[Polpolion]

The people in this country are just plain fed up with everyone in office and will continue to vote them out hoping for change that will never happen.  New people come in, get money shoved in their face and cast their votes accordingly.  Why else would someone spend millions to win a job that doesn't even pay a quarter million?  It's a broken system that no one is willing or able to fix.  

I'll be happy if the incumbent reelection rate dips below 70%. It'd absolutely be a dream come true if someone managed to fix the budget and entitlements, but it's not going to happen no matter who you vote in.

[BlueFlames]

It may have disappeared in the political discourse, but the electorate itself is still pretty centric.

The trouble is, as the center opts out of the political discourse, those left behind establish echo chambers, further polarizing themselves and compounding the loss of moderate voices.  Moreover, while voter turnout has seen a net gain in the past decade, exit polls show more and more people voting straight tickets, indicating that moderates are not just opting out of political discussion, but out of the political process altogether.

Polarization of the electorate poses multiple problems.  For one, representatives themselves take more extreme positions to match those of their constituents.  More importantly, though, as polarization increases, minority political movements, unable to gain/hold political power, begin to behave as disenfranchised extremists.  Recall the death threats and vandalism that high-profile supporters of the healthcare bill were subjected to, after the bill's passage.  That phenomenon may not be new, but the pervasiveness has and is likely to continue to increase.

For the purposes of limiting this sort of threat, limiting the magazine capacity of civilian weapons is one option to reduce lethality and the other is limiting civilian weapons to manually cycled weapons (ie. the operator must cycle the empty shell out of chamber and new round in).

Worth noting that the assault weapons ban that we had in the 1990's did limit magazine sizes to ten rounds.  Quite a lot of handguns, such as the Beretta 9mm, nevermind assault rifles or SMGs, were produced in civilian and military/law enforcement versions, with the former accepting only a smaller magazine.

[SpardaSon21]

Herra, most gun owners here do realize they have a lethal weapon, and do make sure they are kept away from anyone who could accidentally hurt themselves with it.

That being said, I do believe most gun crimes are committed with firearms that are already illegal in some manner, so tightening the laws wouldn't do much.

[General Battuta]

Herra, most gun owners here do realize they have a lethal weapon, and do make sure they are kept away from anyone who could accidentally hurt themselves with it.

Well, except themselves. Gun suicides outnumber gun homicides by a fair margin.

The question, as always, is whether these suicides would just go to a different method if guns weren't available. Unfortunately the data from the gender method differential seems to say no.

[Goober5000]

The ironically hilarious part is that they believe they're fighting for freedom and against societies like the corrupt fundamentalism in Iran, yet if they have their way the US is going to look far more like a fundamentalist religious society than it has in its history.

Please describe the Tea Party plank that incorporates religious fundamentalism.

In contrast to your inaccurate knee-jerk categorization, the most salient Tea Party plank is the economy, and in particular, the national debt.

[General Battuta]

The ironically hilarious part is that they believe they're fighting for freedom and against societies like the corrupt fundamentalism in Iran, yet if they have their way the US is going to look far more like a fundamentalist religious society than it has in its history.

Please describe the Tea Party plank that incorporates religious fundamentalism.

In contrast to your inaccurate knee-jerk categorization, the most salient Tea Party plank is the economy, and in particular, the national debt.

In a sense MP-Ryan's characterization is a somewhat relevant one. In the human mind, categories are defined by the prototype, not by algorithmic-rule based distinctions. Whether or not this movement's stated goals involve religion, the prototypic member is probably religious and likely fundamentalist.

This will probably render the religious fundamentalist aspect pretty salient to the description of the movement, since fundamentalist attitudes will be conflated with Tea Party membership and become tied up in their actions. Even if every single Tea Party member joins because of the economy, if most of them are also religious fundamentalists (which they might be, or might not), those attitudes will become incorporated into the party's prototype, which shapes not just perception of the party but the party's actual decisions and outcomes.

I don't have a particular opinion on it myself - as far as the models I'm aware of predict, it's just part of the endless back-and-forth cycle of a two-party system - but it's a mechanism you should be aware of.

tl;dr version: the party's planks don't matter, it's the party's membership that does.

(And this is backed up by the fact that the Tea Party didn't spring into life in the Bush Years, when the national debt first started to explode. Clearly there's another factor here.)

[Liberator]

The ironically hilarious part is that they believe they're fighting for freedom and against societies like the corrupt fundamentalism in Iran, yet if they have their way the US is going to look far more like a fundamentalist religious society than it has in its history.

Please describe the Tea Party plank that incorporates religious fundamentalism.

In contrast to your inaccurate knee-jerk categorization, the most salient Tea Party plank is the economy, and in particular, the national debt.

In a sense MP-Ryan's characterization is a somewhat relevant one. In the human mind, categories are defined by the prototype, not by algorithmic-rule based distinctions. Whether or not this movement's stated goals involve religion, the prototypic member is probably religious and likely fundamentalist.

This will probably render the religious fundamentalist aspect pretty salient to the description of the movement, since fundamentalist attitudes will be conflated with Tea Party membership and become tied up in their actions. Even if every single Tea Party member joins because of the economy, if most of them are also religious fundamentalists (which they might be, or might not), those attitudes will become incorporated into the party's prototype, which shapes not just perception of the party but the party's actual decisions and outcomes.

I don't have a particular opinion on it myself - as far as the models I'm aware of predict, it's just part of the endless back-and-forth cycle of a two-party system - but it's a mechanism you should be aware of.

tl;dr version: the party's planks don't matter, it's the party's membership that does.

(And this is backed up by the fact that the Tea Party didn't spring into life in the Bush Years, when the national debt first started to explode. Clearly there's another factor here.)

What you won't admit to is that the initial packing of the powder has been going on for years, probably a decade or more.  The fuse was lit during Bush 2, and it's going off during Obama's lone term.

[Nuclear1]

Well, in one sense, Ryan's wrong on that point.  The Teabaggers are angry about a lot of things--whether they're actually warranted or not--but there's not really any major religious fundamentalism backdrop to it.

But in another sense, Ryan's absolutely correct.  The atmosphere that the Teabaggers are creating where it's seemingly acceptable to bring firearms to town hall meetings and otherwise resort to violence and a loss of self-control, will simply aid the rise of all sorts of angry fundies and crazies.  Take a look around at the reborn militia movement, birthers, and the Christian terrorists who murdered George Tiller.

Clearly there's another factor here.)

A liberal being elected President.  A guy with a funny name being elected President.  A black guy being elected President.  Widespread lies about a "socialist takeover" (like democratic socialism is a bad thing or something) or their beloved guns being taken away.  

Or they're just ****ing morons.  

What you won't admit to is that the initial packing of the powder has been going on for years, probably a decade or more.  The fuse was lit during Bush 2, and it's going off during Obama's lone term.

Yeah, sorta.  It wasn't because of Bush's policies though...it was the last couple months or so of the election when Republicans starting trying to stir up their constituents against Obama.  I actually remember a whole lot of McCain and GOP rallies where people actually screamed out "Traitor!" "Commie!" and "Kill him!" whenever Obama's name was mentioned.  McCain just lost control of them, and unleashed a monster.

Stupid people + old Cold War sentiments + stupid people's predilection for violence = Teabaggers

[General Battuta]

The ironically hilarious part is that they believe they're fighting for freedom and against societies like the corrupt fundamentalism in Iran, yet if they have their way the US is going to look far more like a fundamentalist religious society than it has in its history.

Please describe the Tea Party plank that incorporates religious fundamentalism.

In contrast to your inaccurate knee-jerk categorization, the most salient Tea Party plank is the economy, and in particular, the national debt.

In a sense MP-Ryan's characterization is a somewhat relevant one. In the human mind, categories are defined by the prototype, not by algorithmic-rule based distinctions. Whether or not this movement's stated goals involve religion, the prototypic member is probably religious and likely fundamentalist.

This will probably render the religious fundamentalist aspect pretty salient to the description of the movement, since fundamentalist attitudes will be conflated with Tea Party membership and become tied up in their actions. Even if every single Tea Party member joins because of the economy, if most of them are also religious fundamentalists (which they might be, or might not), those attitudes will become incorporated into the party's prototype, which shapes not just perception of the party but the party's actual decisions and outcomes.

I don't have a particular opinion on it myself - as far as the models I'm aware of predict, it's just part of the endless back-and-forth cycle of a two-party system - but it's a mechanism you should be aware of.

tl;dr version: the party's planks don't matter, it's the party's membership that does.

(And this is backed up by the fact that the Tea Party didn't spring into life in the Bush Years, when the national debt first started to explode. Clearly there's another factor here.)

What you won't admit to is that the initial packing of the powder has been going on for years, probably a decade or more.  The fuse was lit during Bush 2, and it's going off during Obama's lone term.

Who's 'you'?

Why wouldn't I want to admit to that?

I'd completely agree with it - the Tea Party movement is similar to a lot of home-grown militia movements and the like with similar rhetoric, and those go back decades. (Again, I don't really have a strong opinion about the Tea Party one way or another, since it's just another manifestation of deeper political cycles.)

Except maybe the fuse being lit during Bush 2. I think the behavior now being considered unacceptable was considered okay when a conservative white guy was doing it.

[SpardaSon21]

None of the big names I know of may have been denouncing the Bush spending except Rush (oh yeah, he opposed it), but when Bush 41 went ahead and announced the bailouts the Opinion section of my local newspaper was flooded with letters denouncing what he was doing.

[Bob-san]

A few things to add...

1) Had Bush not invaded Iraq, he'd probably go down as one of the better presidents.
2) The Tea Party thing is basically people pissed at both parties, but see the conservative side as closer to their ideals. In simplest terms, they hate the Democrats because Health Care has been rammed down their throats and they hate the Republicans because they try to stall even the smallest bill, to the point where the legislature can barely function.
3) The only thing that will change the current bipartisan dysfunctional would be to have a revolution. A small or even medium-sized revolt would be scoffed at.

[General Battuta]

None of the big names I know of may have been denouncing the Bush spending except Rush (oh yeah, he opposed it), but when Bush 41 went ahead and announced the bailouts the Opinion section of my local newspaper was flooded with letters denouncing what he was doing.

That's not a bad point.

3) The only thing that will change the current bipartisan dysfunctional would be to have a revolution. A small or even medium-sized revolt would be scoffed at.

Question. Is the current setup actually dysfunctional? It seems like, in terms of corruption and the like, we're doing better than we used to.

I feel like we need some data before concluding 'things are worse than they once were'.

[Aardwolf]

So, uh... what about the whole "Obama death councils" nonsense, and general fearmongering?

[Bobboau]

that was one argument for one issue that some elements of the movement were opposed to, derived from the intuitive concept that if the government is running health care, and at some point treatment will be too costly to continue, then there will have to be some bureaucratic mechanism that makes the determination of when that point has come.

the foundations for tea movement started about two years before the end of Bush, they are disillusioned with the republican party and conservative, the democrats will get a few years of split tickets out of this so stop riding there asses so hard, you should be encouraging them.

also glen beck was very brutal towards bush, in particular towards spending, so was michael 'banned in brittan' savage, and bill o'reily for a time and to a lesser degree. most of the rest of the talkshow guys were bush yesmen though.

[karajorma]

What you won't admit to is that the initial packing of the powder has been going on for years, probably a decade or more.  The fuse was lit during Bush 2, and it's going off during Obama's lone term.

Eh? The majority of the shadowy you that you talk about not only admit it but openly blame Bush for lighting it.

[SpardaSon21]

Aardwolf, you watch the election scene in Gangs of New York where everyone is trying to vote as many times as they can?

Yeah, we're much less corrupt than back then where that stuff actually happened.

[MP-Ryan]

The ironically hilarious part is that they believe they're fighting for freedom and against societies like the corrupt fundamentalism in Iran, yet if they have their way the US is going to look far more like a fundamentalist religious society than it has in its history.

Please describe the Tea Party plank that incorporates religious fundamentalism.

In contrast to your inaccurate knee-jerk categorization, the most salient Tea Party plank is the economy, and in particular, the national debt.

It's not a coincidence that the Tea Party movement is comprised entirely of purported conservatives, heavily backed by Fox News (Murdoch), and geographically situated in the most traditionally conservative and religiously-minded of the American States.

While their platform does not currently overtly discuss fundamentalist principles, we need only look at the core values of their chosen candidates to see the correlation between the Tea Party movement and fundamentalist, often religiously-based, ideology.  That's one example, but it's not an outlier.  For an example of it in legislation, take a good hard look at some of the reasons that the recent health care changes were opposed in some circles:  concerns over abortion, the definitive religious issue in public policy, ranked right at the top.  As I recall, a handful of elected representatives received death threats as "babykillers" in the aftermath.  Were the responsible individuals Tea Partiers?  We don't know - but we do know that the Tea Party movement in general vehemently opposed the health care reforms and that religious concerns were incorporated into their reasoning, along with issues like the economy and expansion of federal authorities.  This, I argue, will be the continuing trend - religious fundamentalism appended to conservative policymaking.  The Tea Party movement is essentially taking the most authoritative, restrictive, and fundamentalist characteristics of libertarianism, conservatism, and religious morality and actively promoting that toxic mix in candidates under the guise of economic reform.

The economy is a focal point, but it essentially a red herring.  Tea Party support isn't going to candidates that have the most sound understanding of economics - it's going to the candidate that can out-conservative their rivals, no matter how bat**** insane their platform.

So, I reiterate:  if the Tea Party loons get their way, the cascade effect of the ideologies voted into office will conceivably reshape US policy to the most fundamentalist and religiously-based that it has been in its entire history.  That's not hyperbole, it's the inevitable consequence of the continuing polarization occurring in American politics.

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf, you watch the election scene in Gangs of New York where everyone is trying to vote as many times as they can?

Yeah, we're much less corrupt than back then where that stuff actually happened.

Never seen it. Anyway, my main gripe is with the misinformation. Consider this: the republicans¹) were saying that they would do everything they could to kill the healthcare bill, because the people they represented wanted them to. Now either that's a lie², or a result of the people they represent being told that the bill is bad, being told to call their senators to tell them to vote against the healthcare bill, etc.

¹I can't give specifics, I heard it on WETA radio though, supposedly said by someone important in the Republican party (possibly the senate minority leader?)
²Though it could possibly have been a misinformed statement. Heck, I'm even willing to concede that they might have fallen prey to the dreaded availability heuristic, and started to actually believe they had popular support when people started calling their senators (as per the instructions of various bits and pieces of propaganda) to tell them to do so.

[SpardaSon21]

Well, the long and short of that scene was the Irish and the natives trying to get as many votes as possible in order for their favored candidate to win.  It had people voting, shaving their beards, then voting again, and someone being told voting twice wasn't enough and he had to vote again.  That sort of stuff actually happened back then.

EDIT: Oh, and I believe there was a presidential election where there were more votes counted than eligible voters.

[Bobboau]

Were the responsible individuals Tea Partiers?  We don't know - but we can ever so cleverly imply that they are and use that as further justification to demonize them.

polarization in progress.