If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   More GOP infighting: The moderates are revolting   (dailykos.com) divider line 228
    More: Followup, GOP, infighting, Speaker Boehner, moderates, Saxby Chambliss, Health Care, International, American Solutions  
•       •       •

9528 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 12:19:47 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'll say... they stink on ice


That's all I needed. Thanks.
 
2012-11-12 12:20:03 AM

Komplex: He still thinks Obama is going to take his guns away.


Well, after Obama floated a AWB renewal in 2009 and after he continued to express support for the AWB in the second debate, he may be right to be concerned. Overall, I don't think that he will have the political power to pull it off, but it does require us to pay attention.

And if you think that the firearm expansion was Obama's idea, you are very misinformed. That was a Republican rider attached to the Credit Card Reform BIll.

/Though in reality, I don't trust Mitt's position either.
 
2012-11-12 12:21:33 AM

Babwa Wawa: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

The fact is that if you take the evangelicals out of this election, Mitt Romney is President.

The GOP is dying and every facet of the party knows that it's dead without an expansion of the base. The only question is how the GOP tries to achieve it. Do they drop the social issues and stay tight on fiscal and small government issues to capture the stable middle class and upper middle class? Or do they do the opposite in the hopes of mobilizing the Latino vote?

They can't do both, and it leaves at least one of the facets of the party out in the cold.


I'm not so sure about that.

Romney's big spike in the polls was in the first debate when he basically pretended that his economic policies were going to be exactly the same as Obama's, but with nebulous, "cutting the fat" and getting rid of welfare queens. A majority of voters polled as supportive of a tax hike on the rich. The Rapeublicans may have lost their elections but I never saw people outside of the already-voting-democrat bloc bringing it up in relation to other races.

That said, the religious right votes GOP or they don't vote at all, so you don't actually have to throw them that much red meat to make them support you, you just have to convince them to go to the farking polling station in the first place and that takes less advertising and more GOTV. But the real problem remains, despite epic amounts of propaganda Americans are vaguely aware of how hard the rich are screwing them.

I think if anything the religious right only really mattered during the primary. During the primary all the "non-anointed" candidates took shots at him for being the weak, not-religious-enough guy while trying to claw their way to a candidacy they weren't going to be allowed anyway.
 
2012-11-12 12:24:40 AM
Uchiha_Cycliste:That bullshiat article looks really interesting, when I have a quiet hour to read, I'll look at it. It's opened now in my browser and over in my "I'll get back to it" area of tabs.

Coolness. I think it's a really fun essay.
 
2012-11-12 12:25:38 AM
Wtf bold? I'm gonna stop posting. My brain no good html today.
 
2012-11-12 12:28:19 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Hey HeadLever, why don't you tell us what you think the four groups (ultra wealthy, evangelicals,rural and ignorant whites) mentioned have in common?


A party with stated ideals/platforms that aligns with thier self-interest. I would think that this would be pretty obvious. Whether it be low taxes, small government, position on abortion, gun control, environmental issues, etc. these issues serve to be somewhat of the backbone for the party. It is not that tough of a concept

I would kind of think that something is simliar to the make up of thte Democratic party where you have many groups that are loosly aligned with the party over labor, women's/minority rights, environmental issues, etc.

It is nothing new.
 
2012-11-12 12:28:33 AM

nmemkha: They will purge until a solid core of true believers decided to start a fascist movement. I think a political movement with an agenda akin to the Greek Golden Dawn party is a definite possibility here in America.


upload.wikimedia.org

We already have one of those. That's where serious Reactionaries who take their views seriously tend to end up, like Alan Keyes.
 
2012-11-12 12:30:18 AM

clkeagle: oi50.tinypic.com


images59.fotki.com
 
2012-11-12 12:51:10 AM

Emposter: Oh, yeah, this is totally the end of the current GOP. No, no, not like all the other ends of the GOP people have constantly said is coming. This one is REAL. It's totally going to happen this time.


They are already working to re-write immigration history. Give it a couple years. They will be claiming they were always the party that wanted to allow illegal immigrants citizenship. Just the dirty Democrats wouldn't let them.
 
2012-11-12 12:54:33 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


1: As has been pointed out, those aren't the same sorts of Conservatives and are well left of our Conservatives. Ditto for those Conservatives in the UK. Obamacare would be considered the compromised law that it is there, and universal healthcare is a non issue despite Conservatives being at the head of both the UK and Canadian government. Etc.

2: Voter turnout in the US is generally lower than in Canada and other western countries. Especially during a congressional voting year rather than presidential. Of course its not really fair to compare. Most countries vote for their whole government in one swoop, thus they have to make it work in most cases or it all falls apart. There are other changes too like Australia requires you to vote or you face a fine.

3: The demographics in this country have changed considerably since 2000 and will only continue to change. The youth vote is no longer a joke, women are the majority of American's voting, and minorities are are only growing in significance. Oh and for once a candidates god is less of an issue as those not affiliated with any religion grow in numbers along with the others mentioned. The conservative right turned out in force, but didn't matter this time. We are a diverse country, more so than a lot of other countries and arguably its one of our biggest strengths. Whatever the case, the GOP stance on issues at the moment and for 2012 alienates these important voting blocks and thus is why they are scrambling to make inroads to continue to be relevant.

This is good for our country, because the GOP will be forced to grow up or they will be banished to American history. That being said, we've still got a lot of work to do but that such cartoon characters that the GOP has put forth the past few years will soon be a thing of our past is a good thing. We aren't going to stand for this shiat anymore, and hopefully that means we can finally get back to working together for the betterment of this country for crying out loud.
 
2012-11-12 12:58:40 AM

HeadLever: Uchiha_Cycliste: Hey HeadLever, why don't you tell us what you think the four groups (ultra wealthy, evangelicals,rural and ignorant whites) mentioned have in common?

A party with stated ideals/platforms that aligns with thier self-interest. I would think that this would be pretty obvious. Whether it be low taxes, small government, position on abortion, gun control, environmental issues, etc. these issues serve to be somewhat of the backbone for the party. It is not that tough of a concept

I would kind of think that something is simliar to the make up of thte Democratic party where you have many groups that are loosly aligned with the party over labor, women's/minority rights, environmental issues, etc.

It is nothing new.


The problem that I see here is that there is a huge gap between the ideas the GOP professes to have and what they actually legislate. The GOP's fiscal policies only benefit the ultra wealthy, often at the expense of everyone else. They only get away with it by lying to the public. See: lower taxes on the wealthy == more jobs. Or even better, that raising the wealthy's taxes will harm everyone. It's pure unadulterated BS. Now you also mention the socially conservative views the evangelicals hold, but those are ALL at odds with their claim that they want smaller government. Similarly all of the claims that business men need fewer regulations to operate more freely are again bullshiat and only benefit the ultra wealthy (ie the owners of those businesses). Only the ultra-wealthy faction of the GOP's goals are not hypocritical and against their own interests. Essentially, at least fiscally, the GOP exists in order to benefit the rich. Everyone else gets the shaft when the GOP is successful passing legislation. Consequently, I thinks its fallacious to claim that the poor and ignorant's goals are in line with the wealthy's goals. The GOP may claim that they want lower taxes and that everyone can get behind it, but they really only want more wealth to themselves, and they have already made it abundantly clear that when they get their bigger slice of the pie, they don't trickle down some scraps to the poor. They hoard and invest and use their wealth to widen the gap between the rich and poor. Just like all the noise about regulations, that again only benefits the rich and hurts the poor, so it can't be claimed to hold these people together either,
The wealthy may pay lip service to the social conservatives (evangelicals) but in practice they will do whatever they want, those social conservative claims be damned. The evangelicals simply want to restrict everyone;s freedoms in order to initiate a theocracy, something that the rich surely would not want.
While all the group may claim to want less taxes and smaller government. Only the rich *actually* want smaller government and in the end the shrinking middle class and the poor end up with a greater burden from "lowered taxes".
I think the it's more correct to say they are all help together by fear. The rich fear losing their loopholes and tax rates that help them stay ahead of the real hard-working american's who slave away for them. The Poor white men fear they will (and have been) losing the advantages they used to enjoy before we made a bog push for equality among the genders and races. It used to certainly be true that merely being white and male have you a huge advantage in getting and keeping a job. The evangelicals fear the government allowing people to be free to live their lives without obeying what they believe the bible tells them to do. The GOP pays lit service to all these groups, but only ACTS in ways favorable to the wealthy. Everyone else (with the possible exception of the evangelicals, in very rare and narrow ways) is voting against their own interests and are too stupid to see it.
No, I don't think you can point to the policy positions of the GOP as the glue that holds them together. That view is not help up by the reality of the GOPs actions.
 
2012-11-12 01:08:40 AM
I will grant that all four groups are united by their hatred of non-whites and their disdain of Women (when woman have the audacity to be more than homemakers.) But they are equal parts hateful and fearful of minorities, and while not fearful of women they believe they are superior to women, and desire a return to the days when one had an advantage solely by possessing a y-chromosome.
 
2012-11-12 01:10:48 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-12 01:18:21 AM

HeadLever: A party with stated ideals/platforms that aligns with thier self-interest. I would think that this would be pretty obvious. Whether it be low taxes, small government, position on abortion, gun control, environmental issues, etc. these issues serve to be somewhat of the backbone for the party. It is not that tough of a concept


Except Republican voters are voting entirely against their self-interests.
1) They don't want low taxes, just low taxes for the rich. Middle class tax hikes is beloved by Republicans. Counter to self-interest.
2) They're not for small government. They support a huge security state, the prison-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, the War on Drugs, incarceration/death without trial, and a Christian theocracy involved in social issues. Counter to self-interest.
3) True, but it contradicts their "small government" platform and is motivated by misogyny and Christian theocratic tendencies. Also, obviously counter to any woman's self-interest, and men/society as a whole in reality.
4)Gun control is a non issue between the parties at this point. Maybe it's because I don't live in an area with heavy gun control, but gun control is about as irrelevant as sharia law and birth certificates at the national level at this point. The one area you listed that is in their self-interest.
5) Except for Republicans environmental issues boil down to "destroy it all", obviously counter to the voter's self-interest, at least in the long term.
 
2012-11-12 01:19:04 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: The GOP's fiscal policies only benefit the ultra wealthy


Talking Point. Bush's tax cuts increased my take-home pay. And I am a far cry from 'ultra wealthy'.

Only the rich *actually* want smaller government and in the end the shrinking middle class and the poor end up with a greater burden from "lowered taxes".

No. I want somewhat smaller government mosly because we cannot sustain the current scope and magnitude of our current fiscal trajectory. I am no fan of the republican no-tax stance, but we do have to get spending under control. That requires a smaller and more efficient government. As I see it, we need both smaller government and higher taxes.

I could go on, but it is quite late and I don't think that you are really interested in the ideas of this 'moderate conservative'.

However, let me say this before I go - Overall, I am in agreement with some of your arguments about taxes. However, most of your other points paint a boogy man made of money that is pretty much cliche (hey, we are in the Politics tab of Fark, what do you expect?) and misses the mark by quite a ways. I know that it is always easier to paint one big scary strawman to make it easier to tear down, but I am afraid that the issues run a little deeper than some fictional rich antagonist. Painting this picture may be great within the hive-mind of social media, but just remember that you typically don't get the full story when you hang out with those that only reinforce your preconcieved ideals.

Cheers!
 
2012-11-12 01:28:00 AM
I can get behind what your desires are for the party. but you are completely sidestepping the issue at hand, and the question that brought you into the conversation by tearing it apart while not contributing a counter-argument.
We contend that the rich, god-botherers, ignorant whites and rural folks are held together by fear. You claim they are held together by similar policy stances, but I disagree as is evidenced by the policies that are actually passed by the GOP.

If we had a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party I would support it, and we DO and it's the democrats. the GOP spends money we don't have to increase the size of the government and give tax breaks to the rich. I don't see how anything they have done in the last 20 years, or profess to desire for the future could possibly benefit me, or could have you

Finally, show me how my "Rich-bogeyman" is wrong. I was speaking honestly about my political observations in the last 12 years. Everything I've seen the GOP do has shown favoratism towards the rich and disdain for the poor and middle class. How am I mistaken?. It's worth stressing again the wide chasm between what they claim they will do and what they actually do. I'm all for having my thinking updated and changed, but merely saying I'm wrong won't cut it.

\Started college in '01 so it's approx when I started to give a shiat.
 
2012-11-12 01:28:41 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.


Walter Benjamin's talks about art's power shifting from the sacred to the secular with the ability to mechanically reproduce images and narratives. Henry Jenkins says that digital images will move the power of art from politics to entertainment.

If they are right (and I think they are) then that means that as our ability to share images and stories increases, politics will become less and less dominant in world affairs. Everything will be a kind of "reality" television. Leading to mass delusion when one of those narratives strays too far from fact.

We are all vulnerable to this experience. We need to develop tools and habits to cut through the shiny delusions or we too will fall prey to a compelling narrative that fits our preconceptions. But there is no getting away from the entertainment aspect of it. Although I think it will become less and less centralized.
 
2012-11-12 01:29:14 AM

vpb: The Democratic party would qualify as conservative pretty must anywhere outside of the US.


Actually in Europe they would be considered liberal because they use a different (more original) definition. A liberal in Europe is socially liberal and pro-capitalist. In Europe they actually have socialist parties with power so the Democratic Party would maintain itself as a liberal party, even in Europe. They would also be to the right of the social (ie socialist) liberals. Outside of western Europe, the Democrats are more liberal than most parties.
 
2012-11-12 01:31:48 AM

bbfreak: 1: As has been pointed out, those aren't the same sorts of Conservatives and are well left of our Conservatives. Ditto for those Conservatives in the UK. Obamacare would be considered the compromised law that it is there, and universal healthcare is a non issue despite Conservatives being at the head of both the UK and Canadian government. Etc.


You have to find a different metric to measure left vs right in different countries. Once you have public health care that more or less works, people don't want it taken away. How many U.S. right-wingers openly talk about completely dismantling Medicare? If they don't SAY they want to dismantle it, does that mean they agree that some forms of socialized medicine are ok? Or might they be philosophically opposed to it but scared to say so in public because they know it would lose them votes?

There's no way to know whether any modern Canadian or British conservative politicians are philosophically or morally opposed to universal healthcare as a general principle - because it would be political suicide to admit it. 

/Another way to think about it: Canada's had this health care system for decades. Wouldn't the true "conservative" approach be to leave it as-is unless it's seriously and demonstratively broken?
 
2012-11-12 01:32:40 AM
quickdraw, I'm running out to get some food but when I return I want to discuss your post with you. I'm intrigued.
 
2012-11-12 01:34:27 AM

HeadLever: Talking Point. Bush's tax cuts increased my take-home pay. And I am a far cry from 'ultra wealthy'.


The Bush Tax Cuts were made for a stupid reason initially. Bush thought that because we had a federal surplus (which, if you want to get truly technical, we never actually had), then we should have a temporary tax cut (and the tax cut was originally intended to be temporary) to redistribute the surplus to the tax payers.

Well, we don't have a surplus anymore (not that we ever did), but we're still extending that tax cut and it's one of the largest reasons why our debt grows so fast.

Anyway, getting back to the question of whether Republican fiscal policies benefit the wealthy or not, here's a graphic from the International Business Times from earlier this year regarding savings due to differing plans (between the GOP and Obama) to extend the Bush tax cuts.

img.ibtimes.com

I wonder, which plan looks to benefit the wealthy and which one is more fairly applied?
 
2012-11-12 01:34:41 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.

I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.


You must be young. The Tea Party is just the latest manifestation of the John Birch Society which was just a fairly recent version of something that recurs with great regularity. Base human instincts to protect yours manifest as protecting your culture, your wealth, your women and children from the corrupting influence of "them", be they brown, funny talking, or basically anything that isn't your self-proclaimed parochial "we", being whatever group you can attract, whose main virtue is not being "them" and not liking "them" either. One can marginalize such people, sometimes, but they are like weeks that will grow back. They are a permanent fixture of any free society.
 
2012-11-12 01:37:49 AM
You went the wrong way, old King Mittens,
Now we must put you on the shelf.
That's why the people are revolting, 'cause Mittens,
You're pretty revolting yourself!
 
2012-11-12 01:53:52 AM
Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.
 
2012-11-12 01:56:54 AM

randomjsa: Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.


1/10
 
2012-11-12 02:03:31 AM

randomjsa: Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.


Yes.

The mainstream GOP says, "KILL `EM ALL!" whereas the moderates say, "Just let `em die."
 
2012-11-12 02:05:02 AM

randomjsa: Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.


so we've resorted to ending threads now? oh, how the mighty have fallen.
 
2012-11-12 02:12:04 AM

wademh: Uchiha_Cycliste: Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.

I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.

You must be young. The Tea Party is just the latest manifestation of the John Birch Society which was just a fairly recent version of something that recurs with great regularity. Base human instincts to protect yours manifest as protecting your culture, your wealth, your women and children from the corrupting influence of "them", be they brown, funny talking, or basically anything that isn't your self-proclaimed parochial "we", being whatever group you can attract, whose main virtue is not being "them" and not liking "them" either. One can marginalize such people, sometimes, but they are like weeks that will grow ...


Well, you are right, I've only been politically open-minded for a decade or so, and have not yet seen my 30th orbit of the sun. I had been led to believe that the tea-baggers were a spontaneous appearance of a large number of like minded assholes and bigots. I saw how it happened pretty clearly, but no one ever mentioned that they were quite possibly all politically grouped through comparable societies in the past. They were certainly all old enough and white enough to have been the main fighting forces against miscegenation and racial integration... I suppose it makes sense their is a party/pseudo-party they all belonged to back in the day as well. These days you never hear anything about the GOP prior to Saint Reagan. It's like the GOP, it's policies and actions all started in 1980, and nothing prior to that is relevant or even exists.

\At least that has been my impression of American politics.
\\I can guaran-damn-tee I'll never vote for the GOP. Ever.
 
2012-11-12 02:15:21 AM
We don't have a two-party system. We have the liberals, and then we have the coalition of business, christers, white power, and anarchists.
 
2012-11-12 02:17:50 AM
The Republicans won't revolt until they lose control of the house, the Dems have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (a real one, not 2008), and Dems have won 3 or more consecutive presidential races in a row. That is a pretty tall order and won't likely happen. Dems will have to be in power after the next Census to redraw the lines and another charismatic leader has to come out of the party. The Republicans will continue doing what they did the last four years: stonewall until the next election. Sure it didn't work in 2012, but it worked great in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me at all that the Dems take another hit in 2014 if they didn't learn their lesson in 2010.

Right now, I just don't see anyone able to take the reins after Obama leaves and Dems will probably be left with Gore 2.0. Most of the names I've seen floating around would be terrible.
 
2012-11-12 02:23:52 AM
5 out of the last 6.

That is how many elections Republican's have LOST the popular vote.

The demographics are changing so fast and breaking so hard, I can't see how within the next two election cycles the general population make up of the US doesn't grow even more outside the Republican Party's current grasp. I know Bill O'Reilly was bemoaning the loss because this meant the end of rule for White Male America, but in many respects he was right.

The Republican party that is anti-immigrant (pissing off the Latinos), anti-intellectual/anti-science (pissing off the asians), that advocates policies using rhetoric that seem to have grown out of Jim Crow and the Old South (Pissing off Blacks), and that is anti-abortion/choice and anti-birth control (pissing off a lot of women), is DOOMED to failure, everywhere except that Old South area they currently control.

However, as many political scientists have noted, even Texas could be in play for the Democratic vote within the decade. (I think it may go out faster than that as that generation between the WWII group and the baby boomers begins to die out.) The polls are quite clear, most under the age of 35-40 could not care less about fighting about gay marriage (they're for it); abortion/choice (exit polls last week showed 66% approval for keeping it legal from actual voters); and any polling of those with an education is always going to find a significant difference on the issue of racism/bigotry, with their under-educated/uneducated counterparts.

In short, the Republican Party may not be dead (or capable of being revived): but it's pretty damned clear the Republican Party with a fistful of policy platforms revolving around making abortion illegal, keeping gay marriage illegal, favoring racist policies or using racist rhetoric, being anti-science all the while doubling down on tax and fiscal policies that espouse the "trickle-down" approach that favors the rich above all others.....well, that Party is dead. It's just some of them don't have the sense to know they've actually consumed a fatal dose of political poison, they just haven't died yet.
 
2012-11-12 02:24:38 AM

quickdraw: Uchiha_Cycliste: On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.

Walter Benjamin's talks about art's power shifting from the sacred to the secular with the ability to mechanically reproduce images and narratives. Henry Jenkins says that digital images will move the power of art from politics to entertainment.

If they are right (and I think they are) then that means that as our ability to share images and stories increases, politics will become less and less dominant in world affairs. Everything will be a kind of "reality" television. Leading to mass delusion when one of those narratives strays too far from fact.

We are all vulnerable to this experience. We need to develop tools and habits to cut through the shiny delusions or we too will fall prey to a compelling narrative that fits our preconceptions. But there is no getting away from the entertainment aspect of it. Although I think it will become less and less centralized.



I think that if all the news stations that are not Fox News are going to be branded as liberal traitors anyway, they should go ahead and start being a little more liberal. They should go out of their way to inform the rest of the country of the bullshiat that Fox says (as TDS and Colbert do) and try their damndest to marginalize FOX and steal their more moderate viewers.
My personal experience with Media for the last four years or so has been solely thorough torrenting TV shows I dig, and listening to KQED (my local NPR affiliate). I feel that NPR, PRI, APM, BBC etc all do a fantastic job of relaying the world's news and most importantly don't bombard me with commercials. I find that I can't watch TV or listen to music on the radio because the commercials irritate me too much. I really don't see that group of content providers will change much in the future, I think they will stay the same and the gulf between them and more profit driven entertainment outlets will simply widen. At least I hope that will be the case. However, as you note, this will likely lead to a less learned population which is a damn shame. There is no way to force others to consume less slanted news or to even get them to realize that better sources are available and that what they prefer is not so great.
In the end I think we will see a smaller and smaller percentage of the population that is well informed and a larger portion that just doesn't care that they are ignorant. The problem is obviously when the ignorant hold all the power. I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.
 
2012-11-12 02:25:07 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: quickdraw, I'm running out to get some food but when I return I want to discuss your post with you. I'm intrigued.


I'm sleepy but I'll get back on in the morning and check the thread - otherwise eip. I'd be happy to chat about it actually. These trends have been very much on mind.

But check out Walter Benjamin. He describes the power shift from theocratic to secular that accompanied the ability to rapidly reproduce images.

What happened with the GOP is (imo anyways) very similar with what happened with Y2K and there is probably a simple reason for that. Drudge. The GOP is being driven by the Drudge narrative. And hes an awesome story teller.

We need a new story - badly. Luckily Obama has a really good one - complete with a tragically dead mom just like all the heroes get in movies. But we are going to need more compelling stories and images if we are going to move events in a positive direction. I think the shift from secular politics to participatory narrative make-your-own-adventure is going to be a healthy one,but its going to create some monsters on the way.

The GOP probably wont completely disappear but it will become a vestigial organ. Like the British monarchy. I dont know whats going to happen with the Dems. But it is clear that its important to make sure the reality you choose is one with facts. I expect that the occupy movement will become more of a political force since they are adept at using real time narrative and images as tools of civic engagement.
 
2012-11-12 02:25:18 AM

hubiestubert: Technocratism is based on a principles of thought and careful consideration of policy and actions.


FTFY. Conservativism is doing what has always been done just because of tradition's sake. Don't rock the boat. If it's not broke don't fix it.
 
2012-11-12 02:27:44 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Well, in the past.. 20 years.. The Progressive Conservative party (on a federal level) pretty much died following the 93 election. In the following years the Reform party, led by Preston Manning and Harper slowly picked up the votes when they expanded out of the west. They then "merged" with the PCs forming a new party, the current Conservative party. Then when Chretien stepped down, and the sponsorship scandal rocked the Liberal party, the new conservative party was able to pick up a minority government.

Since then we've been in minority limbo up until the last federal election when the left was split down the middle between the NDP and the Liberals, allowing Harper to gain a majority gov't. The NDP had been in a position to offer the olive branch to the Liberals following the election and merge parties, but with Layton passing away and the Grit heavy hitters clinging on to nostalgia, the left is still divided. And now that Justin Trudeau is starting to make some noise, the Liberals won't sit down, even though they're still on the bottom of the totem pole.

If anything, the GOP in-fighting can be likened to the split between the Liberals and NDP. Unless they can merge and provide a unified front, the cons will stay in power. If the GOP splits, the Dems can expect to hold on to power for a long time to come.
 
2012-11-12 02:31:02 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.


We are the media now. 25% of the country is over 65. The country is getting very old. And those old dudes are not going to change. But everyone else will keep moving forward. And they will quickly be outnumbered.

Its not so much the GOP as a political party thats dying - its the Republicans themselves. This is the cause of the panic. And there is a fair amount of dementia at work here. I think simple biology is a big reason why they act so deluded.
 
2012-11-12 02:36:07 AM

quickdraw: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.

We are the media now. 25% of the country is over 65. The country is getting very old. And those old dudes are not going to change. But everyone else will keep moving forward. And they will quickly be outnumbered.

Its not so much the GOP as a political party thats dying - its the Republicans themselves. This is the cause of the panic. And there is a fair amount of dementia at work here. I think simple biology is a big reason why they act so deluded.


yes, and loss of control is a serious matter especially when it involves ones bladder.
 
2012-11-12 02:44:12 AM

quickdraw: I'm sleepy but I'll get back on in the morning and check the thread - otherwise eip. I'd be happy to chat about it actually. These trends have been very much on mind.


sleep well, lets talk about it tomorrow.
 
2012-11-12 02:46:43 AM

Truncks1: Most of the names I've seen floating around would be terrible.


If Hilary ran I think she'd win in a landslide.
 
2012-11-12 02:48:23 AM

bootman: Two derps enter, one herp leaves!
[i.imgur.com image 450x315]


Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?
 
2012-11-12 02:48:47 AM

quickdraw: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.

We are the media now. 25% of the country is over 65. The country is getting very old. And those old dudes are not going to change. But everyone else will keep moving forward. And they will quickly be outnumbered.

Its not so much the GOP as a political party thats dying - its the Republicans themselves. This is the cause of the panic. And there is a fair amount of dementia at work here. I think simple biology is a big reason why they act so deluded.


How in God's name does the GOP think that concentrating their stupidity and narrowing their appeal will result in winning elections? What part of your analyses screams, oh we lost because we were too moderate? Why aren't there any intelligent adults making decisions in their HQ?

\I suppose it could be that anyone intelligent enough to see these things packed up and joined the dark side long ago. Hell we even have Weaver and hubies now =D
 
2012-11-12 03:13:40 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.

Who is assuming that? If she was, I don't know if she's be stepping down as Secretary of State. I could see her as VP nominee, possibly, but she's getting on in years. She'd be almost 70 if she ran in 2016 IIRC.


Yes. She is getting on in years. She would be 69. Almost 70. And your point is?
 
2012-11-12 03:36:51 AM
Anyone considering a Libertarian/Republican because of the religious right?

/It happened before with the Republican-Democrats and could happen again.
 
2012-11-12 03:54:09 AM
Let's play a game.

Let's say that you're a major political party in the United States, and you're losing 90+ percent of African-American vote, 70+ percent of both Hispanic and Asian vote, and 55+ percent of women.

Now I ask you, by what thought process does one arrive at the conclusion that this party should run candidates that are further to the right?

If you can answer this question, then you will have succeeded in an endeavor that has failed at many points in the past -- namely, explaining the logic of the Republican party.
 
2012-11-12 04:05:12 AM

seventypercent: explaining the logic of the Republican party.


Logic is for gay hippie atheist muslim socialist commie lieberal demoncrat scum. Next you'll be telling me that Jayzus didn't want us to ritualistically sacrifice homeless children on the blood-altar of Great Mammon.
 
2012-11-12 05:43:08 AM
i915.photobucket.com">
 
2012-11-12 05:45:39 AM

hubiestubert: What they call a "Moderate" used to simply be a Conservative. The party has shifted HARD to the radical fringe, and still claim to be Conservative, when they are anything but.

Conservatism is based on a principles of thought and careful consideration of policy and actions. Not simple opposition to what the other guys propose, to be on the opposite side of an issue, and that is really more what we have now. It isn't even radical, it is just simply contrarian. "If'n he's fer it, I'mma ag'in it!" is NOT Conservatism. You cannot claim to be a fiscal Conservative and vote for blowing up the budget, just to "make a point." You can't claim to love the Constitution while systematically trying to deny citizens their rights. You cannot claim to be for freedom of religion and then seek to deny others their right to worship, or not, as they choose.

It isn't that "Moderates" are fleeing. It's that Conservatives are fleeing. Fleeing from a nest of radicals who despise anything that isn't Gods, Guns and Glory, and damn the budgets, damn the poor, damn the homos, damn the Unitarians, the Buddhists, and anyone else who isn't of the People of the Book, and a full third of those folks are right out too.

It isn't that "Moderates" are leaving, it's that Conservatives are leaving. Like myself. Like others around me. We cannot stay in a party that will NOT listen to reason, that will not accept facts, that wants to cherry pick its history and even matters of geography. When "math and science" becomes your "enemy" because it repeatedly refutes claims made, there's an issue. Good Conservatism adjusts course with the nation. Serves considered policy that relates directly with the facts on the ground. Not what we wish it were, but what is actually happening. NeoCons are in firm control of the party, and for many years, they were the wackadoodle fringe right, until Reagan and Bush started bringing them into the fold, and coupled with the inclusion of the Religious Right, it pushed the party ...


Here hear.
 
2012-11-12 05:50:35 AM

seventypercent: Let's play a game.

Let's say that you're a major political party in the United States, and you're losing 90+ percent of African-American vote, 70+ percent of both Hispanic and Asian vote, and 55+ percent of women.

Now I ask you, by what thought process does one arrive at the conclusion that this party should run candidates that are further to the right?

If you can answer this question, then you will have succeeded in an endeavor that has failed at many points in the past -- namely, explaining the logic of the Republican party.


They think that by moving further to the right they can win the votes of fundie white women.

Of course, the GOP is not completely brain dead, so next time they'll be sure to get the word out to candidates to STFU about rape rape. Think about it, whites are still 72% of the US population. The GOP could run the show for another generation by appealing strictly to whites, without having to modify their stance on immigration, gay rights, or even abortion.

Okay, modify that last point...they will need to back off the absolutist anti-abortion stance they currently espouse, but not a whole lot. Women understand that abortion is not undertaken lightly, but they also know that sometimes it's the right answer. If the GOP modifies its position to acknowledge that abortion is going to happen sometimes, they could pull white women back into the party in enough numbers to make a difference.

Don't believe me? Just think about the polling in MO and IN before their GOP Senate candidates opened their yaps about rape rape. Both of those guys were shoe-ins for the Senate. Instead, white women voted for the Dem and they both went down in flames. Words have consequences, and subtle messaging can make a huge difference in an election.
 
2012-11-12 05:51:53 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


I'll take conservative Canadians over conservative Americans any day.

One of my best friends is French. She's what they call conservative over there. She'd be a hard-core Dem over here, trust me.
 
2012-11-12 06:01:47 AM

mikemoto: brantgoose: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

The Progressive Conservative Party that went down is not the same party that came back from the grave. It's like when somebody is bitten by a vampire and comes back. They are not the same loved one you buried. They are a blood-sucking demon in human form.

The same thing happened to the Republican Party--it was once the party of Lincoln and the abolitionists (far to the left of him). It was once a centrist party, with liberal and moderate wings keeping it stable and close to the people of small town, middle class America.

But it was taken over from within like a caterpillar being devoured by wasp larvae.

Today's Conservatives are basically the Northern wing of the Republicans. They are fundamentalist Christians, anti-tax suburbanites and ass-kissers of the Oil Patch and the Super Rich Tories of Toronto.

To give you an idea, the two surviving Members of Parliament after the crash were Elsie Wayne (a right-winger from Saint John, New Brunswick, whose opinions are often unreconstructed and whose language and methods are "colourful" even by right-wing New Brunswick standards, and Jean Charest, who is still he Liberal Prime Minister (or Premier) of Quebec.

Jean Charest is more to the left than a Massachusetts Republican and Elsie, God Bless Her, is a flake who is prone to wearing Christmas sweaters that light up more than her latest anti-gay statement.

The Conservative Party died. It is just the reanimated corpse that is walking the Earth. The New Conservatives, like their neo-Con and libertarian American counterparts, are no more centrist, moderate, liberal, or sane than the Reverend Bumfackus of the Super-Church of Jesus Christ of Backwoods, Nigeria is a Universalist Christian.

he vampire or zombie analogy is a sound one. The old name covers a skin ...


He is wrong. The policies of the Cons is mild, left of Obama. Harper is on record with supporting Canadian (and foreigners) right to be married and also on record to not want to touch the abortion question.

There is a difference between belief and policy. Harper and many of the elected cons might believe certain things, but the policy they enact is centre-right.

It is a typical Canadian solution, hold the centre. And for those who were thinking back in the 1990s under Chretien, he balanced the budget by downloading services to the provinces, which then downloaded to the cities, which then cut services. It had to be done, but in now way was the liberal party of 1995 crazy left. They were centre-left and sometimes centre-right.
 
Displayed 50 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report