deal of contempt heaped upon those outside the circle, because within, bias is accepted and reinforced.

[136 or 142]

Yes, well, many studies show that the media and online experience is a self-referential circle. People simply watch/read what they already agree with and even, especially in Western culture, cut off 'friendships' with those whom they disagree. It's not a system which promotes growth in thinking or change. People may evaluate themselves as deeply informed, but again, this is true only in circular terms. The response of most to being told they are wrong is not, "Indeed? Show me," but "You're a dick!" There is a great deal of contempt heaped upon those outside the circle, because within, bias is accepted and reinforced.

I got 11 out of 12 and I'm Canadian.

[albrecht]

I got 11 out of 12 and I'm Canadian.

Same. 11 out of 12. I forgot how many broads were on the SC! Easy quiz other than that though. And that error can be explained. I forgot one Court skirt likely because the chauvinistic, western, sexist, capitalist atmosphere in this country, and the Court, means that they are afraid to assert themselves and, thus, I forgot one! (Actually I kid our Court these days is overly representative of certain minorities. Not many WASPs on it anymore- for some reason that I can't fathom except political correctness and politicking and so certain appointees.)

ps: Good luck Bernie! I like to see fringe candidates and especially if honest ones.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-i-am-running-for-president/ar-BBiUvNQ?ocid=mailsignout

[Gd5150]

I got 11 out of 12 and I'm Canadian.

I missed 15, damm.

[3OctaveFart]

Our pampered American Caesar.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taxpayers-foot-49k-bill-air-conditioning-staging-obamas-town-hall-jamaica_934420.html

[analog kid]

Our pampered American Caesar.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taxpayers-foot-49k-bill-air-conditioning-staging-obamas-town-hall-jamaica_934420.html

My favorite was the outrage when Obama ate a cheeseburger.

[VtaGeezer]

Our pampered American Caesar.

This is what Bill O'Reilly would call pettifoggery.

[Gd5150]

My favorite was the outrage when Obama ate a cheeseburger.

My favorite was when he ordered a "cheddar cheese burger". Who calls it that? No one. Then asks for some Dijon mustard. So awkward and phony. Dude hasn't eaten in a greasy spoon ever. Them's  is tryin to make him seem like yo avg black folk.

I eat here all the time and I always get a good cheddar cheese burger with a Coca-Cola soda pop and some french fried potatoes.

[3OctaveFart]

Somebody tell him he can drop the phony Chicago accent. We know that's not where he's from, nor is he from this continent.

[Lunger]

My favorite was when he ordered a "cheddar cheese burger". Who calls it that? No one. Then asks for some Dijon mustard. So awkward and phony. Dude hasn't eaten in a greasy spoon ever. Them's  is tryin to make him seem like yo avg black folk.

That's because he's more comfortable ordering Nyama Choma or Matoke.

[qaddisin]

My favorite was when he ordered a "cheddar cheese burger". Who calls it that? No one. Then asks for some Dijon mustard. So awkward and phony. Dude hasn't eaten in a greasy spoon ever. Them's  is tryin to make him seem like yo avg black folk.

I eat here all the time and I always get a good cheddar cheese burger with a Coca-Cola soda pop and some french fried potatoes.

Would it better suit your expectations for him to sound like Chris Rock from "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka"? Or maybe Samuel L. Jackson from "Pulp Fiction"? Just curious what your metric is for people to sound 'real', so that we can be sure to apply it to everyone that orders food at a restaurant.

[qaddisin]

That's because he's more comfortable ordering Nyama Choma or Matoke.

Oh. That's because he's secret Muslim president from Kenya. You know, that observation just never gets old.

[VtaGeezer]

Oh. That's because he's secret Muslim president from Kenya. You know, that observation just never gets old.

They think Nyama Choma is a far leftie from an Ivy League school.

[Gd5150]

Would it better suit your expectations for him to sound like Chris Rock from "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka"? Or maybe Samuel L. Jackson from "Pulp Fiction"? Just curious what your metric is for people to sound 'real', so that we can be sure to apply it to everyone that orders food at a restaurant.

Nah just order a cheeseburger like the other 7.125 billion people on earth. A cheddar cheese burger. That has to be the 1st time those words have ever been uttered in that order.

It's like when John Kerry went "hunting" in Ohio during his 2004 presidential campaign and he had to run by and pick up a hunting license where the media just happened to be at a sporting good store and asked the cashier: "Can I Get Me a Hunting License Here?". Sure, Johnny get the billionaire a hunting license. Another limousine liberal politician being forced to act like "one of the people." It's painful.

Rush Limbaugh's breakdown was priceless! "KERRY: Can I little me a hunting license here?
RUSH: Did you hear that? "Can I get me a huntin' license heyah?" Can I get me a hunting license here? Now, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that John Kerry doesn't speak that way. We know it. But that's what he thinks the people in Ohio will judge him as a real guy, if he walks in there and says: "Hey, can I get me a hunting license here?" But he blew it because it's not, "Can I get me a hunting license?" If he really wanted to carry this off, he should have said, "Hey, can I get me a huntin' license in here, dude?" or some such thing as that. So, I mean, if there's any doubt, folks. The whole thing was a put on photo op. The Democrats today are even admitting that's what it was. But Kerry has to go in and say, "Can I get me a hunting license here?"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2004/10/22/kerry_thinks_midwesterners_are_idiots_can_i_get_me_a_hunting_license_here

[paladin1991]

Somebody tell him he can drop the phony Chicago accent. We know that's not where he's from, nor is he from this continent.

* Long....slow....head turn*