I worry about feminism. It seems to rob so many women of simple joy.

[Rajni]

I, for example, still hope libertarians will start winning elections.

Same here!!

 

[The Barbarian]

Same here!!

Yeah, maybe someday.

 

[The Barbarian]

Newt made a lot of excuses. But when Clinton braced him and told him he wasn't getting his way, he blinked and gave Clinton the bill he wanted.

Part of it was Newt's rather foolish temper tantrum about Clinton making him ride in the back of Air Force One. The public loved that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Newt made a lot of excuses. But when Clinton braced him and told him he wasn't getting his way, he blinked and gave Clinton the bill he wanted.

Part of it was Newt's rather foolish temper tantrum about Clinton making him ride in the back of Air Force One. The public loved that.

Actually, Clinton had no choice but sign the bill in 1996, just as the Time Magazine
article I posted earlier stated.

You can spin it your way, but the fact is, under Newt Gingrich, we had four balanced budgets and when he left, he gave Bush/Cheney a surplus which they blew.

You really should watch the video, but I know you won't.

As Newt Gingrich said in the interview, the GOP has always been split into two groups. Those who follow the philosophy of Ronald Reagan, and the managerial
group, which Bush 41 and his son are part of. They have no vision of the future and
just try to manage the politics of the time and the nation be dammed. My take is that Bush was a puppet for Cheney and the Carlisle Group, which had the goal of invading
Iraq before 9/11 in order to take down Saddam, for the benefit of Halliburton.

During the Bush/Cheney administration, an advisor to Ronald Reagan Bruce Bartlett wrote a book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy"

The managerial group of the GOP is fighting with Trump to keep control of the
GOP.

The Democrats, have no idea what they're doing. If they turn their backs
on Biden, they fear Kamala Harris might run for president. Currently, it looks
like Gov Newsom will run for the Democratic Nomination. He's trying to downplay
the disaster California has become and how people and businesses are fleeing his
state.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can spin it your way, but the fact is, under Newt Gingrich, we had four balanced budgets and when he left, he gave Bush/Cheney a surplus which they blew.

That's the way it usually goes. Democrat presidents have lower deficits than republican presidents. Doesn't matter if Congress is controlled by which party. The difference is at the top.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That's the way it usually goes. Democrat presidents have lower deficits than republican presidents. Doesn't matter if Congress is controlled by which party. The difference is at the top.

It matters much on what party controls congress because most of the budgets are Congressional Budgets, not budgets by the president. Congress appropriates spending, not the president.

In Ronald Reagan's 8 years as president, he only had two budgets, the rest were
Congressional Budgets driven by Speaker Tip O'Neill.

 

[The Barbarian]

It matters much on what party controls congress because most of the budgets are Congressional Budgets, not budgets by the president. Congress appropriates spending, not the president.

But the president signs or refuses to sign if it doesn't meet his objectives. Unless a party has a veto-proof majority, Congress must cooperate with the president. That is why high deficits are encountered during republican administrations and lower deficits during democrat administrations.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But the president signs or refuses to sign if it doesn't meet his objectives. Unless a party has a veto-proof majority, Congress must cooperate with the president. That is why high deficits are encountered during republican administrations and lower deficits during democrat administrations.

The president can refuse to sign if Congress didn't pass the bill with enough votes. However, the president also risks shutting down government by refusing to sign.

Either way, it's how our government works and budgets are mostly that of Congress than of the presidency. Reagan never had veto power over the budgets sent to him by Congress, which was dominated by the Democrats.

BTW, the Democrats of Ronald Reagan's time in office were much different than today's Democrats. The same can be said of most of the Republicans in Congress.

 

[The Barbarian]

The president can refuse to sign if Congress didn't pass the bill with enough votes. However, the president also risks shutting down government by refusing to sign.

That was Newt's story. However, he was foolish enough to admit that he did it because he thought Clinton gave him a bad seat when he got a ride on Air Force One. Not surprisingly, the public reacted badly to that admission, and the republicans caved, giving Clinton the bill he wanted.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, the Democrats of Ronald Reagan's time in office were much different than today's Democrats. The same can be said of most of the Republicans in Congress.

True. The country has been badly polarized by politicians who have sought power by demonizing the opposition. And I think I know why. Gerrymandering has greatly reduced the number of competitive districts, which favors the craziest partisan in each primary. If you look at the nutcases in Congress (and there are republican and democrats among them) you'll find they come almost exclusively from non-competitive districts.

Outlaw Gerrymandering and you'll find that a lot of the corruption and extremism will go away. But that's unlikely to happen because so many of today's elected officials depend on that corrupt practice.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

True. The country has been badly polarized by politicians who have sought power by demonizing the opposition. And I think I know why. Gerrymandering has greatly reduced the number of competitive districts, which favors the craziest partisan in each primary. If you look at the nutcases in Congress (and there are republican and democrats among them) you'll find they come almost exclusively from non-competitive districts.

Outlaw Gerrymandering and you'll find that a lot of the corruption and extremism will go away. But that's unlikely to happen because so many of today's elected officials depend on that corrupt practice.

I live in Massachusetts which has been gerrymandering districts for decades.

My own town is split into two different districts in order to help the Democrats get elected. No one complains about MA gerrymandering.

 

[The Barbarian]

I live in Massachusetts which has been gerrymandering districts for decades.

It's corrupt wherever it exists. Needs to come to an end. Glad we agree.

 

[The Barbarian]

My own town is split into two different districts in order to help the Democrats get elected. No one complains about MA gerrymandering.

Just realized what you wrote here. There would be a couple of ways to do this. For example, if democrats have a slight majority, they could draw the districts so that they had a slight majority in both of them. Since "one man, one vote" is a Constitutional rule, that means that districts have to be equal in population. Otherwise, they could be drawn so that one had a slight republican majority. Then there would be one republican and one democrat. Which would give republicans more representation than their numbers would justify. On the other hand, if you drew the map with the same demographics in each, you'd have two democrats and no republicans, again with one party having more representation than demographics would indicate.

It's tough with just 2 districts. Larger numbers of districts make it easier to be fair, but also easier to cheat. Iowa and California (among others) have bipartisan redistricting committees which have rather effectively avoided Gerrymandering.

Given the principle that each person's vote should have equal weight, Gerrymandering seems to be unconstitutional. At best, it's crooked and promotes extremism and corruption.

Which, I suppose, is why so many politicians love it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just realized what you wrote here. There would be a couple of ways to do this. For example, if democrats have a slight majority, they could draw the districts so that they had a slight majority in both of them. Since "one man, one vote" is a Constitutional rule, that means that districts have to be equal in population. Otherwise, they could be drawn so that one had a slight republican majority. Then there would be one republican and one democrat. Which would give republicans more representation than their numbers would justify. On the other hand, if you drew the map with the same demographics in each, you'd have two democrats and no republicans, again with one party having more representation than demographics would indicate.

It's tough with just 2 districts. Larger numbers of districts make it easier to be fair, but also easier to cheat. Iowa and California (among others) have bipartisan redistricting committees which have rather effectively avoided Gerrymandering.

Given the principle that each person's vote should have equal weight, Gerrymandering seems to be unconstitutional. At best, it's crooked and promotes extremism and corruption.

Which, I suppose, is why so many politicians love it.

Here in MA, the districts were drawn up so that the urban area votes dwarfed the small towns in that district. My district included Springfield MA, which is heavily populated by Democrat voters, who dwarf the combined voting population of the other smaller towns in the district. As a result, John Oliver from Springfield was reelected over and over until he chose not to run again. He rarely showed his face in my town, and many didn't even know who he was. Since then, the district has been redrawn, but still looks jerry-rigged to help democrats.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here in MA, the districts were drawn up so that the urban area votes dwarfed the small towns in that district. My district included Springfield MA, which is heavily populated by Democrat voters, who dwarf the combined voting population of the other smaller towns in the district. As a result, John Oliver from Springfield was reelected over and over until he chose not to run again. He rarely showed his face in my town, and many didn't even know who he was. Since then, the district has been redrawn, but still looks jerry-rigged to help democrats.

You won't be surprised to learn that Maryland is one of the most egregiously Gerrymandered blue states.

Corruption isn't limited to the republicans. Democrats will take advantage of dishonest districting just as easily as republicans will. And there are certainly cases where republicans have done the right thing, such as in Iowa. (and it hasn't cost them control of the state, either)

In Iowa, an independent commission does the redistricting and legislators aren't even allowed to watch the process. And the legislature can only vote the plan up or down, without amending it. Too bad Maryland doesn't have that. Too bad every state in America doesn't have it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In Iowa, an independent commission does the redistricting and legislators aren't even allowed to watch the process. And the legislature can only vote the plan up or down, without amending it. Too bad Maryland doesn't have that. Too bad every state in America doesn't have it.

Wish they did that here.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wish they did that here.

Everywhere. It would bring us back to American values instead of increasing extremism on both sides.