More Than 200 Republicans in Congress Are Skipping February Town Halls with Constituents
VICE News reports on Feb 16:
Members of Congress are set to return to their districts this weekend for their first weeklong recess since Donald Trump's inauguration. Heading home during legislative breaks is nothing new, but this year most Republicans are foregoing a hallowed recess tradition: holding in-person town halls where lawmakers take questions from constituents in a high school gym, local restaurant, or college classroom.
After outpourings of rage at some early town halls--including crowds at an event near Salt Lake City yelling "Do your job!" at Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee--many Republicans are ducking in-person events altogether. Instead they're opting for more controlled Facebook Live or "tele-town halls," where questions can be screened by press secretaries and followups are limited--as are the chances of becoming the next viral meme of the Left.
For the first two months of the new Congress, the 292 Republicans have scheduled just 88 in-person town hall events--and 35 of those sessions are for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, according to a tabulation conducted by Legistorm. In the first two months of the previous Congress in 2015, by contrast, Republicans held 222 in-person town hall events.
[...] "What happens in politics is that over time, you can get increasingly insulated from people that have a strongly held point of view that's different [from yours]", [said Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina]. Sessions like tele-town halls aren't a good substitute, he said, because "oftentimes they will screen their calls and those forums can be manipulated".
Republicans who get [verbally] roughed up at their town halls have taken to dismissing the attendees as professional organizers. [...] While there is no evidence of paid protesters attending town halls, it is true that Democratic activists have been organizing to manufacture viral moments of confrontation like the tea party movement did in the summer of 2009.
[...] One strategy for activists has been to host their own town halls and invite their representatives to attend. [...] Another method has been to confront senators and representative in public places and demand they hold a town hall.
Examples throughout the week at AlterNet and The Daily Hampshire Gazette of Northampton, Massachusetts.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:17AM
He once came upon a URL he didn't like/didn't understand, so now he is going to vandalize every link in every story he encounters.
What a ignoramus.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:25AM
That's incorrect. cmn32480 didn't touch this story.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by charon on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:39AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:53AM
You can't even keep up what you have vandalized and what you haven't.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by charon on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:06AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:13AM
Not just Republicans, according to AP and ABC news.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/vulnerable-dems-lay-low-town-hall-angst-rages-45706463 [go.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:43AM
We need a Strong Man to sort all this out, not little girly men. If only the media, scientists, other countries, reality and all the branches of government (except Executive Branch) weren't so horribly biased liberal, then we could finally WIN for a change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:27AM
Who could have imagined that they would slant their coverage in that direction?
Hey, could you guys have come up with a more clumsy way of saying that?
That sounds like A MINORITY to me.
...and you know what would be really useful?
That would be them giving a **current** reading of Trump's/the Republicans' approval there.
The polls I've seen reported say Trump is losing 5 percentage points a week nationally.
After only a month, Trump's approval rating is lower than Nixon's was in the depths of Watergate.
After Dubya then O'Bummer, I was hoping we'd get someone who didn't absolutely suck.
Clearly, that ship has sailed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 25 2017, @12:00PM
If you're believing polls from the same media companies who told you Hillary would win, you're doing credibility wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:02PM
In those horse race polls, they don't actually ask the question to which everyone wants the answer.
In fact, they ask every question EXCEPT that one. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [votepact.org]
We've been over this before.
The current question is a much simpler yes or no thing:
Do you approve of the job he's doing?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 25 2017, @04:27PM
Yeah, that was never the real problem. The real problem is they intentionally oversample the people who are going to give them the answer they want to report. Unless you really believe that less than 20% of the population are conservatives?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:32PM
Controversial candidate like Trump or Europe's extreme right are always under-represented in the raw data because a lot of people won't tell anyone who they are secretly voting for.
Pollsters have had to adjust the numbers for as long as polls have existed, with typically somewhat decent results. It turns out that they have recently been underestimating that factor, probably because a lot of protest vote has been brewing quietly in our PC world.
It's like finding Internet trolls IRL and asking them on camera whether swatting and harassment are acceptable...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:33PM
Controversial candidate[s] like Trump or Europe's extreme right are always under-represented in the raw data
One wonders if the same individuals who would be/are fine with adjustments to this political data because of "known" deficiencies in the method are the same ones who bitch about climate data analysis being adjusted when the reasons and methods for the latter are included in the writeup.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:58PM
Controversial candidate like Trump or Europe's extreme right are always under-represented in the raw data because a lot of people won't tell anyone who they are secretly voting for.
Nope. [fivethirtyeight.com]
First, the “shy Trump” theory relies on the notion of social desirability bias — the idea that people are reluctant to reveal unpopular opinions. So if the theory is right, we would have expected to see Trump outperform his polls the most in places where he is least popular — and where the stigma against admitting support for Trump would presumably be greatest. (That stigma wouldn’t carry over to the voting booth itself, however, so it would suppress Trump’s polling numbers but not his actual results.) But actual election results indicate that the opposite happened: Trump outperformed his polls by the greatest margin in red states, where he was quite popular. The two states that had the largest polling error for Trump were Tennessee and South Dakota, where Trump won more than 60 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Trump underperformed his polls in states where the stigma against him would seem to be strongest: deep-blue states like California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and Washington.2 Overall, as my colleague Carl Bialik and I (as well as Andrew Gelman) have pointed out, there’s a very strong correlation between how Republican a state is and how much better Trump did than polling averages indicated he would.
The second reason to be skeptical of the “shy” theory is that Republican Senate candidates outperformed their polls too. The theory behind the “shy” phenomenon is that voters are reluctant to admit support for particularly controversial or politically incorrect candidates. Yet mainstream Republican Senate candidates such as Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey — hardly examples of bomb-throwers like Trump — all did better than the polls indicated they would. They weren’t alone. A look across Senate races reveals that most Republican Senate candidates bested their polls.
[see the article for the actual chart]
Third, Trump didn’t outperform his polls with the specific group of voters who research showed were most likely to hide their support for his candidacy. A Morning Consult study conducted in October found that there were some “shy” Trump voters, enough to suppress his support in polls by a statistically insignificant 2 percentage points. But the study found that the voters most likely to lie to pollsters were those with college degrees. So under the “shy Trump” theory, we’d expect to see Trump outperform his polls on Election Day in states such as Massachusetts and New York with high numbers of people with college degrees. But instead, Trump did better than his polls in states with the highest concentration of white voters without a college degree, including pivotal states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Finally, Trump’s own pollsters told us that there weren’t many shy Trump voters by Election Day. A few months before the election, internal polling showed Trump getting about 3 percentage points more support in polls conducted online or by automated voice recording than in live calls, according to David Wilkinson, data scientist for Cambridge Analytica, a data-analytics firm that conducted polling for the campaign. That suggests some Trump supporters were reluctant to reveal their true preference to a telephone interviewer. But in polls conducted just before Election Day, that 3-point gap had narrowed to just 1 or 2 points. “Shy Trump voters started to come out of the woodwork during the course of the election,” said Matthew Oczkowski, director of product for Cambridge Analytica.
The bottom line is that Trump did better than the polls predicted, but he didn’t do so in a pattern consistent with a “shy Trump” effect. It’s more likely that polls underestimated Trump for more conventional reasons, such as underestimating the size of the Republican base or failing to capture how that base coalesced at the end of the campaign.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @01:05AM
quit making excuses for the enemy of humanity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:31PM
The real problem is they intentionally oversample the people who are going to give them the answer they want to report. Unless you really believe that less than 20% of the population are conservatives?
No they do not intentionally oversample. Because response rates are so low nowadays its really hard to get an exact demographic match, but compensating for that is stats 101 - its called weighting. [applied-survey-methods.com] In fact, the national polls said Clinton was ahead by 3.2% [realclearpolitics.com] and she ended up being 2% ahead. In fact, the 2012 election the polls were more wrong, they said Obama was only 0.7% ahead [realclearpolitics.com] when in fact he ended up with 3.9%.
Now go ahead and show us all how utterly fucking stupid you are and cite that podesta email. Go on you innumerate dumbshit, make my day.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:22PM
You mean the email specifically asking them to oversample? Yeah, nothing to see there at all. Why would anyone think that was relevant?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:02PM
Hey dumbshit!
WHICH poll did the email ask to oversample?
I'll wait right here while you go prove how much of a tribal shit-eating dumbfuck you really are.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:55PM
Wait, you think I'm a Republican or a Trump fanboi? Boy have you not been paying attention. At all. I simply hate the Democrats worse than everyone else. They're hands down the most destructive party in the nation as well as being the most dishonest one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @12:11AM
I think you are a dumbshit who prefers to uncritically repeat bullshit that pleases him rather than question it.
Still waiting for you to figure out which poll that email referred to. I'm pretty sure you won't go look because then you'd have to come face to face with the fact that you are dumbfuckery personified. Easier to bluster, bullshit and deflect than admit you done fucked up yet again.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:09AM
A) I'm not going to waste my time looking the email up for an AC.
B) It doesn't make a shit bit of difference what poll it was for or if it was a general statement.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:55AM
> A) I'm not going to waste my time looking the email up for an AC.
Haha YOU FUCKING INTELLECTUAL COWARD
Then why did you bring it up?
> B) It doesn't make a shit bit of difference what poll it was for or if it was a general statement.
Hey SHIT-FOR-BRAINS It was an INTERNAL poll. Not for public dissemination.
So for your conspiracy fantasy to be true it means they were lying to themselves.
Which, because you are a SHIT-FOR-BRAINS you will surely decide that was exactly the point because democrats lie to themselves!!!
That's way more believable than the simple fact that you don't know jack-shit about polls. And that you have ZERO FUCKING GEEK CRED to not understand that oversampling in polling means exactly the same thing it does in single processing because polling is literally just another kind of signal processing.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself to feel superior in your willful stupidity you total dumb fucking shit for brains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:13PM
That's right, run off and cower with your tail between your legs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @01:24AM
the people who work on soylent deserve some slack. less coffee for you, AC.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday February 27 2017, @05:01AM
If you're believing polls from the same media companies who told you Hillary would win, you're doing credibility wrong.
No, they were exactly right. They polled the people, and the people voted for Hillary. It was the Electoral College that voted for Trump, and it wasn't the one polled.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:05PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:16PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx [gallup.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:12PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:22PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:48AM
This behavior is not exactly unexpected. Most people in Congress are cowards. They don't have the gonads and/or the integrity to tell their leadership to go fuck themselves when it comes to dealing with serious issues like the chaos created by the Trump administration, and, more specifically, Donald Trump himself. Many of them know he and what he represents are serious trouble and that their constituents know this. Satisfying their constituents would require them to grow a pair, something that they would rather not do. We shall see how this potentially foolish behavior comes back to haunt them at the ballot box November next year.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:07AM
The same guys who don't nominate Supreme Court nominee for 10 months will have no problem ignoring their constituents for a couple of years until their majority is under threat. Get ready for the rush of bills coming through with no debate. The people decided this was what they wanted, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @04:22PM
Exactly. You lost. Deal with it like a grown-up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 25 2017, @04:58PM
We ALL lost, you stupid motherfucker. This isn't some stupid football game; this is the nation's very character and soul under attack.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:39PM
> the nation's very character and soul
While the overwhelming majority of Americans are decent people, the "character and soul" of the nation itself has been really shady from the day the first immigrants came in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:55PM
Keeping in mind, of course, that all humans are immigrants to the Americas. It's all just a question of how much earlier some of our ancestors got here than others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:29AM
Perhaps super-bob didn't immigrate here but instead hatched from an egg.
This way he is the only native and all the native Americans as well as my grand parents and yours are all immigrants needing deported, even the dead ones.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:41PM
I would say that has been true since George W. Bush was president. We used to be the good guys, and all of a sudden we were torturing people and invading Iraq because reasons. Wall Street vaporized the Middle Class and Congress and the Whitehouse and the media helped them do it. They built the most fearsome police state in history, and track and profile every person on Earth in the most minute way, and instead of hanging all of them and burning Washington DC to the ground and salting the earth, people say, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
The media is trying to whip everyone up into a frenzy and put it all on Trump because they know they vaporized their own credibility during this last election. They're desperate to stay relevant. They're terrified because the President of the United States called them "enemies of the United States," and virtually no one is leaping to their defense. Because they are enemies of the United States.
The other servants of the Deep State behind them, otherwise called Congressmen, are terrified because they are beginning to perceive the convulsive fury of the hoi poloi. They're getting it from Trump supporters and from progressives (whose economic goals overlap in so many ways). How they're responding now, to further withdraw from direct contact with their constituents, is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. It will further isolate them and alienate them from the people they're supposed to represent. That will accelerate their irrelevance.
If Trump keeps sending these shattering pulses through the system, it won't be long before Trump's victory begins to re-create itself across Congress as incumbents go down. And that's if the reaction stays non-violent, through the electoral system.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:30PM
That was the myth and you and many others bought it.
Even before there was a USA, there were Europeans who showed up intent on maximizing profits.
If you were in their way, your lot will be reduced.
They'd steal your stuff, in particular, your land.
If it was easier--and it typically was--they'd just kill you.
When all the easily-gained eastern land was grabbed up, these greedy pale-skinned invaders headed west saying "Manifest Destiny".
When they got to the West Coast and realized there was nothing else on the continent to steal, they started looking elsewhere.
In 1845, USA picked a fight with Mexico and stole a bunch of its land.
In 1853, USAian Commodore Perry sailed a fleet with 61 cannons across the Pacific and into Tokyo Bay where he told the Japanese in no uncertain terms that they would open themselves to trade.
In 1893, the sovereign nation of Hawaii was invaded by USA Marines.
They have never left.
In 1896, it was claimed that the USS Maine had been attacked (though it blew up because of improper coal dust management in its own fuel bunkers).
Yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst used that lie to gin up a war with Spain.
In a couple of years, USA gained control of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and other Pacific islands, and permanently took possession of part of Cuba.
In the 1930s, retired Marine General Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" in which he noted that during his decades of service he had been a thug for USAian businessmen, in particular, in Central America for The United Fruit Company.
In the 1940s, via a naval blockage 10,000 miles from its shores, USA bullied Japan into a war with it.
In 1953, when a democratically elected prime minister moved to nationalize the oil supply in Iran, USA made sure he was deposed and USA installed a tyrant there who brutalized that place until 1979.
In the 1960s, USA once again had to cross thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of miles of ocean to find a place to bomb, invade, and occupy yet again with its imperialist aggression.
In the process it murdered millions of non-combatants and left multiple countries littered with cluster bombs and and poisoned with chemical weapons.
(There wasn't even any particular commodity in Vietnam to be pillaged; USA was just keeping in practice at being a ruthless aggressor.)
Starting in the same era and lasting much longer, USA fomented regime change in Central America and South America, installing USA-friendly butchers there.
In this span of time, Secretary of State and war criminal Henry Kissinger infamously said, “The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
In 1989, in another imperialist aggression, USA invaded the sovereign nation of Panama, murdered hundreds of non-combatants, and kidnapped the head of state.
In 2003, based on lies about "WMDs", USA once again bombed, invaded, and occupied a sovereign nation and, once again in pursuit of regime change, went after and kidnapped its head of state yet again to achieve a supply of cheap petroleum.
USA.gov has NEVER been "the good guys".
USA.gov has ALWAYS been a murderous aggressor.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:23PM
> That was the myth and you and many others bought it.
Having higher standards always increases the chance that one won’t live up to them.
Its easy to cherry pick failures, but when you portray them as the norm rather than the exception you enable those who want us to have low standards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:46PM
If an individual via 2 separate events kills 1 person in each event, cops call that a pattern and use the term "serial killer".
Why a nation gets a free pass for the same behavior--except multiplied by hundreds or thousands or millions of cumulative deaths, I can't understand.
...and, as already noted, General Butler made it clear that in every case the aggression was done in the name of maximizing the profits of a few.
higher standards
Demonstrating that you have drunk the kool-aid adds nothing to the discussion.
It simply shows that you are susceptible to propaganda.
cherry pick failures
The list was only a tiny sampling of aggression by USA.gov.
A full list of overt action would fill volumes.
Add in the covert/proxy actions and you'll need to multiply the bookshelf space needed by an order of magnitude.
Imperialist aggression is what USA.gov does.
It's just that simple.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @02:29AM
White Europeans and their descendants have thousands of years of conquest and war in their blood. woe to the vanquished, motherfucker!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:24PM
So far trump has made me over 40k this year.
From betting he would win at 783:1 odds. To the stock market hitting record highs EVERY WEEK!
I'll take more of this losing please.
Yeah that's right. I don't give one fuck about your edge case social issue that includes a whole 1% of the population.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. You few fuckoff for 8 years. And stfu already.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 26 2017, @08:38PM
No :) We're going to hound you to the ends of the earth, then when you die and land in Hell, we'll come visit you and toast marshmallows over your screaming, flailing, writhing, red-hot soul. Cry more, snowflake.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:03PM
https://68.media.tumblr.com/f6251497804088ae69f3066479a84037/tumblr_nsmxfqI3bd1qkko3bo1_400.gif [tumblr.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:41PM
We ALL lost, you stupid motherfucker. This isn't some stupid football game; this is the nation's very character and soul under attack.
Wrong. This election showed what this nation's true character and "soul" really is, and the AC you responded to is a prime example of what true Americans are really like. Sure, there's good people here and there, but much of the population is not, as we're now seeing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:31PM
a prime example of what true Americans are really like
That's too depressing to consider.
I would say the results of the election shows how easily humans can be manipulated when they are not presented with a powerful counterpoint to Fascism and Neoliberalism.
In particular, it shows how Lamestream Media, when it isn't properly regulated such that it serves "in the public interest", will only seek to maximize profits via cheap gimmicks and pointing their cameras and microphones at outrageous hucksters.
(Trump got $5B of airtime gratis; the rest, basically zip.)
The founding documents, written before the advent of TeeVee, need an update to account for that powerful medium.[1]
[1] Called a "medium" because it's rare when it is well done.
N.B. As has been true for a LOOOONG time, the best coverage of politics comes from comedians who recorded[2] the appearances of the politicians/wannabes and stopped the playback often to explain/critique what was being said after fact-checking it (something that simply can't be done in real time).
Big props here to Jimmy Dore and his band of sharp-witted skewer-wielders, in particular Mike McRae.
[2] Trump and his minions are so completely full of shit that anyone who airs their stuff live is simply irresponsible.
Every single thing those congenital liars say absolutely has to be fact-checked before airing/publishing any of it.
Treat all other politicians the same as well.
Don't allow their crap to go unchallenged in real time.
The value in political speeches comes from the analysis.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:33PM
Yep, and they also locked out most journalists from Friday's fake press release.
Nazi news was allowed to stay like breitfart and FNC.
Makes one feel good when your radical new KKK skinhead gov does all their planning in secret.
Trump now does == Hitler
Fucking Trump chumps.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:19PM
But during the election it was ok for hillary to hide for 8 months and not even give a press confrence...
Nobody cared about that. Shit she's just some side of beef. Not like she was running for president.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:59AM
Since they were removed from the summary, these are the names so far:
Sen. Mitch McConnell - Kentucky (also Senate Majority Leader)
Sen. Chuck Grassley - Iowa
Sen. Pat Toomey - Pennsylvania
Sen. Joni Ernst - Iowa
Rep. Dave Brat - Virginia
Rep. Steve Womack - Arkansas
Sen. Cory Gardner - Colorado
Sen. Steve Daines - Montana
Sen. Dean Hellerm, Rep. Mark Amodei - Nevada
Rep. Don Bacon - Nebraska
Rep. Louie Gohmert - Texas
Add these as well:
Rep. Patrick Tiberi - Ohio (Chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee)
Rep. Steve Stivers - Ohio
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen - New Jersey
As was mentioned in the stuff which actually made it into the summary, the Blues were pulling this same crap back in 2009-2010 when the Tea Partyers were in the crowds.
This ducking out crap is NOT what representative government is supposed to look like.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:20PM
And there is you problem.
If you elect you representatives again and again based on how they're supposed to look like, no wonder somebody who promises he'll do something (even if stupid) gets elected in spite of his ugly hairdo or any other matters of look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:50PM
Also, one of my own senators, Rob Portman (R-OH), isn't avoiding all his constituents, he's just making sure the only people who can get in are Republican voters. It's really so much easier when politicians have to talk to a room full of people who already agree with them, eh?
Say what you will about Bernie Sanders, but as a very left-wing guy he still found time to talk at Liberty University and go to town halls with die-hard Trump supporters. Or I can distinctly remember John McCain campaigning for president back in 2000 (in the primary against George W Bush) doing a lot of gladhanding and reaching out to independents and Democrats who were concerned about Bush.
The other thing I think worth pointing out: Right now, there is not a single branch of the federal government operating with the approval of the majority of Americans, according to the polls. In order from bad to worst - the Supreme Court (45% approval), the President (43% approval), and Congress (19% approval).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @03:53PM
> Also, one of my own senators, Rob Portman (R-OH), isn't avoiding all his constituents, he's just making sure the only people who can get in are Republican voters.
Our Congressman Chris Collins is doing the same thing, meeting with supporters and holding Republican fund raisers. But no open town meetings.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:33PM
When you sore loser fruits are hiring a boatload of paid protesters specifically to ruin these events, what you do think the result is going to be?
More theater by Team Drama now that the Russia thing didn't play out like they wanted.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:15PM
Except they aren't paid! If there were hundreds or thousands of paid protesters showing up, I would think someone could flesh out at least a couple who would admit it. But nobody has! So I would say the only "paid" protesters are those writing that the paid protesters exist...
The "paid protester" meme is a desperate attempt to divert attention from the fact that many of the policies our new government is considering are NOT wanted by the majority.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:16PM
So I would say the only "paid" protesters are those writing that the paid protesters exist...
Trump literally hired actors to pump up his crowd sizes, [politicususa.com] so its no wonder he thinks other people are doing the same.
Its really a confession of character more than anything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:14PM
Orly? George Soros much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:13PM
A link to your (Alt-Reich) source of "information" would be interesting.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:10PM
Not only is he NOT **very** Left-Wing, Bernie Sanders is NOT anti-Capitalist at all.
He's not even particularly Liberal in the sense that he has said that he rejects the *gov't* ownership of any of the means of production.
That would appear to include natural monopolies like rail transport and communications networks.
I haven't ever heard of his coming out with any SPECIFICS regarding worker-owned cooperative workplaces e.g. copying Italy's Marcora law [google.com].
What he wants is healthy and well educated USAian wage slaves in order to make USA's existing industrialists competitive.
Bernie Sanders is NOT of the "Left", much less "very".
Only in the USA, where there has been a century-long effort to silence and crush Socialism (the Red Purge; McCarthyism), would someone say Sanders is anything other than Right-Center economically and straddling the Authoritarian/Civil Liberties line on the other axis.
Sanders is a classic Moderate.
Before USAians started trying to redefine words, that was called "A Conservative".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:24PM
Nobody would say Bernie is a Socialist.... except Bernie Sanders. He honeymooned in Moscow during the Soviet era, it isn't like he can actually escape the label so he proudly wears it, so you might as well stop the games. Next you can look into the abyss and realize America was not and is not, in anything like its current makeup, going to elect a Socialist. Then realize Bernie also understood this reality. Now you may know the true meaning of despair as the implications of these Truths shatter your world.
You were used, in exactly the same way the Republicans used Conservatives every cycle. We have had enough and thrown over the table, you are still acting like a nice useful idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:01AM
He honeymooned in Moscow during the Soviet era,
Not really: [politifact.com]
When reached for comment, Sanders’ campaign said that the dates for the trip had already been set, and the couple "set their wedding date to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."
In a 2007 interview, Jane Sanders also recalled the peculiar timing: "The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslavl with 10 other people on my honeymoon."
Bernie Sanders also refers to the trip sarcastically as "quiet and romantic" in his book.
The "honeymoon" was dotted with meetings, interviews and diplomatic functions. A June 2015 profile in The Guardian described the former mayor’s meeting with Yaroslavl city officials:
"After receiving a rundown of central planning, Soviet-style, from Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders notes how the quality of both housing and health care in America appeared to be ‘significantly better’ than in the communist state. ‘However,’ he added, ‘the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.’ "
An education in central planning probably wasn’t the only item on Sanders’ itinerary. Yaroslavl is home to historic churches and buildings, and the Sanderses would have been in for some good sightseeing, said Ariel Cohen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
Will made it sound as if Sanders was visiting to condone Soviet torture practices, but the Burlington trip was more of a dialogue-building exchange program. The Vermont weekly newspaper Seven Days reported in 2009 that the sister-city relationship "helped local residents who sought to ease tensions between the United States and Soviet Union by initiating citizen-to-citizen exchanges with a Russian city."
Also, the Soviet Union was barely intact at the time of the trip.
you are still acting like a nice useful idiot.
And you are still acting like a nice useful asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:28AM
America was not and is not, in anything like its current makeup, going to elect a Socialist
Actually, in June 2015, Gallup said that 47 percent of Americans would vote for a socialist president [google.com]
Bernie had made the word popular--even though it didn't actually apply to him.
Meanwhile, in November, Trump got 45.94 percent of the popular vote. [wikipedia.org]
111,850 voted for Bernie even though he'd been blackballed by "his party".
With the 2 populists running head to head, it would have been interesting.
A significant number of folks will tell they didn't so much vote -for- Trump as they voted -against- Hillary.
One also wonders what would have happened with Gary Johnson's 4,489,233 votes and Jill Stein's 1,457,222.
You were used
Not I. Every time I voted, my vote went to the individual I wanted to win that race:
Bernie in the Primary.[1] (In my state, Blues allow you to cross party lines to vote for their guy/gal.) Can't stand the Clintons.
Jill in the General. (The Greens don't allow that crossover stuff in the Primary and I'm registered non-partisan.)
By the summer, Jill pretty much had things sewed up anyway and I really REALLY wanted Clinton to lose.
[1] Bernie went into the convention carrying 22 states IIRC.
The party elite then proceeded to treat him like a bastard stepchild.
Since Hell is fiction and Jews don't believe in that nonsense anyway, cursing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to eternal hellfire just doesn't give any satisfaction.
Maybe something really nasty will happen to her on this plane of existence.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 27 2017, @06:59PM
My point is, by USAian standards, Bernie is definitely left-wing (the big thing he favors that makes him left-wing: redistribution of income to poorer people).
But you're definitely right that part of the problem in the US is that you have the supposedly left-wing party a bit to the right of where the right-wing party used to be, while the right-wing party has gone off the deep end into sheer idiocy. And no, I wouldn't be calling the entire party idiots if they weren't cheerfully following a proven idiot who managed to lose half of his daddy's fortune.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by charon on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:57PM
OO_, count yourself lucky that I published this at all. Politics is not part of our mission. This story has zero science/tech aspects, and you submitted it three times. As you may have noticed, it sat for a while because no one else wanted to publish it, even less so now that you have decided to start calling out specific editors in the submission itself.
If the only complaint you can level at my editing is that I dropped some of your fragment identifiers, that does not really rise to any level of partisanship. Your first summary was represented in full; anyone interested in the story could click the links to the other source articles, without your clumsy, cherry-picked, ellipsis filled quotes. Partisan does not mean "didn't do exactly what I wanted him to."
But hey, think of it this way: you may just have won another battle. Due to bullshit like this in the comments, I will think twice before I use one of your submissions again. Just a few more successful battles like this and you'll lose the war. Well done?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:24PM
The comment is currently at +4.
Others have added other names to the (meta)thread.
Clearly, there is interest in seeing the names here on this page.
I dropped some of your fragment identifiers
When I expend effort to make something more useful and someone clumsily/offhandedly destroys my efforts, I become agitated.
Forgive the hell out of me for being human and taking pride in my work and not wanting it to be treated like crap.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 27 2017, @08:20AM
When I expend effort to make something more useful and someone clumsily/offhandedly destroys my efforts, I become agitated.
You still haven't said what the point of these URL fragments was supposed to be. As I noted earlier, I loaded the URL in question, with [vice.com] and without [vice.com] the fragment and saw no difference in the final webpage. It looks to have the same appearance, same browsing behavior, and roughly the same download time. Perhaps you'd get your wish, if you'd tell us what the advantages of the original URL were supposed to be? Editors can always fix links after the fact.
I will add that I find your article contributions to be interesting. I definitely don't want to see them stop coming. But I just don't see what the problem is supposed to be here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:13PM
You're playing catch-up. [soylentnews.org]
These are not included specifically for -you- nor for anyone else who is fully able-bodied. [soylentnews.org]
(Try blocking CSS and see how the links work, with and without.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 27 2017, @11:36PM
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:37PM
Vision problems? Am I somehow the only person whose browser actually renders these pages differently with the URL fragments in place? Are you using some weird or ancient browser? 'Cause it works for me on Firefox 51, Chrome 50, and even IE 11 (I'm at work...). Or maybe you're using some massive resolution that fits the entire article in one screen?
I mean sure it can help with screen readers and such knowing where to start -- but I've got perfect eyesight (well, with these contacts in...) and it still helps me in the exact same way by jumping past headers and ads all the other junk.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:01PM
Am I somehow the only person whose browser actually renders these pages differently with the URL fragments in place?
Using Firefox here. The URL fragment I looked at didn't look any different to me, with or without.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:28PM
Um...if you're going to be staff here, you should probably take a look at The FAQ [soylentnews.org], since it definitely does NOT agree with you about the purpose of this site. Your mission is NOT science and tech, your mission includes general interest, and politics is CERTAINLY a part of that. Your other complaints about the submission do seem valid, but reading that one -- and having it as the FIRST AND PRIMARY COMPLAINT -- is frankly rather frightening. Either recognize that your job as an editor might include some content that you personally aren't interested in, or get together with the other editors and update the About/FAQ/etc pages to make it clear that the original mission has in fact been abandoned as you claim it has.
And for what it's worth, except the obvious fake one the URL fragments *do* cause a noticable visual difference in how the pages load for me on Firefox. The example you posed a couple comments down (to Vice) is the exact same one I used, although the difference is more noticeable with Alternet and others. But they do work as intended, and jump directly to the article. Might be your browser or screen size that appears to be breaking them (I suspect for the Vice one your screen might just be large enough to display the article at the top -- mine isn't. But if the others don't work either it must be your browser I guess)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier#Examples [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:44PM
I appreciate the feedback.
The FAQ says this:
So, fair enough, it does say general interest. It does not, however, say politics, which is the sole topic of this article. You may think that's splitting hairs, but politics is a subject that a lot of folks do not wish to see here. The reason for the creation of the new Politics Nexus is so that people can turn it OFF and never see those stories. It is probably the most requested feature. We get enough political submissions that we could run 5-10 per day. They would drown the rest of the site if we editors were not choosy about which we publish, though we'd get tons of comments since political stories regularly hit 100+. But there are lots of places to discuss politics (read: shout past one another) on the internet. We aim for something different.
See also the very first line of the FAQ:
We make these decisions of appropriateness all the time, and if there is doubt we discuss it. Everyone has their own tolerance for where a story lies on that spectrum. No one lightly rejects a story, and I've seen many published by other editors that I would not have accepted. I've also published plenty of stories that I personally do not agree with; I am capable of objectivity.
As far as the fragment identifiers, I usually don't delete the ones that are links to anchors further down the document (#content, etc.). I know what they do. I may not agree with skipping the site header and author's byline, but, (remember, objectivity) it's not worth making a fuss over. The type of fragments I delete are these, from the original submission of this very article: https://www.legistorm.com/pro.html?ExtremelyPoorUseOfAccessibilityFeatures#NoFragmentIdentifiers. [legistorm.com] Do you see the part beginning with a question mark? It does nothing to change where the link points. I can only guess it was written by OO_ in an effort to have that fragment show up in the target site's visit logs as a protest that the site does not have a below-the-header-anchor he can link to. If OO_ wishes to complain to that site, he is welcome to do so, but not welcome to drag every user of our site with him.
Another link sent with a different submission [soylentnews.org] is: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7UcVPgwMJ_MJ:usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/29/3-lies-about-jobs-and-the-unemployment-rat+Lp+Lp+Lp+Lp+Lpe+the.economy.needs.to.add.about.180000.jobs.a.month.just.to.keep.up.with.population.growth+Lp+subtract-180000-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-employed-people-*.*-*-*.*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-the-decline-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*&strip=1#rectangleA. [googleusercontent.com] This highlighting and cherry-picking is more than a bit disruptive to reading the article; it was removed. As a result of this kind of behavior, we editors have all learned to take a long look at anything added to the end of any link in any story.
Again, I do appreciate feedback. In no way is this sarcasm. I'm trying to write this with my shiny editor's hat only half-way on. On enough to give you a look at what's behind the curtain, and off enough to not be some kind of Authority. I don't speak for anyone but myself; I'm just a guy who volunteers to do copy-editing. I happen to think I did the correct thing for good and valid reasons, but I'll talk with my colleagues and ask if I overstepped.
Cheers and good evening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:13PM
The difference there is that by that time the GOP had already decided that their top priority was making Obama a failure and one term President.
Claiming that this is at all the same thing is laughable. The current protestors aren't being bused in by PACs, this is a real movement and not one that's based upon ignorance like the Tea Party was. Get the government's hands off my medicare, indeed. It was an appropriate name though, the original Tea Party was full of racist morons as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:35PM
Make 0 mistake about what you see. It is a game to them. They are gaslighting you. The very thing they accuse the republicans of doing? Hilary Clinton did for nearly a year during her presidential campaign. She refused to have a press conference for nearly a year. The only people she would let in when she was a senator? They had to donate to her foundation to see her. Now that they have sandbagged the 'town halls' she accuses them of not showing up.
Don't think so? Go watch the project veritas videos from last year. They are proud of what they do.
They 'lost' so now they want you to feel bad or angry. It is 100% narcissist tools as set out by saul alinksi. Do not fall for the silly junk they are doing. It is an illusion, to gaslight you into thinking only they can save you.
Projection, lying, and making themselves the center of the world is what narcissist do. They cant help it. It is their fuel. It is how they control you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:02PM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamascare-60-of-online-obamacare-defenders-paid-to-post-hits-on-critics/article/2615774 [washingtonexaminer.com]
Well look they are paying to do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:55PM
Dirty Energy guy Philip Anschutz bought up a bunch of small-time publications with the intent of turning them into Reactionary propaganda organs.
From that point on, they have not been useful sources of information.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:41PM
You forgot the /sarc tag.
What's that? You're serious.
That's just pathetic.
Those are the folks who dummy-up videos via dishonest editing then pass them on to Breitbart. [google.com]
(Breitbart has been successfully sued over this junk.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:50PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @04:30PM
There are lots of reasons for a big win -- for this example the Dems might not have found a good opponent to run?
Reverse happened here, a well liked Dem representative nearly ran unopposed until the Repubs found a former local council member as a sacrificial lamb to put on the ballot. I'm sure that this Dem does not have the yuuge support of his district that could be inferred from his victory margin.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:55PM
That's what democracy is. It is sharp and pointy and uncomfortable. If representatives get too cozy, they're up to no good.
I would also point out that doing this sort of thing was also done by Tea Party people when Obama was in office. Tea Party people showed up to them with assault rifles, even. I thought that was a nice touch, personally; Congress needs to have constant, clear reminders of what really happens if they continue to not do their jobs. So the people who are showing up to protest at these town halls ought to do likewise.
Having a gentile conversation over milk and cookies is the opposite of what we need to be doing now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:13PM
I'm sure that Ethanol-fueled will agree. 8-)
A spellchecker wouldn't have caught that one.
I don't think that any other readily-available mechanized method would have either.
That's OK; it was good for a smile in the middle of a very serious (meta)thread.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:35PM
Good catch. Always preview your post, eh?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:44PM
But there is no reason why a Congresscritter is obligated to aid his enemies in staging a photo op. You hold town halls to hear from voters, when paid protesters take them over and make such a ruckus that communication isn't possible there isn't any benefit for the Congressman.
No, what I'd do if I were in Congress is put in a call to the local Sheriff and have him roll in paddywagons and every available officer two minutes after the start of the event, after the doors close. Then I'd stand up on stage and announce, "May I have you attention for a brief housekeeping announcement? I firmly believe in the right of peaceful protest so you may now get it out of your system. Wave your signs, shout insults, etc. The national media are invited to get their fill of footage, get up here on stage so you can get good camera angles. In fifteen minutes we are clearing the room of all media that aren't local to the district. We will then clear the room of everyone who isn't registered to vote in this congressional district. Be assured with have more than adequate law enforcement on hand to ensure this remains peaceful. (doors open, police in full riot gear enter) We will then proceed to hold a normal town hall. Thank you."
This would signal your utter indifference to the #FakeNews and their manufactured protests to generate b-roll on CNN. One application would probably be sufficient to ensure peaceful interactions with constituents for a few years. Never run from Progs, it only goads them to ever greater discivic antics. Do pop them on the nose like a misbehaving puppy and rub their nose in shit. Triggering them is fun.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:55PM
I do not recall you voicing any such objections about the Tea Party's behavior during Obama's administration. They did exactly the same, and were every bit as obnoxious as these, now.
Even if the protestors weren't local, even if they were paid, even if they were staging photo ops, even if they were all personal lackies of Soros, they still have the right and obligation to go to these town halls and get in the face of the Congressmen and Senators who pass laws that affect the entire country. Whether there's personal benefit for the Congressmen and Senators in question is irrelevant. They serve at our leisure, not the other way around. If anything, they ought to be required to appear at town halls at least once a month.
Part of the problem with the country over the last few decades is that the apparatus of the federal government has grown dangerously divorced from the daily lives of the Americans it purports to serve. They disappear inside the Beltway, where they have daily contact with lobbyists and lawyers and other varieties of scum, and never hear from the regular people whose lives are directly affected by the federal government, and whom they can fully, safely ignore without consequences. That's the origin of the phrase, "Inside the Beltway Thinking."
It would be preferable to Trump and Congress if everyone acquiesced to their whims. It would be delightful to Trump supporters if his opponents gracefully accepted defeat and got with the program. But that is not how democracy works. At all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:06PM
Not really. A town hall is so a Congressman can actually hear from the people who voted for him. If paid trolls come in to make that impossible you must either be willing to remove the trolls or stop doing them. No they do not have the right to "get in people's face." Show me that one in the Constitution. They have the right to stage a photo op, but not at someone else's event. You probably have no idea how tired we are getting over you entitled turds who turn up everywhere and hijack events, we are also getting pretty tired of the media who goad you on by allowing the fact you managed to smuggle in a banner the claim spot lead in their coverage vs the actual event. Take careful note of the enthusiasm for Trump's applause line of restoring the Rule of Law. For ORDER, because if you can't maintain order nothing else productive is possible.
I went to town halls during the Tea Party period. The moved them to much larger venues than normal because of the crowd size, there were a few zanies, but they were still peaceful events where people got to ask questions and hear the answers. There were a few cheers, there were some loud BOOS, but order was maintained because the crowd couldn't imagine it any other way. Despite the attempts at false equivalence to justify your side's bad behavior, it remains true that we are NOT the same. My other side is inherently civilized, even when angry, while the Prog side is not.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:01PM
constituent: (noun) any one of the people who live and vote in an area : a member of a constituency
It's the job of a representative to represent *all* their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:09PM
And at that point, what's the purpose of holding propaganda sessions for opponents of the politician?
First I dispute your premise that the only people they represent are those who voted for them. That is the nihilistic, juvenile shit analysis of someone who has no idea how the american political system works.
Second, even from a strategic viewpoint its stupid. People who don't really care that much don't vote. But pissed off people vote hard, even when they think they are going to lose. And the surest way to piss off your constituents is to treat them like they don't matter. At a minimum he's better off showing up and taking a beating now when there are still nearly 2 more years before the next election cycle, plenty of time for people to forget the controversy of today, than he is ignoring them and thus letting their anger build up even more pressure.
Third, it isn't just democrats who are unhappy about Obamacare repeal. Obamacare has disproportionately benefited trump voters - rural, poor, old and white. Medicaid expansion alone brought in 10 million new people and 6.3M of the 11.5M who signed up on the federal exchange live in republican districts. [kff.org] Lots of these trumpanezes thought trump was bullshiting about repealing obamacare. But the republican party wasn't. Their goal is to defund obamacare and give the money back to the rich in the form of tax cuts. All of their proposed replacements hit trump voters the hardest - increasing the amount insurance companies can charge old people and reducing the amount that young people have to pay, even eliminating the mandate to purchase that keeps the whole thing solvent. Charging 30%-50% more for people with pre-existing conditions. Pushing for tax-deductible health-savings accounts, when poor people have no money to put into an HSA. Etc, etc.
Ignoring these protests is the coward's move and if they think gerrymandering will save them, then they don't understand who they are screwing with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:49PM
I like your comment.
It's nice to encounter someone here with just as much anti-Reactionary venom as I have.
If I have any negative critique of the comment (Hey, I'm old; what else do I have to do), it's that the longest paragraph could have used 1 more paragraph break so that it would be a bit easier for old farts with bad eyes (such as I) to read.
Otherwise, keep up the good work.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:15PM
Ignoring these protests is the coward's move and if they think gerrymandering will save them, then they don't understand who they are screwing with.
I disagree; I think they understand full well who they're dealing with. They're dealing with idiot voters who voted for Trump and the Republicans, because they're angry racists who hate Hispanics and abortion, and ignored all the economic parts of their platforms, which basically boils down to "cut taxes on the rich and screw everyone else", which includes them. I'll tell you how this is going to turn out: these poorer/working class Republican voters are going to get screwed, HARD, and won't have decent healthcare among other things. They're going to be very unhappy, while all the "libtards" they complain about will be making decent money and enjoying decent health benefits even though they tried to provide them to everyone. Red state Republicans are going to be especially hit hard. Then, in the upcoming elections, these miserable GOP voters are going to go to the polls, and vote for even more GOP politicians, probably more alt-right ones who crank up the xenophobia and hate, plus the standard anti-abortion, anti-gay, lower taxes on the rich, etc. rhetoric, and they're going to get the same terrible economic policies that have screwed them. These GOP candidates will win again because the DNC is too busy putting more big-money Establishment people into power, so the liberals and progressives are going to fail to turn up at the polls again. We'll have another 4 years of Trump (or someone even worse, if Trump decides he's had enough and wants to go do something else).
The bottom line: these "rural, poor, old and white" Trump voters you talk of will NEVER figure out that right-wing economic policies are killing them, and will continue to vote for them. And they aren't going to die out either; there's a healthy new crop of young Trump voters rising up to replace them (rural, poor, young and white).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:41AM
First I dispute your premise that the only people they represent are those who voted for them. That is the nihilistic, juvenile shit analysis of someone who has no idea how the american political system works.
Sure, you can dispute that. It's a free country.
Second, even from a strategic viewpoint its stupid. People who don't really care that much don't vote. But pissed off people vote hard, even when they think they are going to lose. And the surest way to piss off your constituents is to treat them like they don't matter. At a minimum he's better off showing up and taking a beating now when there are still nearly 2 more years before the next election cycle, plenty of time for people to forget the controversy of today, than he is ignoring them and thus letting their anger build up even more pressure.
But once again, they're not going to vote for him ever. So the threat of them maybe getting up and going to a voting booth is already greatly diluted.
Third, it isn't just democrats who are unhappy about Obamacare repeal. Obamacare has disproportionately benefited trump voters - rural, poor, old and white. Medicaid expansion alone brought in 10 million new people and 6.3M of the 11.5M who signed up on the federal exchange live in republican districts.
How about the people thrown on Medicaid? Who were they?
Their goal is to defund obamacare and give the money back to the rich in the form of tax cuts.
And Obamacare was about throwing money to the insurance companies, right? So what's supposed to be different here?
All of their proposed replacements hit trump voters the hardest - increasing the amount insurance companies can charge old people and reducing the amount that young people have to pay, even eliminating the mandate to purchase that keeps the whole thing solvent.
Obamacare was going to collapse. Why is the Republican way out worse than escalating costs that the insurance companies won't cover, increasing amounts that poor young people pay? And continuing the unconstitutional and tyrannical mandates that fail to keep the whole thing remotely solvent?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @01:29PM
> Sure, you can dispute that. It's a free country.
Twat.
> But once again, they're not going to vote for him ever.
Once again, twat.
What part of "base" do you fail to understand?
If they show up angry at a town hall, they sure as fuck as going to vote.
> How about the people thrown on Medicaid? Who were they?
What kind of question is that? Are you admitting you don't know how medicaid expansion works?
If you don't even understand that, why are you pontificating at all?
We don't need to see you masturbate.
> And Obamacare was about throwing money to the insurance companies, right?
Wrong. You stupid fucking twat. It was about getting over 20 million people coverage who did not have it before.
The fact that insurance companies got 20 million new paying customers is how a commercial market for insurance works.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:19PM
What part of "base" do you fail to understand? If they show up angry at a town hall, they sure as fuck as going to vote.
Just like they showed up for Clinton? Sorry, I don't take such threats seriously until they show up and vote.
How about the people thrown on Medicaid? Who were they?
What kind of question is that? Are you admitting you don't know how medicaid expansion works? If you don't even understand that, why are you pontificating at all? We don't need to see you masturbate.
Most of the people who got insurance got Medicaid. I keep seeing stories like this [hotair.com] or this [forbes.com].
The number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million in 2014, the first year that two key provisions of Obamacare took place: the subsidies for coverage purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion. And according to recent research by The Heritage Foundation, out of that 9.25 million, “the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls.”
[...]
There were almost 4.79 million new enrollees in private individual market plans in 2014. However, as Heritage’s researchers noted, 4.53 million people lost their employment-based group coverage during that same time. This leaves a paltry 260,000 people with new private health insurance.
and
On the latter question[Second, how many of the newly insured simply ended up on an expanded (and decaying) Medicaid program?], according to the Goldman analysis, about two-thirds of the 2014 coverage increase was from the expansion in Medicaid. For 2014, their figures for net new coverage includes 9 million more people obligated to Medicaid, and about 2 million aging into Medicare. Only about 3 million got commercial coverage.
Multiple studies show much more growth into Medicaid than gained private insurance.
Wrong. You stupid fucking twat. It was about getting over 20 million people coverage who did not have it before. The fact that insurance companies got 20 million new paying customers is how a commercial market for insurance works.
It was about getting over 40 million coverage, not merely reducing that number by 13 million [kff.org].
The ACA’s major coverage provisions went into effect in January 2014 and have led to significant coverage gains. As of the end of 2015, the number of uninsured nonelderly Americans stood at 28.5 million, a decrease of nearly 13 million since 2013. This fact sheet describes how coverage has changed under the ACA, examines the characteristics of the uninsured population, and summarizes the access and financial implications of not having coverage.
and a more recent breakdown of who got new insurance:
Coverage gains were seen in new ACA coverage options. As of March 2016, over 11 million people were enrolled in state or federal Marketplace plans,1 and as of June 2016, Medicaid enrollment had grown by over 15 million (27%) since the period before open enrollment (which started in October 2013).
Notice how Medicaid rolls just by themselves grew by more than the number of uninsured declined?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:05PM
A crowd yelling "Do your job" at someone (Jason Chaffetz) who just won a couple of months earlier with 74% of the vote, probably isn't his constituents and probably never voted for him.
Wrong.
You would have a point if the people in the crowd are not in fact from his district, and that was your only complaint. However, if the people *do* live in his district, it doesn't matter if they voted for him or not: they're still his constituents. Constituents are the people who live in a Congressman's district; it's not limited to people who voted for him. So if they're valid constituents, they have *every* right to loudly complain about the way he's doing his job at his town meetings.
Personally, I would be OK with them checking IDs, utility receipts, etc. to make sure people attending the meetings are not political operatives from out-of-state. That's really not fair; a well-organized group of people from California traveling to, say, Virginia to crash a town-hall meeting for a Congressman there reeks, because they really aren't his constituents and he doesn't have to answer to them. But if a minority of angry constituents who voted for his opponent want to show up and raise hell, they have *every* right to do so. It's his job to work for them, and that includes listening to their complaints. If other constituents don't like it, they're free to show up and crowd out the unhappy minority.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @04:21AM
You would have a point if the people in the crowd are not in fact from his district, and that was your only complaint. However, if the people *do* live in his district, it doesn't matter if they voted for him or not: they're still his constituents. Constituents are the people who live in a Congressman's district; it's not limited to people who voted for him. So if they're valid constituents, they have *every* right to loudly complain about the way he's doing his job at his town meetings.
Indeed. And the politician in turn has every right to ignore them. My view is that two months in on a strong election, this isn't real opposition. It's just blowhards temporarily overwhelming a system and there's a good chance that the people who did vote for Chaffetz will given him stronger support for it. Votes is how elected politicians stay power, not subjecting themselves to empty demands from protestors who have no interest in negotiation or discussion. In this case, I don't see any gain for Chaffetz from showing up. As I noted before, these protestors probably never voted for him and never will. They have nothing to offer him in exchange for listening and plenty of drawback to doing so. Thus, he has no reason to play the game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @06:34PM
The arrogance of these republican congresscritters is unprecedented and off the charts, and they need to be reeled in like an undisciplined child.
This country need to initiate a recall election. A do-over if you will.
Kick them all out and start over with a new docket of young uncorrupted candidates.
No to chump or hillary. We need all new blood.
Under this group of criminals. WE ARE GOING DOWN !!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:16PM
Under this group of criminals. WE ARE GOING DOWN !!
That's OK. We elected these people, so if they drag us down, we've gotten the government we deserve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @12:09AM
Indeed. I continually have to remind myself that in a democracy the people always get precisely what they deserve. Always.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:01PM
A government without representation is a dictatorship.
So, Trump and the republicans have turned the US into N. Korea?
If we need to put a bowl onto their heads and shave the rest, they can look just like Kim Jong-il and clan.