Krugman: GOP has become embarrassing to watch.

[Deadend]

And preaching the violent overthrow of the United States government and the institution of a Communist regime during the height of the Cold War posed no risk to life or limb? Speech is often an inherently dangerous activity.
No, making that speech has a chance of having you get your ass kicked. Aiming a gun at someone and shooting is nearly 100% of making someone else die.

But still the main subject is how poorly the republican party is currently run. It's become the party of frothing hate without new ideas. Their response to everything is to demand that we lower taxes on the rich.

[Ox]

No, making that speech has a chance of having you get your ass kicked. Aiming a gun at someone and shooting is nearly 100% of making someone else die.
I'd say the chances are far less than that. And I think you significantly underestimate the dangers of international Communism in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.

EDIT: But in any event, your analogy is inapposite. Pointing a gun at someone and shooting is illegal. I wholly agree with this law, and I believe it is entirely constitutional. Please stick to the actual debate.

Their response to everything is to demand that we lower taxes on the rich.
This is an exaggeration along the lines of saying that the Democratic response to everything is to raise taxes on the rich. Neither is true, although partisans on both sides like to say it is.

[menage]

Also, on the subject of weapons ownership. What pussies we've become if we don't understand that the thing that keeps a government from becoming tyrannical is the willingness of the people to fight against it. When you take away the means of protecting yourself, and leave it ONLY in the hands of the state, you've got serious problems ahead.
.

That's why Europe is flooded with criminals, streetgangs and vicious dictators, because we are not allowed to use guns ;P.

[OldeWolf]

http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=702 http://www.xentales.com/images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif

:p

[Panthera]

http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=702 http://www.xentales.com/images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif

:p

I support this message.

[rifter]

The NFA stamp is only around $200, and the CLEO requirement can be circumvented by forming a living trust. The pre-86 thing is pretty much a hard-written rule, though.

I am not an expert in this area, but I am pretty darn sure, with the living trust situation, you still need some sort of LEO sign-off. Another way around it, or a quasi-loophole, is to form an LLC, that holds the weapons. Even better, manufactures parts, so you can get modern firearms... but, it is also not easy, terribly expensive, and has all sorts of legal landmines you have to be VERY careful of.

Lets just put it this way, I have shot full auto. It is fun, and I would love to get a full-auto gun. Because of the legalities and issues, though, I wouldn't do it, unless I made a LOT more money than I do now.


What I find interesting is the question: do women have the right to keep and bear arms? Women, after all, would not have been considered part of the militia in 1791, when the amendment was adopted. And even today, the US military does not permit women into combat roles -- a prohibition that has been upheld as compliant with the Equal Protection Clause by the Supreme Court. I don't favor limiting the right to women, but I'm almost callous enough to hope a legislature somewhere does so in order to see how the courts deal with it.

Ox, that just rules. I sent it to my GF, and told her she can't touch my guns anymore... becaues of legal reasons and sent her that snippet. :-) Thank you!

[Slack3r78]

I am not an expert in this area, but I am pretty darn sure, with the living trust situation, you still need some sort of LEO sign-off. Another way around it, or a quasi-loophole, is to form an LLC, that holds the weapons.
Nah, one of the primary motivators for people forming living trusts to purchase NFA firearms is because it eliminates the requirement of getting a CLEO sign-off on the paperwork.

http://www.86th.org/?id=nfa-trust#Why

[zarathstra]

I'm also rather fond of some of the ideas Washington hinted at about the idea that every person able to hold a rifle is essentially part of a vast civilian army, a true militia of the people as it were, and given that at the time we'd just got done revolting against an overwhelmingly more powerful military force who only failed to crush us completely because they were too busy elsewhere, it seems like he might have had some recent events in mind when he formulated such ideas.



No offense to Mr. Washington, but he lived in a time where your standard infantry weapon was a single shot gun that took a minute to load and was only accurate to a 100 yards, if that. And he lived in an age where most people (well, men, women didn't really count at the time) were farmers, hunters, outdoorsmen, used to handling dangerous implements on a daily basis.

There's a reason it takes weeks of intense training to turn someone into a competent soldier, and years of experience to turn them into a good one. Without that training, and with modern weapons, most of your standard civilian types would be more danger to themselves than the enemy. Hell, I've never fired a gun in my life. hand me one now, and I wouldn't have the first clue what to do with it.

Note: I think my view on guns has been made clear. This argument is not against gun ownership in general, I was only refuting that one argument.

[Ox]

No offense to Mr. Washington, but he lived in a time where your standard infantry weapon was a single shot gun that took a minute to load and was only accurate to a 100 yards, if that. And he lived in an age where most people (well, men, women didn't really count at the time) were farmers, hunters, outdoorsmen, used to handling dangerous implements on a daily basis.

There's a reason it takes weeks of intense training to turn someone into a competent soldier, and years of experience to turn them into a good one. Without that training, and with modern weapons, most of your standard civilian types would be more danger to themselves than the enemy. Hell, I've never fired a gun in my life. hand me one now, and I wouldn't have the first clue what to do with it.
Actually, training was at least as important in the 18th century as it is today. Major military battles were fought through a budgeoning process: men would line up in bright uniforms and shoot at each other from close range until one side ran. Being a hunter or farmer is not good preparation for mindlessly ignoring the high probability of death from such a fight, which is why we lost almost every major battle of the Revolutionary War to the far more disciplined redcoats. Indeed, an undisciplined unit was far more dangerous to its own side than the enemy: even crack troops have difficulty holding steady if they see allies fleeing the battle, especially given the certainty of death if you are the last to run, and it was quite common throughout the period for the best generals to fight with inferior numbers of trained troops and leave militia units guarding supply lines, lest the militia undercut the regulars' effectiveness.

Discipline has always been a crucial element of warfare, at least since the Greek phalanx proved it could defeat many times its own number of barbarian rabble. I'm not convinced that's any more true today.

EDIT: And BTW, modern weapons are a lot more user-friendly than 18th-century ones. Loading a musket took a bit of training. Firing an AK-47 is within the capabilities of illiterate African 13-year-olds.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's why Europe is flooded with criminals, streetgangs and vicious dictators, because we are not allowed to use guns ;P.

Maybe I'm completely off base, but my understanding was that gangs had become something of a problem in the UK. Perhaps I'm melting some stories together.

[torrefaction]

Maybe I'm completely off base, but my understanding was that gangs had become something of a problem in the UK. Perhaps I'm melting some stories together.

My understanding was that homicides and knife violence were on the rise too. That statistically, violent crime didn't get reduced. On the other hand, there's conclusive scientific evidence that shows concealed weapons permits in a state reduce violence and robbery.

[rifter]

Hell, I've never fired a gun in my life. hand me one now, and I wouldn't have the first clue what to do with it.

In my experience, those devices that make modern firearms "safe" are the ones that cause the most trouble to the uninformed.

I could give you a bullet, and a mosin nagant rifle, and I will be you could fire that round, roughly on target, in under 30 seconds. I could give you two bullets, and it would probably be 2 on target, in roughly 40 seconds. The mechanics of SHOOTING a gun is simple. The mechanics of loading and bringing many modern firearms to a firing state, tend to be a little more problemmatic.

My ex-wife used to be terrified of guns, because she saw the news stories, and didn't know anything about them. I brought my shotgun home from my parent's house, and she was freaking out about how maybe her 4 year old cousins would come into our room, and kill each other. At the time, the gun was on the floor, they could reach it. The shells were across the room, in a drawer, burried under some underwear (that should be enough deterrent for most sane people), up out of their reach. I pointed this out to her. I then handed her the shotgun, and handed her two rounds. I asked her to load the shotgun, and get it into a firing state. She never did get the shotgun rounds in. It is set up to be safe. My shotgun is set up in such a way that it is not super simple to load in the first place.

Now, an AK47 is a simple rifle. As others have posted, 13 year olds are armed with them. But, have you ever tried to load and fire one? It requires a certain touch to get that damn magazine into place. :-) It requires a little knowledge and practice.

Different firearms really do require different levels of familiarity. Though, I also think that anyone that OWNS a gun, should know all about their gun, how to fire, how they work, etc. The more a gun owner knows, the less of a threat they are to those around them.

[TheFlyingOrc]

My understanding was that homicides and knife violence were on the rise too. That statistically, violent crime didn't get reduced. On the other hand, there's conclusive scientific evidence that shows concealed weapons permits in a state reduce violence and robbery.

Well, my understanding for that was that the upcoming generation in the UK is considered by many to literally be the worst generation of any culture ever.

And I'm using literally in the correct manner.

[Slack3r78]

Different firearms really do require different levels of familiarity. Though, I also think that anyone that OWNS a gun, should know all about their gun, how to fire, how they work, etc. The more a gun owner knows, the less of a threat they are to those around them.
In my experience, the less familiar a person is with firearms, the more likely they are to be uncomfortable with them. I know I used to be. In the time since, I've learned everything from the basic mechanics of many firearms to fully detail stripping a number of handguns. In the process, you become much more comfortable with how a firearm works and have a far better understanding that a modern firearm does not just 'go off' by accident.

[TheFlyingOrc]

In my experience, the less familiar a person is with firearms, the more likely they are to be uncomfortable with them. I know I used to be. In the time since, I've learned everything from the basic mechanics of many firearms to fully detail stripping a number of handguns. In the process, you become much more comfortable with how a firearm works and have a far better understanding that a modern firearm does not just 'go off' by accident.

With awesome explosive high velocity power comes awesome explosive high velocity responsibility.

[Deadend]

Well, my understanding for that was that the upcoming generation in the UK is considered by many to literally be the worst generation of any culture ever.

And I'm using literally in the correct manner.

Didn't they say that about the last generation as well? The one before that too?

[zarathstra]

With awesome explosive high velocity power comes awesome explosive high velocity responsibility.

That's the message Spiderman would have gotten if his uncle were Ted Nugent :)

[Hotcod]

Control of guns is to reduce GUN crime not general crime. The level of crime will often go down because there's some crimes that need guns more than others. Robbing a store or a bank for example "needs" guns and if you control guns fewer people will have them to do stuff like that. Mugging someone on the other had can be as effective with a knife if not as deadly. In other words you are acting to bring down the use of the weapons in crime because people are more likely to die when guns are involved.

As for how bad gangs and crime is here, yes in some areas it's really rather bad but no worse then what i've been told of the same kind of areas in any other country. I'm just far less likely to get killed if i happen to be in those areas because very few of them have guns and they know using them will get them fucked.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Didn't they say that about the last generation as well? The one before that too?

I can't source the quote, but I'm fairly certain that the statements about the current generation (in the UK, specifically) were attempting to be taken from an objective viewpoint, not the standard "kids these days" nonsense.

[Banacek]

What shocked me was when they apologized to him for saying he didn't run the party.

Yeah, I don't understand it. Is there really that much of a power vacuum in the GOP?

[Ink Asylum]

Yeah, I don't understand it. Is there really that much of a power vacuum in the GOP?

Yes.

Who do you think is the most influential Republican right now?

McCain? McConnell? Boehner? Steele? Palin? Jindal? Cheney? Gingrich? Rove? W?

Is there a prominent, effective Republican who isn't A) a congressional minority leader, B) damaged by their position in the Bush Administration, or C) a relic from the past?

There won't be a Republican leader with more power with the base than Limbaugh until after what will likely be a bruising Presidential primary in 2011-12.

[National Kato]

Who do you think is the most influential Republican right now?


Not including Limbaugh, I'd say Boehner.

[Ox]

They didn't apologize for saying he didn't run the party. Steele apologized for calling Limbaugh a mere "entertainer," "ugly," and "incendiary." Steele also said that Limbaugh was "a national conservative leader," which I think is probably true: Limbaugh is a very prominent voice in conservative politics, and although he has little official power, his views do carry significant weight. Nor is it inappropriate that a commentator should have significant influence.

Of course there's a power vacuum in the GOP. There are two kinds of power: the ability to use force and the ability to persuade. Since the GOP doesn't control any of the levers of government, no nationally prominent Republican can use force against any of the others. So the only power in the GOP is the ability to persuade. I think even his sharpest critics have to concede that Limbaugh is extremely effective at persuading large groups of people to agree with him. He doesn't necessarily control the party -- he's not that persuasive -- but he is powerful. The only ways to blunt Limbaugh's power are either to use force against him (not exactly my first choice) or to become more persuasive than him. Many have tried, few succeed.

[Ink Asylum]

Not including Limbaugh, I'd say Boehner.

So the most powerful non-Limbaugh Republican is a House minority leader who would probably only be recognized by 1 out of Americans at best, has an approval rating in the teens, and whose power in government is limited to introducing bills and amendments in the House with no chance of passing.

That's pretty much the definition of a power vaccuum. At least McConnell can filibuster.

[Ink Asylum]

I think even his sharpest critics have to concede that Limbaugh is extremely effective at persuading large groups of people to agree with him. He doesn't necessarily control the party -- he's not that persuasive -- but he is powerful. The only ways to blunt Limbaugh's power are either to use force against him (not exactly my first choice) or to become more persuasive than him. Many have tried, few succeed.

There's a third option: Building a Republican party that doesn't require Limbaugh's listeners to function. That's about the least likeliest thing Republican leaders will try, though it would be the healthiest option for the party in the long run.

The problem the Republicans have is that, if a leader does rise to challenge Rush, he'll likely believe he has to fight Limbaugh on his own turf. If that happens they'll be wrestling over a demographic that is continually shrinking.

As long as the Republican party believes it cannot upset Rush's listeners it'll be unable to advocate or enact the policies that will attract the demographics that are going to be a growing majority in the coming decades.

[Ox]

There's a third option: Building a Republican party that doesn't require Limbaugh's listeners to function. That's about the least likeliest thing Republican leaders will try, though it would be the healthiest option for the party in the long run.
I don't know what "healthiest" means in this case. There is no conceivable way in which the voters who might remotely consider voting Republican, but who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, could constitute an electoral majority. The party would be relegated to the level of the Libertarian Party. How is that the "healthiest" thing the party could do? Isn't one of the functions of a political party, indeed arguably the most important function, to attain sufficient political success to influence policy?

As long as the Republican party believes it cannot upset Rush's listeners it'll be unable to advocate or enact the policies that will attract the demographics that are going to be a growing majority in the coming decades.
As I demonstrated earlier, there's a strong argument that the growing demographics are those most amenable to a Limbaugh-style approach. You prescribe electoral and demographic suicide under the guise of medicine.

[torrefaction]

But what about the rising moderation in the Democratic party, caused by disenchantment in Bush years. Do you firmly believe that after the events of the last few years a party focused on fiscal conservatism and constitutionalism would have no power base worth speaking of?

I have a feeling that when all is said and done, mostly thanks to Pelosi and not Obama, the Democrats are going to be left just as disenchanted as fiscally conservative Republicans were with Bush.

I'm not convinced it'd be impossible to build an electoral majority that way.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't know what "healthiest" means in this case. There is no conceivable way in which the voters who might remotely consider voting Republican, but who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, could constitute an electoral majority. The party would be relegated to the level of the Libertarian Party. How is that the "healthiest" thing the party could do? Isn't one of the functions of a political party, indeed arguably the most important function, to attain sufficient political success to influence policy?

The reason it's the least likeliest to happen is indeed because the party platform as it currently stands limits their options. To pursue the third option would mean the party would have to drastically change its policies. It would take a long time, longer than current Republican leaders have the patience for, but the party that emerged would be healthier because it would be made up of growing and strong demographics. It's policies would be drastically different than they are today, but it would still be around.

Clinging to policies that have failed or that are supported by a dwindling demographic for fear of losing your base isn't a very healthy thing to do either.

As I demonstrated earlier, there's a strong argument that the growing demographics are those most amenable to a Limbaugh-style approach. You prescribe electoral and demographic suicide under the guise of medicine.

Limbaugh's style, perhaps, but his policies? What growing demographics can be attracted by the message Limbaugh advances and world view?

[ShivaX]

Limbaugh's style, perhaps, but his policies? What growing demographics can be attracted by the message Limbaugh advances and world view?

Theres support in the Hispanic community on the religious issues. Even the black community would tend to support them. Of course the party is doing a great job of alienating those groups, so they're not likely to vote solely on those issues.

I mean look at Black and Hispanic votes on Prop 8 in California. They sure didn't vote McCain or even Republican, but they voted heavily in favor of what most would consider a GOP idea.

[Ox]

But what about the rising moderation in the Democratic party, caused by disenchantment in Bush years.
You're serious? You think the Democratic party is more moderate today than it was in 2000? How so?

Do you firmly believe that after the events of the last few years a party focused on fiscal conservatism and constitutionalism would have no power base worth speaking of?
I do. Fiscal conservatism is not popular. Oh, people like to say they're fiscally conservative. And everyone would love to raise his neighbor's taxes and/or cut his neighbor's benefits. The major political parties are, to a certain extent, coalitions of groups who all agree to squeeze whoever isn't in the party. And "constitutionalism" isn't really a political or legal doctrine I've ever heard of.

Take a look at this (http://people-press.org/report/242/beyond-red-vs-blue) study. I know it's not super-recent, but I think it's illustrative. You've outlined a political philosophy that probably matches closely with the Enterprisers group: "highly patriotic and strongly pro-business, oppose social welfare and overwhelmingly support an assertive foreign policy." They make up 9% of the population and 11% of the registered voters. Why do they seems so common? "This group is largely white, well-educated, affluent and male: * more than three-quarters are men." Sounds like the sort of folks who dominate the Internet.

But wait, you say: maybe this party would bring in folks from outside the Republican party. Who else is there? You ain't getting Liberals, "opponents of an assertive foreign policy, strong supporters of environmental protection, and solid backers of government assistance to the poor." Not Conservative Democrats, "quite religious, socially conservative and take more moderate positions on several key foreign policy questions." Nor are you getting Disaffected Democrats, "this heavily female, poorly educated group are highly pessimistic about their opportunities in life, and also very mistrustful of both business and government. Nonetheless, they support government programs to help the needy." The only plausible group the fiscal conservatives might get would be the moderate Upbeats, "relatively moderate voters who have positive views of their financial situation, government performance, business, and the state of the nation in general. They are generally well-educated and fairly engaged in political news." Problem is, they already voted for Bush 4-1 in 2004, and they make up only 13% of registered voters.

Basically, you're giving up Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives, who together make up 23% of the electorate, for a group that makes up 13% of the electorate and frequently leans very strongly Republican already. The major swing in 2008 probably reflected the Upbeats becoming closer to 50-50 and tons of other Republicans staying home. But obviously the Republicans didn't lose all of the Upbeats: in 2004, the popular vote was R +2.4%, in 2008 it was D +7.2%. Even if you assume that every single other group voted exactly the same way and turnout among the groups didn't change at all, that only means the Upbeats went from 80-20 Republican to 75-25 Democratic.

Now, political opinions can change, and maybe millions of Americans will be persuaded to agree with you. Stranger things have happened, and only our hope that we can persuade our fellow citizens keeps us from trying to topple the government. But according to every credible statistical analysis I've ever seen, your ideal party would be a pathetic failure. Sorry.

[Ox]

Clinging to policies that have failed or that are supported by a dwindling demographic for fear of losing your base isn't a very healthy thing to do either.
I agree the re-evaluation of policy is a good thing. But c'mon: policies that have failed or that are supported by a dwindling demographic? Policies go in and out of fashion. Fucking isolationism, just about the case study in failed policies, has experienced several resurgences since Pearl Harbor. Tax hikes, tax cuts, expanding entitlements, cutting entitlements, foreign policy idealism, foreign policy realism -- these ebb and flow like the tides. The demographics of America have changed radically, and the new demographic groups often come in with particular policy preferences... but soon enough, they become just like the rest of us. I mean, imagine telling someone a hundred years ago that there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court... and all of them were appointed by conservative Presidents. It would be like saying today that blacks voted overwhelmingly for the Republican.

[Slack3r78]

The smartest thing Bush tried to do for the Republicans was to align the GOP with hispanic voters. Immigration as Bush approached it could be a huge win for the GOP, but unfortunately, the base of the part is too xenophobic for it to have worked.

I mean, if you want to sell a party on family values, the Hispanics would be a great demographic to court. Interesting stat I heard on NPR just a bit ago -- illegal immigrants live together in family units at roughly twice the rate that native-born Americans do.

[Ox]

The smartest thing Bush tried to do for the Republicans was to align the GOP with hispanic voters. Immigration as Bush approached it could be a huge win for the GOP, but unfortunately, the base of the part is too xenophobic for it to have worked.
I agree trying to attract Hispanic voters is extremely important for the GOP. I'm not as convinced that Bush's tactics were effective. For one thing, Hispanics may be like every other Americans: once they're in the country and citizens, they want to shut the door. This (http://www.cis.org/latinovoting) study indicates that Hispanic voting in 2008 was not strongly influenced by immigration policy -- although note who funded the study. John McCain was one of the most ferociously pro-immigration people on either side of the aisle, but he only got 32% of the Hispanic vote. Bush only ever got around 39%.

Take a look at this (http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf) as well. Latinos are about evenly split on whether Democrats are more concerned about their interests. Although 79% of Latinos said that immigration was "very" or "extremely" important to them, it ranked behind education, healthcare, the economy, and crime. [Insert joke about "Latin passion" here.] Only 41% of Latinos said the Democrats were better on illegal immigration than the Republicans were. Of the Republican candidates, John McCain (who was clearly the most pro-immigration Republican in the race) ranked third, with only 10% support (interestingly, the New York candidates on both sides -- Clinton and Giuliani -- absolutely destroyed their rivals for the nominations among Latinos).

Thus far, I think the evidence is mixed as to whether illegal immigration is going to doom the Republicans among Latinos.

[Slack3r78]

I agree trying to attract Hispanic voters is extremely important for the GOP. I'm not as convinced that Bush's tactics were effective.
Well, that would be why I used the word 'tried' instead of 'did'.

EDIT:

To clarify, I also meant 'as Bush approached it' more in the sense that he was sympathetic to the Hispanics as opposed to the Minuteman bloc of his party. I don't necessarily mean his particular policies.

[alienmastermind]

Now, political opinions can change, and maybe millions of Americans will be persuaded to agree with you. Stranger things have happened, and only our hope that we can persuade our fellow citizens keeps us from trying to topple the government. But according to every credible statistical analysis I've ever seen, your ideal party would be a pathetic failure. Sorry.

My view:

2004 - Republicans, riding high on the 'capital' that Bush earned with his 'victory' in 2000, begin to disenfranchise middle of the road/non-political types by increasing the jingoistic rhetoric. Then, Air America begins competing with voices like Rush. (Doing well in some areas, very poorly in others)

2006 - With constant barrages of opposite broadcasting, the Dems oust a LOT of Republicans from Congress, Republicans are threatened in areas where they should have had a shot at trouncing, and losing where it might be a tie.

2008 - America votes for (in the words of the Right's pundits) a Muslim, Terrorist-Befrending, Elitist, Whitey-Hating, Extremist, Communist, Tax-Raising (congratulations, Righties, in not understanding how taxes work...like the fact that in the past 28 years, 20 years have been under Repub rule and raised taxes on the majority with both presidents named Bush) Non-Citizen.

And in an electoral landslide.

What will it take? Will it take the fine people of Minnesota voting in a comedian? Wait, they DID! Will it take a plurality of seats before these teabagging wingnuts stop playing the politics of division? Or, will they continue to try and play 20th century politics in the 21st century?

But, I know I can count on you, Ox, to say things that challenge my perception of reality.

Thanks, and here's looking at the mid-terms.

AM

[Ink Asylum]

What will it take? Will it take the fine people of Minnesota voting in a comedian? Wait, they DID!

This is an odd dig. Say what you will about Franken, but he's been interested and involved in politics for a long time. His tenure at Saturday Night Live involved numerous political sketches and since then he's written books on politics and helped start Air America, hosting a political show for a while. Why is it so shocking for him to be elected to statewide office?

[Ink Asylum]

I agree the re-evaluation of policy is a good thing. But c'mon: policies that have failed or that are supported by a dwindling demographic? Policies go in and out of fashion.

Well, that's another one of the Republican party's choices: Wait until their policies are popular again. It seems to be the one they're sticking with right now, so we'll see how it works for them. If Obama can't restore the economy and flames out there's a chance they could get some traction for their ideas in 2012, but then they'll have an even worse economy to try to save.

[DylonCorp]

This is an odd dig. Say what you will about Franken, but he's been interested and involved in politics for a long time.

And if you do read this (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/0525947647) one of his books, you'll discover just why that senate seat was so important to him.

[Johan]

And if you do read this (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Lying-Liars-Tell-Them/dp/0525947647) one of his books, you'll discover just why that senate seat was so important to him.

He needed a source of new comic material? He didn't need to actually run for office; he could have just visited Washington.

Actually, if I lived in MN, I'd be embarrassed. He's a buffoon. It's like electing Ann Coulter your state's senator.

[Ox]

2004 - Republicans, riding high on the 'capital' that Bush earned with his 'victory' in 2000, begin to disenfranchise middle of the road/non-political types by increasing the jingoistic rhetoric.
I don't think you want to say this. Folks like Johan, and to an extent me, are currently not having a great deal of influence on policy. I don't think you want to use a loaded word like "disenfranchised" on us. "Alienated" would be fair, and it would avoid this uncomfortable implication that anyone whose preferred policies are not in place is somehow deprived of a fundamental right.

Then, Air America begins competing with voices like Rush. (Doing well in some areas, very poorly in others)
Do you think Air America has had a significant effect on American electoral politics? Do you wish to provide evidence?

2006 - With constant barrages of opposite broadcasting, the Dems oust a LOT of Republicans from Congress, Republicans are threatened in areas where they should have had a shot at trouncing, and losing where it might be a tie.
I'm not sure what "opposite broadcasting" is. But everything else is true.

2008 - America votes for (in the words of the Right's pundits) a Muslim, Terrorist-Befrending, Elitist, Whitey-Hating, Extremist, Communist, Tax-Raising (congratulations, Righties, in not understanding how taxes work...like the fact that in the past 28 years, 20 years have been under Repub rule and raised taxes on the majority with both presidents named Bush) Non-Citizen.
I suppose if you want to take the most extreme views anyone broadly identified as "the Right" has ever mentioned, this is true. Although how did Bush II raise taxes for the majority? Bush II raised some taxes, but I don't think they apply to the majority of individuals. I'm just speaking off the cuff here (I'm also a little drunk), so I'm very happy to admit I could be extremely wrong.

Will it take a plurality of seats before these teabagging wingnuts stop playing the politics of division? Or, will they continue to try and play 20th century politics in the 21st century?
"The politics of division." An interesting phrase. What does that mean? I disagree with you a lot, and you disagree with me a lot. I think we respect each other, though. Are we practicing the "politics of division"? Is this "20th century politics"? In the 21st century, will we all agree with each other all the time?

[total]

This is an odd dig. Say what you will about Franken, but he's been interested and involved in politics for a long time. His tenure at Saturday Night Live involved numerous political sketches and since then he's written books on politics and helped start Air America, hosting a political show for a while. Why is it so shocking for him to be elected to statewide office?

I had no issues voting for him. Norm Coleman can suck my dick.

[Generation ABXY]

What will it take? Will it take the fine people of Minnesota voting in a comedian? Wait, they DID!

Next thing you know, we'll be electing actors as Governors or, dear me, even the President of the United States. What hath Minnesota wrought?

[mister slim]

Or wrestlers even.

[Generation ABXY]

Or wrestlers even.

Now you're just being silly.

[chex]

Different firearms really do require different levels of familiarity. Though, I also think that anyone that OWNS a gun, should know all about their gun, how to fire, how they work, etc. The more a gun owner knows, the less of a threat they are to those around them.

I'm just going to add a little bit of humour to this thread.
My mother is nuttier than an almond grove, and some guy came by the house selling "security systems" (no business cards, company car, website data, nada) and my mother, like a fool, told him when her then husband was in and out of the house. She later thought about what she had done, and tweaked and decided to wear her .9mm around, to make her feel a little better.
Couple hours later, she decides she needs to skip off to the lou, and she FORGETS that she has a fully loaded, one in the chamber, safety off Colt pistol tucked in to the back of her jeans and promptly drops the thing in the toilet.
After fishing it out, she has to call a buddy because she can't field strip the damn thing.

I had no issues voting for him. Norm Coleman can suck my dick.

Also, this (minus the penis, I don't have one of those). Norm Coleman is a snot nosed little shit that's been stamping his feet because he lost fair and square. Fraken might not be the most tactful sort, but Coleman is a whiny little kid stuck in monkey suit.

[ShivaX]

Also, this (minus the penis, I don't have one of those). Norm Coleman is a snot nosed little shit that's been stamping his feet because he lost fair and square. Fraken might not be the most tactful sort, but Coleman is a whiny little kid stuck in monkey suit.

Yeah... but its Al Franken!

Then again, its not like he won by a lot and its not like the choice wasn't shit regardless, so I don't hold it against ya. Its just another thing us Iowans can make fun of you for.

[chex]

Feel free (I mean come on, we have a bunch of guys that dress up as 'Vulcans' and get trashed at our capitol every year... I think we deserve it). I wasn't exactly thrilled to vote for him, but I sure as hell wasn't voting for the other slimy git.

[MagGnome]

Conspiracy theory that they paid to have someone they knew killed. My grandma believes it, I don't know any more than that.

My dad believes it as well. He and I don't discuss politics anymore, as I've realized that he's pretty batshit crazy.

Most of my family is in fact.

I'd love to see a "real" fiscally conservative party that would leave all the wackjobs (the tin-foil hat wearers, the religious nuts) behind.

[total]

Yeah... but its Al Franken!

Then again, its not like he won by a lot and its not like the choice wasn't shit regardless, so I don't hold it against ya. Its just another thing us Iowans can make fun of you for.

Cornhuskers making fun of us? Oh now that is rich. :p

[TheFlyingOrc]

Or wrestlers even.

Jesse Ventura was in Predator. Acting don't get no finer than that. He's an ACTOR.

[Telefrog]

Jesse Ventura was in Predator. Acting don't get no finer than that. He's an ACTOR.

He doesn't have time to bleed.

[Johan]

Norm Coleman is a snot nosed little shit that's been stamping his feet because he lost fair and square.

:visions of Al Gore and the Democrats, dancing through my head:

When an election involving five million or so voters comes down to 200 or 300 (or 500) votes, you can be sure that nobody will ever really, truly know who won. The error rate is higher than the margin of loss/victory. That's just reality.

Also, I believe the courts are still working that mess out. So far, it looks like Franken will come out on top, but it's a pretty small mountain, with a sorry view, from that peak.

[TheFlyingOrc]

When an election involving five million or so voters comes down to 200 or 300 (or 500) votes, you can be sure that nobody will ever really, truly know who won. The error rate is higher than the margin of loss/victory. That's just reality.

This is why I prefer when elections are not winner take all - picking one guy or the other doesn't really reflect the will of the people at all. Half of the state disagrees with the choice.

[Generation ABXY]

I'd love to see a "real" fiscally conservative party that would leave all the wackjobs (the tin-foil hat wearers, the religious nuts) behind.

Sure, but by that same token, I'd love to see a socially liberal party that was devoid of racists and apologists (and by that, I mean people who believe that someone's lot in life and everything that happens in the world is, in some way, our fault). Unfortunately, short of picking an absolutely unelectable candidate, there's no real way for either of us to get what we want – we can't just say, “I'm sorry, but, no, you can't vote for us.”

[Slack3r78]

:visions of Al Gore and the Democrats, dancing through my head:

When an election involving five million or so voters comes down to 200 or 300 (or 500) votes, you can be sure that nobody will ever really, truly know who won. The error rate is higher than the margin of loss/victory. That's just reality.

Also, I believe the courts are still working that mess out. So far, it looks like Franken will come out on top, but it's a pretty small mountain, with a sorry view, from that peak.
Well, the problem I have with Coleman is that if you've been following things closely, the race has favored Franken for some time now. It's mostly been drug out by the fact that Coleman kept challenging ballots on grounds that were a stretch at best.

But the biggest problem is that he drug it out and let his state go without full representation in the Senate for nearly 3 months. Remember, while FL did drag out in 2000, Gore stepped aside well before Jan 20.

[Ox]

Remember, while FL did drag out in 2000, Gore stepped aside well before Jan 20.
I agree with your criticism with Coleman, but aren't you giving Gore slightly more credit than he earned? I'm not saying Gore wouldn't have stepped aside before Jan. 20, but after Bush v. Gore, he didn't have any choice. There isn't really a court of appeals higher than SCOTUS... at least not one that hears election law.

[Slack3r78]

I agree with your criticism with Coleman, but aren't you giving Gore slightly more credit than he earned? I'm not saying Gore wouldn't have stepped aside before Jan. 20, but after Bush v. Gore, he didn't have any choice. There isn't really a court of appeals higher than SCOTUS... at least not one that hears election law.
A fair enough point. It's still hard for me to see the two situations as directly equivalent because of the timeline involved, though.

[Ox]

A fair enough point. It's still hard for me to see the two situations as directly equivalent because of the timeline involved, though.
Bear in mind a big reason the Senate dispute has taken so long is precisely because it hasn't gotten fast-tracked nearly as much: Minnesota courts aren't concerned China will invade unless they have a second butt in the Senate. I'm not saying this excuses Coleman for continuing the litigation, but neither am I aware of dilatory tactics on his part beyond the simple fact that he's litigating.

[Banacek]

I agree with your criticism with Coleman, but aren't you giving Gore slightly more credit than he earned? I'm not saying Gore wouldn't have stepped aside before Jan. 20, but after Bush v. Gore, he didn't have any choice. There isn't really a court of appeals higher than SCOTUS... at least not one that hears election law.

They should have brought it to the Roman Curia :)

[ShivaX]

A fair enough point. It's still hard for me to see the two situations as directly equivalent because of the timeline involved, though.

I see them directly equivalent myself. In both cases one guy lost, but it was really close. Rather than man up and accept it, realizing that next time they could probably make a comeback, they drag it into the courts. Of course they already know the courts aren't going to back them, but they're willing to go for that 1% chance that some legal loophole gives them an unearned win.

[Slack3r78]

I see them directly equivalent myself. In both cases one guy lost, but it was really close. Rather than man up and accept it, realizing that next time they could probably make a comeback, they drag it into the courts. Of course they already know the courts aren't going to back them, but they're willing to go for that 1% chance that some legal loophole gives them an unearned win.
To be directly equivalent, the MN election would needed to have swung on a single county.

[chex]

Rather than man up and accept it, realizing that next time they could probably make a comeback, they drag it into the courts. Of course they already know the courts aren't going to back them, but they're willing to go for that 1% chance that some legal loophole gives them an unearned win.

I say we give them some boxing gloves and a ring. I mean come on, asking for a bunch of absentee ballots that weren't counted (I'm sure soldiers are feeling a deep sense of love for their voter's right, about now), and then saying that they weren't eligible when they were for Franken was a pretty childish thing to do. I think the phrase is "just give up".

[ShivaX]

I say we give them some boxing gloves and a ring. I mean come on, asking for a bunch of absentee ballots that weren't counted (I'm sure soldiers are feeling a deep sense of love for their voter's right, about now), and then saying that they weren't eligible when they were for Franken was a pretty childish thing to do. I think the phrase is "just give up".

I was thinking "the end justifies the means" myself. :)

And everyone knows people in the military don't vote Democrat, it must be a fraud.

[Generation ABXY]

Not really a comment on the matter one way or another, but did anybody see some of those rejected ballots? I never thought voting was that hard, but some people took the whole "fill in the bubble next to your candidate" thing to a new level - there were people marking all of the bubbles, marking outside of the bubbles, marking a candidate, but also putting down a write-in, etc.

[ShivaX]

Not really a comment on the matter one way or another, but did anybody see some of those rejected ballots? I never thought voting was that hard, but some people took the whole "fill in the bubble next to your candidate" thing to a new level - there were people marking all of the bubbles, marking outside of the bubbles, marking a candidate, but also putting down a write-in, etc.

I saw a few of them and remember it being pretty silly how bad they were.

Found one: The infamous Lizard People ballot.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/images/lizardpeopleb.jpg

Edit: Heres a perfect example though:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/images/missedmark.jpg
Yeah those little bubbles aren't there for any reason, mark wherever you want.

[Banacek]

Um, shouldn't the rule be that if you don't have the mental capabilities to fill out a form then your vote shouldn't count? :)

[Generation ABXY]

Edit: Heres a perfect example though:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/images/missedmark.jpg
Yeah those little bubbles aren't there for any reason, mark wherever you want.

Yep, that's exactly the kind I am talking about. Frankly, I'm glad they were rejected – if you can't wrap your head around such a simple concept, I'm not sure you should be affecting policy like that.

Um, shouldn't the rule be that if you don't have the mental capabilities to fill out a form then your vote shouldn't count? :)

Well, they were rejected.

[ShivaX]

Um, shouldn't the rule be that if you don't have the mental capabilities to fill out a form then your vote shouldn't count? :)

That pretty much is the rule actually.

Though you can ask for help if its too complicated for you and get around it.

[Deadend]

Those ballots are fairly normal looking. Unlike the horribly designed Florida ballots. But why don't those ballots count? You can tell who they are voting for.

[chex]

And everyone knows people in the military don't vote Democrat, it must be a fraud.

... o.O Hm.
Um, shouldn't the rule be that if you don't have the mental capabilities to fill out a form then your vote shouldn't count? :)

I don't mean to sound terribly bitchy, but that would prevent an unfortunately large percentage of the populace from voting.
(For example I actually heard some one on the bus say that they weren't going to vote for Obama simply because he was "too famous" as stated in a slur advert.)

But why don't those ballots count? You can tell who they are voting for.

They don't count because Coleman doesn't want them to count (part of the problem with this whole thing is that Minnesotans (especially the judges handling this case), are on the whole entirely too lenient with petulant children that need their wrists slapped).
I'm sure it actually has something to do with "Oh well, the computer can't scan them, so therefore people can't because computers know all". Or some legal mumbo-jumbo.

Sigh. On the subject of lenient authority figures, they seem to be, perhaps, possibly, maybe, declaring Franken the winner. If this happens Coleman has taken an unbreakable vow to go to the Supreme Court. Where they will hopefully be much more willing and expedient in slapping his wrists and sending him to his room to cry in a corner.

[Generation ABXY]

Those ballots are fairly normal looking.

If fairly normal means completely wrong, then I agree.

Unlike the horribly designed Florida ballots. But why don't those ballots count? You can tell who they are voting for.

Though we can always assume who they are voting for, the truth of the matter is, no, we can never truly know the intent without the presence of the voter themselves. For all we know, they intended to skip those question and what we're seeing is the work of a shaky hand or bad pen. But, honestly, even if it isn't, is it really that hard to move an inch to the left in order to have your vote properly counted?

Think of it this way: if you messed up a ballot, would you want someone to just assume they know how you voted? I know I wouldn't; I would rather have my vote not counted at all than to potentially go to the opposition.

[ShivaX]

If fairly normal means completely wrong, then I agree.



Though we can always assume who they are voting for, the truth of the matter is, no, we can never truly know the intent without the presence of the voter themselves. For all we know, they intended to skip those question and what we're seeing is the work of a shaky hand or bad pen. But, honestly, even if it isn't, is it really that hard to move an inch to the left in order to have your vote properly counted?

Think of it this way: if you messed up a ballot, would you want someone to just assume they know how you voted? I know I wouldn't; I would rather have my vote not counted at all than to potentially go to the opposition.

Theres a reason in Iowa they run your ballot through the machine while you're standing there. If it has any errors they can let you know right there and correct it, rather than later.

At the polls they even offer to help you if you need it. Its a crazy concept that will never catch on though.

[Generation ABXY]

I don't mean to sound terribly bitchy, but that would prevent an unfortunately large percentage of the populace from voting.
(For example I actually heard some one on the bus say that they weren't going to vote for Obama simply because he was "too famous" as stated in a slur advert.)

Actually, it would prevent the same number it is preventing now. That woman, however silly her reason, can still vote so long as she can understand the basic mechanics of filling in a bubble chart.

Whether or not she should be allowed to vote because of her opinion may be another matter to you, but it has nothing to do with the form. Frankly, I heard far too many people say they were voting for Obama because it was about time we had a black president or because they didn't want to be known for potentially voting against the first black president. To me, that is just as silly as voting against him for being a celebrity, but who I am to decide what thought processes should be allowed to factor into someone's vote?

Theres a reason in Iowa they run your ballot through the machine while you're standing there. If it has any errors they can let you know right there and correct it, rather than later.

At the polls they even offer to help you if you need it. Its a crazy concept that will never catch on though.

Sounds fine to me, I suppose. At the very least, it eliminates the guess work. But, I'm guessing you also probably have much fewer rejected ballots with a system like that at work.

[Ox]

Those ballots are fairly normal looking. Unlike the horribly designed Florida ballots. But why don't those ballots count? You can tell who they are voting for.
There are pretty tetchy rules about determining voter intent. Virtually any ballot, even one you think you left blank, can be said to demonstrate some mark if a lawyer is determined enough to find some evidence there. It's a classic situation of rules vs. standards. We could have a standard of, "Whenever you can figure out the intent, it counts," but that means endless bickering over whether the tiniest fragment of graphite on the ballot meant a vote for Coleman or Franken or Lizard People. Or you could have a fixed rule, in which case (because you can never devise a perfect rule) some instances where intent was clear are rejected. There isn't a clearly best way of handling it: both options involve negative outcomes.

[Banacek]

Um, I thought the :) made it clear I was joking.

[mister slim]

If only you had carefully used your pencil to fully shade the :) your emoticon would have been registered properly.

[Slack3r78]

"Whenever you can figure out the intent, it counts," but that means endless bickering over whether the tiniest fragment of graphite on the ballot meant a vote for Coleman or Franken or Lizard People.
There's actually a rather awesome video floating around out there of the MN election board discussing the validity of the Lizard People ballot.

In all seriousness, while there are certainly bad ballots, Coleman's strategy from the start has been to challenge ballots at a far higher rate than Franken did. When a ballot is challenged, it was temporarily removed from the official tally. What that resulted in is that Coleman's initial numbers looked better than they actually were because he'd successfully gotten so many ballots removed from the tally, even though many of the challenges were spurious.

The whole point of initially challenging ballots like that is so that Coleman would look better in the initial tally so that Coleman could claim in public that Franken was 'using the courts to steal the election.' Nate Silver at 538 had called this out as Coleman's strategy pretty early on and it's more or less how things how played out. Shrewd, if scummy.

[Ink Asylum]

Coleman may be pretty brazen, but he's no Jim Tedisco: (http://www.registerstar.com/articles/2009/04/17/news/news02.txt)

COLUMBIA COUNTY — 20th Congressional District candidate Republican Jim Tedisco submitted a petition to the Dutchess County Supreme Court Thursday asking the judge to declare him the winner of the extremely close special election race, despite the numbers currently being in favor of his opponent, Democrat Scott Murphy.

According to The Associated Press, Murphy leads Tedisco by 178 votes district wide — 79,452 to 79,274. The only ballots that have not been counted are those challenged by each candidate’s lawyers, and while Tedisco’s office has said the challenges are roughly evenly split between the two camps, Columbia County lawyers for Murphy have only challenged 22 ballots, while Tedisco’s have challenged 258.

So he's asking to be declared the winner despite having less votes and with challenged vote numbers that favor his opponent even more. Now that's chutzpah.

I'm sure there's some procedural justification for this, but it's just blatantly absurd.

[Banacek]

If only you had carefully used your pencil to fully shade the :) your emoticon would have been registered properly.

Damnit. I always forget something.

[Johan]

As good a place as any for this. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html)

[chex]

I'm not originally from Minnesota, so I can't be sure if I'm stable on this logic or not, but am I the only one who sees "Minnesota Nice" as 'Passive-Aggressive'?

[Slack3r78]

As good a place as any for this. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html)
I have such a man-crush on Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/when-does-close-become-too-close-to.html

[Ink Asylum]

I'd ask Nate Silver to estimate when I'm going to die but he'd probably get it right.

[Johan]

I have such a man-crush on Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/when-does-close-become-too-close-to.html

Given these [his] assumptions

That about sums it up. Well done, Nate. :D