None still in the party years later? Ok. Talk to me about Bachmann years in the future, if she is still in office then.
I don’t agree with it. But it’s too subjective to have a productive dispute about. So I won’t.
Bachmann, King, Gohmert, and many more. You think they’ll all be gone? McKinney was chased out of her party. Why weren’t these folks?
This would seem to eliminate the possibility of reasonable discussion of most topics in the Great Debates forum.
Sheila Jackson Lee is still in office. You know, the one that demanded that hurricanes be given African-American names, in 2010 stated that she “may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side.”, claimed that the Constitution is 400 years old, claimed that we’re living under “martial law”, and claimed that she was a “freed slave”.
The hurricane thing isn’t even a blip on the radar of Gohmert-esque crazy. The Vietnam thing, martial law, and the “freed slave” bit are C-grade crazy, I’ll grant, but still pale in comparison to King/Bachmann/Gohmert. The Constitution thing (if true) is bad history – bad history is way, way more common than King-esque craziness.
So the worst craziness from a current Democratic elected government office-holder is significantly less crazy than King/Bachmann/Gohmert and many more.
By the way, iiandyiiii, is it only Democrat conspiracy theorists that you’re looking for or generally incredibly stupid Democrat politicians? Because here is one that was not “chased away”:
Discussing high-capacity magazines: “These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” (US Rep. Diana Degette)
Here is another: "“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.” (US Rep. Henry Waxman)
And another fun statement: “I’m going to be honest with you – I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?” (US Senator John Kerry)
I would wish that Sheila were more intelligent, but your first item is not quite right. This bit is true:
But a:
I won’t post that bit of trash; you’ve probably got copies in your “Sent Mail” box.
Without time to look up the context of your other items–they still aren’t as vicious as the Birther idiocy. No, your guys (& gals) take the cake. And, since you &** adaher** have shown up to change the subject, I guess that Republican Obstruction meme is true.
You claimed that “Democrats chase out crazy-spewers”. As I pointed out, no, they do not. Sheila Jackson Lee is still in office. So was Marion Barry until he decided not to run anymore. No one “chased him out”.
But I thought obstructionism was part of the American way. You know, dissenting opinions and the like. I mean I can understand that nations with complete lack of dissent–ONCE THEY KILL EVERYBODY ELSE–claim they can get things done, but then said nations, like for example Russia, Cuba, completely Islamic dominated nations, seemed to NOT get things done except more economic disaster, bad living conditions, more mayhem/murderer/terrorism, corruption, etc. It’s as if they need to KEEP generating a prison/slave labor/public punishment (beatings, dismemberment, etc)/even execution population of “wreckers” or “wasters” or “infidels” or just plain “political prisoners”. The only nation like this I see even making advancements is China, but then I have been there and have not seen a more multicultural country in my life. China makes the rest of the countries look HOMOGENOUS in nature, so the Communist party obviously DIDN’T homogenize its population to the extent the others had tried to do and are still trying. It’s bad enough we only basically have TWO party politics when other Western nations have managed to run countries on mixed parliaments–so I don’t see why it would be better to have all Americans agreeing on the same things all the time. The countries have people “agreeing on everything all the time” continue to have chaos, substandard growth if any and violence up the wazoo and very questionable government practices. Instead it would behoove America to mix up politics EVEN MORE.
I will admit that Sheila Jackson Lee has some strudel in the noodle. But the difference between Lee and Bachmann is that nobody listens to Lee and Lee isn’t voicing what millions of Democrats are thinking. Bachmann is one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement and the nonsense she spews echoes that of millions of Republicans. Just get on Facebook and look up the Tea Party group or Tea Party Patriots or whatever- there are shitloads of people that believe some seriously fucked up shit. You’ll be hard pressed to find any Democrats who will agree with Lee, but you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Republican who thinks Bachmann is on the money.
Yeah, sure the Republicans are obstructionists. Look at federal judicial appointments. Many federal benches are empty because Republican senators from the affected states refuse to participate in the nomination process. The meeting on Inauguration Night 2009 was unprecedented- never before had an opposition party decided to kill a presidency in its crib. And yes, when they said challenge ever point they meant don’t go along with Obama on anything. If Obama said he liked puppies, Republicans would pass a resolution saying that kittens are much better. Sure, there were partial government shutdowns in the past. The recent Cruz shutdown was like none of these, it was simply a temper tantrum over Obamacare. Republicans get away with obstruction because that’s what their base wants. For many Republican voters, the government and/or Obama are the epitome of evil and making nice with Obama is a sure way to get primaried by a whack-a-doodle. And so obstructionism continues.
I’m sorry, Max. My lulz arise from the conviction that while you have in principle what amounts to a genuinely worthy goal, you’ve chosen a particular subject that simply doesn’t lend itself to hard numerical analysis.
It might, if both sides were willing to accept hard numbers. But the reaction to the government shutdown metric is illustrative of the problem: we start with the claim that shutting down the government is, per se, an act of obstructionism and shows how terrible the Republicans are.
Except that the Democrats also shut down the government, and that didn’t make them terrible, so now we learn that it’s not a per se rule: we have to look at why, and was it justified – the very things that (obviously) people disagree about.
Another poster suggested the “batshit crazy” position that abortion in cases of rape should be forbidden. I grant you it’s not a mainstream position, but insofar as the pro-life people believe a pregnancy is a human life, it’s entirely consistent with that belief to stop abortion, even when the pregnancy is the result of rape. So we’ll have two sides evaluating decisions concerning the government shutdown that was predicated on cutting abortion funding even in cases of rape, and one side will take the position that it was necessary to stop that spending cut and the other that the government should never fund abortion, and the reasonableness of the shutdown decision itself won’t be quantifiable.
That graph was done by a partisan, and to tell a partisan story.
For example, look at 1981-83. That shows the Democrats in the minority, and without much – any --increase in filibusters. But the point of a filibuster is to prevent bills from becoming law (or to scuttle nominees). In 81-83, the House was still firmly in Democratic hands. Tip O’Neill was Speaker. There was much less need to filibuster laws when they could be scuttled by the House.
The chart doesn’t reflect that dynamic.
You don’t think millions of Democrats are “thinking” - believing - in crazy conspiracy theories?
A 2006 poll by “the University of Ohio”? Where’s that?
Not quite as bad as you say, the survey asked “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” Bush and Cheney wanted war long before they took office, hence no action on the Aug. 2001 daily briefing where they were warned bin Laden was going to strike soon and that the threat involved airplanes. So a yes to that question isn’t quite as crazy as what the typical Republican believes. It could be that many respondents just heard the part about the government wanting to go to war, which was indeed true.
Is this specific enough? 25% of Democrats said “Yes”. 27% of “Liberals” say “Yes”. How many millions is that?
Not inherently.
Saying “I want to stop Obama from passing This Law” is not obstructionist.
Saying “I want to stop Obama from passing Any Law” is obstructionist.
They made this decision to challenge everything before seeing a single thing come up for debate.
Choosing to obstruct everything means you can’t have meaningful debate, because one side has already decided to oppose anything that is proposed.
No it isn’t.
Just the craziness and conspiracy folks. Stupidity is depressingly common in both parties.
Yes they do, though not perfectly. They’re still much better than the Republicans. They chased out McKinney, after all. The Republicans haven’t chased out King/Bachmann/Gohmert, and they’re as bad as McKinney, or worse.