Bay 12 Games Forum

I was forced to get a (non-smart)phone at 14. I broke the screen by falling on it four days after I got it, but used it so seldom that I was able to conceal this fact for over two and a half years. I spent a decent amount of time trying to convince my mother not to buy me an iPhone when we were in financial uncertainty. She finally stopped listening to me and got me one anyway for Christmas 2012.

I don't have a phone yet, and when I do (oh I'm sure I'll find myself needing it someday), it'll be something like a Tracfone. My parents seem to be doing fine with it .

Funny enough, if you asked me a few years ago (≈2009-2010), I would've certainly said smartphones all the way. I guess I've since wised up to how terrible computers tend to be in non-desktop form for what I like to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A&feature=share
So basically, there is basically no way for anyone but Boner to reopen the government.

Please don't tell me this invalidates a potential discharge petition. I hope not.

The senate is different for a couple of reasons, all of which help prevent this kind of thing from happening there.

First off, it is immune to gerrymandering due to their simply being two senators for each state, which is the entire reason for this problem coming about in the first place.
Secondly, all the most influential and powerful politicians go to the senate after the house, because they get more power per person as well as much longer terms. This means that they are harder to unseat because they are pretty strong in their state, and have probably been there longer.
Thirdly, only a third of senate seats are up for grabs each election. This means that it is harder and takes longer for power to change hands. Because of this a single election won't cause a massive shift in the power balance unless it is really one-sided.
Fourthly, new politicians usually go to the house first, because it is far easier to win (as well as always being open to contest).

All four of these combined basically mean that the tea partiers have far less power in the senate, and thus are prevented from having any real power there. If the tea party movement continues and keeps getting stronger, eventually they will have their share of senators, but it looks pretty unlikely that that will happen at the moment.

Ah, that makes sense. I was too busy wondering about how the Senate stops being gridlocked if the leader of the Senate tries to pander to extremists. But I guess that can't happen if the Senate won't gain any significant enough number of extremists .

I don't think the problem is so much that there are extremists elected to the House (I suspect this happens all the time rather), but that we have a House leader who's pandering to them. We really should consider doing something about that, somehow, after the dust settles.

They very well might not have been on the same side at all. Communism didn't stop Russia and China from splitting, and it probably wouldn't have stopped Germany either. Besides, it is doubtful they would have actually established a communist state, what with it being a coalition.

What I remember from History class says they didn't form a coalition because the two groups are fundamentally opposed on how to bring the changes they want. But still, what could have been prevented...

Ooh, while we're sharing maps:

Why Obama won with a very red-looking US. The FAQ page linked to from there explains some things you may have noticed, and also includes a link to the generating software (which I'm now considering downloading and playing with).

Quote from: Max White on October 12, 2013, 06:21:39 pm

But there is still that little irrational voice shouting "LETS DEFAULT! DON'T TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB! DO WHAT YOU WANT COZ A PIRATE IS FREEEEEE!!!!", the voice that is entertaining to humor, but you don't let it out of its cage.

I think it's the allure of "being witness to history". One of those things you can tell to your grandchildren.

That's exactly the feeling I get. It would be interesting to see because it's never happened before (thus history), but I really would rather not see it at all.

... I don't even have the least little inkling of nattering from such a voice, m'self. At all. There's... not really anything remotely entertaining about the immediate future getting more or less utterly fucked.

From a "I wonder what happens when a cornerstone of the global economy falls apart" perspective, the thought is entertaining.

From every other perspective, it's a terrible, terrible idea.

I'm getting this unsettling feeling in the pit of my stomach that they're not actually going to be able to pull this off before we default. 

I wasn't really politically cognizant during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle, so I can't really speak for that, but this time 'round does feel worse. I do hope though, that Wall Street continues to panic attack in Boehner's direction, and force him to just ignore the Tea Party.

I can't wait to either see firings in the House or a massively leftward success in 2014. Or both.

So when is the next election? Also do you have elections for reps, sen and president at the same time?

• Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years. Next one is 2014.
• Every member of the Senate is up for election every six years. Every two years about 1/3 of the Senate is up for election. The next third, Class II, is up in 2014.
• President every four years. Next one is 2016.
• Election years that aren't presidental elections are mid-term elections. Historically the party opposite the President does well in these midterms, but myself and others are hopeful the shutdown and default will fight against that pattern.
• All contested positions (the House, one Class of the Senate, and the President) are voted on at the same time, yes. First Tuesday of November.

Those are the national positions, anyway. State positions and local-er have their own rules. For instance, Governer of Virgina is up for election this year, which is unusual because it's on an odd year.