Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   2014 battle lines are drawn. Don't you love these civil wars we seem to go through every two years?   (politico.com ) divider line 76
    More: Interesting, civil wars, Said Ali al Farha, Cook Political Report, midterm elections, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee  
•       •       •

1913 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 9:04 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-29 07:44:31 AM  
No they aren't. Stop making politics into some elaborate Machiavellian-dance. "House of Cards" is not a realistic portrayal of politics.

There are two things to watch out for:

On the GOP side, where does the big money go. Does the Business Wing of the GOP try to throw out the Teabaggers using their pocketbook? And if they are unsuccessful will that drive them out of the fight or to across theaisle.

 On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go? The smart move is to take over the moderate/sane ground seceded by the GOP in the last two years. But that's never been the strong suit of theDemocratic party.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-10-29 08:17:42 AM  
It's the same civil war that's been going on for some time.
 
2013-10-29 09:00:38 AM  
Yes, an election is essentially a simulated civil war. You line up all the factions, count noses, presume God fights on the side of the most numerous battalion, and voila! New leadership, with a lot less expense and property destruction than the non-simulated. (EG: US GDP 2012 was about $15T, with total election spending for all races circa $7B -- roughly 0.05%. The US Civil War ran to costs circa 10% of GDP.)

At least, cheaper in the majority of cases where the losers don't decide the simulation should be experimentally tested.
 
2013-10-29 09:07:33 AM  
I think that's why I'm interested in American Politics even though I'm not American.  Your elections never seem to stop.
 
2013-10-29 09:07:54 AM  
You look at the electoral maps for elections going back 150 years and you see that they break along former slave state lines for the most part.

Always someone with a southern accent trying to screw things up for everyone.
It's why we cannot have nice things in the United States, like health insurance.
 
2013-10-29 09:08:01 AM  

WTF Indeed: On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go? The smart move is to take over the moderate/sane ground seceded by the GOP in the last two years. But that's never been the strong suit of theDemocratic party.


They've mostly been to the right of moderate for the last couple of decades.
 
2013-10-29 09:10:25 AM  
Democrats: "Republicans have such a hard-on for the President, they would literally destroy the world economy if there was a chance it would be blamed on Obama."

Republicans: "The administration produced a crappy website that will be fixed before there is any real impact on healthcare access. Therefore;"
 
2013-10-29 09:10:40 AM  

WTF Indeed: No they aren't. Stop making politics into some elaborate Machiavellian-dance. "House of Cards" is not a realistic portrayal of politics.

There are two things to watch out for:

On the GOP side, where does the big money go. Does the Business Wing of the GOP try to throw out the Teabaggers using their pocketbook? And if they are unsuccessful will that drive them out of the fight or to across theaisle.

 On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go? The smart move is to take over the moderate/sane ground seceded by the GOP in the last two years. But that's never been the strong suit of theDemocratic party.


Not their strong suit? The Democrats have done literally nothing else since Reagan.
 
2013-10-29 09:13:10 AM  
Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.
 
2013-10-29 09:13:17 AM  
On one side, you have a botched website roll out that has inconvenienced some folks.

On the other, you have a plot to literally crash the national and global economy.

Are Republicans really hoping the voters think a buggy website is worse than their plot to, you know, turn us into Mad Max world?

Of course they are.
 
2013-10-29 09:14:09 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: You look at the electoral maps for elections going back 150 years and you see that they break along former slave state lines for the most part.


We should have hanged every last secessionist in every state house that committed treason against the United States.

/says captain hindsight.
 
2013-10-29 09:14:49 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Democrats: "Republicans have such a hard-on for the President, they would literally destroy the world economy if there was a chance it would be blamed on Obama."

Republicans: "The administration produced a crappy website that will be fixed before there is any real impact on healthcare access. Therefore;"


Idiots: "Fartbongo made a crappy website? We gotter git him outta office before he makes us gay marry turtles! Vote Republican!"
 
2013-10-29 09:16:04 AM  

oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.


Yes, because one side wants you to have affordable healthcare, a proper education, clean air and water, and generally would like to fix income inequality.  You know, actually govern.

The other wants to stick it to the blah guy and don't care how much of this country they have to burn down to do it.

Totes the same.  Much like a paper cut and a sucking chest wound are exactly the same.
 
2013-10-29 09:17:13 AM  

no_dice: I think that's why I'm interested in American Politics even though I'm not American.  Your elections never seem to stop.


Indeed. The GOP were planning for the 2016 election even before they lost the 2012 election, or at least that's what it looked like from this side of the media spectrum.
 
2013-10-29 09:18:01 AM  

oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.


edgy comment, breh
 
2013-10-29 09:18:29 AM  

stewover.com

 
2013-10-29 09:18:47 AM  

Dr. Whoof: The other wants to stick it to the blah guy and don't care how much of this country they have to burn down to do it.


Let's be fair here.

They also want to punish everyone who had the temerity to vote for the blah guy in the first place.
 
2013-10-29 09:20:13 AM  

WTF Indeed: On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go?


The answer to this question is always "as liberal as republicans were 15 years ago".  There are maybe 5 or so actual liberals in the entire party.
 
2013-10-29 09:20:21 AM  
Well if the Democratz weren't instituting laws to steal money from the half the country that doesn't want their money stolen, we wouldn't have these fights.

Oh and yes, forcing my premium from 300 mo to 600 a mo so you can redistribute that money to your political constituencies is absolutely stealing.
 
2013-10-29 09:20:56 AM  
Civil War?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-29 09:21:59 AM  

oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.


Come on now. Finish Cliche Bingo here. How about saying that everyone is a sheep and you are the only free thinking person.
 
2013-10-29 09:24:18 AM  

WTF Indeed: No they aren't. Stop making politics into some elaborate Machiavellian-dance. "House of Cards" is not a realistic portrayal of politics.

There are two things to watch out for:

On the GOP side, where does the big money go. Does the Business Wing of the GOP try to throw out the Teabaggers using their pocketbook? And if they are unsuccessful will that drive them out of the fight or to across theaisle.

 On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go? The smart move is to take over the moderate/sane ground seceded by the GOP in the last two years. But that's never been the strong suit of theDemocratic party.


Democrats are anything but liberal and the Republicans seem to care more about Jebus at this point. We're farked either way
 
2013-10-29 09:25:59 AM  

no_dice: I think that's why I'm interested in American Politics even though I'm not American.  Your elections never seem to stop.


Actually, of late it's the campaigns that never seem to stop. Barack Obama has been running for President for six or seven years.
 
2013-10-29 09:33:31 AM  

abb3w: Yes, an election is essentially a simulated civil war. You line up all the factions, count noses, presume God fights on the side of the most numerous battalion, and voila! New leadership, with a lot less expense and property destruction than the non-simulated. (EG: US GDP 2012 was about $15T, with total election spending for all races circa $7B -- roughly 0.05%. The US Civil War ran to costs circa 10% of GDP.)

At least, cheaper in the majority of cases where the losers don't decide the simulation should be experimentally tested.


Hmm.  Sounds like the system in The Lomokome Papers.   But politicians need to go full Ctuzelawis and implement the token penalty for losing.
 
2013-10-29 09:34:31 AM  

Thune: Well if the Democratz weren't instituting laws to steal money from the half the country that doesn't want their money stolen, we wouldn't have these fights.

Oh and yes, forcing my premium from 300 mo to 600 a mo so you can redistribute that money to your political constituencies is absolutely stealing.


You'll get over it.
 
2013-10-29 09:41:15 AM  

NeverDrunk23: oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.

Come on now. Finish Cliche Bingo here. How about saying that everyone is a sheep and you are the only free thinking person.


Voter turn out only ever cracks 50% for presidential elections, and even amongst those there's a couple % so are,"throwing their vote away".

We naysayers have a comfortable plurality at the least. Its you ortharians who are the minority.
 
2013-10-29 09:41:31 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Thune: Well if the Democratz weren't instituting laws to steal money from the half the country that doesn't want their money stolen, we wouldn't have these fights.

Oh and yes, forcing my premium from 300 mo to 600 a mo so you can redistribute that money to your political constituencies is absolutely stealing.

You'll get over it.


Over it?  In the next ten to twenty years Republicans will not only claim 100% credit for it, but will say it's enshrined as a right of all people and don't you DARE touch it while they simultaneously cut funding for it.
 
2013-10-29 09:42:21 AM  

toomuchwhargarbl: HotIgneous Intruder: You look at the electoral maps for elections going back 150 years and you see that they break along former slave state lines for the most part.

We should have hanged every last secessionist in every state house that committed treason against the United States.

/says captain hindsight.


Nah, we should have let them go. If we had the CSA would be like a modern-day, English-speaking farked up mess like Mexico, while the USA would closely resemble modern day Canada, only with better weather.
 
2013-10-29 09:42:28 AM  

Ned Stark: We naysayers have a comfortable plurality at the least. Its you ortharians who are the minority.


Better to do nothing and complain than to do something and take the blame, eh?
 
2013-10-29 09:45:04 AM  

abb3w: with a lot less expense and property destruction than the non-simulated.


You assume this, then the Teabaggers shut down the government because they lost 43 times in a row to get their way.

If we just shot at them whenever they got within 100 yards of any government building it would be cheaper. Bullets cost a lot less than such constant fiascos.

Also, if we just cordon off the districts that elected them, cut the internet and TV, and use leaflet bomb tactics to cover their homes in quick summaries of basic education most people learned in middle school, it would still be cheaper than letting them inside the House and Senate.
 
2013-10-29 09:48:36 AM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Thune: Well if the Democratz weren't instituting laws to steal money from the half the country that doesn't want their money stolen, we wouldn't have these fights.

Oh and yes, forcing my premium from 300 mo to 600 a mo so you can redistribute that money to your political constituencies is absolutely stealing.

You'll get over it.


Moreover, Thune is ignoring the fact that his present, artificially low insurance premium is subsidized by those who are forced to pay artificially high rates...SOZIALISTICALS!!!
 
2013-10-29 09:50:17 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Ned Stark: We naysayers have a comfortable plurality at the least. Its you ortharians who are the minority.

Better to do nothing and complain than to do something and take the blame, eh?


When "something" is defined as offering legitimacy to thieves and murderers through your participation?

Yes, nothing is better.
 
2013-10-29 09:57:04 AM  

Thune: Well if the Democratz weren't instituting laws to steal money from the half the country that doesn't want their money stolen, we wouldn't have these fights.


yeah, yeah, taxes legal theft blabbitty blabbity blah, dip da dip da doo, roota tootin too, amirite?
 
2013-10-29 10:04:18 AM  

oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.


Although I don't agree with your statement... Using your lose-lose analogy, do you want to lose by a hail mary half court shot... or do you want to lose by 40 points?
 
2013-10-29 10:14:37 AM  

jjorsett: Barack Obama has been running for President for six or seven years.


They said the same thing about Bill Clinton. Accusing people of winning is the criticism of losers.
 
2013-10-29 10:16:16 AM  

It all made sense at the time: But politicians need to go full Ctuzelawis and implement the token penalty for losing.


Unnecessarily wasteful. It's often possible to get a talented rival to work in areas where there is shared agreement, to the net benefit of all. Lincoln was the classic master of this, but there have been many lesser examples since, such as President Obama's persuading Hillary Clinton to become SecState. Of course, Lincoln's presidency also gives the classic example of the limits of this. At the point when politics collapses to Continuation By Other Means, it's helpful for a Lincoln to be able to delegate to a William Tecumseh Sherman.

On which thought, it occurs to me....

abb3w: US GDP 2012 was about $15T, with total election spending for all races circa $7B -- roughly 0.05%. The US Civil War ran to costs circa 10% of GDP.


The government shutdown at the start of this October is estimated to costs to the US economy as a whole circa 0.6% of the GDP over the next year, which is just slightly below the geometric mean of those two percentages.
 
2013-10-29 10:22:02 AM  
The twin dramas of the government shutdown and botched rollout of Obamacare have snapped a sleepy 2014 election season out of its slumber

Yeah, these mid-terms were going to be such a snore-fest, what with a Presidential election in '16 and all.
 
2013-10-29 10:26:41 AM  

no_dice: I think that's why I'm interested in American Politics even though I'm not American.  Your elections never seem to stop.


Then you'll love the state of Virginia.  Thanks to Federal terms and the 6 year term for state governor, there is an election every year in Virginia.  The offices change, but there is something going on every farking year.

/think it's a conspiracy funded by robocall companies
 
2013-10-29 10:30:21 AM  
If this country wasn't in a constant state of campaigning and pre-campaigning, maybe the economy would be stable longer than it is, and maybe people who "hate politics" wouldn't be so burned out on it...at least enough to become interested when it matters and help weed out the shiatheads.

Nah.
 
2013-10-29 10:32:34 AM  

Zeno-25: Civil War?

[i.imgur.com image 399x408]


Why Dallas of all places I wonder?  Cuss George Bush?

/Lives in Dallas
//I consider it more purple\
///Large cities in the south are typically more liberal than the desolate wastelands that surround them.
 
2013-10-29 10:38:54 AM  

Ned Stark: NeverDrunk23: oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.

Come on now. Finish Cliche Bingo here. How about saying that everyone is a sheep and you are the only free thinking person.

Voter turn out only ever cracks 50% for presidential elections, and even amongst those there's a couple % so are,"throwing their vote away".

We naysayers have a comfortable plurality at the least. Its you ortharians who are the minority.


Ortharians, has a nice ring to it. Your new word is good. What does it mean?
 
2013-10-29 10:42:31 AM  

lordjupiter: If this country wasn't in a constant state of campaigning and pre-campaigning, maybe the economy would be stable longer than it is, and maybe people who "hate politics" wouldn't be so burned out on it...at least enough to become interested when it matters and help weed out the shiatheads.

Nah.


That might not be the best idea. You do realize that back in the day, when voter turnout was much higher, American politics was FAR more vitriolic than it is now:

upload.wikimedia.org

That was back when politics really was considered a "team sport" and people rooted for Democrats and Republicans like they were their hometown football teams. And yes, the politicians campaigned on nothing but wedge issues. The only relevant matters to which party you belonged to were race (whites vs. blacks), region (yankees vs. rednecks), religion (Protestants vs. Catholics), upbringing (nativists vs. immigrants), and all that jazz. Meanwhile, behind all those smokescreens of fake "issues" for the masses, the real politicians were only debating about patronage and who was entitled to which cushy office titles based on their networking and bribery.

At least now when our politicians are being vitriolic, they are at least discussing actual policy issues.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:10 AM  

doglover: You assume this, then the Teabaggers shut down the government because they lost 43 times in a row to get their way.

If we just shot at them whenever they got within 100 yards of any government building it would be cheaper. Bullets cost a lot less than such constant fiascos.


Granted, the costs of enduring Tea Party participation in the political process are now getting to the order of cost from some of the smaller brush wars from our nation's history. However, as I just noted (in a post I was composing while your post went up)... no, it wouldn't be cheaper, once the incredible expense of civil wars (even relative to other wars) and the tendency of Teabaggers to shoot back gets factored in. Because if you think such people would hesitate an iota in shooting back

expertguns.com


...then I really need to change the color I use for highlighting your posts, and add a "moran" annotation to the "Note:" field.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:21 AM  

Zasteva: Ned Stark: NeverDrunk23: oryx: Democrat or Republican? Whoever wins, we lose.

Come on now. Finish Cliche Bingo here. How about saying that everyone is a sheep and you are the only free thinking person.

Voter turn out only ever cracks 50% for presidential elections, and even amongst those there's a couple % so are,"throwing their vote away".

We naysayers have a comfortable plurality at the least. Its you ortharians who are the minority.

Ortharians, has a nice ring to it. Your new word is good. What does it mean?


Democrats and Republicans. Its a reference to Orthrus, the two headed dog.
 
2013-10-29 11:13:31 AM  

WTF Indeed: On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go? The smart move is to take over the moderate/sane ground seceded by the GOP in the last two years.


So in other words, become more conservative. And thus, the whole country's political policies move towards the right. Genius.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:19 AM  

Stone Meadow: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Thune: Well if the Democratz weren't instituting laws to steal money from the half the country that doesn't want their money stolen, we wouldn't have these fights.

Oh and yes, forcing my premium from 300 mo to 600 a mo so you can redistribute that money to your political constituencies is absolutely stealing.

You'll get over it.

Moreover, Thune is ignoring the fact that his present, artificially low insurance premium is subsidized by those who are forced to pay artificially high rates...SOZIALISTICALS!!!


Also also:  those premiums are going to the insurance companies.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:20 AM  

Lando Lincoln: WTF Indeed: On the Democrat side, how liberal will they try to go? The smart move is to take over the moderate/sane ground seceded by the GOP in the last two years.

So in other words, become more conservative. And thus, the whole country's political policies move towards the right. Genius.


I think you might have the causality reversed there. If the Democrats can't win elections without moving to the right, then the electorate has moved on its own.
 
2013-10-29 11:28:24 AM  

Stone Meadow: toomuchwhargarbl: HotIgneous Intruder: You look at the electoral maps for elections going back 150 years and you see that they break along former slave state lines for the most part.

We should have hanged every last secessionist in every state house that committed treason against the United States.

/says captain hindsight.

Nah, we should have let them go. If we had the CSA would be like a modern-day, English-speaking farked up mess like Mexico, while the USA would closely resemble modern day Canada, only with better weather.


The south probably would be Mexico by now.
 
2013-10-29 11:29:56 AM  

qorkfiend: I think you might have the causality reversed there. If the Democrats can't win elections without moving to the right, then the electorate has moved on its own.


Your brilliant theory of magical ideological drift completely ignores the influence of corporate money on the political process -- in fact, the drift toward fascism.
 
2013-10-29 11:34:57 AM  
Crappy website or government shutdown and potential default. That's quite the BSAB there.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report