House Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses primary to Tea Party challenger - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Explosions;45073826]Lol so there are no policy differences between the two parties? Give me a break.[/QUOTE] They try to appeal to different groups. Republicans try to appeal to the evangelical Christians, the Mormons, racists, old white people, and Southerners who forgot about the Democrats. The Democrats try to appeal to more logical people, minorities, homosexuals, and generally have some more sense in their policies, however, they have a habit of picking shit candidates to run with and also lie just as much as the Republicans. But if you honestly think there are no corrupt Democrats, then you're straight up delusional. [editline]penispenispenis[/editline] [QUOTE=Amez;45075303]The difference is that republicans favor a smaller government presence whereas democrats favor a larger government presence. Both situations can end up bad. Having a small government and no regulations opens up the worst of capitalism and would give too much trust in large corporations to regulate themselves. Now having a large government that butts in to every part of our lives is just as bad. A government that can give us things like welfare, healthcare, and other government provided services can easily take that away.[/QUOTE] This too

[QUOTE=Explosions;45073826]Lol so there are no policy differences between the two parties? Give me a break.[/QUOTE] The difference is that republicans favor a smaller government presence whereas democrats favor a larger government presence. Both situations can end up bad. Having a small government and no regulations opens up the worst of capitalism and would give too much trust in large corporations to regulate themselves. Now having a large government that butts in to every part of our lives is just as bad. A government that can give us things like welfare, healthcare, and other government provided services can easily take that away. I don't want the government to butt itself into every part of my life. You can't put too much trust into our government. The best kind of government would be one that's right in the middle. It's not too big but not too small. Right now we're cascading towards a larger government that gets more and more involved with our lives with each passing day. That's why we have such extreme parties cropping up out of nowhere because they're a reactionary approach to an ever larger government presence.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;45069336][url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all]Well[/url],[url=http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.full.pdf+html]sorry[/url] [url=http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity]to[/url] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us/politics/tax-filings-hint-at-extent-of-koch-brothers-reach.html?_r=0]burst[/url] [url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/david-koch-seeded-major-tea-party-group-private-donor-list-reveals-20130924]your[/url] [url=http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/libertarian-billionaire-agenda-propelling-tea-party-monster-has-shut-down]bubble[/url].[/QUOTE] I think that was the joke. I hope it was a joke at least. But seriously though, the GOP spent so long appealing to those sorts of people, now they own them and they are paying the price.

[QUOTE=Amez;45075303]The difference is that republicans favor a smaller government presence whereas democrats favor a larger government presence.[/QUOTE] I refuse to believe they're for "small government" as long as they continue campaign against civil rights and in favour of a super-massive military and a Berlin wall around the country. Both want a big and powerful Government, they just have different ideas on how that power should be used and where.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45075628]I refuse to believe they're for "small government" as long as they continue campaign against civil rights and in favour of a super-massive military and a Berlin wall around the country. Both want a big and powerful Government, they just have different ideas on how that power should be used and where.[/QUOTE] Strong government for external threats, weak government inside the borders.

Quick question, I'm a bit ignorant on this issue so please don't hurt me... but why does everyone here seem to hate the TEA party? Is there something bad they did, are they any worse off than the current 2 parties we already have? I honestly don't know too much about them other than they seem to be leaning far right.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;45076614]Quick question, I'm a bit ignorant on this issue so please don't hurt me... but why does everyone here seem to hate the TEA party? Is there something bad they did, are they any worse off than the current 2 parties we already have? I honestly don't know too much about them other than they seem to be leaning far right.[/QUOTE] They're often seen as taking a much more obstructionist stance against anything the Obama Administration does. Many of the Tea Party affiliated congressmen were who instigated the 2013 government shutdown in an attempt to stop Obamacare. They can be very relentless in pushing their agenda which includes: lowering taxes, shrinking government, getting rid of unions, opposing any climate change bills, etc. On the social side they're often pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, very pro-second amendment. In some cases racism and violence among Tea Party members have been observed. In the end, it's also important to note that the Tea Party is not one large organization, but several smaller ones that are located around the States. Sometimes, the views and actions of one Tea Party chapter don't match up with those of another.

[QUOTE=Explosions;45073826]Lol so there are no policy differences between the two parties? Give me a break.[/QUOTE] I can't stand people that just throw up their arms and go "Oh whatever, they're both equally corrupt and shitty" because they don't want to appear partisan. The two parties are NOT the same. They stand for very different things and pursue very different policies when they come into power.

[url=http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/06/11/3447712/david-brat-embrace-christian-capitalism-or-hitler-will-come-back/]This is the person that replaced Eric.[/url] I don't know whether to laugh or cry uncontrollably.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45077711]I can't stand people that just throw up their arms and go "Oh whatever, they're both equally corrupt and shitty" because they don't want to appear partisan. The two parties are NOT the same. They stand for very different things and pursue very different policies when they come into power.[/QUOTE] This is true, but sometimes when people cross the aisle on issues that hardline supporters of the party want no compromise on, it may seem that both parties are one in the same. I'd wager that some republicans feel the same way about their representatives voting for something close to amnesty the same way that democrats felt when their reps voted to go to war with Iraq.

[QUOTE=Levithan;45078031][url=http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/06/11/3447712/david-brat-embrace-christian-capitalism-or-hitler-will-come-back/]This is the person that replaced Eric.[/url] I don't know whether to laugh or cry uncontrollably.[/QUOTE] He is a Tea Party candidate, he has to say some outright crazy bullshit to get elected. That is the red meat they throw their supporters.

[QUOTE=MerkySalt;45073973]Not exactly Democrats had majority in both the House and the Senate, and when the bill was passed every Republican in both the house and Senate voted nay on the resolution. The changes were due to trying to get the support of the moderate democrats in the party. The democrats rushed the bill out while they still had majority. The main problem was that their were two different Acts passed, one by House and one by the Senate. The House one had almost everything Obama wanted in it, while the senate one was watered down in an attempt to appeal to the moderate democratic senators. After the senate bill was passed one of the democratic senators became ill and was replaced in a special election by a Republican senator meaning that the republicans on the senate could filibuster the house bill meaning that to pass his affordable care act he would have to sign the watered down Senate bill, which is the version we got. Edit: You're probably thinking about the attempt to amend the defanged healthcare act even then all of the Republican senate amendments were stricken from the bill. The republicans weren't able to do much to the bill itself, all they could really do was sit in the corner and complain.[/QUOTE] US governance is so absurd. You have a House, a Senate and an executive which can all be composed of different interests. Ie you have a progressive Democrat executive, a Senate majority of different Democrat factions (and IIRC Republican support is needed during a filibuster?) and a House majority of Republicans where the moderates are gradually being replaced by extremists. No wonder shit barely gets done. It's bad enough here that we have a majoritarian House and executive (derived from the House - nothing wrong with that though) and a proportional Senate.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45078501]US governance is so absurd. You have a House, a Senate and an executive which can all be composed of different interests. Ie you have a progressive Democrat executive, a Senate majority of different Democrat factions (and IIRC Republican support is needed during a filibuster?) and a House majority of Republicans where the moderates are gradually being replaced by extremists. No wonder shit barely gets done. It's bad enough here that we have a majoritarian House and executive (derived from the House - nothing wrong with that though) and a proportional Senate.[/QUOTE] The system was designed to be slow and difficult to get through. Fast policy making leads to emotional bills filled with the passion of the moment, especially when the future career of those people making the bills is based on appeasing the mob.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45078566]The system was designed to be slow and difficult to get through. Fast policy making leads to emotional bills filled with the passion of the moment, especially when the future career of those people making the bills is based on appeasing the mob.[/QUOTE] Sure but the Republicans for the past 8 years or so have done some pretty historic stonewalling and have publicly said that their objective is to make Obama's second term as impassable as possible rather than prioritizing good legislation. Also shit like filibusters that both sides agree are shitty but neither wants to go against because it helps them too. The US system of checks and balances is cool and all but it clearly doesn't work as well as it could and I think you would be more critical of it yourself if Democrats were preventing a Republican president from accomplishing anything.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45078566]The system was designed to be slow and difficult to get through. Fast policy making leads to emotional bills filled with the passion of the moment, especially when the future career of those people making the bills is based on appeasing the mob.[/QUOTE] Practically every western country which uses a parliamentary system (where the main legislature and the executive are from the same body) seem to be going okay. Hell, New Zealand uses a parliamentary system and their legislature is unicameral - the only object in the way of its government passing whichever bills it likes is if their Governor-General perceives a bill to be unconstitutional. And yet the Governor-General assumes his/her position from the PM (if their system is the same as ours). Of all the western countries, the US stands out by [i]not[/i] using a parliamentary system. And it's the US that seems to be lagging behind the rest of the developed world.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45071739][url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporthits-new-lows-poll/[/url] It's down to about 15%. What they are good at is courting billionaires for campaign money, smearing establishment Republican candidates, and turning out in primaries.[/QUOTE] Where I live there are a lot of far right Republicans but only a few say they're Tea party. I expect weird far right opinions from my area but I find it unsettling to hear backwards shirt like this on the news. Thank you for the statistics.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45078914]Sure but the Republicans for the past 8 years or so have done some pretty historic stonewalling and have publicly said that their objective is to make Obama's second term as impassable as possible rather than prioritizing good legislation. Also shit like filibusters that both sides agree are shitty but neither wants to go against because it helps them too. The US system of checks and balances is cool and all but it clearly doesn't work as well as it could and I think you would be more critical of it yourself if Democrats were preventing a Republican president from accomplishing anything.[/QUOTE] The democrats had the entire thing to themselves, did stuff that people didn't like, and lost it. Now it's hard for them to do what they want... that's how it's supposed to work. People voted Republicans in because they didn't want what the democrats had to offer. Honestly, I don't like the Republicans either. They do a lot of talk, but don't actually get anything done. They also like to cut taxes without the requisite cutting of spending necessary to keep a balanced budget.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45079040] Of all the western countries, the US stands out by [i]not[/i] using a parliamentary system. And it's the US that seems to be lagging behind the rest of the developed world.[/QUOTE] Well, on the upside, a United States with a unicameral legislature would swing wildly from left to right every few years and allow a lot of truly terrible ideas to be rushed into law. Our system may have stopped universal healthcare, but it also stopped Bush 2's post-reelection charge to privatize Social Security just in time for a ruinous financial crisis.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45079040]Practically every western country which uses a parliamentary system (where the main legislature and the executive are from the same body) seem to be going okay. Hell, New Zealand uses a parliamentary system and their legislature is unicameral - the only object in the way of its government passing whichever bills it likes is if their Governor-General perceives a bill to be unconstitutional. And yet the Governor-General assumes his/her position from the PM (if their system is the same as ours). Of all the western countries, the US stands out by [i]not[/i] using a parliamentary system. And it's the US that seems to be lagging behind the rest of the developed world.[/QUOTE] I prefer a presidential system for the US, regardless.

Real change begins now for the US.